FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-02-2001, 11:30 AM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">originally posted by Turtonm


As Campbell notes, locating Jesus firmly in the archetypal tradition:

Tribal or local heroes, such as emperor Huang Ti, Moses or the Aztec Tezcatlipoca, commit their boons to a single folk; universal heroes -- Mohammed, Jesus, Gautama Buddha -- bring a message for the entire world.
Hero with a Thousand Faces)[/B]</font>
Meta =&gt;But Cambell knows that Gutama was a real guy. So he' not talking about fictional peole, he's not even talking about people for whom we know next to nothing. He's talking about archethpical heoroes. but Douglus McAruthar could be an archetypical hero. To be archetypical it is not necessary that we don't have any of their teachings or that we know nothing about them.


Given comments like this, I find it hard to credit that you believe Campbell can support your argument that Jesus is somehow not archetypal. Even you admit that it is archetypal in many ways.


Meta =&gt;As you see for yourself, I never said Jesus was not archetypical. I never said Cambell doesn't say he isn't. I said he never says Jesus didn't exist. I think Cambell is worng on certain points about how clsoely Jesu resembles the paraells, and Cambell and Ellidade both have been criticized by many in their field. Of the three that I named, Campbell is the weaker scholar. But, I never said that he doesnt' think Jesus is archetypical, he never says Jesus didn' exist. You are so prone to distort your opponents arguments. Why do you do that?

I have no trouble agreeing that something underlies the gospel myth-constructions. But we can't know what it is. The tools we have are too blunt to tell us what is down there.

Meta =&gt;Ok so we really do have more agreement than our hostility and yamering indicates. We should just knock that off and try to have a good discussion. But all we are really arguing about is the degree. However, it's the think end of the wedge. Becasue once you start agreeing with a core in history than that core even evaporates when you start seperating it form the stroy. So either take the story or leave the whole thing. There is no reason to leave the whole thing, since the likelyhood is that Jesus did exist, so there is reason to assume that (assume mind you) the story is not very inaccurate but is actually pretty close to the truth.

Meta =&gt;IN my thread No dyin rising savior gods, I show that all of the suppossed similarities with Jesus between Buddah, Tamuz, Mithra, Herclules, Krishna, Orsiris and many others are just plian lies. Mithra did not die, was not raised was born of a rock not a virigin, and so forth. all of that is over blowen and made up.

MC, the whole story doesn't have to be parallel.

Meta =&gt;But most of the arguments that Chrsit myther's make, and most of your arguements in fact have turned on the assumption that the paraells are sooooo compelling. But now that we have whittaled them down we see they hardly exist at all. They are really pretty general, in fact so general that figures no one disputes in real life can count as archetypical. Alexander the Great was said to have had a miraculous brith to be the son of a god. Now does that mean that the Apostles just made that up about Jesus or doesn't it rather mean that archetypical heroes can be real people? Since those charatoristics were part of Jewish Messianich epectation they are not linked exclucively to the folklore or mythology of ancient paganism.

Al the Great was a real guy, he was an archetypical hero too, but we know a lot about what he did and some of what he said. So that in no way means that the Gosles are fiction and it doesnt mean that the Gospels made things up either.


No one hero point-by-point parallels any other, but as a general rule, the birth of heroes is wonderful, and often is virgin.


Meta =&gt;I've torne down all of those examples.

Campbell gives some examples in both his Masks of God series and in Hero with a Thousand Faces. It would seem from your unfamiliarity with this book, you yourself have not read it.


Meta =&gt;That just shows me that you haven't read it. Because the points at the top about what makes for mythology are right out Cambell as much as the others. And you never heard of the others so all you know of this field is popularized stuff. I've read Cambell's examples of the suppossed paralells its one of his weakest points. That all goes back to certain 19th century people (have you looked at who he's footnoting?) such as Frasure. So while I enjoy reading Cambell and I like him, he's not right about everything, and this is one of the points where he is glossing over to build up his own point.

In Transfomations of Myth Through Time he admitts to having real hatred of Christianity. In Dudley Gilford III's work Religion on Trial about the history of the history of religions discipline he documents Elliade's desire to destroy Christianity. It seems that whenever people begin arguing the Christ/mther thing its usually because they have it in for Christianity. So he's overblowing the similarities for ideological reasons.


