Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:07 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:Ah, I see that Peter Kirby has already taken up the discussion with you on some of these points. I'll leave it between you and him.
Oh fun. :)

Personally I think these textual battles have been fought enough times on the forums, but there have been so many assertions lately on this board that take for granted that the apparent reading of Paul's letters is so clear (and so clearly historicist) that I felt compelled to provide a basic course in what should already be basic knowledge for anyone who is going to broach the subject, IMO... 90% of this is simply on Doherty's website, free of access and easy to find, and people should already be familiar with the material (again, IMO, without requiring me to duke it out in the flesh with some lazy "oh but I can't see it, ergo it's not there" forum-goer...).
So many with a view; so few willing to truly discuss. I like to think I'm open-minded and willing to change my own views but then I'm sure most of us feel the same. What's really going on when we think we are communicating or trying to communicate?

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:09 pm

outhouse wrote: Thank you for that well written explanation, I would have liked to have time to digest and study when im done here.
Would it not have been courteous to have digested and thought about his explanation before replying to it and then replying with an equally well written and thoughtful response?

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:17 pm

Technically I wasted a lot more than 5 minutes. Put at least an hour into that thing, buddy. Plagiarism? That hurts. Should at least get style points.

I mean, after all, really, aren't we all just footnotes to Strauss and Schweitzer (on Jesus), to Baur and Bauer (on Paul), and to Harnack (on early church history)? They all won adulation and some hatred and became famous throughout Europe, and at least two of them lost their jobs (Strauss getting the dole in his honor but Bauer joining the ranks of pure scholars without appointment like Robert Price), so that people could read this kind of scholarship in ordinary German. If you bother going back to these old nineteenth century books, it's a rare argument that can't be traced back there somehow. Carrier read Doherty, and Doherty read Couchoud, who read Drews, who read a host of other names who are all long dead and buried now.
outhouse wrote:Thank you for that well written explanation, I would have liked to have time to digest and study when im done here.
Well I would much better have liked that response than any of the others up to now. I can surely respect that. :thumbup:

I will repeat that I did not intend to adduce passages towards any kind of proof, as we're clearly not even ready to contemplate that prospect, despite my polemical tone. Frankly I just thought the conversation was getting far too stuffy (and lop-sided) and needed a good stir.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:18 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
outhouse wrote: Thank you for that well written explanation, I would have liked to have time to digest and study when im done here.
Would it not have been courteous to have digested and thought about his explanation before replying to it and then replying with an equally well written and thoughtful response?
True enough but I was fairly discourteous too in the following kerfuffle. Fair's fair there. 8-)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:21 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
outhouse wrote: Thank you for that well written explanation, I would have liked to have time to digest and study when im done here.
Would it not have been courteous to have digested and thought about his explanation before replying to it and then replying with an equally well written and thoughtful response?
I should have explained this was not a 5 minute reply, but found things that did need addressing now.

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:25 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: Should at least get style points.

.
Yes you do. For you, I would actually try to address it. No one else has had me look into it this close, less years ago when I started.

Plagiarism? That hurts
:notworthy:

Guilty as well.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:33 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:Ah, I see that Peter Kirby has already taken up the discussion with you on some of these points. I'll leave it between you and him.
Oh fun. :)

Personally I think these textual battles have been fought enough times on the forums, but there have been so many assertions lately on this board that take for granted that the apparent reading of Paul's letters is so clear (and so clearly historicist) that I felt compelled to provide a basic course in what should already be basic knowledge for anyone who is going to broach the subject, IMO... 90% of this is simply on Doherty's website, free of access and easy to find, and people should already be familiar with the material (again, IMO, without requiring me to duke it out in the flesh with some lazy "oh but I can't see it, ergo it's not there" forum-goer...).
So many with a view; so few willing to truly discuss. I like to think I'm open-minded and willing to change my own views but then I'm sure most of us feel the same. What's really going on when we think we are communicating or trying to communicate?
Well I know for one thing that I am a firm believer in the literary concept of a register because I see it every day here in this forum, contrasted with the tone that I take on my blog (or other life). I'm much more willing to gossip or shoot the breeze here. I like to have a definite beginning, middle, and end on my blog, with stuff that I am very proud to have my name to (or, occasionally, things I might not be proud of but at least think need a wide audience).

