29 Nov 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI've read the article, it would have had more impact *if* I believed in the divinity of Jesus.
Have you read the whole article on
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html
??
Still mulling it over, one thing strikes me: Jesus is a great tragic hero.
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightI think the bible fits in pretty well with history and it's not too far fetched either if you give it a bit of leeway for being written 2000 + years ago.
LMAO
there were some pretty bleak times back then.
floods, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, mmn sounds a bit like the states.
😲
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by mrrowieIt's not far-fetched at all, just some people writing down ideas they had at the time.
I think the bible fits in pretty well with history and it's not too far fetched either if you give it a bit of leeway for being written 2000 + years ago.
there were some pretty bleak times back then.
floods, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, mmn sounds a bit like the states.
😲
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by mrrowieThis notion of 'historical' came up on another thread.
ideas and a historical record.
There are two meanings.
1) The Bible is a historical document. It is a reflection
of how the people of those times understood themselves,
the events they experienced, their morality, and how they
viewed other people.
2) The Bible is a history book. That is it tells the 'objective'
experiences from an unbiased position.
Most people agree that the Bible is a historical document
and that we can learn about what the Jews in certain areas
were like (just like the Dead Sea Scrolls can inform us
about the Jews in their particular region).
Where people part ways is on #2. Literalists believe that
it is the trumping history text. Others do not.
Nemesio
29 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioAs I said before, the point was not to convince you that Jesus the man did not exist. I was just pointing out your oversight as to the opinion of some scholars and atheists. I for one am agnostic as to whether Jesus of Nazareth actually walked the earth..
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
[b]Actually, I do. I have more than a suspicion that Socrates was completely made up my his so called pupil, Plato. Why, you ask? Because no one would ever listen to a pathetic nobody like Plato, ...[text shortened]... but as it is a bit off topic, I'll resist for now.
Nemesio[/b]
I'd also point that the standing of Dr. Robert Price as a NT scholar is not determined by whether you find his arguments persuasive, rather his advanced degree and fellowship status in the Jesus Seminar should suffice.
Again if you would like to challenge your knowledge of the Bible and the early Xtian church including whether Jesus really lived or not, I have pointed you in a good direction. (Reminder www.infidels.org)
I assure you these guys are not just a bunch of atheist quacks with an axe to grind. Many of them are trained experts in the OT and NT.
I leave that enterprise to your leisure, but I hope that until you have checked these sources out, you will refrain from muddling your otherwise excellent posts with this particualr error.
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by telerionDon't misunderstand me. I thank you for the link (although I read
I was just pointing out your oversight as to the opinion of some scholars and atheists.
I'd also point that the standing of Dr. Robert Price as a NT scholar is not determined by whether you find his arguments persuasive, rather his advanced degree and fellowship status in the Jesus Seminar should suffice.
nothing by Price, to my knowledge). I was just saying I didn't find
the Zindler article particularly compelling enough to dismiss the
idea that Jesus, the man, ever existed, simply because the critical
apparatus he was using could be applied to, for example, Josephus.
My point before was that 'solid' biographical data from intersecting
unreleated sources is rare for a lot of figures; I used Socrates as an
example.
In this regard, agnosticism would be the normative stance, but I don't
find such stances practical. Otherwise, one would be obligated to
doubt that most things that came before came from anyone (taken to
an absurd extreme).
Given that recent sources coming from or about a person exist, the
normative train of thought is to assume that that person existed.
The Gospels weren't 'composed' in their final forms until 70-100
(St Mark-St John), but the stories the communicate are older than
that, given what people understand as normal patterns of oral-to-
written transmission.
I certainly don't question Dr Price's standing, scholarship, or the respect
he commands. I didn't recall reading anything by him that suggested
that he didn't believe in the existence of Jesus, the man. If you have
a book title by him (that I must not know about), I wouldn't mind a
bibliographical citation.
Thanks,
Nemesio
P.S., I've known about the infidels site for quite some time.
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by nemesioExcuse me if my last post came off as hostile. I did misunderstand your post.
Don't misunderstand me. I thank you for the link (although I read
nothing by Price, to my knowledge). I was just saying I didn't find
the Zindler article particularly compelling enough to dismiss the
idea that Jesus, the man, ever existed, simply because the critical
apparatus he was using could be applied to, for example, Josephus.
My point befor ...[text shortened]... citation.
Thanks,
Nemesio
P.S., I've known about the infidels site for quite some time.
Here is a nice link from Earl Doherty (a big mythical Jesus proponent though I don't think his degree is specifically in NT; I thought more like ancient languages or something) that gives a long list of different books by some scholars on this very subject (including guys like Crossan and Funk). Naturally, these writers have different views on the subject.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html#freke
I believe Deconstructing Jesus is Price's well-known book in the popular press. Apparently it assumes its reader has a decent knowledge of NT scholarship, so its out of my league. I also listened to an interview with him on the Infidel Guy in which he claimed the mythical Jesus position.
As far as agnosticism on this, I really can't think of a better position for me to take. If I claimed to hold an affirmative position on the subject, I'd do so with no firm knowledge upon which to base my position. What's that quote about laymen beware when experts disagree?
Glad to see you know the Secular Web. Good place.
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by telerionI' pretty sure they stuck a great guy up on a cross - whether he was the son of god that's the one i'm not sure about,
As I said before, the point was not to convince you that Jesus the man did not exist. I was just pointing out your oversight as to the opinion of some scholars and atheists. I for one am agnostic as to whether Jesus of Nazareth actually walked the earth..
I'd also point that the standing of Dr. Robert Price as a NT scholar is not determined by wheth ...[text shortened]... ill refrain from muddling your otherwise excellent posts with this particualr error.
29 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually, it is not required to believe Jesus is divine to see that in the story of Jesus, he indeed was a victor. In the stories given to us in the Gospels, Jesus was crucified, buried, and then rose again from the dead. You don't have to believe this for it to be in the story. If you believe it Mythological (as I do) those elements are still in the story.
Why tragic ? He rose from the dead ... as victor.
Originally posted by KneverKnight
There ya go eh? You believe Jesus is divine, I do not. It's difficult discussing this, given our differing beliefs. I can't see any way past this, but I must say that I respect your belief.
This is what I meant in earlier posts, and what I believe the article that started this thread meant as well, that Jesus, in the bounds of his story as presented by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he was NOT the tragic hero, as is presented in most mythological accounts, but instead the victorious hero.
This is a very unique perspective, and not one that needs any sort of Faith to see.
I just realized another way that the Gospels differ from most other mythological accounts, and since I'm too lazy to make another post, I'll put it here.
My point: We actually know who wrote the Gospels. Four competing authors, all contemporaries of each other, all possibly acquaintances of each other, wrote the accounts of the Bible. Hmmm.