tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post7301179200242426765..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: St. Paul and I Agree...gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38412831281174026872012-07-13T02:30:42.773-04:002012-07-13T02:30:42.773-04:00PS Huff,
I agree with you completely.
I just don...PS Huff,<br /><br />I agree with you completely.<br /><br />I just don't think it's fair-minded to draw the conclusion that after kicking Caesar's image out of the temple, answering a question about taxes with a reference to that image and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's is anything like an endorsement of governmental authority. It sounds to me a lot more like a tacit "and I just showed you which is which, asshole."Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-1359544269296409662012-07-13T02:28:06.663-04:002012-07-13T02:28:06.663-04:00Gene,
The flat-earth / round-earth debate is a de...Gene,<br /><br />The flat-earth / round-earth debate is a debate on questions of fact which can be empirically resolved.<br /><br />The Judaizing/Antinomian feud isn't much like that.On the historical side, not all the facts are easily -- or even necessarily at all -- accessible. And it being a religious matter, there's an element of faith involved.<br /><br />Jesus, Peter and James seem to have come down on the Judaizing side of that debate. Paul seems to have differed with them.<br /><br />I say "seems" for three reasons:<br /><br />1) Because while the Bible agrees at least partially with me on that claim, those areas of agreement are just as disputable as any other biblical claims; and<br /><br />2) It's debatable just how broad the chasm between Jesus, Peter and James on one side and Paul on the other really was; and<br /><br />3) Because both sides -- Paul's more than Jesus', Peter's and James's IMHO, but your mileage may vary -- include a hefty component of religious faith in their arguments.<br /><br />Jesus seems to have been the most firm -- not one jot or tittle of the Law will in any wise be altered until heaven and earth pass away is pretty plain.<br /><br />If we take the biblical accounts of the incident at Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem as accurate, Peter and James abandoned Jesus' position in favor of the Noahide laws being "enough."<br /><br />So Paul at least, and possibly Peter and James if we believe those accounts, abandoned Jesus' very plain position (I give more weight to "Luke's" account in Acts of the Council of Jerusalem account than I do to Paul's attempt to make Peter his sidekick post-Antioch or to what may have been his own report on the Council in Galatians).<br /><br />So anyway: Is it a matter of "majority rules," or does Jesus remain in charge?<br /><br />The only way I can see of reconciling those two alternatives -- and I think it's a pretty weak attempt -- is to invoke Peter's apostolic authority and claim that since Jesus left the keys with Peter, Peter was entitled to drive the car anywhere he damn well pleased. And even that would only apply if Paul's account of their encounter is not more self-serving than truthful.<br /><br />Call all that flat-Earthism if you like. I admit that I don't have the same kind of stake in it that you do. While I believe that Jesus taught Judaism and that the religion created by Paul is a form of paganism with only extremely tenuous ties to actual Christianity, I'm not a devotee of either, so I'll face no shattering personal crisis if I'm wrong.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24848141606872093922012-07-12T16:34:29.318-04:002012-07-12T16:34:29.318-04:00"The Judaizing/Antinomian feud has spanned ne..."The Judaizing/Antinomian feud has spanned nearly two millennia."<br /><br />Tom, I suppose in the same way we could say that the flat-earth / round-earth debate has spanned 2500 years: after all, there is still a Flat Earth Society! And I bet they are always complaining that while they have an open mind, and seriously consider the (shaky) evidence for a round earth, the round earthers are "close-minded," and pay no serious attention to the evidence the flat earthers present.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4123389965109009302012-07-12T12:40:15.274-04:002012-07-12T12:40:15.274-04:00Well in KN@PPSTER land, the guy who makes gross bl...Well in KN@PPSTER land, the guy who makes gross blunders regarding Constantine and the church of his time is the guy who really understands the Bible as an historical document.<br /><br />All that is required to sustain my faith in the rightness of my position (that "render unto Caesar" did not mean Jesus was trying to foment an uprising), is basic literacy and the agreement of pretty much everyone in history.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52977541903306349672012-07-12T10:31:16.448-04:002012-07-12T10:31:16.448-04:00traumeri,
I don't need a "defense."...traumeri,<br /><br />I don't <em>need</em> a "defense." It's pretty clear that I have a better understanding of the Bible as an historical document than you are willing to develop for yourself. As a confirmatory instrument of faith, on the other hand, I don't begrudge you your opinions as to the meaning of its content.<br /><br />The Judaizing/Antinomian feud has spanned nearly two millennia. If Peter, James and Paul couldn't resolve it, I doubt that we can. Inability to resolve it, however, is not an excuse to pretend that it HAS been resolved, nor should such pretense be required to sustain your faith in the rightness of your position.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-50483234233338341332012-07-12T09:23:39.684-04:002012-07-12T09:23:39.684-04:00I think we can concede KN@PPSTER this much: "...I think we can concede KN@PPSTER this much: "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" is, by itself and without more, a truism. But what he's missing is that a speaker's decision to invoke a truism when answering a question can tell you something about how he thinks the truism applies to the case at hand.<br /><br />Q. Is it constitutional to incorporate a national bank?<br />A. The powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States are reserved to the states.<br /><br />This answer is a truism. But KN@PPSTER, don't you think a fair-minded reader can draw a conclusion about the speaker's position?PHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011728672116977010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-49878352713932354982012-07-12T02:03:30.030-04:002012-07-12T02:03:30.030-04:00KN@PPSTER,
