Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 12-02-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Despite its utility, there is a limitation to this way of thinking. It is appropriate for criticizing faith beliefs, but we need to upgrade this way of thought if we are to decide on the most probable explanations. For example, some of the most relevant information concerning Alexander the Great is inferred from texts sourced from ancient myths, and the myths are not historically reliable. The ancient myths claim (among many other things) that Alexander the Great was fathered by Zeus. It does not follow, however, that no knowledge about Alexander the Great should be inferred from such myths. The myths are our only sources of the stories of Bucephalas, the name of a heroic horse and a city that Alexander apparently named in its honor.

If those myths were our only sources, then we would know nothing about Alexander. But they are not our only sources. There are other sources that we can trust that confirm not only Alexander's existence but his use of a horse during battles.

dog-on · 12-02-2011, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Despite its utility, there is a limitation to this way of thinking. It is appropriate for criticizing faith beliefs, but we need to upgrade this way of thought if we are to decide on the most probable explanations. For example, some of the most relevant information concerning Alexander the Great is inferred from texts sourced from ancient myths, and the myths are not historically reliable. The ancient myths claim (among many other things) that Alexander the Great was fathered by Zeus. It does not follow, however, that no knowledge about Alexander the Great should be inferred from such myths. The myths are our only sources of the stories of Bucephalas, the name of a heroic horse and a city that Alexander apparently named in its honor.

If those myths were our only sources, then we would know nothing about Alexander. But they are not our only sources. There are other sources that we can trust that confirm not only Alexander's existence but his use of a horse during battles.

Ah, but you fail to take into account the most important criterion used by Abe, the Criterion of Exacto.

ApostateAbe · 12-02-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Despite its utility, there is a limitation to this way of thinking. It is appropriate for criticizing faith beliefs, but we need to upgrade this way of thought if we are to decide on the most probable explanations. For example, some of the most relevant information concerning Alexander the Great is inferred from texts sourced from ancient myths, and the myths are not historically reliable. The ancient myths claim (among many other things) that Alexander the Great was fathered by Zeus. It does not follow, however, that no knowledge about Alexander the Great should be inferred from such myths. The myths are our only sources of the stories of Bucephalas, the name of a heroic horse and a city that Alexander apparently named in its honor.

If those myths were our only sources, then we would know nothing about Alexander. But they are not our only sources. There are other sources that we can trust that confirm not only Alexander's existence but his use of a horse during battles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If those myths were our only sources, then we would know nothing about Alexander. But they are not our only sources. There are other sources that we can trust that confirm not only Alexander's existence but his use of a horse during battles.

Ah, but you fail to take into account the most important criterion used by Abe, the Criterion of Exacto.

So you (Doug Shaver and dog-on) both disagree with my central claim in this thread, and you think that there is no point in explaining the evidence if you can't trust the evidence. Kind of a let down, because even Toto agreed with me on that point. She called it like a bait-and-switch sales job, giving you something that everyone agrees with before I push the disagreeable bit. At least now I know I wasn't completely mistaken with my judgment of the mentality of Jesus-minimalists.

ApostateAbe · 12-02-2011, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

ABE
John the Baptist would be a good example to that effect, in my opinion--the earliest evidence indicates that he was a doomsday cult leader, and his religion survived his death, but we have no written evidence from either himself or his followers (only Christian gospels and Josephus).

CARR
Where does Abe get this stuff from?

There is zero evidence that John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader.

The direct evidence for John's doomsdayism is Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 (Q), and it fits what we expect from the writing of Josephus, that John the Baptist was killed by the ruling king. If you think that still counts as "zero evidence," then I suppose that position once again speaks to what I have been saying about judging the evidence versus explaining the evidence. I prefer to explain the evidence we have, not judge texts as untrustworthy and therefore exclude them from being "evidence." All evidence needs to be explained, both the trustworthy and untrustworthy, and the explanation for our evidences concerning John the Baptist with the most explanatory power and plausibility is the explanation entailing that John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader.

aa5874 · 12-02-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

ABE
John the Baptist would be a good example to that effect, in my opinion--the earliest evidence indicates that he was a doomsday cult leader, and his religion survived his death, but we have no written evidence from either himself or his followers (only Christian gospels and Josephus).

CARR
Where does Abe get this stuff from?

