- Reaction score
- London UK
Hi Marmalade —
If I've offended, mea culpa.
If I've offended, mea culpa.
Well, I thought it was kind of obvious that I was quoting one person.I assumed that as you only quoted one view, that was the view your were espousing.
I'm sure.This one person happens to be a mainstream Biblical scholar. However, he is far from being the only one who holds such a view.
The presupposition of the Jesus Seminar was that Jesus existed as an historical reality, but that He was not, nor did he proclaim Himself to be, the Son of God. That was a process of mythologisation.Yes, it has been demonstrated as deeply flawed in the minds of apologists. The Jesus Seminar even started with the assumption that Jesus existed before even considering the evidence. They had a bias, but it wasn't the one you're implying. When Price joined the Jesus Seminar, he believed in an historical Christ.
The seminar then decided which bits of Scripture were authentic, and which were later interpolations, on the basis of what each individual member deemed credible. As there was an a priori supposition by the members that Jesus was a man but not God, and that Scripture was the mythologisation of a dead Jewish prophet ... the outcome was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the flaw, in my mind. Individual credulity is no basis for anything.
Sorry. I was going from the content of your post.Price is the very opposite of fundamentalist. He admits that there are many possible interpretations. In fact, this is the central tenet of his theorizing. Only if someone believes the evidence is cut and dry, can they be deemed fundamentalist. Price was a Baptist preacher and still is an Episcopelian. He is critical of Christianity, but doesn't dismiss it all out of hand. Is that the attitude of a fundamentalist and an extremist?
There are three, although Philo of Alexandria is always disputed. The weight of evidence is in social theory and the spread of ideas.I'd be curious in what way you believe it to be increasing. Have more ancient texts been unearthed? Have they finally found non-Christian records that refer to Jesus?
Bultmann argued that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who was mythologised by his followers. He even suggested that Jesus might never have actually existed, but is a kind of psychic entity that embodies the religious aspirations of man.I've never read Bultmann nor Benoit, but I have seen Price mention Bultmann. What philosophical position are you claiming Price to have? I did a search for Benoit, but I couldn't find Benoit mentioning about three fundamental assumptions. Could you provide a quote or a link?
Pierre Benoit argued that:
1 - Because a thing seems incredible to someone does not make it impossible. Bultmann argued on this premise, he relied on his reputation to asseret thit if something was incredulous to him, then it could not be the case.
2 - Bultmann argued that because text A is a myth, and there are certain similarities between text A and text B, text B is therefore also a myth. Benoit demonstrated that this is patently not always the case.
3 - Benoit argued that it is highly unlikely that a disparate body of people could give rise to a teaching so thorough, a mythology so complex, in a matter of a few years, in the face of eye witnesses, and that all those involved in the fabrication of the myth were quite happy to die for the myth they were busy inventing.
Great movements in history invariably focus on one individual — in the same way that great art is rarely produced by a committee.
Contradictory if one has already precluded certain aspects of Christian doctrine. The document is not contradictory to me, nor to many scholars, although it is not without difficulty. But a composite of opposing factions seems very hard to support ..."It was appreciated and edited by both sides in the controversy, the result being that what we have is a contradictory, composite document."
Believe me, since I have started my studies, I have had many assumptions and certainties blown away ...If you already have your mind made up, then its not surprising that Price's view which you disagree with 'escapes' you. It would be easy for you to discover how he came to that conclusion. You could read his book. He also has several books worth of writing on the web.
"John19:34. This is a refutation of docetism even though one who "bled" water might seem to be a god masquerading in human form. Our author insists Jesus was really human."
Which author? the author of the Gospel and the Epistle both insist Jesus was fully God, fully man. Neither party in the opposite factions of the Epistle dispute doubted that, nor did either think Jesus was 'a god masquerading in human form' — this is eigesis, reading into the text what you want it to say.
Don't understand. John 15:26 is a reference to the Paraclete ... don't know what chapter '12-14' refers to ..."John 15:26, 12-14. Here we learn that the piercing of the heart of Jesus in John 19:34 is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich. Hence the appeal here to the Spirit's veracious character as corroboration. This should make us think twice before taking 1 John 1:1-3 as eyewitness memory."
... but I see no indication that the piercing of Christ's side "is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich" ... perhaps you could explain how he gets to that?
I can't see how a document can be written to refute docetism and gnostic beliefs, and then mix those ideas in ... even allowing for collective authorship, did no-one in the community say "this is full of contradictions?" — how was it ever accpeted by the Church?He isn't arguing that 1 John is entirely or even primarily docetist. He is only arguing that docetism (and other gnostic beliefs) are mixed in. I could give you a few more of his notes about this if you'd like.
It is not present, I'm sorry if you misread me that way.Your attitude of condescension is neither needed nor desired.
On balance, I find that lumps everyone in the same boat, which I don't think is fair, or the case.I have read various scholars besides him, and certainly there are many more I could read. I come at biblical scholarship from numerous angles. I've followed many threads and I've seen all the various kinds of arguments. My views are fairly balanced, but that is besides the point. Many(possibly most) people interested in biblical studies(scholars included) don't have balanced views.