It doesn't mean that the gospelers didn't think of that idea on their own, but just that it is a common theme and an obvious way to make the hero's birth miraculous.


Meta =&gt;That's right. But now you've reduced your orignal hypothesis to the point where it is meaningless. all it's saying is some people fit archetypical patterns, but so what? That's no proof of the lack of historicity.

This desperation to make Jesus unique won't fly. Even if the gospelers thought of an entirely new spin on the death of god -- which they did not, as the redemption myths in Zoroastrianism which predate Christianity show -- it still doesn't make it true.


Meta =&gt;No one has to work at making Jesus unique. HE fits the Jewish expectations of Messiah exactly, even so precisely that most RAbbis don't realize it. Becasue as Edersheim points out, the Talmudist tradition began to gloss over a lot of the expectations and the expectations changed from the time of Christ after the fall of the temple. So they aren't even the same list any more. They forgot completely about the death of the Messiah and his suffereing and so forth before his second coming. So they think of his second coming as his first coming. But Jesus fits the first centry expectations to a "t" and we don't need to work at making him unique since no one else in history fits. In fact Zarcharah even shows that his name would be "Jesus."

But your hypothesis has dwendaled t meaninglessness. Now when it it sutis you he's unique when it doesnt he's not. But really all the paralells have become so general that they say nothing. To that extent all the figures are unique. But if they are all unqiue that Jesus is unqiue. So really you are saying nothing.

that the question of whether this or that local carrier of the universal theme may or may not have been a historical, living man can be of only secondary moment.

MEta =&gt;It's not secondry at all. There is not the slightest implication in the NT or the Gospels


This is a quote from Campbell, MC.

Meta =&gt; Yea,I disagree with him. (Horror of horrors!)

Meta =&gt;Cambell agrees with what I've said about myth, becasue a lot of my views on it come from him. He respected Karanye and Karenye is one of the scholars behind Cambell's work. Now as to what you quote above, that is just slippery slope reasoning. He doesnt' try to say that it applies to Jesus, but you are assuming that anyone who has a supernatural expernice fits that mold. that is a silly assumption

Campbell doesn't say it applies to Jesus?


We're talking about Joseph Campbell, right? The famous mythographer? What earth do you live on, MC? Here are some quotes from Masks of God: Occidental Mythology:

You are confussed about what "It" is in that sentence. "It" didn't mean being archetypical. "It" means being made up according to the pattern of the dying rising saviour God. He never says Jesus was made up he says only that the question is not his interest.

Cambell:

…God the Father of the Christian Trinity, the father-creator of Mary, God the Holy Ghost, her spouse, and God the son, her slain and resurrected child, REPRODUCE for a later age the orphic mystery of Zeus in the form of a serpent begetting on his own daughter Persephone his incarnate son Dionysus p. 27-28

Thus a fundamental distinction emerges, which throughout the history of Judaism has remained its second point of high distinction among the religions of the world; namely, that whereas elsewhere the principle of divine life is symbolized as a divine individual (Dumuzi-Adonis-Attis-Dionysus-Christ),… p. 138

…the Zoroastrian perfect man, he appears in these in clearest light, in what is obviously not the chronicle but the myth of his career -- like the lives of Buddha and Christ; that is to say, as a revelation or symbolization of the truth in which he lived, whose glory cleaved to him, and which he taught. p. 209

emphasis in first is mine, quotes are IN CONTEXT (so don't accuse me of lifting stuff out of context). I could multiply this by the hundred from his writings. Note that in the last one Campbell regards the gospels as myths, constructed accounts of Jesus' career.


Meta =&gt;He never says "The Gosples are myths." He is saying that mythical elements are found in them and that Jesus is an archetypical hero. I don't disagree with either statement. But as Cambell points out (see his into to the hero book) that same myth is found emerging psycholgoically in every nusely shcool in history. It is in all pople and applies to real life people and story book people. So that's not saying anything that would preclude historicity. He never denies that Jesus was real.

Now when it comes to the words of the Gosples contianing archetypical elements in no way means that the recorded sayings of Jesus are not what he said, that the events described of death and resurrection are not real events.

In short, MC, your misunderstanding of Campbell is so profound as to cast doubt on your ever having read him at all.

Meta =&gt;In Short tonsilitus your misunderstanding of my arguments is such a willful distortion that it demonstrates your prfound ignorance.

