• In total there are 8 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 8 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly.


So then, what would you call it when someone is certain of something which cannot be proven? I understand if you're afraid of the hotseat such a question poses.
There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'
You might be right on this point. As I said earlier, some things can be read between the lines. However, what if the Pharisees did not prepare to stone him. Perhaps the only thing the author remembered was what Jesus said and how he said it, and misremembered anything the Pharisees did. Answering this question, either in favor of Wright or in favor of you, requires making an assumption of the truth of these constituent parts. I'm not arguing against this criticism. I'm saying that there are assumptions that you make, that we all make, that you don't realize are assumptions.

Another point on whether or not he explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man is what Wright intended by it. As DWill said, "The point Wright makes is that the idea that Jesus was the Son of Man came only after the crucifixion, when his followers then realized that he must have been speaking cryptically of himself. It is a "postmortem identification of Jesus with the Son of Man" (310)."

So in making the inference, such as that only the Son of Man can forgive sins, and that the Pharisees had the urge to stone him, are precisely what Wright is talking about. Although Jesus never refers to himself as such explicitly in those instances, it can be seen after the fact that he was speaking cryptically of himself. Which means he is implicitly referring to himself as the Son of Man, as you point out, which also appears to coincide with what Wright is saying.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

stahwre, are you watching the "God in America" program? I'd be interested in your reaction (over in that thread). I also was wondering if you plan on following Wright through the Koran discussion. Would you have any of the same objections to Wright deconstructing the Koran as you have to him doing it to the Bible? And if not, why not?
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly.


So then, what would you call it when someone is certain of something which cannot be proven? I understand if you're afraid of the hotseat such a question poses.
Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.
There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'
interbane wrote:You might be right on this point. As I said earlier, some things can be read between the lines. However, what if the Pharisees did not prepare to stone him. Perhaps the only thing the author remembered was what Jesus said and how he said it, and misremembered anything the Pharisees did. Answering this question, either in favor of Wright or in favor of you, requires making an assumption of the truth of these constituent parts. I'm not arguing against this criticism. I'm saying that there are assumptions that you make, that we all make, that you don't realize are assumptions.
Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes. Granted, it is prudent to be skeptical, but you are constantly lobbying for the ancient record to be questioned in favor of a new one. You argue that the authors of the Gospels had an agenda and so shaped the narrative to conform to that agenda. I submit that may be said of Wright as well, and with more to support my claim. Reason: Wright stands to make money by contriving a new interpretation of Christianity. His incentive is money. The authors of the Gospel had no evidence that their story was going to bring them anything but grief. I don't know if you are aware or not but there were many people running around in the 1st century claiming to be the Messiah. Their fate was invariably a bad one so the precedent was well established that, even before the persecutions of the Christians began, and they began very soon, life was not going to go well for the followers of Jesus. So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus. So, given one story from a man who stands to make money from his 'new' intreptation vs a dramatically different story from people who have not hope to benefit and whose leader extolled truth, I will side with the latter.
interbane wrote:Another point on whether or not he explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man is what Wright intended by it. As DWill said, "The point Wright makes is that the idea that Jesus was the Son of Man came only after the crucifixion, when his followers then realized that he must have been speaking cryptically of himself. It is a "postmortem identification of Jesus with the Son of Man" (310)."
Wright is rewritting the narrative. The chronology provided by the narrative is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man before the crucifixion. Wright has nothing other than his financial motivation to rearrange the narrative.
interbane wrote:So in making the inference, such as that only the Son of Man can forgive sins, and that the Pharisees had the urge to stone him, are precisely what Wright is talking about. Although Jesus never refers to himself as such explicitly in those instances, it can be seen after the fact that he was speaking cryptically of himself. Which means he is implicitly referring to himself as the Son of Man, as you point out, which also appears to coincide with what Wright is saying.
This is the Wright trick. Ignore the narrative, make a bogus claim about it and move on. What was cryptic about Jesus saying he was the Son of Man. You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man. He didn't do that. He didn't need to do that. What He said was enough for the Pharisees to be incited into enough of a rage that they were willing to violate one of the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt Not Murder) and stone Jesus to death.

thank you for your post.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

DWill wrote:stahwre, are you watching the "God in America" program? I'd be interested in your reaction (over in that thread). I also was wondering if you plan on following Wright through the Koran discussion. Would you have any of the same objections to Wright deconstructing the Koran as you have to him doing it to the Bible? And if not, why not?
I am not watching God in America. I have watched such programs before and find them less than accurate.