It's no defense to say that you ha...KN@PPSTER,<br /><br />It's no defense to say that you have read the Bible several times when it's clear you really aren't familiar with it. Certainly you are familiar enough to make extraordinary unqualified (in the logical sense of a qualifier) statements.<br /><br />The fact that you keep getting swatted down should prompt a little due diligence and humility rather than less.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-75577544225859539952012-07-12T00:31:28.278-04:002012-07-12T00:31:28.278-04:00traumeri,
I've read the Bible many times, bot...traumeri,<br /><br />I've read the Bible many times, both front to rear and piecemeal, in several translations, with and without commentary. I grew up in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church where I was encouraged to commit large parts of it to memory.<br /><br />Gene,<br /><br />I don't think I'm completely open-minded.<br /><br />I certainly have a point of view and an interpretation (one also informed by a number of minds other than my own; whether those minds are brilliant or not, I don't necessarily claim to know).<br /><br />I'm not afraid to have that view/interpretation challenged. But I don't find Humpty Dumpty "when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" stuff, as with your "render unto Caesar" "interpretation," especially challenging.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-63004518369035098572012-07-11T23:52:28.190-04:002012-07-11T23:52:28.190-04:00http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q29hg/http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q29hg/traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-54679269504850117462012-07-11T23:52:06.561-04:002012-07-11T23:52:06.561-04:00Of course, Tom, everyone with an "idée fixe&q...Of course, Tom, everyone with an "idée fixe" thinks they are completely open minded. All I can say is, my interpretation is informed by 2000 years of others' interpretations, including some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, while yours is informed by... yours.<br /><br />Mountain in eye alert, Tom.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71383779658421900972012-07-11T19:57:44.863-04:002012-07-11T19:57:44.863-04:00traumeri and Gene,
I doubt that I'm nearly as...traumeri and Gene,<br /><br />I doubt that I'm nearly as dedicated to my alleged "idée fixe" in this area as either of you are to yours.<br /><br />I'm certainly willing to consider arguments versus my own position, and that position is always provisional (for example, a closer study of the interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees is now on my "to do" list). In fact, my life would be a bit easier if I could embrace the Pauline Jesus, as most of my family does, rather than seeing that Jesus as a caricature.<br /><br />Gene, on the other hand, has decided that something Jesus said means what Gene wants it to mean, for no other reason than that Gene wants it to mean that, and no amount of pointing out that it doesn't mean any such thing on any plain or even reasonable reading will budge him on that.<br /><br />Beam in eye alert, Gene.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69466576748369481172012-07-11T13:50:43.148-04:002012-07-11T13:50:43.148-04:00I just did a quick Google search to get the specif...I just did a quick Google search to get the specific passages and NIV (or KJV) tend to be cited first. <br /><br />Gene: You're absolutely right. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work if the other side adopts absurdity as truth.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-12481245036424326632012-07-11T11:17:31.070-04:002012-07-11T11:17:31.070-04:00I think he's quoting from the NIV. It's a ...I think he's quoting from the NIV. It's a terrible translation, but it's fine on those passages (Mark 3.6; John 18:3).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Pharisees/" rel="nofollow">This link</a> searches the ESV for all references to the Pharisees. As you can see, there was a fair amount of acrimony. <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+23/" rel="nofollow">Matthew 23</a> offers a dramatic example. See verses 29–36.PHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011728672116977010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-2526168894876287672012-07-11T09:37:24.561-04:002012-07-11T09:37:24.561-04:00traumeri,
Fair cop -- I neither recalled, nor fou...traumeri,<br /><br />Fair cop -- I neither recalled, nor found with a quick search, those passages. Which translation are they from?<br /><br />Gene: For shame.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-83395655655733025202012-07-10T21:37:42.538-04:002012-07-10T21:37:42.538-04:00traumerei, the stance you are arguing against is i...traumerei, the stance you are arguing against is immune to evidence!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4919961532434512322012-07-10T21:31:42.152-04:002012-07-10T21:31:42.152-04:00Oh right KN@PPSTER, when Mark writes:
"Then ...Oh right KN@PPSTER, when Mark writes:<br /><br />"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."<br /><br />That actually meant that the Pharisees weren't interested in killing Jesus.<br /><br />And when John writes:<br /><br />"So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons."<br /><br />well, John can't be trusted.<br /><br />Now I know the Sadducees definitely had a larger part but that does not imply that the Pharisees had no part.<br /><br />If you've seen nothing to suggest that at least some Pharisees wanted Jesus dead, it's clear you aren't familiar with the source material.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52481474719357983652012-07-10T15:42:08.077-04:002012-07-10T15:42:08.077-04:00traumeri,
I'm not sure where you get the impr...traumeri,<br /><br />I'm not sure where you get the impression that the Pharisees called for Jesus' execution.<br /><br />Both high priests before whom Jesus appeared in the gospels (Caiaphas in the synoptic gospels, first Annas and then his son Caiaphas in John) were Sadducees.<br /><br />The Sanhedrin was dominated by the Sadducees, who as it happens were the primary religious collaborators with Roman rule for the simple reason that they had a weak spot which Rome could easily exploit. The Sadducee sect was centered almost entirely on maintenance and operation of the Temple, a building which could be (and eventually was) razed if they didn't behave as ordered.<br /><br />The Pharisees, on the other hand, were all about the Law. They were ... zealous ... for it.<br /><br />The Pharisees seemed very respectful of Jesus when engaging him in debate and discussion, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they were part of the alleged Jewish mob scene.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-22635107204716028352012-07-10T12:48:12.807-04:002012-07-10T12:48:12.807-04:00traumerei, are you familiar with the concept of &q...traumerei, are you familiar with the concept of "idée fixe"? Arguing with someone in the grips of one is like arguing with stone walls.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-3056786010422812702012-07-10T12:33:53.450-04:002012-07-10T12:33:53.450-04:00Ah, so in those cases, the big bad Catholic Church...Ah, so in those cases, the big bad Catholic Church decided to take a break from its antisemitic editing?<br /><br />Well, I'm glad you're here to set the record straight. In the Gospels, Jesus rhetorically KOs the Pharisees in every debate. But *that's* all legitimate. But when the Pharisees call for Jesus' execution, that part's just made up by the Catholic Church.<br /><br />But it's the Gospel writers who are inconsistent, right?traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-54116505388360677872012-07-10T09:52:51.723-04:002012-07-10T09:52:51.723-04:00traumeri,
No, I don't see Jesus' encounte...traumeri,<br /><br />No, I don't see Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees as "blaming the Jews."<br /><br />I see Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees -- of whom he likely was one by rabbinical training -- as Jesus teaching his religion (Judaism) via discussion methods which were already long-known in Judea at the time (the Socratic dialogue comes immediately to mind).Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4138714881490604922012-07-08T03:20:22.321-04:002012-07-08T03:20:22.321-04:00correction: damned Jews' fault
Interesting ho...correction: damned Jews' fault<br /><br />Interesting how you see that interpretation as "grafted on" when you are the one suggesting Jesus claimed to be the military leader the Jews were hoping for when every indication - whether in the Passion or out - suggests otherwise.<br /><br />I suppose you think all the other encounters in the Gospels where Jesus takes on the Pharisees is just more "blaming the Jews"? After all, such instances are inconsistent with the narrative you are desperately trying to advance.<br /><br />Unlike the rather internally consistent narrative given by the Gospels of the crowd and high priest calling for Jesus' execution, the idea that Jesus claimed to be a military leader to overthrow the Romans is more than inconsistent in Scripture - it is contradicted several times.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40067463550172975782012-07-08T01:35:23.924-04:002012-07-08T01:35:23.924-04:00traumeri,
Agreed: The texts of the gospels as the...traumeri,<br /><br />Agreed: The texts of the gospels as they have arrived in our time, across 2,000 years of the Holy Roman Catholic Church blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, do "agree" that it was all those damn Jews' fault.<br /><br />However, that agreement seems to be something that was grafted onto/into a completely different narrative that could not be entirely erased and that is more consistent with such historical facts as we have access to.<br /><br />I don't see it as a huge leap to connect that particular set of internal inconsistencies to Paul's later paganization/Romanization of Christ.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64680762537317093672012-07-07T17:05:44.614-04:002012-07-07T17:05:44.614-04:00Actually, when the texts of the Gospels *do* agree...Actually, when the texts of the Gospels *do* agree, as they do with regard to the narrative that Jesus was crucified through the agitation of the crowd rather than an active attempt by the Roman authorities to execute a subversive, there is no need to suggest other interpretations.<br /><br />Promoting an account that runs contrary to what was unanimously agreed to among the Gospel writers is fine, but there can be no pretending that such a contrary account represents a "mainline" interpretation; no matter how much one wishes it so.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-55703746867477037232012-07-07T15:41:17.690-04:002012-07-07T15:41:17.690-04:00Um, no. Unless the texts of the gospels are intern...Um, no. Unless the texts of the gospels are internally consistent, there must be an explanation for the contradictions.<br /><br />The entire arrest/Barabbas/crucifixion sequence is full of contradictions. Sometimes the gospels contradict each other (particularly John contradicting the "synoptic" gospels), sometimes a gospel contradicts itself.<br /><br />In attempting to sort out the contradictions from the facts, it makes sense to look at the history and the context instead of just imagining that what we want to believe is the truth.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-10516120400583408182012-07-02T18:10:55.707-04:002012-07-02T18:10:55.707-04:00Ah, so unless the texts of the Gospels comport wit...Ah, so unless the texts of the Gospels comport with your strained and unusual interpretation, it must be some kind of "subsequent modification".traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.com