Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GaryLouisSmith]

In other words, you are just blowing hot air, pretending to be a biblical scholar.

If anyone is blowing hot air it ain't me. Also, one doesn't have to be a biblical scholar to know the broad outlines of the story, commonly known, being very much in line and derived from what biblical scholars themselves say on the subject who treat the story as history. It's those like you who are full of it craving attention which frankly took too long to figure out but as they say, better late than never.

One thing you're well aware of as most of your kind and ever ready to capitalize on is that absurdities, like worms on a hook, catch the most fish...the only thing you're successful at but don't call it philosophy. I'll leave it to greater intelligences than mine to take whatever you have to say seriously.

What is “commonly known” is very different from what biblical scholars say about “the story of Jesus”. If one gets one’s knowledge about the Bible, in particular the New Testament, from cable TV and popular opinion, then that knowledge is nothing like what scholars write.

I am not a scholar myself, that is to say that I don’t do academic study on ancient texts, but I do read a fair amount of what comes from academia. I have formed some of my own opinions about that. My main interest, though, is philosophy. I interpret the Bible according to the philosophy I hold. That philosophy is a type of Platonism. I’m sure you are not a Platonist. You, it seems to me, are a nominalist, a sort of anti-Platonist. The battle between nominalists and Platonic realists has been going on for a very very long time. And vicious insults have been hurled back and forth just as long. So the insults you hurled to me are par for the course. I’ve heard it all before.

What I want to say is that you need to get away from the story of Jesus as it is commonly known and really and truly read some scholarly books. I sent you this link before but I think you just blew it off. Click on sessions - https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/246

[Sculptor1]

Well DUH
Then you are an idiot for saying "To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall".

...and you're a stupid jerk for not knowing the difference between 50 AD and 330 AD. Yes Constantine was Roman DUH but he was the one who forced conversion on the Romans by making it legal for the first time. Read the bloody history dumbo!

I am way ahead of you - you specified no dates. You were being sloppy.

Don't trade dates with a student of history unless you want to be taken down.

Emperor Galerius legalised Christianity in 311ce, ****.
FYI
Jesus was probably killed 29ce
and Paul wrote his letter to the Romans about 58ce

[Jklint]

...and you're a stupid jerk for not knowing the difference between 50 AD and 330 AD. Yes Constantine was Roman DUH but he was the one who forced conversion on the Romans by making it legal for the first time. Read the bloody history dumbo!

I am way ahead of you - you specified no dates. You were being sloppy.

Don't trade dates with a student of history unless you want to be taken down.

Emperor Galerius legalised Christianity in 311ce, ****.
FYI
Jesus was probably killed 29ce
and Paul wrote his letter to the Romans about 58ce

To repeat you're a stupid little troll who knows FA about history. For one who does know it wouldn't have been necessary to specify dates to distinguish between occurrences of the 1st century and the beginning of the fourth to know what I'm referring to. Only kindergarten and 1st grade students may need to be told. You were just looking for something to sink your teeth into to show how smart you are.

[Sculptor1]

I am way ahead of you - you specified no dates. You were being sloppy.

Don't trade dates with a student of history unless you want to be taken down.

Emperor Galerius legalised Christianity in 311ce, ****.
FYI
Jesus was probably killed 29ce
and Paul wrote his letter to the Romans about 58ce

To repeat you're a stupid little troll who knows FA about history. For one who does know it wouldn't have been necessary to specify dates to distinguish between occurrences of the 1st century and the beginning of the fourth to know what I'm referring to. Only kindergarten and 1st grade students may need to be told. You were just looking for something to sink your teeth into to show how smart you are.

Speaking as a person with an MA in history, you can **** off, you sloppy minded moron.
Pearls before swine.

[Jklint]

What I want to say is that you need to get away from the story of Jesus as it is commonly known and really and truly read some scholarly books. I sent you this link before but I think you just blew it off. Click on sessions - https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/246

Thank you for the link. That's how I like the subject presented, as history a secular tale made sacred. What is "commonly known" NOW is due to scholars who do the research...NOT what used to be commonly known. And yes, I do have "scholarly books" on the subject but I'm not going to spend all my time on it since I favor other subjects at least as much or more. The bible is old hat by now even if for so long it remained one of the main arteries of Western Civilization.

