I've laughed at you plenty of times, Naz. But I don't think the way you argue is funny at all. As someone who calls himself a scholar -- and hence an authority -- you have a responsibility.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus Seminar: Color Codes for the Five Gospels
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
- Status
I've taken the liberty of installing some special analysis software that works along principles similar to a lie-detector. It measures hesitation and typing behaviour, and detects patterns in the space between keystrokes. It can be installed in any thread here by simple linking.
The result is an easy-to-read rating of any message typed. Lets give it a test:
The result is an easy-to-read rating of any message typed. Lets give it a test:
justified said:
Upvote
0
BLACK: It is now known exactly WHY at the end of WW II the modern critics had dominated the West. The Wealthy Elite simply pardoned over 500,000 German war criminals and gave them all the best middle management jobs in all the large corporations and academic positions in North America. Although technically the Germans 'lost' the war, they in fact won a large bonus, having murdered millions of Jews and Eastern Europeans in the biggest and most contrived conspiracy since WW I. (when it was decided to kill all the working-class men by sending them to die in trenches and be mustard-gassed.)
As a special prize, the entire German Espionage engine was simply adopted and integrated into the U.S. Intelligence corps, with the disastrous result that they simply took over the FBI and CIA and proceeded to dismantle the democracy formerly known as the 'Land of the Free'.
One of the first targets was orthodox Christianity, which naturally is diametrically opposed to the racist 'Valhalla' tripe that wealthy nostalgic caucasians imagine to be a superior religion.
GREEN: A paraphrase of this into ordinary English would be: "The first thing we did was reject the creeds as having no historical basis."
BLUE: Again putting it into the vernacular: "Next we set fire to the gospel of John, and stomped it out."
ORANGE: Markan Priority - The third useful tool is to choose the shortest gospel (with the least amount of Jesus' sayings) as the authentic one, and classify the other two as bloated and full of secondary fictional content. This virtually eliminates two more gospels as credible historical witnesses.
PINK: Now the most artificial and contrived literary theory in history must be embraced, as an article of faith, no matter how ludicrous it is from a rational standpoint: We are to assume that two books which have more overlapping and duplicated content than any other pair of documents in 6000 years of known history, were written independantly without knowledge of each other's existance. Instead, they must have both copied from a third document, which oddly has none of the structure or thematic content found in the material they both copied.
BROWN: Whenever launching a new version of a tired old idea, it is important to sacrifice the original inventor of the whole scientific field by completely burning his body and work beyond recognition. This wins over those you intend to deceive into accepting what they have already rejected.
Turquoise: Next one must appeal to readers' inner lazy child, and reassure them that they will only have to tolerate short salty soundbites suitable for MTV and gameshow quiz challenges. Longer speeches and concepts must be inauthentic, since crowds of idiots in Jesus' time would have found them as tiring and incomprehensible as modern critics do today.
DARK GREEN: Reversing the burden of proof and placing it upon those who oppose your position is always an accepted scientific investigative principle. (or was that a known debating gag?)
RED: Undoubtedly an authentic saying of Jesus.
DEEP BROWN: In case someone calls your bluff, always have a backup plan that points a finger at your opponent, and says, "Oh, you just want to think that!"
Upvote
0
Pillar 1: Ancient Creeds Unworthy of Consideration?
It has been recognized in just about every 'scholarly' article since 1950 that the early creeds and formulas embedded within the NT documents are far older than the writings that contain them. This makes them the most reliable if not practically the only source for really early Christian history, beliefs and practice that we have.
Examples of such ancient formulas are found in the earliest letters of Paul, for instance, the famous formulas expounded in 1st Corinthians 15:3-11 etc.
Pillar 2: Chuck out John as 'Spiritual Fantasy'?
Recent studies of John in relation to the DSS and Palestinian Judaism in general have shown that the picture of John as a 'late Hellenistic-Gnostic' work were a complete misunderstanding of the book. In fact, John turns out to be one of the most heavily semitic (Jewish) of all the gospels, and contains many remarkable anecdotes, historical and geographical facts that could only have been known by someone familiar with Jerusalem and Palestine before the burning of the temple in 70 A.D.
Pillar 3: Markian Priority?
Scholars seem almost equally divided to this day on the question of the priority of Mark versus the priority of Matthew. The Synoptic Problem appears to be far from solved. Any claims otherwise are just hubris.
Good summaries of the current mess can be found here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html
Pillar 4: The Hypothetical Q source for Matthew/Luke?
