Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crazyfingers · 12-23-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

OUR CALENDAR assumes that Jesus was born in the year 0 -- but was he? Scholars, noting a mistaken calculation by the 6th century sage who invented a scheme of time to honor a "Christian era," tell us that Jesus was born in the year 4 BC. But was he?

That date is derived from the fact that the Gospel of Matthew puts the birth "during the reign of King Herod," and he is known to have died that year. But the Gospel of Luke says that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth to comply with the empire-wide census order of the Caesar Augustus, and some such decree is thought to have been issued after Herod died, perhaps as late as AD 6.

*snip*
Thus scholars across the liberal-conservative divide take for granted realities that would scandalize most members of congregations: that the Gospels do not record history as we think of it, that they were not written by eyewitnesses, that many of the Gospel details (Bethlehem and its stable, perhaps Mary's virginity) came not from "what happened" but from Jewish texts anticipating the Messiah, that few of the sayings of Jesus can be reliably attributed to him, that the very structure of the dramatic narrative that pits Jesus against the Jewish people ("His own knew him not") is an invention that, as read by non-Jewish Christians, does violence to Jesus himself; indeed, that these texts are a main source of religious anti-Judaism, which spawned racial anti-Semitism.

In the early 21st century, religious fundamentalism has shown itself to be a danger to peace. In the West, it is commonly assumed that Islam is the problem, with many Muslims at the mercy of an intolerant rigidity of belief. But most Christians are effectively fundamentalist in their beliefs, with little capacity for critical thought about sources, doctrines, and theology. Church leaders and scholars have kept it this way for the sake of their own power, but in a new era of inflamed religious conflict, childish passivity by a broad population in matters of faith is irresponsible.

* snip *

I'm sure that these issues are not new to most people in this forum. But it's usefull for a mass audience such as who reads James Carroll's colums to be exposed to them.

Vinnie · 12-23-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Scholars, noting a mistaken calculation by the 6th century sage who invented a scheme of time to honor a "Christian era," tell us that Jesus was born in the year 4 BC. But was he?

Yes. But Circa 4 B.C.E. as opposed to 4 B.C.E. is more accurate.

Quote:

I'm sure that these issues are not new to most people in this forum. But it's usefull for a mass audience such as who reads James Carroll's colums to be exposed to them.

That it is

Vinnie

12-23-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

I'm sure that these issues are not new to most people in this forum. But it's usefull for a mass audience such as who reads James Carroll's colums to be exposed to them.

The column is just the normal anti-Christian bullshit with the odd dodgy fact thrown in.

Conservatives don't agree with what Carroll says about the Gospels and no one is keeping mum to preserve their power. Sad that this passes for journalism in the liberal press.

gregor · 12-23-2003, 10:37 AM

Just the normal apologist rant.

crazyfingers · 12-23-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
[B]The column is just the normal anti-Christian bullshit with the odd dodgy fact thrown in.

James Carroll is Catholic.

[Admin hat]

You'd be more credible if you left out the profanity Bede.

[/admin hat]

Toto · 12-23-2003, 10:43 AM

<nitpick>There was no year 0. He means the year 1 CE</nitpick>

Bede - I think that this column represents liberal or post-Christian thinking in the US, and seems to be based on New Testament scholarship. If you want to be anti-Christian, you don't quote Paula Fredriksen, you quote someone from American Atheists. What do conservatives disagree with?

Vinnie · 12-23-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Conservatives don't agree with what Carroll says about the Gospels and no one is keeping mum to preserve their power. Sad that this passes for journalism in the liberal press.

Scholarship doesn't filter down. Neither does science. The masses remain largely ignorant. This includes pew-warmers indoctrinated to have blind faith in the histories of a speific anthology written by fallible men eons ago. Maybe where you are from all the Christians are smart but over here in "the congregations" most still think the Gospels are literal history. They are virtually oblivious to all NT scholarship unless its Josh Mcdowell's NETDAV or some other laughing stock to critical scholarship. People outside of the US usually don't understand the big deal with creationists either. Over seas this is not a problem. Young earth creationists are, if anything, rarely heard from out there. Here they represent a significant and at least vocal minority.

If third grade science had filtered down inot "the congregations" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course third grade is an exxaggeration. To be more accurate, 7th grade science.

Vinnie

Doctor X · 12-23-2003, 01:50 PM

I remember reading a review of The Bible Unearthed where a California Rabbi basically told his congregation (?), "Look, we have to start being honest. There probably was no historical Exodus!"

It takes a while for this stuff to filter through. Funny, last night over a margarita--mandatory for scholarly inquiry--a friend who is Christian asked me what is the concensus about a historical Junior. Funny that given latest threads!

