Dialogue Continued

A Dialogue off a Tangent from a Testify Video · Dialogue Continued

from the previous of these two posts.

@hglundahl

@michaelhenry1763 "there were settlements much older in the Rome area."

Described in the book that I read as small villages.

"It just that the “ Roman founding” as described by the ancients are mythical."

This is, once again, an A L L E G A T I O N.

Where do you or where did she provide any P R O O F positive for it?

@michaelhenry1763

@hglundahl Just read the notes in the back of the book. They will show you where the author derives her information. You can read those books too.

@hglundahl

@michaelhenry1763 "They will show you where the author derives her information."

I did not ask for sources of information, I asked how much proof - the act of supporting an allegation by arguments from facts - there is for it.

A bit how you actually did for my list of five allegations, which I unfortunately didn't see your comment up to now, so I am catching up, by answering those.

1) "The Torah is a mixture of etiological stories and “ laws” for the society to follow."

I suppose some could call the story about 1776 - 1783 an etiological story on why the United States are peopled by English speakers separated from the English / UK crown ... it is a story, since it can be told to boys who want excitement, and it is etiological, that is, it gives a reason. Is this supposed to mean that American War of Independence never happened?

2) "We cannot confirm any of the stories about him outside the Bible."

The Bible being however, not one book, but a corpus of books. You can confirm lots of stories in Samuel by going to Chronicles, and vice versa. Plus, "outside confirmation" is overdone as a criterium, given that for most ancient events we have one source, that one from the same civilisation or culture that the purported events are from, or from an inheritor culture (Homer didn't live in Mycenean era Ithaca, but could well have had contact with Ionians there who were heirs to it).

3) "What I mean by history, is that we cannot get outside corroboration"

You cannot get "outside" corroboration for Alexander the Great being the son of Philip of Macedon.

4) "For example, post-resurrection stories are invented."

Because the resurrection never happened?

Instead of reasoning empirically from texts on whether miracles happen, you reason antiempirically, into texts, from an arbitrary principle they do not happen.

5) I did not quibble against crucifixion and baptism being known.

"Luke has John arrested before Jesus is baptized"

Where do you get that one from? Chapter 3 has John preaching and Jesus getting baptised.

@michaelhenry1763

No problem, YouTube notifications can be inconsistent at times.

For “proof” and further discussion look at chapter 2 and or 3 under the section called “Further Readings” towards the back of the book. They are many books you can read on the subject of Romulus, Remus, and the regal period.

It’s funny you bring up the American Revolution (1775-1783). There are many legendary stories attributed to real people. For example, the ride of Paul Revere or the celebration of July 4th. However, the American Revolution is not a good analogy with the events described in the Bible because of the number of independent sources and evidence for its existence.

I agree with you that the Bible is a corpus of books. However, Chronicles is not an independent account to confirm Samuel. Why? Because Chronicles was written roughly 400 years later in the Persian period. Its purpose was to sanitize the stories in Samuel and Kings.

If we only have one source for an event, we have to look at it skeptically based on their claims. For example, some historians of Roman Britain do not think Boudica did not exist. Why? One of the factors is that only Tacitus mentions her. Homer may have never lived. For example, we know that the Iliad and the Odyssey were originally transmitted orally before being written down.

Alexander the Great has many legendary stories told about him.

Did the resurrection never happen? Yes, correct. The resurrection never happened. Yes, I find reasons in the texts to think so. Our earliest Christian writings are from Paul (writing between 49 CE and 62 CE). In his letters, Paul talks about the meaning of the Jesus visions by Peter, the Twelve… and finally him. Paul’s vision of Jesus convinced him that the current age was ending, there would be a general resurrection, and Christians would meet Jesus in the sky during Paul’s lifetime. He even says that if Jesus comes back while Christians are still alive their bodies will be transformed just as Jesus’ body has been transformed. Paul calls Jesus the firstfruits. Meaning, this was the end of the age and God will now raise everyone just as he raised Jesus. Did this occur? No. There was no general resurrection of the dead. Jesus never came back. Paul and the other Christians living were not transformed. This leads me to conclude that Paul and the other disciples never saw Jesus resurrected. They may have had a vision and they explained it as a resurrection. This can be further understood by the many contradictions in all the post-resurrection gospel accounts. I think Paul might have been slightly delusional because he believed Jesus actually spoke and taught him things.

Can miracles happen? No, they cannot. Natural events can happen. People can think they saw something. But miracles are explanations of things unexplained to the participant. It fits into their religious or cultural context.

I will share with you the passage from Luke 3: 18-22:
“So with many other exhortations he [John the Baptist] proclaimed the good news to the people. But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him [John the Baptist] because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison.

