Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 08-20-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

What I would like to see explained is this: Let's assume that the authors of Lk and Mt changed the baptism account in Mk because they didn't like how it (call it 'embarassment' if you want). How do we go from there to "it's probably historical"? I see no reason to think that the author of Mk was embarassed by it.

So what we're left with is later authors not liking an earlier version of a story. I really don't see how that's very helpful :l Lather Christians were "embarassed" with Jesus having brothers in Mk, does that mean that it's also historical? Or does it just mean that later authors had different ideas? :huh:

Good questions. If you don't like a story you remove all traces of it if you think it didn't happen.

That's one possibility, another one is to change it.

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

spin · 08-20-2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I think my argumentation must have struck you as valid. Otherwise you wouldn't be bothered with such a silly issue, and would deal with the topics.

Sadly you still haven't got an argument.

And you blather endlessly. I blew your silly 'messianist' argument out of the water and you simply ignore it and prefer to make a big deal about how sacred your 'spin' name is.. ridiculous.

Quote:

Your linguistic incapacities as regards to the analysis of what Paul says is extremely old and tired.

This is stupid. If you think so and don't really think that is says what is really does say, why don't you simply address that damn post SPIN?

Quote:

You have failed to recognize the fact that we have no anterior documents for the Johannine version in order for you to claim that the writer left out the baptism scene. That omission is pure conjecture.

On second thought, lets drop it all. You have thoroughly demonstrated to me a significant deficit in your ability to construct a logical sequence of thought. You remind me more and more of aa. There is simply no point. I've lost a lot of respect for your manner of analysis and don't want to hear anymore. I've got a lot of better things to do.

Good bye.
:wave:

And send TedM back. Watch out for the door on your way out.

:wave:

TedM · 08-20-2013, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

What I would like to see explained is this: Let's assume that the authors of Lk and Mt changed the baptism account in Mk because they didn't like how it (call it 'embarassment' if you want). How do we go from there to "it's probably historical"? I see no reason to think that the author of Mk was embarassed by it.

So what we're left with is later authors not liking an earlier version of a story. I really don't see how that's very helpful :l Lather Christians were "embarassed" with Jesus having brothers in Mk, does that mean that it's also historical? Or does it just mean that later authors had different ideas? :huh:

Good questions. If you don't like a story you remove all traces of it if you think it didn't happen.

That's one possibility, another one is to change it.

But they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing -- the actual baptism!

Quote:

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

The fact that they left the embarrassing part in argues for them thinking it was historical.

hjalti · 08-20-2013, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

That's one possibility, another one is to change it.

But they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing -- the actual baptism!

That would be to remove it, right? They changed it.

Quote:

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

The fact that they left the embarrassing part in argues for them thinking it was historical.

Well, it wasn't embarassing after they changed it, right?

But OK, let's assume that they thought that Jesus was actually batpised. -> ??? -> Jesus was probably actually baptised.

spin · 08-20-2013, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

The fact that they left the embarrassing part in argues for them thinking it was historical.

Not "historical" in any meaningful sense. You may mean they believed it really happened, like people who paid for OT3 believe that the Xenu story really happened.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

That's one possibility, another one is to change it.

But they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing -- the actual baptism!

That would be to remove it, right? They changed it.

But again, they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing.

Quote:

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

The fact that they left the embarrassing part in argues for them thinking it was historical.

Well, it wasn't embarassing after they changed it, right?

Yes, that's how we know something was going on...they tried to minimize the event without entirely removing the event.

Quote:

But OK, let's assume that they thought that Jesus was actually batpised. -> ??? -> Jesus was probably actually baptised.

Then it is huge because it means they weren't intentionally writing fiction--they had an interest in preserving history, at least as they believed it to have happened. This means they likely relied on oral tradition for the parts that weren't in gMark. If there was no such tradition of a man, they would have discovered that very quickly, and since there are good reasons scholars date these materials not long after Mark and in the 1st century, there just isn't that much time for oral traditions to have developed between Mark and their own writings.

And if 3 of them thought this it makes the event more likely to be historical than if only 1 of them did it.

Grog · 08-20-2013, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

You've seem to have missed the guy's point. Of course it was successful, but his point is that it was highly unlikely that it would be successful if it were not based on a real, historical crucifixion. THAT you cannot say had odds of 'one', because that is the question at hand.

By what calculation do you make a determination of whatmis more or less likely? From what I read of your posts, what is "more likely" is that which conforms to your presumptive bias. What do you do...what steps do you take, to control for confirmatory bias?

I am at Sea-Tac now and soon boarding, so won't be able to respond to other posts until later.

