This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How to put it...

#91Moorish_IdolPosted 11/3/2013 7:17:11 PM
No, no, no. Don't do that just for us. Surely you are too busy to continue posting here. We'll all understand if you leave us in our Western ignorance. Truly. You can go.
#92CS_Goodman_(Topic Creator)Posted 11/11/2013 12:48:02 AM
son of Moorish_Boor posted...
No, no, no. Don't do that just for us. Surely you are too busy to continue posting here. We'll all understand if you leave us in our Western ignorance. Truly. You can go.


This "ignorance." Asinine. What I point out is... what the best of your westerns have already been pointing out for a century or so.

They're there, so it happens I'm here, while you have nary an excuse.

DarkContractor posted...
I am not convinced on the empty tomb or the 'convincing bodily appearances'.


What do you see as more probable, historically? What alternative framework would you propose?

I am convinced of Mary Magdalene and Paul having some sort of post Easter experience of Jesus that is no more likely to be a post mortem revelation than it is a hallucination.

Hallucinatory appearances and... the tomb? Rhetorical device of the apologist/absence of empty tomb in Q?

Peter is a possibility, but I'm more skeptical of that.

Let's say Peter had visions of Jesus sans historic empty tomb. Whence the proclamation of Jesus as King Messiah - i.e, the "gospel"?

That correlation is mysterious to me.

If you can make a convincing case for the empty tomb and the rest of the disciple's post mortem experience, then I will convert to Christianity right here right now.

Your words. My questions. My words and your questions.

Good process.

People will make crap up about Joshua 10 now until the end of days, but I think the real concern is whether not a deity did a miracle to extend the length of the day, not if the author observed it correctly.

My understanding of Joshua's long day... differs. The "miracle" does not involve the literal lengthening of the day at all, but is totally about Joshua beginning his "day" by moving secretly in the night - which tactic netted Joshua the battle.

do you believe the way Yahweh intends for it to be understood aligns with the message that the original human authors were trying to get across? If I were to bring some events in the Gospels that I think can be concluded to be definitely not going back to the historical Jesus or some theological contradictions, would this suffice for a discussion on errancy?

Absolutely. A better one, at that.

I've seen you toot NT Wright's horn several times on this board.

Yes.

So would I be mistaken if I thought you were simply reiterating what you've read of him, for example, in the Meaning of Jesus? (I don't know if this bit is limited to this book or if it appears in others of his)

Actually: Yes (at least, insofar as I was aware). I've not read Meaning of Jesus, but its historical epistemology should be much the same as in other of his works.

In fact, that bit you were responding to also was modeled after some dialogue from Shibumi (will provide the ref. if interested).
---
The joke? death? impending? Well, why not? Ha! I'd make it on behalf of anyone. Still wondering "Where is your sting?" despite your joke resting on me
#93CS_Goodman_(Topic Creator)Posted 11/11/2013 1:36:23 AM
Will let slide the point about Matthean priority in order to focus on oral tradition.

This doesn't actually explain the precision of the synoptic material.

It provides superior explanation for such precision. Such is the nature of controlled oral tradition: Wording and syntax would be simplified/sharpened for mnemonic purposes; dissimilarity would occur upon writing (for stylistic/literary reasons; as authors, their intent was not to rehash the same story word for word/syllable for syllable - that would have been a waste of papyrus).

In fact, John's chronology is so inconsistent with the rest of the Gospels that it reeks of having oral traditions sourcing it (This is where, for example, we get the cleansing of the Temple occurring at the beginning of John)

I would say John was written later (and intended for a more rarefied audience) than the synoptics. Precise chronology is more a modern concern/expectation. Since I see John as clearly midrashic in nature, I consider the concern about chronology as missing the point of such literature entirely.
---
The joke? death? impending? Well, why not? Ha! I'd make it on behalf of anyone. Still wondering "Where is your sting?" despite your joke resting on me
#94DarkContractorPosted 11/11/2013 6:38:33 PM
What do you see as more probable, historically? What alternative framework would you propose?


Seeing as how the burden of proof is with you on the resurrection, the subject of discussion, there's no need to reverse the burden unto me.


Hallucinatory appearances and... the tomb? Rhetorical device of the apologist/absence of empty tomb in Q?


Did I say that?


Peter is a possibility, but I'm more skeptical of that.

