Better than being taken literally! (Admittedly a flip comment and poor attempt at didactic humor I'm sure...)

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.


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!

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).]

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.

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.

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.

This is an interesting question as well. What do you think He would say and do?

Why?

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

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

Oh well.

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.

Thank you!

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!

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.)



Hmmm. If I were a Christian answering that question, the question would never enter my mind.

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).]

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:

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

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)

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).]

(The Son of) God's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a fallen earth for?

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.

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.

posted twice...

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