What to do with an atoning/non atoning Jesus?

1235718

Comments

  • Yes, indeed it is.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    And note that my comments to Dafyd were scholarly and respectful.
    Rudeness and politeness don't cancel out like that. You don't get free permission to be rude because you were respectful to someone else.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    parting shots, however, that I hope will not be contentious but edifying.
    Don't feel obliged to post any parting shots.

    It seems to me that as long as you take this attitude you are unlikely to be edifying. If you post in the hope that you will be edified by the responses you are more likely to be edifying yourself.

  • Short rant.

    It surprises me that no fair minded person shows up here (perhaps a Host who still has some principles of integrity) to say,

    You know, you people are not being intellectually honest or rational here.
    I frankly can’t imagine a “fair-minded individual” coming to that conclusion after reading through this thread, or the other one you started. I do think that fair-minded individual just might read your posts as unwilling to accept that one can be intellectual honest and informed and still disagree with your conclusions.
    When James Boswell II comes aboard and points out that---

    There is one gospel wherein Jesus and his disciples constantly talk about his messianic identity all the time
    and another gospel wherein Jesus is severely secretive about his identity -- so much so that when his disciples finally manage to tell him that he is the Messiah, he tells them to keep that quiet among themselves--

    and you guys stumble all over yourselves trying to say that there is absolutely nothing the least bit problematic or contradictory in any of that, …
    Who has said there’s nothing contradictory?
    and/or that both are equally true, …
    Who has asserted they are both true historically (which is what you seem to mean), as opposed to both conveying truth?
    and/or that it is just horrible to raise questions like that--
    Who has said it’s horrible to raise questions like that?

    No one has denied the apparent inconsistencies in the various Gospels. No one. With respect to some of them—for example, whether John and others might have seen visions but later doubted—we have simply disagreed with you in thinking that such a situation is unbelievable. To most of us, it is quite believable.

    With regard to others—such as the one you raise above—we’ve simply questioned the degree to which it matters to know exactly which one (if either) is historically accurate. To you, it seems to be very important, and that’s okay. To others of us, it is of relatively little importance. It may, for example, matter to the extent it helps us understand what each Gospel writer is trying to tell us. But for my money, since I do not expect the Gospels to be literally accurate or inerrant, much less “history” or “biography” in the modern sense, I don’t need everything to be consistent. (Frankly, I’d probably be suspicious if they were.)

    I’m with @Bishops Finger on this one: “who do you say that I am, and what are you going to do about it” are much more important questions. And with @Doone, I wonder if making such a big deal about the so-called “historical Jesus” is a way of side-stepping these questions. (And if so, I’m certainly guilty in my own way. We all have our things we get hung up on.)
  • Obviously, how we seek to follow Jesus, how we seek to live in relation to his call, is far more important than any theoretical discussions, problems, etc. concerning texts and sources.

    Just a brief hour or so ago today I joined a blog sponsored by the scholar Bart Ehrman. According to what it says, any member can ask him questions.
    _____

    First, a little bit about Ehrman: As a teenager, he got interested in Jesus and became associated with a number of fundamentalists his age in a fundamentalist church. He totally bought into all that and eventually attended Moody Bible Institute which is ultra conservative, completely into total scriptural inerrancy. Again. Ehrman accepted all that.

    He accepted it, that is, until he couldn't. Eventually his scholarly mind could no longer accept the inconsistencies he came up against, and as his education continued at other schools, he gladly discovered some of the basic principles of historical scholarship, and this enabled him to write a still-valuable book about the historical Jesus.

    He has now become an atheist, he says, because he has difficulty believing in a God who lets so many terrible things happen to people in this world. Still, his scholarship has enabled him to debate with Robert Price, an atheist who argues that Jesus is thoroughly mythological and may never even have existed. I think Ehrman thoroughly and effectively refutes Price.

    Now, although I agree with very much of Ehrman's scholarship, there is one area wherein I am in strong disagreement with him. I just finished writing him a post about it. (I wonder/doubt that I will ever get an answer!)

    I have not sent it to him yet, but will now show it to you.

  • You don't happen to recall whom from? It suggested itself to me when I had a very similar situation develop amomg the texts I was filiating for my doctoral variorum edition. (I even named the putative missing source Q.)

