Indeed.
Shit, sorry Dio, I’ve been up since 5am yesterday, and I’m fairly drunk at this point…
Add me to the list of people confounded why so many posters in this thread reverted to “But Dio knows the Biblical stuff”. That wasn’t, nor is it now, the issue. Instead, it’s just another example (ableit different than most every other thread he’s in, because, for once, Dio knew something relevant) of how his posting style interferes greatly with his message. It’s about HOW he conducted himself, and how he steadfastly refused to listen, not about what he knows.
It’s hard to respond to this without any context. But in general, I’ve seen Dio provide plenty of cites in the past. As a matter of fact, I can’t recall him ever declining a reasonable request.
Secondly, his positions are fairly mainstream, AFAICT. There are always disagreements and competing theories on these matters. I took a course on historical, textual, and literary criticisms of the New Testament (brutal course!), and Dio has never posted anything on this topic that seemed to come out of left field.
So your complaint doesn’t seem to track very well with reality. Perhaps some for-instances would advance your case. As it stands, it seems that you’re pissy because Dio doesn’t annotate every post, or conclusively disprove competing theories. Neither of those are his responsibility.
If you’re interested in these topics, perhaps you’d better off reading a book instead of harping on some guy on a messageboard to do your homework for you.
I’m still not clear on what the OP even wanted a cite for in that other thread. He seemed to want me to prove that the Hyksos were the Hebrews or something, which is something I never claimed in the first place, so I really don’t know what he was asking for.
**Septimus,**I don’t think Dio lost track in that thread, even though it wouldn’t have been no big deal when you have quite a few nipping at your ankles at the same time–it would have been understandable if he did–and certainly that in itself is not pit worthy.
And it isn’t agreed that the nativity stories are fictional embellishments, which included JThunder in that thread who was going with the “Herod may have been governor twice” defense. And it was unclear at that time as to whether ITR champion agreed that it was fictional embellishments, particular when he spent so much time on his post in #49 trying to defend it with some kind of Aramaic on to Greek translation. In fact, him spending that much time on the translation aspects, then saying he agrees with you, doesn’t really follow. He should have been more specific then. He does however towards the end of addressing you state that: “Even if I accepted, for the sake of argument, that everything in Luke 1-2 was fabricated it wouldn’t have a bearing on the main thrust of the reliability of that Gospel or any other.” That still didn’t clear it up his specific position then. And while it may not necessarily have any bearing on the rest of the gospels, for him to think the rest of it reliable, is, I’m sure, just another idle boast.
As far as the rest of Dio’s behavior on that thread, that too, didn’t seem to be pit worthy. And him not using cites, as another said, he is often the cite, since as you can tell he’s relying on his memory, he’s already studied the hell out of all of this, but it’s still nothing that you won’t find on many sites either. You’ll rarely find it on conservative apologists’ boards to the likes of James Patrick Holding, but that isn’t saying much. If it was over a serious dispute, then surely he could come up with a cite then. I think quite a few are already familiar with a lot of that material, but unlike him, we have to generally refresh our memory or at least I do on parts of it. You can find much of what he says readily available with search engines though. I personally think ITR champion, and possibly others were only doing requesting this to slow him down so that they could catch up. 
If there was something that was seriously disputed, there would have been plenty of dopers that would have called him on it.
Getting back to James Patrick Holding. I hoped you took a damn good look at some of ITR champion’s sources, in particular that one which is the link and piece he used for dating of the gospels. Holding spends his time fighting for biblical inerrancy! How ITR champion could even put Bruce Metzer and James Patrick Holding in the same post as the sources he relies on, is the biggest insult one could give anyone, especially Metzer, and in my parts of Texas where I’m from, I would have shot him for that!
