Ted Hoffman

Will you answer the question?

Evangelion

I already did.

Did you find my "logos" post a bit too difficult, perhaps? I can give you the "Janet and John" version, if necessary.

Ted Hoffman

Whatever I think about your post - "a bit too difficult" is not close to it.
Did you design it to be "a bit too difficult"? Because if thats your point - then you've answered my question.
Thank you.

Ted Hoffman

This is supposed to be a bit too difficult?

Evangelion

Tsk, tsk. A fit of pique? So soon?

Not at all. Indeed, I honestly thought it would be crystal clear to even the simplest of intellects.

That was not, in fact, my point.

I wish I could say the same.

Straw man. That is not my logos post. I asked you about my logos post. I did not ask you about this one. The post which precedes my logos post should be self explanatory. The "rolleyes" smiley should tell you everything you need to know.

Must I now explain the meaning of the word "ironic", or can you take it from here?

Ted Hoffman

So, you are politely enquiring whether I found what you call your logos post a bit too difficult?

I just don't think this is the place for irony Evangelion. I appreciate your sense of humour but I find it misplaced.

Look at this:
You have combined the thoughts of four writers in a rather jumbled fashion and the ideas they seem to put accross do not seem to be the same to me. You have not even explained what point you are trying to put accross by citing those works.

Thats why I asked what exactly is your point in your own words.
Its not my job to make sense of what you are trying to say if you just select some quotes and post them.

You need to share your understanding of them. I think if you have something serious to state, you should state it. If you want to be a comedian, by all means be a comedian. But dont expect to be treated seriously if you start out as a comedian.

That is all.

Evangelion

Yes, that's correct.

Why not?

And in any case, the irony to which I refer, was found in the post which I made immediately before my logos post. It was not in my logos post at all.

I'm not sure that you do, actually.

Why?

Isn't that clear enough for you? How short do the words need to be, anyway?

I have not combined them at all. I have, in fact, quoted them separately and distinctly, each in its own context.

Do you know what the word "combined" means?

Read them again.

My point is that the author of John did not believe the logos to be a pre-existent Jesus. He did not, in fact, believe it to be a literal person at all. He believed it to be the plan and purpose of God, in which Jesus would play a critical part.

I had thought that the language was sufficiently clear. I honestly did not expect anyone to have a problem with it.

I believed that they were self-explanatory, and I thought it was obvious that I presented them because I agree with them.

You need to broaden the scope of your reading.

I have already done this.

I already did this in the post which came immediately before my logos post.

Please don't be ridiculous. If I took this as a guiding principle, I wouldn't take anybody at IIDB seriously at all.

Evangelion

In summary:

Robinson says this:

In harmony with Robinson, Wendt says this:

In harmony with Robinson and Wendt, Mowinckel says this:

In harmony with Robinson, Wendt and Mowinckel, Dunn says this:

All four agree, therefore, that:

• The author of John was drawing on Jewish ideology.
  
• The author of John was not drawing on Philonic ideology.
  
• The author of John did not believe the logos to be a literal, personal, pre-existent being, but rather (as is obvious from the rest of his book) the plan and purpose of God, as conceived in His mind and later brought to fruition.

This, in essence, is the point I was making.

Toto

You think you are being sarcastic, but there are Christians and Jews who seem to believe this. If you are going to do parody, you have to be more outrageous.

The rest of your parody is a parody of a straw man.

Evangelion

I don't think it. I know it.

Well, duh. And Origen was the first, IIRC. What's your point?

But wouldn't that have resulted in an "a parody of a straw man", as you later go on to accuse me of doing?

Can't have it both ways, Toto.

No, it's not. That's the whole point.

• Gandy and Freke (for example) argued that the "Jesus Myth" was fabricated from Egyptian, Persian, Roman and Greek sources.
  
• Paul N. Tobin agrees, adding Phonecian mythology to the list.
  
• John G. Jackson agrees, adding Indian mythology to the list (he claims that Jesus = Krishna.)
  
• John E. Remsberg agrees, adding Babylonian, Chaldean, Aryan, Zoroastrian, Syrian and Assyrian mythology to the list.
  
• Acharya S. agrees, adding Phrygian, Afghan, Japanese, Siamese, Druidic, Nepalese, Scandinavian, Mexican, Bermudan, Chinese and Thracian mythology to the list.

What amazes me is that few of these individuals will place any merit in the obvious Jewish roots of Christianity. They are desperate to pass over this obvious connection because it's more exciting (read "more insulting to Christians") to claim that pagan sources were used. Jewish sources are rarely consulted - and on those rare occasions when they are, they are frequently misrepresented.

But you claim that I have presented a parody of a straw man? Alas, no. The irrational extrapolations of the traditional Jesus Mythers are, in fact, almost impossible to parody.

If anything, I have understated the case.