<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127248789.972988.257450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: This painfully constructed argument has really
: hurt my interest in the rest of this course.
: Oh well - that's what mental discipline is for.

Seems to me that this guy's other material may be as suspect. I mean,
how can you possibly trust a source that has such an obvious bias?

To summarise, he's saying that if something doesn't make any sense, it must
be true. Yikes. Is there an official name for that fallacy?

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote in news:1127248789.972988.257450
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I'm taking a course at my workplace this semester,
Medieval History. The professor is currently
trying to give us a background in christianity
as it is percieved by the medieval mind, but he
spent a lot of time on Jesus as a historical figure
in his attempts to lay some groundwork.

The guy was just too big a mark, I didn't have
the heart to follow his directives to the class
and "feel free to open up a discussion".
Seriously, the guy used nothing but the four
gospels (and passing reference to the twenty-odd
apocryphal gospels) as source material for
everything he was talking about, and he's talking
it up as if it were history as accurately reported
as the reigns of the Roman emperors.

Here's the bit in the usual historical Jesus
riff that I didn't recall seeing before: he
claimed that the episode with John the Baptist
was the *best* evidence that Jesus was a historical
figure. His argument was as follows:

Jesus was claimed to be without sin.
Someone without sin wouldn't need to be baptized.
Therefore, baptizing Jesus didn't make any sense.
When people make up stories, they make up stories
that make sense.
Therefore, since something happened in the gospels
that doesn't make any sense, they had to be
records of an actual historical event.

This painfully constructed argument has really
hurt my interest in the rest of this course.
Oh well - that's what mental discipline is for.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

To summarise, he's saying that if something doesn't make any sense, it must
be true. Yikes. Is there an official name for that fallacy?

To summarise, he's saying that if something doesn't make any sense, it must
be true. Yikes. Is there an official name for that fallacy?
Klazmon.

Ah, but the story makes excellent sense. Jesus baptism was an
affirmation of the call and ministry of John, who was the role model for
his own ministry. Jesus said, "among those born of women there has
risen no one greater than John the Baptist" (Matt 11.11) And "...after
John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of
God,... 'repent, and believe in the gospel.'" (Mark 1.14f) He picked
up where John left off, and carried the gospel of God to its conclusion.

It makes excellent sense in that by being baptized Jesus identified with
the whole human race: the good, the bad and the ugly. As representative
Man he was taking upon himself "the sins of the world."

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

I'm taking a course at my workplace this semester,
Medieval History.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of workplace
offers courses in Medieval History? It sounds
cool.

To give the guy the benefit of the doubt, are you
sure this was his view (which would make him a moron),
or was he reproducing a logically flawed medieval
argument?

"How the hell did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean, when
those laws were not due for publications till about a thousand years later?"

I've asked the question, dozens of times, and never do get an answer.
Strange how that works out.

--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

I'm taking a course at my workplace this semester,
Medieval History. The professor is currently
trying to give us a background in christianity
as it is percieved by the medieval mind, but he
spent a lot of time on Jesus as a historical figure
in his attempts to lay some groundwork.

The guy was just too big a mark, I didn't have
the heart to follow his directives to the class
and "feel free to open up a discussion".
Seriously, the guy used nothing but the four
gospels (and passing reference to the twenty-odd
apocryphal gospels) as source material for
everything he was talking about, and he's talking
it up as if it were history as accurately reported
as the reigns of the Roman emperors.

Here's the bit in the usual historical Jesus
riff that I didn't recall seeing before: he
claimed that the episode with John the Baptist
was the *best* evidence that Jesus was a historical
figure. His argument was as follows:

Jesus was claimed to be without sin.
Someone without sin wouldn't need to be baptized.
Therefore, baptizing Jesus didn't make any sense.
When people make up stories, they make up stories
that make sense.
Therefore, since something happened in the gospels
that doesn't make any sense, they had to be
records of an actual historical event.

This painfully constructed argument has really
hurt my interest in the rest of this course.
Oh well - that's what mental discipline is for.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

Is that kind of like:

"How the hell did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean, when
those laws were not due for publications till about a thousand years later?"

I've asked the question, dozens of times, and never do get an answer.
Strange how that works out.

--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

Jesus was claimed to be without sin.
Someone without sin wouldn't need to be baptized.
Therefore, baptizing Jesus didn't make any sense.
When people make up stories, they make up stories
that make sense.
Therefore, since something happened in the gospels
that doesn't make any sense, they had to be
records of an actual historical event.

This painfully constructed argument has really
hurt my interest in the rest of this course.
Oh well - that's what mental discipline is for.

Asimov used a similar argument to say that Jesus must have been real. The
story of what he did to the moneylenders is so insane, he claims, that
nobody would have made it up. They were absolutely essential to the
operation of the temple and it would be worse than saying he went in and
tossed out the guys who passed the baskets on Sunday (or did when I was a
kid).

I think it has a lot more merit than the baptism story.

It "answers" another problem with the gospels.

The Romans killed several "messiahs" during this period and they also killed
*all* their followers.
This explains why Peter denied knowing Christ. He knew what was in store.
Yet only JC was killed in the gospels.
Why?

One argument was that he wanted to be killed, and used "suicide by cop" to
do it. He knew that the Romans would not allow him to get away with such a
crime because it might cause problems with the people.

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

Jesus was claimed to be without sin.
Someone without sin wouldn't need to be baptized.
Therefore, baptizing Jesus didn't make any sense.
When people make up stories, they make up stories
that make sense.
Therefore, since something happened in the gospels
that doesn't make any sense, they had to be
records of an actual historical event.

This painfully constructed argument has really
hurt my interest in the rest of this course.
Oh well - that's what mental discipline is for.

Asimov used a similar argument to say that Jesus must have been real. The
story of what he did to the moneylenders is so insane, he claims, that
nobody would have made it up. They were absolutely essential to the
operation of the temple and it would be worse than saying he went in and
tossed out the guys who passed the baskets on Sunday (or did when I was a
kid).

On 20 Sep 2005 13:39:50 -0700,

The guy was just too big a mark, I didn't have
the heart to follow his directives to the class
and "feel free to open up a discussion".
Seriously, the guy used nothing but the four
gospels (and passing reference to the twenty-odd
apocryphal gospels) as source material for
everything he was talking about,

Your problem is that you fail to recognize the writings reflected in the 4
gospels is every bit history as any other writing from the period.

Your problem is that you fail to recognize the writings reflected in the 4
gospels is every bit history as any other writing from the period.