Steve Weiss

The observation about Constantine is true to the best of our knowledge, but it has nothing to do with the veracity of OT and NT stories in a text that is alleged to be perfect and the word of an assumed deity. The claims of sacredness for the bible (of which there have been and continue to be many versions) is asserted to give it an undeserved credibility. Had these fantastic stories appeared anywhere else they would have been rejected as fictional out of hand. In fact, Christians would be the first to declare non-Christian myth-making as unbelievable. Only their own is holy and perfect.

No one has as yet taken up my challenge to substantiate any OT miracle, and they won't.

Steve Weiss

I have no objection to fantastic, imagined stories as long as they are labeled as fiction. These humorous and entertaining stories don't have to be put into the dustbin if they are studied as literature or as cultural indicators, or as propaganda. It is only when these fictional works are believed to be factual as portraying the truth about historical events that one should object to such an exaggerated claim.

Steve Weiss

No big deal, I do it myself and twice on Sunday.

Steve Weiss

Good fiction should appear plausible in order to keep the reader interested, however, no OT story would fall into that category. If one's reaction to a yarn is huh? then the author has gone too far and has lost his reader. The bible does so consistently. Modern editors would, most likely, send a rejection notice to the authors of the bible (in all its myriad versions) if they could be identifed. Sending in a manuscript without a return address is a real waste of time.

spamandham

I swear I already replied to this, well here's the short version on the most relevant point.

You and I both know you made that shit up. I get the feeling your motives in this discussion are not the same as mine. Perhaps it's best to call it off. Consider this whatever type of concession makes you happy.

Ted Hoffman

I dont have TJP with me at the moment so I will have to review what D wrote on this.
However, your view sounds naive. First of all, Kloppenborg was proposing a model for Q composition history. It is the most influential one. But it is not necessarily the correct one and it is not the only one. Q studies have been fraught with difficulties and Doherty has a right to diverge from Kloppenborg's model whenever he disagrees with it and whenever he has reasons for doing so.
Many others have disagreed with Kloppenborg. Dieter Luhrman sees two main layers of material. Siegfed Schultz posits two stages. Kloppenborg posits three. M Sato sees three stages of redaction and so on. Others dont even think Q existed. It is not a simple case of either agreeing with Kloppenborg or lacking meaning. Lets not be dogmatic.
Now, if I find that Doherty was not claiming that Kloppenborg himself stated that Q1 is oral, then your charge that "he doesn't understand Kloppenborg's hypothesis" would be unwarranted in my view.
So he is wrong because his approach is different? How clever. So far, what you have argued is that Doherty is wrong because he doesnt agree with your preferred scholars. As far as Jesus, and by extension Q, being Cynic, he is in good company with Mack, Crossan, F.G. Downing, L. Vaage and others against Tuckett, H.D. Betz, Ben Witherington, Gregory Boyd and others. The point being, it doesnt mean squat that he does not agree with your preferred model. You have to address his arguments - not just claim "he doesnt understand X."

IIRC, he relies on NT Wright to define what is Jewish. Is that wrong?
To you, reference to the Torah alone, makes a document Jewish. Is that correct? Where do you draw the line between a Jewish document and a Christian one?
What are these premises and what is this controversial and necessary point?
You once took his findings seriously?
So, is he wrong on this controversial topic? How can we know?
Are you claiming that Turton is simply explaining his feelings? Is that why he has dozens of references for his work? Is that why he presents a methodology that he proceeds to apply?
Not that I agree with this categorization but is it your contention that popular works are not meant to convince?
I will get round to J & J shortly. I presume that he engages NT Scholarship in that work?
Like which mistake?

spin

Let me filter out the static... the result is... ... Damn, no content.

Why should I?


spin

spin

Wake me when you feel you have something inspirational to say.

spin

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

You mean you can't see any similarity between this story and the mass feedings? You don't see that this is another miracle -- a post-resurrection miracle? You don't think that it shows some conflict between the Johannine tradition and the Petrine tradition? You mean that the story doesn't deal with a tangible resurrection? And you don't think any of these points would be important to a christian writer?

I'll consider it for what it is: non-communication.

If you want to make something out of the number 153 (which is not developed upon in any way) in a redactional appendix to the gospel of John, please go ahead. I don't want to stop you. But stop alluding to it as though you have made something out of it.


spin

youngalexander

What a splendidly vituperative thread!:devil1:

Apocalypto