In a way scholars do not report this stuff because:

1. They believe and it makes them uncomfortable.
2. They believe and are afraid it will make other believers uncomfortable.
3. It is beneath them--they are scholars.
4. They are afraid of the response.
5. They are afraid they will seem like they are "bashing" someone's religion.

One mentor opted out of one of the Discovery/History channel documentaries because the producers freaked having a person come out and say--"Hey, the stories are just stories." This was too severe. Suggesting things like the crucifixion or virgin birth with the three guys did not happen . . . "too dark altogether" to quote Conrad.

For what it is worth, here is an "answer" I "stole." The first course on the Bible I took was filled to capacity with gamut that ran from Baptists with gold-leaf Bibles to Orthodox Jews. Almost forty people packed in a small room to take a course from a widely respected scholar.

He was down to ten of us within the week--seriously.

I believe his statement on the first day, "Well, of course there is no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament," wiped out ten students right there.

I asked if he has ever been confronted by a teary-ey'd coed who has just had 10+ years of faith dismantled. He responded that he has many times. I asked what does he tell these people.

"I ask them if they have faith because of scripture or despite it."

In other words, if one's faith lives or dies on whether or not all of the stories are TRUE it is a weak faith. Put it another way, "Theists" claim "Atheists"--careful of the firehazard with these strawmen about--have "no basis for their morality." We have seen this posted, what? Once a week?

So . . . if the Bible is "untrue" what basis does a "Theist" have for his morality?

I think it is a seriously ridiculous question, or at least it should be.

Unfortunately the Great Unwashed that gets its loin cloths in a knot over whether or not people can honor a flag without a religious reference do not have the courage of their convictions.

It gets worse. Another story I repeat to frequently came about from my denegration of the Jesus Seminar--a bunch of "experts" voting with balls--gee . . . whiz . . . each one votes for passages that supports his Personal Jesus. Bah! As one mentor put it, "I think they have 'proven' Jesus once said 'the!'"

Some poster here repeated a story of one guy who left after watching some of them beat their brows trying to preserve a resurrection--"dead flesh is dead flesh!"

Anyways, another mentor "chastiz'd" me for missing "Funk's genius." What? As he explained it, "for centuries people have talked about 'The Teachings of Jesus' as if they are something you can point to. Funk has shown that they are just what people want them to be." In other words, by making them "decide" on them he showed they cannot "decide" on them.

Try THAT on the Great Unwashed! Take away the stories . . . now take away the "message." Bill O'Reilly--when he tries to appear ecumenical--talks about how "everyone accepts he was a great philosopher." Really? What philosophy?

Perhaps it is the responsibility for scholars to educate "da public" these uncomforting concepts--just as "scientists" have to explain why evolution works and why the world did not begin 10,000 years ago . . . at 9:00 A.M.

I can almost understand why they do not want to be bothered by the backlash!

--J.D.

gregor · 12-23-2003, 02:13 PM

. . .and 'tis the season for old chestnuts about:

> Isaiah predicting a virgin birth (despite not a single element of that story applying to Junior)

> Murder of the innocents (what a coincidence, it's the same as Moses' story)!

> Census - hey, let's travel with a preggers wife to an ancient home-town you've never lived in in order to register to pay taxes

Yet churches still swear these events are true to a laity that accepts them and wouldn't know Mack from McDowell.

12-23-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Bede - I think that this column represents liberal or post-Christian thinking in the US, and seems to be based on New Testament scholarship. If you want to be anti-Christian, you don't quote Paula Fredriksen, you quote someone from American Atheists. What do conservatives disagree with?

IIRC corrently, Carroll wrote Constantine's Sword which was widely panned as nothing more than an unhistorical book length anti-Catholic rant (although anti-Catholics, of course, loved it). He may well be a Christian but then Spong claims he is too so it gets hard to tell.

Conservatives would (correctly) state John's Gospel is based on an eyewitness and that Jesus's conflict with certain Jewish groups was real (the idea that the trial before the Sanhedren didn't happen is just political correctness. We covered this on Crosstalk and the poor liberals ended up looking very silly). They would further state that it is nonsense to claim that events prefigured in the OT cannot be true.

As for other comments on this thread about the great unwashed and the ignorant masses etc, they are not only deeply patronising, but given the amount of ignorance and stupidity on these boards, also hypocritical. The only point being made here is that many people don't agree with Carroll's views, but if we had a chance to indoctrinate them then they would. Big deal.

Given many creationists (with whom I do not agree) know far more about evolution that your average science major, and STILL thing its wrong, Vinnie's comments are simply irrelevant. The same applies to Jesus mythers - they insist on their (wrong) beliefs despite exposure to everything that reasonable people think should convince them.

So news for you folks. Many of the congregations are aware of liberal scholarship and some know it quite well. And they think its rubbish. It is not pure stupidity that causes them to make that decision - just like for Jesus mythers. It is an irony that most of you will appreciate that apart from these boards, I usually insist Doherty should be taken seriously and have had Crosstalk posts blocked on this. Perhaps I'm a sucker for lost causes.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2003, 10:37 AM	#4
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Just the normal apologist rant.

12-23-2003, 10:43 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	<nitpick>There was no year 0. He means the year 1 CE</nitpick> Bede - I think that this column represents liberal or post-Christian thinking in the US, and seems to be based on New Testament scholarship. If you want to be anti-Christian, you don't quote Paula Fredriksen, you quote someone from American Atheists. What do conservatives disagree with?

12-23-2003, 01:50 PM	#8
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I remember reading a review of The Bible Unearthed where a California Rabbi basically told his congregation (?), "Look, we have to start being honest. There probably was no historical Exodus!" It takes a while for this stuff to filter through. Funny, last night over a margarita--mandatory for scholarly inquiry--a friend who is Christian asked me what is the concensus about a historical Junior. Funny that given latest threads! In a way scholars do not report this stuff because: 1. They believe and it makes them uncomfortable. 2. They believe and are afraid it will make other believers uncomfortable. 3. It is beneath them--they are scholars. 4. They are afraid of the response. 5. They are afraid they will seem like they are "bashing" someone's religion. One mentor opted out of one of the Discovery/History channel documentaries because the producers freaked having a person come out and say--"Hey, the stories are just stories." This was too severe. Suggesting things like the crucifixion or virgin birth with the three guys did not happen . . . "too dark altogether" to quote Conrad. For what it is worth, here is an "answer" I "stole." The first course on the Bible I took was filled to capacity with gamut that ran from Baptists with gold-leaf Bibles to Orthodox Jews. Almost forty people packed in a small room to take a course from a widely respected scholar. He was down to ten of us within the week--seriously. I believe his statement on the first day, "Well, of course there is no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament," wiped out ten students right there. I asked if he has ever been confronted by a teary-ey'd coed who has just had 10+ years of faith dismantled. He responded that he has many times. I asked what does he tell these people. "I ask them if they have faith because of scripture or despite it." In other words, if one's faith lives or dies on whether or not all of the stories are TRUE it is a weak faith. Put it another way, "Theists" claim "Atheists"--careful of the firehazard with these strawmen about--have "no basis for their morality." We have seen this posted, what? Once a week? So . . . if the Bible is "untrue" what basis does a "Theist" have for his morality? I think it is a seriously ridiculous question, or at least it should be. Unfortunately the Great Unwashed that gets its loin cloths in a knot over whether or not people can honor a flag without a religious reference do not have the courage of their convictions. It gets worse. Another story I repeat to frequently came about from my denegration of the Jesus Seminar--a bunch of "experts" voting with balls--gee . . . whiz . . . each one votes for passages that supports his Personal Jesus. Bah! As one mentor put it, "I think they have 'proven' Jesus once said 'the!'" Some poster here repeated a story of one guy who left after watching some of them beat their brows trying to preserve a resurrection--"dead flesh is dead flesh!" Anyways, another mentor "chastiz'd" me for missing "Funk's genius." What? As he explained it, "for centuries people have talked about 'The Teachings of Jesus' as if they are something you can point to. Funk has shown that they are just what people want them to be." In other words, by making them "decide" on them he showed they cannot "decide" on them. Try THAT on the Great Unwashed! Take away the stories . . . now take away the "message." Bill O'Reilly--when he tries to appear ecumenical--talks about how "everyone accepts he was a great philosopher." Really? What philosophy? Perhaps it is the responsibility for scholars to educate "da public" these uncomforting concepts--just as "scientists" have to explain why evolution works and why the world did not begin 10,000 years ago . . . at 9:00 A.M. I can almost understand why they do not want to be bothered by the backlash! --J.D.

12-23-2003, 02:13 PM	#9
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	. . .and 'tis the season for old chestnuts about: > Isaiah predicting a virgin birth (despite not a single element of that story applying to Junior) > Murder of the innocents (what a coincidence, it's the same as Moses' story)! > Census - hey, let's travel with a preggers wife to an ancient home-town you've never lived in in order to register to pay taxes Yet churches still swear these events are true to a laity that accepts them and wouldn't know Mack from McDowell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.