Theology sampler

[Thomas]

There seems to be a huge focus on what is and is not considered authoritative, and I think an example would be useful. So here is a theological speculation:

Why was Jesus crucified? My contention is the following:
1: Caiphas, head of the Sanhedrin, thought Jesus was an emissary from the planet Zargon and intent on taking the whole world hostage, by enslaving them to a new religion of His own divinity, under the guise of Judaism, so wanted him 'sorted' by the Romans.

2: Pilate was terrified that Zargon would take Rome out with a tactical nuclear device if he was seen to be the killer of their emissary, so he tried to shift the blame back onto the Jews.

3: Caiphas worried about the same thing happening to Jerusalem, so he tried to shift the blame back again, onto Rome. He won.

4: In the end the Zargons killed two birds with one stone, they took out Jerusalem with a low-yield zero-trace device in 70AD, whilst another emissary did a deal that Rome would be spared if the Romans took the wrap for what happened to Jerusalem.

5: A number of texts were left behind, collectively called "The New Testament", which fabricated the myth of the first emisarry's divinity, upon which a sect was founded, to prepare the way for when they come back.

Discuss...

Thomas

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

There seems to be a huge focus on what is and is not considered authoritative, and I think an example would be useful. So here is a theological speculation:

Why was Jesus crucified? My contention is the following:
1: Caiphas, head of the Sanhedrin, thought Jesus was an emissary from the planet Zargon and intent on taking the whole world hostage, by enslaving them to a new religion of His own divinity, under the guise of Judaism, so wanted him 'sorted' by the Romans.

2: Pilate was terrified that Zargon would take Rome out with a tactical nuclear device if he was seen to be the killer of their emissary, so he tried to shift the blame back onto the Jews.

3: Caiphas worried about the same thing happening to Jerusalem, so he tried to shift the blame back again, onto Rome. He won.

4: In the end the Zargons killed two birds with one stone, they took out Jerusalem with a low-yield zero-trace device in 70AD, whilst another emissary did a deal that Rome would be spared if the Romans took the wrap for what happened to Jerusalem.

5: A number of texts were left behind, collectively called "The New Testament", which fabricated the myth of the first emisarry's divinity, upon which a sect was founded, to prepare the way for when they come back.

Discuss...

Thomas

Well, well, well there is more to the story! I haven't read anything about this, care to share where you got this info?
Joe

[juantoo3]

With all due respect, and with full acknowledgement that this is just a case for example, I understood the idea was to appeal to various recognized (and perhaps not recognized) "authorities" to support (or refute) the various and sundry positions stated.

Am I mistaken in my understanding?

XXX

If not, then I appeal first to Erik Von Daniken and his works "Chariots of the Gods" and "In Search of Ancient Astronauts" to support the thesis that "G-d" or some similar likeness, or at least an entity (mis)identified as such, has visited and re-visited the Earth in antiquity...as stated in Ezekiel and confirmed in Revelations. To wit, consider the Navajo and Zuni legends of the disappearance of the Anasazi Indians in the desert SouthWest, as well as the intimate familiarity among some Peruvian tribes with Unidentified Flying Objects that still frequent their environs.

Of course, there are those "modern" scholars that scoff, attribute the whole mess to overactive imaginations spurred on by overexposure to reruns of Lost in Space and Robbie the Robot, who brush aside further consideration with a snigger and a call to get out one's tin foil hat...hardly what I would consider a scholarly approach. But then, I am not adequately credentialed to cast disparaging judgment...

XXX

Is that what you are getting at?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With all due respect, and with full acknowledgement that this is just a case for example, I understood the idea was to appeal to various recognized (and perhaps not recognized) "authorities" to support (or refute) the various and sundry positions stated.

Am I mistaken in my understanding?

Nope. The point is, as the idea of 'authority' is so heavily disputed, my Zargon Thesis cannot be refuted. It's as valid as the New Testament. In fact moreso, as I can prove I am me, and I wrote it.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If not, then I appeal first to Erik Von Daniken and his works "Chariots of the Gods" and "In Search of Ancient Astronauts" to support the thesis that "G-d" or some similar likeness, or at least an entity (mis)identified as such, has visited and re-visited the Earth in antiquity...as stated in Ezekiel and confirmed in Revelations.