Another unresolved issue in NT studies. There are problems with *every* proposed explanation for the large overlap of material between the two gospels.
A good discussion of the weaknesses of the HYPOTHETICAL 'Q' document can be found here:
http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/
Pillar 5: Abandoning Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus ?
The abandonment of Shweitzer's schema may also have been premature. While we are all for abandoning the wreckless babble of almost *every* modern critic, one should treat them all equally and fairly, and base any rejections upon sound scientific principles that contradict their premises and claims.
What strikes us as amusing but ridiculous in this case, is that the Jesus Seminar group also wholeheartedly abandoned two of their most important supporters, Barth and Bultmann. It was these two clowns who gave credibility to the abandonment of John as a historical source document (see pillar 2!), yet apparently the Jesus Seminar feel oppressed by Barth/Bultmann:
"Barth and Bultmann dismissed the quest of the historical Jesus as an illegitimate attempt to secure a factual basis for faith..." (pg 4)
The Jesus Seminar would like build some kind of 'faith' (in the process of historical inquiry?) but only on a 'basis' where they can pick and choose what suits them from the actual historical documents as they exist. For the Jesus Seminar, the 'new Christianity' will be a kind of eclectic personal diet created by treating the New Testament as a New York salad bar in a stylish restaurant.
Pillar 6: Preference for 'Oral Sources' over Written Documents
Well the plan here is obvious: the written sources (NT), the primary sources of Christian doctrine and belief for all protestants (and a fundamental source of credibility for Catholics) are to be demoted to 'secondary carriers' of 'Orality' (to be chosen by the Jesus Seminar).
But again, in a culture where the written word was essential, and central to all religious activity, and in urban centers where most participants were literate, educated, multilingual adults, we are supposed to imagine an invisible fantasy-world of illiterates who conducted all business by 'oral tradition'. These hypothetical Christian smurfs never took advantage of the massive technological advances of the period, such as the free production of papyrus and the longstanding support of a large 'scribe' class only equalled by the China of the Emperors.
Of course this flies in the face of the obvious fact that Christians actually *invented* the BOOK or 'codex', the single most important learning advance of the 1st century A.D., and promulgated their religion by letters, gospels and tracts!
Pillar 7: Reversing the Burden of 'proof'.
We can only note with shock the '50's' thinking that still encumbers these wise old men from the Jesus Seminar. A truly modern view would back off on 'proving' this or that pet theory, and get on with the immense job of proper cataloguing and collating of resources and preliminary research.
Pillar 8: Use your Feelings of Attraction to Negatively Evaluate Results?
If these 'brilliant' scientists were true to their German-inspired roots, they would have erred in the *other* direction. The true scientific principle is to ignore all feelings, emotions, hunches etc entirely. They certainly can NEVER come into consideration when evaluating scientific or historical truths. The principle of 'scientific disinterest' is UNIVERSAL in all other scientific fields. These lads are embarrassingly mushy here.
Pop psychology is just that: 'popular psychology'. It has no place in scientific historical inquiries, except in the context of double-blind probability experiments used to measure human behavior and potentially quantifiable traits.
If the approach of the Jesus Seminar wasn't so boyishly naive, perhaps some of their research would have had lasting scholarly value.
But these so called 'pillars of scholarship' turn out to be just another eclectic set of preferences and prejudices.
There is no scientific methodology to be found in this farcical performance.
It has been recognized in just about every 'scholarly' article since 1950 that the early creeds and formulas embedded within the NT documents are far older than the writings that contain them. This makes them the most reliable if not practically the only source for really early Christian history, beliefs and practice that we have.
Examples of such ancient formulas are found in the earliest letters of Paul, for instance, the famous formulas expounded in 1st Corinthians 15:3-11 etc.
Pillar 2: Chuck out John as 'Spiritual Fantasy'?
Recent studies of John in relation to the DSS and Palestinian Judaism in general have shown that the picture of John as a 'late Hellenistic-Gnostic' work were a complete misunderstanding of the book. In fact, John turns out to be one of the most heavily semitic (Jewish) of all the gospels, and contains many remarkable anecdotes, historical and geographical facts that could only have been known by someone familiar with Jerusalem and Palestine before the burning of the temple in 70 A.D.
Pillar 3: Markian Priority?
Scholars seem almost equally divided to this day on the question of the priority of Mark versus the priority of Matthew. The Synoptic Problem appears to be far from solved. Any claims otherwise are just hubris.
Good summaries of the current mess can be found here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html
Pillar 4: The Hypothetical Q source for Matthew/Luke?
