tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post3851659864381979217..comments2023-08-22T07:01:08.590-07:00Comments on Agent Intellect: Some Issues in NT Historiography, part 4Jim S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-34532868155097496012010-01-26T20:34:09.307-08:002010-01-26T20:34:09.307-08:00"You don't have to believe that a Pope in..."<i>You don't have to believe that a Pope invoked angels to turn barbarians from the gates of Rome, to agree that the barbarians were turned away, after all.</i>"<br /><br />True enough. But in this instance, we're talking about an historical event (an effect) and its purported cause.<br /><br />But, when we're talking about Christ's Resurrection, we’re talking about an historical event (an effect) … or about a false claim of an historical event.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-83140730434495579702010-01-24T14:38:11.544-08:002010-01-24T14:38:11.544-08:00Wandered over here from Quodlibeta.
'But if ...Wandered over here from Quodlibeta. <br /><br /><i>'But if we begin by allowing the possibility of miracles, we come to significantly different conclusions.'</i><br /><br />This is an intriguing statement. I've heard - mostly via documentaries and radio interviews, I'll admit! - the consistency of the Gospel narrative defended by some biblical scholars and such who had no belief whatsoever in the possibility of miracles (but perhaps in the zeitegeist/meme theory of urban legends to explain the presence of the supernatural in the Jesus story). <br /><br />Perhaps the real issue is understanding how criteria for consistency, accuracy etc are judged within various academic circles and the differences therein (ie, philosophical to historical). You don't have to believe that a Pope invoked angels to turn barbarians from the gates of Rome, to agree that the barbarians were turned away, after all.laBiscuitnapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085674629106780182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-12112059927603233492010-01-18T19:33:46.241-08:002010-01-18T19:33:46.241-08:00"... In other words, Jesus taught in ways tha..."<i>... In other words, Jesus taught in ways that could be memorized easily. He used contrasts, parallels, parables, even poetry to get the message across. For example, Jesus’ statement that the Pharisees and teachers of the law "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24) makes more sense when translated back into Aramaic, since the words "gnat" and "camel" are almost identical (galma and glama).</i>"<br /><br />Aren't there, even now, some Christians who speak Aramaic and use an Aramaic translation (in which language they claim that the Gospels were originally written)?<br /><br /><br />"<i>... Whether Jesus’ status as a punster conflicts with his claim to deity is something I leave to the reader.</i>"<br /><br />The saying that "<i>punning is the lowest form of humor</i>" should be understood as "<i>punning is the *basis* of humor</i>." <br /><br />Even obscene/profane humor tends to be based on punning (though, the "humor" which depends upon using the "f-word" in as many ways as possible may be a different matter) -- for instance, an off-color question-answer joke I was told when I was a teen (pushing 40 years ago) gets its punch from the surely that the listener will perform a "Spoonerism" on the punch-line, the two alternate statements now being in the form of pun one of the other (the realization of the "Spoonerized" version, which is not said by the jokester, is where one realizes that the joke is off-color).Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com