Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 03-17-2012, 11:50 PM

Luke 23:2, as outhouse stated in #235.

aa5874 · 03-18-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO anti-taxation Jesus in the NT and no anti tax message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

he was put on a cross for tax evasion / sedition according to luke...

You are NOT credible. You are just inventing myth fables from your imagination. You ought to know the charges were FALSE.

In gLuke Jesus was EXONERATED of the charges by Pilate.

Examine gLuke 23-13-14

Quote:

And Pilate when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people.

Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold , I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him...

You are really just IMAGINING your own stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...all jews had a problem and hatred of romans and taxation, yet if we follow your normal M.O. and claim evidence from silence. Then there is a huge issue here

So all along you were using silence for history. Silence cannot be used for history.

Silence is the EVIDENCE for ABSENCE. Things that do NOT exist are SILENT.

There is ZERO EVIDENCE for Jesus--UTTER SILENCE.

Sheshbazzar · 03-18-2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

you also know he was questioned with his life on the line for tax evasion, and chose the middle ground.

Where within these texts is he charged with tax evasion?

Luke 23:2.

You should have quoted the actual verse Adam.
But it has been noted before that quoting actual verses seems to be against your religion

It is so much easier to misrepresent and pervert them if you don't have to deal with the actual words isn't it?)

As it is not against my religion to provide actual quotes, Allow me to help you out.

Quote:

1. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

2. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

What is going on here?

The lead character is being accused of 'forbidding to give tribute to Caesar' in front of Pilate.
It is up to Pilate whether to charge him with the crime which he is being accused of.
Now show where he is charged with this crime that he was accused of.

Which in point of fact would NOT be 'tax evasion', but rather that of unlawfully claiming a right to collect Jewish taxes, rather than Caesar, under a claim to be the King of the Jews, and thus entitled to a right to collect the taxes from the Jews.

.

maryhelena · 03-18-2012, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

That line was meant primarily to be humorous, but I should really know better around here. And if either you or maryhelena are "not buying it" in the absence of reading and rebutting my arguments in favor of that theory as presented in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (now available on Kindle for $14.95, so price is no excuse), then you are as guilty of having a closed mind and being dogmatic about your own theories as you accuse me of.

You also should know better that I have done anything but ignore "new understanding and knowledge". In my postings here and elsewhere I have constantly engaged in that alleged new understanding and knowledge. I have for ten years considered and grappled with in substantive fashion all the disagreement which has been expressed toward my books and website. I "stick with" my theory because no one has given me reason or convincing argument to discard it (certainly not you, nor maryhelena--if one could understand exactly what her theory is), not because I have set it in stone and put it in a locked room in my mind.

What's "sad" to me is that I could be accused of such a thing.

Earl Doherty

"..understand exactly what her theory is"

Let me put it very simply - I'll quote further from the book by J.W. Rogerson - Myth In Old Testament Interpretation:

Earl, you have never understood where I'm 'coming from'. And that is sad from someone who wants to further the ahistoricist/mythicist position on the gospel JC. One should not be shutting doors that might open up much needed forward movement in this continuing ahistoricist/mythicist verse the historicist debate.

What on earth is that quote from Rogerson (which didn't come through in the Quote process for some reason) supposed to tell me about your theory of Christian origins and development???

You are simply demonstrating my point. I am no closer than I ever was to understanding what you are trying to say, let alone on what basis you "don't buy" my own theories. I've read scores of your postings over the years, but your ideas remain as "murky" to me as ever.

Earl Doherty

Earl, the quote from Rogerson is telling you exactly what it did 11 years ago when I used it in reply to you on the JesusMysterist List. Myth is a broad category and one of it’s connotations is:

Quote:

10) A myth is a single story, or longer stretch of narrative, which expresses the ideals, hopes and faith of a people. This view does not seem to be tied to any particular epistemology, or to be limited to primitives or ancients. It would underlie the position of a folkorist such as Gaster; it would embrace that phenomenon which has been called the mythologising of history;it was certainly defended by de Wette in his mythical understanding and interpretation of the whole Pentateuch.

my bolding

And here is another quotation from a JesusMysteries post in connection with myth:

Quote:

An interesting point on myth is made in the book
'Life of Jesus'( Strauss 1864 - and quoted in 'The Myth of God
Incarnate, edited by John Hick, 1977)"

"In this new edition of the 'Life of Jesus' I have conceded far more
room than previously - mainly as a consequence of Baur's
investigations - for the acceptance of conscious and intentional
mythologizing; but I have seen no reason to change the term itself. On
the contrary, to the question whether conscious fabrication of an
individual are also properly to be called myths, I must - even after
all the previous discussion on this point - still always reply:
absolutely, as soon as they have been believed and have passed into
history of a people or a religious sect; at the same time, this also
shows that they were formed by their author, not merely according to his
own fancies, but in close association with the consciousness of a
majority. ...... and if Greek mythology is desirous of
distinguishing a more limited concept of myth, which excludes conscious
fabrication, from this wider concept, critical theology, conversely, is
desirous - over against the so-called believers - of including all
those Gospel narrative to which it ascribes only an ideal significance,
under the general concept of myth".

