Amaleq13

It sure looks that way. You stated your firm conclusion that there is "history behind the gospels" and then repeated the If-Then reasoning that lead you to conclude this particular story was an example. I see no indication that you are reconsidering either the general conclusion or the specific example.

I don't see where you indicate you no longer consider the stated IF-Then reasoning to be valid.

If that is the case, good for you! :thumbs:

Rick Sumner

I am not about to debate the former. I explicitly stated I was reconsidering the specific example. Again, re-read the post. I went so far as to state that if Brodie's argument holds, I will likely change my position.

Here is the relevant portion: "I'm certainly amenable to changing my position on the matter, and have done so several times to date. If Brodie's case on the Elijah-Elisha argument is reasonably strong, then I will probably do so again."

If that doesn't mean I'm reconsidering it, I'm not sure what does. I am trying to be as clear as I possibly can, perhaps you can suggest a way I could have expressed it more lucidly.

The If-then reasoning is valid, which has nothing to do with what you've stated. If 1) There is history behind the gospels (a point I'm not about to begin debating, the polemic has worn out its welcome with me) and 2) Nobody would make something up then 3) That something is true. This is about the closest thing to an axiomatically valid argument you're ever going to come across in this field: Something that isn't made up is by definition not made up.

What I stated, mere moments later, is that I am not sure if premise 2 is met in the current situation, and won't be sure until I've more fully investigated it.

So, if 1 and 2 are true, then 3. This does not state, one way or the other, that 1 and 2 are true in this situation. I was explaining the outline of the argument, I quite clearly stated that I wasn't sure if the premises were valid.

If you grab a hamster by the tail, his eyes will pop out. This is a true statement. Hamster's don't have tails. Same idea, outlining an argument, not arguing a position.

In other words, it was a strawman.

The thumbs was a nice touch. Such subtle ad hominems are wholly inappropriate.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
Let me add some more evidence for the "not historical" position:

Mark 11: (KJV)
15 "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Based on the descriptions of the Temple by contemporary authors this would have been Impossible. Therefore, "Mark's" Jesus' Spring Cleaning story must not be historical. Any evidence only involving the Possible as opposed to the Impossible would be insignificant by comparison. The credibility of Possible evidence supporting historicity would be in doubt due to the author claiming an Impossible action. Even though they are insignificant by comparison other Possible evidence that Jesus' Spring Cleaning was not historical are:

1) The way "Mark" writes the related story indicates that he was unaware that an Impossible action would be required creating doubt as to the entire story.

2) "Matthew" and "Luke" while writing replacements for "Mark" largely copy his related story indicating that they lacked an alternative based on history.

3) During "Mark's" Jesus' Trial Jesus is never charged with the Temple disturbance which would have been a capital offense. If part of a story is not plausible this creates doubt as to the entire story.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Amaleq13

I understood you were reconsidering arguments related to the "how" but the If-Then reasoning, specifically point #2, seems to me to pertain to the "why". I understood Vorkosigan to be offering Brodie as a "how" since he expressed no interest in the "why" question you brought up.

I agree that the reasoning, in the abstract, is entirely valid but I was pointing out that it no longer appeared valid in the specific since we could not longer assume "no one would make it up".

I'm well aware that you are either unwilling or unable to defend this conclusion but I would think this would prevent you from repeatedly asserting it. After all, aren't you the same guy who keeps telling others that they have to defend their claims?

This addresses the "why" question rather than the "how" question you have stated may be reconsidered. Since there clearly is a motive to fabricate the story, I was questioning why you continued to include it. I don't see anywhere that you indicate you're also reconsidering the "why" as well as the "how" issue addressed by Brodie's Elisha-Elija argument. If you consider it to address both, then all the better, I suppose. But I still think the author of Mark, himself, provides a sufficient answer to the "why" question and, thus, eliminates the second premise.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to reiterate the argument since no one was questioning the logical structure but I completely understand that you do not wish to argue a position.

So subtle as to be nonexistent, actually. I'm afraid you are, once again, mistaken in your perception of a personal attack. I was being entirely genuine in offering you kudos for displaying a willingness to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. If I was being sarcastic I would have used this one:

Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan explicitly stated that he was addressing the "why." Couldn't have been clearer about it. If he wasn't, I wouldn't be as intrigued as I am by the argument. Have you been reading the thread?

"How" would be the use of Nehemiah. "Why" would be to keep his gospel in tune with the narrative framework of Elijah/Elisha. The former nobody has questioned--Mark's narrative is doubtlessly shaped by scripture. The latter I'll need to look into further.

You were pointing out no such thing. What you were doing was ascribing to me a continuation of an argument I had ceased making.

I haven't asserted it as anything more than the framework I work within. Call it unwilling, unable, a priori, presupposed, presuming ground zero, whatever other spiffy ad hominem/ad hoc response you've got. I'm done debating the Jesus-Myth. I've grown weary of the polemic.

I continued to include it because Vorkosigan was inquiring as to how my reasoning was working. That is how the reasoning was working. As you've concurred, it was perfectly sound, presuming the accuracy of all the premises. The premises have been challenged, I'll have to look at it again. That's how it works.

