Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-20-2001, 06:01 AM | #41 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Nomad:
1) If you want to understand the spread of Christianity in Europe, you can look up the articles on Medieval Europe at the Ency. Brit. If it is my claims for Clovis, then type "conversion of Clovis" in Google and see what falls out. I supplied a couple of sources as asked, and feel no further need to do research for you. As you said, you already know. 2) Yes, the conversion of Europe is unique. So is any historical event. However, it has commonalities with other historical events, such as the conversion of China, SE and Japan to Buddhism, the spread of Hinduism in SE Asia by peaceful means (Hindu merchants brought priests who peacefully converted local potentates -- remind you of anything?) and the spread of other religions. 3) I did not say, and will not maintain, that Christianity was spread only at the point of the sword. 4) There is no contradiction between noting that there was already a leaven of Xtianis in Europe when the missionaries went in during the Dark Ages, and noting that the missionaries had a "top-down" conversion strategy. This strategy was pursued throughout history, in almost all areas Christianity entered. It failed in China and India, and was only partially successful in Africa. Note that I am not saying it is the only strategy used. 5) Peaceful conversion to outside religion is a common event in history and there is nothing miraculous about it. Perhaps the Franks really did think Xtianity was better than their own beliefs. There is nothing wrong with noting the Franks (or Saxons, or whoever) had a subjective judegement about Xtianity. If you wish to draw the objective conclusion "Christianity is better," you are honor bound, as a good scholar, to wonder why it failed in India, China and elsewhere. 6) What I wanted to head off was the triumphalist conclusion underlying your naive and ethnocentric thesis that Christianity's success was due to some "special factor" like the intervention of god or the superiority of Xtianity to all other religions. Christianity did quite well in a socially unstable area, politically unsettled, and inhabited by a myriad of local religions. It failed utterly in China and India where stable social, political and religious systems could compete with it. Its success or failure, like that of other religions, can be explained by mundane, if complex, historical processes. Michael |
03-20-2001, 07:44 AM | #42 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd like to hear your theory on the ORIGIN of Christianity, not how it spread. Who started it? When did they start it? Where and how did it start? You don't need to write a book - one or two paragraphs should suffice Peace, Polycarp |
||
03-20-2001, 08:14 AM | #43 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b] I'd really like to hear your response to the question I asked you yesterday in this thread because I think it directly ties into the point Nomad was trying to make. Here's what I wrote: Did you ask me this? I missed it completely! Sorry! I'd like to hear your theory on the ORIGIN of Christianity, not how it spread. Who started it? When did they start it? Where and how did it start? You don't need to write a book - one or two paragraphs should suffice "one or two paragraphs should suffice." Ha-ha-ha I don't have any real "theory," if you are asking for a general model of how religion develops and is spread. I presume you mean "historical explanation" for the particular rise of Christianity. And my answer is, no, thanks, I have had enough headaches already. I haven't yet decided which version (Doherty or Crossan or whoever) is the definitive one as far as that goes (say for the period 30 CE -100 CE). I just take it for granted that some belief system called Christianity emerged from the various struggles between the earliest factions of Jesus-believers. Michael |
03-20-2001, 08:52 AM | #44 | ||||||||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Second, motive does not equate to crime LP. If you want to accuse the disciples, aposltes and evangelists and other early Christians of embellishing stories and the like, I want to see more than your paranoid ravings. Offer us some proof of your claims, then tell us why it is important. Quote:
Quote:
Stay on topic please. If you don't have a theory, that is cool, but if you do, be prepared to defend it. Quote:
Do better, and show us that you can actually back up your claims with some proofs (even some quotes from Doherty would be nice). Quote:
Perhaps you can explain to me why most of the Jews rejected this story then. Or why Paul got run out of town in more than one city. Do you actually read anything LP? Your ignorance is showing more and more. Acts 13:45-46 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. Acts 14:19 Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. Acts 17:32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." Acts 18:6 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." Acts 21:30-33 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, You know what? I'm going to stop now. I am sick and tired of being the one that provides proof after proof of my claims only to see more baseless assertions from sceptics like you. It is time to put up or shut up LP. Your ideas and beliefs run counter to the evidence, so if you offer nothing to support them, then we must assume that you make them up for your own benefit, or string them together from bits and pieces of disconnected information you managed to pick up from who knows where. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Stay on topic. Quote:
I want sources, I want stats, I want places, and numbers of people involved in your slanders here. You have made an assertion, back it up. Nomad |
||||||||||
03-20-2001, 08:59 AM | #45 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
