FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-10-2009, 07:23 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default Santa Claus as analogy or test case split from Doherty's new book is out

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
[You may stop wondering. I have read as much of Philo, as you have of Merritt's Neurology. (or via: amazon.co.uk)
I'm not wondering why Merrit's Neurology doesn't link semantic aphasia with psychopathy (it doesn't. I checked). You are wondering why Philo doesn't mention things.

The best way to answer your questions about expectations from Philo would be to read the man. If I may paraphrase Sandmel, Philo is an apologist and a preacher. He is no historian.

Quote:
How childish-- proof that Santa exists is confirmed for all to see, by those several, beautifully wrapped presents under the Christmas tree. How can the four gospels and Paul serve to demonstrate historicity of any figure in that literature?
If an historical Jesus existed, the NT reflects exactly the type of literature we should expect to find. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone in history are exempt from discerning the nature of content based on that.

What sets Doherty's argument apart from the usual tripe one sees among the crusading secular is that he embraces the Christian record. Rather than saying "They're biased and don't count!"--an indefensible position--Doherty says "The NT provides evidence for my position." While I'm not persuaded, there is definitely a difference, and a reason his approach is good, while most others are not.

Quote:
They are self contradictory, muddled on specific traits, features and qualities, and deficient as regards detail. Could you defend the theory of cold fusion, with the newspaper accounts of its validity?
I'm going to assume, given your postings here, that you understand why "cold fusion" is a horrible analogy to historical criticism. If I'm in error, let me know, and I'll expand accordingly.

In the 1960s there was a truly bizarre cult at a ranch in California. We know a fair bit about the cult's leader before his movement, and a great deal about what happened to him after the movement. We know very little with any measure of certainty about what happened during his ministry. This despite the fact that he is a household name: Charles Manson.

Every source we have is biased. Often considered our best source, Linda Kasabian had immunity, but no guarantee she would get custody of her children, something--by her own admission--she was conscious of throughout the trial.

Sadie Atkins testified before the grand jury, flagrantly lied, and then recanted anyway. Sandra Good is still a follower. Tex Watson found Jesus, but apparently can't remember what all happened if his book is any indication. Manson's own book is the last place anybody looks.

Our first "gospeler," Bugliosi, is subject to his own biases, and flagrantly far too trusting of Linda Kasabian. The story he ultimately pieces together is somewhere between bizarre and fantastic, though it nonetheless obviously has at least some measure of truth to it. Possibly a large measure.

At the end of the day, we can't trust anything anybody says. Every piece of evidence needs to be analyzed critically, because the lot of them are biased toward Manson, toward their own self-interest, toward a bizarre tendency to lie for lying's sake. For the icing on the cake, other interviews are with people who are mentally disabled, and still others who are barking mad.

We reconstruct leaders based on the words of their followers all the time. Often it's a necessity. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption on this, and refuse to grant that we do not need to analyze that record by virtue of a silly allusion to Santa Claus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:31 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
[You may stop wondering. I have read as much of Philo, as you have of Merritt's Neurology. (or via: amazon.co.uk)
I'm not wondering why Merrit's Neurology doesn't link semantic aphasia with psychopathy (it doesn't. I checked). You are wondering why Philo doesn't mention things.

The best way to answer your questions about expectations from Philo would be to read the man. If I may paraphrase Sandmel, Philo is an apologist and a preacher. He is no historian.



If an historical Jesus existed, the NT reflects exactly the type of literature we should expect to find. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone in history are exempt from discerning the nature of content based on that.

What sets Doherty's argument apart from the usual tripe one sees among the crusading secular is that he embraces the Christian record. Rather than saying "They're biased and don't count!"--an indefensible position--Doherty says "The NT provides evidence for my position." While I'm not persuaded, there is definitely a difference, and a reason his approach is good, while most others are not.

Quote:
They are self contradictory, muddled on specific traits, features and qualities, and deficient as regards detail. Could you defend the theory of cold fusion, with the newspaper accounts of its validity?
I'm going to assume, given your postings here, that you understand why "cold fusion" is a horrible analogy to historical criticism. If I'm in error, let me know, and I'll expand accordingly.

