Dean Anderson

This thread...

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=1

...discusses (amongst other things) the claim that skeptics doubt(ed) the existence of Pilate, but his existence has been triumphantly proved by apologetics.

The apologetic argument goes something like this:

1) Skeptics did not believe in the existence of Pilate.

2) We have good evidence that Pilate existed.

3) Therefore archaeology supports the bible, so Jesus must also have not only existed but must also have been God incarnate.

I just don't understand the logic here in the jump from (2) to (3). Surely, you could say...

2) We have good evidence that the Statue of Liberty exists.

3) Therefore archaeology supports Planet of the Apes, so Dr Cornelius must not only exist but be God incarnate.

After all, no-one is claiming that Jerusalem didn't exist - or that Rome didn't exist. So why should the existence of Pilate support the biblical myths any more than the existence of Rome supports them (or supports the Zeus/Chronos myth for that matter)?

Am I missing something here, or is the Pilate argument really that weak?

Doctor X

You are not.

This is almost a "They Laughed at Edison!!" argument.

First, they did laugh at Edison for good reasons--concrete houses?

Second, that a "genius" had a wacky idea or a good idea initially disbelieved does not make one's insanity sane!

Basically, this is a "you were wrong about" argument. It reminds me of some of the twisting in the Contradictions threads where an apologist tries to disprove all contradictions by parsing a Psalm while not noticing that big problem with the Flood Myth!

Now, it seems, no serious "skeptic" scholar ever doubted the existence of Pilate to a significant degree--as in lack of his reality "disproves" the NT.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

I don't know if this is serious, but what's funny about that? Most houses here in Metro Manila are made mostly of concrete. Might be because wood doesn't insulate well against the tropical heat, or perhaps because we're battered with about thirty typhoons a year, and they'd huff and puff and blow wooden houses down.

yummyfur

It was a single piece cast concrete house, not masonry block, or even concrete reinforced with steel structures that are poured in many multiple of steps. These were poured all at once.

He also thought we would sleep on concrete beds and play concrete pianos.

http://flyingmoose.org/truthfic/edison.htm

Patrick Schoeb

Celsus

Ok, let's get back on topic now. If you feel Edison is a worthwhile topic of discussion, there are places other than PHF's thread to do it in.

Joel

offa

LOL, I build concrete houses and was surprised to discover that he was the innovator! His birthplace is right down the road from my office.

Yes, Pilate existed. He was present when the thunder and lightening and earthquakes occured during the crucifixion. He was unimpressed and unaware that thunder, lightening, and earthquakes were pseudo names for individuals. He was unaware of the six extra hours of darkness because it was an intercalation (we just had one, we moved our clocks back one hour and gained an extra hour of sunlight in the morning.

Doctor X

Pssssst. . . . . . . yummyfur answers the problem with concrete houses.

Edison had many other mistakes.

The Relevance involves what I call the "Edison Fallacy"--that a "genius" was wrong about something or laughed at about something else means--depending on what you wish to argue:

1. "Laughed At:"--my theory is correct because "they" laugh at me--most common.

2. Edison Wrong:--if he was WRONG about that he MUST be wrong about everything else.

Thus, one tactic of a creationist is to find something Darwin was wrong about--SEE!!--which will, somehow, invalidate everything else he wrote!

Thus [Cue Fanfare.--Ed.], the purpose of the "they doubted Pilate" is, frankly, with more subordinate clauses--like this (or this)--is to conclude:

Just as they doubted Pilate existed they doubt Junior existed. Just as they were wrong about Pilate they were wrong about Junior.

Two major problems exist with this. First, the existence of Pilate really has no relevance to the "Historical Junior Question." It would have relevance if someone proved no Pilate existed--casts a bit of doubt on that whole "are you the King of the Jews" conversation. . . .

Second, which posters recognized and took another to task for it, No One appears to actually have made this claim. It is a Strawman--it is like stating, "Well, evolutionists denied the existence of DNA for years!"

I am sure, if I look long enough . . . I will find one evolutionist--somewhere--who had doubt about DNA carrying "heretable information." This does not weaken current evolutionary theories any more than the possibility that "skeptics" doubted the existence of Pilate weakens current NT scholarship.

. . . and that is that!

--J.D.

Sauron

I'd just like to point out that this one hasn't been shown to be true. It's a common apologetic trick: make up a skeptic position, then knock it down. Strawman.

The more lame of the apologists (Holding, McDowell, etc.) have made claims that skeptics denied the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of Edomites, the existence of a people known as Hittites, etc.

But when pressed to show evidence that any skeptic in the last 200 years has denied any of these things, these apologists mutter something about being occupied in other things for the moment and never produce the evidence.