More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?

[Shaker]

The fact that something is written down on paper doesn't make it confirmed, you know.

[Dicky Underpants]

The fact that something is written down on paper doesn't make it confirmed, you know.

But it does go some way to demonstrate the lack of substance in BA's assertions, for which he has displayed no conclusive arguments whatsoever, other than the odd quote or two, and shouting 'Midrash' like someone with a nervous tick every time Matthew's gospel is mentioned.
It should be noted that some of Ad-O's quotes come from Mark's gospel, and certainly reinforce the claim that Jesus was indebted to the teachings of the OT, and an orthodox Jew through and through.
It is in fact possible to argue a strong case that the historical Jesus' teachings and mission were exclusively to the Jewish diaspora (and a number of scholars have done so), and that all 'universalist' texts were inventions of the evangelists. There are certainly criteria to establish such a view, beyond mere cherry-picking. Such an approach wouldn't please either Ad-O or BA, the former determined to retain everything in the gospels, and the latter everything that doesn't accord with his 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' view.
I could begin a thread on this elsewhere, but as a non-believer, my interest is largely academic, and I suspect the interest would be minimal. It's no skin off my nose that such a view can't ultimately be substantiated any more than the other views, but believers have obviously much more hanging on the rightness or wrongness of what they've signed up for.
BTW, I rather wish BA's view of Jesus had some definite scholarly rigour to support it - it would certainly be better for society if this were the case. But if there is any such rigour, I'm afraid our old friend has done little to substantiate it, other than insisting N number of times "I've got a 'cesstifficut'" and "I've wiped a lot of sweat away"

[Outrider]

It was an accurate comment. He couldn't rid himself of his paganism, which is why he believed in the demiurge. Had he understood the words of Christ he would have known that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same.

I appreciate you're probably not a psychiatric specialist, but do you think it's a multiple personality disorder, or just bad editing that results in this singular character having such cosmically differing depictions?

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him."

"And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Ironic, isn't it, that these quotes are from Luke, Marcion's favourite evangelist?

[ad_orientem]

Ironic, isn't it, that these quotes are from Luke, Marcion's favourite evangelist?

Aye!

[Dicky Underpants]

I appreciate you're probably not a psychiatric specialist, but do you think it's a multiple personality disorder, or just bad editing that results in this singular character having such cosmically differing depictions?

O.

Different prophets, different regions, different times. But each individual writer thought they were talking about the same God. Of course, each individual is likely to have a different take on what he thinks the divine to be.
Poor old Ezra - the likely compiler of the Pentateuch and the early part of the Bible - had a huge task on his hands. He was dealing with similar stories from different kingdoms and had to some how smooth them out and make a continuing narrative out of them all. Often he kept both, so inconsistencies keep cropping up (as in the two accounts of the Noah story which are intercolated). But not only do the individual details differ, the views of God from the North and South kingdoms differ somewhat. The Jahvist literature always seems a bit more 'homely' than the Elohist. Whereas the Priestly author is just an absolutely crushing bore.
Of course, if you take the view that "All scripture is inspired of God" (no matter how repellent the nature of the material), any scribe or redactor ipso facto feels constrained to treat it with respect.

[Dicky Underpants]

You really ought to read the NT, and maybe even look at a Commentary or two. 

I don't think you need to tell Ad-O to read commentaries - he's obviously well-read in Biblical literature, even though his take on the scriptures doesn't please you - or me for that matter. If you're going to suggest people read 'commentaries', perhaps you should specify a few. I can - and have - often specified commentaries and scholars whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. What's the point of vaguely referring to 'commentaries', as if all these 'commentators' had the same views? Can't you name the commentaries you mean, or have you forgotten?

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think you need to tell Ad-O to read commentaries - he's obviously well-read in Biblical literature, even though his take on the scriptures doesn't please you - or me for that matter. If you're going to suggest people read 'commentaries', perhaps you should specify a few. I can - and have - often specified commentaries and scholars whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. What's the point of vaguely referring to 'commentaries', as if all these 'commentators' had the same views? Can't you name the commentaries you mean, or have you forgotten?

