Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by iskander »

perseusomega9 wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:48 am Where eventually <= 30 years?
I don't know. I have asked John2 in this thread.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3114&start=100
iskander wrote: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:39 pm Thank you John for such a clear and instructive response. Your thread is excellent.

My interest in religion consists in the exploration of its capacity for change while remaining the same, even though religion is said to be based on the unchanging word of god.

Rabbi Garroway considers that " Revelation is perhaps the most natively Jewish of the Christian scriptures, composed by a meticulously observant Jew who would scoff at Christianity today." and also that John " He taught them to remain faithful in advance of their impending redemption—faithful to God, to God’s Torah, and to God’s messiah Jesus."

John 's Revelation is part of the Christian canon , a religion based on the teachings of Paul who is Balaam in the mind of John.

Apparently , all what Jewish Christians needed to get their books in the Christian canon was to believe that Jesus was the Messiah , died, was resuscitated and will return in the near future. .Redemption for those Jewish believers would take place when Jesus returns..

Did the failure to return end Jewish Christianity?
Jon2 knows much more than I do.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by perseusomega9 »

I do like that thread of his.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by iskander »

perseusomega9 wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:02 am I do like that thread of his.
He is the jewel of this forum.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by MrMacSon »

iskander wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:34 am Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child;
iskander wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:25 am The character Jesus is Jewish in Luke's . Nothing can change this. Not believing would not change that.
One passage (+/- a few others) may suggest the Lukan Jesus is Jewish but, if Luke is post Marcion, perhaps we should consider what Marcion and his contemporaries were saying about their 'Jesus'.

Note what Neil Godfrey says on the 'What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?' thread -
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:12 pm The Gospel of Luke falls right into the mode of fiction immediately after the prologue is dispensed with. The omniscient narrator begins his story by relating a private conversation between an angel and an old man in the privacy of a restricted space in the temple.

By the standards of the day, from what I recollect of the sources, no historian would permit himself to write such a scene, least of all in such an unqualified and dogmatic manner. We would expect a historian to justify his narrative by telling us the source of such a bizarre and incredible event, or giving readers some assurance or sympathy regarding their credulity or incredulity, and/or expressing his own view as to its veracity.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:01 am The angelic vision in private is followed by another miraculous performance of charades. The old man is able with mere gestures to explain to the crowd so that they clearly understood that he had seen a vision. (He never thought of writing anything at that time.)

Our "historian" then goes on to relate how God sent an angel to Elisabeth. . . .

Need we go on? ....
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by neilgodfrey »

iskander wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:49 am What evidence then?, pisser.
You are not interested in evidence. You think a text in a book that believers in spirits and gods think is holy is "evidence". The only evidence you have that your gospel was "history" or "true biography" are the claims of wild-eyed fanatics and religious bigots centuries after the book was supposedly written.

The evidence in fact tells us that your passage in Luke about Jesus being circumcised was not known by anyone until the later half of the second century. No-one heard of that passage before then even though it would have been just what they wanted to rebut docetists and prove things to Jews etc.

If we rely on the evidence, the passage you quote was invented to rebut the anti-Jewish views of Marcion in the second century. The same book is evidence that Jesus was whisked up into the sky on a cloud after he died.

If we rely on the evidence of the context of the passage, it was written as part of a story inspired by and shaped by a desire to rewrite a new biblical text based on Genesis tales of patriarchs.

But you don't want evidence. If you wanted evidence you would be asking for the details of the arguments you don't like and never heard of before and would not just assume that a proof-text from your sacred book that can tell no lie coz it's the very word of the current chief god for anyone who is not a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or anything else is all that is needed to overthrow the "vain wisdom of mere scholars" to delve into that stuff you are only interested in denying -- evidence.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by iskander »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:45 pm
iskander wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:34 am Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child;
iskander wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:25 am The character Jesus is Jewish in Luke's . Nothing can change this. Not believing would not change that.
One passage (+/- a few others) may suggest the Lukan Jesus is Jewish but, if Luke is post Marcion, perhaps we should consider what Marcion and his contemporaries were saying about their 'Jesus'.

Note what Neil Godfrey says on the 'What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?' thread -
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:12 pm The Gospel of Luke falls right into the mode of fiction immediately after the prologue is dispensed with. The omniscient narrator begins his story by relating a private conversation between an angel and an old man in the privacy of a restricted space in the temple.

