quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

This makes no sense whatsoever. 'No it isn't' followed by confirming what I just said.

You said, "The 'firebrand Christ' bio is hardly new or exclusive to Muslim authors," and she said, "No, it isn't," agreeing with you. You also said, "speculative history sells," and I agree with you there. But that doesn't change the fact that "speculative history" is an oxymoron, and the argument in this case is bunk. As presented by njlauren, it goes like this:

Premise:      The Messiah was a military leader.
Premise:      Jesus believed he was the Messiah.
Conclusion:   Jesus would have been engaged in militant activism.

However, following the same form:

Premise:      The Messiah was not divine.
Premise:      Jesus believed he was the Messiah.
Conclusion:   Jesus would not have claimed to be imbued with the divine.

Accordingly, to argue on this basis that his militant activism was "purged" from the texts requires us also to argue that his claims to divinity were added after the fact. And while that's all good fun, unfortunately for "speculative history" neither of these conclusions finds any support in the Qumran and Nag Hammadi scrolls.

Finally, before a certain individual rushes in salivating and swinging his flail, let me be clear that my only intent here is to counter a speculative argument, not to defend Christianity.

Some further reading, if interested.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

FR
The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who
was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans.

It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking
in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject,
the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I
can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those
looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians
can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded
ignorance of the worst kind.

As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

FR
The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who
was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans.

It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking
in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject,
the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I
can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those
looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians
can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded
ignorance of the worst kind.

As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran.

So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Pilate would have killed Jesus without a heartbeat if he really was a warriorking.

He did kill him, because he handed him over, he had the ability to stand strong, but instead fell weak to the pressure of the powers, as we as humans do many times.

I, myself, have made so many errors in life, I would not even want to try to count them. Ones I can never change, if I was to believe there was no hope due to my past, I would have no hope of a better future.

That idea that Pilate did it out of weakness is not History, it is a deliberately slanted acccount in Matthew compounded with Catholic teaching. Pilate was not weak, not in the least bit, and the biblical account is frankly the equivalent of yellow Journalism, it was Matthew in part sucking up to the Romans and telling them "Hey, we know your boy didn't want to kill Christ, and ya know, it was those damn Jews who did it"...and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. When Matthew was written, in around 70CE, the Jews were in open revolt and the Romans were not exactly taking it lying down. Matthew is separating Christ's followers from the Jews and in the process saying "hey, don't kill us, those bastards killed our Christ, why would we be like them?". One historical note, Pilate was recalled by the Romans, not because he was weak, but because he was a bloodthirsty and cruel ruler, who loved to execute people, and he in effect constantly poured gasoline on the fire..does that sound like someone afraid of the Jewish authorities or the mob? I doubt it sincerely, sounds more like the bible did a little of what we call spin these days.

quote:

Christ as a politically motivated warlord does not attack Christianity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

FR
The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who
was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans.

It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking
in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject,
the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I
can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those
looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians
can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded
ignorance of the worst kind.

As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran.

So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry.

Not what I said.
The previous poster was ranting about how a book challenging the very nature of Christ would only be opposed by those looking for something to be upset about. I said he has the right to write the book. But I put opposition into perspective. Even if your assessment were correct it would be nothing compared to Islamic reaction to anything that questions any portion of the Koran

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Christ as a politically motivated warlord does not attack Christianity?

I would distinguish between a scholar/writer offering his interpretation of events and a malicious effort to arouse hatred and contempt. From what I understand about Aslan (whose work I have not read), he seems to be engaged in the former.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

FR
The historical Pontius Pilate was a nasty character who
was recalled back to Rome. Jesus was killed by the Romans.

It's an interesting well written book. There is nothing that shocking
in it. Or not to anyone who has general knowledge of the subject,
the historical period and has read the Gospels. The only people I
can imagine that are offended by it are the easily offended or those
looking for an excuse to be offended. The idea that only Christians
can write about Christ is ludicrous not to mention narrow minded
ignorance of the worst kind.

As opposed to the open minded reception given to anything written about Islam which does not conform strictly to the Koran.

So if Muslims get upset about what others write about Islam, then no Muslim has the right to write about Christianity? And all I need add is if the evangelicals in this country had their way you would see blasphemy laws on the books, you would see books being burned, if it weren't for the courts and the first amendment we would see much the same here in a pretty large swath of the country, you would probably see people put in jail or burned at the stake in the bible belt, it is only because we seperated Church and state they cannot do it (and if you want to dispute it, do a little research on Christian Dominionism, which is pretty popular in the bible belt, that includes having biblical punishments for adultery and homosexuality made the law. We have a lot of narrow minded ignorance like that in this country, just go to any evangelical mega church or listen to what the fundies preach and say, then come back and talk about ignorance and bigotry.

Not what I said.
The previous poster was ranting about how a book challenging the very nature of Christ would only be opposed by those looking for something to be upset about. I said he has the right to write the book. But I put opposition into perspective. Even if your assessment were correct it would be nothing compared to Islamic reaction to anything that questions any portion of the Koran

As the previous poster in question I assure you I wasn't ranting about
anything. I just made a comment, a perfectly calm one about the book
which unlike you I've actually read. I also was perfectly civil to you in my
first reply to you. Perhaps all women posters who say something you disagree
with are ranters just as authors who write books that don't confirm
your world view are attacking it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

If its touchy to be dubious you would have said a male
poster was ranting if he had said the same things I did
I'm content to be touchy. I don't think I'm any touchier
than you are deliberately obtuse, though with each post you
make on this topic qualifying obtuse with deliberately might be
generous on my part. I also wasn't the one who introduced incivility
into this exchange.

The book isn't attempting to alter the basis of the religion.
Paranoid much? It's a secular academic book about a man
who in addition to being a religious figure to some is a historical
figure. Jesus and Mohammed are both historical figures.
People are going to study their lives and times and write books
about them. That some of these writers will seem them differently
than those who worship them as divine figures doesn't mean
they are automatically attacking them or the religions based on
their teachings. And there's a bit of difference in Jesus as a
political figure and a depiction of Mohammed as a huckster
who used religion not to work. To fine a point for you?

And there are people in the West and the Islamic world who
seek to exploit the sincere religious beliefs of others for their
own purposes. These are the people I characterize as wanting
something to be upset about.

quote:

He was a political militant as opposed to the son of God? You don't see this as an attempt to completely discredit Christianity?

quote:

I've read all kinds of takes on the historical Jesus. Hippie Jesus,
Jesus who went to India and studied Buddhism, married Jesus, philosopher
Jesus, teacher preacher Jesus, charlatan conman Jesus, made up
Jesus who never existed to begin with. This is just one mans take on
the historical Jesus.

quote:

Had someone written a book depicting Mohammed as a huckster who used religion as an excuse not to work it would be roundly, and rightly condemned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

You mean you look at my pic and see a boy bird?
You have wounded my feminine vanity.

Bama, I know there are offensive books written about
Jesus and Christianity. Christians aren't always the only
ones offended by them either. But this book doesn't come
with Richard Dawkins attitude. I don't think his goal in writing
the book is to discredit Christianity. I think he is an academic.
A man who spends his life studying his field of interest, coming
to his conclusions and writing about them with no agenda beyond
adding his take and keeping his tenure. I didn't find the tone of
the book offensive or even particularly provocative. I realize that
many religious people would feel differently. But I also think there
are religious people who can and will read the book and not be offended
by it.

His phd is in sociology with a focus on the history of religion.
I thought he captured well the society that Jesus lived in.
I've read all kinds of takes on the historical Jesus. Hippie Jesus,
Jesus who went to India and studied Buddhism, married Jesus, philosopher
Jesus, teacher preacher Jesus, charlatan conman Jesus, made up
Jesus who never existed to begin with. This is just one mans take on
the historical Jesus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Had someone written a book depicting Mohammed as a huckster who used religion as an excuse not to work it would be roundly, and rightly condemned.

There might indeed be some ugly expressions of rage. The tendency to produce that overreaction is one of the things that give me pause about Islam. I certainly don't see it as a model for how Christians should respond to critiques.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

He was a political militant as opposed to the son of God? You don't see this as an attempt to completely discredit Christianity?

No. If what I've heard about the book is accurate, I see it as a scholar/writer offering his views on a historical subject. If those views happen to clash with someone's faith, that's not the author's fault. A faith so weak that it can't stand scrutiny is probably not worth defending.

Are you saying that only those who view Jesus as the son of God should write about him? If so, it may be helpful to bear in mind that the question of Jesus' divinity was far from settled in the early church. If I'm remembering my high school theology classes right, Arians (who deemed Jesus subordinate to the Father) actually outnumbered "orthodox" Christians at one point. The issue wasn't settled until the Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called the council because he was tired of ecclesiastical squabbling.