Now when all the people were baptized and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

See how Luke has John arrested before the baptism. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, show John being arrested later. Luke is purposely removing John for the baptism picture. Who baptizes Jesus in Luke’s gospel? He never tells us.

@hglundahl

@michaelhenry1763 "They are many books you can read on the subject of Romulus, Remus, and the regal period."

I've already dealt with two, one by Raymond Bloch, Les Origines de Rome, to which I alluded by mentioning carbon dates, and one by Dumézil, analysing "mythological parallels" between first four Roman kings and some Hindu gods, supposedly proving both sets of stories come from a common origin in Indo-European myth. Neither argument convinces me. If you have any claim, I don't say of hoping to convince me, but of arguing, how about giving another argument, instead of referring to a list of books in a book I haven't read and do not intend to read.

"However, the American Revolution is not a good analogy with the events described in the Bible because of the number of independent sources and evidence for its existence."

The parallel was about the argument "etiological story" - not overall. As to lack of independent sources, I think I already took up the fact that such are lacking for most ancient events, outside the one culture describing it.

"However, Chronicles is not an independent account to confirm Samuel."

Exactly as one could say for Tacitus or Livy about Caesar's Bellum Gallicum.

"Because Chronicles was written roughly 400 years later in the Persian period."

I think you refer to the fact that II Chron 36 refers to Cyrus. However, the last entry in Anglo-Saxon chronicle is from 1166 (100 years after Norman Conquest) - does that mean that all it says about King Alfred was written in 1136 too? No. It's a cumulative work. So, I believe, was "the book of Jasher" of which Bible books like Chronicles would be extracts.

"If we only have one source for an event, we have to look at it skeptically based on their claims."

No, we certainly do not have to do so.

"For example, some historians of Roman Britain do not think Boudica did not exist. Why? One of the factors is that only Tacitus mentions her."

Bad move on their part. A requisite of independent sourcing that works well for 16th C. England doesn't work as well for 1st C. Britain.

"Homer may have never lived. For example, we know that the Iliad and the Odyssey were originally transmitted orally before being written down."

A non-sequitur. The oral transmission does not equate to them not being works with specific structures, which must go back to one man, one poet. If tradition says "he was Homer" I am not venturing "she was Sappho" ... the writing down was certainly centuries later, in the time of the sons of Peisistratus.

"Alexander the Great has many legendary stories told about him."

My point was, is it a "legendary story" that he was son of a Philip of Macedon who conquered Greek state after Greek state? We do not have sources independent of the Hellenistic community, that say so, any more than Chronicles is independent of the Hebrew community.

"Our earliest Christian writings are from Paul (writing between 49 CE and 62 CE)."

Nope, Matthew was earlier. Your claim is or involves the so called Marcan priority theory, while the traditional account is Matthean priority.

"Paul’s vision of Jesus convinced him that the current age was ending, there would be a general resurrection, and Christians would meet Jesus in the sky during Paul’s lifetime."

That there would be a general resurrection was already known to him as a Pharisee. As to "during Paul's lifetime" it doesn't say so.

"He even says that if Jesus comes back while Christians are still alive their bodies will be transformed just as Jesus’ body has been transformed."

Well, as there are still Christians still waiting for Jesus to come back, this is still able to be fulfilled. Unless you wantonly add "during Paul's lifetime" ...

"This leads me to conclude that Paul and the other disciples never saw Jesus resurrected."

In other words, your argument against the resurrection being real is a misanalysis of what it convinced St. Paul of.

"by the many contradictions in all the post-resurrection gospel accounts."

No contradictions at all.

"I think Paul might have been slightly delusional because he believed Jesus actually spoke and taught him things."

If Jesus actually did, St. Paul was in fact not delusional.

"Can miracles happen? No, they cannot. Natural events can happen."

This is not derived from good historic method, it is a philosophical a priori.

But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him [John the Baptist] because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison.

You misread this as if this involved temporal priority over the following words. St. Luke brings it in here to set the scene for Luke 7.

"Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, show John being arrested later."

St. Matthew briefly mentions Jesus getting the news in chapter 4. St. Luke didn't put it between temptation by Devil, preaching in Nazareth and journey to Capharnaum, so put it into the baptism account as a side note.

St. Mark has no account of John in prison (by a quick look at chapter after chapter).

How does St. Luke show the Baptism is when John was still free? Because after But Herod the ruler, ... we get a return to the time when John was exhorting:

Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, ...

When all the people were baptized = while John was still out preaching.

