|
Post by bjorn on Apr 26, 2009 13:49:10 GMT
I think we have to cultivate the one-line repartee as well.
The only way to get Carr caring - and carried away screaming - is by repaying in kind, like the Honorable Humphrey's last sentence above.
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Apr 26, 2009 21:12:26 GMT
Well, I wrote the post that Carr criticized, so I hereby give my blessing to anyone who wants to respond to him. I only request that you keep it civil.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Apr 26, 2009 21:29:54 GMT
Humphrey, I'm not an expert but I'll stick my thoughts up here if you fancy.
I think Steven is referring to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal book dated to the middle of the second century - it has stories about the early life of Jesus, with him killing other kids for bumping into him, and occasionally performing miracles to compensate for his earlier mischief.
The answer it's likely that iThom was written by Gnostics or docetists:
Those that were influenced by Gnostic thought viewed Jesus as not really human and as someone fully mature as an infant... [these gospels] usually included docetic ideas - that is, Christ only appeared to be human - or even Gnostic ideas. As such, they did not see Jesus in any sense as a real human being who developed naturally, but as a supernatural being who was born already with powers of mature thought and the ability to do miracles, even malicious miracles (Reinventing Jesus, Wallace et al,2006. Kregel Publications
In addition, by the second century believers in various community were eager to hear stories about Jesus' early life and supposed powers. A document like iThom slotted nicely into the Gnostic/docetist viewpoint and fulfilled the desires of a significant community, so one can see why its contents may be invented. Contrast this with, say, women playing a prominent role in the Resurrection story in a culture where womens' testimony was not considered trustworthy!
Don't know what he's referring to in these lines; unless he's more specific, I can't comment. Doesn't ring any bells from the canonical gospels, though.
Well, Matthew and John would presumably disagree, never mind the sources behind Mark and Luke. But I don't expect Steven to start conjuring arguments about Gospel authorship any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 26, 2009 21:45:58 GMT
Wouldn't he be talking about Peter's vision in Acts 10, where Peter is instructed to "kill and eat"? It fits his description, although I would find it hard to take seriously anyone who found that anomolous.
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Apr 27, 2009 7:08:59 GMT
I cross-posted the Urban Myth post on my other blog, and one commenter corrected me: I wrote "mythology takes a long time to develop" but it's not the development that (necessarily) takes a long time, it's the mythology replacing the historical core of what actually happened. That strikes me as an important point, although it addresses mythology rather than urban myth. agentintellect.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-resurrection-urban-legend.html
|
|