my bolding

The Myth of God Incarnate (or via: amazon.co.uk) edited JohnHick

Earl, the gospel JC story is a mythological story; it is a mythologizing of history. OK, 11 years ago you were having none of that - telling me that you would prefer to use the term ‘fiction’ as opposed to ‘myth’ for the gospel story. Your own theory, Earl, requires that you minimize the importance of the gospel story - and thus side-step the mythological implications of that story - i.e. that the gospel story is a mythologizing of history. That way you do not have to consider the historical time-frame of the gospel story as being in anyway relevant to that story, to the mythologizing of that history. All your position requires is that the gospel writers closed their eyes to history and simply pulled their dating structure out of a hat.

Quote:

Earl
> Rather, it is my view that seeks to *narrow down* the subject of myth
to the area which is pertinent to, and can cast light on, the question
under discussion: did an historical Jesus exist? If it thus excludes
areas of discussion, interest, insight about the nature of myth and the
specific nature of the Gospel myth, which do not directly relate to
that question, so be it. By seeking to embrace some investigation of
the entire area of human mythology, you muddy the waters simply because
it overloads the discussion and obscures the particular area we are
trying to address.

And what did I say to that “muddy waters” charge back then?

“If the waters are muddy that's a good sign - at least there has been
some rain. Its the dry, barren desert that I would be worried about.”

As to why I don’t buy your theory. It’s too limited. It fails to address the gospel story as a mythologizing of history. And that failure, in connection with literature that stems from a Jewish source, is beyond my comprehension. You can ride on Paul’s mythical carpet from now on until judgement day - and you will continue to fail to produce an ahistoricist/mythicist argument that will attract interest from a wider audience. ‘Paul’ is not the answer to the gospel Jesus story. “Paul” does not, cannot, trump the gospel JC story.

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2012, 06:18 AM

Quote:

As to why I don’t buy your theory. It’s too limited. It fails to address the gospel story as a mythologizing of history.

Earl has addressed this at length, showing how the gospels are midrashic constructions on Jewish scripture. This statement is utter nonsense.

Of course they are mythologizing of history: salvation history. This Earl makes clear.

If you think they are history it is up to you to show, using a reliable methodology, that there is history in them. Your "you haven't refuted me so my claims must be true" logic is wrong; you need to provide positive evidence for your position. You can utterly refute Earl by doing so.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena · 03-18-2012, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

As to why I don’t buy your theory. It’s too limited. It fails to address the gospel story as a mythologizing of history.

Earl has addressed this at length, showing how the gospels are midrashic constructions on Jewish scripture. This statement is utter nonsense.

Of course they are mythologizing of history: salvation history. This Earl makes clear.

If you think they are history it is up to you to show, using a reliable methodology, that there is history in them. Your "you haven't refuted me so my claims must be true" logic is wrong; you need to provide positive evidence for your position. You can utterly refute Earl by doing so.

Vorkosigan

Utter nonsense it is not!

If you have any quotations from Earl's work that demonstrates that he has taken history into account - please present it.

Before one can interpret the gospels as 'salvation history' - one needs first to establish what history the gospels have mythologized. So, set it out - set out what history Earl has taken into account in his position/theory on the gospel JC story.

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2012, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

If you have any quotations from Earl's work that demonstrates that he has taken history into account - please present it.

Before one can interpret the gospels as 'salvation history' - one needs first to establish what history the gospels have mythologized. So, set it out - set out what history Earl has taken into account in his position/theory on the gospel JC story.

MH, are you saying you haven't even read Earl's Jesus: Neither God nor Man?

Quote:

Before one can interpret the gospels as 'salvation history' - one needs first to establish what history the gospels have mythologized.

You're the one making the claim that the gospels are history mythologized. Show me that is true.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena · 03-18-2012, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

If you have any quotations from Earl's work that demonstrates that he has taken history into account - please present it.

Before one can interpret the gospels as 'salvation history' - one needs first to establish what history the gospels have mythologized. So, set it out - set out what history Earl has taken into account in his position/theory on the gospel JC story.

MH, are you saying you haven't even read Earl's Jesus: Neither God nor Man?

No, I've never read Earl's book. I've read some of the stuff on his website.

Quote:

Before one can interpret the gospels as 'salvation history' - one needs first to establish what history the gospels have mythologized.

You're the one making the claim that the gospels are history mythologized. Show me that is true.

Vorkosigan

Vork - check out my postings to this site over the last few years. Many of them, especially the threads I started, have to do with history - and how the gospel JC story has mythologized, interpreted, re-told, that history in a pseudo-historical format.