Another unresolved issue in NT studies. There are problems with *every* proposed explanation for the large overlap of material between the two gospels.
A good discussion of the weaknesses of the HYPOTHETICAL 'Q' document can be found here:
http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/
Pillar 5: Abandoning Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus ?
The abandonment of Shweitzer's schema may also have been premature. While we are all for abandoning the wreckless babble of almost *every* modern critic, one should treat them all equally and fairly, and base any rejections upon sound scientific principles that contradict their premises and claims.
What strikes us as amusing but ridiculous in this case, is that the Jesus Seminar group also wholeheartedly abandoned two of their most important supporters, Barth and Bultmann. It was these two clowns who gave credibility to the abandonment of John as a historical source document (see pillar 2!), yet apparently the Jesus Seminar feel oppressed by Barth/Bultmann:
"Barth and Bultmann dismissed the quest of the historical Jesus as an illegitimate attempt to secure a factual basis for faith..." (pg 4)
The Jesus Seminar would like build some kind of 'faith' (in the process of historical inquiry?) but only on a 'basis' where they can pick and choose what suits them from the actual historical documents as they exist. For the Jesus Seminar, the 'new Christianity' will be a kind of eclectic personal diet created by treating the New Testament as a New York salad bar in a stylish restaurant.
Pillar 6: Preference for 'Oral Sources' over Written Documents
Well the plan here is obvious: the written sources (NT), the primary sources of Christian doctrine and belief for all protestants (and a fundamental source of credibility for Catholics) are to be demoted to 'secondary carriers' of 'Orality' (to be chosen by the Jesus Seminar).
But again, in a culture where the written word was essential, and central to all religious activity, and in urban centers where most participants were literate, educated, multilingual adults, we are supposed to imagine an invisible fantasy-world of illiterates who conducted all business by 'oral tradition'. These hypothetical Christian smurfs never took advantage of the massive technological advances of the period, such as the free production of papyrus and the longstanding support of a large 'scribe' class only equalled by the China of the Emperors.
Of course this flies in the face of the obvious fact that Christians actually *invented* the BOOK or 'codex', the single most important learning advance of the 1st century A.D., and promulgated their religion by letters, gospels and tracts!
Pillar 7: Reversing the Burden of 'proof'.
We can only note with shock the '50's' thinking that still encumbers these wise old men from the Jesus Seminar. A truly modern view would back off on 'proving' this or that pet theory, and get on with the immense job of proper cataloguing and collating of resources and preliminary research.
Pillar 8: Use your Feelings of Attraction to Negatively Evaluate Results?
If these 'brilliant' scientists were true to their German-inspired roots, they would have erred in the *other* direction. The true scientific principle is to ignore all feelings, emotions, hunches etc entirely. They certainly can NEVER come into consideration when evaluating scientific or historical truths. The principle of 'scientific disinterest' is UNIVERSAL in all other scientific fields. These lads are embarrassingly mushy here.
Pop psychology is just that: 'popular psychology'. It has no place in scientific historical inquiries, except in the context of double-blind probability experiments used to measure human behavior and potentially quantifiable traits.
If the approach of the Jesus Seminar wasn't so boyishly naive, perhaps some of their research would have had lasting scholarly value.
But these so called 'pillars of scholarship' turn out to be just another eclectic set of preferences and prejudices.
There is no scientific methodology to be found in this farcical performance.
Upvote
0
- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,687
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Thanks for the encouragement!tall73 said:
Did you become a moderator recently?
I never noticed that before.
May I inquire what the qualifications were?
Peace and a warm place in my heart,
especially since SDA doctrine is so close to my own.
Nazaroo!
Upvote
0
- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,687
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Nazaroo said:
Yes, that was a relatively recent development. For requirements...
There is a minimum length of stay at the forums of six months. I believe there is also a requirement of so many posts, but you have that number covered. You have to be able to spend at least one hour four times a week. A recommendation helps but is not required. And of course they like folks especially who have a clean record when it comes to warnings and contacts. You have to have theological content to your posts (not just fluff), but I would say you certainly meet that requirement.
If you meet those base requirements then you can apply here:
http://www.christianforums.com/newthread.php?do=modapply
The team you apply for then discusses the application and decides on whether to interview and then you go from there.
They are in need of moderators right now, and are in the last leg of a transition to a new system of rules etc. Most of the teams are under-staffed. So if you are considering it, now is a good time to apply!
They could probably use someone like you who frequents exposition and Bible study.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
