Steefen
What you wrote:
I think it’s an interesting proposal. Yeah, there is something initially plausible in the idea that whatever early Christianity is, whatever problems and inconsistencies, and implausibilities, it is very weird and so there’s got to be something special that was happening. On the other hand . . . When you actually look at those problems, and when you start trying to say what exactly the something special is that was going on, you invariably end up with something closer to the Jesus of history that the higher critics reconstruct than anything Douthat would recognize as Christ.
= = =
Porphyry’s correction:
I think Douthat’s proposal is interesting.
Yeah, I agree with Douthat: there is something initially plausible in the idea that whatever early Christianity is, whatever problems and inconsistencies, and implausibilities, it is very weird and so there’s got to be something special that was happening.
Douthat: there is something believable about early Christianity with its problems, inconsistencies, and implausibilities.
There is something plausible about something that is not believable, something with problems, and inconsistencies.
These faults humanize Early Christianity.
Porphyry agrees with that.
It’s the same thing I wrote, there is something plausible about something that is implausible.
So, Douthat and you are basically saying its faults make it believable in the same way someone would say, a phenomenon’s faults makes it more human and because it’s human, its believable and special.
You agree with Douthat. So I can substitute you for Douthat. The despite is irrelevant. So what you have reservations in “despite”–you qualified your agreement with “despite,” you voted to agree with him.
= = =
He’s advocating what scholars have been advocating.
I don’t have to write that (we all got that) because it goes without saying (we’re all in agreement there: that has been done)
What are you complaining about? What are you taking offense about? I have the gall to let you know I agree not refuting?
Yea, I skipped that: no one missed that or misunderstood that.
= = =
He seems to think … means to me you think he seems to think.
You are telling us what you think he is saying. I agreed with you because I went to the link and will not pay for that article, therefore, if Porphyry says that’s where he’s leaning, that’s where he’s leaning, n’est-ce pas?
sigh, your ado is about nothing.
You agree that something with foibles is more humanizing and believable.
Everyone is agreement about him advocating what people who search for the historical Jesus do.
Third, no one is disagreeing with your take on reading the article: if, to you, he seems to think people will take the gospels as being more historical that is just a report of what you read. You did not say he seems to think this but it does not necessarily follow because …
I gave you a because in Post #10.
Robert
How did Porphyry insult you, Steefen? By pointing out that you misunderstood his post? Is that an insult in your opinion?
Steefen
Already explained above that your assumption is, as always, wrong.
We agree to disagree, as always.
Cannot wait for whatever new version of this website. I would like that you no longer read my posts and I no longer read your posts.
We always disagree.
At dinner parties and book clubs, manners dictate recognize people who consistently disagree. Move on.
I’m a person who goes to dinner party, book clubs, meetup groups, go for drinks for edification.
Let me see, who’s going to be there, whose company do I value? Do I want to socialize or not socialize with certain people I’ve already vetted?
So, Douthat and you are basically saying its faults make it believable in the same way someone would say, a phenomenon’s faults makes it more human and because it’s human, its believable and special.
No, that is emphatically not equivalent to what I wrote. I’m not going to copy and paste the text again; you can go read it as I wrote it if you wish to see why the words you put in my mouth don’t express my mind. .
You agree with Douthat. So I can substitute you for Douthat. The despite is irrelevant. So what you have reservations in “despite”–you qualified your agreement with “despite,” you voted to agree with him.
No, you can’t substitute me for Douthat. Saying that someone’s idea is initially plausible and then proceeding to show why, despite that initial plausibility, it fails, is not voting to agree with the person, nor does it make our positions interchangeable.
I don’t have to write that (we all got that) because it goes without saying (we’re all in agreement there: that has been done)
What are you complaining about? What are you taking offense about? I have the gall to let you know I agree not refuting?
Yea, I skipped that: no one missed that or misunderstood that.
So you’re telling me that you were actually agreeing with my point? But that in expressing my point before agreeing with it, you left out the part of my thought that you were agreeing with?
You are telling us what you think he is saying. I agreed with you
Are you saying that you were actually replying to Douthat, not to me, then? Oh wait, no, you seem to think that I’m agree with him:
if, to you, he seems to think people will take the gospels as being more historical that is just a report of what you read. You did not say he seems to think this but it does not necessarily follow because …
Do you dispute that saying “Douthat seems to think x” and simply asserting “x” are two entirely different statements?
And I *did* go on to name what I see as one big problem with his proposal, though not in this sentence. Surely a person is allowed to lay out another person’s thought before exhaustively assessing its merits; or do you think is it incumbent on me to reject his position, point by point as I present it, if I don’t want to give the impression that I agree with each of his points? Do you really think by writing “he seems to think . . .,” without saying in the very same sentence why he is wrong to think that, that I have now adopted his position as my own?
Steefen
I do not find your reply enriching, for example, you finding a reason to complain when I agree with you.
I just came from other conversations about
– a doctor, one city north of my city, who went cash only so he could be independent of insurance company influence and their incentives
the Biblical Jesus seems to have been independent of Jewish authorities
– the 2003 blackout that I lived through in NYC and current risks to the power grids in the U.S.
– MRNA in milk and in the food supply
– Bahkmut– can Ukraine hold on AND win that battle?
– issues related to bank shooting in KY
– Mary Beard’s scholarly view on Ancient Rome without the perspective Jewish Apocalypticism–maybe her television series will mention Syria with Galilee and Judea.
You found value in the article you shared.
I’m interested in the value I can find from a thread about it.
But it has to rise to what I value as important and compete for my time.
If you want to make a valuable contribution to my impressions to the discussion you initiated. Fine.
I am still weighted to the second edition of my book–that’s my gravity.
I am still weighted to world affairs, investing, trading, types of accounts used for investing (Roth IRA, non-retirement accounts); inherited IRAs, and opportunities to help me get to my retirement goals as quickly as possible.
– Getting my library out of storage and into my home and out of boxes; what books can be given to Half-Priced Books for re-sale or destruction.
(I have less than 7 boxes left to move.)
-Testing my instructor video lighting kits.
Still, I am of the mind that the New Testament is historical fiction about false prophets and what value can be salvaged and reused for the purpose of remaining religious.
I’ve given your thread sufficient time, but I still have to get to my books to read including:
The First New Testament
The Jesus Puzzle
On Christian Origins, and
The Gospel of Mark and the Roman-Jewish War of 66–70 CE: Jesus’ Story as a Contrast to the Events of the War.
Good night.
I do not find your reply enriching
The estimation is reciprocated.
you finding a reason to complain when I agree with you.
I think you feigned to have intended to agree with me after I pointed out that your retort was precisely the point I had explicitly made. Absolutely nothing in your post, or your follow-up posts (where you opined that “the problem is with what you presented” and “unsubstantiated drivel”), sounded like you intended to express agreement. As I’ve already said, it is a very strange way to express agreement with someone, paraphrasing what he said, but leaving out precisely the part of what he said that you agree with, then adding as your only commentary the bit of what he said that you had omitted in your paraphrase.
Either your are blowing smoke to save face after being called out on exceptionally sloppy reading, or you are among the worst communicators to write in English. Take your pick. If the later, I will offer my sincere apology for ascribing bad motives to you on this particular point.
But I really don’t think that is what is happening–you might not be a clear writer, but the fact is you have clearly misconstrued the other two points I made and you objected to, and you have since refused to admit that you were in error about what I had written when I drew attention to the fact and explained why.
You found value in the article you shared.
Not that it matters, but I didn’t share the article.
But it has to rise to what I value as important and compete for my time.
I don’t actually mean to compete for your time. I’m sure your unpacking your books will be a better use of both our time.
I think Douthat is correct, and his view that it is based on eyewitness accounts is naive, and this is what is needed if one is to hold on to Christainities core tenets. There has never been a more debunkable religion in human history than Christianity. Even pagans in general can at least pretend paganism whether of the big god kind like Hinduism or animism are really just different versions of the same underlying current of gods. Not coherent but relatively less contradictory than Christianity.Atheists, skeptics, buddhists and so on can all gather on lack of faith and resorting to inward states for rectification. Jews and Muslims can claim lineage to Abraham.
But Christianity alone, a Judeo-pagan synthesis is so self refuting that it has become the greatest testimony to humanities desire to believe comforting falsehoods.
A naive reading is EXACTLY what Christianity needs to succeed in a new age. That and some civilization collapse, preferably one that eliminates any copies of Barts books.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)