4 ms·

thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particula

thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. have you read mary or judas? in coptic? they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion

Bluestrike2 10y ago
While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print. I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.
lotharbot 10y ago
> "you did skip over my most interesting question" Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority. > "they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus" They're both on the later end of the spectrum, though still early enough that I took the time to read them (in English). They both present views that are consistent with a few other writings (the most famous being Thomas) and at odds with the majority of writings from that era (everything from the canonical writings to the Didache, Clement, Polycarp, and Barnabas.) I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. They fit the standard late-Gnostic pattern of "secret knowledge" -- teachings that were supposedly passed down from the only one disciple who heard them but hidden from others, presented as almost entirely dialog between a small group with little narrative structure, without place names or names of "bit characters" or other connections to any sort of actual history. If you're already inclined to believe early Christianity was corrupt and distorted, they certainly fit that narrative, but they don't stand up well to critical analysis.
- justifier 10y ago
  > Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority. > I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. accurate? i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate' this is why i said it was 'most interesting' as it will present bias that may inform your definitions of 'uninteresting' and 'accurate'
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    > "i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate'" But they are certainly insightful as to the beliefs of the early church, whether or not they're accurate regarding an actual historical figure named Jesus. Judas and Mary fail on both counts, though they do give some insight into a secretive movement from the 2nd or 3rd century that focused on ideas about "hidden knowledge". > "it will present bias that may inform your definitions" In other words, it's a way to be accusatory. I gave my definitions; you can take exception to them directly instead of via the roundabout approach of questioning my impartiality.

Bluestrike2 10y ago

While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print. I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.

lotharbot 10y ago

> "you did skip over my most interesting question" Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority. > "they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus" They're both on the later end of the spectrum, though still early enough that I took the time to read them (in English). They both present views that are consistent with a few other writings (the most famous being Thomas) and at odds with the majority of writings from that era (everything from the canonical writings to the Didache, Clement, Polycarp, and Barnabas.) I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. They fit the standard late-Gnostic pattern of "secret knowledge" -- teachings that were supposedly passed down from the only one disciple who heard them but hidden from others, presented as almost entirely dialog between a small group with little narrative structure, without place names or names of "bit characters" or other connections to any sort of actual history. If you're already inclined to believe early Christianity was corrupt and distorted, they certainly fit that narrative, but they don't stand up well to critical analysis.

justifier 10y ago
> Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority. > I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. accurate? i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate' this is why i said it was 'most interesting' as it will present bias that may inform your definitions of 'uninteresting' and 'accurate'
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate'" But they are certainly insightful as to the beliefs of the early church, whether or not they're accurate regarding an actual historical figure named Jesus. Judas and Mary fail on both counts, though they do give some insight into a secretive movement from the 2nd or 3rd century that focused on ideas about "hidden knowledge". > "it will present bias that may inform your definitions" In other words, it's a way to be accusatory. I gave my definitions; you can take exception to them directly instead of via the roundabout approach of questioning my impartiality.