You've also repeated the error in thinking that if I'm not a Platonist - which I certainly am not - I must be a Nominalist which I'm also not. The negation of one doesn't imply the other. It's a conclusion which amounts to nothing more than a simplistic juxtaposition of labels which philosophers, and those who pretend to be, are so fond of as if it means a whole lot.

To repeat we have nothing in common and don't wish to continue. But since you posted the link there's a long PBS production called From Jesus to Christ replete with its own scholarly comments. In any event it's well represented with great photography. Maybe you already saw it.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +to+christ

[Jklint]

To repeat you're a stupid little troll who knows FA about history. For one who does know it wouldn't have been necessary to specify dates to distinguish between occurrences of the 1st century and the beginning of the fourth to know what I'm referring to. Only kindergarten and 1st grade students may need to be told. You were just looking for something to sink your teeth into to show how smart you are.

Speaking as a person with an MA in history, you can **** off, you sloppy minded moron.
Pearls before swine.

I'm more in favor of intelligent swine than your bogus pearls. Anyone with an MA in history doesn't need a bloody chronology to figure out the time difference between Paul and Constantine. Maybe you should take the course again even if you didn't take it the first time!

[Sculptor1]

Speaking as a person with an MA in history, you can **** off, you sloppy minded moron.
Pearls before swine.

I'm more in favor of intelligent swine than your bogus pearls. Anyone with an MA in history doesn't need a bloody chronology to figure out the time difference between Paul and Constantine. Maybe you should take the course again even if you didn't take it the first time!

You are the one who said Romans considered Jesus a "fly on the wall" not me.

[Jklint]

I'm more in favor of intelligent swine than your bogus pearls. Anyone with an MA in history doesn't need a bloody chronology to figure out the time difference between Paul and Constantine. Maybe you should take the course again even if you didn't take it the first time!

You are the one who said Romans considered Jesus a "fly on the wall" not me.

Yes! and that's exactly what he was "a fly on the wall" to the Romans of the time, the one's who crucified him and when Christians didn't yet exist which was no-longer true for the Romans of the 4th century when there was already a huge number of Christians in the empire.

Did this really have to be pointed and supply dates especially to a self-proclaimed expert like you? The Romans of the 1st century as those in the 5th century when the Western empire collapsed were still called ROMANS and easy enough in context to judge which period is referred to without having to supply dates. I'm sure most would have no problem figuring that out without any effort at all.

You just wanted to be a smart ass thinking you could score a cheap victory...another clone of the stupid gene. In your case I'll take swine over any of your professed pearls any day of the week.

[GaryLouisSmith]

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +to+christ

Thanks for that link. I watched all of it and I did enjoy it. The only complaint I have, which isn’t really a complaint, is that it told only half the story. Yes, the early Church was eschatological. The end time was near, but apparently not too near. That meant that in addition to the “middle-class” townspeople who became Christian and had to deal with ordinary life in the Empire, there were also those who separated themselves from ordinary life and sought an isolated existence “in the wilderness”. So there were those who sought an accommodation with Rome and those who thought there could be no accommodation. That documentary told of early Christianity only from the perspective of the townspeople who sought accommodation.

The half of the story that was missing is the story of those who left Roman society and went into the wilderness. They were the beginnings of Christian monasticism.

Let me back up a bit. Morton Smith writes that Jesus was a Magician. I think he is correct. That documentary did mention magicians in passing, but only to dismiss them. In the time of Jesus, yes, there were a lot of magicians around. And they had all manner of amulets, spells, charms, and magical gestures. Historians and archaeologists have a rather extensive knowledge of all that today. In my opinion, all that magical stuff went with those hermits into the wilderness. In fact the later monasteries had quite a bit of magical ritual as part of their learning. That’s why ordinary Christian townspeople were leery of those desert hermits, just as people today here in Nepal are leery of yogis and sadhus. They are scraggly scary things. Protestants came to hate the monastic system. And those respectable theologians in that documentary could not bring themselves to talk of Jesus the Magician.