Yep. That should be on the school curriculum too. Can't be questioned or challenged.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Of course, there are those "modern" scholars that scoff, attribute the whole mess to overactive imaginations spurred on by overexposure to reruns of Lost in Space and Robbie the Robot, who brush aside further consideration with a snigger and a call to get out one's tin foil hat...hardly what I would consider a scholarly approach. But then, I am not adequately credentialed to cast disparaging judgment...

Well that's the argument, isn't it ... who is anyone to question anything?

I rather go with another 'scholarly' view, that von Daniken caught the tenor of the zeitgeist: cold war paranoia, the moon landings, conspiracy theories ... everybody looking for an answer, and religion had been 'debunked', so the answer has to lie elsewhere ...

Other 'scholars' have shown that von Daniken, in "Gold of the Gods" made claims to have seen and photographed alien artefacts which were later shown to be simply not true. But then, who are they to question?

Why should the tiresome burden of being asked to substantiate one's claims be allowed to interfere with the Zargon Thesis?

Thomas

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

Other 'scholars' have shown that von Daniken, in "Gold of the Gods" made claims to have seen and photographed alien artefacts which were later shown to be simply not true. But then, who are they to question?

Why should the tiresome burden of being asked to substantiate one's claims be allowed to interfere with the Zargon Thesis?

Thomas

Well what are you trying to do with your thesis? Create a new religion with your own followers? Just giving answers for some troubling questions?
Are you just another crackpot spouting out more "facts" to mislead anyone easily enough to be persuaded by them? With out some kind of evidence your life work is just manure to be buried in the ground.
So where did you get your info? Let's get this thread moving forward!
Joe

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Joe

Create a new religion with your own followers?

Thomas to a T.

[wil]

So this is not a theology sampler, but actually sarcasm.

Call me confused, but it seems that most who were attempting to discuss authority and the correct application on the theology board were doing it from sincerity. ie working with the mod, you, to understand ground rules.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

So this is not a theology sampler, but actually sarcasm.

No, it's a sampler.

The idea was to highlight on what basis, if any, can one refute the Zargon Thesis.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, it's a sampler.

The idea was to highlight on what basis, if any, can one refute the Zargon Thesis.

Thomas

OK, but then my hands are tied. I am not familiar with Zargon Thesis, and what is more that demands on my personal time (and interests) limits my ability to pursue any serious study of Zargon Thesis, and it appears that one must be fully immersed in it to speak coherently on the subject.

Whereas, my own understanding built upon my own study of competing and complimentary Theses are rejected out of hand because they do not qualify as "authority?" If so, then like I said earlier it sounds to me like a cheering club.

By the way, my questions have been sincere. No sarcasm this time.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Nope. The point is, as the idea of 'authority' is so heavily disputed, my Zargon Thesis cannot be refuted. It's as valid as the New Testament. In fact moreso, as I can prove I am me, and I wrote it.

Just to get a little existential for a moment...maybe you are convinced you are you and you exist, but to me all I can really say is that you are a collection of thoughts written on a comparative-religion forum. How can I possibly know you actually exist short of arranging to meet? For all I know, "Thomas" may be a pseudonym or pen name for anything from a cereal killer (deliberate spelling) to a habitual nun (or is that "none?").

And this is a trouble I often bump into regarding "authority." Quite often I hear or read various translations and interpretations...so-and-so meant such-and-such when s/he said "blah-blah-blah." Here it is, in print...

On occasion I have seen the original author come back and refute the interpretation. "I am so-and-so, and I'm here to tell you that you are full of beans. That is not what I meant at all...here, let me clarify:"

This is the trouble I see with appeal to authority, whether "Church" fathers or otherwise. If they are not around to defend themselves and clarify what they actually intended (which is of itself a personal opinion, albeit informed), then we are relying yet again on interpretation, translation and inference. Which brings us back to square one with personal opinion, because every person is going to filter through their own lens and no two lenses are the same.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yep. That should be on the school curriculum too. Can't be questioned or challenged.

*IF* I am reading you correctly then, the idea isn't so much about "oh, that guy's fulla boloney" and "isn't this 'authority' just the cat's meow" but the idea being to lay out our *understanding of* particular authorities' POV's side by side in relation to various subjects. Is this a fair assessment on my part?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well that's the argument, isn't it ... who is anyone to question anything?

Yep. Seems to me we all do anyway, even if officially we are discouraged from doing so.

Unless we are brainwashed, or clones (drones?), or both.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I rather go with another 'scholarly' view, that von Daniken caught the tenor of the zeitgeist: cold war paranoia, the moon landings, conspiracy theories ... everybody looking for an answer, and religion had been 'debunked', so the answer has to lie elsewhere ...

Other 'scholars' have shown that von Daniken, in "Gold of the Gods" made claims to have seen and photographed alien artefacts which were later shown to be simply not true. But then, who are they to question?

Well, that is one interpretation. Of course, I am of the school that says "even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then." Von Daniken needn't to have been 100% correct in his interpretation of the evidence, he only needed to be substantially correct. Whereas the burden of proof is substantially higher when it comes to prophets and those speaking as Church authority, no? 99% is not good enough to validate a prophet, that 1% margin of error is enough to cause disqualification. Scholarship on the other hand thrives with far greater margins of error.

Besides, I read some of the refutations. While there was some merit on one or two occasions, many of those refutations demanded intellectual reaches even further than those of Von Daniken. Even after the refutations, there are still some matters of evidence that are left unrefuted. This doesn't grant Von Daniken carte blanche on those pieces of evidence, but as it stands he is the only scholar to attempt to address such. Case(s) in point being such things as the Piri Reis map, the Antikythera device and the markings on the Peruvian Plains of Nazca, as examples.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Why should the tiresome burden of being asked to substantiate one's claims be allowed to interfere with the Zargon Thesis?

Burden of proof. Why should the Zargon Thesis be given carte blanche if others are doing the research and taking the scholarly time to substantiate their positions? It is unethical scholastically to demand others to substantiate Zargon theory on your behalf...particularly if it is not in their vested interest to do so. That would amount to little more than covert proselyzation, it seems to me.

Now, there is something to be said for not having to repeat oneself over and over again for newbies who can't be bothered to read the whole thread, and for those I would say a point in the direction to the previous "comparison" or "refutation" should ideally be sufficient. In a perfect world and presuming genuine scholarly intent. Otherwise, flippant protests can be ignored.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Well, well, well there is more to the story! I haven't read anything about this, care to share where you got this info?

Hi Joedjr! I'm not Thomas, nor do I play him on TV. Disclaimers aside...this is an impromptu and off the cuff example as far as I know to demonstrate the calibur and type of discussion Thomas wishes to engage in on this board.

If I understand correctly, and I am certainly open to correction, the feeling is that this particular board should be reserved for the more scholastically correct educated arguments...rather than the typical run of the mill "he said - she said" opinionated stuff that tends to dominate all of the other boards.

One of the remits for this site is to be an educational resource...a place for college students to study and observe comparative religions and interfaith interactions. This particular board has been given the go ahead with the premise that it would be reserved for genuinely scholarly discussions. Presuming I understand correctly.

[Joedjr]

Hi juantoo3,
I was under the impression that Zargon Theisis was just a small part of that greater body of work we know as Thomasonian Thought. A quick run down Google street and a side trip to Wiki seems to indicate that this is a one man revelation. The actual work itself has never been published so no study has been made to validate the authors findings. At this point in time it would be hard to either credit or discredit this work, so I have asked for more information, so this new revelation can be compared to other revelation to see if there is any similarities. As it stands, the Zargon Thesis sounds some what hertical and the author might not pass the "dunking" test if it was used to try to prove that what we have here is the truth.
Joe

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

I was under the impression that Zargon Theisis was just a small part of that greater body of work we know as Thomasonian Thought.

Thomasonian thought? As opposed to Jeffersonian thought? That is certainly an intriguing possibility...

[Thomas]

Hi all ...

The point of the Zargon Thesis is, as a paper presented under theology conditions, the reply would be, 'nice ... bring it back when you can demonstrate some evidence to support your claims'.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi all ...

The point of the Zargon Thesis is, as a paper presented under theology conditions, the reply would be, 'nice ... bring it back when you can demonstrate some evidence to support your claims'.

Thomas

Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? I thought I supported it reasonably well, albeit in truncated form.

Unless of course Von Daniken is not to be held as authority in this subject... Nevermind that he is the only published scholar to look at the scenario with anything approaching an objective disconnect.