Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Made a new, Fox free thread
Almost like an 80s Christian Band
1) One (or is it two?) of Jesus' apostles is known as a Zealot.
Simon the Zealot, IIRC.
That seems to be the way it most often translated. Each of the 12 Disciples brought their distinct personalities to the "team".
That does not mean that Jesus was ever considered a Zealot in his lifetime - or the immediate era after his death (Paul's letters) or the Gospels decades later - or by the Church Fathers (those writing in the second and third centuries).
That does not mean that Jesus was ever considered a Zealot in his lifetime - or the immediate era after his death (Paul's letters) or the Gospels decades later - or by the Church Fathers (those writing in the second and third centuries).
I am of the mind that the book was likely biased anyway.
A truly objective historical view of Jesus is not going to come from a believer, Christian, Jew or Muslim, as much as they want to claim objectivity. But especially one that was a believer in Jesus and is now lapsed and onto another belief system. It's like a...potential double whammy of bias. Does this mean it HAS to be biased? No. But it likely is. And considering its fairly unique POV for Aslan, it lends even more likelihood. I'm no religious expert (though very interested in the subject), just using deductive reasoning.
If I wanted a historical account from a lapsed Christian, I would tend to listen more so to someone like John Dominic Crossan.
so you're assuming Aslan can't do his job?
so you're assuming Aslan can't do his job?
If he told you he was a believer in the Tooth Fairy, and was writing a book saying Santa Claus wasn't real, and this wasn't in the context of Islam and FOX News, would you really even need to ask that question?
So he's a Muslim first and a scholar second?
Shouldn't we at least accord him the respect he deserves based upon his academic and publishing history and weigh his arguments rather than summarily dismissing him because he's a Muslim?
So he's a Muslim first and a scholar second?
Shouldn't we at least accord him the respect he deserves based upon his academic and publishing history and weigh his arguments rather than summarily dismissing him because he's a Muslim?
What sort of person could write that book and have it taken at face value?
I would imagine scholars do the best they can.
what do you want, a fucking passport? Ancient sources include the whole kit and kaboodle. I would imagine scholars do the best they can.
Am I the only one who thinks anything more than a dozen or so pages on 'historical' Jesus is mostly conjecture and a waste of time? How much information really exists about the man? (actual information. The bible doesn't count)
If you're genuinely curious about the historicity of the texts, there are a number of archaeologists, scholars and historians who have done fascinating work in this area. As I'm currently working on a documentary that's dealing in exactly this subject matter, I'd be happy to send you some authors who've written extensively on this that may be of interest...
What does this even mean?
It means that the gospels are information. Not to be taken uncritically, and to be cross referenced with political records, such as they survive, but information nonetheless.
If I'm going to make up stories about a person from 80 years ago, I'm not going to make up fictional cities to place him in.
Paul's letters are often dated only 20-50 years after Jesus' death.
Also - the oral tradition was still very strong in Israel (most rabbi's had the entire Torah memorized, which is FAR larger than of the gospels). This oral tradition was considered extremely accurate (more accurate than scribes) because the community of listeners would correct mistakes. The "game of telephone" analogy does not work when dozens of listeners and master teachers are around to correct even the slightest error in the story.
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.Try to tell a coherent (and factual) story about something that happened 5 years ago, never mind 50. Our memories are tragically flawed. 20 - 50 years is a long time for a story to trans-mutate
Am I the only one who thinks anything more than a dozen or so pages on 'historical' Jesus is mostly conjecture and a waste of time? How much information really exists about the man? (actual information. The bible doesn't count)
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.
Regarding the accuracy of the oral tradition - most of the research I've read comes from a Jewish or Christian author, and even though they site "secular" research - I doubt you would accept it.
Even if we reject the accuracy of the gospels - it is still the only record we have of what Jesus said and did. Trying to paint a total picture of Jesus outside of those gospels is not good science. Sure, you may be able to discover a little more about what food he possibly ate or what sort of home he possibly lived in - but that's really what you are limited to. You cannot accurately accept/reject anything about the story of Jesus Christ unless it is by debate of those texts.
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.
Trying to paint a total picture of Jesus outside of those gospels is not good science.
For instance - you read the Gospel of John the other night. You came away with a picture of who Jesus was - but you were not convinced he was the Son of God, even though he claimed to be. You rejected his claim. And that's fine. That's a valid conclusion. But it wouldn't be valid if you read the same text and came away thinking Jesus a wall street trader.
I think perhaps what JT is getting at is that you would think that, if Jesus was what he is claimed to be in the gospels, there would be more historical texts (contemporary to his time) that documented his life, or at least made mention of him.
Whether the gospels support the claim that he's the son of God is kind of beside JT's point (correct me if I'm wrong here, JT).