My Chinese is fabulous, my accent so good that over the phone I cannot be differentiated from a native speaker, but I would never compose a narrative in Chinese, because I'd sound like an idiot.

MEta -&gt;Ooooooo such an obvious stairght line I wont even touch it. think how you sound in english.


You know, I don't mind playing straight man. But if you are going to imply that people are idiots, at least learn to spell "straight" first. Why don't you type your long posts in Word or WP with a correction function on?

Meta =&gt;It was just a lame joke, I didn't mean it. I see it really offended you so I apologize. But you know you have implied the same of me all the way through.

Finally, we've arrived at point 3, that Mark was too dumb to make up the gospels….

MEta =&gt;More continued distortion. I never said "too bumb." you made that up. I said too illiterate to be a literay genius. NOw you can pretend that they made it all up all you want to but where's the proof? The alleged similarities have all evaporated. The only archetypical similairites are just the same sort of psychological thing that can be said of anyone, so none of this can be used to argue for lack of historicity. And asserting that mark was clever in no way proves that he made anything up.

If Mark was a literary Genius….

I never said he was.

he would be a much better writter.

In his second language?

Greek was probably his first langaue. They commisioned the LXX becasue Jews were no longer speaking Hebrew as much. Just as people who live in New Mexico often speak both English and Spannish flutently. I listened to freind in Taos speak with another Taosinllo, the one spoke in English the other in Spannish and they understood each other perfectly.

It's absurd to try and claim that he was, espeicially since with Q and the signs Gospel we know there were prior sources. That argument wont get you far at all. It's totally unlikely that a literary genius on the oder of Faulkner was among them. And he would have to be even greater to make up the personality of Jesus, he would also have to be an ehticial genius to make up the ethical teachings,

Alas, Jesus was, as Buddhists are wont to point out ethically shallow.


Anyone who says that is an idiot. Religious thinkers form every tradition admire him. If they think he was shallow why do they claim him as a bodisotva (sp)? Many of them do. Moreover, from every tradition on earth can find his admirers.


And as others are wont to point out, much of what Jesus said can be found in earlier Jewish thought. And yes, the existence of Q and other sources implies that Mark didn't have to do that much inventing. In short, no genius required, just genuine human creativity and understanding.

Shift! Shift! changing your argument. first he's a literary genius, but not much of one. Talking out of both sides of your mouth. And the fact that other people had also discovered the same ethical truths in no way dimensishes his greatness. He doesn['t have to be the only one to have said such things for them to be profound. Moreover, he adds a reflexcivity that most of them don't have.

it's just obvious a real guy who really had something going for him is at the center of it all.

We're not disagreeing on this. The issue is whether we can get back to this person using the gospels.

It all fits together. When you start dismissing the elements of the story it all fallas apart. There's no reason why they would stone him if he didn't claim to be God.if he did claim to be God he's nuts, but if he's nuts he wouldn't be a great ethical teacher. It all fits one package and there is no way to disect the indvidual parts and just keep those you like and ignore the rest.

Meta =&gt;It's not that they were too dumb, but look what they would have to invent, one of the great personalities of hitory at a time when charactorization was really undeveloped, one of the greatest ethical teachings, ect ect. It's toally absurd.

Yes, look at what they had to invent -- the major miracles (Cana, water walk, resurrection, virgin birth….) built around the framework of sayings and oral legends. Not much inventiveness required.

So it wasn't made up! You are back peddling and shifting your argument.


What is great about the ethical teachings of Jesus? (let's start another thread). They are not original even in his own culture -- let alone other cultures.


That would be too protracted. when every major tradition agrees and half of them try to claim him for their own there has to be something good about him.

In short, the scope for mythic invention is great. Mark may or may not have been a literary genius, but MC, here's a news flash: illiterate does not mean stupid.


Not being a literary genius doesn't mean "supid" either. You are a distorter of arguments You can argue in a proper fashion. That's a shift anway. You can't prove they made it up by just asserting clever inventiveness. What are the odds they would be big geniuses? Very slim, they aren't that easy to come by.


It does not mean uncreative.


That is no proof that they created the personality we see of Jesus. That can only come from a real histoircal person. IT's silly to try and prove it was made up just because you want to beleive they were inventive.

BTW for those who attack my spelling and writting do you agree with his point that illiteracy doesnt' mean lack of genius?



It does not mean less than human. I spent three years in Kenya among largely illiterates, and was not convinced that they were incapable of crafting complex and interesting stories. As Ruth Finnegan notes, in her first oral legend collection among the Limba, she talked to an old man and got a whole bunch of really interesting and deep myths. Only many months later, when she had gotten the myths from others, did she come to realize that the illiterate old man had given her his own take on his people's legends, as well as some stories he had crafted out of them.

Jesus has a stamp of authenticity which has been observed by people as sktpical as Will Durant. You can't just assert something and pretend it is the case. Myths can be invetive, being able to write doesn't mean you can't be invetnive, but most myths lack any real charactorization. So that's not an argument.

To sum up, the argument that Mark was illiterate and therefore unable to invent the gospels is ethnocentric and class-ist. Illiterate ONLY means "unable to read and write." That's all.

Of course you distroted my argument completely like you always do. I never made the formulation from ilitercy to lack of invetiveness. Why would that be ethnocetnric? You dont' know what ethno I am and you don't know how many uninvetnive morons my own ethnicity contains.

But the point was that if he had been a great literary genius to invent a personality like that of Jesus he would probably write better. Difference in writting and just making up a story. good writting takes practice, practice implies not illiterate.


Now, I have written my fingers off. Each of your points has been demolished and your three arguments,

No, nothing has been demolished. You have dserted your own argument by qualifying it to the point of meaninglessness. You haven't made good on any claims and you haven't demonstated an understanding of most of what I said.

(1) that I am clueless (2) that Jesus is not myth; and (3) that the gospelers were too dumb to invent this stuff, have all been shown to be wrong.


You are clueless, that is apparent. MOre so than ever. That Jesus is not myth is proven in history. I never said they were too dumb, but the chances of them being william Falukner are absurdly samll. you can't rely on that argument. It's idiotic to try and prove that Jesus wasn't real becasue mark might have a good writter or invetnive. might have been inventive in no ways proves he invetned anything.


We have already seen, whether you call them "novels" or not, that ancient people concieved complex stories using real places. You claim Campbell does not think Jesus is a myth. On the contrary, MC, do you know how I found all those quotes so fast showing that he does, in fact, place him firmly in the archetypal tradition? Campbell has a helpful index with an entry: Christ -- as myth……….

You are just reducing the complexity of the characteristics of historical writting to absurdity and than decliaring that you've proven something. They did not have historical novels and you can' prtend they did.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited June 01, 2001).]


[/QUOTE]

 
Old 06-02-2001, 11:53 AM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Meta: There is nothing to contribute to that thred. Your alledged "debate" is not about anyhting. I want to debate you 1x1 on the speicial board. Do you argree or not? The only thing to add to that thread is more name calling and discussion of personalities and I don't care to do that.</font>
Oh really? Not about anything? On the contrary, it's about something rather important, your integrity. And you're the one who resorted to name calling, not me.

Anyway, your challenge was, "Now you show me one place where i"ve been dishonest about anything." I showed two, with links. You made a pathetic attempt to rationalize one of the them, and simply ignored the other.

Not surprised you can't take the heat. That was, after all, the original accusation.
 
Old 06-02-2001, 12:40 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Meta =&gt;Ok so we really do have more agreement than our hostility and yamering indicates. We
should just knock that off and try to have a good discussion. But all we are really arguing about is the degree.


Yes, I've decided to start off here fresh, and let your response stand as the last. We can pick another thread to fight about dying and rising gods.

However, it's the think end of the wedge. Becasue once you start agreeing with a core
in history than that core even evaporates when you start seperating it form the stroy. So either take the story or leave the whole thing. There is no reason to leave the whole thing, since the likelyhood is that Jesus did exist, so there is reason to assume that (assume mind you) the story is not very inaccurate but is actually pretty close to the truth.


You can assume anything like, but the question is, what can you prove? I would consider all the stories unhistorical. The "core" to me is a general statement that some figure underlies the gospels, and got himself executed by somebody, probably the jews (as I believe GosPeter says) and not the Romans. However, this is what I believe, and I can only go with the things that smell right to me. Another problem I have is that I suspect we are looking at a composite figure based on a violent rebel and a peaceful preacher.