    It's been so many years. I'm not even sure if it was in the text, or something the professor mentioned outside the text.
    As I have indicated, I came aboard here only a scant few days ago and I will probably soon be leaving with some "parting shots" -- parting shots, however, that I hope will not be contentious but edifying.

    Contrary to popular opinion, some leopards have managed to change their own spots. So this is not entirely impossible.

  • @James Boswell II, since you ignored my questions, I’ll assume that means you have no answer to them.
  • I did not mean to ignore anyone, but I have been busy with my decision to join Ehrman's blog, and since my last post, I have been working on what follows, putting the final touches on it.

    QUESTION FOR BART EHRMAN

    I am the author of a website that can be seen at www.TheDeadSeaGospel.com.

    As is made clear on that website's INFO page, I regard you, Sir, as one of the six very best historical Jesus scholars working in America today, and I fully agree with you and the other five scholars listed there that Jesus was definitely into eschatological-apocalyptic thinking.

    There is, however, one issue wherein I find myself in strong disagreement with you and four of the others, and that too is made clear on that page -- and probably better than I can do it here! And although I am only a rank amateur as a scholar, I wish you would indulge me by answering me concerning this.

    Here is one way of putting it: I am in firm agreement with you, Sir, that there is historical "bedrock" in the statement of Mark 3:21 that when Jesus first began his ministry, his own family thought he had lost his mind and went out to try to "take charge of him" -- for that invokes the "criterion of embarrassment" by indicating that they knew nothing of any angelic revelations about him!

    How then, Sir, can you not also find historical "bedrock" in Mark's Gethsemane scene (14:32-36) which you and several of the others on my info page lightly leap over? Is not the criterion of embarrassment overwhelmingly indicated there as well?

    How could the author of Mark, after repeatedly quoting Jesus saying that he as the Son of Many will be going to Jerusalem to die, and even telling his followers that they too must be willing to lose their lives with him, "for if you try to save your lives, you will lose your lives" -- and yet when Jesus in Gethsemane comes up against his imminent arrest and death, he becomes extremely upset and agitated and asks three of his disciples to sit nearby and keep watch as he throws himself on the ground and tries to save his life, repeatedly begging his heavenly Abba to let the hour pass from him and not require of him that he drink the dreadful cup of suffering and death?

    How, Sir, can that not be historical? Surely the author of Mark would never have invented a scene like that!

    Not only that, but even when Jesus ultimately does say, "And yet, not my will, but yours be done" --even then those words indicate a difference between God's will and Jesus' will! And again, that is something the author of Mark never would have invented!

    Must we not then conclude that Mark's Gethsemane scene actually took place? That Jesus believed it was his Abba's will that he die, and submitted to the Father's will even though he did not want to -- at least not during those terrible moments in Gethsemane?

    I know that many modern people have difficulties with the very idea of "atonement." Some even consider it absolutely abhorrent, and I can understand that. There was a time in my own life when the very mention of the word would drive me straight up the wall.

    I know too that you, Sir, consider it to have been added on by the church, rather than as something going back to Jesus himself.

    But when we see that even Jesus had strong problems with the necessity of his death, and that it presented special difficulties even for him! -- must we not feel compelled to conclude that Gethsemane was real, historical, and happened?

    As is argued on my webpage, at the very least the historical Jesus must have believed that he was going to die, and that his death was willed by God, and that it would accomplish some great good purpose for Israel and the world. And for that reason, as one scholar says, he assented to his miserable fate and "did not run from death."
  • Not only that, but even when Jesus ultimately does say, "And yet, not my will, but yours be done" --even then those words indicate a difference between God's will and Jesus' will! And again, that is something the author of Mark never would have invented!
    ______________

    And the author of John would not have even come close to it. Not really.
    "I and the Father are one."
    (There is not the least bit of daylight between my Father's will and mine!)

    Indeed, the author of John doesn't really come close to it even in here:

    "Now is my soul troubled.
    And what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour?
    No, if was for this very reason I came to this hour.
    Father, glorify your name!"

    In other words,
    "Shall I actually say "Save me! Don't make me drink this cup!'
    No, no, I shall not even say that!"

    Notice too that in John's version of the Gethsemane scene, Jesus is totally in charge. Rather than Jesus falling down on the ground, those who came to arrest him fall to the ground.