Holding may write an occasional short but good parody of his opponents that I admit sometimes kind of makes me snicker at times, but it’s ridiculous to think this guy is a serious scholar on anything. He often puts these insults in his works when critiquing anyone that goes against his inerrancy position. And it’s not even his real name. Look up Robert Turkel. His credentials, the way I remember was that he was at one time a librarian for a prison–which nothing wrong with that–but his arguments are not remotely up to any kind of serious scholarship standards whatsoever.
He just makes a lot of noise and name calling, which eventually gets the attention of an occasional scholar that responds to his insults, which in turn has Holding pissin’ all over himself for the attention he received from somebody a hell of a lot more important than he’ll ever be!
Sorry, but I think Dio really shined in that thread. Anyway, hope to see you in some other threads.
This sums up what my post was going to be.
Crap, did ITR cite Turkel…er…I mean Holding? I must have completely spaced on that.
I think you are correct. There is nothing wrong with that - however, in Holdings case, he often hypocritically bashes his opponents for not having any advanced degrees.
Turkel/Holding is a retired prison librarian, yes. He is not credentialed (not a big deal in itself except that he attacks others if they aren’t credentialed), he’s a literalist/inerrantist, and he is known for his hostile polemic, personal insults and for editing debates on his blog to remove material which is damaging to him. ITR gets miffed when I dismiss those kinds of rank apologist sources out of hand, but come ON – JP Holding?
Are you suggesting my personal bias is in favor of Diogenes??
It’s true that I glossed over the specific point, but that doesn’t mean I ignored it – it means I found it insufficiently convincing.
In the original thread, spetimus and ITR champion seem to be making the following point, summed up for conciseness: “Apart from the infancy/nativity portions of the Gospels, where are the contradictions?”
Without seeming to acknowledge that exclusion, Diogenes hammers on the contradictions between two of the Gospels as to the dates of Jesus’ birth. This is the evidence for “he doesn’t listen.”
As I read it, though, it seemed to me that his (Diogenes’) unstated point was that thirteenth stroke of a clock is not only definitely wrong itself, but casts grave doubt about the accuracy of the preceding twelve; that attempting to exclude the infancy is not simply a matter that can be hand-waved away. If the nativity stories are false, how can the reader have confidence in the remaining narrative?
I agree that Diogenes did not make that objection clear, but I suspect he thought it was a given.
For this reason, I focused on the basic fact that he knew of what he spoke. He irritates me no end when he blindly insists of things he doesn’t know and is wrong about. When he insists on things he’s right about, and simply fails to connect every little dot in the argument, I can’t drum up that righteous fury.
See post #16, in ITR champion’s link on that thread. The one entitled: “This page has a nice summary of the main reasons why I believe this.”
Actually some of it was others quesioning his scholarship. Concerning how Dio was acting in that thread for others focusing on it; yeah, on occasion he may get a little bit snooty at times, but considering how a few others were treating him, and questioning his scholarship, can’t say I blame him much. I think Dio showed plenty of restraint. From what little threads I’ve had with him, he generally seems more than easy to get along with, and will at least treat you as fairly as you treat him. He does show a bit of a disdain for conservative apologetics, but he will get no flack from me on that.
Yup, I missed that. I saw the other cites and although I groaned at ITR’s listing of the Case for Christ, I figured they were pretty standard fair.
While Holding has some nuggets of good stuff, I find him to be dishonest. Didn’t he debate on theologyweb or something? I have it in my head that he debated Glenn Morton (IIRC) and I remember thinking that he was underhanded and slimey. That was a long time ago and my memory is beyond shit, so I have to qualify this statement.
I did say something about not agreeing that the nativities should be swept aside just by fiat ( I said something like “why should they be ignored?”) but it was a pretty brief and easy to miss line. And one or two others actually were making some attempt to defend them, so I kept it out there a bit, but I also did move onto non-nativity stuff after both Septimus and ITR clearly stipulated to the infancies being fiction.
Even better.
So, OP and others, that being the case, what other evidence from that thread goes to Diogenes’ ignoring points being made?