If I were to list things as unhistorical -- and you may rip them to shreds -- I would say:
[list][*]the birth narrative; obvious myth[*]the passion story in its current form[*]the scouring of the Temple (an itinerant prophet walks into the money changing area of a major public institution, trashes the place, and leaves unmolested. And what were the Temple guard and the individual bodyguards of the money-changers doing?) This strikes me as a symbolic compensatory fantasy attack on the economic-powers-that-be rather than an actual event, unless it references an attack on the Temple by a determined guerilla band.[*] the Baptism of Jesus by John; an attempt to make Jesus legit by linking him to another famous figure[*]oh heck, everything else.

Mostly I think what we have, storywise, represents the invention of Mark, reworked by everyone else in accordance with their own theologies, experiences, and political needs. I suppose that puts me close to Neirynck in some ways. The only thing I consider authentic is the tradition that Jesus was a teacher and healer, and the tradition that he was executed. All else is folklore or myth, you can have your terminology as you please. That is why the HJ is so difficult to get back to, because there isn't anything of him left in there. That is why the Third Quest for the HJ will beget a Fourth, and a Fifth, and so on. In our retirement we'll be here, MC, arguing about why the Eighth Quest for the HJ failed.

I do not believe Mack's theory that Jesus was a Cynic preacher, despite the philosophical overlaps, I think Crossan's "peasant eschatologist" works better sociologically. Such peasant leaders appear frequently in colonial societies undergoing political, social and economic stress. The sociological angle is the most convincing to me, it would be odder if Judea did not have a major messiah-figure at this time, than if it did.

Michael
 
Old 06-03-2001, 09:35 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Oh really? Not about anything? On the contrary, it's about something rather important, your integrity. And you're the one who resorted to name calling, not me.

Anyway, your challenge was, "Now you show me one place where i"ve been dishonest about anything." I showed two, with links. You made a pathetic attempt to rationalize one of the them, and simply ignored the other.

Not surprised you can't take the heat. That was, after all, the original accusation.
</font>
My integrity is not in question. Yours is. You have done nothing to even present evidence that it should be in question. But yours should be becasue you can't tell the difference in a substantive issue and a personal attack.

I dont' know why you foot note to that thread and call it "the original accusation." There aren't any accusations about me there, until you raise the fish deal wich was answered. It was settaled at the time, and SD even apologized for raising it, and it was settaled again now because I point out that the original assertion was not an argument but a mere aside, and it was from 1970s so not likely to be on the net.

so what is the deal. What accusations are you talking about? The first post in the thread isn't even about me. It wasn't my post, it wasn't my words.

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited June 03, 2001).]
 
Old 06-03-2001, 10:05 AM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
[b]Meta =&gt;Ok so we really do have more agreement than our hostility and yamering indicates. We
should just knock that off and try to have a good discussion. But all we are really arguing about is the degree.


Yes, I've decided to start off here fresh, and let your response stand as the last. We can pick another thread to fight about dying and rising gods.</font>
Fiar enogh

However, it's the think end of the wedge. Becasue once you start agreeing with a core
in history than that core even evaporates when you start seperating it form the stroy. So either take the story or leave the whole thing. There is no reason to leave the whole thing, since the likelyhood is that Jesus did exist, so there is reason to assume that (assume mind you) the story is not very inaccurate but is actually pretty close to the truth.



Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
You can assume anything like, but the question is, what can you prove? I would consider all the stories unhistorical. The "core" to me is a general statement that some figure underlies the gospels, and got himself executed by somebody, probably the jews (as I believe GosPeter says) and not the Romans. However, this is what I believe, and I can only go with the things that smell right to me. Another problem I have is that I suspect we are looking at a composite figure based on a violent rebel and a peaceful preacher.</font>
Meta =&gt;To that last bit, the composit, that's just the dynamism of the personality. That's one of the reasons he wasn't made up, because the contradictions are integrated too well. And in fact I think John shows a really good character portrate that spells out an eye witness account.

As for the first statement that its what can be proven that is impotant, well what can be proven in history. I know that there is really and truly no case to be made for the non-existence of ancient Rome, but just to illustrate how far sketpicism can deny whatever it wants to deny one can make a case that ancient Rome never existed. I've done this before and people always act real incredulous of course (I guess they think I'm serious) but when I push it really far they never can actually prove that Rome existed. Now it would be madness to seriously doubt the exsitence of ancient Rome based upon the ability to gainsay the evidence, but that's essetnially what the skeptic is doing in denying the basic historicity of the NT..