In the 1960s there was a truly bizarre cult at a ranch in California. We know a fair bit about the cult's leader before his movement, and a great deal about what happened to him after the movement. We know very little with any measure of certainty about what happened during his ministry. This despite the fact that he is a household name: Charles Manson.

Every source we have is biased. Often considered our best source, Linda Kasabian had immunity, but no guarantee she would get custody of her children, something--by her own admission--she was conscious of throughout the trial.

Sadie Atkins testified before the grand jury, flagrantly lied, and then recanted anyway. Sandra Good is still a follower. Tex Watson found Jesus, but apparently can't remember what all happened if his book is any indication. Manson's own book is the last place anybody looks.

Our first "gospeler," Bugliosi, is subject to his own biases, and flagrantly far too trusting of Linda Kasabian. The story he ultimately pieces together is somewhere between bizarre and fantastic, though it nonetheless obviously has at least some measure of truth to it. Possibly a large measure.

At the end of the day, we can't trust anything anybody says. Every piece of evidence needs to be analyzed critically, because the lot of them are biased toward Manson, toward their own self-interest, toward a bizarre tendency to lie for lying's sake. For the icing on the cake, other interviews are with people who are mentally disabled, and still others who are barking mad.

We reconstruct leaders based on the words of their followers all the time. Often it's a necessity. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption on this, and refuse to grant that we do not need to analyze that record by virtue of a silly allusion to Santa Claus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
So why not Paul?
dog-on is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:34 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
So why not Paul?
Huh?
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:37 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
So why not Paul?
Huh?
As founder. More a Joseph Smith then a Charles Manson.
dog-on is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:38 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
As founder. More a Joseph Smith then a Charles Manson.
What could possibly make you think my post had anything to do with either encouraging or precluding that idea? It has nothing to do with it.

:huh:
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:46 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
As founder. More a Joseph Smith then a Charles Manson.
What could possibly make you think my post had anything to do with either encouraging or precluding that idea? It has nothing to do with it.

:huh:
I didn't say it did. I just asked you the question.

You said:

Quote:
If an historical Jesus existed, the NT reflects exactly the type of literature we should expect to find. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone in history are exempt from discerning the nature of content based on that.
My question was simply why we should not view Paul as the founder, based on the literature we have.

Sorry if I was unclear.
dog-on is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:50 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
My question was simply why we should not view Paul as the founder, based on the literature we have.

Sorry if I was unclear.
You weren't unclear. It just isn't relevant to any point I'm making. My response to avi had absolutely nothing to do with who a founder was, unless you quote mine it. Your question is a non sequitur.
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:58 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
My question was simply why we should not view Paul as the founder, based on the literature we have.

Sorry if I was unclear.
You weren't unclear. It just isn't relevant to any point I'm making. My response to avi had absolutely nothing to do with who a founder was, unless you quote mine it. Your question is a non sequitur.
Quote:
We reconstruct leaders based on the words of their followers all the time. Often it's a necessity. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption on this, and refuse to grant that we do not need to analyze that record by virtue of a silly allusion to Santa Claus.
As this is a Doherty thread and you have made comments like the above, I am simply asking you to support it, as I also do not believe that "Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption".
dog-on is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 08:02 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
As this is a Doherty thread and you have made comments like the above, I am simply asking you to support it, as I also do not believe that "Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption".
You're obviously getting confused. My comment had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed, whether Jesus was the founder of Christianity, or whether Paul moonlighted as a stripper. It had to do with whether or not we can use the Christian record to determine Christian origins. If Paul was the founder of Christianity, well, we should be able to trace that through the Christian record too.

Sorry, I'm not chasing down your pet theory right now, nothing I've said has anything to do with it.
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 08:07 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
As this is a Doherty thread and you have made comments like the above, I am simply asking you to support it, as I also do not believe that "Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption".
You're obviously getting confused. My comment had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed, whether Jesus was the founder of Christianity, or whether Paul moonlighted as a stripper. It had to do with whether or not we can use the Christian record to determine Christian origins. If Paul was the founder of Christianity, well, we should be able to trace that through the Christian record too.
I am not confused. Simply answer the question implied by your last sentence. That is all I asked you...
dog-on is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:08 AM.

Top

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