The idea that communication directly leads to conversion seems rarely true in these discussions, but it doesn't have to take place much later. For minor matters, usually the lag hits me later that day or that week. For the 'God' thing and its non-existence, it took several years of conversation. The same, by the way, for the skepticism that I have regarding the existence of Jesus. Years. I too was long arguing for, and now I've changed my mind about my methods and exact conclusions. Something happened somewhere in there. In fact I mostly tried to hide my change of mind for several years after my actual change of mind. For example, I hid my review of Doherty's book, and in fact I took a long sabbatical from study immediately after reading his book, because I was distressed at what I had found. I as an atheist felt an emotional hole about losing my belief in Jesus not unlike that which I had when I lost my belief in God. I was also too timid and embarrassed to agree with my own conclusions and to say them out loud, even when they had somehow come to form. Funny, that.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:55 pm

Interesting comparing experiences.

I've heard that when flocks of birds are all making a raucous noise together they are engaged in a sort of bonding (cum indentification), not unlike human crowds do when cheering at a game. I sometimes wonder if that's what a lot of our communication ultimately is: a social way of expressing our identities, reinforcing our identities and bonding -- just like other social animals appear to be doing. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the topic of conversation is. But I'm rambling off topic!

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:40 am

Ulan wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:It's not as deep aphonestion as it seems at first sight. And there are answers if slightly speculative. They have been mentioned often enough in this forum and the literature, so why do we pretend the discussion has not already advanced this far?
Not sure whom you addressed, but if it's me, then I can just say that I didn't read everything on this forum. My bad. One thing I could think of on the spot is that Mark just used "40 years prior", as it's such a popular number.
Sorry it was not meant to slight you or anyone.

Hey your idea could be a little extra speculative, but what the hey.

I have suggested that the time period is specifically sandwiched between a real John the Baptist (Elijah figure) and a real early Christian movement. These bookends are explicitly in Mark or very likely known to him, so it is not loaded with a lot of assumptions, not that the point here could ever be to answer with proof as to why, possibly, why.

Some (Carrier and I elsewhere, both informally, and apparently independently of each other) have speculated more complex things, involving prophecies, but that's a distraction in this context.

Then there was the interesting suggestion of Robert Tulip, regarding astrology, that unfortunately was at least as speculative, .... with the difference that there the speculative suggestion was apparently the star witness.

My point was certainly not that anyone should know exactly why..

It's that it's a terrible argument for historicity, which was how it seemed to employed in this context.

It is like me asking any historicist to answer any of 10,000 questions that could be asked about the HJ... And, oh, be sure to show your work.

What this kind of argument needs is positive reasons against the Tiberius time frame.

And I cannot think of a single thing in that regard, at this moment.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2115
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by DCHindley » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:00 pm

I would suspect that speculation whether Jesus ascended to heaven may depend upon texts such as these:
(RSV Joh 3:13) 13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

(RSV Rom 10:6-7) 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or "Who will descend into the abyss?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

(RSV Eph 4:8-10) 8 Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." [Psa 68:18] 9 (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

(RSV Isa 14:13-15) 13 You said in your heart, `I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.' 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit.

(RSV Psa 68:18) Thou didst ascend the high mount, leading captives in thy train, and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.

(LXE Psa 139:8) 8 If I should go up to heaven, thou art there: if I should go down to hades, thou art present.

(OTP Jubilees 24:31) 31 For though he ascend unto heaven, Thence shall he be brought down, And though he make himself strong on earth, Thence shall he be dragged forth, And though he hide himself amongst the nations, Even from thence shall he be rooted out; And though he descend into Sheol, There also shall his condemnation be great, And there also he shall have no peace.

(DRA Ecclesiastes 3:21) 21 Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?

(PHE Philo, Who is Heir of Divine Things [Quis rerum divinarum heres sit] 1:241) For virtue ('arete') has derived its name not only from the word ('airesis') choice, but also from the fact of its being lifted up ('para to airestha') for it is lifted up ('airetai') and borne on high because it always loves heavenly things; but wickedness ('kakia') is so called from its tendency to go downwards ('apo tou kato kechorekenai'), and also because it compels those who practise it to fall down to the bottom ('katapiptein').

(HON 1st Clement 3:4) 4 And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go down into the field. And it came to pass, as they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

(CF-E Eusebius Church History, 2 23:14) 14 And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, 'We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.'
DDDCCCHHH

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], GakuseiDon, Jax, JoeWallack, John2, MrMacSon and 61 guests