    And rather than the disciples in cowardly fashion deserting Jesus, he as good as gives them leave to go.
    "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."
    __________

    Don't misunderstand. I think John's theological message is commendable:

    In effect: "Even when you see Jesus suffering agonizedly in Gethsemane, do not conclude that he will not or is not fulfilling the Father's purpose."
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    QUESTION FOR BART EHRMAN
    I'm not aware that Bart Ehrman posts on or reads this board.


  • :smiley: I can assure you he doesn't. I'll be putting it on his blog.
    This was for YOUR edification.
    :wink: You're welcome.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Speaking as a rhetorician, let me suggest that not even Ehrman enjoys being spoken to as if he were a public meeting.

    Come down off your high horse and engage, why don't you?

    You still haven't answered me--and after your hot pursuit of me, too, all around the boards (well, two threads). I'm so hurt. I thought we had something together.

    Now I feel so cheap. So--used.
  • @Lamb Chopped
    I really don't know what you're talking about now, Lamb Chopped. But if you will now ask me something, I will gladly try to answer it.
  • But I can assure you Ehrman will find that questioning of him -- and he does invite questions on his blog -- both interesting and challenging.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited July 2019
    Host hat on
    @James Boswell II, the Purgatory board is a place for serious discussion. That is not facilitated by posting long screeds of text, especially not ones which explain about why you are going to post elsewhere, or which show us what you are going to post elsewhere. Long screeds of text are not conducive to good discussion, especially long screeds of this kind. Please don’t do it.

    And, as some tethers are getting close to their end, let me remind everyone that we should presume good faith, and that anything like a personal attack doesn’t belong here.

    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Seriously???? My name is like, all over this freaking thread. Largely out of YOUR mouth. You even posted in two threads to try to catch my attention, so:
    I wanted Lamb Chopped to see it, one place or the other :wink: .

    And I responded to the love letter you were so kind as to post on all the trees here in the forest of Arden, see below. Sheesh, all you had to do was look on page two. But here it is again, from your Rosalind:

    Good morning!

    I haven't been participating for a number of reasons, none of which has to do with me being abused, or feminist, or told to put up with abuse, or ragged on for being feminist, or any of that stuff. Take that right off the table.

    My participation in this thread will probably be minimal for a number of real life reasons. But also because I'm having a hard time disentangling the absolute barrage of ideas/theories/assumptions/whatsits that are flying at us in every post. It's overwhelming. Though good on you for finally leaving behind all the advertising!

    Now to your post.
    9:21AM
    Lamb Chopped wrote: »

    Those who've been on Ship for years will recall some of our struggles, which are wholly human, embarrassing, and "little faithed" at times, in spite of the miracle. Because miracles do not create faith. They just don't. At most they can serve as signposts to the object and giver of faith, the Lord. But it is entirely comprehensible to me how whole families and John the Baptist himself might have lost sight, for a moment or for years, of the miraculous events they were once a part of. Because it has happened to us.

    @Lamb Chopped
    I didn't respond to you in this thread because I was confused by what said about "miracle."

    I regret to say that I have no idea what you mean by "said about miracle," so I guess we're even. I'll try again.

    ["I'll come in again." Why is Monty Python running through my head?]

    Ahem.

    I understood you to be saying that no one who had had a supernatural aka miraculous experience, such as being told something by an angel, or seeing a miracle, or having the heavens open up, etc.... could later go on to have doubts about what they were told in that experience.

    I know by personal experience that that just isn't so.

    Mousethief had it right. Human beings are variable. No matter how absolutely convinced we are of a particular point, even if God has spoken to us directly, it doesn't take long before we're back in the muck and mire of doubt. That's why faith is a virtue and not simply a static state of mind. It takes some doing to remain convinced of anything that is not constantly reinforced and repeated by the outside world.

    A non-religious example of this is the fact that it is simply impossible for me to eat an average-sized meal without, er, repercussions later--a result of surgical trauma back in 2014. The fact that I still still STILL muck it up and suffer the consequences about once a week is proof that this human, at least, has a damn hard time maintaining her "faith" in the simple proposition "people without a working vagus nerve cannot tolerate average sized meals."

    (Be happy for me--I've actually managed to maintain my faith in this proposition for what, 10 days now? And am correspondingly more comfortable.)

    Now to the latest point you wanted me to address.

