History trumps Theology

[Peter Kirby]

That history trumps theology is surely a fundamental approach to intellectual deliberations.

What does the slogan mean?

It means what it says. History and theology are not equal methods for the task of understanding the past.

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

[maryhelena]

That history trumps theology is surely a fundamental approach to intellectual deliberations.

What does the slogan mean?

It means what it says. History and theology are not equal methods for the task of understanding the past.

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

I'm stating a fundamental principle of rational intellectual deliberations. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

[Peter Kirby]

That history trumps theology is surely a fundamental approach to intellectual deliberations.

What does the slogan mean?

It means what it says. History and theology are not equal methods for the task of understanding the past.

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

I'm stating a fundamental principle of rational intellectual deliberations. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

Can you provide an instructive example of employing a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past," so that we can know what you mean? Maybe you can quote it from a book somewhere.

[maryhelena]

What does the slogan mean?

It means what it says. History and theology are not equal methods for the task of understanding the past.

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

I'm stating a fundamental principle of rational intellectual deliberations. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

Can you provide any example of employing a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past," so that we can know what you mean?

Maybe you can quote it from a book somewhere.

Christianity is a theological understanding of the past. It has no historical evidence for its gospel Jesus figure.

[Peter Kirby]

It means what it says. History and theology are not equal methods for the task of understanding the past.

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

I'm stating a fundamental principle of rational intellectual deliberations. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

Can you provide any example of employing a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past," so that we can know what you mean?

Maybe you can quote it from a book somewhere.

Christianity is a theological understanding of the past. It has no historical evidence for its gospel Jesus figure.

Can you provide an example that isn't itself replete with slogans?

[maryhelena]

Can you provide an example of a time when someone on the forum employed a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past"?

I'm stating a fundamental principle of rational intellectual deliberations. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

Can you provide any example of employing a "method" of "theology" for "understanding the past," so that we can know what you mean?

Maybe you can quote it from a book somewhere.

Christianity is a theological understanding of the past. It has no historical evidence for its gospel Jesus figure.

Can you provide an example that isn't itself replete with slogans?

I just gave an example. Gospel Jesus is interpreted as being a historical figure. There is no historical evidence for this interpretation of this figure.

Peter, this exchange is getting nowhere and quite frankly I'm finding it boring. Nit pick my words by all means but that does not move the dial forward in understanding the gospel story.

[Peter Kirby]

That's funny because you've been posting these slogans for years and now declare a discussion of what they mean or imply "boring."

[maryhelena]

That's funny because you've been posting these slogans for years and now declare a discussion of what they mean or imply "boring."

What slogans have I been posting for years ? I'm curious about what specific 'slogans' you found objectionable ?

The search function shows that the 'slogan' History trumps Theology' was first used by me on Thursday, (March 2024).

10 long years of my posting to the forum and it's this simply, very recent, 'slogan' that has generated such heat. I really don't get it - why the long years without subjecting my posts to, what amounts to, something of an interrogation. There is nothing in the 'History trumps Theology' thread that has anything to do with my theory on the gospel crucifixion story. (I did not mention the Hasmoneans - they were brought up by another poster and I did not pursue the subject). That I am a Jesus ahistoricist - that I reject the notion that the gospel Jesus (of whatever variant) was a historical figure - is nothing new for me to state - and I don't think I'm the only poster on this forum to hold such a view.

Something else seems to be going on here - I just can't put my finger on it at all....why should such a simple 'slogan' as History trumps Theology - on a forum dealing with Christian Texts and History - generate any kind of debate. It's a funny old world I suppose - one never knows what will turn up.....

Today of all days (it's already Good Friday in the UK) is surely a reminder that many christians allow theology to trump history. That they find value in a human flesh and blood crucifixion as the means of their 'salvation'. Today, of all days, it is surely right to call time on this anti-humanitarian theology - and allow rational, logical and humane values to trump theology. To do that requires that history is allowed to address the gospel Jesus story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans.[5][6][7] It portrays his death as a sacrifice for sin.
....
Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus's suffering and redemptive death by crucifixion are the central aspects of Christian theology concerning the doctrines of salvation and atonement.

I reject this interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. I find it anti-humanitarian and a disservice to the writers of that story. It's an interpretation that allows theology the upper hand - thus putting history aside.

Crucifixion in the Philippines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixi ... hilippines

Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, and is part of the local observance of Holy Week. Devotees or penitents called magdarame in Kapampangan willingly have themselves crucified to reenact Jesus Christ's suffering and death, while related practices include carrying wooden crosses, crawling on rough pavement, and self-flagellation. Penitents consider these acts to be mortification of the flesh, and undertake these to ask forgiveness for sins, to fulfil a panatà (Filipino, "vow"), or to express gratitude for favours granted. In the most famous case, Ruben Enaje drives four-inch nails into both hands and feet and then he is lifted on a wooden cross for around five minutes.[1]

I'm not interested in furthering a History trumps Theology debate - there should not be a debate by rational intelligent people over this issue.

[Peter Kirby]

It's just another variation of slinging slogans instead of providing analysis that is the nature of your posting. You're right about one thing. Trying to discuss your slogans is actually pretty boring.

[Peter Kirby]

What slogans have I been posting for years ? I'm curious about what specific 'slogans' you found objectionable ?

You employ the word "history" as slogan that magically supports whatever you want to say, but you don't do any history.