Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-03-2011, 06:59 AM

"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete.

The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

stephan huller · 08-03-2011, 07:04 AM

I think Goodacre's solution is quit ingenious. He's probably right

beallen041 · 08-03-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No one thinks that the Gospel of Peter is historical.

It was my understanding that Dominic Crossan does.

aa5874 · 08-03-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete.

The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

Why must the story make sense to people in the 21st century?

The story SURVIVED for HUNDREDS of years and was FOUND with a "walking, talking cross".

Why must Goodacre change the story because he does NOT like the story and leave the parts he likes?

Based on your OWN definition of AD HOC argument, Goodacre made an AD HOC argument.

Removing the walking, talking cross from the story does NOT affect the IMPLAUSIBILITY of the story.

mountainman · 08-03-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete.

The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

The walking, talking cross makes perfect sense as literary satire.

Quote:

Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack

Toto · 08-03-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No one thinks that the Gospel of Peter is historical.

It was my understanding that Dominic Crossan does.

He thinks that the passion narrative is early, and that the role of the Jews is more historically accurate. But Crossan thinks that the canonical gospels contain 20% history and 80% mythology.

I meant that no one thinks that the walking talking cross coming out of the tomb is a historical event.

Toto · 08-03-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

The story SURVIVED for HUNDREDS of years and was FOUND with a "walking, talking cross".

We don't know that it did. We know that it was rejected early in the history of Christianity and we only have a corrupted and incomplete copy.

Quote:

Why must Goodacre change the story because he does NOT like the story and leave the parts he likes?...

You have no basis for thinking that he does not like the walking talking cross, or that he accepts any of it, or that he does not use the same methodology on any other document.

Toto · 08-03-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete.

The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

The walking, talking cross makes perfect sense as literary satire.

No it doesn't, and the definition of satire that you gave does not fit. There were Christians who used the Gospel of Peter as their main gospel; it was rejected for its docetic tendencies. No one in all of history has seen the Gospel of Peter as embarrassing to Christianity or as mockery of Christianity.

mountainman · 08-03-2011, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

The story SURVIVED for HUNDREDS of years and was FOUND with a "walking, talking cross".

We don't know that it did. We know that it was rejected early in the history of Christianity

We don't know that it was. We know only that Eusebius asserted that it was rejected early.
As you are very much aware, I think he lied through his teeth.

Quote:

and we only have a corrupted and incomplete copy.

That goes for most Christian documents.

mountainman · 08-03-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete.

The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

It may have been a performance in a theatre.
The hollywood of antiquity was the theatre.

Did not Jesus say ... "Take up, my cross, and follow me" ?
So maybe the cross was just obeying Jesus's orders?
It was after all, following Jesus.

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

08-03-2011, 06:59 AM	#41
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	"The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle" is absurd as an event, but makes literary sense as a gospel image made concrete. The walking, talking cross makes no literary sense

08-03-2011, 07:04 AM	#42
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think Goodacre's solution is quit ingenious. He's probably right

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.