I stand by my statement. This is an area where he knows his stuff, and just because he’s winning on the merits and you’re frustrated by your inability to counter him doesn’t mean you can Pit him.
Fair enough for me. I just said what it seemed like to me, and clearly I missed a few things in the barrage of posts.
Granted, your second paragraph doesn’t apply to me since I don’t dispute any of those things.
I can’t say about any specific individual motivation (I used you as an example because it seemed so incongruous). Also, bias includes bias in favor of a position, not just bias in favor of a person. A lot of people might dislike Dio as a poster but also agree with him WRT biblical scholarship and, lacking too much knowledge about the issue themselves, enjoy the fact that Dio can carry the debate for their side. As such they are biased in his favor WRT to this specific issue.
Then say so. Everything you’re writing in this post should have been in your original post.
Imagine this to yourself in one of your interminable legal debates. You’re going on about the finer points of some law (say abortion law) and your opponent doesn’t even bother to respond to that, and just responds with some arguments relating to the larger issue that the law happens to address (in this case, abortion). If and when you finally get the guy to acknowledge that he ignored the point, he says “I glossed over your specific point because I found it insufficiently convincing”. What’s your reaction then?
The reason this is important is because it gets in the way of serious discussion. On a given point, you might find something insufficiently convincing while someone else finds it bery convincing indeed. And vice versa for other issues. If these issues are to be seriously discussed, you need to address the actual points the other guy is making instead of ignoring them because you find them insufficiently convincing. If you think the discussion is not worthwhile, then don’t join in. But joining in under the pretense of weighing in on an issue while actually ignoring it is not helpful. I’m surprised you would disagree.
I may have missed it, but I’m not sure ITR champion necessarily considers the nativity stories as fiction. Look at his wording carefully, and also how much time he spent in post #49 trying to defend it with a translation at least with Luke 1 and 2. Eventually he does say: “Even if I accepted, for the sake of argument, that everything in Luke 1-2 was fabricated it wouldn’t have a bearing on the main thrust of the reliability of that Gospel or any other.”
He was only posting it as a hypothetical. But I do see today he at least acknowledges it as a contradiction to Matthew which he should have done right off of the bat. Surprised he didn’t put in “alleged contradiction.”
His post # 56 responding to Kinthalis says: “You’ve mentioned the instances in the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew; septimus has already responded and explained why that tells us nothing about the other material in the Gospels.”
Septimus said several things with that particular post (#23) . That seems to be all that he was addressing without necessarily agreeing that the nativity stories are fictional embellishments. Septimus clearly sees them as fictional embellishments. I could be mistaken on ITR champion, but doubt I’ll re-read any more of it.
Diogenes is kind of a double edged sword. He is abrasive, arrogant and pretentious (which kinda makes me wonder about his screen name,) but he usually is right when it comes to biblical information.
Perhaps I forget that multi-poster threads have more than two posters, imagine a 2-person dialog, and get frustrated when this unrealistic expectation is unachieved. To that extent, I’m at fault and my complaints are somewhat misplaced.
I’ve read and understood several of Diogenes’ posts on early Canaan and the Exodus questions; indeed he answered me directly with the post shown below. I do understand what he writes on the matter. I have a bad habit of assuming others know I’m not ignorant or imbecilic, so may write using abbreviations that can be misconstrued.
This is all very interesting; I’d love to believe it; I’d love to learn more. I’d like to read about the specific archaeological evidence that supports the points Diogenes makes. But he provides no citations. My Googling skills are weak (and would be likely to lead me to crackpot sites :dubious: ). This is my big objection to Diogenes’ posts. Perhaps he posted detailed citations for years before I came to SDMB, and doesn’t want to repeat himself. Fine; suggest some search terms then.
I don’t think asking for evidence or citations is unreasonable. Even if I had 100% confidence in Diogenes’ expertise (and having seen a grand total of zero citations in his posts to date, I’m reluctant to commit to that) I’d still be interested to get a glimpse of the evidence.