Here is what I think can be proven "within the limits of history"

*Jesus existed, was named Jesus was from Nazarath
* that he preached in Capernium and Galalee wiht forays into Jerusalem
* that he claime to be the Messiah
* crucified under Pilate
* tomb was found empty and it was claimed from the very early days that he was seen risen.
* that he had a reputation as a healer
* that his mother was named Mary
* that his side kickes were named Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Bart, Mary (MM) and some other that are unimportant.
* that his brother was named James and headed the cult of adoration for him after his death.
*that he had a good body of ethical teachings which are among the finest of world religions and that many of the sayings attributed to him were really his sayings.
*that his crucifiction was probably near the tiem of the passover and probably at noon.

There may be couple of other things, maybe a couple of these things can't really be proven so well.But that general outline i think holds. It's enough to spawn faith, but not in and of itself. one must have other things to promote faith, such as experince of God. So the faith part cannot be proven, but the basic condtions that would allow for it is pretty certain.

you:

If I were to list things as unhistorical -- and you may rip them to shreds -- I would say:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[list][*]the birth narrative; obvious myth[*]the passion story in its current form[*]the scouring of the Temple (an itinerant prophet walks into the money changing area of a major public institution, trashes the place, and leaves unmolested. And what were the Temple guard and the individual bodyguards of the money-changers doing?) This strikes me as a symbolic compensatory fantasy attack on the economic-powers-that-be rather than an actual event, unless it references an attack on the Temple by a determined guerilla band.[*] the Baptism of Jesus by John; an attempt to make Jesus legit by linking him to another famous figure[*]oh heck, everything else. </font>
Meta =&gt;I agree that many things on the list could be embellishments. I dont' know why more sketpics are not able to understand what I'm saying, but I guess that's just the nature of argument and message boards. But I agree there could be embellishments and even some of it could be folklore. The infant narrative is almost certainly folklore, but that doesn't mean that I deny the Vbirth. But I accept it on faith. There is slight evidence for the gratto of the natvity as the actual place of his birth. But that is only that Christians marked the site in the first century. Doesn't prove he was really born there.

Passion Narrative is probably pretty accurate since it was written on 18 years after the event, eye witnesses still alive, and they were there. They weren't there at his birth (luke could have talked to Mary, but that's pushing it). It's more realistic that they remembered how he died than that they really knew how he was born.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Mostly I think what we have, storywise, represents the invention of Mark, reworked by everyone else in accordance with their own theologies, experiences, and political needs. I suppose that puts me close to Neirynck in some ways. The only thing I consider authentic is the tradition that Jesus was a teacher and healer, and the tradition that he was executed. All else is folklore or myth, you can have your terminology as you please. That is why the HJ is so difficult to get back to, because there isn't anything of him left in there. That is why the Third Quest for the HJ will beget a Fourth, and a Fifth, and so on. In our retirement we'll be here, MC, arguing about why the Eighth Quest for the HJ failed.
</font>
MEta =&gt;the "third quest" failed becasue it wasn't a serious attempt to find the truth. It was an attempt to redefine Jesus such that he would be harmless to unitarians and liberals. The first two Quests accomplished their immediate goals so they were not failures.

If I find the time I may do a post on the saying sources and defend the sayings as his becasue I think that is real important, and it is some of the most proveable stuff. But your list is way too short. If we can prove he existed (within probability) than the same likelyhood attaches to his teachings. Why would he even be important to them if they didn't bother to remeber anything he said? Why would he even impress them in the first place if he didn't have something on the ball. And I think you dismiss his teachings way too easily on the basis of their similiarites to others. But I bet you turn right around and value those others as great teachings, hu? be honest!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I do not believe Mack's theory that Jesus was a Cynic preacher, despite the philosophical overlaps, I think Crossan's "peasant eschatologist" works better sociologically. Such peasant leaders appear frequently in colonial societies undergoing political, social and economic stress. The sociological angle is the most convincing to me, it would be odder if Judea did not have a major messiah-figure at this time, than if it did.</font>
MEta =&gt;You mean Schweitzer's pesant eschatologist?

I agree, that is more likely and fits the facts and I have no doubt that he was a pesant eschatologist, even if he was the son of God!

See, now we can have good discussoins. Come to my boards! I promise when I am the host i'm much much more accomodating and conciliatory and much less confrontational. I really am, and there are many bright people on both sides there. I promise No tolls. I don't allow them.

http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue

I enjoyed this exchange.We could be enjoying discussion all the time. ah, the ego! So hard to put down.(I mean my own)

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited June 03, 2001).]
 
