aa5874

Please tell us what is the ACTUAL grandeur of Christ?

lpetrich

No Robots, how did you figure that out? Did you go back in time in a time machine and watch and film Jesus Christ in action?

No Robots

It is quite evident from the Gospels that the early followers of Christ were quite unaware of all the depth of that which they nonetheless attempted to faithfully record. We, with the benefit of two thousand years of study and reflection on the matter, as well as with the empirical evidence of its unfolding power, are in a better position to fully grasp the significance of this astounding individual.

Solo

... no, you are falsifying what I said, Jeffrey. I said your argument was against the assertion "that Jesus was lionized in the gospels against outside scorn or neglect".

There is no original point ! You don't have an original point!

You proposed to leave aside the lionizing of gospel Jesus as begging the question and then proceeded, with the verve of an al-Aqsa suicide bomber instructor, to argue against this idea of Jesus being "lionized" by pointing to Hillel and Bar Kochba being "lionized". But my point to you here is, if my statement was essentially begging the question, what question is it begging ? Certainly not one that would have to do with upsizing of other historical figures. Get a grip, for crying out loud !

Further, you accused me of implying that some "very people" should have mentioned Jesus and then you asked me who they are, as if I was responsible for the nonsensical attributed reference that you dreamed up for your witless argument !

(Good gawd, you done it now, Jiri. :huh

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

But I never made an argument against this assertion (and not only because the claim of yours that I noted was not my focus did not originally say anything about the "lionizing" of Jesus you spoke of being made "against outside scorn or neglect" -- see here); I raised a question -- and notably as a side note! -- about whether you were assuming what needed to be proved. After all, you have never defined "lionizing". So there was/is no way to tell whether your claim that Jesus was "lionized in the Gospels", let alone to the degree that you go on later to say he was (in terms of an unmatched "breathless hagiography") is true.

There isn't? What then was your claim that "There is realistically no chance that Jesus was the lionized figure of the the gospels and then escaped all historical attention of his time"?

Let me repeat what I said before: I never said that Jesus wasn't "lionized". and I certainly did not say, let alone attempt to demonstrate, this by pointing to Hillel and Bar Kochba and in producing evidence that they too were the objects of hagiography.

My pointing to Hillel and Bar Kochba was to show that what you claimed is "not realistic" about lionized figures such as Jesus (i.e., that they would not have escaped all historical attention" by those who were intent to record the history of their times) is invalidated by the fact that they are not mentioned by those who were intent to record the history of their times and who could hardly have not been aware of these figures.

Are you asserting that Josephus, a Pharisee, would not have known about Hillel (who like Jesus was lionized by his [Hillel's] followers)?

Do you deny that Bar Cochba, who like Jesus had followers who lionized him despite obvious Roman and Jewish " outside scorn"?

Are you asserting that Dio had no awareness of who it was who instigated and led the revolt of 132-135?

Which of my "attributed references" did I dream up? And where did I say or imply that you were responsible for them?

FWIW, I think you are entirely confused over what the referent of my expression "very people" was. I was speaking both of those who we know were intent to record the history of their times, as well as those whom you think displayed "attention" to the events which transpired in Palestine.

Who in your estimation would/should have mentioned Jesus especially if he was anything like the "lionized" figure the Gospels make him out to be?

Moreover, in the light of your claim that in my posts to, I speak "with the verve of an al-Aqsa suicide bomber instructor", I'm hardly the one who needs to do so.

Jeffrey

show_no_mercy

Why can't he see the point of making a saviour out of an obscure myth in the paradigm of gnosticism? The savior is a secret, revealed truth. In gnosticism, obscurity is almost a necessity. What's that irony in Mark? Only demons, the reader, and unnamed people have the gnosis of the savior. Everyone who is "known" doesn't know.

bacht

Right, like poor old Peter. The HJ scenarios generally want to make the whole story exoteric and public from the start. I don't see a problem with hypothesizing an esoteric/gnostic group of initiates whose central idea of a heavenly saviour evolved in the 2nd C into a catholic "big tent" open to all.

aa5874

Please tell us what is ACTUALLY astounding about Jesus?

lpetrich

No Robots, how does one determine that?

It's not apparent to me when I read those documents.

Solo

Side note to what ?

May He come walking on water to rescue you from going off the deep end !




You never met anyone in the halls of Oxford who read , not to say earnestly held, that "der Mythos objektiviert das Jenseitige zum Diesseitigen" ? Is that why you attribute the claim (not just a form of it) to me ?

This is amusing. But this guy did the slapstick better.



For those who are confused by the exchange, here is the original statement that exercises Jeffrey:

Here are my concluding points:

Jeffrey imagines that he refutes this original statement by pointing to Hillel and Bar Kochba, and showing that they too were lionized by some and ignored by others. But this is an unsound reading of my intent. The 'realistically no chance' binds both the lionizing of Jesus in the gospels and his escaping all outside attention in his time.

It is therefore patently false to argue from analogy against this that some historians also ignored Hillel and Bar Kochba while others lionized them. The 'nutty' part of Jeffrey's position is that he actually agrees with me on the 'lionizing' part, i.e. that some figures in history are perceived by their followers to have had greater power or to have been more influential than they were in real life.

I think Dunn is simply wrong. An elaborate myth was built around a 'minor figure from Galilee'. Mark says as much (6:3) in proceeding to create one elaborate stage of that very myth.

Jiri