@michaelhenry1763

@hglundahl I am sorry, I do not have any more arguments against the existence of Romulus, Remus, and the Roman kings. All I have are history books. I am sorry. As a side, I agree with you, I do not think there is a connection between the myths or legends of Romulus and Hindu mythology.

I do not know of any etiological stories coming out of the revolutionary era. Do you know of any? I know of legends and traditions but none of them are etiological in nature.

Independent sources are not independent because they are written by a different culture. You can have independent sources within the same culture. The idea of independence is that the sources are not dependent on each other. So, take the American Revolution. John Adam’s dairy can be one source of information. A soldier’s letter home can be another. They are from the same culture, but they are independent of each other. So you can have multiple independent sources of Alexander the Great from Greeks. All Greek writings are not one source.. If we ask did Alexander the Great go to India? If we found evidence from India, that would be terrific. However, if we had multiple Greek soldiers writing letters to home, for example, saying we reached India, that would be cool too.

Yes, if Tacitus or Livy uses Caesar’s Gallic War account as a source for their account of a history of Gaul, it would not be independent. If they traveled to Gaul and Britain to verify Caesar’s claims that would be independent. If Chronicles is using Samuels and Kings as a source for its retelling it is not independent.

Chronicles is not an ongoing history passed on to chronicler to chronicler the way the Anglo-Saxon chronicles purported to be. However, there were many inaccuracies and biases to sort through.

I cannot change your mind if you believe single-sourced stories about events at face-value. You have the freedom and the right to do so. With that said, I agree with you about Boudicca. I think she existed too.

I do not understand what you are trying to say about Homer. Why do stories have to go back to one man or poet? Can it be from group of people, adding elements as they retell it?

No, Matthew is not earlier than Paul. Even though Matthew is presented as the first book in the New Testament, It is not the first written. The New Testament is not compiled in compositional order. For example, Paul’s letters are ordered by length. Marcan priority involves the order of the composition of the Synoptic gospels not all the Christian writings.

Paul ( 49 CE through 62 CE)
Mark ( 70 CE)
Matthew ( 80 - 85 CE)
Luke ( 90 - 120 CE)
John ( 90 - 110 CE)
Acts ( 120 CE)

Yes, I agree with you , as a Pharisee, Paul believed in a general resurrection at the end of time.

Paul uses the word “ we” when it comes to the coming of the Lord.

“For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” ‭‭
1 Thessalonians‬ ‭4‬:‭15‬-‭18‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

The Thessalonians are anxious that the Lord has not come back yet and people have started to die. Paul is attempting to encourage them. Paul believes they are the ones still left waiting.

Here is Paul writing to the Corinthians about their bodies being transformed while they live:

“What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” ‭‭
1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭50‬-‭53‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

Paul’s analysis is one reason why I do not think the resurrection happened. Why? Because that is the reasoning behind his vision. Additionally, the gospels cannot agree on their resurrection narratives. They do not even agree with Paul. For example, Paul says Jesus rose in a spiritual body. The gospels say it was physical.

Miracles cannot happen because they are the explanations to the events and not the events themselves. No one saw Jesus actually resurrecting. No one saw a resurrected Jesus. According to Paul, there were “ appearances” or visions. The event are the appearances or visions. How does Paul explain it? Resurrection.

Who baptized Jesus in Mark? Where was John? When is John arrested? Before or after the baptism ?

Who baptized Jesus in Matthew? Where was John? When is John arrested? Before or after the baptism ?

Who baptized Jesus in Luke? Where was John? When is John arrested? Before or after the baptism ?

It is interesting you bring up Luke 7. John shows he never met Jesus and he is still in prison. John is imprisoned before Jesus’ baptism in Luke.

@hglundahl

@michaelhenry1763 "I do not know of any etiological stories coming out of the revolutionary era. Do you know of any?"

The story of the American Revolution in and of itself is a very big one.

"You can have independent sources within the same culture."

Depends on how open or closed it is.

"John Adam’s dairy can be one source of information. A soldier’s letter home can be another. They are from the same culture, but they are independent of each other"

Oh, those things are exactly the kind of primary sources, outside big narratives, that are anyway lost in history from 2000 years ago.

The loss of such personal views in and of themselves and their survival or otherwise only through full length narratives like Samuel or Bellum Gallicum certainly makes a culture much more closed - to us.

"So you can have multiple independent sources of Alexander the Great from Greeks."

No, you don't. The oldest source we have of Alexander the Great that says he conquered Persia from Greece is I Maccabees - a work written after Antiochus IV Epiphanes was dead. All Greek sources we have are Roman sources. All of them reflect a narrative that was already traditional.

"All Greek writings are not one source.."

Arrian and Curtius Rufus are no more independent of each other than Samuel and Chronicles.

