Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 03-20-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Can the anonymously written, undated and derivative "Gospel of Mark" REALLY be given the same credence as, say, the historical works of Frederick Jackson Turner?

Now this really is a straw man argument. Ben C. Smith was not saying that the Gospel of Mark should be given the same credence as Turner's work.

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus
Can the anonymously written, undated and derivative "Gospel of Mark" REALLY be given the same credence as, say, the historical works of Frederick Jackson Turner?

Now this really is a straw man argument. Ben C. Smith was not saying that the Gospel of Mark should be given the same credence as Turner's work.

JJ4 edit.
jj, your answer is more of the strawman.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I know. But I saw the opening and, like Terrell Davis in Superbowl XXXII, I took it.

Ben.

Yep, you got skills for sure.

Jake

Didymus · 03-20-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Now this really is a straw man argument. Ben C. Smith was not saying that the Gospel of Mark should be given the same credence as Turner's work.

Oh, come on! I was merely highlighting the fallacy in treating scripture as though it were history. Which, BTW, I'm sure that Ben does not do.

But it's nice to know that you don't seem to give GMark any more credence than you do the work of a modern historian. Would only that Christians viewed "God's Holy Writ" with the same skepticism!

D

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

I'll grant that religious fanaticism is no worse than any other kind. But you seem to make no distinction between fanaticism and mere "bias."

I do make such a distinction.

But I never even spoke to religious fanatacism, nor was it on my radar. I was speaking of religious devotion.

Quote:

Should polemics, folktales, morality plays and gospels really be put on an equal footing with historical scholarship?

No; they are different things.

Quote:

Can the anonymously written, undated and derivative "Gospel of Mark" REALLY be given the same credence as, say, the historical works of Frederick Jackson Turner?

1. Mark is not any more anonymous than most works of antiquity.
2. Many works of antiquity are likewise undated.
3. Not sure what you meant by derivative.
4. The same credence? No. Modern history and biography is a different animal than ancient history and biography.

Quote:

Do "tradition" and "canonization" really make the Gospel of Mark any more credible than the Gospel of Marcion?

No.

Quote:

Ivory tower scholarship may not always emit the pure white light of unsullied truth, but at least objectivity and truth are the central aims, and the workings of the natural world are subject matter.

If you thought I had it in for the ivory tower, you were mistaken. I am sorry if I said anything that could have misled you into thinking I was against mainstream historical Jesus criticism in any way.

Quote:

On the other hand, distortions, exaggerations, tautologies, legends, false assumptions and rumors-presented-as-fact are the stock in trade of neo-cons, revolutionaries, reactionaries, paranoids, writers of ad copy, millenarians, evangelists and other fanatics.

I gently suggest that any umbrella that can cover both advertisers and revolutionaries is, as a category, well nigh useless.

Quote:

When doctrines are at stake, they seek to persuade, not to inform.

It is quite possible to persuade by informing (note that I am not as yet making that claim for the gospels; rather, I am pointing out a logical fallacy, since persuasion and information do not automatically conflict).

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If not a novel, a passion play.
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

Publicly portrayed for you means that Paul acted out a passion play for the Galatians?

Quote:

In Gal. 2:20 alleged Paul states that "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:". This is often interpreted figuratively, but it is likely to be literal. Just as at the Baptism, when the Christ spirit is said to have first possessed Jesus, the Christ spirit could presumably hop from person to person, and now inhabited Paul. And much more, Paul had literally been crucified.

As of his penning of the Galatian epistle, Paul had been literally crucified? With real nails that left real marks?

I must admit I find this entire hypothesis quite easy to doubt.

Ben.

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Publicly portrayed for you means that Paul acted out a passion play for the Galatians?

As of his penning of the Galatian epistle, Paul had been literally crucified? With real nails that left real marks?

I must admit I find this entire hypothesis quite easy to doubt.

Ben.

Are you disbeleiving because you cannot imagine that someone would do such a thing? See here "Every Easter in the Phillipines, pious volunteers carry crosses through the streets and actually allow themselves to be temporarily crucified."

Of course "Paul" had been crucified. How many times do you have to be told? . "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me..." Gal. 2:20.

"...I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." (Galatians 6:17). These are wounds of the crucifixion.

"Paul" channels the Christ spirit so strongly that the distinction between the two is obscured. God will judge the secrets of men according to Paul's gospel. Romans 2:16.

"For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me."Romans 15:18. "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Cor. 2:2

“Paul” also arrogantly claims to have the ability to send forth his spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver whomever he desires to Satan for the destruction of his flesh! Without visiting in his body.
1 Corinthians 5:4-5

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Are you disbeleiving because you cannot imagine that someone would do such a thing?

Not at all. I am aware of some of the passion reenactments round the world.

I am disbelieving because Paul regularly uses such language figuratively.

Ben.

jakejonesiv · 03-20-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Not at all. I am aware of some of the passion reenactments round the world.

I am disbelieving because Paul regularly uses such language figuratively.

Ben.

No, 1 Cor. 1:13 is figurative (literally a contradiction), the others above are quite literal.

Jake

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

No, 1 Cor. 1:13 is figurative (literally a contradiction), the others above are quite literal.

I was referring to Romans 6.3-4 (for instance), in which being baptized into death and being buried with Christ are obvious metaphors.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.