In a recent thread about the census mentioned in the biblical book of Luke, johnnygeneric brings up some fairy decent points, but when I attempt to question the validity of some of his sources, he fires back :
And later, when I attempt to rebut him, he comes back with :
Sir … it is always best if you know the background of people you are trying to win over to your side. You’ve given yours here :
You should know this about someone you accuse of “not even giving one inch to a valid claim made by Christianity.” I was a Christian for over 35 years. I was brough up in a conservative, fundamentalist, Southern Baptist family. I taught Sunday School. As a member of Greenmeadow Baptist Church, I ran one of the best local Christian research libraries. I’ve read Ankerberg, Geisler, Walter Martin, Josh McDowell and any number of Christian apologists that you can name. In other words, I have examined every single claim that Christianity has made. In depth. Ramsey be dammed, but for every “name” that you can throw up that examined the evidence and became a Christian, I’m sure I can find just as many that examined it (myself included) and rejected some of it’s more inane historical notions.
I’m sure the only option you see is that anyone who looks at the same “evidence” as you will come to the same conclusions. But the only thing you are bringing to the table are quotes from sources that I truly suspect you don’t completely understand.
Having been indoctrinated over a lifetime I still have quite a bit of Christian goodwill still loitering in my loins, however your final “rebuttal” to someone questioning the validity of your sources :
has caused me to decide the following:
You, sir, are an ass. Normally here at The straight Dope that would be enough for anyone to find a little amusement in, but you are not even an especially entertaining ass. Go away.
Well, that clinches it right there. I’m an ass. Ok. Fine. You’re a pathetic ass. It’s just that I’ve heard people toss out your line of reasoning and it just doesn’t wash. It doesn’t deal with the arguments.
The man who was KNIGHTED for his archaeological work, and you say he be damned. Well, that’s fine. Congratulations. Your true colors come out. You have become intellectually bankrupt.
If you are going to debate a point, it helps if actually bring up facts, references, and address issues. Saying that a person who has an opposing opinion or belief is a fool who doesn’t know any better does not make a GOOD arguement. If you find information that refutes an arguement post that.
What pray tell does not wash with this line of reasoning. Using ad hominem attacks and simply yelling that you’re right every one is wrong doesn’t make you a good debater, it simply makes you a twit.
As I noted in the original thread, there was an older scholar of antiquity named W. M. Ramsay (and a chemist named Sir William Ramsay) who each lived around the same time.
I’m going to be greatly amused if we discover that all these web pages citing the “archaeologist” “Sir William Ramsey” are actually confusing him with a chemist and they actually don’t know who they’re talking about.
I at first thought the same thing when I started to look around. However, as I posted in the other thread, they are two different people. The chemist (1852-1916) remains well known, and can still be found in the on-line Britannica. About the only place the archaeologist - Sir William Mitchell Ramsay - can be found is on religiously-oriented web sites; he is not listed in the Britannica’s on-line version. Hardly good evidence for him being “considered one of the greatest archaelogists of our time,” as johnnygeneric would have it.
It looks like he is for real as far as being an archeologist/historian. As far as the “Sir” goes, given that his conclusions (correct or not) tended to confirm the accuracy of the Bible’s history it’s no stretch that the powers that be would reward this pro-establishment point of view, at the time, with a knighthood. I’m going to reserve judgement on this guy’s stature as an important historical archeologist for the time being, however, if tomndebb’s never heard of him as this stuff is normally right up tomndebb’s alley.
<< Ramsay (1851-1939) was a prominent archeologist specializing in Greek and Roman Asia Minor. >>
Well, no offense, but anybody writing that long ago is pretty much out dated by almost 3/4 of a century. And it’s been a remarkable century for archaeology – we’ve learned more about life in the Holy Land under Roman rule in the last fifty years or so than in the prior 500.
No matter how brilliant Ramsay was, nor how learned, a student graduating today in archaeology has more information at his fingertips than Ramsay had after a full career.
You might as well be citing medical journals written in the 1800s as archaeologists.
