Layman and the Christian Cadre

[Steven Carr]

http://www.geocities.com/christiancadre/Answers.htm

The Christian Cadre answers to sceptics pages

http://www.geocities.com/christiancadre/member_contrib/Mark_Ending.html is an article by Layman saying that our version of mark 16:9-20 is not the original

And next to it is an article http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkOne.html saying that it was original.

So if you want answers to sceptics, the Christian Cadre can give you any answer you want, even if it contradicts their other answers to sceptics.

To get this back on topic for the forum, Layman's arguments that Mark 16:9-20 are not original and that the Gospel did not originally end at verse 8, seem the stronger of the too articles.

[Layman]

{Comment deleted}

The Cadre does not endorse either my article or the other one. It simply gave me a forum, for which I am very grateful.

The Secular Web also has stuff that contradicts other stuff in its library.

Gordon Stein on McDowell's reliance on Josephus: In spite of all the negative evidence against this passage, evidence of which McDowell seems aware, he still uses the passage to try to support his case for the historicity of Jesus. Such a procedure is both dishonest and futile. The only people who are fooled by this are the ignorant. Scholars will only wince at the dishonesty involved and disregard this "evidence."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

Lowder on McDowell's reliance on Josephus: I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus

[Steven Carr]

I shall quote from the Christian Cadre page
'The Christian CADRE exists to centralize web-based theological, philosophical and other academic research sources, and to coordinate the efforts of Christian apologists.

How can two articles which contradict each other and which are next to each other be 'coordinated'?

The answers page states 'A page containing mostly original research by members that are directly responsive to the mis-information being put out by the Secular Web. Additional articles are always sought for this page.'

Clearly, either you or Mr. Snapp are putting out 'mis-information', to use the Cadres own term.

Is the Christian Cadre using mis-information to suggest that people who write things others consider to be wrong , are aware that what they are writing is false and are doing so dishonestly? I imagine not. I imagine the Cadre is merely using mis-information to mean information which is wrong, and clearly either you or Mr. Snapp is wrong.

The Answers page states 'This page is intended to provide answers to skeptics who raise quasi-scholarly objections to the message of the gospel. Sometimes these spurious objections come in the form of on-line articles that spread misconceptions and distortions across the internet through hundreds of articles written by people from many areas of scholarship. We offer solutions to the problems they raise.'

But of course, Layman is correct when he states that the site does not endorse the articles it hosts. That introduction can hardly be seen as an endorsement.

Of course, the Internet Infidels also disagree with each other. But they don't have a page of self-contradictory 'answers' the way the Christian Cadre do.

To get back to the thread, why exactly do you feel Mr. Snapp is wrong to suggest that our present ending is original?

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
The Answers page states 'This page is intended to provide answers to skeptics who raise quasi-scholarly objections to the message of the gospel.'
Oh good. I'm glad they don't bother with the scholarly objections then. :D

Joel

[Layman]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
[B]I shall quote from the Christian Cadre page
'The Christian CADRE exists to centralize web-based theological, philosophical and other academic research sources, and to coordinate the efforts of Christian apologists.

How can two articles which contradict each other and which are next to each other be 'coordinated'?

As far as I know, Mr. Snapp is not a member of the Cadre. Nor does coordination require groupthink.

This is rather obvious.

The answers page states 'A page containing mostly original research by members that are directly responsive to the mis-information being put out by the Secular Web. Additional articles are always sought for this page.'

Clearly, either you or Mr. Snapp are putting out 'mis-information', to use the Cadres own term.

Of course not.

Is the Christian Cadre using mis-information to suggest that people who write things others consider to be wrong , are aware that what they are writing is false and are doing so dishonestly? I imagine not. I imagine the Cadre is merely using mis-information to mean information which is wrong, and clearly either you or Mr. Snapp is wrong.

I think there is a threshold below with even honestly held opinions are misinformation. But that threshold is not simply holding a different opinion.

The Answers page states 'This page is intended to provide answers to skeptics who raise quasi-scholarly objections to the message of the gospel. Sometimes these spurious objections come in the form of on-line articles that spread misconceptions and distortions across the internet through hundreds of articles written by people from many areas of scholarship. We offer solutions to the problems they raise.'

But of course, Layman is correct when he states that the site does not endorse the articles it hosts. That introduction can hardly be seen as an endorsement.

You are correct. It is not an endorsement.

Of course, the Internet Infidels also disagree with each other. But they don't have a page of self-contradictory 'answers' the way the Christian Cadre do.

You are right. They have self-contradictory attacks.

The Cadre has a Christian apologetic purpose. The Secular Web Library has a secular apologetic purpose. Both include a range of articles that are consistent with their purposes.

To get back to the thread, why exactly do you feel Mr. Snapp is wrong to suggest that our present ending is original?

I explained my position in my article.

As I remember it, Mr. Snapp emailed me to voice his disagreement with the first part of my article and referred me to his article. I or he passed this along to the administrator of the cite, who concluded that it was worthwhile to offer his counterpoint.

I actually think it's a good thing that the Cadre can offer differing opinions on the matter.

[Postcard73]

Moving to GRD...

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator