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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-28-2001, 11:53 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
Perhaps you might actually get someone to take you seriously.</font>
Better than being taken literally! (Admittedly a flip comment and poor attempt at didactic humor I'm sure...)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Currently, you look to me to be no better than fundies who post messages like: "All you liberals and skeptics are of the devil. Jesus said you would fall away in the last days and sure enough you're on this board fulfilling those prophecies. All your arguments are wrong because man is fallible and God's Word is perfect." All we get from you is dogma - no arguments. </font>
I agree with your comparison, but I do not agree that ALL you get from me is "dogma." (And that in itself is a rather strange word to be using since it usually applies to some sort of "organized" approach!) I think if any native speaker of English studies my post carefully there are many basic questions and arguments within and without the thread.

I think I am begining to understand the frustration you and others probably feel with my opinions. Detail--though it is helpful to study in getting a feel for evidence--is admittedly odious to me. I only use it when it seems to help clarify my arguments.

Of course I am using the word "argument" to mean a conclusion or statement backed up by specfic examples--much like an apologist will cite specific biblical verses. But my approach is a little different--more of a generalist, "patterned" apporach which hopefully takes into account the details and then hazards a guess where they are headed. In this regard I have been profoundly influenced by Gergory Bateson, the late anthropologist.



Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> aikido: I am interested in history, not theology.

SWL: Then let's see your historical arguments for the commonly accepted dates of the Gospels, aikido! </font>
Again, what good would that do? All the arguments have been made. Let's just get them ALL out in public so humanity can make up its own collective mind!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">aikido: You seem to prefer things as they are: a Jesus who demands nothing of you except to repeat such empty assertions as a virgin birth, walking on water, an atoning blood sacrifice and a bodily resurrection.

SWL: You seem to be incapable of anything other than concocting a fundy strawman and clobbering it with vagueries. Firstly, if I do actually believe in those things, it certainly doesn't make me a "fundy"
(really just an [ultimately meaningless] derogatory phrase you paste on anyone whose views you think are more rigid or dogmatic than your own). Its frankly none of your business what I believe in. I have made very few statements concerning my faith on this board - usually only in direct response to a question about such matters (yes, once in response to the question 'Do you believe in the virgin birth?'). Mostly, with the exception of an occasional philosophical note on the old 'science shows dat mircles are impossible' line, my discussion of the virgin birth consists of undercutting what I see as misguided attempts to demonstrate borrowing from paganism on the part of Christianity (given that the pagan parallels are, in most cases, extremely late, not actually virginal conceptions but examples of divine fornication, and the only parallel is the miraculous aspect which is already quite a part of Judaism - angelic announcements and all). Those arguments (like the one currently taking place on the "No Dying/Rising Gods" thread) are entirely historical. Feel free to join in. Don't just bottle it up and explode on a new thread 2 months later - which I'm likely to ignore. My discussion of the bodily resurrection has not consisted of any 'empty assertions', rather, I've merely argued historically that Paul taught a bodily resurrection (as Dom Crossan does). If you disagree with that, stop bitching, go dig up the thread, and deal with my arguments. Otherwise, contrary to what your strawman version of me says, I haven't said a word about the atonement or walking on water.

Now maybe by answering your assertions one-by-one I was reading you in an overly "literalistic" manner. Maybe you just wanted to paint me with the broad brush of fundyism and leave it at that. If so, pardon me for trying to take you seriously. I thought perhaps you might want to discuss some of these issues rather than continue to beat up on the strawmen you've concocted out of the traumatic experiences you've had with the big bad "fundamentalists".

The subject of the board is Biblical Criticism & Archaeology, not Whining about Fundamentalism, Conservativism, and Apologetics.

SecWebLurker

P.S. - You're out of your mind if you think its conservatives or fundies obsessed with early-dating. What scholarship do you read, man? Do you actually READ the liberal scholars whose rhetoric you parrot [without attribution]? Cross Gospel? An earliest layer in the triple-stratification of Q that's entirely sapiential? Secret Mark? A PRE-CANONICAL Gospel of Thomas? Liberals invent their own Gospels and early-date them! </font>
Sarcasm is always a cover for anger and I don't know what to tell you except I am sorry you feel angry. Noted! But I really had to laugh at your "triple-stratification of Q that's entirely sapiential." You definitely hit me with a (Burton)Mack truck there! I am just a "blue collar scholar" who reads as much as I have time for. That includes Josh McDowell and Henry Emerson Fosdick and a little of everything else, I guess. As for "strawman" arguments--maybe I have identified too much with my favorite strawman in "Wizard of Oz." Ah, if I only had a brain!

Seriously, don't take this too seriously. If we can't laugh once in awhile all this angry pomposity masquerading as source-driven scholarship becomes idolatry--and according to the ancients, that was the worst sin of all.
And if you have a specific question or thought on a specific date on a specific gospel, have back at me and keep me constantly on topic. I know I'll learn something.

Take care!




[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 28, 2001).]
 
Old 05-28-2001, 12:34 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hello again James

I am disappointed that you failed to deal with the first part of my post, as it is this portion that directly addresses the topic of the thread. To listen to you complain about the dangers of fundamentalism is one thing. To translate that fear into something meaningful, however, is something else. If you are genuinely concerned that offering evidence and arguments for an earlier than traditional date for the Gospels is dangerous in some fashion, then you should be prepared to show why it is dangerous, why only fundamentalists are interested in this question, and finally why you think that the traditional dates offered by scholars are fine. You have done none of these things, so I do not know what your complaint is here. It is too vague to really address.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by aikido7:

Nomad: I think a good working definition of "fundamentalist" is in order here. Please offer one... My own definition of a Christian comes from the Nicene Creed... Again, what is your definition of a Christian aikido?

aikido: Like a U.S. Supreme Court justice once said about pornography, I cannot describe it, but I know it when I see it. My broad brush definition of fundamentalism might be "a fear-based approach to post-modernism."</font>
Do you not see that your definition is completely meaningless aikido? There are plenty of people who are not in the least religious, yet have serious reservations about post modernism. Further, since you have not bothered to tell us what you mean by the term "post-modernist" (another catchall phrase that tells us nothing meaningful), you are simply begging the question.

Please be specific. If you do not know what you are talking about, then the rest of us will hardly be in any better of a position to help you address your fears.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> And bear in mind that the only way I can point out my seeing fear in another person or group is that I am first intimately acquainted with that same fear within myself.</font>
It is always a risky adventure to try and pin one's own fears on others, especially when you do not know these people. Please try and stay with something for which you can show some evidence, otherwise you are merely engaging in fear mongering and name calling.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for a definition of Christianity, it is faith in the human being Jesus as a manifestation of the divine. In other words, if God came to earth in human form, what would he say and what would he do?</font>
This is an interesting question as well. What do you think He would say and do?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> My reading, study and common sense tell me that the Nicean Creed is also an antiquated political document and that (the historical AND resurrected) Jesus of Nazareth radically subverts all worldly forms of political, social and religious power.</font>
Why?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: If an indivdual can confess this Creed and mean it (My emphasis),then they are a Christian so far as I am concerned.

aikido: The italicized portion of your working definition worries me a bit and raises some hard and necessary questions around notions of coercion, obedience and spiritual and intellectual freedom. These are probably best answered within yourself instead of on this board. But I may be totally out of line here and so apologize in advance! Just a thought....</font>
Yes, you are totally out of line here aikido, but do not worry about it. Many people have not understood what I mean by what I say until they ask for greater clarification. I added the phrase "and mean it" as a common sense tool. After all, I am sure that you can agree that anyone can recite words, and have no comprehension of what they mean, or even to be consciously lying when they say them. Therefore, if they confess this Creed with a sincere heart, then I that is sufficient to establish that they are, indeed, Christian.

Your own definition needs some tightening up, but that should not be difficult. I am sure that you have thought about this a great deal. For example, I have written a great deal on these boards, and you and I have talked via email. Would you consider me to be a Christian?

Finally, as for your feelings that there is some kind of coersision taking place because I have a definition of orthodox Christianity that is quite traditional and standard across a great many Christian denominations, I am wondering, do you find the vast majority of Christian churches to be, in some way, threatening? If so, how?

Nomad
 
Old 05-28-2001, 11:45 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Cute Litte Baby - The Tomas de Torquemada of atheism? (a wanna be?) Or maybe the Fred Phelps of atheism?

Oh well.
 
Old 05-29-2001, 04:58 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I am disappointed that you failed to deal with the first part of my post, as it is this portion that directly addresses the topic of the thread.... Since the question of dating the Gospels is an historical inquiry, why would you not be willing to give us your arguments in favor of the traditional dating of the Gospels? Personally, I can live with those dates especially if someone can give me a good argument in favor of them.</font>
Pay attention to the structure of your post for a moment, Nomad. Put aside the comments and details for a bit. On one hand you ask me to give "us" my evidence on Gospel dating, adding that you can "live" with those dates if I supply you with a "good argument." On the other hand, you asked me for a definition of fundamentalism and when I defined it as broadly as I could--to include our brothers and sisters from the other world religions--you wrote that my definition was "completely meaningless."

So I will repeat what I wrote at the outset: I could spend valuable time looking up scholars and sources--consensus and mainstream--which solidly hazard informed guesses at Mark for about 70, Luke and Matthew for the 80s and John for around 90. BUT WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?

You are making me confused. And tired.

One more point: I did not communicate clearly and you did not understand thoroughly enough my point about recognizing fear and anger in the fundamentalist mindset--or any other mindset, for that matter. I recognize anger or fear (or any other emotion) in another because I recognize a little speck of anger or fear in myself first. There is no way I can "call" or "understand" an emotion in another person unless I have been familiar with it in myself in the past.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Yes, you are totally out of line here aikido, but do not worry about it.</font>
Thank you!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Many people have not understood what I mean by what I say until they ask for greater clarification.</font>
This snippet gives me a great opportunity to bring in "common sense," especially as a way to regard the transference and evolution of written and oral tradition in ancient times!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am sure that you can agree that anyone can recite words, and have no comprehension of what they mean, or even to be consciously lying when they say them. Therefore, if they confess this Creed with a sincere heart, then I that is sufficient to establish that they are, indeed, Christian.</font>
Here are some questions for you. Please do not feel compelled to answer them on this board for me. That is not the point. Questions are better served if pondered. Let them knock around in the foul rag-and-bone shop of the heart. They may do some good there.

1.How are you sure that I "can agree."?
2.Do all humans have the same level/quality of comprehension?
3.What is your definition of sincere, and does it stay constant in every moment of your life with those sacred texts from Webster's Dictionary?
4.If someone "confesses" the Nicean Creed with a "sincere heart," is it what goes into the mouth that is insincere or what comes out of it?
5.Is what is sincere for one person insincere for another?
6.Did David Koresh sincerely confess the Nicean Creed? (A question for myself to ponder)
7.And so on. Questions, questions questions. If we answer them all correctly will we get to heaven?

(I am being flip and a little rude, yes. I just hope you have found my rudeness instructive. There is a larger point to all of this silliness I am trying to make; perhaps it is too far beyond words to articulate.)




Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Would you consider me to be a Christian?</font>
Hmmm. If I were a Christian answering that question, the question would never enter my mind.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Do you find the vast majority of Christian churches to be, in some way, threatening? If so, how?</font>
Flatly no. But the ignorance and lack of common sense in many churches is frightening to me because that takes away our humanity. But that's a whole other post.



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 29, 2001).]
 
Old 05-29-2001, 08:04 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi aikido,

You seem to be being more kind as of lately and I don't see any reason for hostility to continue between us, but don't mind these last few (IMO, well-deserved) jabs I'm throwing your way...

aikido: Dwarves like us occaisionally need to stand on the shoulders of giants...

SWL: But Crossan is just a wee little leprechaun? Are you sure his back is sturdy enough to support you?

aikido: And what is it we were discussing again?

SWL: Well, we were talking about early-dating, but since the cat is out of the bag concerning your admiration for Crossan, you probably won't want to keep that topic going. After all, isn't Crossan one of the only 2 or 3 scholars on the planet arguing for a PRE-CANONICAL version of Thomas, that there is absolutely NO evidence for, and making up his own early "Cross Gospel" that the Jesus Seminar won't even touch?

aikido: As for a definition of Christianity, it is faith in the human being Jesus as a manifestation of the divine.

SWL: Uh-huh, where have we heard this before?

John D. Crossan: "To say, therefore, that Jesus is divine means that some group sees
in the historical Jesus the manifestation of
God."[http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Crossan/Crossan_bio/crossan_bio.htm
l]

You seem to be quite enchanted with his Lucky Charms. Pretty much all of your views are right out of his books - your posts on the virgin birth, gospel genre/intentions of the authors, your statement: "You are doing history, but I am doing theology", etc.

I wonder - Have you read critiques of Crossan? Pick up N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God. He's got a whole chapter on Dom.

aikido: Jesus of Nazareth radically subverts all worldly forms of political, social and religious power.

SWL: Not at all. Only if you buy into Crossan's Egalitarian model, and given the fact that, as Herzog says, "egalitarianism is a modern notion unlikely to be found in the ancient world, nor would it have been valued if it had been found; the issue is
not equality, but reciprocity and mutuality" (Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, p 222), Jesus' parables presuppose and do not criticize the patron-client/honor-shame nature of society, and Jesus' disciples obviously didn't even come close to grasping this egalitarianism he allegedly taught, I'd say Crossan is probably off here. See Context Group member Jack Elliot's thrashing of Crossan's Egalitarian model in the recent upload at the Jesus Archive:

http://www.jesusarchive.com/JesusArc...ile_may01.html

There's also a review of Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, in which agnostic historian James A. Bacon concludes that, despite all Crossan's statements to the contrary:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"In The Birth of Christianity, theology comes first and history is configured to support it."</font>
See:
http://www.jesusarchive.com/JesusArc..._Crossan3.html

aikido: I think I am begining to understand the frustration you and others probably feel with my opinions. Detail--though it is helpful to study in getting a feel for evidence--is admittedly odious to me. I only use it when it seems to help clarify my arguments.

SWL: Its not just the lack of detail (though that is a major factor) - Its that you're all fired up and coming down hard on conservative views all the while claiming to be accepting of postmodernism (?), many of your views are, for the most part, just reiterations of witty little aphorisms that Crossan spices his books up with (though occasionally you'll vaguely give us one of his arguments), this thread here on early-dating is either extremely naive or just blatantly hypocritical, and you really aren't making arguments - you're just pontificating.

aikido: You definitely hit me with a (Burton)Mack truck there!

SWL: LOL

aikido: Seriously, don't take this too seriously.

SWL: I don't take it too seriously but I rarely have time for anything other than "I think you're wrong. Here's why....". The only jokes I have time to make are usually about my discussion partners arguments (which doesn't seem to go over too well w/them). Though, do see my piece on the Egg-God/Christ-myth which is a pretty good example of my humor:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000255.html

BTW, do you consider yourself a Christian, according to the definition you gave?

SecWebLurker
 
Old 05-29-2001, 10:07 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I am sorry James, but your original post appeared to be directed against those people that would like to see if the evidence for an earlier dating of the Gospels is good. On that basis, I had assumed that you were going to give us your reasons for rejecting their evidence and arguments. Instead, you have said:


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by aikido7:

So I will repeat what I wrote at the outset: I could spend valuable time looking up scholars and sources--consensus and mainstream--which solidly hazard informed guesses at Mark for about 70, Luke and Matthew for the 80s and John for around 90. BUT WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?</font>
I had mistakenly thought that doing what you had listed above would show us why we should reject the efforts of those that argue for an earlier dating.

I apologize.

Since I clearly have no idea what you were hoping to achieve with this thread, I then leave the last word to you.