Let's say Peter had visions of Jesus sans historic empty tomb. Whence the proclamation of Jesus as King Messiah - i.e, the "gospel"?

That correlation is mysterious to me.


From Peter!

If you think I'll run the legwork for your own argument you are sorely mistaken.



My understanding of Joshua's long day... differs. The "miracle" does not involve the literal lengthening of the day at all, but is totally about Joshua beginning his "day" by moving secretly in the night - which tactic netted Joshua the battle.


this sounds horribly ad hoc'd but as it is horribly irrelevant and I was just communicating my stance on errancy, no need to ponder on it, oh excuse me, I'll let this one slide.

Absolutely. A better one, at that.


Well my big one is that I think the miracle of the ear being attached to the slave slain at Jesus's arrest is definitely made up, but it is completely supposive of two source hypothesis. Seeing as how the de facto rebuttal then would be "F*** your TSH" when we already have a discussion on TSH going on, it would be largely uninteresting. But perhaps we could suppose TSH for this particular errancy discussion and then you tell me how insensible I am being through this framework?
#95DarkContractorPosted 11/11/2013 6:52:20 PM
It provides superior explanation for such precision. Such is the nature of controlled oral tradition: Wording and syntax would be simplified/sharpened for mnemonic purposes; dissimilarity would occur upon writing (for stylistic/literary reasons; as authors, their intent was not to rehash the same story word for word/syllable for syllable - that would have been a waste of papyrus).


tl;dr version "im gonna vaguely call it controlled oral tradition without actually specifying how it would manage to preserved"

I would say John was written later (and intended for a more rarefied audience) than the synoptics. Precise chronology is more a modern concern/expectation.


Not according to one of the more fundamental points of the Gospel of Luke or Papias.

Since I see John as clearly midrashic in nature, I consider the concern about chronology as missing the point of such literature entirely.


Well, the author of John had a concern about chronology, he was just an idiot. Can I link a scholar? Did you guess Ehrman? Yeah, it's Ehrman *sheepish smirk*

The Presence of Literary Seams. If I were to sew two pieces of cloth together, everyone would know. I am a lousy seamster, and the connections would be plain for the world to see. Some authors who splice their sources together are obvious as well, in that they don’t cover up their handiwork but leave numerous literary seams. I do not mean to say that the Fourth Evangelist was a sloppy (literary) seamster. But he did leave a few traces of his work, traces that become evident as you study his final product with care. The following are several illustrations.

a. In chapter two, Jesus performs his “first sign” (2:11) in Cana of Galilee, changing the water into wine. In chapter four, he does his “second sign” (4:54) after returning to Galilee from Judea, healing the Capernaum official’s son. In itself, this is no problem. The problem emerges when you read what happens between the first and second signs; for John 2:23 indicates that while Jesus was in Jerusalem many people believed in him “because they saw the signs that he was doing.” How can this be? How can he do the first sign, and then other signs, and then the second sign? This is what I am calling a literary seam.

b. In John 2:23, Jesus is in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea. While there, he engages in a discussion with Nicodemus that lasts until 3:21. But then the text says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea” (3:22). The land of Judea? They are already in the land of Judea, in fact, they are in its capital. Here is another literary seam. (Note: some modern translations have gotten around this problem by mistranslating v. 22 to say that they went into the “countryside” of Judea. But this, in fact, is not the meaning of the Greek word, “land” that is used here; “countryside” is a different Greek word)


your homework is to demonstrate this efficacy of 'controlled' oral tradition rather simply defining it as controlled to demonstrate that it works.

in the meantime, i have demonstrated quite the opposite with the differences in the synoptic pericopes and their Johnnanine parallels. If it was oral tradition, then why is there such a great twist in the 'dissimilarity' of John's pericopes than the others?
#96CS_Goodman_(Topic Creator)Posted 11/21/2013 7:28:22 PM(edited)
*Just checking in*
---
Running through the alley into the melee up on the second till sundown
#97GuideToTheDarkPosted 11/21/2013 10:17:50 PM
http://tinyurl.com/lc57vbd
---
Creating an engine that generates fun is high art.
#98IvashankoPosted 11/22/2013 10:15:34 AM
This topic did not deserve to go to ten pages.
#99CS_Goodman_(Topic Creator)Posted 11/22/2013 11:25:25 PM
That's not my fault. It's yours.

Mine only says 2 pages.
---
Running through the alley into the melee up on the second till sundown