Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-10-2005, 02:55 PM

The BlogSphere has assimilated another victim. Will it get us all?

Olson's new blog KAIMOI has a great article satirizing, in a very insightful way, the historical claims of conservatives. See his Top 10 Reasons to Accept the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Historically Reliable. Great stuff, Ken! Looking forward to more.

Michael

Toto · 04-10-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Many of the stories in the gospel fulfill what is known as the criterion of embarrassment. The early Christians proclaimed a Jesus who was forgiving and just. They would not have invented stories that might make Jesus appear vengeful or capricious as he might seem to be in some of the stories in the gospel. Thus, these stories must be firmly rooted in early tradition, though suppressed by the canonical gospels.

:notworthy

Chris Weimer · 04-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Yes, I read kaimoi last night when Joel Ng recommended it to everyone at Ebla. Now it's mandatory that I use some of those arguements.

John A. Broussard · 04-10-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, I read kaimoi last night when Joel Ng recommended it to everyone at Ebla. Now it's mandatory that I use some of those arguements.

My favorite statement is:

"The testimony of one witness is surely more important than the silence of four."

The flaw in the blog is the making fun of something that's already ridiculous. It's the Fearless Fosdick caricature of Dick Tracy. Dick Tracy was already hilarious.

Anyhow, thanks for the reference. I'll pass it on to some believers.

Haran · 04-10-2005, 06:01 PM

What branch of Christianity preserved the infancy gospel of Thomas as sacred literature?

Peter Kirby · 04-10-2005, 06:22 PM

Haran, if it's a formal argument, it would be of the form reductio. That the Infancy Gospel of Thomas isn't held to be Scripture is rhetorically necessary for the reductio ad absurdum to be recognized. Naturally, it is a reductio of the verifying principles sometimes employed, and not of any particular account. It works on the premise that one won't respond by accepting InfThom as verified history.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 04-10-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

What branch of Christianity preserved the infancy gospel of Thomas as sacred literature?

Are you saying that the tools for studying the historical Jesus only work on sacred literature?

yalla · 04-10-2005, 08:52 PM

I'm reading Bart Ehrman's "Apocalypic Jesus".abb..at the moment and it's almost like reading a parody of Olson's parody.The resemblance is uncanny.

Toto · 04-10-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

I'm reading Bart Ehrman's "Apocalypic Jesus".abb..at the moment and it's almost like reading a parody of Olson's parody.The resemblance is uncanny.

You mean Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium?

Wallener · 04-10-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

What branch of Christianity preserved the infancy gospel of Thomas as sacred literature?

The branch that wrote the thing, presumably.

04-10-2005, 02:55 PM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Ken Olson has new Blog, great article satirizing Conservative "Historical" methods The BlogSphere has assimilated another victim. Will it get us all? Olson's new blog KAIMOI has a great article satirizing, in a very insightful way, the historical claims of conservatives. See his Top 10 Reasons to Accept the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Historically Reliable. Great stuff, Ken! Looking forward to more. Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2005, 03:44 PM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Yes, I read kaimoi last night when Joel Ng recommended it to everyone at Ebla. Now it's mandatory that I use some of those arguements.

04-10-2005, 06:01 PM	#5
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	What branch of Christianity preserved the infancy gospel of Thomas as sacred literature?

04-10-2005, 06:22 PM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Haran, if it's a formal argument, it would be of the form reductio. That the Infancy Gospel of Thomas isn't held to be Scripture is rhetorically necessary for the reductio ad absurdum to be recognized. Naturally, it is a reductio of the verifying principles sometimes employed, and not of any particular account. It works on the premise that one won't respond by accepting InfThom as verified history. best, Peter Kirby

04-10-2005, 08:52 PM	#8
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I'm reading Bart Ehrman's "Apocalypic Jesus".abb..at the moment and it's almost like reading a parody of Olson's parody.The resemblance is uncanny.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.