Here is a Scribd page with Jesus the Magician. I don't know if you have to belong to Scribd to get this or not. If you can't, you can no doubt get elsewhere. https://www.scribd.com/doc/118368850/Jesus-The-Magician

[Jklint]

The only complaint I have, which isn’t really a complaint, is that it told only half the story.

Not even half if you want to get into details. But as a fairly long documentary it did highlight the main events. To obtain half it would have to rival the length of the Ring of the Nibelungen...16 hours.

The half of the story that was missing is the story of those who left Roman society and went into the wilderness. They were the beginnings of Christian monasticism.

That may be but the main purpose of the doc was a history of the first Christians. When such communities became established, whether one remained within it or secluded themselves in the wilderness as ascetics or anchorites, is not very important since secluding oneself means you’re no-longer part of a common cause. It was only in the 4th century when true monasticism became established. But all that is a subject in itself.

Let me back up a bit. Morton Smith writes that Jesus was a Magician. I think he is correct

I think so too. In those times that kind of thinking was almost universal. Whether Jesus was a great, good or mediocre magician is a mute point. It was Paul who made him into the king of magicians or the King of Glory (Alvin Boyd Kuhn) by concentrating on the Resurrection and the promise of life beyond for all who believed. What greater magical act can there be!

In my opinion, all that magical stuff went with those hermits into the wilderness.

That’s debatable. My feeling is that those who fled into the wilderness weren’t all that sophisticated. Prior to the establishment of Monasticism feedback from these hermits is barely audible. How many of them could even read or write?

That’s why ordinary Christian townspeople were leery of those desert hermits, just as people today here in Nepal are leery of yogis and sadhus. They are scraggly scary things.

Could it be because they’re usually dirty and half disgusting? There’s a story of the Buddha when younger he first tried asceticism in a somewhat extreme form to reach enlightenment in a community of others with the same goal. After a few years of constantly starving and feeling filthy he turned heretic shocking everyone on deciding that this was BS. No one by this technique ever reached any simulacrum of enlightenment or insight and that he himself wasn’t any closer to it in spite of all the years practiced. Instead he cleaned himself up, went to the local steak house, ordered the biggest and best on the menu...his first act of enlightenment in order to achieve it.

Here is a Scribd page with Jesus the Magician. I don't know if you have to belong to Scribd to get this or not. If you can't, you can no doubt get elsewhere

I was able to download a PDF from another source. It’s a fairly long work. But in truth we’re not even certain that Jesus as described in the NT even existed. I think he did but by relating to anything so unknown ANY kind of interpretation is possible. Also very interesting along those lines and have known about for many years is this….

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... kuhn+books

[GaryLouisSmith]

The only complaint I have, which isn’t really a complaint, is that it told only half the story.

Not even half if you want to get into details. But as a fairly long documentary it did highlight the main events. To obtain half it would have to rival the length of the Ring of the Nibelungen...16 hours.

The half of the story that was missing is the story of those who left Roman society and went into the wilderness. They were the beginnings of Christian monasticism.

That may be but the main purpose of the doc was a history of the first Christians. When such communities became established, whether one remained within it or secluded themselves in the wilderness as ascetics or anchorites, is not very important since secluding oneself means you’re no-longer part of a common cause. It was only in the 4th century when true monasticism became established. But all that is a subject in itself.

Let me back up a bit. Morton Smith writes that Jesus was a Magician. I think he is correct

I think so too. In those times that kind of thinking was almost universal. Whether Jesus was a great, good or mediocre magician is a mute point. It was Paul who made him into the king of magicians or the King of Glory (Alvin Boyd Kuhn) by concentrating on the Resurrection and the promise of life beyond for all who believed. What greater magical act can there be!

In my opinion, all that magical stuff went with those hermits into the wilderness.

That’s debatable. My feeling is that those who fled into the wilderness weren’t all that sophisticated. Prior to the establishment of Monasticism feedback from these hermits is barely audible. How many of them could even read or write?

