Clivedurdle

But that was the point of the link - that it is questionable! What evidence do you want? Why are you assuming your plain reading? It has no more value than the other possibilities and in fact less because there are theological reasons for your interpretation!

But if you agree there are other possibilities why are you sticking with yours?

Btw what is your take on the OP?

RPS

Because it's questionable we should hold our views tentatively unless and until sufficient evidence is produced pointing in another direction. It does not mean that the process of translation is meaningless.

Evidence that brother of the Lord doesn't mean just that.

I don't assume it -- I infer it. What's for lunch? might be a secret code designed to notify space aliens by telepathy that it's time to attack us. But if there's no evidence to show that it is we're not remotely wrong to conclude that the inquirer really means to ask What's for lunch? as commonly understood.

Nonsense. The plain reading fits perfectly into the context and actually (contrary to your claim) undercuts the historically standard theological assumption of Mary's perpetual virginity. Without evidence pointing elsewhere, it's entirely irrational to conclude otherwise, especially since you are grasping for support for your underlying assumption and the plain reading stands in your way.

Among other reasons, because it's the only plausible default position. If you were asked What's for lunch? do you really mean to suggest that A sandwich and Head for the hills -- space aliens are attacking! are equally appropriate responses?

Even in my atheist days I was never an MJer, so I had no tipping point.

Toto

I was not trying to rebut you. I was expressing amazement at your claim that JM'ers are terrified of maybe having to convert to an evangelical version of Christianity if they admit that there might have been a historical Jesus. I don't know anyone like that; you say you do, so I assume there is at least one person like that, or that you are misinterpreting their reasons (it's always hard to read someone else's mind, let along their subconscious.)

But I have to say that most of the JM'ers that I know are online, and they either started off as atheists or as liberal Christians or humanists who thought that Jesus was a historical person, and would not change any part of their world view if there were a historical Jesus. And I can't think of any reason for anyone to change their worldview based on a murky historical figure, unless one accepts all the supernatural aspects of the gospels.

So I think that either you do not know many JM'ers, or you do not know a representative sample, or you are not reading their motives correctly. But I can't say.

I do know that Campus Crusade for Christ starts off their indoctrination program by emphasizing that everyone agrees that there was a historical Jesus. But then they go on to draw unwarranted conclusions from that, plus putting the fear of hellfire into people.

But you are doing us all a disservice by claiming that the alternative to a historical Jesus is accepting the supernatural Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior.

No Robots

That's another thing I love about Brunner's book: whenever somebody tries to push his religious views on me, I just give him a copy of Our Christ and say, "Read this and then we'll talk." Works like a charm. I suppose Doherty's book could serve the same function.

David B

I haven't read every post in the thread.

I tend to favour a historical Jesus, on the inductive grounds that most myths I've looked into have some sort of historical background to them. Troy, Arthur, even the flood....

It doesn't matter to me either way if Jesus were proved to be historical or not tomorrow, by some contemporary document turning up.

History is full of real cases of would be religious masters, none of whom, as far as I can tell, did anything supernatural.

It's only since I came here that I realised that some people try hard to argue against a historical Jesus.

I think they can show doubt on his historical existence, but haven't really made a case that he never existed.

But so what?

Even conceding that Jesus was a historical person, what difference does that make to supernatural claims?

David B (sees none)

Iasion

Greetings,

It's odd isn't it.

This expression "couldn't care less" has been used in commonwealth countries (i.e. UK, Australia etc.) for decades.

But,
in recent years it has become common in the US, and somehow it has transmogrified into "could care less".

Seems like some people don't think about what they are saying :-)


Iasion

Vorkosigan

Yes, I have the same problem with Hercules too. I'm afraid that if I think Hercules was a real person, I'll start worshipping him. And there's Lao Tzu -- if he actually existed, I might have to become a Taoist. And Confucius -- just think if he were a real man -- I can't handle it!

It's OK to believe things like an HJ as an act of faith like you do, even when there is no sound methodological support, but its not OK to smear everyone with insanely silly personal attacks like that. I've been an atheist for 30 years and a mythicst for two. 'Nuff said.

Vorkosigan

David B

Indeed! Steven Pinker, the linguistics guy, talked about this.

Actually, if you really think about it, the guys who say 'I could care less' are right. The implication being 'Maybe there is something I could care less about, but I can't think off hand what it might be', while the 'I couldn't care less' guys haven't really thought about it. Perhaps there is something they could care less about, once one has considered all possibilities. ETA - considering all possibilities would need near infinite time.

David B

rlogan

I stopped being an HJer because all the ones I knew were fags.

mountainman

I stopped being an HJer because I realised that the fabrication
of the Galilaeans was a massive and wicked fiction of a literary
and theological romancer (the wretched Eusebius), sponsored
by Constantine immediately prior to Nicaea, and perpetrated by
the supreme imperial commander at Nicaea as a means to
maximise taxation, control and administration in his newly
expanded dominion of the empire.

I stopped being an HJer because I realised that the words of
Arius (the strawman opposition against Constantine's initiative)
did not relate to theology, but related to a fiction of history:

* there was a time when he was not
* before he was born he was not
* he was made out of nothing existing
* he is from another subsistence
* he is from another substance
* he is subject to alteration or change

-- The words of Arius, on account of which Constantine
summoned attendees to the Council of Nicaea 325 CE



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”