Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2003, 01:46 AM

In the context of the pericope, it appears to me that Junior is demonstrating he is not really concerned about the events--he knows how they will play out. A "mob" seems rather "uncontrolled" yet he can still them with a lackadasical comment.

Jesus had a thing with mobs. Remember in Luke where they are about to toss him off a cliff -- in his hometown too -- and he just walks away through the angry mob. Neat trick, that.

Doctor X · 08-09-2003, 01:49 AM

Indeed . . . this seems quite a literary device to demonstrate that he can awe "da masses" with his shear presence.

--J.D.

gcameron · 08-10-2003, 06:04 PM

Religious proselytizing aside, I loved the Narnia books. The "Charn" sequence in "The Magician's Nephew" is, IMO, one of the great passages in children's literature.

Rick Sumner · 08-10-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby

That he is oblivious to this fact and attempts to make the tale into straight historical reporting by the apostle John shows that C. S. Lewis is a crackpot.

best,
Peter Kirby

I thought that went without saying.

Regards,
Rick

Peter Kirby · 08-11-2003, 05:16 AM

Good to see you here, Rick!

My specific point was simply that Lewis is not a reliable source for knowledge about the historicity of the gospel stories. When Lewis tries to show that there is no legend involved, Lewis forgets or ignores a vital text critical issue, but more importantly forgets or ignores the grand tradition of fiction in the ancient world--or did they not teach "Leucippe and Clitophon" in classical colleges at university back in those days? Or a host of allegories, novels, romances, dialogues, just so stories, theopolitical fantasies, and narrative epics. There's a hell of a lot of detail in the Odyssey that no Greek has ever based a doctrine upon. Did Lewis not know Homer? Impossible--but why then the blatantly false argument? The premise of the argument is ridiculous--the brilliant art of writing fiction with colorful details was the genius of revolutionary 19th century British novelists--the gaffe on the pericope adultera is just the crowning trophy of the methodological bankruptcy of his apologetics.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner · 08-11-2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Good to see you here, Rick!

Thanks for the welcome, though I've lurked for years.

Quote:

Impossible--but why then the blatantly false argument? The premise of the argument is ridiculous--the brilliant art of writing fiction with colorful details was the genius of revolutionary 19th century British novelists--the gaffe on the pericope adultera is just the crowning trophy of the methodological bankruptcy of his apologetics.

Perhaps he needed to take his own advice:

Quote:

The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.-The Abolition of Man

Regards,
Rick

leonarde · 08-12-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

LEWIS
In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it.

CARR
Even this is simply not true.

http://www.studylight.org/com/jlc/v...joh&chapter=008

This states 'Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader's leave, let me also offer mine.'

Surely Lewis must have read a Bible Commentary in his life?

(Above emphases added by leonarde)

Surely you must have some idea of the difference between a conjecture put forward to explain an incongruous detail and a doctrine. The link has nothing about a doctrine . Unless you belong to the Church of the Holy Conjecture. You laugh. But I see a number of members here.

Cheers!

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

08-09-2003, 01:46 AM	#61
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In the context of the pericope, it appears to me that Junior is demonstrating he is not really concerned about the events--he knows how they will play out. A "mob" seems rather "uncontrolled" yet he can still them with a lackadasical comment. Jesus had a thing with mobs. Remember in Luke where they are about to toss him off a cliff -- in his hometown too -- and he just walks away through the angry mob. Neat trick, that.

08-09-2003, 01:49 AM	#62
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed . . . this seems quite a literary device to demonstrate that he can awe "da masses" with his shear presence. --J.D.

08-10-2003, 06:04 PM	#63
gcameron Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Western U.S.A. Posts: 293	Religious proselytizing aside, I loved the Narnia books. The "Charn" sequence in "The Magician's Nephew" is, IMO, one of the great passages in children's literature.

08-11-2003, 05:16 AM	#65
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Good to see you here, Rick! My specific point was simply that Lewis is not a reliable source for knowledge about the historicity of the gospel stories. When Lewis tries to show that there is no legend involved, Lewis forgets or ignores a vital text critical issue, but more importantly forgets or ignores the grand tradition of fiction in the ancient world--or did they not teach "Leucippe and Clitophon" in classical colleges at university back in those days? Or a host of allegories, novels, romances, dialogues, just so stories, theopolitical fantasies, and narrative epics. There's a hell of a lot of detail in the Odyssey that no Greek has ever based a doctrine upon. Did Lewis not know Homer? Impossible--but why then the blatantly false argument? The premise of the argument is ridiculous--the brilliant art of writing fiction with colorful details was the genius of revolutionary 19th century British novelists--the gaffe on the pericope adultera is just the crowning trophy of the methodological bankruptcy of his apologetics. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.