Old 06-03-2001, 01:58 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Meta, let's review how we got here. You posted a thread putting yourself forward as a replacement for Nomad in the Jesus Puzzle debate. I objected, primarily on the ground that, as a theist, you can't approach historicity in a strictly historical fashion.

Not satisfied with that, you demanded, "What the hell is wrong with 'Meta'?" I replied by listing four reasons you would be a poor substitute. You erupted in a great flourish of mano a mano bluster, demanding that I prove my assertions.

Which I did. Ever since, except for an occasional pathetic attempt to rationalize the fish story (which you continue to defend as legitimate), you have studiously avoided the thread, including the first and more substantial example of what I called "3. You are not honest in your use of argument or authority. And, when called on it, tend either to disappear until the dust settles or get extremely pissy."

Frankly, whether you answer or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. You'll prove my point either way.
 
Old 06-04-2001, 09:56 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Meta, let's review how we got here. You posted a thread putting yourself forward as a replacement for Nomad in the Jesus Puzzle debate. I objected, primarily on the ground that, as a theist, you can't approach historicity in a strictly historical fashion.

Meta =&gt;That's silly. Some of the greatest historians are chruch historians. Some of them I have known. I am an historian. If I can't be professional about historicity than I have to give up. But you don't know anything about it so you are no judge.

Not satisfied with that, you demanded, "What the hell is wrong with 'Meta'?" I replied by listing four reasons you would be a poor substitute. You erupted in a great flourish of mano a mano bluster, demanding that I prove my assertions.

Which I did.

Meta=&gt;No you didn't! You brought up an old controvesy which was an unfair accusation to begin with and a buch of personality stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

Ever since, except for an occasional pathetic attempt to rationalize the fish story (which you continue to defend as legitimate),

Meta =&gt;So can you tell me how it was not legit since the record that it was not an argument is still in the archieves and anyone can read it and see that it was not mean to be proof of anything? Can you tell me why it was wrong to mention it when I did hear it? Just the fac that you can't find it on the net is not proof. I have a book that went out of print in 1976. It is not metioned on the net. I've been looking for it, no mention anywhere but I know it exists. I have friends who have a copy of it. So why isnt it on the net? that is no proof that I made that up. Since it wasn't an argument anyway you want to exaplain why it matters?

you have studiously avoided the thread, including the first and more substantial example of what I called "3.

Meta =&gt;Why dont you just copy and post the thing you think I'm doging. Do that next time right here and i'll answer it.


You are not honest in your use of argument or authority. And, when called on it, tend either to disappear until the dust settles or get extremely pissy."

Meta =&gt;You have never showen an example of that. You are a liar. YOu are a dadblasted little liar. Becasue you are defaming me though slander and you know it and you have no basis for that charge. You do not understand the use of documentation well enough to make that charge against anyone. You are an idiot. I don't have time for idiots. The fish thing cannot be an example of dishonesty in argument because it wasn't balsted argument you moron. I said in introducing it "I think Johnah is mythology. so I'm not arguing for it, but I did hear about this case one time.." So why is that dishonest?

Frankly, whether you answer or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. You'll prove my point either way.
</font>

MEta =&gt;You haven't demonstrated sufficent intelligence to justfy the waste of my time on your unfounded personal attacks. Now cut and paste the big big proof of my dishonesty or apologize for lying.
 
Old 06-04-2001, 11:56 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:

MEta =&gt;You haven't demonstrated sufficent intelligence to justfy the waste of my time on your unfounded personal attacks. Now cut and paste the big big proof of my dishonesty or apologize for lying.
</font>
Hmm, one of the great mysteries of life: you aren't smart enough to warrant Meta's time, but he has enough time to write the equivelant of "I know you are but what am I?" after each of you points.
 
Old 06-05-2001, 09:44 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by smugg:
Hmm, one of the great mysteries of life: you aren't smart enough to warrant Meta's time, but he has enough time to write the equivelant of "I know you are but what am I?" after each of you points.</font>
Do you know what is says about someone to plot a course of character assasination and slander someone just becasue they made you feel small by beating you in an argument. That's what he's doing, that's why you are doing. That says that you are the sort of person one cannot trust and who has no integrity.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.