FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

Poll: Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2011, 09:16 AM   #21
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Shesh:

When someone says that "I have my conclusion and no additional evidence can change it" they are basing belief on faith, not reason. You are to complimented for admitting it.

Steve
Be fair. That's not exactly what he said. He said that any evidence brought forth at this point would probably be just another Christian forgery.

Shesh has changed his mind on some things.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:27 AM   #22
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It could be a number of things--lost writings of the baptist cult, lost writings of Philo, lost writings of a counselor to Herod. I think it speaks to the difference between faith and reasonable conclusion. A reasonable conclusion can change with a new or better examination of the evidence, and a faith can not.
Lost writings (contemporary) of a Baptist cult would only prove the existence of a Baptist cult_ if they mentioned the baptism of a miracle working 'Jebus', it would only evidence that they had 'bought into' and incorporated a popular urban myth/legend into their writings. Same for Philo, or some 'lost' writing of Josephus et. al.
As for one proposed to be by 'a counselor to Herod', if such did surface I'd dismiss it as being a forgery.

I already have a reasonable conclusion, and if all of the -thousands- of Christian forgeries produced over the last 2 millenia have not served to shake it, why would you think that bringing forth yet another forgery would?
Do you take seriously any of the scholarly methods of telling the difference between forgery and authenticity? Such as dissimilarity, linguistics, radiometric dating, and provenance? Or must such hypothetical documents be forgeries because otherwise they would undercut your faith?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:30 AM   #23
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
He said that any evidence brought forth at this point would probably be just another Christian forgery.

Shesh has changed his mind on some things.
Most certainly. I arrived here a staunch believer in the truth and integrity of the Bible's accounts. Some seven years I continued my battle on the other side.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:38 AM   #24
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It could be a number of things--lost writings of the baptist cult, lost writings of Philo, lost writings of a counselor to Herod. I think it speaks to the difference between faith and reasonable conclusion. A reasonable conclusion can change with a new or better examination of the evidence, and a faith can not.
Lost writings (contemporary) of a Baptist cult would only prove the existence of a Baptist cult_ if they mentioned the baptism of a miracle working 'Jebus', it would only evidence that they had 'bought into' and incorporated a popular urban myth/legend into their writings. Same for Philo, or some 'lost' writing of Josephus et. al.
As for one proposed to be by 'a counselor to Herod', if such did surface I'd dismiss it as being a forgery.

I already have a reasonable conclusion, and if all of the -thousands- of Christian forgeries produced over the last 2 millenia have not served to shake it, why would you think that bringing forth yet another forgery would?
Do you take seriously any of the scholarly methods of telling the difference between forgery and authenticity? Such as dissimilarity, linguistics, radiometric dating, and provenance? Or must such hypothetical documents be forgeries because otherwise they would undercut your faith?
Certainly I would take all of these things into consideration, but as your proposed lost 'documents' are at present all 'hypothetical', I can hardly be expected to be able to examine or judge the accuracy of any of these as yet unaccomplished things.

I expect that in due time the collective evidence will vindicate that explanation I presented in post #9 above
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:48 AM   #25
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Do you take seriously any of the scholarly methods of telling the difference between forgery and authenticity? Such as dissimilarity, linguistics, radiometric dating, and provenance? Or must such hypothetical documents be forgeries because otherwise they would undercut your faith?
Certainly I would take all of these things into consideration, but as your proposed lost 'documents' are at present all 'hypothetical', I can hardly be expected to be able to examine or judge the accuracy of any of these as yet unaccomplished things.

I expect that in due time the collective evidence will vindicate that explanation I presented in post #9 above
Sheshbazzar, a test that I often employ for determining the level of dogmatism of people with positions of faith is to ask them, "Can you imagine any set of hypothetical evidence that would cause you to accept the probability of an opposing position?". With you, all signs are pointing to you having just as much an irrational faith as other religious adherents. What can you claim that would correct such an opinion? What evidence can you imagine?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:10 AM   #26
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

I followed Sheshbazzar and dog-on, and selected most likely fiction.

I wish that JustSteve, or someone else, could summarize one or two references that document the existence of john the baptizer outside the Christian/Islamic literature.

avi
avi is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:11 AM   #27
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Do you take seriously any of the scholarly methods of telling the difference between forgery and authenticity? Such as dissimilarity, linguistics, radiometric dating, and provenance? Or must such hypothetical documents be forgeries because otherwise they would undercut your faith?
Certainly I would take all of these things into consideration, but as your proposed lost 'documents' are at present all 'hypothetical', I can hardly be expected to be able to examine or judge the accuracy of any of these as yet unaccomplished things.

I expect that in due time the collective evidence will vindicate that explanation I presented in post #9 above
Sheshbazzar, a test that I often employ for determining the level of dogmatism of people with positions of faith is to ask them, "Can you imagine any set of hypothetical evidence that would cause you to accept the probability of an opposing position?". With you, all signs are pointing to you having just as much an irrational faith as other religious adherents. What can you claim that would correct such an opinion? What evidence can you imagine?
We have already covered this ground;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
Sheshbazzar, what if material comes to light that directly refutes your faith?
Got any idea of what that 'material' might consist of?

I can think of -nothing- post 1 AD that would have any such ability.

And anything about 'Jebus' positively dated -PRIOR- to 1 AD would only serve to confirm the correctness of my position and faith.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
You are hung up on your imagined 'hypothetical evidence' (of which you have NONE, NADA, ZIP)
IF- I could 'imagine' any such 'hypothetical' evidence sufficient to shake or significantly alter my view or "accept the probability of an opposing position",
I would not be holding the position or views that I presently am.
I am not 'open' to any 'possibilities' that there was ever any such person as is described in the NT. Or that any 'historically' identifiable figure was ever behind the christian myths.

No amount of cunningly insulting argument is going to change that position. All it serves is to cause me to be increasingly disgusted with those who attempt to employ such asinine manipulations.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:15 AM   #28
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Thank you, Sheshbazzar. No more questions for the defendant.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:36 AM   #29
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

I voted likely historical because the idea that Jesus apparently needed purifying/commissioning/appointing by John causes more problems for early Christianity than it solves.

If it was not part of the original tradition it would not have been invented.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 11:02 AM   #30
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle
If it was not part of the original tradition it would not have been invented.
Thanks Andrew. I am very suspicious of this logic. I think in particular of the famous text about the adulteress (John 8:7). Text was added, not necessarily because it appeals to, or displeases us, or even those living at that time. There could well have been other factors, which led to inclusion of the John the Baptist stories....

Did the earliest versions (circa 16th century) of Robin Hood have elaboration of a Moor of African descent, who accompanied, and aided, the son of the Earl of Loxley back from the Crusades after escaping from a Muslim prison?

In fact, Andrew, didn't the earliest versions of the story portray Robin as a yeoman, and not a member of the English nobility at all....?

That John the Baptist's role was deemed important, is confirmed by Constantine's assignment of his birthday on the summer solstice, the single most important holiday of the pagan calendar, and no, to answer again your earlier question to me, on this subject, no, I have still not located that reference....

John the Baptist must have been more than just an afterthought, though, for else, why would the Muslims have accepted his status as prophet? Still, I cannot accept the idea, without documentary evidence, that he has always been in the original texts of the gospels. I don't know, one way or the other, but, I simply do not accept the idea that we can accept JtB's inclusion in the original version, simply because of the awkwardness of the concept--a human purifying a deity!!! Pretty silly.

avi
avi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.