The reasoning employed remains the same, and remains valid--that is, given true premises it will churn out a correct answer--regardless of whether or not the premises actually are true. And if you pick a hamster up by the tail, his eyes will pop out. Informal logic is great stuff.

Once again, you might want to reread the post. Or perhaps the entire thread.

Why does everyone think an ad hominem is necessarily a flagrant personal attack?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

You are correct. :thumbs: I missed the sentence after he rejected the "why" question as meaningful where he indicated Brodie can be considered to address it.

I consider the behavior to be an example of failing to do that which one frequently requires of others (ie supporting asserted conclusions).

As Vorkosigan has already pointed out, you are the only participant to mention it. Repeatedly. Questioning whether there is any historical basis for the Temple disruption scene does not require a mythical Jesus. In fact, questioning whether there is any reliable history in any of the Gospel stories does not require a mythical Jesus. I'm not sure why you actually do not wish to explain/defend your asserted conclusion but this appeal to a desire to avoid yet another Jesus Myth argument would appear to be a red herring.

I took your advice and reread the thread but I don't see this question. What I do see, however, is a repeated question about why you think there is any kernel of history to this particular story. Premise # 1 speaks to the general presence of history somewhere in the Gospels so it isn't relevant to the question. Premise #2 would appear to be addressed by the story, itself, though you prefer to consider Brodie before deciding. Regardless, given that you stated both were required for the conclusion and #1 clearly isn't relevant, I still don't understand why repeating your reasoning answers his repeated question.

It doesn't have to be flagrant. It just has to be real.

Riddick

you must think people are very, very gullible.

Vorkosigan

Gullibility has nothing to do with it. Do you have substantive response to the issues raised. For example, can you show that there is some underlying history to the Temple Ruckus?

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

No, it would be another strawman. My position ran from the broad (the gospels have an historical basis) to the specific. From premise 1) to premise 2). Premise 1) is precisely the point I stated from the outset of this thread I wanted no part of discussing. It is nonetheless an integral premise to my position. You either need to allow it as a working hypothesis, or it should have been stopped from the get-go.

You would rephrase my argument such that it ignores the broad, and exists only specific to this pericope. It's not going to work like that.


And yes, if the gospel narratives are historically based, there is an historical Jesus. It is not that the Jesus-Myth is integral to your position, it's that the historicity of Jesus is integral to mine. The only "red herring" occurs in your perpetual reshaping of the argument being presented.

I have substantially and intentionally kept the discussion of that integral premise to a minimum, noting only that the divergent frameworks limit the opposing parties, and noting in my position that the conviction that the gospels hold an historical core needs to be granted, because it will not be argued. I don't argue the Jesus-Myth. It does not matter how much you rant about me not defending my position, I've defended my position on this forum and others just like it for years. I'm sick of doing it. It's now my working hypothesis. This is non-negotiable--you can take it, henceforth, as a given in absolutely every thread you will partake in with me. If that bothers you, then perhaps it's best that we simply not engage each other.

Thus, for an example of attempting to keep it at a minimum, we do not see a reiteration of the arguments of Sanders for the "Temple Tantrum" in _Jesus and Judaism_, despite the fact that such a discussion would doubtlessly be beneficial to my position. We do not take a look at how a merging of the arguments of Sanders and Fredriksen work substantially against Fredriksen's conclusion regarding the temple tantrum. We do not see, in short, arguments hinged on a reconstruction.

Premise 1 leads to the conclusion when joined with premise 2. Premise 2 has since been challenged, and will need to be reviewed.

If the gospels do not have an historical core (premise 1) then all we can discern from premise 2 is that they *believed* that something they would not have made up was true--they, perhaps through mimesis, through hallucination, through too much wine, believed they were conveying something accurate. Working from premise 1, it becomes far more reasonable to conclude that it *is* true.

I think you might be unclear as to what an ad hominem is.

This has become pedantic and polemical, and shifted us substantially away from the topic at hand. I have explained to you precisely what I intended to convey, I have noted that I was explaining my *reasoning* behind an argument I had already stated I will need to investigate further, not reiterating the argument itself. If you took it otherwise, you were mistaken. Your reason for taking it otherwise shifts with the wind, from my failure to state that I would reconsider in the face of new evidence (false) to an attribution of intent to Vorkosigan that was diametrically opposed to his explicit statement (also false), to a rephrasing of my argument such that it is suddenly couched in terms of your position (still false).

You were mistaken. Period. There is no better source for what I intended to convey than me. Period. This is an inescapable fact.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Rick, there is no logical connection from premise 1 to premise 2. If we hear a rumor that Grant was drunk at Shiloh, it does not follow that because Grant drank (or had historical existence), he must have been drunk at Shiloh. Premise 2 (Grant being drunk at time X) must still be demonstrated using positive evidence. Similarly, the existence of an HJ does not mean that the HJ made a ruckus in the Temple. Neither Amaleq nor I has addressed the existence of the HJ; I personally do not know how that question is to be answered. I am confining myself to demonstrating that the Markan gospel is a probable fiction, a task for which reasonable methodologies exist.

Looking forward to your analysis of Brodie's arguments.

Vorkosigan