Toto

Be fair. That's not exactly what he said. He said that any evidence brought forth at this point would probably be just another Christian forgery.

Shesh has changed his mind on some things.

ApostateAbe

Do you take seriously any of the scholarly methods of telling the difference between forgery and authenticity? Such as dissimilarity, linguistics, radiometric dating, and provenance? Or must such hypothetical documents be forgeries because otherwise they would undercut your faith?

Sheshbazzar

Most certainly. I arrived here a staunch believer in the truth and integrity of the Bible's accounts. Some seven years I continued my battle on the other side.

Sheshbazzar

Certainly I would take all of these things into consideration, but as your proposed lost 'documents' are at present all 'hypothetical', I can hardly be expected to be able to examine or judge the accuracy of any of these as yet unaccomplished things.

I expect that in due time the collective evidence will vindicate that explanation I presented in post #9 above

ApostateAbe

Sheshbazzar, a test that I often employ for determining the level of dogmatism of people with positions of faith is to ask them, "Can you imagine any set of hypothetical evidence that would cause you to accept the probability of an opposing position?". With you, all signs are pointing to you having just as much an irrational faith as other religious adherents. What can you claim that would correct such an opinion? What evidence can you imagine?

avi

I followed Sheshbazzar and dog-on, and selected most likely fiction.

I wish that JustSteve, or someone else, could summarize one or two references that document the existence of john the baptizer outside the Christian/Islamic literature.

avi

Sheshbazzar

We have already covered this ground;
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
You are hung up on your imagined 'hypothetical evidence' (of which you have NONE, NADA, ZIP)
IF- I could 'imagine' any such 'hypothetical' evidence sufficient to shake or significantly alter my view or "accept the probability of an opposing position",
I would not be holding the position or views that I presently am.
I am not 'open' to any 'possibilities' that there was ever any such person as is described in the NT. Or that any 'historically' identifiable figure was ever behind the christian myths.

No amount of cunningly insulting argument is going to change that position. All it serves is to cause me to be increasingly disgusted with those who attempt to employ such asinine manipulations.

ApostateAbe

Thank you, Sheshbazzar. No more questions for the defendant.

andrewcriddle

I voted likely historical because the idea that Jesus apparently needed purifying/commissioning/appointing by John causes more problems for early Christianity than it solves.

If it was not part of the original tradition it would not have been invented.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Thanks Andrew. I am very suspicious of this logic. I think in particular of the famous text about the adulteress (John 8:7). Text was added, not necessarily because it appeals to, or displeases us, or even those living at that time. There could well have been other factors, which led to inclusion of the John the Baptist stories....

Did the earliest versions (circa 16th century) of Robin Hood have elaboration of a Moor of African descent, who accompanied, and aided, the son of the Earl of Loxley back from the Crusades after escaping from a Muslim prison?

In fact, Andrew, didn't the earliest versions of the story portray Robin as a yeoman, and not a member of the English nobility at all....?

That John the Baptist's role was deemed important, is confirmed by Constantine's assignment of his birthday on the summer solstice, the single most important holiday of the pagan calendar, and no, to answer again your earlier question to me, on this subject, no, I have still not located that reference....

John the Baptist must have been more than just an afterthought, though, for else, why would the Muslims have accepted his status as prophet? Still, I cannot accept the idea, without documentary evidence, that he has always been in the original texts of the gospels. I don't know, one way or the other, but, I simply do not accept the idea that we can accept JtB's inclusion in the original version, simply because of the awkwardness of the concept--a human purifying a deity!!! Pretty silly.

avi