Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Headache · 03-28-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

Using book A as evidence for the contents of book A is absurd, no matter what book A is about.

Curiously, that's not what I asked you to give us your considered opion on.

And even if it were, is your stance something that professional historians would accept?

Quote:

If book A is all there exists and no other supporting evidence for the content in book A can be found outside it, I would not put much weight on it's content in any other fashion than as a pure fictional story. Why should I?

The question is why shouldn't you? And does it have to be all or nothing?

In any case, the problem here isn't that we have only one book. For Jesus and for the trial of Socrates we have more that one book. The problem, using A what's his name's criteria for determining what's worthless as am historical source and what's not, is that they are all apologies.

So I ask you once again, is it the case, as A what's his name claims it is, and do professional historians accept that it is the case, that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, apologies are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend?

If professional historians do not accept this as the case, what does A what's his name know about apologetic literature that professional historians don't?

Jeffrey

Ask historians, I'm not one.
Other than that, I have answered your question in what I would consider a crystal clear fashion. What is it you do not understand?

Let me repeat it if it isn't clear to you:
If the only thing we have, is a book or collection of books in form of a single book, there is no reason for anyone to take the content as anything but fiction.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-28-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Curiously, that's not what I asked you to give us your considered opion on.

And even if it were, is your stance something that professional historians would accept?

The question is why shouldn't you? And does it have to be all or nothing?

In any case, the problem here isn't that we have only one book. For Jesus and for the trial of Socrates we have more that one book. The problem, using A what's his name's criteria for determining what's worthless as am historical source and what's not, is that they are all apologies.

So I ask you once again, is it the case, as A what's his name claims it is, and do professional historians accept that it is the case, that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, apologies are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend?

If professional historians do not accept this as the case, what does A what's his name know about apologetic literature that professional historians don't?

Jeffrey

Ask historians, I'm not one.

Yes, and your response to my question makes that fact crystal clear, if it wasn't so already.

Quote:

If the only thing we have, is a book or collection of books in form of a single book, there is no reason for anyone to take the content as anything but fiction.

There was a time when we had only one book on Alexander. We have, I believe, in Plutarch instances of only one book on (or one source for) some of the figures that are the subjects of his "Lives" and that he accepts as historical.

By your criterion, we must regard the contents of these books as fiction.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 03-28-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

If the only thing we have, is a book or collection of books in form of a single book, there is no reason for anyone to take the content as anything but fiction.

A single source allows you to assume fiction?

That is incorrect.

aa5874 · 03-29-2008, 01:20 AM

Wasn't Achilles derived from a single source?

Solitary Man · 03-29-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Wasn't Achilles derived from a single source?

No. But aa5874 is derived only from IIDB. Therefore he is fictional.

Amaleq13 · 03-29-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Wasn't Achilles derived from a single source?

Examples of figures believed ahistorical which have only a single source do nothing to change the logical error involved in the described assumption.

Your fondness for taking it notwithstanding, the leap from "single source" to "fiction" is simplistic and logically flawed.

Headache · 03-29-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, and your response to my question makes that fact crystal clear, if it wasn't so already.

Oh, I see!
Now I know you <edit> just lost the last shred of credibility. Thank you!

<second edit>

aa5874 · 03-30-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Wasn't Achilles derived from a single source?

No. But aa5874 is derived only from IIDB. Therefore he is fictional.

Your statement is extremely illogical.

The fact is that Jesus of the NT is only derived from apologetics and his biography is ambiguous, contradictory, full of errors, implausibilities, fiction and cannot be accounted for by one single credidle non-apologetic source of antiquity.

jmatt · 03-30-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK - I happen to have researched this, and this is a bogus quote. It was invented by Robert Ingersoll, and if you read it in the original, he was obviously not serious.

Which quote?

edit: just trying to clear up my confusion.

Toto · 03-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmatt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK - I happen to have researched this, and this is a bogus quote. It was invented by Robert Ingersoll, and if you read it in the original, he was obviously not serious.

Which quote?

This:

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon.”
Ferdinand Magellan, c. 1516

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

03-29-2008, 01:20 AM	#24
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Wasn't Achilles derived from a single source?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.