[FoRK] Gibson's movie, Christianity-themed books,
etc. was re:Coulter: Musli
geege4 at bellsouth.net
Sat Mar 13 14:30:14 PST 2004
the gospels are allegorical achetypes. matthew: jesus the man; mark: jesus the king; luke: jesus the son of god; john: jesus the redeemer. (actually can't remember which is which, but this was how my dad explained the gospels to me. er, maybe one of them was "jesus the sacrificial lamb" ...)
grabbing a new testament NOW for review.
From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com]On Behalf Of
Gregory Alan Bolcer
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:16 AM
To: fork at xent.com
Subject: RE: [FoRK] Gibson's movie, Christianity-themed books,etc. was
So you are arguing that the gospels are the only recording of Jesus'
life. I am not sure how to respond to that other than you must be
a strict creationist, and I thought I had you pegged as an atheist zealot.
I repeat, your religious ignorance is astounding. You take an argument and
side step it by following one line and only for written text. You are
arguing that the written text is not 100% historically accurate and
not the point I was making that there is an abundance of evidence
supporting the final days of Jesus' life. As always, you seem to
enjoy generalizing from one narrow point of familiarity as seen
through your own biases. So, Mr. "I don't know the difference
between a zygote and a fetus, and there's no privacy issues in
abortion especially in the first 4 weeks, and 'I hadn't heard of
that so it must not be true generalizer", are you familiar with:
Andres, Brother of Peter
James, Son of Zebedee
John, Son of Zebedee
Thomas (I doubt you've heard of him)
James, Son of Alphaeus
Simon (the Zealot)
Judas "The traitor" Iscariot
Knock yourself out.
From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of Russell Turpin
Sent: Thu 3/11/2004 6:55 PM
To: fork at xent.com
Subject: RE: [FoRK] Gibson's movie, Christianity-themed books,etc. was re:Coulter: Musli
Gregory Alan Bolcer:
>I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't understand how the history
>of Jesus, the
>actual human being came to be captured nor why.
Actually, I do. Here's the short version. A
messianic religion was spread to various points
in the Roman empire by Paul, whose preaching
and epistles created the ideology of the nascent
religion. Paul never knew "Jesus, the actual
human being," and unsurprisingly, there is very
little about the "actual human being" in his
epistles, in which the messiah is largely an
abstraction. Some decades later, perhaps after
Paul had died, the young religion needed
narrative biography of its messiah. Many
were written, of which four eventually were
included in the religion's canon.
None of the canonical gospels explicitly names
its author. Church fathers such as Iraneus give
them hearsay attributions which are accepted
by the faithful. According to these traditional
attributions, only two of the gospel authors
knew "Jesus, the actual human being." That
does NOT include the oldest of the canonical
gospels (which curiously, omits a resurrection
story in its original version.) In any case, we
can't know for sure who wrote the gospels.
What we do know is that all the gospels
were written by believers, for religious
purpose, and that there was considerable
plagiarism between them, or on earlier stories.
Outside these religious sources, there is
no information about "Jesus, the actual
human being." The handful of non-Christian
references in the first century are derivative.
"Jesus, the actual human being," simply wasn't
of enough interest when he was alive to
engender any writing, and wasn't of any
interest outside Paul's new religion until
later, when that religion gained visibility
in the larger society.
If you think this gives us any basis for
thinking we know anything about "Jesus,
the actual human being," in a secular sense,
then the problem may not be so much
ignorance as credulity.
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK