History trumps Theology

[Peter Kirby]

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.

Slogans are a substitute where evidence in favor of a theory doesn't exist.

[maryhelena]

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.

Slogans are a substitute where evidence in favor of a theory doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for any gospel Jesus theory or interpretation. No evidence... Zero. All we have are dozens, if not hundreds of interpretations. It's take your pick time.

In contrast we have Roman history of Judaea. Hence, methinks, it's worth dealing with that historical reality..... It just might throw an historical light upon that gospel Jesus story. At least it's worth a try.... The theological approach has had 2000 years and has failed to produce an interpretation that upholds humanitarian values.

[allegoria]

The historical act ? What historical act are you referring to ?

The historical activity that underlies a religious story. For instance, the historical details of the sacrifice of Isaac are not actually “spiritually useful” for understanding the event. The meaning of the sacrifice of Isaac resides in it being a story that is believed and which demonstrates certain ideas as part of a greater story which informs social identity. That is what changes human behavior. Any history that is dug up about a (hypothetical) historical sacrifice of Isaac would be immaterial and irrelevant to religious activity. By religious activity, I mean what occurs in church.

And so it is even with the whole life of death of Christ, too. What changes the behavior of a person is what is believed, not what happened in history. The religious person believes that it happened in history, but what actually happened in history is only really useful for understanding how the religion evolved from an anthropological or historical perspective (not spiritual). As an example, the historical claims of Mormonism are very dubious, but the historical stories are believed and that is where all of the spiritual changes occur.

In the epistles and the church fathers there is a lot of interest in what things spiritually represent, in what the story means, in how it relates to identity and so on. There is shockingly little interest in history. No one cared much write what Christ looked like (I think there’s 1 or 2 early accounts), no one was interested in collecting any stories or dialogue from when he was a child — that would be as simple as asking the people who grew up with him “what did he say about…”? The story (theology) trumps the history. And this is also why have so much pseudepigrapha and apocrypha. What devout Christian would ever consider “forging” a work between Paul and Seneca? Or various gnostic works with sayings of Christ? If the devout Christian is a literalist, he would expect quite the punishment from God for forgery. If instead he understands that stories trump history, then he is merely adding a new/true edition to the Christian canon.

[Peter Kirby]

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.

Slogans are a substitute where evidence in favor of a theory doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for any gospel Jesus theory or interpretation. No evidence... Zero. All we have are dozens, if not hundreds of interpretations. It's take your pick time.

So you have no evidence, only a 'take your pick time' interpretation, but you choose to use a form of tu quoque fallacy.

[maryhelena]

The historical act ? What historical act are you referring to ?

The historical activity that underlies a religious story. For instance, the historical details of the sacrifice of Isaac are not actually “spiritually useful” for understanding the event. The meaning of the sacrifice of Isaac resides in it being a story that is believed and which demonstrates certain ideas as part of a greater story which informs social identity. That is what changes human behavior. Any history that is dug up about a (hypothetical) historical sacrifice of Isaac would be immaterial and irrelevant to religious activity. By religious activity, I mean what occurs in church.

And so it is even with the whole life of death of Christ, too. What changes the behavior of a person is what is believed, not what happened in history. The religious person believes that it happened in history, but what actually happened in history is only really useful for understanding how the religion evolved from an anthropological or historical perspective (not spiritual). As an example, the historical claims of Mormonism are very dubious, but the historical stories are believed and that is where all of the spiritual changes occur.

In the epistles and the church fathers there is a lot of interest in what things spiritually represent, in what the story means, in how it relates to identity and so on. There is shockingly little interest in history. No one cared much write what Christ looked like (I think there’s 1 or 2 early accounts), no one was interested in collecting any stories or dialogue from when he was a child — that would be as simple as asking the people who grew up with him “what did he say about…”? The story (theology) trumps the history. And this is also why have so much pseudepigrapha and apocrypha. What devout Christian would ever consider “forging” a work between Paul and Seneca? Or various gnostic works with sayings of Christ? If the devout Christian is a literalist, he would expect quite the punishment from God for forgery. If instead he understands that stories trump history, then he is merely adding a new/true edition to the Christian canon.

No history offered here with reference to the gospel Jesus story.

[Peter Kirby]

It's take your pick time.

Contrary to the fallacy you employ to provide some kind of rhetorical justification for the introduction of your theory, without any evidence, most do not advocate for a descent into arbitrarily just picking something to believe.

[Peter Kirby]

There is no evidence for any gospel Jesus theory or interpretation. No evidence... Zero.

At this point, you would logically just become skeptical of the historicity of Jesus.

Instead, you have picked up the arguments of these skeptics parasitically to suggest that a completely unevidenced theory can be introduced into the vacuum of the supposed lack of any evidence for historicity being argued for by them.

[maryhelena]

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.

Slogans are a substitute where evidence in favor of a theory doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for any gospel Jesus theory or interpretation. No evidence... Zero. All we have are dozens, if not hundreds of interpretations. It's take your pick time.

So you have no evidence, only a 'take your pick time' interpretation, but you choose to use a form of tu quoque fallacy.

Just stating the reality of gospel interpretation. All of us are attempting to interpret the gospel Jesus story.

[Peter Kirby]

No history offered here with reference to the gospel Jesus story.

You have not offered history, not even by your own definition, as in this thread you have revealed that you have no evidence and you have also previously said that history is about evidence. Therefore, you are dealing in something other than history.

[Peter Kirby]

Ah, but slogans have their own power to concentrate the minds of the consumer. History trumps Theology....might even raise a debate that the issue needs attending.

Slogans are a substitute where evidence in favor of a theory doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for any gospel Jesus theory or interpretation. No evidence... Zero. All we have are dozens, if not hundreds of interpretations. It's take your pick time.

So you have no evidence, only a 'take your pick time' interpretation, but you choose to use a form of tu quoque fallacy.

Just stating the reality of gospel interpretation. All of us are attempting to interpret the gospel Jesus story.

And yet many others do not try to pick something in an arbitrary way that cannot be rationally justified to others, as you have.