First of all I am not an atheist -
Second I see that no one really understood my points: The Bible does NOT -repeat NOT -give a "naturalistic explanation" to ANY of the points outlined by Nomad. His rejection of the 'supernatural' aspect is unwarranted and unproven. It is mere subjective bias. It seems that his histor-critical method has erased the supernatural altogether - and that brings up some of my dissatisfaction with the 'methodology': it fails utterly to get to the real Jesus: it only gets as far as the Jesus that you want to paint a picture of: case in point: the 'conservatives' don't like Crossan's Jesus -they find his Jesus "unbelievable" - is that an argument? No - it's an emotional gut jerk. Crossan certainly thinks his Jesus believable. The only retort that these historical guys can come up with is this: he abused the criteria. Who's to say that? Where is there an objective criteria? What is the 'objective' admixture of attestation, aramaisms, etc? Well there is none. It's quite subjective - the way you want the real Jesus to look is going to go a long way in determining your criteria and the mixture. You want Jesus to look like a sage? No problem. A cynic? No problem. A madman? No problem. A revolutionary? No problem. But please note that all we're getting is another person's picture - but we're not getting anywhere to the 'real' Jesus at all. Crossan's Jesus is just as valid (given the methods) as Meier's. It's seems to me that neither have come close. It's subjective and the only retort is "your Jesus is unbelievable" - the Quest is a farce. But as I said before, the Quest does make it hard for those who wish to include the supernatural - that's because the methodology can't really say much on those matters. But, as I pointed out before, the supernatural aspect of Jesus as presented in the NT is evident thru and thru. If the historical method can't prove that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God incarnate, or that Jesus died for sins and propitiated an angry God, then it misses the real Jesus. And given the elasticity of the method, I don't see that it proves anything. As a matter of fact, it can validate anyone's story. Crossan's, Meier's, Nomad's,etc.. It turns out that the real quest is to see which scholar can win the day, whose story is going to reign supreme? Whose Jesus gets to be the 'real' Jesus? [Stanley Fish (Is there a Text -last few chapters) was correct.......] Thank you for the discussion. |
03-20-2001, 09:03 AM | #46 | |||||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I am not saying that such supports do not exist, but until you show us what you have actually read on the subject, your assertions remain groundless. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thank you again. Nomad |
|||||||
03-20-2001, 09:12 AM | #47 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I am not sure you are still getting the point of this thread. We do not have to assume that any of the supernatural things in the Bible actually happened in order to believe that Jesus was born, lived, died on a cross, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty and his followers said he was physically risen from the dead within days of his burial. So, taking the naturalist or materialist at his word, I would like to know what they think happened. I do not expect the explaination to be perfect, but I would like to see that some of them have at least considered this question and come up with some ideas. If we end up disagreeing about them, that is alright. After all, the world would be pretty boring if we agreed about everything wouldn't it? Thanks again, and I would very much like to hear what you believed happened between the death of Jesus, and the proclomation by his friends, followers and family that he was risen. Nomad |
|
03-20-2001, 09:14 AM | #48 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Which "assertions" are "groundless" because I don't have supporting "references?" You've made accusations. Support'em. What are the "critical" differences between the spread of buddhism or hinduism and that of xtianity? And what's YOUR theory/model/explanation for the spread of xtianity in Europe? Michael [This message has been edited by turtonm (edited March 20, 2001).] |
|
03-20-2001, 09:18 AM | #49 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
03-20-2001, 10:05 AM | #50 | ||||||||||||||||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." On this basis you would have to say that the redactor was adding this bit as well, and I have never heard anyone suggest that 7:38 was not part of the original composition of John (i.e. preredaction). (Otherwise, why would John have mentioned it here at all?). I am sorry to be asking for a reference from you here nat, but I would like to know if your theory has any textual support within the Greek itself. The second problem is that you must read into the text that the BD did not witness this event, and construct an image of some later redactor that sees someone else get pierced, and thinks to connect it to John 7:38 through Jesus on the cross. We are straying very far into complex construction here, and I am not sure that the text can bear the weight you would like to put on it. Quote:
Right now I am testing how plausable and reasonable your explaination is, and to your credit, you are not doing too badly. But if the premises are this shaky, anything we build on it later is going to be in even worse shape, and before I let you move on to those future points, I want to make sure I have examined this part as closely as possible. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think we can allow the evangelists some literary leeway here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace, Nomad [This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 20, 2001).] |
||||||||||||||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|