Be well,

Brian (Nomad)
 
Old 05-29-2001, 10:42 AM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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

You seem to be being more kind as of lately and I don't see any reason for hostility to continue between us, but don't mind these last few (IMO, well-deserved) jabs I'm throwing your way...</font>
I am only too aware of the pettiness and hostility in the heretofore hidden halways of ivory tower biblical scholarship. But I think it can only be a good thing that the arguments behind such all-too-human gamesmanship are finally being liberated to seek a home in the wider, post-modern world. A good thing--don't you think? Especially if we consider matters deeply and realize the high stakes involved. History DOES inform faith. Was that--uh, Witherington? Wright? Craig? No, probably Crossan. If I am to be accused of plagarism, I at least want to be sure my copies come from a reputable brand of photocopier. I guess according to you, that brand is just a "loose Canon."

Seriously though, I am doubly amazed I have picked up so much from Crossan. Maybe HE is the one you should be writing to. Or perhaps you might just mentally place the words "Crossan said" before all the posts I may put on this board. I give you my registered approval to reproduce that phrase on any post. I'll leave you to four time-tested aphorisms (these are not parables--see your previous post!) so they should be easy to divine the meanings):

"Birds of a feather flock together."
"You cannot judge a man by the company he keeps."
"Fools think alike."
"Great minds run in the same channels."

I think you and I have a difference of opinion about basic matters of theology and faith. I find fantasy and ignorance as powers and principalities worthy of a lifelong struggle. I am in the minority on this and always have been. But I have convinced myself it is a worthy cause, and I am stubborn. It's not easy to get anyone to look at the obvious and "see it for the first time" revealed in its primeval glory. Some of us want to take the long way around. And that's okay. Stances like yours used to frustrate me to no end, but it's all small stuff--I'm just getting to the age where "it's all small stuff" reveals itself like an opening flower.

Thanks for the links. I have to leave you with a post-modern cautionary: the idea that the subject studying the objective data can actually alter that data by the subject's studying.










[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 29, 2001).]
 
Old 05-29-2001, 11:18 AM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
aikido: Jesus of Nazareth radically subverts all worldly forms of political, social and religious power.

SWL: Not at all.</font>
(The Son of) God's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a fallen earth for?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW, do you consider yourself a Christian, according to the definition you gave?</font>
How about "Christian in exile"? Much of what passes for Christianity these days is "well, it may be impossible, but it happened once in history." I say "it was impossible and it never happened" and "something else can and is happening right under your noses which can and will transform your life." Now, if the heresy inquiry is over, can I grab my coat and leave? I really prefer doing Crossan, not Wright.


 
Old 05-29-2001, 11:32 AM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I am sorry James, but your original post appeared to be directed against those people that would like to see if the evidence for an earlier dating of the Gospels is good. On that basis, I had assumed that you were going to give us your reasons for rejecting their evidence and arguments. Instead, you have said:


I had mistakenly thought that doing what you had listed above would show us why we should reject the efforts of those that argue for an earlier dating.

I apologize.

Since I clearly have no idea what you were hoping to achieve with this thread, I then leave the last word to you.

Be well,

Brian (Nomad)]</font>
I was trying to elicit understanding not arguments. There are plenty of arguments and counter-arguments out there. Conflict in these areas is inevitable. What is important is how these conflicts are handled. Do we present evidence (such as it is) and let people make up their own mind? Do we mandate a change in the Nicean Creed to "fine-tune" our faith to encompass the scholarly world? Do we retreat into an intellectual desert like the Essenes did with our texts and our xenophobic/purity codes? Is Christianity on the verge of a necessary transformation or an inevitable collapse? When the Galilean became wedded to his followers, that was one thing. When he became wedded to the state, that was another. This third courtship of the historical figure with modern scholarship is important. People should understand the stakes involved. I think it was Josh McDowell who said that historical Jesus scholarship was like doing open heart surgery on Christianity. Then he amended that comment to add that it was like doing open heart surgery on Western civilization.

He's not far wrong, whoever he is.

The desperation I see in earlier dating is an attempt to resuscitate a dying patient. We may have to regrettably leave the patient on the table and tend to the rest of the family.

 
Old 05-29-2001, 11:56 AM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

posted twice...

[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited May 29, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Top

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