Jesus and "Family Values"

[kallipolis]

Your posts are open for all to read.

The record is clear. You appeared on this forum as a rabid, atheist intent on impressing and converting theists. I was part of the exchanges.

Now you are appearing as a Biblical expert, by claiming to know what most Biblical scholars believe on Jesus.

Make up your mind. Be one, or the other. Attempting to appear on this forum, in both capacities does raise suspicions.

I am sure that Google will continue to serve your expertise.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, the spurious can so often masquerade, as scholarly thinking.

The weird thing is that apart from a few foibles like that, he was fantastic! He knew enough about the history of the Holy Land that he was persuaded by a church to lead a tour; you could choose a random point on a topographical map of the area and he could tell you what historians know about it, from what sort of source (written, archaeology), from before Israel was a nation clear up through the Crusades.

I wonder if on that tour he led them to the precise spot along the Jordan where John the Baptizer dunked Jesus....

 

[poolerboy]

Now you are appearing as a Biblical expert, by claiming to know what most Biblical scholars believe on Jesus.

Would you condescendingly refer to me as a "science expert" because I happened to cite a majority position that scientists agreed on (e.g. gravity)?

..........

 

[Kulindahr]

As far as the scholars thing, I've had my own encounters with the "scholars" who "search for the historical Jesus", and found that what they're doing generally is dressing up the way they feel about things in fancy, scholarly language and passing it off as something solid. I learned to do most of the methods they use, and you can really arrive at almost any conclusion you want, so long as you know how to cast doubt on the right elements of things.

For example, did you know that the Book of Joshua is an ancient tour guide? Or that the Book of Esther is a patriarchal morality lesson showing a woman who is the rare exception to the proper rule of "stay at home, work and have babies"? Or that the Book of Ezra is a political treatise?

Having played some of the game, I have serious reservations about a lot of those guys even deserving the appellation "scholar" (especially the frauds of "The Jesus Seminar").

 

[kallipolis]

The weird thing is that apart from a few foibles like that, he was fantastic! He knew enough about the history of the Holy Land that he was persuaded by a church to lead a tour; you could choose a random point on a topographical map of the area and he could tell you what historians know about it, from what sort of source (written, archaeology), from before Israel was a nation clear up through the Crusades.

I wonder if on that tour he led them to the precise spot along the Jordan where John the Baptizer dunked Jesus....

Instant expertise in any arena is calculated to turn the expert into a professor. Or so some would have us believe.

Let's hope the expert had some life saving experience, in order to dunk a few ready made born again Christians.

 

[Kulindahr]

The record is clear. You appeared on this forum as a rabid, atheist intent on impressing and converting theists. I was part of the exchanges.

Now you are appearing as a Biblical expert, by claiming to know what most Biblical scholars believe on Jesus.

Make up your mind. Be one, or the other. Attempting to appear on this forum, in both capacities does raise suspicions.

I am sure that Google will continue to serve your expertise.

If he's referring to a summary statement made from sources online (it's not just Wiki; others say the same thing), he's not making any claims for himself -- so he hasn't set himself out as any sort of expert.

Heck, I might have agreed if I hadn't encountered for myself the game those "scholars" play.

BTW, being an atheist does not preclude Biblical knowledge. One of the best lectures I've ever heard on the Gospel of John, a two-hour presentation followed by an hour of questions, during which the speaker recited at length in the original Greek when he referenced the text, and ventured possible Aramaic backgrounds to some verses, was given by an atheist. Even a professor of New Testament studies who expertise was in the Gospels said the man was superb, not just an expert but a brilliant one. He didn't believe a word of it all, but he could do the grammar, historical context, etc. etc. nearly like a church Father: he understood its claims and lessons, but rejected them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Back to family values....

I never understood how it can be a "family value" to believe in stoning to death your own children if they rebel against you -- and many of Rushdoonie's and Dobson's followers believe that very thing.

 

[kallipolis]

poolerboy

I remind you that the following are your words. As a result of me confronting you on these words, in a later post you back tracked and attributed this claim to another. Better late, than never.

"Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist."

 

[Kulindahr]

Instant expertise in any arena is calculated to turn the expert into a professor. Or so some would have us believe.

Let's hope the expert had some life saving experience, in order to dunk a few ready made born again Christians.

I wouldn't call his expertise "instant": he had double Master's degrees and two doctorates as well -- nine years of study were behind his knowledge.

What was behind his little "facts" that had no basis, I have no idea. Fortunately, there weren't many of them. Unfortunately, it was never easy to tell if he really did know how the Knights Templar disposed of their excrement at the fortress at Acre, or if it was one of "those little things".

 

[Kulindahr]

poolerboy

I remind you that the following are your words. As a result of me confronting you on these words, in a later post you back tracked and attributed this claim to another. Better late, than never.

"Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist."

Hey, we aren't expected to footnote every last thing we say here!

If we did, some of my posts would fill an entire JUB page, not just a couple of screens.


If you wonder about something, just use Jesus question:

"Do you say this of yourself, or did another [tell] you?"

 

[kallipolis]

If he's referring to a summary statement made from sources online (it's not just Wiki; others say the same thing), he's not making any claims for himself -- so he hasn't set himself out as any sort of expert.

After me confronting him, he then attributed this claim to another. Better late, than never.

