Post by Satori on Mar 11, 2005 5:13:36 GMT -5
Areopagite,
I think we're working ourselves into a state of considered disagreement, so I'll just answer the one or two questions you asked.
I agree that scholar's believe that. I would suggest, again, that the hypothesis should be just as critical to other pieces of ancient literature, if it's to be taken seriously.
As far as I'm aware it is applied to other literature. I know that recently linguists have questioned whether or not there may have been another hand at work with some of Shakespeare's stuff.
I think they're valid questions and fairly harmless ones too: those interested in the 'historical' Bible stand to learn more about its origins and it shouldn't matter to those who believe it's written under the influence of God.
Haha, yeah I deleted that comment a minute after I posted it, because when I reviewed what I had written, I considered that. Still, the Ark of the Covenant wasn't brought down from the mountain when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel.
No, I know that. Whatever happened to the Ark then? All this recent romantic interest in finding it seems unlikely to me, but it is odd that such an important artifact just seems to be 'dropped' from the Biblical story without much in the way of explanation.
No, that's not why I said that. Once again, there has been historical evidence found in the region of Palestine that confirms the existence and accomplishments of certain kings of Israel, etc. In the case of the Book of Mormon, I haven't heard any archaelogical digs recently discovering Nephite remains in America. I mean, if you have, then I'd like to hear about it. As far as I know, though, no such evidence exists.
Okay, I'll concede that point on ignorance for now. I simply don't know enough about the Book of Mormon. I've no choice but to believe what you say until I study it more (... one day!).
What do you feel He tried to do? Also, was Jesus a pathological liar in your opinion? He claimed to be the Son of God.
Not sure. He may have believed he was the Son of God, he may have been using that simply to strengthen his position, he may have meant it in a different context from the one it's generally understood to mean or it may have been attributed to him later.
I'm sure Jesus was aware of the dying and rising God scenario - it had been used a few times before to good effect - and I think he may have set about emulating that. Or possibly it was later attributed to him by the Gospel writers.
I think Jesus' intentions were good. He stood for equality (to my knowledge he never preached anything homophobic himself) and preached a generally non-violent approach to conflict. I can't argue with his general opinions on morals and such.
Even the gnostic gospels and what has so far been translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls have little to say against Jesus, although it's clear that he was actually far less significant at the time than he's generally made out to be. The real Christian story was built after his death and, I feel, it was built for power as much as anything else. I have concerns about what might have been 'attributed' to Jesus later and how that might have influenced our perception of what he was really like (particularly the writings of Paul, who is responsible for a large potion of the NT).
Anyway, I'm digressing - maybe Paul's perception of Christ is a good topic for a separate post sometime.
I think we're working ourselves into a state of considered disagreement, so I'll just answer the one or two questions you asked.
I agree that scholar's believe that. I would suggest, again, that the hypothesis should be just as critical to other pieces of ancient literature, if it's to be taken seriously.
As far as I'm aware it is applied to other literature. I know that recently linguists have questioned whether or not there may have been another hand at work with some of Shakespeare's stuff.
I think they're valid questions and fairly harmless ones too: those interested in the 'historical' Bible stand to learn more about its origins and it shouldn't matter to those who believe it's written under the influence of God.
Haha, yeah I deleted that comment a minute after I posted it, because when I reviewed what I had written, I considered that. Still, the Ark of the Covenant wasn't brought down from the mountain when Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel.
No, I know that. Whatever happened to the Ark then? All this recent romantic interest in finding it seems unlikely to me, but it is odd that such an important artifact just seems to be 'dropped' from the Biblical story without much in the way of explanation.
No, that's not why I said that. Once again, there has been historical evidence found in the region of Palestine that confirms the existence and accomplishments of certain kings of Israel, etc. In the case of the Book of Mormon, I haven't heard any archaelogical digs recently discovering Nephite remains in America. I mean, if you have, then I'd like to hear about it. As far as I know, though, no such evidence exists.
Okay, I'll concede that point on ignorance for now. I simply don't know enough about the Book of Mormon. I've no choice but to believe what you say until I study it more (... one day!).
What do you feel He tried to do? Also, was Jesus a pathological liar in your opinion? He claimed to be the Son of God.
Not sure. He may have believed he was the Son of God, he may have been using that simply to strengthen his position, he may have meant it in a different context from the one it's generally understood to mean or it may have been attributed to him later.
I'm sure Jesus was aware of the dying and rising God scenario - it had been used a few times before to good effect - and I think he may have set about emulating that. Or possibly it was later attributed to him by the Gospel writers.
I think Jesus' intentions were good. He stood for equality (to my knowledge he never preached anything homophobic himself) and preached a generally non-violent approach to conflict. I can't argue with his general opinions on morals and such.
Even the gnostic gospels and what has so far been translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls have little to say against Jesus, although it's clear that he was actually far less significant at the time than he's generally made out to be. The real Christian story was built after his death and, I feel, it was built for power as much as anything else. I have concerns about what might have been 'attributed' to Jesus later and how that might have influenced our perception of what he was really like (particularly the writings of Paul, who is responsible for a large potion of the NT).
Anyway, I'm digressing - maybe Paul's perception of Christ is a good topic for a separate post sometime.