And just for the record - I am not out to get Earl - I am not out to disregard his work. I happen to think it does not go far enough. Interpreting 'Paul' will not dislodge the assumption of a historical gospel JC. It just will not do so. A spiritual Christ figure - however elaborated upon - is par for the course in Christian theology. It's no big deal to say 'Paul's' JC is a spiritual, cosmic Christ figure. The issue is not over 'Paul's' spirituality, his theological imaginings - the issue is the gospel JC story. One does not 'fight' the historical JC assumption by presenting a spiritual Christ figure. One cannot fight reality, albeit in this case, an assumed reality - with a spiritual, cosmic, figure. For the assumed historical JC - it's only history that can knock this figure down.

And please don't come back and tell me to read Earl's book - I've read enough christology/theology to do me for a lifetime. I'm not interested in yet more musings on 'Paul's musings - I'm interested in history. Full stop.

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, I've never read Earl's book. I've read some of the stuff on his website.

Earl extensively discusses the gospels.

Quote:

Vork - check out my postings to this site over the last few years.

I've checked them out over the last couple of years....

Quote:

And just for the record - I am not out to get Earl - I am not out to disregard his work. I happen to think it does not go far enough. Interpreting 'Paul' will not dislodge the assumption of a historical gospel JC.

That's probably why Earl has a twofold discussion that shows that (1) the gospels are midrash-based and contain no history of Jesus based on any historical figure and (2) they are late, come after the Pauline letters, and are unknown to Christians well into the second century.

Quote:

theological imaginings - the issue is the gospel JC story.

No, the Gospel JC story is an invention, probably second century. Paul's letters come before it.

That means that if there is an HJ, he is to be found in Paul's letters, because the second century apologists, as Earl shows, are not aware of him.

Quote:

One does not 'fight' the historical JC assumption by presenting a spiritual Christ figure. One cannot fight reality, albeit in this case, an assumed reality - with a spiritual, cosmic, figure. For the assumed historical JC - it's only history that can knock this figure down.

Yes, that is why Earl presents the history that does in fact knock that figure down.

Quote:

And please don't come back and tell me to read Earl's book - I've read enough christology/theology to do me for a lifetime. I'm not interested in yet more musings on 'Paul's musings - I'm interested in history. Full stop.

You're totally misrepresenting Earl's work which you are obviously deeply unfamiliar with.

It is common courtesy to read the works of people whose ideas you want to discuss.

....If you have a post/blogpost/website comprehensively discussing your historical basis for the gospels, direct me to a link.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena · 03-18-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, I've never read Earl's book. I've read some of the stuff on his website.

Earl extensively discusses the gospels.

Quote:

Vork - check out my postings to this site over the last few years.

I've checked them out over the last couple of years....

Great! Then you know that I'm not talking nonsense....

Quote:

And just for the record - I am not out to get Earl - I am not out to disregard his work. I happen to think it does not go far enough. Interpreting 'Paul' will not dislodge the assumption of a historical gospel JC.

That's probably why Earl has a twofold discussion that shows that (1) the gospels are midrash-based and contain no history of Jesus based on any historical figure and (2) they are late, come after the Pauline letters, and are unknown to Christians well into the second century.

(1) Consider what Earl posted on his website - a reply to an email of mine many years ago:

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

my bolding

So, let Earl put some history on the table - as I noticed you chose not to help him out.....

(2) Really? And how is that theory going down with the JC historicists?

Quote:

theological imaginings - the issue is the gospel JC story.

No, the Gospel JC story is an invention, probably second century. Paul's letters come before it.

That means that if there is an HJ, he is to be found in Paul's letters, because the second century apologists, as Earl shows, are not aware of him.

Probably? How is that doing with the JC historicists? There is no historical gospel JC for any second century apologists to be aware of.

Quote:

One does not 'fight' the historical JC assumption by presenting a spiritual Christ figure. One cannot fight reality, albeit in this case, an assumed reality - with a spiritual, cosmic, figure. For the assumed historical JC - it's only history that can knock this figure down.

Yes, that is why Earl presents the history that does in fact knock that figure down.

And yet that figure is still standing tall? Earl presents no history - and you have presented no history to help him out...

Quote:

And please don't come back and tell me to read Earl's book - I've read enough christology/theology to do me for a lifetime. I'm not interested in yet more musings on 'Paul's musings - I'm interested in history. Full stop.

You're totally misrepresenting Earl's work which you are obviously deeply unfamiliar with.

It is common courtesy to read the works of people whose ideas you want to discuss.

I'm not pretending to be giving a critique of Earl's book...:constern01:

Earl's ideas are freely available on his website...

Quote:

....If you have a post/blogpost/website comprehensively discussing your historical basis for the gospels, direct me to a link.

Vorkosigan

Vork - my postings are on FRDB. Freely available...

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

03-17-2012, 11:50 PM	#241
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Luke 23:2, as outhouse stated in #235.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.