Heck, I might have agreed if I hadn't encountered for myself the game those "scholars" play.

Some, scholar! Google, helps.

BTW, being an atheist does not preclude Biblical knowledge.
One of the best lectures I've ever heard on the Gospel of John, a two-hour presentation followed by an hour of questions, during which the speaker recited at length in the original Greek when he referenced the text, and ventured possible Aramaic backgrounds to some verses, was given by an atheist. Even a professor of New Testament studies who expertise was in the Gospels said the man was superb, not just an expert but a brilliant one. He didn't believe a word of it all, but he could do the grammar, historical context, etc. etc. nearly like a church Father: he understood its claims and lessons, but rejected them.

I bet that the expert did not attempt to be both a zealot on behalf of atheism, and a biblical scholar at the same lecture. Such lack of integrity might well impact on his influence on the audience.

 

[poolerboy]

poolerboy

I remind you that the following are your words. As a result of me confronting you on these words, in a later post you back tracked and attributed this claim to another. Better late, than never.

"Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist."

Because the claim was never mine. Even if Wiki hadn't said it (and I didn't know till a few moments ago since, again, I found this out another way) it doesn't make a bit of difference. If you think it does, please address my analogy which you've refused to answer so I can better understand where you're coming from.

If you wonder about something, just use Jesus question:

"Do you say this of yourself, or did another [tell] you?"

Exactly.

 

[kallipolis]

Hey, we aren't expected to footnote every last thing we say here!

Nor do I expect such pedantic emphasis. But there is a reasonable thought that the poster's expertise should be qualified by who is actually making such a statement. Plagerism is such a nasty thought. Perhaps he is lacking some relevant knowledge?

If we did, some of my posts would fill an entire JUB page, not just a couple of screens.

But you do not attempt to be what you are not. I know that from reading your many posts. There lies the difference.


If you wonder about something, just use Jesus question:

"Do you say this of yourself, or did another [tell] you?"

Then I would say that if I were saying it, I would say it on behalf of myself. When another says it, I will ensure that his name is quoted. And not just after being pressed on the matter.

 

[kallipolis]

]Because the claim was never mine.[/B] Even if Wiki hadn't said it (and I didn't know till a few moments ago since, again, I found this out another way) it doesn't make a bit of difference. If you think it does, please address my analogy which you've refused to answer so I can better understand where you're coming from.


Exactly.

But you made the statement. So you made the claim.

On being confronted by this claim, by me you back tracked ,and attributed the claim to another.

Such scholastic honesty!

 

[poolerboy]

Why are you ignoring my analogy? It's a perfectly valid point.

 

[kallipolis]

Why are you ignoring my analogy? It's a perfectly valid point.

You are attempting to distract attention from your claim, as evidenced in the statement that you made. Later you clarified that statement, and attributed such to another. But only after my choice to confront the veracity of your initial claim.

Your analogy has no bearing, when we consider that your initial claim, has now been clarified by you, to acknowledge the authorship of this claim by another. In other words you have corrected your self. No more to be said.

 

[Kulindahr]

I bet that the expert did not attempt to be both a zealot on behalf of atheism, and a biblical scholar at the same lecture. Such lack of integrity might well impact on his influence on the audience.

Actually, he made it plain where he stood and that he thought we were all fools for believing what John had written, before he began. But until the question period, there was nothing else said about it, only about the content and meaning of John.

In the question period... well, the first question was, "How can you understand this all so well and not believe it?"

And the battle was joined....

 

[poolerboy]

You are attempting to distract attention from your claim, as evidenced in the statement that you made. Later you clarified that statement, and attributed such to another. But only after my choice to confront the veracity of your initial claim.

Your analogy has no bearing, when we consider that your initial claim, has now been clarified by you, to acknowledge the authorship of this claim by another. In other words you have corrected your self. No more to be said.

No because my analogy would assume that I'm not attributing that claim to someone else. And it would still remain a perfectly valid claim. It seems very obvious to me that you only derailed this thread because you felt the need to do your usual indirect, snide remarks only because you hate where I'm coming from. Others on this board that have gotten away with some rather huge doozies get a free pass from you. Hmmmmm.

 

[kallipolis]

Actually, he made it plain where he stood and that he thought we were all fools for believing what John had written, before he began. But until the question period, there was nothing else said about it, only about the content and meaning of John.

In the question period... well, the first question was, "How can you understand this all so well and not believe it?"

And the battle was joined....

Provoking ones audience is an obligatory invitation to invite contentious questions, and ensure that the audience participates. I do this, often. University lecturers are wont to remind us that their audience should appreciate their presence, rather than anticipate polite applause at the end of their appearance.

But I am sure that your captioned expert did not conduct an anti theist campaign, in tandem with his Biblical lecture.

 

[kallipolis]

No because my analogy would assume that I'm not attributing that claim to someone else. And it would still remain a perfectly valid claim. It seems very obvious to me that you only derailed this thread because you felt the need to do your usual indirect, snide remarks only because you hate where I'm coming from. Others on this board that have gotten away with some rather huge doozies get a free pass from you. Hmmmmm.

I remain focussed on the issue at hand. Your initial statement presuming to speak on behalf of some scholars, was later corrected by you, and you attributed that claim to a named scholar. You made this change only after I confronted your statement.

Your choice to divert attention from the matter under discussion.

Enough said on this matter.