I will follow the discussion of the Koran but I am not knowledgeable about the Koran having only read it once so I suspect that Wright will get a free pass on it since I don't think there are any Muslims on BT.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.
I am trapped? :lol:

You're obviously the one trapped, since you failed to respond to my question. Why are you so certain there are no minor gods if their nonexistance cannot be proven? (...and why do you think changing the subject to Jesus is a valid response?)
Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes.
I have no clue what you're referring to. You see, you don't even know what my belief system even is. I've never spoken about my beliefs. This is a projection on your part, and nothing more.

You've gone through this charade before of questioning what possible motives the biblical authors could have had for fabricating. You list a few, then follow them up with each being unlikely for some reason or another. We could come up with many more, depending on how inventive we are. We could certainly come up with some better than the ones you've listed.

For example, think about this: "So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus."

If they made the story up, that necessarily means they made up the part about Jesus preaching such things. This is horrible reasoning on your part Stahrwe, you're better than this.

Let's pretend there are far better reasons the ancient authors would not have fabricated the bible. The statistics are the same as a group of people playing the lottery. Let's say there are 200 people who have purchased a lottery ticket. One guy, John, is very unlikely to be the winner. At the same time, Mary is also unlikely to win. We could go through the entire roster and make that claim for each and every one.

But what matters is the combined sum of "what-if" scenarios. In the lottery scenario, it is guaranteed that some person will win. In your contrived responses to how unlikely each given motivation is, you are speaking for individual cases rather than the sum of it's parts. If you list a couple dozen possible motivations, and follow each one with an "unlikely because...", the end result is that it is very likely at least one of the roster of motivations is true, despite the unlikelihood of each of them individually.

There are two factors that can be considered which tip the scales even further here. One is our present day observation of people who fabricate stories. We know men make up stories all the time, nonstop, which they themselves believe to be true. The second is, if the biblical texts weren't fabricated, we are lead to believe some ridiculous conclusions that don't match up with conventional wisdom. In logic, this is similar to disproving a negative. The conclusion is that given all available observation and reasoning, the bible is fabricated.
You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man.
Despite your venomous response, Wright is correct and you are wrong. It must be frustrating for you not to be able to reference some translation guide and change the meaning of "explicit" so that you can rationalize yourself into being right.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.
I am trapped? :lol:

You're obviously the one trapped, since you failed to respond to my question. Why are you so certain there are no minor gods if their nonexistance cannot be proven? (...and why do you think changing the subject to Jesus is a valid response?)
More editorializing. We can be certain there are no minor gods as there is no way to define what a minor god is. If something cannot be defined it cannot exist. Pretty simple really. When was the last time you shaved?
Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes.
interbane wrote:I have no clue what you're referring to. You see, you don't even know what my belief system even is. I've never spoken about my beliefs. This is a projection on your part, and nothing more.
Got me didn't you. Projection? really?
interbane wrote:You've gone through this charade before of questioning what possible motives the biblical authors could have had for fabricating. You list a few, then follow them up with each being unlikely for some reason or another. We could come up with many more, depending on how inventive we are. We could certainly come up with some better than the ones you've listed.
Please do so.

For example, think about this: "So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus."
interbane wrote:If they made the story up, that necessarily means they made up the part about Jesus preaching such things. This is horrible reasoning on your part Stahrwe, you're better than this.

Let's pretend there are far better reasons the ancient authors would not have fabricated the bible. The statistics are the same as a group of people playing the lottery. Let's say there are 200 people who have purchased a lottery ticket. One guy, John, is very unlikely to be the winner. At the same time, Mary is also unlikely to win. We could go through the entire roster and make that claim for each and every one.