Quote:

I don't see that as significant. Why should there even have been such a stage? On what basis would anyone accept a crucified and NON-resurrected messiah? What I DO see as significant is that there was a long-standing tradition that the messiah would NOT be killed, but would be a messiah-king who would lead Israel to victory over its enemies. This is a completely different concept than a 'suffering servant'. The NT attests to this tradition. A major message of GMark was that nobody knew what Jesus was even talking about when he mentioned his impending death and resurrection because they couldn't even conceive of the Jewish Messiah dying and rising. The consistent message in the NT is that 'eyes were opened' NOT from scriptural reflection in a vacuum, but from scriptural reflection in light of odd historical events.

Quote:

3. And in that tradition is seen the genius of the cult’s message. It appeals to people of all stripes. Even the illiterate could look at pictures and see a Jesus who triumphed over the authorities who condemned and killed him. And so on.

Yes, this explains why it lasted, but what is it that lasted? Belief that a historical event occurred to a man who had God in him on earth. Not some mythical conception derived from scripture alone.

Grog · 08-20-2013, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

You've seem to have missed the guy's point. Of course it was successful, but his point is that it was highly unlikely that it would be successful if it were not based on a real, historical crucifixion. THAT you cannot say had odds of 'one', because that is the question at hand.

By what calculation do you make a determination of whatmis more or less likely? From what I read of your posts, what is "more likely" is that which conforms to your presumptive bias. What do you do...what steps do you take, to control for confirmatory bias?

I am at Sea-Tac now and soon boarding, so won't be able to respond to other posts until later.

Quote:

I don't see that as significant. Why should there even have been such a stage? On what basis would anyone accept a crucified and NON-resurrected messiah? What I DO see as significant is that there was a long-standing tradition that the messiah would NOT be killed, but would be a messiah-king who would lead Israel to victory over its enemies. This is a completely different concept than a 'suffering servant'. The NT attests to this tradition. A major message of GMark was that nobody knew what Jesus was even talking about when he mentioned his impending death and resurrection because they couldn't even conceive of the Jewish Messiah dying and rising. The consistent message in the NT is that 'eyes were opened' NOT from scriptural reflection in a vacuum, but from scriptural reflection in light of odd historical events.

Quote:

3. And in that tradition is seen the genius of the cult’s message. It appeals to people of all stripes. Even the illiterate could look at pictures and see a Jesus who triumphed over the authorities who condemned and killed him. And so on.

Yes, this explains why it lasted, but what is it that lasted? Belief that a historical event occurred to a man who had God in him on earth. Not some mythical conception derived from scripture alone.

jdboy · 08-20-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

That's one possibility, another one is to change it.

But they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing -- the actual baptism!

That would be to remove it, right? They changed it.

But again, they didn't change the most important part that was embarrassing.

Quote:

So how do you go from there to "it's probably historical"?

The fact that they left the embarrassing part in argues for them thinking it was historical.

Well, it wasn't embarassing after they changed it, right?

Yes, that's how we know something was going on...they tried to minimize the event without entirely removing the event.

Quote:

But OK, let's assume that they thought that Jesus was actually batpised. -> ??? -> Jesus was probably actually baptised.

Then it is huge because it means they weren't intentionally writing fiction--they had an interest in preserving history, at least as they believed it to have happened. This means they likely relied on oral tradition for the parts that weren't in gMark. If there was no such tradition of a man, they would have discovered that very quickly, and since there are good reasons scholars date these materials not long after Mark and in the 1st century, there just isn't that much time for oral traditions to have developed between Mark and their own writings.

And if 3 of them thought this it makes the event more likely to be historical than if only 1 of them did it.

They had an interest in FULFILLING ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. That is the only reason we have a baptism story for Jesus. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

You've seem to have missed the guy's point. Of course it was successful, but his point is that it was highly unlikely that it would be successful if it were not based on a real, historical crucifixion. THAT you cannot say had odds of 'one', because that is the question at hand.

By what calculation do you make a determination of whatmis more or less likely? From what I read of your posts, what is "more likely" is that which conforms to your presumptive bias. What do you do...what steps do you take, to control for confirmatory bias?

I am at Sea-Tac now and soon boarding, so won't be able to respond to other posts until later.

I have a pretty good knack for figuring the odds on things, and for being highly objective.

Specific to your question, I think 3 people showing signs of possible embarrassment indicates a higher likelihood of real embarrassment than only say 1 or 2. The more points of agreement, the higher the probability of confirmation. So sure we can say that everyone is different, has different thresholds of embarrassment, etc..but that doesn't work when more than one react to the same thing in a similar way.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.