chockfull

https://thespeakerlab.com/blog/what-are-ethos-pathos-and-logos/?utm_content=adwords&utm_term=&utm_campaign=NB-DSA&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=6969354497&hsa_cam=20941585374&hsa_grp=159420316202&hsa_ad=687905008745&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=dsa-19959388920&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAABVcvFRQ2sprRVBs1aCKeTnb6tkDr&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz6fz0-PYhAMV3jmtBh2BEwKqEAAYASAAEgLgz_D_BwE Here is a little more content on logos pathos and ethos from a speakers perspective. Aristotle postulated that all convincing dialogue originates from these elements. If you consider them also as elements of how people make decisions it gets interesting. The mind (rationale) the authority appeal or credibility appeal and the emotional appeal. It also seems like it might provide some context to investigating “how I got involved with this cult” type of thought patterns.

Looking at some writings by Aristotle, I came across a method for rhetorical analysis of writings, speeches, texts, etc. https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/rhetorical-analysis/ Since we are analyzing the Bible and various other works I thought it might be interesting to introduce this angle of analysis. It leads to such questions as what is the logical appeal? Emotional appeal? Or appeal to authority? This might be also helpful in an analytic discussion.

Yeah I’m thinking I’m gonna go with Captain Ahab.

Cool. Obscure victim images. Labeling questions as hatred. Is this representative of the fruit we can expect from “Christians”? Asking for the world.

Is the point that you have an undisclosed Christian Fundamentalist bias? Or disclosed? I used to be Fundamentalist. I spent countless hours of mental manipulation ingraining apologist and absolute views of scripture into my brain: Then I got involved with VPs “How the Word Interprets Itself” in PFAL. Then that led to more countless hours pouring over collateral books trying to ingrain the VP stretches of scripture and short attention span homiletics into my brain as well. It took quite a while to see the hook in that fishing rig. It was baited with intellectualism, belonging in a group, a feeling of superiority. But that house is built on sand not rock.

So consensus says this john would be John the evangelist, different from John the apostle, different than gospel John author. Ironically, this would be a quote from scripture in a book. What was he writing about? I think it was Jesus. The quote sounds like he was with Jesus like John apostle but this was a different guy who lived later who likely never met Jesus. The words are inspiring though using a figure of speech to refer to “Word” as life filled, getting people to expect a bigger “life” quality reading this “Word” So accuracy? Not so much Inspiring language? It’s there.

Cool video. He delves into Project Historicity by describing “The Historic Method” which to me seems like a pretty good model based upon the Scientific Method to evaluate history.

That’s a nice review. Mr Stewart writes well himself. Congratulations!

Yeah I’ve just started disclose bias up front. It’s going to be there regardless of whether people think it’s not because they presume they have the “truth”. Fundamentalists, Atheists, Non Fund Christians, Buddhists, Moslem, Jewish All would have some distinct bias on this topic that would need to be highlighted to make progress towards any resolution.

There was the Jerusalem visit in Acts right? The one that 100 percent of all Way splinter faction cults totally relate to how legalistic whatever current group is running the Way are? Small intersection of the Peter and Paul saga. And two thirds of a 60s band lol. With respect to this forum it is completely logical to treat the Bible as a written source no different than other written sources.

"If indeed ne ought to call him a man." Josephus didn't write that. Someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah, or God Himself, wrote that. Josephus was also not one to remark on "surprising deeds" without getting specific. "Won over many Jews and Greeks..." to what? In context, the TF is part of a list of things Pilate did that got the Jews angry. Why include something, the execution of a heretic, that would not have angered the Jews? The resurrection is treated with no explanation whatsoever. Did he escape the crucifixion? Or did he die and get up? He states neither, and HE WOULD HAVE. "The prophets of God foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him"? Who other than a devout Christian would have written such a thing? A thousand other marvels? Come now. Josephus was not a Christian, devout or otherwise. The TF, beginning to end, is a credal statement, not a historical one. I am inclined to accept Carrier's explanation over Mason's on this one, the scholarly consensus against Carrier notwithstanding. Eusebius made it up. Ah, Tacitus. I actually reached my conclusion about Tacitus before I read Carrier, my only exposure to the controversy being Ehrman's pro-historicity book. Tacitus writes in 116 AD. After describing the great fire of Rome (64 AD) and Nero's attempt to blame it on Christians. Tacitus writes: I believe this passage is authentic. I do not believe it proves the history of the crucifixion, for a number of reasons. Primarily, the crucifixion is an aside to the point being made, which is that Nero blamed Christians for the great fire. So Tacitus had to define who Christians were. Well, by that time, the gospels were likely circulating by most accounts. It is doubtful that Tacitus independently sought out the records of Pilate's crucifixion to verify the execution of Jesus. It is far more likely, given the content and context of this passage, that Tacitus was merely relaying what Christians believed. He may have even believed it himself! But he cites no records and gives no indication that he is vouching for the accuracy of the account. It would be very much like me citing the date that Joseph Smith found the gold plates from which he translated the book of Mormon, knowing full well a. when it was alleged to have happened and b. that it did not. Tacitus tells us what Christians believed in the early second century, not what actually transpired in the early first. He does tell us that by 64 AD one could distinguish in the Roman empire those who called themselves Christians and those who called themselves Jews. But that was not in dispute. We know that from Paul. Carrier, if I am not mistaken, is open to the possibility that the Tacitus passage on Christ (note: not "Jesus) was a later interpolation. I don't think that position is worth considering. I think it is far more likely that Tacitus was reflecting what Christians believed, not what he had independently confirmed. Tacitus description of Rome is downright hilarious and the best I’ve ever read It is plausible that there is a scribe or forgery error in Josephus or Eusibius or that one or the other had an agenda. This thread is turning out like one of those hour long “In Search Of” shows I’ve seen. Sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle, etc. I guess some might also spin off a thread on a literary criticism of Moby Dick? Or we might also do a dueling verses thread on hypocrisy and logic in the OT? I guess the old VP rant on how where the Bible speaks on history it is accurate fundamentalism view isn’t exactly true or accurate?

