samedi 19 mars 2011

Answering a message elsewhere

"Why is Paul's honesty taken for granted?" (<-- click link left or under:) http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-is-pauls-honesty-taken-for-granted.html

I have added a little on my outreach to other blogs:

http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/02/resurrection-debate.html = http://o-x.fr/8vn5 - Steven Carr is one of my latest adversaries on comment section of above message and here his blog records a debate between himself and an Anglican, I made comments on some of their arguments.

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/unreliability-of-introspection-anti.html - full title: Unreliability of introspection, Anti-Intuition(ism?) and God. = short link http://o-x.fr/eve6

Google blockade over

As stated in earlier message exact quotes from this blog led to "no occurrence found" rather than to this blog. This lasted a few days, and is no longer so.

jeudi 17 mars 2011

The Question of Contemporary Evidence

A What were the texts? 1) somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence, 2) No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ..., 3) What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!, 4) 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category, 5) HGL's F.B. writings : Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum, 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987), 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Challenged Again on Testimonium Flavianum,

B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game,

"I'd be a lot happier, though probably not sold, with strong circumstantial evidence such as documentation of Jesus, the apostles etc. by any of the known secular historians of the era."

OK, Mr B.

Prove from CONTEMPORARY Roman Authors there was an Emperor Tiberius, while you are at it.

As a little light ahead, as a previous exercise, tell us what German authors (German, not Austrian) you read for the period 1933 - 1945 in Germany, and what Russian authors (not exiled) you read for the periods of Russian Revolution up to WW-II about Russia.

As a further little light ahead, I may mention that last generation before Caesar Augustus was the Golden Age of Latin Prose - Cicero, Caesar, Sallustius. They spoke very unabashedly about very recent events. The reign of Caesar Augustus however was the Golden Age of Latin Poetry. You have of course the Res Actae which he wrote himself. You have allusions in Horace celebrating how he beat Cleopatra or in Virgil writing poems in which he is/"was" prophecied. Then go to Tiberius. How many historians in either Latin or Greek are there under his reign?

Here is what I find on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius#Publius_Cornelius_Tacitus - a little lower you have:

Velleius Paterculus
One of the few surviving sources contemporary with the rule of Tiberius comes from Velleius Paterculus, who served under Tiberius for eight years (from AD 4) in Germany and Pannonia as praefect of cavalry and legatus. Paterculus' Compendium of Roman History spans a period from the fall of Troy to the death of Livia in AD 29. His text on Tiberius lavishes praise on both the emperor[7][92] and Sejanus.[93] How much of this is due to genuine admiration or prudence remains an open question, but it has been conjectured that he was put to death in AD 31 as a friend of Sejanus.[94]

Gospels
The tribute penny mentioned in the Bible is commonly believed to be a Roman denarius depicting Tiberius.The Gospels record that during Tiberius' reign, Jesus of Nazareth preached and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. In the Bible, Tiberius is mentioned by name only once, in Luke,[95] stating that John the Baptist entered on his public ministry in the fifteenth year of his reign. Many references to Caesar (or the emperor in some other translations), without further specification, would seem to refer to Tiberius. Similarly, the "Tribute Penny" referred to in Matthew[96] and Mark[97] is popularly thought to be a silver denarius coin of Tiberius.[citation needed]


The two MAIN non-Christian Historians about Tiberius are Tacitus who was not even born when Tiberius died and Suetonius. Get the picture?

Suetonius is by people like Mr Bradley (up to now) counted as TOO LATE to count as contemporary evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger
see also list of authors here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature#Golden_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature#Silver_Age

After that, Mr. Bradley, tell us which one of them would have mentioned Christ "if he had existed" as you say. Note that our "serious scholarship" does not count Acts of Pilate as genuine, but that writing DOES very clearly mention our Lord.

"Hans, you just never quit, do you? LOL By the way, it's just M., I don't require all that formality."