But what matters is the combined sum of "what-if" scenarios. In the lottery scenario, it is guaranteed that some person will win. In your contrived responses to how unlikely each given motivation is, you are speaking for individual cases rather than the sum of it's parts. If you list a couple dozen possible motivations, and follow each one with an "unlikely because...", the end result is that it is very likely at least one of the roster of motivations is true, despite the unlikelihood of each of them individually.
Interbane, I am surprised at you. In my state we have a lottery where millions of people participate and on a given draw there are many instances where no one wins. Since you didn't stipulate a continuing game, I can envision such a result in your lottery where there is no winner proving you wrong. But perhaps you meant that there were only 200 tickets sold and someone is guaranteed to win the prize. In that case I would not describe the chances of an individual winning as being unlikely, I would characterize them as 1 in 200.

Wright's theory of gaming is that as society becomes more complex the probability of a non-zero sum outcome increases. What he fails to appreciate is that Christianity is predicated on an increasingly simple society implying a zero-sum outcome. Everyone who plays wins, those who don't play lose. Have you shaved yet?
interbane wrote:There are two factors that can be considered which tip the scales even further here. One is our present day observation of people who fabricate stories. We know men make up stories all the time, nonstop, which they themselves believe to be true. The second is, if the biblical texts weren't fabricated, we are lead to believe some ridiculous conclusions that don't match up with conventional wisdom. In logic, this is similar to disproving a negative. The conclusion is that given all available observation and reasoning, the bible is fabricated.
I presume you are referring to Wright when you say that men make up stories all the time, correct? The reason Wright does so, is that there is a personal benefit to him (sells books, makes money, gets famous). On the other hand he might be disinclined to make up stories if the consequences were ridicule, torture, and crucifixion. With few exceptions the disciples all met brutal deaths for their support of Christianity.
You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man.
interbane wrote:Despite your venomous response, Wright is correct and you are wrong. It must be frustrating for you not to be able to reference some translation guide and change the meaning of "explicit" so that you can rationalize yourself into being right.
you think this was venomous? I thought it was cute.

I don't believe I ever changed the meaning of explicit I merely pointed out that the distinction which is so critical to Wright was lost on the Pharisees. I find that rather amusing.

Where is that razor anyway?

thanks for the post.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.

It cannot be put more simply, and the disjunction is almost infinitely disproportionate. If you should be certain of anything, it is that the bible is fabricated. Think on this next time you hope to invoke parsimony.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism.
stahrwe wrote:I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained. What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.
I had to do some digging for Stahrwe's explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I guess this it it.

Gee, I don't know. I feel a little let down. This is supposed to "very neatly" explain the emergence of monotheism. This is supposed to be the elephant in the tent? Seriously?

This is hardly better than goddittit. The answer to everything.

One of these days, Stahrwe's going to come out and say, nah, just pulling your legs guys. I just know he is.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism.
stahrwe wrote:I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained. What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.
I had to do some digging for Stahrwe's explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I guess this it it.

Gee, I don't know. I feel a little let down. This is supposed to "very neatly" explain the emergence of monotheism. This is supposed to be the elephant in the tent? Seriously?

This is hardly better than goddittit. The answer to everything.

One of these days, Stahrwe's going to come out and say, nah, just pulling your legs guys. I just know he is.
Not exactly. Let's suppose for a moment that Abram only thought he heard God's call to leave Ur and relocate to Palestine and to worship only Him. Abram, believing he had been called left his homeland and did as he thought he had been instructed. This included his renouncing the polytheism he had been a part of while in Ur. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Either way Wright sacrifices his credibility by ignoring the story of Abram in Genesis.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior

Unread post

Interbane wrote:You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.
I keep saying the ultimate litmus test is the age of the earth. For Stahrwe's literal interpretation of the Bible to be true means that almost every educated person on the planet is wrong about the age of the earth. All of modern science is wrong. The geologists, the biologists, the paleontologists, the archaelogists, the astronomers, the physicists, the geochemists, not to mention all those scientists at NASA. Not just a little wrong. Wrong by 4.5 billion years! The basis for almost all of empirical science over the last 130 years is flat out wrong.

Because it says so in the Bible! :lol:
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”