tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post4856376465982779215..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Jason Engwer's Apologetic Methodology: Insult and ObscureJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-73646009285922834742008-08-20T12:28:00.000-04:002008-08-20T12:28:00.000-04:00Jason has gotten lucky. I mistakenly said that Ta...Jason has gotten lucky. I mistakenly said that Tatian was from the 5th century when in fact he's from the 2nd. Phew. Now Jason has cover to ignore the many errors, misrepresentations, and fallacies that I've documented here and in other posts. He's also pointing to other errors I made long ago. This error doesn't affect my argument about Jason's myth busters view of early Christians, just as my error about the dating of the Easter controversy was irrelevant. This doesn't matter. This is about throwing as much sand as possible into the air and disappearing into the cloud.<BR/><BR/>I give Jason credit for his knowledge of church history. He knows it better than I do. He does not know logic as well as I do.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-50226637760812825512008-08-20T10:37:00.000-04:002008-08-20T10:37:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-71396768704130551602008-08-19T15:46:00.000-04:002008-08-19T15:46:00.000-04:00And I know what you mean Jon. I want to hear the ...And I know what you mean Jon. I want to hear the strongest answer to my argument, too. It would be nice to think they are backing down because my argument is so good but I try to avoid falling into that kind of thinking.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-43444130390700200252008-08-19T15:22:00.000-04:002008-08-19T15:22:00.000-04:00Yeah, I know what you mean Vinny. I'd prefer to f...Yeah, I know what you mean Vinny. I'd prefer to find a place that was more civil, but I find that a lot of places that are more civil also tend to back down a little. Many of my arguments at places like that just go unanswered. So I'm not learning as much. It's not so much that I'm out trying to convert people as it is I just like learning about this stuff.<BR/><BR/>Jason at Triablogue is pretty tenacious. He doesn't let things go. He at least throws something up in reply. In fact he usually won't allow anyone else to get the last word. So I know I'm going to get something in response. At some point the substance dries up, and it's at that point I know I need to move on if I want to continue to learn, so I do. If I could find some people that were tenacious, but also gracious, that would be ideal.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-88681475204118193292008-08-19T13:36:00.000-04:002008-08-19T13:36:00.000-04:00I want to add some additional material that respon...I want to add some additional material that responds to more of the substance of Jason's most recent reply to me.<BR/><BR/>I had suggested that we don't know exactly what the earliest disciples' views about the resurrection might be. For all we know they held to an unorthodox view. Perhaps a spiritual view. In fact texts attributed to Peter and Paul suggest this with such statements as "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 15:50) and that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (I Pet 3:18). Early texts attributed to eyewitnesses never make the claim that the eyewitnesses saw Jesus as physically raised. Only later ones (Matthew, John) do.<BR/><BR/>Jason responded that we should see "more" evidence that they held such a view in the historical record if it were true. I pointed to the Acts of Peter, which has Peter specifically assert that Christ was raised spiritually, not physically.<BR/><BR/>Not good enough of course for Jason. He needs more. How much should we expect? Under my hypothetical scenario the stream of tradition that ultimately lead to orthodoxy was opposed to the early eyewitnesses. Can we really judge exactly how successful we would expect the orthodox stream to be at creating a false impression of the early eyewitnesses views?<BR/><BR/>Let's be honest. You can hardly even trust newspaper reporting from today, let alone claims of the powerful orthodox tradition that had a clear agenda of wiping out traces of views they opposed.<BR/><BR/>My only experience with newspaper reporting was when I was part of the wrestling team in high school. The coach was quoted in a manner that was somewhat embarrassing to the team, and at our next practice he wanted to let us know that he had been badly misquoted. What if multiple newspapers actively tried to portray my coach falsely? Would he have been able to convince us that it was a false portrayal? Maybe not.<BR/><BR/>Jason's position is that if tradition began ascribing false beliefs and teachings to the early eyewitnesses, they'd have risen up and corrected things. I call this his "myth busters" view. I've shown with the example of Sabbati Sevi that we have examples in history that directly contradict his claims. I've shown repeatedly that Jason's response to this claim completely misses the point. See <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/hostile-corroboration-of-new-testament.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/canon-chronology.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I had also asked why the myth busters didn't appear when the gospel accounts contradicted one another. He says gospel harmonies and other sources did that very thing. Really? Is he talking about Tatian writing in the 5th century? Because I don't think Tatian would qualify as an eyewitness or contemporary. If he's going to appeal to Tatian, why not also appeal to Gleason Archer or Josh McDowell? What we have here are vagueries. We need specifics.<BR/><BR/>I had provided a <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/canon-chronology.html" REL="nofollow">link</A> showing that these questions had been asked of Jason before and he didn't attempt a rebuttal. He says that my charge is "false." I post below the contents of his rebuttal to my questions.<BR/><BR/><I>Given how much of our material you've ignored, you're not in a position to act as though it would be unreasonable for us to not answer your questions. I doubt that you've made much of an effort to research the issues you asked about. When I addressed your claims about Biblical errors in our discussions on Greg Krehbiel's board, you kept moving on to other alleged errors after the previous ones were addressed, without much of an effort to interact with what I had written. I don't have the time or desire for a repeat of that process.</I><BR/><BR/>I say this is not an attempt at a rebuttal. He says it is. You be the judge.<BR/><BR/>Jason says that it's ridiculous to "compare" the resurrection with details about contradictions. Contradictions in narratives are relatively insignificant, so we might not expect the myth busters to come out for these issues. I don't think the issues such as the day Jesus died or who saw him first would really be insignificant to early Christians. Additionally, we have to evaluate the myth busters claim based upon something, and we obviously can't use the very thing in dispute, because that would involve question begging. The fact is I have concrete examples of where the myth busters would be expected on Jason's view, yet they don't appear. Jason has pure speculation.<BR/><BR/>Jason says there's far more evidence for belief in the physical resurrection than a non-physical one. Isn't this exactly what we would expect even if the early eyewitnesses didn't hold to this view if the orthodox stream did?<BR/><BR/>I pointed out that I Cor 15 doesn't tell us that the eyewitnesses experienced Jesus in a physical way. He says that my reading is less natural. The reasons he offers simply do not lead to this conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Jason claims my positions are already refuted in previous discussions. I've shown above that Jason's claims about others having already been refuted is often just false, and <A HREF="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2008/07/error-pride-and-bluster.html" REL="nofollow">other times</A> obvious to him and those that think like him only and not the rest of the world. I also think he demonstrates poor contact with reality when he makes these types of assertions all the while giving the appearance that he is unaware of his own biases in evaluating these questions. Is he really the best judge of who it is that has been refuted and who hasn't in a debate that he's engaged in?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-53298141492655127122008-08-19T13:34:00.000-04:002008-08-19T13:34:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-44908916248190070132008-08-19T13:27:00.000-04:002008-08-19T13:27:00.000-04:00I periodically get the urge to comment on one of J...I periodically get the urge to comment on one of Jason's post, but I usually get over it pretty quickly. Life is too short, particularly when there are so many places where the issues are discussed civilly. (That is also why I don't bother with TheologyWeb.)<BR/><BR/>BTW, thanks for alerting me to the Habermas article where he discusses his sources. I finally got around to using it in a post on my blog.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com