Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:37 pm
That's funny because you've been posting these slogans for years and now declare a discussion of what they mean or imply "boring."
What slogans have I been posting for years ? I'm curious about what specific 'slogans' you found objectionable ?
The search function shows that the 'slogan' History trumps Theology' was first used by me on Thursday, (March 2024).
10 long years of my posting to the forum and it's this simply, very recent, 'slogan' that has generated such heat. I really don't get it - why the long years without subjecting my posts to, what amounts to, something of an interrogation. There is nothing in the 'History trumps Theology' thread that has anything to do with my theory on the gospel crucifixion story. (I did not mention the Hasmoneans - they were brought up by another poster and I did not pursue the subject). That I am a Jesus ahistoricist - that I reject the notion that the gospel Jesus (of whatever variant) was a historical figure - is nothing new for me to state - and I don't think I'm the only poster on this forum to hold such a view.
Something else seems to be going on here - I just can't put my finger on it at all....why should such a simple 'slogan' as History trumps Theology - on a forum dealing with Christian Texts and History - generate any kind of debate. It's a funny old world I suppose - one never knows what will turn up.....
Today of all days (it's already Good Friday in the UK) is surely a reminder that many christians allow theology to trump history. That they find value in a human flesh and blood crucifixion as the means of their 'salvation'. Today, of all days, it is surely right to call time on this anti-humanitarian theology - and allow rational, logical and humane values to trump theology. To do that requires that history is allowed to address the gospel Jesus story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans.[5][6][7] It portrays his death as a sacrifice for sin.
....
Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus's suffering and redemptive death by crucifixion are the central aspects of Christian theology concerning the doctrines of salvation and atonement.
I reject this interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. I find it anti-humanitarian and a disservice to the writers of that story. It's an interpretation that allows theology the upper hand - thus putting history aside.
Crucifixion in the Philippines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixi ... hilippines
Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, and is part of the local observance of Holy Week. Devotees or penitents called magdarame in Kapampangan willingly have themselves crucified to reenact Jesus Christ's suffering and death, while related practices include carrying wooden crosses, crawling on rough pavement, and self-flagellation. Penitents consider these acts to be mortification of the flesh, and undertake these to ask forgiveness for sins, to fulfil a panatà (Filipino, "vow"), or to express gratitude for favours granted. In the most famous case, Ruben Enaje drives four-inch nails into both hands and feet and then he is lifted on a wooden cross for around five minutes.[1]
I'm not interested in furthering a History trumps Theology debate - there should not be a debate by rational intelligent people over this issue.