Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] Re: Honorable debate in agonistic cultures

Expand Messages
  • Steve Black
    ... running throughout this thread? Please note the apology posted shortly after this post where I stated that I presumed to read people s motives , which I
    Message 1 of 109 , May 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >Steve Black wrote:
      >
      >>I may be way off, but it seems that
      >>lurking behind this entire thread
      >>are christological agendas.
      >
      >Steve, you lost me here. What "Christological agendas" have you seen
      running throughout this thread?

      Please note the apology posted shortly after this post where I stated
      that I presumed to "read people's motives", which I believe to be
      inappropriate, and in this case incorrect!

      I guess what I was thinking when I wrote this how different the whole
      thread would look if we did not really care either way how this
      historical figure measured up morally/ethically. New paradigms, such
      as the honor/shame one being suggested, could be considered easier
      and perhaps with more honesty. Those challenging the "status quo"
      view would also approach the topic with a "lighter" attitude. As it
      is, we have a great deal invested in the character of Jesus, and the
      argumentative macho man picture it seems that you draw of him
      certainly calls into question the picture of a sinless [patient,
      humble, meek, etc] Christ.

      But once again, this whole argument stands or falls upon My ability
      to describe the inner workings of your mind (and others), which is
      presumptuous, irritating, and for which I apologized (and apologize
      again)!

      >
      >>On the other hand there seems to be another
      >>agenda in this discussion that seems to equally
      >>want to call into question the very notion of
      >>Christ's sinlessness
      >
      >I don't think we can address this question from an historical angle,
      >can we?

      Perhaps not. As a Christological statement it is beyond the
      historian's grasp. But "sin" as a human phenomenon is historical
      inasmuch as the acts of ill-will, or wrong-doing, (or whatever you
      want to call them), certainly happen in the historical dimension, and
      thus are open to the historian's query, if the problem of defining
      the term "sin" is dealt with.
      >
      >>No approaches this subject "innocently".
      >
      >I agree, but I'm missing the thrust of your point.

      My point, as misguided as it may be, is that if the theological (or
      whatever) agendas determine what data we gather, how we put it
      together in interpretation, and how we deal with different
      interpretations - if this is true (and many seem not to think it is)
      these agendas are pivotal in all HJ work, and ought not to be
      underestimated, and perhaps ought to be acknowledged.

      That's all.


      --
      Peace

      Steve Black
      Diocese of New Westminster
      Anglican Church of Canada
    • Loren Rosson
      [James] Do you think these folks were armed? [Loren] No. With the possible exception of the Samaritan Prophet, the popular prophets didn t lead armed revolts.
      Message 109 of 109 , Jun 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        [James]
        Do you think these folks were armed?

        [Loren]
        No. With the possible exception of the Samaritan
        Prophet, the popular prophets didn't lead armed
        revolts. "Violence" was left as the prerogative of God
        alone, when He soon acted. Jesus followed suit here,
        never condoning human violence, elsewhere promising
        divine retribution (as in Mt. 11:20-24/Lk. 10:13-16).

        [James2]
        So, would you say that it is possible that the masses
        went out just to see IF a miracle would be performed,
        rather than to participate? Would they necessarily
        have
        had any clue as to the chance of being
        slaughtered as they were?

        [Loren2]
        I think the masses went out because they believed,
        fervently, that God would act; that the Kingdom was
        imminent. I see no reason to question the enthusiastic
        level of their participation in the march around
        Jerusalem's walls.

        [James]
        How many do you suppose there actually were?

        [Loren]
        A lot -- these are called "popular" prophets for good
        reason.

        [James2]
        Josephus is surely exaggerating with the numbers
        though, isn't he?

        [Loren2]
        Probably. I imagine hundreds, rather than thousands,
        of followers for the Egyptian prophet.

        [James]
        What do you think was their reason for being
        there? Just to innocently see if the Egyptian's
        claim would come to pass or to
        actually fight their way into Jerusalem?

        [Loren]
        I believe they circled Jerusalem with the expectation
        that (at the prophet's command) the walls of the city
        would come tumbling down, as Joshua's legendary shout
        had done to the walls of Jericho in ages past. This
        would have been the first apoacalyptic prelude to the
        Kingdom of God. I don't know how "innocent" this is,
        but I sense your sarcasm. However preposterous and
        naive such expectations may seem to us, they were no
        more so than, say, those of the followers of Theudas,
        who was supposed to have parted the waters of the
        Jordan before getting decapitated by Cuspius Fadus.

        [James2]
        Well, I'm wondering how we know any of these people
        were really doing anything more than going out to
        possibly observe a miracle...I'm reacting to the
        following article written by an historian who seems to
        paint first century peoples with too broad of a brush
        of gullibility, in an attempt to give us the
        background against which we should view claims about
        Jesus' miracles:

        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

        If you have the time, I'd appreciate any
        feedback/guidance on the overall quality of/points
        raised in that article.

        [Loren2]
        I would say the author of this article is daft,
        deluded, and devoid of sense. His disdain for the
        people of antiquity is galling. He writes:

        "The age of Jesus was not an age of critical
        reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an
        era filled with con artists, gullible believers,
        martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every
        variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the
        gospels do not seem remarkable at all. Even if they
        were false in every detail, there is no evidence that
        they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd
        by a people largely lacking in education or critical
        thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones,
        photographs, or public documents to consult to check a
        story...The shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered
        their voice and seized the world from them, boldly
        leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years
        of chaos."

        First of all, we cannot dismiss the movements of
        Theudas, the Egyptian Prophet, John the Baptist, or
        Jesus of Nazareth with the above sort of indictment.
        Much in these prophetic movements can be commended,
        just as much can be criticized. But we fail miserably
        in the historical task when we judge the past by
        so-called "enlightened" standards. Secondly, far from
        lacking "religious acumen", the age of Jesus -- that
        is, 2nd-Temple Judaism -- was marked by vibrancy,
        diversity, and (often enough) fierce intelligence.
        Obviously the author and I have very different views
        of the people of antiquity.

        So I can appreciate you reacting against this fellow.
        But that the Egyptian prophet and his followers were
        incited to riot (mad as they were under the Romans and
        Judean elite), and that they fervently believed Yahweh
        would soon act dramatically in history (in accordance
        with ways He had in the past), does not necessarily
        make the leader a "con artist" nor his followers
        "gullible". Does it?

        Loren Rosson III
        Nashua NH
        rossoiii@...


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
        http://buzz.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.