Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-20-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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

Honestly?

Does anyone believe that this is the real TedM speaking?

TedM · 08-20-2013, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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

Honestly?

Does anyone believe that this is the real TedM speaking?

I put that in just for you spin! I figured the odds were very good that you'd have something to say in response

spin · 08-20-2013, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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

Honestly?

Does anyone believe that this is the real TedM speaking?

I put that in just for you spin! I figured the odds were very good that you'd have something to say in response

I'll wait for the real people to respond.

ficino · 08-20-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

And remember, the message from the get-go was of a crucified and risen messiah. So that's attractive on a lot of levels. Second, it may seem that it would be hard for the message to be taken seriously had there not been a real person at its core, as you say, but I think here you rely on unwarranted assumptions. It is not hard for stories to spread;

It's the Messiah. Expected to be a man. A king. To deliver them from real oppression.

The expectation held by some Jews in the first century apparently did not exclude a suffering, killed and risen messiah, if the tablet bought by Jesselman is genuine. It's been dated to the end of the first century BCE based on the letter forms. It presents a prophecy that uses various OT materials and also has the idea that the messiah will be killed and rise on the third day. You may have already seen reports about it; here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Not surprisingly, people of different ideological stances have already accomodated this stone's message to their own interpretations. I think for our discussion, at least, it seems to show that there was a receptive market for a message of a risen messiah. I think this threatens the assumption that the early promoters of the Jesus-messiah cult would have anticipated difficulty with the crucified messiah part of their crucified+risen message.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

And remember, the message from the get-go was of a crucified and risen messiah. So that's attractive on a lot of levels. Second, it may seem that it would be hard for the message to be taken seriously had there not been a real person at its core, as you say, but I think here you rely on unwarranted assumptions. It is not hard for stories to spread;

It's the Messiah. Expected to be a man. A king. To deliver them from real oppression.

The expectation held by some Jews in the first century apparently did not exclude a suffering, killed and risen messiah, if the tablet bought by Jesselman is genuine. It's been dated to the end of the first century BCE based on the letter forms. It presents a prophecy that uses various OT materials and also has the idea that the messiah will be killed and rise on the third day. You may have already seen reports about it; here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Not surprisingly, people of different ideological stances have already accomodated this stone's message to their own interpretations. I think for our discussion, at least, it seems to show that there was a receptive market for a message of a risen messiah. I think this threatens the assumption that the early promoters of the Jesus-messiah cult would have anticipated difficulty with the crucified messiah part of their crucified+risen message.

It's a very important find, but the most critical part is illegible, causing it to be subject to debate. Too bad as that's the piece that is not yet established. It wouldn't surprise me but until it is we can't say that the concept of the suffering servant as Messiah preceded Jesus, I don't think.

PhilosopherJay · 08-20-2013, 10:30 AM

Hi TedM,

Again, we have to point out that fictional things can cause changes and the fact that changes are made does not negate the fictional nature of the thing.

A recent example of this came in 2009, when the term "Death Panel" was associated with the Affordable Health Care Act (Later called Obamacare). 'Death Panels' never existed in the bill. It was a fiction made up by political opponents to scare people into opposing the bill. Although it was a fiction, it resulted in the bill being changed. Supporters of the bill were embarrassed enough by the charge that they removed a provision in the bill that would have reimbursed doctors for discussing end of life alternatives with patients.

Here is a summary of the situation from Wikipedia:

Quote:

"Death panel" is a political term that originated during a 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was first used in August 2009 by Sarah Palin, the former Republican Governor of Alaska, when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel myth"[1] as nothing in any proposed legislation would have led to individuals being judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care.[2] Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

Palin's claim was reported as false and criticized by mainstream news media, fact-checkers, academics, physicians, Democrats, and some Republicans. Other prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and conservative talk radio hosts Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin backed Palin's statement. One poll showed that after it spread, about 85% of Americans were familiar with the charge and of those who were familiar with it, about 30% thought it was true.[1] Due to public concern, the provision to pay physicians for providing voluntary counseling was removed from the Senate bill and was not included in the law that was enacted, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 2011 statement, the American Society of Clinical Oncology bemoaned the politicization of the issue and said that the proposal should be revisited.

For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.

The point is that "Death Panels" was a fiction, nevertheless, hundreds of legislators were embarrassed enough by the charge that they removed a provision that would have helped millions of elderly people understand and deal better with their terminal illnesses. They changed this provision, not because the "Death Panels" charges were ever true, but simply to win support for the bill from misinformed people who mistakenly believed in the Death Panels.

In the same way, we can suggest that the story of John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus was created by Jesus' followers to win support for Jesus from John the Baptist followers. Later, when John the Baptist Followers dwindled, other issues, such as Jesus' being a sinless God came to the forefront and resulted in the necessity of changing the text. Changes to the text were deemed more effective than a simple denial of the fact, as changes to the Affordable Health Care Act were deemed more expedient than a simple denial of the existence of "Death Panels" in the act.

Fictional stories can trigger embarrassment and textual changes as well as true stories.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

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.

TedM · 08-20-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In the same way, we can suggest that the story of John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus was created by Jesus' followers to win support for Jesus from John the Baptist followers.

While possible, seems odd to try to win them over while saying 'our guy is better than your guy -- in fact your guy only existed for our guy'!

Quote:

Later, when John the Baptist Followers dwindled, other issues, such as Jesus' being a sinless God came to the forefront and resulted in the necessity of changing the text. Changes to the text were deemed more effective than a simple denial of the fact, as changes to the Affordable Health Care Act were deemed more expedient than a simple denial of the existence of "Death Panels" in the act.

Ok. Possible.

Quote:

Fictional stories can trigger embarrassment and textual changes as well as true stories.

Yes. I just don't think it is likely here for the reasons give. Well have to agree to disagree.

aa5874 · 08-20-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...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.

The baptism event is not the only story in gMark and it is already known that there are events that must have been made up. In fact, virtually all events about Jesus in gMark were made up or implausible.

It was NOT discovered that Jesus did NOT walk on the sea of Galilee, did NOT Transfigure, did NOT feed 5000 people with a pieces of bread and fish and did Not Resurrect.

It is clear that the author of gMark was NOT writing history but repeated WHAT was BELIEVED in antiquity.

People believed the Myth Fables of the Son of God in antiquity.

The Baptism event as described in gMark cannot be historical.

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

The expectation held by some Jews in the first century apparently did not exclude a suffering, killed and risen messiah, if the tablet bought by Jesselman is genuine. It's been dated to the end of the first century BCE based on the letter forms. It presents a prophecy that uses various OT materials and also has the idea that the messiah will be killed and rise on the third day. You may have already seen reports about it; here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Not surprisingly, people of different ideological stances have already accomodated this stone's message to their own interpretations. I think for our discussion, at least, it seems to show that there was a receptive market for a message of a risen messiah. I think this threatens the assumption that the early promoters of the Jesus-messiah cult would have anticipated difficulty with the crucified messiah part of their crucified+risen message.

This interpretation of the tablet has now been largely abandoned. See for example Hazon Gabriel

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2013, 01:02 PM

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:

This seems to involve Mark adding things that were a/not in pre-Markan tradition and b/ seen as problematic by post-Markan writers.

Although possible it seems a bit implausible.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.