Ah, Mr. B., you do not answer my points, did you?

mercredi 16 mars 2011

Variation on the Scriptoria Game

A What were the texts? 1) somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence, 2) No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ..., 3) What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!, 4) 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category, 5) HGL's F.B. writings : Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum, 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987), 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Challenged Again on Testimonium Flavianum,

B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game,

Way back here:

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/03/laci-green-likes-strawmen.html

I offered a game for understanding the transmission of a book recopied and recopied.

I repost the rules with a few variations:

Five to fifteen people:

Rule 1: everyone throws two dice. The top score gets to chose or invent one text to copy. The bottom score gets to be first secretary.

Rule 2: the top player invents a text of at least five lines with coherent content, or choses the text from a book on the shelf, making a hand made copy.

Rule 3: the first secretary gets to copy from the text by top player, he throws one dice to decide how many copies he has to do (1 - 4 = number of copies, 5/6 re-throw).

Rule 4: extant copies including original are divided in two heaps by a third player.

Rule 5: cast lots about which two players get which two heaps (if there are only five players, here is last copying), and in case they have more than one copy, they each have the possibility and even recommendation to compare copies in their hands before chosing what to write, and they may use more than one version (if diversions exist) in what they write. Of course again dice are thrown to determine number of copies.

Rule 5 b: before next generation of copying, if such there be, throw dice to determine losses in manuscripts: double number of manuscripts, throw two dice to determine how many at maximum survive. Put manuscripts in a round, count as many as the dice before eliminating each superfluous one. Then go back to rule 1, but this time not only new text but also copies of older ones will be recopied. Any further application of rule 5 b involves all manuscripts, new and older texts.

Rule 6: after five or ten rounds, as your patience commands, compare all versions, note every divergence. This is best done line by line, or sentence by sentence, original after copy after copy.

Rule 7: points off for every divergence from original text. One off for each totally innocuous one, like different spelling of a word that can abbreviate or of a phrase that can be turned (like main clause and if clause), or for obvious spelling mistakes. Two off for a change of synonyms. Five off if it means something different. Ten off if it means something opposite.

Is there a loser? Are there winners?

Evolving into man from what and how?

0:50 - 1:25 on following video says one thing about man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuawijtLCjU
and the fact that there is language (with meaning, not just emotions) says another thing about him. BOTH these facts are about PEOPLE, as she very well said. Not about bees or roses, not about elephants or apes, not about anything between them. Where come from?/HGL

Laci Green liked strawmen?

Update: as she has turned the video private now, what I answere while it was public may no longer be her standpoint. She should take no present or future blame for that video as long as she keeps it private./HGL

A What were the texts? 1) somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence, 2) No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ..., 3) What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!, 4) 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category, 5) HGL's F.B. writings : Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum, 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987), 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Challenged Again on Testimonium Flavianum,

B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game,

Here are two extremely simple* ones:

1 The Bible is true because God exists because the Bible is true because God exists ... a k a Circulus Vitiosus;

2 The Bible has been written over 35.000 times ... a k a Telephone Game.


1) A God who exists may theoretically be the one described in the Bible or someone quite else. Theoretically. But we do acknowledge that the Bible could not be true if God did not exist, so any proof of its truth - as to miracles recorded, specifically - is also proof of God's existence. And that, since God exists, miracles recorded in Bible are no obstacle for its being true.

We then say: apart from God's existence there are no explanations, but quite a lot of proof for the Bible being true.

2) Copying and recopying is not like playing the telephone game. Before there were computers and printing machinery, copying by hand was the way to make sure one text reached several different people. And there were sophisticated techniques for avoiding the "telephone game phenomenon".

Here is a game for you. Five to fifteen people:

Rule 1: everyone throws two dice. The top score gets to chose or invent one text to copy. The bottom score gets to be first secretary.

Rule 2: the top player invents a text of at least five lines with coherent content, or choses the text from a book on the shelf, making a hand made copy.

Rule 3: the first secretary gets to copy from the text by top player, he throws one dice to decide how many copies he has to do (1 - 4 = number of copies, 5/6 re-throw).

