Joseph of ...Arimathea?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 12:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Therefore, if you accept that position as you seem to do, then you must also accept that persons who wrote them were indeed writing about events they believed to be true.

Hence, from the writer's points of view, they were writing actual history as well as a history of their beliefs.

But yet your position remains that those ancient records have no historical value.

So do they, or don't they? You can't have it both ways.

Yes I can. You don't define or dictate ANYTHING. I don't have to do anything, the way you demand it be done. The writers were writing what their beliefs told them was true. The "Good News". That's not "actual history", and yet again you commit the fallacy of Presentism. There is a HUGE difference between what an ancient believer (long after the fact) recounts as what they believed, and actual history. It's inherently biased. You have not even demonstrated that the concept of "writing history" as we think of it today, existed for the gospel writers.

You are REALLY fucked up as an historian. You don't even get the VERY basic concepts involved here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
Quote:Yes, using this kind of "investigative technique" we could eliminate about 95% of all persons ever mentioned in antiquity


But we don't care about them. We only care about your fictional godboy. Get it now?

You see, if Cicero did not exist, so what? If your godboy did not exist, you're fucked.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 02:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 01:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, that conclusion does not logically follow. The authors may well have knowingly written fiction as their purpose was exhortation, not explication.

Then that also verifies my point, for if it was all fiction as you suggest, then he cannot use fiction to dispute fiction. It's still circular reasoning no matter how you swing it.



Quote:No one except you has claimed that.

You obviously didn't bother to read his comments on the link leading to his own thread in which he does use biblical quotes as if they reflected a truth in an effort to illustrate his points.


Quote:They are not histories of the time. They indirectly provide a history of the evolution of religious belief over a few centuries.

Exactly, but that by no means can, in any way whatsoever, negate the employment of actual history.

Wow, you really don't get it. Facepalm

The content of the Bible can be used to show that it is not actual history by pointing out its inaccuracies and contradictions.
So, quoting the Bible in no way assumes the veracity of the Bible and is not circular.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2016 09:16 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 02:51 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 01:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yeah, I already addressed that, but nobody reacted. I was surprised. Undecided

Richard Carrier notes it as a possibility. I found a reference in "On the History of Jesus" (pg 439 in the footnote):
"... Arimathaia is probably an invented word meaning 'Best Disciple Town' (ari- being a standard Greek prefix for 'best', math- being the root of 'teaching', 'doctrine', and 'disciple' [e.g. mathē, mathēsis, mathēma, mathētēs], and [-aia] being being a standard suffix of place).

There's more to his argument but that's the core.

Thanks for unfogging me, unfogged. I respect Richard Carrier, but this statement seems to be a bit of a stretch. I personally think Eusebius was correct (see RocketSurgeon's post earlier) but I'm open to correction.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: