This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

dac74's Profile

dac74's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by dac74

More Discussions by dac74

Latest Comments by dac74

Go to: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

dac74's Avatar Jump to comment 116 by dac74

comment 90 by Marshall5

I'm thinking those guys saw something coming out of Jesus' tomb.

Where in the four canonical gospels do the followers see Jesus coming out of the tomb? I don't remember such a scene. Are you thinking of the Gospel of Peter, where Jesus emerges from the tomb, with a gigantic head and a talking cross for company? You sound like an orthodox kind of person, so I'd be careful not to fall under the influence of heretic materials. It can really damage the mind, you know.

Its really the only thing that makes sense.

How about the whole thing is a fabrication? That makes sense as well. It makes sense of the fact that no one seemed to have heard of Jesus outside his particular cult. Would have thought such a person would have left lots of primary evidence behind, rather than just anonymous theological writings of unknown provenance, all of which contradict one another. Funny that.

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:30:30 UTC | #609882

Go to: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

dac74's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by dac74

It interesting that Ehrman is the big bogeyman for evengelicals, when all his books really do - in an extremely lucid and interesting way - is communicate what moderate biblical scholarship has discovered about the bible in the last two hundred years. He's not making any incredible assertions. I can't imagine what today's fundies would make of the likes of scholars such as F.C. Baur, Bruno Bauer, G.A. van den Bergh van Eysigna (great name) and W.C. Van Manen, who variously doubted the authenticity of ALL the Pauline epistles, as well as questioning the historicity of Jesus. They saw the lack of credible external attestation to each texual corpus as being potentially devastating to both. To modify a Derrida phrase, there is simply nothing outside the text: there is no reliable historical referent in the outside world. Paul and Jesus are just names on paper without a home.

Those same concerns are still around now. They have not gone away, no matter how hard scholars try to salvage the Testimonium Flavianum or the magic "7" epistles of Paul. I'm only an ameteur scholar, but can we really conceive Paul as firing off the dense, theological tract of Romans just a few days before he met the church in person? Does Romans actually resemble any ancient letter? Perhaps Paul did write it. For all his faults, we might consider him a religious genius, a true visionary thinker. But then again, perhaps Marcion wrote the whole lot. He, after all, was the first to collect Paul's letters. Oh, it's a tangled web is early Christianity..

The fact that Baur, Van Manen et al were active mostly in the 19th century shows how conservative biblical scholarship is today compared to a century ago. A century ago scholars looked over the edge, and in general didn't like what the saw. So they pulled back, to the safe harbour of the seven authentic epistles and a Jesus without the godhood and miracles. Maybe an injection of radicalism is what the field really needs right now.

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:19:52 UTC | #609323

Go to: School crucifixes 'do not breach human rights'

dac74's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by dac74

Surely nothing enables learning better than an image of a man being slowly tortured to death? Helps stimulate the mind!

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:32:20 UTC | #604446


dac74's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by dac74

I'm going to be charitable and hope she's a Poe. Otherwise, I'm going to sit in a corner, wrap my arms around my knees and gently rock backwards and forwards whilst weeping for humanity.

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:47:30 UTC | #602703

Go to: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

dac74's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by dac74

I'd strongly doubt whether Jesus "unambiguously" preached anything, so contrary are the documents telling his life. For every mildly reasonable platitude (culled from ancient Jewish and cynic thought), there's plenty of disagreeable stuff that liberal Christians seem to pass by without comment. Look at the Gospel of John: Jesus is here portrayed as an arrogant prick. His only likable act in the whole gospel - stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman - was a later interpolation (and the rest of the gospel has fairly low claims for historicity as well). Yet in this document is the Jesus beloved by evangelicals, and they have as much right to believe it supports their faith as a liberal Christian does with Jesus helping the homeless, etc. Not the first to say it, but it's more cherry-picking from Christians...

Anyway, Christians historically have perhaps never been all that interested in the teaching of Jesus as presented in the gospels. It's his atoning death that is paramount. Accept this proposition, and the rest of the gospel becomes moot. Not for every Christian, but for awful lot of them, IMHO.

Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:02:00 UTC | #598759

More Comments by dac74