|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2002 : 03:34:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Starman:
Yes. By reading the articles linked in this thread, it seems to me ...
It seems to me that you're a fool driven by a naive bias masked as skepticism. I recommend that you await the presentation, and peer review, of the evidence before calling into question the credibility and/or ethics of those doing the work - unless, of course, you have some expertise in the field which might render your judgements substantive.
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 04:34:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems to me that you're a fool driven by a naive bias masked as skepticism.
Well thank you very much.
I agree that I have no reason to question their ethics, that came out wrong. Guess I was a little quick with the answer.
I do question the conclusions presented by CNN, WP, NS and BAR, so I guess I'm questioning the the credibility of those articles. I find this topic very interesting but filled with bias, greed, deceit, fraud and arrogance.
Of course I look forward to a proper presentation and peer review.
Tank you for pointing out my error.
I can't help you with your insolence or arrogance.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 06:16:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Starman wrote:
Tank you for pointing out my error.
I can't help you with your insolence or arrogance.
Yawn!
You wrote:- The box can't be dated reliably, it has unclear history and is being investigated by believers. Yawn! [emphasis added - RD]
I asked:- ... do you have any reason to question the ethic or credibility of those doing the investigation?
You responded:You now write:- Tank you for pointing out my error. I can't help you with your insolence or arrogance.
You begin with a baseless ad hominem attack on those doing the investigation. You then acknowledge that you are impuning their credibility. And then, when challenged, you attack me for "insolence and arrogance". You may wish to reflect upon the insolence, arrogance, and bias inherent in you initial dismissal.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 06:18:02 [Permalink]
|
For those who missed the PBS interview last light: LINK TO JESUS?
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 06:18:33 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 07:15:23 [Permalink]
|
I've acknowledged that I had no reason question the ethics of the investigators. My questioning of their credibility came from reading the articles, and I admit that this is unfair as I have not read a proper presentation of their conclusions.
My opinion that you are insolent and arrogant was based on your previous post and your reply did nothing to change that opinion.
Guess I'll move to room 12A just along the corridor...
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 09:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Even with this PBS group you find their religious beliefs infringing on their scientific work. Not as bad as with André Lemaire, but still pretty strong.
First is their presupposition that there was an historic Jesus. I suppose that that is a problem inherent with people who are drawn to specialize in biblical archeology. If your run of the mill archeologist found a coffin at Olympus that read Hercules brother of Apollo he would assume that they were named after the gods and weren't the gods themselves.
This group, like Lermaire, has some how figured out the odds, only theirs are much better than the Frenchman's---a twenty-five to thirty-three percent chance instead of only five. Still lousy odds, still contingent on an unproven historic Jesus but they seem fairly ready to declare themselves winners. This is where faith seems to be over shadowing the scientific method.
I find it interesting that they have decided that the Jesus mentioned has his name there because he was well known although already dead-and therefore our Jesus. A more mundane scenario -which would make it somewhat more likely- would be that this Joshua (that's what the box says) was a loving, surviving brother who paid a pretty penny for Jacob's (the box again) bones internment. And had his own name sentimentally included in the inscription.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 10:23:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
Even with this PBS group you find their religious beliefs infringing on their scientific work. Not as bad as with André Lemaire, but still pretty strong. First is their presupposition that there was an historic Jesus.
In what way is the presupposition that there was an historic Jesus necessarily indicative of religious beliefs?
quote:
Slater wrote:
I suppose that that is a problem inherent with people who are drawn to specialize in biblical archeology.
Actually, while Herschel Shanks of BAR is obviously drawn to biblical archaeology, I believe that both Andre Lemaire and Kyle McCarter are experts in Semitic languages, paleography, and epigraphy. I've read nothing that might impune their credentials.
quote:
Slater wrote:
This group, like Lermaire, has some how figured out the odds, only theirs are much better than the Frenchman's---a twenty-five to thirty-three percent chance instead of only five.
I'm sorry. I don't understand where these numbers come from.
quote:
Slater wrote:
This is where faith seems to be over shadowing the scientific method.
I read nothing about the scientific methods employed to ascertain authenticity. I suspect that it will be presented in the upcoming article and subjected to a fully appropriate peer review. While I see evidence of enthusiasm, I see nothing to suggest the over shadowing of scientific method.
quote:
Slater wrote:
I find it interesting that they have decided that the Jesus mentioned has his name there because he was well known although already dead-and therefore our Jesus. A more mundane scenario -which would make it somewhat more likely- would be that this Joshua (that's what the box says) was a loving, surviving brother who paid a pretty penny for Jacob's (the box again) bones internment. And had his own name sentimentally included in the inscription.
Apparently, of the slightly less than 900 ossuaries catalogued, references to a third party are exceedingly rare as opposed to mundane (i.e., commonplace). We can, of course, speculate on all kinds of scenarios but, at some point, we start sounding very much like those apologists who stretch and strain to make sense of Biblical contradictions. Perhaps the best approach is to sit tight and wait for the magazine.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 10:26:05 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 10:58:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sorry. I don't understand where these numbers come from.
Quote from PBS article
HERSHEL SHANKS: Well, yeah. You have... we spoke about the authenticity. It's been tested by the Geological Survey of Israel too, so they find that it passes that test. A great Aramaic expert studied the language, and he finds that it passes that test. So there's little or no... virtually no question about its authenticity. But as Kyle said, it's a different question as to whether the three characters mentioned here are the three personages from the New Testament.
And there I think that one of the... you can figure out statistically what the chances of this occurring. Actually it's... statistically…it's about three-and-a-half or four people whose name is James, whose father is Joseph, and who has a brother Jesus. There are three or four people. But the clincher is that this identification is on an ossuary.
-----------------------
André Lemaire was quoted as saying that the number was twenty in the CNN piece.
The percentages of 33, 25 and 5 were from me counting on my fingers--as 1 in 20 is 5%, 1 in 4 is 25%.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 11:48:39 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, Slater, but I still do not understand the sourse of your "twenty-five to thirty-three percent chance instead of only five."
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 11:49:46 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 12:31:48 [Permalink]
|
André Lemaire said that there were twenty guys named James who were at the right time and place and had relatives with the correct names. Assuming that there was a historic St James then the odds of him being in that box are one in twenty. That's a five percent chance.
Shanks thinks that there were only three or four James' who fit the bill. Again making the assumption of an historic James being one of them that gives you better odds. But they are still only 25% to 33.33%.
And these odds only hold if you know you have the historic Saint James as part of the group. Since we don't even know that we are left with a lot of wishful thinking.
Odd when a few years back a tomb (see my above URL) was discovered with Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Matthew and some more (The Professor and MaryAnn) it was laughed off as coincidence. Why? Because Jesus didn't really die, and he didn't have a son (whose box was also there). A formally sexually active, now dead, Jesus can't be the real Jesus even if his mom and stepdad are there. But this James is okay because he's allowed to be dead.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 13:18:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
André Lemaire said that there were twenty guys named James who were at the right time and place and had relatives with the correct names. Assuming that there was a historic St James then the odds of him being in that box are one in twenty. That's a five percent chance. Shanks thinks that there were only three or four James' who fit the bill. Again making the assumption of an historic James being one of them that gives you better odds. But they are still only 25% to 33.33%.[/b]
Sorry. You're right, of course. I was focusing on a different set of statistics and missing your point.
At issue, it seems to me, is what percentage of the male population these 3-20 people represented. What is the likelihood of finding one of them uniquely memorialized (i.e., reference to both the father and brother) in one out of perhaps 850 ossuaries? It seems to me to be a striking coincidence. We'll see ... maybe.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 19:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
terg:
Is not ancient history littered with such mythical accretions?
I await an answer to the above query.
quote:
Slater:
Magic does not happen in the actual world, only in people's imaginations. Therefore nonfiction stories do not have actual magic happening as their centerpiece.
Mythical stories about historical characters do indeed have magic as a central plot element. All the more so when the historical character was a “faith healer” to begin with.
quote:
Slater:
There is no Rabbi, itinerant or otherwise, from this period named Jesus who was recorded by history.
Assuming that nothing in the gospels is a record of actual history, this is clearly so. I thought that was the question at hand.
quote:
Slater:
You have no quotations that are verifiable.
This does not imply that we have no actual quotations, merely that we cannot know whether any of the sayings we do have are authentic. Sounds like a case for historical agnosticism to me.
In any event, what exactly counts as verifiable? Written down in more than one source?
quote:
Slater:
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Why is it so hard for you to remain cordial?
By way of answer, though, perhaps you mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.
quote:
Slater:
The Christians today have found no historic personage to point to as their Jesus. Nobody.
What might they have found that they did not? Secular biographies free of any embellishment? Did other Jewish rabbis have those?
quote:
Slater:
Since we do not know if they depict, even vaguely, historic events then we cannot claim that they do.
You have already admitted that they do depict several actual historical personages, so the above claim appears to be false.
quote:
Slater:
What you do have is a retelling of Hellenistic myths.
The famed Greek myth of the wandering Jewish rabbi/cynic/sage with Messianic pretensions, complete with real Roman and Judean characters! I remember that one. :D
quote:
Slater:
All of the oldest NT's are in Greek, without exception.
And thus the sayings found therein must have been originally composed in Greek? I fail to see the sequitur here.
One might rightly claim that all of the oldest extant OT manuscripts (LXX) are in Greek, without exception. Does it follow that it was originally composed in that language?
quote:
Slater:
A few towns are put in the wrong order [in the narrative of Mark].
If you please, where in the narrative does this occur?
quote:
Slater:
Again with your ridiculous Q sayings.
The hypothetical quelle was not my ridiculous idea, but I appreciate the gesture. As you may recall, I was asking whether the sayings themselves appear spurious in some way, e.g. poor knowledge of first century Palestinian geography/culture, obvious predecessors in Greek thought, etc.
quote:
Slater:
There isn't any Nazareth. The town called Nazareth today is named after the place in the bible.
Can you give me a reference on that, or shall I simply take your word for it? It might be friendly, but none too skeptical, for me to choose the latter option.
quote:
terg:
Were Cćsar or other ancient figures of renown reputed to have magical abilities?
Yes or no?
quote:
Slater:
Are you making a point or do you just like to hear yourself type?
Was it so difficult a question as to make an insult the most appealing answer? I would not think such close-minded and rude behavior either skeptical or friendly.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 03:23:21 [Permalink]
|
tergiversant - Quite frankly, you're getting tiresome. Do you have a point?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 05:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Honest question to RD and Slater:
Why are you guys choosing such seemingly rude and contemptuous "tones" in your replies to tergiversant? (I can understand it in regard to darwin alogos...) He's been nothing but polite in his inquiries. If you think his arguments or questions are unsound, does it serve a purpose to the discussion to reply this way, or is it simply entertaining for some reason?
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 06:31:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer wrote: Honest question to RD and Slater: Why are you guys choosing such seemingly rude and contemptuous "tones" in your replies to tergiversant? (I can understand it in regard to darwin alogos...) He's been nothing but polite in his inquiries. If you think his arguments or questions are unsound, does it serve a purpose to the discussion to reply this way, or is it simply entertaining for some reason? [emphasis added - RD]
He has also, in my opinion, been tiresome and pointless. While I cannot speak for Slater, my question to tergiversant was an honest one.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
