Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 01-14-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

aa5874 · 01-14-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

It did NOT happen.

The Jesus story of the Transfigured Sea Water walker is a Myth Fable.

maryhelena · 01-14-2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

Re-read what I wrote: "..weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts"

Notice the word *gospel* - that is the context of my statement. In contrast your comment is a floating abstraction - and as such is meaningless for any rational discussion.

:realitycheck:

sotto voce · 01-14-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

Re-read what I wrote: "..weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts"

Notice the word *gospel*

Indeed— note it well. The gospel states that disciples went to Bethphage. Now if the reader, any reader, is to be 'weaned' off the jejune notion that disciples went to Bethphage, it would help very considerably if readers were to be advised as to what is actually meant by this statement.

What may be meant by being 'weaned away' from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts is nothing to do with text interpretation, but text annihilation. Iow, the reader may be expected to believe that disciples did not go to Bethphage at all, because there were no disciples to go there.

That, we may suppose, is rather harder a belief to dispose of than that creation took place in 4004 BC.

maryhelena · 01-14-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

Re-read what I wrote: "..weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts"

Notice the word *gospel*

Indeed— note it well. The gospel states that disciples went to Bethphage. Now if the reader, any reader, is to be 'weaned' off the jejune notion that disciples went to Bethphage, it would help very considerably if readers were to be advised as to what is actually meant by this statement.

What may be meant by being 'weaned away' from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts is nothing to do with text interpretation, but text annihilation. Iow, the reader may be expected to believe that disciples did not go to Bethphage at all, because there were no disciples to go there.

That, we may suppose, is rather harder a belief to dispose of than that creation took place in 4004 BC.

icardfacepalm:

sotto voce · 01-14-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Indeed— note it well. The gospel states that disciples went to Bethphage. Now if the reader, any reader, is to be 'weaned' off the jejune notion that disciples went to Bethphage, it would help very considerably if readers were to be advised as to what is actually meant by this statement.

What may be meant by being 'weaned away' from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts is nothing to do with text interpretation, but text annihilation. Iow, the reader may be expected to believe that disciples did not go to Bethphage at all, because there were no disciples to go there.

That, we may suppose, is rather harder a belief to dispose of than that creation took place in 4004 BC.

icardfacepalm:

The old white flag.

maryhelena · 01-14-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Indeed— note it well. The gospel states that disciples went to Bethphage. Now if the reader, any reader, is to be 'weaned' off the jejune notion that disciples went to Bethphage, it would help very considerably if readers were to be advised as to what is actually meant by this statement.

What may be meant by being 'weaned away' from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts is nothing to do with text interpretation, but text annihilation. Iow, the reader may be expected to believe that disciples did not go to Bethphage at all, because there were no disciples to go there.

That, we may suppose, is rather harder a belief to dispose of than that creation took place in 4004 BC.

icardfacepalm:

The old white flag.

:hysterical:

I'm been an ahistoricist/mythicist for around 30 years - and have no interest in debating with historicists re their claims for historicity for the gospel JC. No interest. That idea is a dead-end for research into early christian origins and I won't waste my time on it.

Horatio Parker · 01-14-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts

What is the non-literal interpretation of 'The disciples came to Bethphage'?

The disciples are dynamic. They search, they quest, they strive.

sotto voce · 01-14-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The old white flag.

:hysterical:

I'm been an ahistoricist/mythicist for around 30 years - and have no interest in debating with historicists re their claims for historicity for the gospel JC. No interest. That idea is a dead-end for research into early christian origins and I won't waste my time on it.

Splendid thought. Words like 'weaning' and 'literal' may be left behind.

aa5874 · 01-14-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

......The forward to the book is available here

It's the beginning of the end for the historical Jesus.

And from the same link.

Quote:

......Perhaps, however, the time has come to abandon the whole enterprise of trying to discover the “real historical Jesus.”

The great temptation is to analyse the material in detail – a temptation that is
encouraged by the need to find suitable topics for PhD dissertations! To make a
contribution to scholarship, it seems, one has to subject a particular pericope or
pericopes to close analysis. The more we do this, however, the more distorted the resulting picture will be. Imagine an old fresco where the restorers have managed to pick out some of the original features and to highlight them, leaving the rest of the picture in limbo. The result is far from satisfactory: the few clear details merely make the remaining blank spaces more puzzling.

That is the kind of result to which the discredited criteria of “double dissimilarity” and “coherence” logically follow....

The ctiteria of double dissimilarity and coherence have been DISCREDITED even by Scholars.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.