There is zero evidence that John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader.

The direct evidence for John's doomsdayism is Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 (Q), and it fits what we expect from the writing of Josephus, that John the Baptist was killed by the ruling king. If you think that still counts as "zero evidence," then I suppose that position once again speaks to what I have been saying about judging the evidence versus explaining the evidence. I prefer to explain the evidence we have, not judge texts as untrustworthy and therefore exclude them from being "evidence." All evidence needs to be explained, both the trustworthy and untrustworthy, and the explanation for our evidences concerning John the Baptist with the most explanatory power and plausibility is the explanation entailing that John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader.

In Josephus, John the Baptist was NOT killed because he claimed there was wrath to come.

You are SPECULATING not explaining.

Please Examine "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.5.

Quote:

2....... Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late....

Josephus gave a completely different view of John the Baptist.

1. The Jews were PLEASED with the words of JtB.

2. The Jews came in Crowds to hear JtB.

3. Herod did NOT kill John the Baptist for preaching doomsdayism.

4. John the Baptist was NOT a doomsday preacher in Josephus.

You have NOT explained the evidence in Josephus, you have IGNORED the credible source and have TRUSTED gMatthew and gLuke that stated Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Why do you want people to trust gMatthew and gLuke when you are arguing AGAINST the very NT by stating that Jesus was a man?

Jesus was NOT a man in the NT.

Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35 CLEARLY stated that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Explain this.
Explain Matthew 1.18-20

Quote:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.... his mother Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband....... while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying............that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS.....

You do NOT trust gMatthew and gLuke so I don't know why you are using them after you have DISCREDITED them as Fiction writers.

Did you NOT INVENT your OWN Gospel by REJECTING almost all of the NT Gospels?

Steven Carr · 12-02-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The direct evidence for John's doomsdayism is Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 (Q), and it fits what we expect from the writing of Josephus, that John the Baptist was killed by the ruling king. If you think that still counts as "zero evidence," then I suppose that position once again speaks to what I have been saying about judging the evidence versus explaining the evidence.

In other words, Abe has zero evidence.

Oh, the Bible says it, Abe believes it. That settles it.

Toto · 12-02-2011, 08:29 AM

Abe - aa5874 raises the point that there is no evidence that John was a doomsday cult leader in Josephus. You can explain the Biblical references as literary invention on the part of the gospel writers. Josephus says that John was executed merely because he had a large following.

John the Baptist on Josephus.org

ApostateAbe · 12-02-2011, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The direct evidence for John's doomsdayism is Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 (Q), and it fits what we expect from the writing of Josephus, that John the Baptist was killed by the ruling king. If you think that still counts as "zero evidence," then I suppose that position once again speaks to what I have been saying about judging the evidence versus explaining the evidence.

In other words, Abe has zero evidence.

Oh, the Bible says it, Abe believes it. That settles it.

This is the kind of thinking that before misled me into thinking that Jesus-minimalists are all about opposing Biblicist Christianity. But, now I think it is about simply dismissing evidence based on whether or not the claims are historically reliable. They believe that having nothing but myths is essentially the same as having no evidence concerning any historical conclusions. They seem to get into this mode of thought from arguing against Christians. Do you agree?

ApostateAbe · 12-02-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - aa5874 raises the point that there is no evidence that John was a doomsday cult leader in Josephus. You can explain the Biblical references as literary invention on the part of the gospel writers. Josephus says that John was executed merely because he had a large following.

John the Baptist on Josephus.org

Right. Q is our evidence for John the Baptist being a doomsday cult leader, and Josephus merely confirms the historical expectations that would follow from that. Josephus does not explicitly state that John had doomsday prophecies, only that he had a large following of people that hung on to every word he said, Herod feared a rebellion, and he put John to death.

Toto · 12-02-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..Q is our evidence for John the Baptist being a doomsday cult leader, and Josephus merely confirms the historical expectations that would follow from that.

This is ass backward. Josephus is not a totally reliable source, but seems more reliable, less theologically driven, and closer to the events than the gospels.

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

12-02-2011, 08:29 AM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Abe - aa5874 raises the point that there is no evidence that John was a doomsday cult leader in Josephus. You can explain the Biblical references as literary invention on the part of the gospel writers. Josephus says that John was executed merely because he had a large following. John the Baptist on Josephus.org

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.