spin

I missed this the first time round, noticing it now in avi's response to it.
Suspension of disbelief is what an author asks for in presenting fiction.

Confronting a text of unknown genre one has to analyze the text simply for what it says in order to deal with it, to classify it, to understand its messages.

This claim doesn't seem transparent in any sense: you need to describe exactly what you are talking about:

1. "for us" -- us who?
2. "the historicity question is settled automatically" -- which historicity question? and how will it be settled?
3. "on the basis of our interpretive reading" -- reading something and interpreting it as you go will unveil all in its truth??

If you realize this, you should know that what you said before needs explanation as does how you get to the next assertion.

You haven't actually supplied "the only way to really read the text."

----

You talk to No Robots, assuming myth, when we know No Robots doesn't make such an assumption. How is that going to further communication?

This is starting to communicate beyond the labeling stage. It leads me to ask No Robots, "how do you read the gospels stories alluded to here by avi? Are they veracious, or do you step around them as the historicist non-believers on this forum arbitrarily do?"


spin

show_no_mercy

Heh. Suspension of disbelief is what a modern author wants us to do when presenting entertainment. I'm pretty sure No Robots wouldn't accept that the gospel narratives are entertainment. Which leads to the next point:

So what does No Robots classify the genre of the gospel narratives? A modern author wanting us to suspend disbelief is a sign the author is presenting entertainment. What about an author 2,000 years ago? Is "suspension of disbelief" a purpose of the writers of the gospel narratives? Does the phrase "suspension of disbelief" even make sense as a purpose for authors 2,000 years ago?

spin

I think No Robots' infelicitous expression was aimed at the skeptic, who needs to "suspend [the skeptic's] disbelief" in order to confront the text (and obviously there is no thought contemplated in No Robots' mind of fiction or entertainment). Somehow miraculously that suspension will allow the scales to be removed from one's eyes and the text can somehow be seen the way he thinks it should be seen.

To understand No Robots' approach to text, how does he deal with the Bhagavad Gita, the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna on the battlefield of the Kurukshetra War?


spin

dog-on

I really don't see how the myth case falls away, simply because it is ignored. Must be some cozy sand, I guess.

No Robots

It is basically impossible to read the NT without some kind of interpretive guide. This has traditionally been the function of the priestly/scholarly community. People nowadays are rightly skeptical about any kind of interpretive guidance. So, because there is a general rejection of interpretive guides, the NT becomes impossible to read for the average person. He turns instead to guides who confirm that the NT really is impossible to read, or else to all manner of imaginative interpretations, on the premise that one is pretty much as good as another. All this makes the NT pretty much a closed book to the vast majority of people. Actually, it was always so: the NT was closed formerly by priestly/scholarly obscurantism, and is now by hyper-criticism. All I can really do is continue to point out that I personally have freed myself from the bondage of the hyper-critics by reading a very good interpretive guide: Constantin Brunner's Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk). By participating in these web discussions, I'm doing some viral marketing, hoping that there are others around who are willing to look at a rather singular interpretive guide to the NT. So, thanks for the discussion, spin. This one has gone far better than anything previous.

Minimalist

No.

aa5874

Simon Barcocheba was an historical Christ or Messiah. Christ or Messiah is a title given to real people.

But Jesus called Christ in the NT was portrayed as an offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, essentially as a myth.

spamandham

There is no reason to suspect that any of the traditional "interpretive guides" are correct in their interpretation.

Failte

Every 'interpretive guide" reflects the author's bias (or the specific communities' biases). Unless you understsand exactly what goal the writers had, the guide is useless and cannot be relied on. Anyone claiming 'truth' based on these interpretations, or their own, have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or a block of it.

No Robots

It seems to me that you have to cultivate a taste for reading and assessing interpretive guides. Or you can just take my word for it.