Allan, you’re losing me a little with this comment. I just started watching this guys YouTube channel where he has a series of teachings to his own local community church about cults. He is as part of a denomination probably adhering to some of the creeds which have a trinitarian statement in them. I really don’t know everything that guy believes. I did read in his background that he tried a TWI fellowship, was not inspired, then joined that church and has been with them for a while going to seminary and taking an associate pastor role in his church. Hence the advanced studies cult videos. I was more interested in the content he presented as opposed to his theological orientation. I found many many practical similarities and almost identical practices spanning a wide variety of cults that he covered. It seemed to me the cults were all way similar compared to more community oriented Christian churches in their methods of control over the lay follower. You may find a different conclusion. In any sense no I am not saying anywhere that a trinitarian view identifies a cult. If that pastor guy said it I don’t agree.

Revisiting the question. To consolidate I would say it is because it makes me a better person in my opinion. It drives me towards virtue and away from vice. Which is funny as it would be very similar to the answers I’d get asking some of my friends about why they are Moslem or Jewish or Buddhist. I don’t think about any reasons such as it making me more special than my friends. So I’m not cut out to be the next Joel Olsteen.

Saul of Tarsus could become the linchpin in someone’s faith I guess. I mean if you just compare surface stories it might show similarities between Saul of Tarsus, Joseph of Utah, and Victor of Ohio. Should we do a harmony of the meeting Jesus stories?

The essence is questioning the reliability of Josephus given nobody claims divine inspiration for his writings but many want to squeeze that last bit of profit making juice out of scriptural writing.

3rd party from the authority. Its the North Korea News Network oh the dictator is so smart, accomplished, beautiful, desired, intelligent. Long live the dictator.

Ok so we have an immigrant who doesn’t speak the common language writing history in the new language. And he might have mixed in a few inappropriate colloquialisms like me learning all the cuss words in Spanish first? And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources? Sheesh the first 100 yards of this walk is nothing but garbage laying around.

Yeah and also we have the VPW “new and improved harmony of the gospels 2.0” in the book written by Charlene’s co-workers “Jesus Christ Our Passover”. The lack of harmony produced a gap allowing Metallica to insert a band in there and make their own harmony with “Enter the Sandman” and “Nothing Else Matters”. As an obscure reference, this also won’t translate lol

So the Google translate of the 2nd century did a real bad job translating jokes? I guess that is why TWI latched onto George Lamsa and the other manners and customs guy so hard. Any language departing from the direct description and going into ideology or myth or stories doesn’t translate well at all. And vague language gives plenty of room for extreme interpretation. And extreme fundamentalist interpretation is where VP lived breathed and made his fortune off of unsuspecting dupes like us.

So to clarify my bias I kinda rejected giving a f about a priests opinion written in Latin about a biased history account written around Christs lifetime. Maybe this is a fundamentalist argument that I do not care about enough to give proper attention to all the arguments of the anthropologists dusting pottery shards. I haven’t read Carrier all the way just a summary so I will to grasp that perspective.

Well thankfully we have RC history to describe it in Latin, label it FT for obscurity, and assign a priest with a doctoral degree to safeguard it as “doctrine”. I’ve read literary works translated from their original language to English. I think I miss a fair deal of context from just that. Chaucer might not communicate the same Over Google Translate. Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper? It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact. Eusebius if I remember right was 2nd century I have to read up again on him it’s been a while. I think he supposedly quotes Josephus also. But I remember thinking when reading Eusebius that whoever writes down their opinion becomes the surviving view of the time. There were not multiple people writing with different viewpoints. I think the harmony of the gospels seems like the first attempt at a consolidated history.

On the who pretended to be whom front do you have any anthropological references on Pauline epistles? What are your sources? There is a common storyline of Paul in prison verbally dictating letters to a scribe. Where does this fit in to forgery theories or allegations?

What is my bias in this discussion? I have departed from fundamentalist views and as such don’t hold as high of a value on “textual criticism” or modern anthropology extrapolating truth from pottery shards in as high of a regard as I did while a cult member. Disclosure statement.

Thank you. From sentence 4 the scholarly consensus if you have to call it that was that it has an “authentic nucleus” with interpolations.

Yes from delving into Josephus and Eusebius by reading them they are opinionated and there is no baseline of “scientific method” to measure their writings against. And there is evidence of forgeries there like the old scriptural artifacts from what I’ve read.