"If we ask did Alexander the Great go to India? If we found evidence from India, that would be terrific."

We have evidence there were Greeks in India. We do not have Indian narratives from the period speaking of Alexander the Great. Homer may have influenced some of the scenes we have in Mahabharata, which was at this time orally transmitted. But we have no Mahabharata like poem about Alexander the Great.

"However, if we had multiple Greek soldiers writing letters to home, for example, saying we reached India, that would be cool too."

Yeah, and if we had time machines - that would be even cooler. Have you asked Marty McFly for a ride?

You seriously seem to have no glimpse at all of how source material about events this far back in the Greco-Roman worlds are. If you project back American Revolution like sources, why not claim we found an i-phone used by Alexander the Great, while you are at it?

"Yes, if Tacitus or Livy uses Caesar’s Gallic War account as a source for their account of a history of Gaul, it would not be independent. If they traveled to Gaul and Britain to verify Caesar’s claims that would be independent."

You know, none of Caesar's claims about Britain could be verified by going there since Caesar failed. Tacitus was close relative of the actual conqueror of Britain, namely Agricola.

"The province of his birth remains unknown, though various conjectures suggest Gallia Belgica, Gallia Narbonensis, or Northern Italy. His marriage to the daughter of Narbonensian senator Gnaeus Julius Agricola implies that he came from Gallia Narbonensis."

Narbonensis was however Roman before Caesar. That was where he was stationed as province governor.

Tacitus left Narbonensis pretty young to go to Rome. Not sure how many visits "back home" he made after getting there. The one stay outside Rome we can locate is in the province of Asia.

Livy can be used as independent source for one act of Caesar, but it's not beating Vercingetorix:

"Cisalpine Gaul was merged in Italy proper during his lifetime and its inhabitants were given Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar."

And after getting from Padua to Rome, not sure he ever came back:

"Livy probably went to Rome in the 30s BC, and it is likely that he spent a large amount of time in the city after this, although it may not have been his primary home."

Now, here is a big claim you are making:

"Chronicles is not an ongoing history passed on to chronicler to chronicler the way the Anglo-Saxon chronicles purported to be."

Well, the manuscripts we have are arguably by one scribe. But the Middle Ages is so much better placed for original manuscripts than Antiquity. If you only had a printed version of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, none of the manuscripts where new entries were added by different hands, you could make similar claims about Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

So, what is your argument for this big negative claim?

"Why do stories have to go back to one man or poet? Can it be from group of people, adding elements as they retell it?"

Homer isn't "stories" - Homer is two epic poems, the equivalent of well rounded novels. I hope that answers the question.

"No, Matthew is not earlier than Paul. Even though Matthew is presented as the first book in the New Testament, It is not the first written."

What you say contradicts Church Tradition about the authorships. That's equivalent to Greco-Roman tradition about who wrote Arrian's or Tacitus' works. What are your actual arguments for this?

"The New Testament is not compiled in compositional order."

That was not my argument. St. John's Gospel is the last book written, and the fourth book in the NT book list.

"For example, Paul’s letters are ordered by length."

Sounds very correct.

"Marcan priority involves the order of the composition of the Synoptic gospels not all the Christian writings."

Marcan priority involves the composition of Matthew after the composition of Marc, which would clearly be after some epistles of St. Paul.

"Paul uses the word “ we” when it comes to the coming of the Lord."

Because Catholics today belong to the same "we" as the actual audience.

"Paul’s analysis is one reason why I do not think the resurrection happened. Why? Because that is the reasoning behind his vision."

In other words, you are overanalysing St. Paul.

"Additionally, the gospels cannot agree on their resurrection narratives."

There is no actual contradiction.

"Paul says Jesus rose in a spiritual body. The gospels say it was physical."

You overanalyse Paul's "spiritual" as "non-physical" - a heresy the Catholic Church condemns.

"Miracles cannot happen because they are the explanations to the events and not the events themselves."

When leprosy is cured in five seconds to a minute, is the miracle just the explanation why this happened or is the visible cure a miracle?

A naturalistic cure of Hansens' disease is 6 months of antibiotics.

"No one saw Jesus actually resurrecting."

Except angels and a shroud.

"No one saw a resurrected Jesus."

Oh, yes they did. John 20, Matthew 28 ...

"According to Paul, there were “ appearances” or visions."

You overanalyse that as purely mental events. Again, you are overanalysing St. Paul heavily incorrectly in order to make your point.

"When is John arrested? Before or after the baptism ?"

If you missed it, I have actually answered the point.

"John shows he never met Jesus and he is still in prison."

John is certainly in prison in Luke 7. There is nothing there showing he never met Jesus.