    According to the late Gospel of John, Jesus' disciples started calling him the Messiah in the first chapter, even before his ministry began, and continued calling him that throughout his entire ministry, as represented in that gospel.

    while

    According to the earlier Gospel Mark, the disciples (like Q's imprisoned Baptizer) struggled with trying to decide what to think of him, and did not win through to the belief that he was the Messiah until late in his ministry, in the eighth chapter of that gospel.

    I see nothing miraculous there. I see a difference impossible to reconcile.

    One could, however, humbly choose to go with the earlier sources as historically the more reliable.

    First of all, I'm going to question your ongoing usage of "early" and "late" (even within a single book!) as if these were unquestioned, everybody-knows-that facts. They are not. I am no great shakes as a textual scholar, but I have basic training and experience with the proper handling of manuscripts etc. and I know just how much of that vast edifice of "this is what we know about the Biblical texts" is based on shaky assumptions. It's why you won't see me taking so-called higher criticism seriously. I've spent way too much time in the trenches of "lower criticism," that is, manuscript handling, filiation, dating, and so forth, to have trust in the grand conclusions such people make. (Then there's my experience as a working writer, which tells me that people who try to reconstruct authorial processes etc. after the fact almost invariably get it wrong.)

    But enough of that.

    You want to know how it can be possible that Jesus' first disciples could identify him as "Messiah" and "Son of God" at the outset of their association, and THEN go on to "struggle with trying to decide what to think of him" later on. I presume you are speaking of people like Philip and Nathanael in John 1, by the way.

    Again, we're back to human nature. The two guys start off with a bang, but it doesn't last. And really, is that so surprising? Take Jesus' own reaction to Nathanael's confession of could-this-possibly-be-faith-naw-it's-way-too-premature:
    “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

    50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”

    I see more than a hint of incredulity there. As in, "Seriously, dude. I told you one simple fact which implies uncanny knowledge, and immediately you jump to huge assumptions about my identity? I mean, you happen to be right, but really. I hope you don't make all your life decisions this way. Wait for more evidence, next time."

    And of course Jesus is right. Nathanael et al ARE going to suffer crises of faith. They ARE going to have their doubts, and even fall away at the time of the crucifixion. Because human.

    Really, just use your imagination a little. You are a brand new disciple of Jesus, and you've just started hanging around with him. You are full of religious joy and zealotry. This is the Messiah! This is the Son of God!

    And then you wake up next to him and discover he has to take a shit like anyone else. You watch him eat and drink and sweat. You discover that he farts and burps. This is the Son of God?

    Go on a little while.

    You watch him do miracles. And yet--

    You're sleeping on the side of the road three nights out of seven (instead of in a palace, or at the very least, the home of some local grandee). You listen to him patiently answering the objections of nobodies in rural Galilean villages. You watch him suffer abuse from people who claim to be religious leaders. Why doesn't he just use his power and fry them?

    What kind of a man is this?

    It's not surprising at all to me that they had doubts--or even that their early grasp of his identity went Pfffffft! and they reverted to treating him like any ordinary rabbi. Three years is a long time to maintain the fervor of a new convert. Particularly if your Lord isn't doing the things you think he oughter.




  • @Nick Tamen
    Some of your questions seem rather rhetorical to me, but I am glad to agree with you below and especially on what I boldfaced:

    NICK TAMEN SAID:
    ...we’ve simply questioned the degree to which it matters to know exactly which one (if either) is historically accurate. To you, it seems to be very important, and that’s okay. To others of us, it is of relatively little importance. It may, for example, matter to the extent it helps us understand what each Gospel writer is trying to tell us. But for my money, since I do not expect the Gospels to be literally accurate or inerrant, much less “history” or “biography” in the modern sense, I don’t need everything to be consistent. (Frankly, I’d probably be suspicious if they were.)
  • Ah that. Lamb Chop, I think I just found that to be too long a "screed of text" for me! (I am quoting BroJames here.)
  • This has become simply comical.
  • @BroJames
    Nevertheless, I would encourage readers to wade through that. Ultimately it is one of my strongest opinions that the question of whether the historical Jesus was himself into any kind of atonement thinking may hinge rather strongly -- the historical question, that is -- on whether Mark's Gethsemane scene is historical.
  • And that will be discussed in shorter entries.
  • @Nick Tamen
    Some of your questions seem rather rhetorical to me . . . .
    Huh? You asserted, through your fair-minded person reading this thread, that
    you guys stumble all over yourselves trying to say that there is absolutely nothing the least bit problematic or contradictory in any of that,
    and/or that both are equally true,
    and/or that it is just horrible to raise questions like that.
    I asked you:
    • Who has said there’s nothing contradictory?
    • Who has asserted they are both true historically (which is what you seem to mean), as opposed to both conveying truth?
    • Who has said it’s horrible to raise questions like that?
    How is it rhetorical for me to ask you to back up your assertions with actual examples?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Ah that. Lamb Chop, I think I just found that to be too long a "screed of text" for me! (I am quoting BroJames here.)
    Well, bless your heart.

  • And your pink cotton socks!
  • Grey.
  • Try washing them?
  • <ADMIN MODE>
    @BroJames
    Nevertheless, I would encourage readers to wade through that. Ultimately it is one of my strongest opinions that the question of whether the historical Jesus was himself into any kind of atonement thinking may hinge rather strongly -- the historical question, that is -- on whether Mark's Gethsemane scene is historical.
    Actually, I'd officially state that there's little point reading it. We actively discourage using these boards to discuss things being discussed on other boards. That can lead to board wars, which aren't good, but more importantly we want to know what you want to say to us here, and what you plan to say to someone who doesn't post here isn't something we can easily discuss.

    I suggest you try to understand the nature of the medium. These are discussion boards, more importantly the discussion boards of the Magazine of Christian Unrest. We operate under an assumption that there's no right answer, and especially that none of us has the answer. To address us as though you have the answer comes across with an arrogance the regulars here will instinctively react against - even if we think some of what you have to say is worth consideration. All we ask of you is to present your opinions as clearly as possible, in a manner that we can talk about and as we talk maybe come to some different understanding even if that isn't agreement. Our experience is that direct answers to questions helps with this, whereas long screeds of general text don't because the specific points you might want to make are easily lost. Text that's addressed to a completely different audience is probably the worst way to engage with people here.

    I also note that you post including what you propose to send to the Ehrman blog includes the url for your website. I'll remind you of what you've already been told
    Eutychus wrote: »
    <admin mode>
    While you are waiting, rather than twiddle your thumbs, you might go to [link redacted] and look on the MORE/DISCUSSIONS page for the Dialogue With a Conservative Pastor to get some idea of what may be coming.

    (Hope the hosts don't mind me saying that.)

    This is now above host pay grade. Repeatedly ignoring hosts and admins will get you a suspension. You've been warned about repeated advertising of your site. Don't do it again, and don't dispute this ruling anywhere other than the Styx, or expect some shore leave.

    </admin mode>
    Now that you've been reminded of that, I'll repeat the pertinent point:
    Don't ignore the hosts, or talk back to them.
    We're happy to discuss what does and does not constitute posting styles conducive to good discussion. But, not on this thread.

    This really is your final warning. Take the opportunity we've offered to talk through how to get the best from these discussion boards.

    And, everyone else ... lay off the more personal comments outwith Hell. You know better.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • @Alan Cresswell

    Taken to heart. Apologies. I thought an example of a letter not yet sent would be okay.
    And I will be careful never again to include a url.

    And thanks for noticing that I am not the only one who may have gone too far with personal comments.
  • @Nick Tamen
    I will confess that I fear I may have been guilty of overreacting and even "hyperbole."

    But after I said,

    JAMES:
    "I'm going to say this to you, Martin, because I think you strive to be fair minded. Without telling anyone what to think, much less you, there are, I think, some things in what I wrote there that a number of scholars have put forward and would defend because they hold up to scholarly examination. (This is not just me!)

    MARTIN SAID,
    There is nothing new. Nothing. Unless you can come up with an original one line proposition. Which you can't. So it's just your disposition. And even God can't change that.

    We're all out of step but you eh?

    I THEN CAME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SEEMED PRETTY CLOSE TO A ONE LINER (I guess a semi colon at the end of the first line would technically make it that):

    @Martin54
    We have one gospel in which Jesus keeps his identity private until the very end.
    We have another gospel in which Jesus publicly talks about his identity all the time.

    AND THEN THERE WAS A LONG, LONG SILENCE
    (yes, I know, Martin may have been off doing something else!)

    BUT THEN HE SAID:
    Uh huh. Both are true. And?
    ________

    [Martin's answer seemed awfully lame to me. And HE certainly didn't say anything about being true on one level and not on another. And since we were talking in terms of historicity,

    I REPLIED TO HIM:
    Both are not true. The fathers almost rejected John from the canon because of that and other differences.

    AND MARTIN SAID:
    Uh huh.

    AND I SAID
    Yes.

    AND MARTIN SAID NO MORE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

    Later I was asked for evidence that the Gospel of John almost got rejected from the canon, and I provided some.

    And later I see that you @Nick Tamen DID say that both could be true on different levels which btw is what I myself pointed out regarding the comments of church father Clement. So I withdraw the stronger statements that I made, and stick only by what I just now said.
  • Thank you, @James Boswell II.

    Many of us have suggested you spend some time reading through a variety of threads in Purgatory and elsewhere on the Ship to get a feel for how discussions go. Doing so would also give you a feel for various shipmates’ posting style, and for how to interpret the variety of posting styles.

    Just a suggestion.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Nick Tamen
    I will confess that I fear I may have been guilty of overreacting and even "hyperbole."

    But after I said,

    JAMES:
    "I'm going to say this to you, Martin, because I think you strive to be fair minded. Without telling anyone what to think, much less you, there are, I think, some things in what I wrote there that a number of scholars have put forward and would defend because they hold up to scholarly examination. (This is not just me!)

    MARTIN SAID,
    There is nothing new. Nothing. Unless you can come up with an original one line proposition. Which you can't. So it's just your disposition. And even God can't change that.

    We're all out of step but you eh?

    I THEN CAME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SEEMED PRETTY CLOSE TO A ONE LINER (I guess a semi colon at the end of the first line would technically make it that):

    @Martin54
    We have one gospel in which Jesus keeps his identity private until the very end.
    We have another gospel in which Jesus publicly talks about his identity all the time.

    AND THEN THERE WAS A LONG, LONG SILENCE
    (yes, I know, Martin may have been off doing something else!)

    BUT THEN HE SAID:
    Uh huh. Both are true. And?
    ________

    [Martin's answer seemed awfully lame to me. And HE certainly didn't say anything about being true on one level and not on another. And since we were talking in terms of historicity,

    I REPLIED TO HIM:
    Both are not true. The fathers almost rejected John from the canon because of that and other differences.

    AND MARTIN SAID:
    Uh huh.

    AND I SAID
    Yes.

    AND MARTIN SAID NO MORE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

    Later I was asked for evidence that the Gospel of John almost got rejected from the canon, and I provided some.

    And later I see that you @Nick Tamen DID say that both could be true on different levels which btw is what I myself pointed out regarding the comments of church father Clement. So I withdraw the stronger statements that I made, and stick only by what I just now said.

    And I asked you to demonstrate your proposition from the texta. You haven't because you can't.
  • I thought I did and have, repeatedly.
  • But let's drop source and textual matters now for a discussion, pro and con, of atonement thinking only. Some of you have already weighed in, pro and con. Please weigh in again.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    I thought I did and have, repeatedly.

    Quote that. Other than mere assertion.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I thought I did and have, repeatedly.

    Quote that. Other than mere assertion.

    You cannot. It is impossible for you. I'm not doing your work for you. And you can't. It's not your fault. Not in a moral sense.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Doone wrote: »
    @Bishops Finger - an interesting suggestion! Certainly, for me, it’s a lot more about what you do, once you follow Jesus, rather than the minutiae of what you believe. Obviously, not everyone would agree and it is a fine line.

    This thread in this yarn is infinitely more relevant: how do we connect to this sublime, disturbing, savage, ancient, alien encounter story? Without two a penny beliefs. No entity is stranger, more other, than anachronistic Jesus.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    it might have been written by Matthew or some other eye/ear witness before being translated into Greek, and that would make Q a primary source, by your own definition.
    My definition specified that a source is something to which historians have access. Whether or not Q once existed one thing we do know is that we have no direct access to it now. All we have are Matthew and Luke which may be based on it. (We don't know if it shared material with Mark; if any material in Matthew not in Luke, or vice versa, came from it.) It is not data. It's a hypothesis to explain the data. If Q does not exist now it is not a source now.

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Is James Boswell II still going to quote me? I'm so much looking forward to that.
  • @LeRoc
    I hope you sincerely mean that. I will do it yet.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @LeRoc
    I hope you sincerely mean that. I will do it yet.

    You can't.
  • @Dafyd
    Q is a hypothetical source. It is also hypothetical that Mark was written first. Robert Miller edited a book in which there is a chapter entitled "The Sayings Gospel Q," yet that chapter contained nothing but the parallel passages from Matthew and Luke! Strange. As I see it Q contained at least a few stories and/or story fragments. The desire to designate Q a sayings gospel like the Gospel of Thomas reflects an agenda I find questionable.

    Others have tried to reconstruct what may have been the original text of Q. An example: Did Jesus say "If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast the demons out" or did he say, "If it is by the finger of God I cast the demons out"? Most scholars think "finger" was the original word used by Jesus since it is easier to see how Matthew's redactor may have felt that such an anthropomorphism should not be applied to God.

    It's not all that important. Both versions of the saying mean the same, "If it is by the power of God" or even "if it is by God that I do it, then the Kingdom of God has come near you."

    Scholars take seriously that Q material is earlier than Mark. That seems confirmed in one of those rare cases where there is some Q-Mark overlap:
    A comparison of the John the Baptist sayings in Matthew ch. 3 and Luke ch. 3 with the John the Baptist material in Mark ch. 1 shows that Mark has toned down the
    Baptizer''s apocalypticism, In Q, John uses the word fire three times and the word wrath once. In Mark ch. 1 John does not use either of those words at all, not even in the overlap saying "...but he (the mighty one ) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

    That is Q's version. Mark has, "but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" with no mention of fire.

    Why did Mark tone down John's imminent apocalypticism? Probably because in the intervening years early believers had experienced multiple baptisms by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but not with any fiery wrath.

    But again, let us just agree to disagree, and get back to a discussion of atonement.
  • @Martin54
    You failed to see that was addressed to LeRoc. Are you telling me that I can't quote him?
  • "You can't."

    @Martin54
    Martin, you and I are simply not communicating. I understood what you said to mean something that I sincerely think I have been doing all along in multiple ways, including that exchange where I felt you responded poorly. I'm not being insincere in saying that. But I want to engage you in a very different way, right after I address something to Nick Tamen and others.
  • @Dafyd
    Q is a hypothetical source. . . .


    . . . But again, let us just agree to disagree, and get back to a discussion of atonement.
    I trust you realize that nothing in this lesson addressed or contradicted what @Dafyd said—that historians would not consider Q a “primary source” because they do not have access to the document.

    How about actually engaging with what people say instead of telling us what you’d prefer we talk about?
  • @Nick Tamen
    First, with regard to what you just said:
    I guess my thinking is askew. I sincerely thought I did establish that gospels scholars consider Q to be a hypothetical primary source, earlier than Mark.

    But really. Enough of source discussion/disagreement.
  • @Nick Tamen
    I think I may be leaving here soon. But before I do, there is one thing I especially would like for you, Nick Tamen, to do for me.

    Along with any others who might want to respond to this.

    Please go to the long question addressed to Bart Ehrman above and -- apart from any statements to the effect that it was wrong or even stupid for me to do that -- please read through all that and tell me in all honesty -- and believe me I know very well that you will be honest with me -- tell me if you see anything of value in any of that?
  • @Martin54
    I really do want to talk with you (not to you) about other matters. Please be patient. I will eventually be back.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Please go to the long question
    You couldn't be bothered to take the time to precis your question. If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your question short, why should anyone else be bothered to take the time to read it?

    Learn to precis.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    "You can't."

    @Martin54
    Martin, you and I are simply not communicating. I understood what you said to mean something that I sincerely think I have been doing all along in multiple ways, including that exchange where I felt you responded poorly. I'm not being insincere in saying that. But I want to engage you in a very different way, right after I address something to Nick Tamen and others.

    We can't mate. And we can't do it for you.
  • After my last post, I went to church and afterward participated in some activities. I just returned and opened this.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Please go to the long question
    You couldn't be bothered to take the time to precis your question. If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your question short, why should anyone else be bothered to take the time to read it?

    Learn to precis.
Sign In or Register to comment.