That’s why ordinary Christian townspeople were leery of those desert hermits, just as people today here in Nepal are leery of yogis and sadhus. They are scraggly scary things.

Could it be because they’re usually dirty and half disgusting? There’s a story of the Buddha when younger he first tried asceticism in a somewhat extreme form to reach enlightenment in a community of others with the same goal. After a few years of constantly starving and feeling filthy he turned heretic shocking everyone on deciding that this was BS. No one by this technique ever reached any simulacrum of enlightenment or insight and that he himself wasn’t any closer to it in spite of all the years practiced. Instead he cleaned himself up, went to the local steak house, ordered the biggest and best on the menu...his first act of enlightenment in order to achieve it.

Here is a Scribd page with Jesus the Magician. I don't know if you have to belong to Scribd to get this or not. If you can't, you can no doubt get elsewhere

I was able to download a PDF from another source. It’s a fairly long work. But in truth we’re not even certain that Jesus as described in the NT even existed. I think he did but by relating to anything so unknown ANY kind of interpretation is possible. Also very interesting along those lines and have known about for many years is this….

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... kuhn+books

Here the ordinary, especially village, people are leery and afraid of yogis (pronounced jogis) and saddhus because they often have possession of powerful mantras, with which they can cause all kinds of trouble if you don't give those guys something to eat and a few coins. Yes, though those "hermits" often cannot read, they are very well up on charms and mantras and various symbols they draw here and there and on the ground. They are classic magicians.

I like the way you turned the Buddha into a middle-class bourgeois enjoyer of life. OMG, he's almost American.

As for the Resurrection, people being visited by someone who has died is a rather common experience. I hear tell that psychologists, who used to argue with their patients that such a thing is impossible, not just let it be because the patient finds it comforting.

[Jklint]

Yes, though those "hermits" often cannot read, they are very well up on charms and mantras and various symbols they draw here and there and on the ground. They are classic magicians.

...only to the extent of one's gullibility using that to coerce what they want. Superstition makes one vulnerable. Are you intimidated by their magic?

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, though those "hermits" often cannot read, they are very well up on charms and mantras and various symbols they draw here and there and on the ground. They are classic magicians.

...only to the extent of one's gullibility using that to coerce what they want. Superstition makes one vulnerable. Are you intimidated by their magic?

I suppose you, as a materialist, would have to think like that, wouldn't you? Ooops, I put a label on you and nominalists hate labels. Oh god, I did it again. Sorry. Yes, I am afraid of magic. I believe in magic. I have my own counter-defenses against it. I am a fan of William Burroughs, who also believed in magic. Magic and deception always go together and that is why Westerners who come here are always taken in. They expect everyone to tell the truth. Oh, I have written a lot about all that. Did you just roll your eyes?

[GaryLouisSmith]

...only to the extent of one's gullibility using that to coerce what they want. Superstition makes one vulnerable. Are you intimidated by their magic?

I suppose you, as a materialist, would have to think like that, wouldn't you? Ooops, I put a label on you and nominalists hate labels. Oh god, I did it again. Sorry. Yes, I am afraid of magic. I believe in magic. I have my own counter-defenses against it. I am a fan of William Burroughs, who also believed in magic. Magic and deception always go together and that is why Westerners who come here are always taken in. They expect everyone to tell the truth. Oh, I have written a lot about all that. Did you just roll your eyes?

Not only are deception and fraud and the fake an essential part of magic, but also secrecy and violence. Even the sham of shamanism. Rationalists have a hard time with all that and they fall every time into the trap. Yes, all those "negative" or left-handed things are real. They are very real.

[Felix]

I wouldn't expect anyone who has never experienced magic (I don't mean the sleight of hand variety of it) to believe in it, as it is irrational, or suprarational if one wants to be complimentary. But I've met some very off-beat people and experienced "magical" phenomena. It all started with my mother who had mediumistic abilities (visions that would come true). My father, however, was a scientist so I peered at both sides of the reality coin.