Rule 4: extant copies including original are divided in two heaps by a third player.

Rule 5: cast lots about which two players get which two heaps (if there are only five players, here is last copying), and in case they have more than one copy, they each have the possibility and even recommendation to compare copies in their hands before chosing what to write, and they may use more than one version (if diversions exist) in what they write. Of course again dice are thrown to determine number of copies.

Rule 5 b: before next generation of copying, if such there be, throw dice to determine losses in manuscripts: double number of manuscripts, throw two dice to determine how many at maximum survive. Put manuscripts in a round, count as many as the dice before eliminating each superfluous one. Then go back to rule 4, same player, but now three, now five, now eight heaps to next copyist set.

Rule 6: compare all versions, note every divergence. This is best done line by line, original after copy after copy.

Rule 7: points off for every divergence from original text. One off for each totally innocuous one, like different spelling of a word that can abbreviate or of a phrase that can be turned (like main clause and if clause), or for obvious spelling mistakes. Two off for a change of synonyms. Five off if it means something different. Ten off if it means something opposite. Note all minus points, make a new round with a new text.

Is there a loser? Are there winners?


NOTE that in real life back then, someone who had lost such a game would not have been participating when it was played "for real" i e with books you wanted to preserve. And very early Bible Book copyists were people who wanted very much to preserve the Bible Book they were copying. As for Christian copyists, they usually had training in copying mere pagan poetry or history or something before getting to copy a Bible book.

Note also that just as Hindoo transmission of sankrit texts orally goes by different channels (learning straight recitation by heart, learning recitation word after word by heart, learning two words at a time et c for each sutra) a Bible text was only one way to transmit each fact or doctrine. Then there was tradition (for which transmission followed similar rules, with bishops for copyists - something which was denied in the Mormon heritage of Laci Green), and also same fact being transmitted in different Bible Books with overlapping contents (Chronicles and several other Bible books, the four Gospels, Acts and some passages in Pauline Epistles ...). So yes, we are pretty sure what we are transmitting as the Christian religion is what there was to transmit from start, not something different, as would have been the case in the telephone game.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard, Paris V
16-III-2011

*Taken from beginning of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZchvDcgdJA
on which more may come.

dimanche 13 mars 2011

Some things atheists might find odd if I did not warn you before ...

I am linking to a site through a blog page of mine, more specifically to my debates or such as very much interest me on Catholic.com, but do also read some of the other things on that blog, will you.

http://o-x.fr/58c5

I mean, one staple of atheist argumentation is from wrongness of geocentrism and one staple answer is "does not matter, God did it anyway, and Bible passages expressing Geocentrism are adapted to the common language of the period" ... which is fair enough if you are certain geocentrism is wrong. I e if you are certain your eyes and innerears show you the inverse of the realities of daily and yearly motions, when nobody's eyes seem to have seen the recto version. Except maybe Neil Armstrong's and a very few others' for a short while.

Somewhere else than where exactly?

I'm not interested in using the comments section of an incidental post on my blog to have a debate with you about the truth or otherwise of Christianity or any other religion. If you want to preach to atheists, you can do it somewhere else. I've heard it all before pal. Further posts preaching your faith will not be published.


Oh, dropping a remark about an atheist who, unusually enough, knows enough history to be mistaken for a Christian by the other ones, and then answering what amounts to deliberate clumsiness on his part is "preaching to atheists"?

Well, that is how I judge him, a man deliberately being dishonest about as much history and historical debate as he needs to keep up his atheism. And no more than that, in all other matters than rejection of religion and of crusades being justified back in 1089 or 1098 or so, historically very honest. And knowing it enough to get edgy for a side remark.

Well, here is the post on which I commented:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/01/apologies.html

which leaves you in a position to see if I or he is the one being wrong.

And here is what I like him for:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/03/hypatia-and-agora-redux-again.html

Did that involve his comments about two people arguing Christianity evolved after Christ before claiming resurrection? Will check, one of his posts did involve those and since Dan Barker has similar claims, God willing and weather permitting, will be answered.