There are so many Biblical Commentaries, you can take your pick.And if you profess to know so much, I shouldn't need to reel off any names:  you should be aware of them.
 
I don't recollect those:  remind me.

[ad_orientem]

You could start with the Fathers, which is the only place to start, if you ask me.

[Jack Knave]

I don't wish to hear about your reading habits, thank you.   

You've confused that with the Big Book of Dog's Bollocks.

[BashfulAnthony]

You've confused that with the Big Book of Dog's Bollocks.

No need to advertise your unsavoury reading habits!

[Jack Knave]

No need to advertise your unsavoury reading habits!

I never said I read it just that you had confused it with the other book.

[BashfulAnthony]

I never said I read it just that you had confused it with the other book.

I'm not at all confused, but...

[Shaker]

That's a matter of opinion 

[BashfulAnthony]

That's a matter of opinion 

Well, if it's your opinion, then nothing to worry about!   

[Jack Knave]

I'm not at all confused, but...

But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.

[BashfulAnthony]

But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.

I was simply confused as to knowing what you meant.

[BashfulAnthony]

But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.

I simply did not follow you meant, which was confusing me.

[Dicky Underpants]

There are so many Biblical Commentaries, you can take your pick.And if you profess to know so much, I shouldn't need to reel off any names:  you should be aware of them.
 
I don't recollect those:  remind me.

Can't believe I'm bothering to answer this. I mentioned quite a few 'diametrically opposed' to your views quite recently*. I'm not going to remind you - you're the one whose supposed to have the superlative knowledge of such things. If you're not aware of them, then you're no sort of scholar at all, and all your words are so much braggadocio. In all the time I've seen you posting, I've often seen you refer to 'commentaries' but never named any. You seem totally unaware of the last 200 years or so of so-called 'Higher Criticism', since you never refer to any of this corpus of Biblical scholarship. In fact your own 'Higher Criticism' seems to be reduced to about four or five elements: a bit of vague reference to 'Midrash', some hoary old references to Josephus and Tacitus (being apparently totally unaware of the doubts associated with such texts, even though they've been aired here several times), and some enthusiastic  remarks about Marcion (who, on your own confession, you came to 'late' - I knew about him decades ago; nothing special about that, since he's an important figure in the early days of Christianity).

*In the 'Paris Attacks' thread, post 61.

[BashfulAnthony]

Can't believe I'm bothering to answer this. I mentioned quite a few 'diametrically opposed' to your views quite recently. I'm not going to remind you - you're the one whose supposed to have the superlative knowledge of such things. If you're not aware of them, then you're no sort of scholar at all, and all your words are so much bragadocio. In all the time I've seen you posting, I've often seen you refer to 'commentaries' but never named any. You seem totally unaware of the last 200 years or so of so-called 'Higher Criticism', since you never refer to any of this corpus of Biblical scholarship. In fact your own 'Higher Criticism' seems to be reduced to about four or five elements: a bit of vague reference to 'Midrash', some hoary old references to Josephus and Tacitus (being apparently totally unaware of the doubts associated with such texts, even though they've been aired here several times), and some enthusiastic  remarks about Marcion (who, on your own confession, you came to 'late' - I knew about him decades ago; nothing special about that, since he's an important figure in the early days of Christianity).

Got anything new to say?  If not, l'll leave you.

[Dicky Underpants]

Got anything new to say?  If not, l'll leave you.

I'm leaving you, darling, because you have nothing new to say. Now go back to your Wisden and the Boys Bumper Book of Boxing Heroes.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm leaving you, darling, because you have nothing new to say. Now go back to your Wisden and the Boys Bumper Book of Boxing Heroes.

My only boxing hero is Muhammad Ali;  and I met him at a book signing in Nottingham, some years ago.  You wouldn't  have argued with him!     

[Shaker]

My only boxing hero is Muhammad Ali;  and I met him at a book signing in Nottingham, some years ago.  You wouldn't  have argued with him!     

If it was only a few years ago you could have not only argued with him but blown him over.

[BashfulAnthony]

If it was only a few years ago you could have not only argued with him but blown him over.

He was a massive fellow, and you would certainly not have argued with him.

[BeRational]

He was a massive fellow, and you would certainly not have argued with him.

Why not?