Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-31-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This is nicely written, but to me it's just a kind of transliteration of the fantastical story of Joshua the Messiah into rationalist terms. All you've done is taken the story we have and naturalised it, taken out the fantastical elements (or found rational explanations for them) and posited a story that hangs together.

If you strip the fantastical crap out of the story, you have a naturalised story that COULD have happened. No one's denying that. What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish?

I can't, really, and there is no better way. It is the normal and legitimate historical method to rely on the earliest myths after the unlikelihoods and conflicts of interest are gleaned out of it. If the result makes consistent sense with the evidence, then I think that is the best we can do.

So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status. What's next, the lord of the rings or the operating thetan literature?

spin

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I can't, really, and there is no better way. It is the normal and legitimate historical method to rely on the earliest myths after the unlikelihoods and conflicts of interest are gleaned out of it. If the result makes consistent sense with the evidence, then I think that is the best we can do.

So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status. What's next, the lord of the rings or the operating thetan literature?

spin

Actually, no, I didn't say I was talking nice rubbish.

sschlichter · 12-31-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The rational move is to not claim a dead man as the messiah. Pick a live one with some chance at power.

Well if they were followers of JtB then they didn't have a say in the pick. They just had a say in the interpretation of that pick's death.

Wouldn't picking/following an actual living man/king to lead a rebellion make you more of a threat to the empire than following a symbolic/dead messiah who expects his followers to sacrifice themselves to the authority? Which one would really have been seen as the threat back then?

No, because their is no motive for following jesus. Judas is an example. Once it was evident
That jesus was not interested in power, he bailed. What value otherwise?

aa5874 · 12-31-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This is nicely written, but to me it's just a kind of transliteration of the fantastical story of Joshua the Messiah into rationalist terms. All you've done is taken the story we have and naturalised it, taken out the fantastical elements (or found rational explanations for them) and posited a story that hangs together.

If you strip the fantastical crap out of the story, you have a naturalised story that COULD have happened. No one's denying that. What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish?

I can't, really, and there is no better way. It is the normal and legitimate historical method to rely on the earliest myths after the unlikelihoods and conflicts of interest are gleaned out of it. If the result makes consistent sense with the evidence, then I think that is the best we can do.

So, why write a nice story of which you have no historical facts?

May I remind you to please put up the disclaimer. I can't find it.

It should read something like this:

Quote:

ABE's Gospel is a work of fiction.

Names, characters, places and incidents are products of ABE'S imagination or are used fictitiously.

Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons living or dead is entirely co-incidental.

spin · 12-31-2009, 06:00 PM

Umm,

Gugrugeorge: What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish?

ApostateAbe: I can't, really, and there is no better way.

spin: So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status.

ApostateAbe: Actually, no, I didn't say I was talking nice rubbish.

spin: Did I misunderstand when you said that you couldn't discern between fact and falsity?? That's talking rubbish in my book.

spin

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I can't, really, and there is no better way. It is the normal and legitimate historical method to rely on the earliest myths after the unlikelihoods and conflicts of interest are gleaned out of it. If the result makes consistent sense with the evidence, then I think that is the best we can do.

So, why write a nice story of which you have no historical facts?

May I remind you to please put up the disclaimer. I can't find it.

It should read something like this:

Quote:

ABE's Gospel is a work of fiction.

Names, characters, places and incidents are products of ABE'S imagination or are used fictitiously.

Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons living or dead is entirely co-incidental.

Well, I did say at the end that the claims are the "best guesses." Does that count? I would use your disclaimer, except I want to be consistent and I wouldn't want the reconstruction of almost every figure in ancient history to be "a work of fiction," since almost all of them have unlikely claims wound up in them.

avi · 12-31-2009, 06:04 PM

Abe, the English word "Gospel" is a synonym for truth.

The whole point of the forum is to expose and explain the reasons why the Gospels are untrue.

Your narrative is clever, but less helpful than a simple thread exposing one or more of the problems which you have identified based upon your careful study of the original text.

If someone rewrote the Trojan War, would it facilitate understanding why Homer gave Achilles a nearly invincible stature?

avi

ApostateAbe · 12-31-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Umm,

Gugrugeorge: What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish?

ApostateAbe: I can't, really, and there is no better way.

spin: So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status.

ApostateAbe: Actually, no, I didn't say I was talking nice rubbish.

spin: Did I misunderstand when you said that you couldn't discern between fact and falsity?? That's talking rubbish in my book.

spin

They are the best guesses, or the shortest long shot, as I discussed with DNAReplicator. So it is sort of made up, but that doesn't mean it is rubbish. I take it to be the most likely narrative of early Christianity, even if it is vastly unlikely, which has plenty of use for those who value knowledge.

Petergdi · 12-31-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

The whole point of the forum is to expose and explain the reasons why the Gospels are untrue.

That is not what this forum presents itself as. This forum presents itself as a place to discuss Biblical criticism and history. It seems to me that Abe is doing exactly that.

Peter.

spin · 12-31-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Umm,

Gugrugeorge: What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish?

ApostateAbe: I can't, really, and there is no better way.

spin: So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status.

ApostateAbe: Actually, no, I didn't say I was talking nice rubbish.

spin: Did I misunderstand when you said that you couldn't discern between fact and falsity?? That's talking rubbish in my book.

They are the best guesses,...

Your best guesses are merely your public self-stimulations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...or the shortest long shot, as I discussed with DNAReplicator. So it is sort of made up, but that doesn't mean it is rubbish. I take it to be the most likely narrative of early Christianity, even if it is vastly unlikely, which has plenty of use for those who value knowledge.

If you really have no quality control, as you keep indicating when you waffle about your personal best guesses and shortest long shots, of course you can only expect that you are talking rubbish. It has little connection with knowledge, which is information that has been established in some objective manner to reflect the real world in some way.

spin

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

12-31-2009, 06:00 PM	#55
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Umm, Gugrugeorge: What's not being given is something that makes it likely the story is factual rather than made up. How are you going to distinguish? ApostateAbe: I can't, really, and there is no better way. spin: So you admit that you are talking nice rubbish and that you have no way to improve on that status. ApostateAbe: Actually, no, I didn't say I was talking nice rubbish. spin: Did I misunderstand when you said that you couldn't discern between fact and falsity?? That's talking rubbish in my book. spin

12-31-2009, 06:04 PM	#57
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	Abe, the English word "Gospel" is a synonym for truth. The whole point of the forum is to expose and explain the reasons why the Gospels are untrue. Your narrative is clever, but less helpful than a simple thread exposing one or more of the problems which you have identified based upon your careful study of the original text. If someone rewrote the Trojan War, would it facilitate understanding why Homer gave Achilles a nearly invincible stature? avi

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.