By the standards of the day, from what I recollect of the sources, no historian would permit himself to write such a scene, least of all in such an unqualified and dogmatic manner. We would expect a historian to justify his narrative by telling us the source of such a bizarre and incredible event, or giving readers some assurance or sympathy regarding their credulity or incredulity, and/or expressing his own view as to its veracity.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:01 am The angelic vision in private is followed by another miraculous performance of charades. The old man is able with mere gestures to explain to the crowd so that they clearly understood that he had seen a vision. (He never thought of writing anything at that time.)

Our "historian" then goes on to relate how God sent an angel to Elisabeth. . . .

Need we go on? ....
Angels do not exist for me and therefore the ' annunciation' is an invention found in the biblical culture of the Israelites.

Hashem is in the habit of ' opening the womb ' of the most unlikely women such as the very old Sarai ( Sarah) and others. In the case of Sarah God himself in person comes to Manre to tell Avram and Sarai that Isaac in on his way and will arrive next year.
In the case of Lea , Rachel, Hashem answers her prayers and he opens her womb. She is pregnant with twins and Hashem says that Esau is hated by God even before he was born!...

God is continually intervening in the affairs of the humanity by bringing forth into the world of men and women the product of his intervention e, g. Isaac, Samson, Jacob , Jesus...
For people brought up in the Israelite biblical culture the annunciation is nothing more that the explanation of the great importance of the man who has lived among them.

PS. History is an educated opinion
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by neilgodfrey »

iskander wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:50 am
Angels do not exist for me and therefore the ' annunciation' is an invention found in the biblical culture of the Israelites.

So why should you choose to believe a work that says as a fact that Jesus was circumcised the 8th day (and when there is no evidence that that text was even included until the late second century, and there is evidence it was introduced as late as then) when the same work says angels exist - as a matter of historical fact.

You can't just pick and choose at whim. That's not an educated opinion. It is self-serving proof-texting and confirmation bias at its worst.

Or is your "standard" that if it sounds non-miraculous it must be true even if it's in a text full of miracles? If so, then why not take Cinderella and Red Riding Hood as historical because their stories had ordinary events included in them?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
yalla
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:52 am

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by yalla »

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com.au/2012/ ... -2011.html

Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal

His "Contamination Principle" - an extract from an article in which he applies this principle, and more, to christianity and JC.

"Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

We might call this the contamination principle – the thought being that the dubious character of the several extraordinary parts of a narrative ends up contaminating the more pedestrian parts, rendering them dubious too."
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:39 am
iskander wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:50 am
Angels do not exist for me and therefore the ' annunciation' is an invention found in the biblical culture of the Israelites.

So why should you choose to believe a work that says as a fact that Jesus was circumcised the 8th day (and when there is no evidence that that text was even included until the late second century, and there is evidence it was introduced as late as then) when the same work says angels exist - as a matter of historical fact.

You can't just pick and choose at whim. That's not an educated opinion. It is self-serving proof-texting and confirmation bias at its worst.

Or is your "standard" that if it sounds non-miraculous it must be true even if it's in a text full of miracles? If so, then why not take Cinderella and Red Riding Hood as historical because their stories had ordinary events included in them?
I'm not sure whether your argument is that the entirety of Luke chapters 1-2 are possibly late 2nd century or that Luke 2:21 is late. However both positions have difficulties. There is reasonably strong evidence of knowledge of some form of the first chapters of Luke in the mid 2nd century (Basildes according to Hippolytus, Justin, ProtoEvangelium). Although direct evidence of knowledge of Luke 2:21 itself is rather late, Luke 2:22, which similarly relates Jesus to Jewish customs is known to Irenaeus. (Against Heresies Book III)
And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord: "When the days of purification were accomplished, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him before the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, That every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; and that they should offer a sacrifice, as it is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons: " in his own person most clearly calling Him Lord, who appointed the legal dispensation.
Irenaeus is late 2nd century but his text of Luke is older probably substantially older.

Andrew Criddle
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Prof Price against the Reductio ad Judaeum?

Post by iskander »

yalla wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:13 am http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com.au/2012/ ... -2011.html

Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal

His "Contamination Principle" - an extract from an article in which he applies this principle, and more, to christianity and JC.

"Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

We might call this the contamination principle – the thought being that the dubious character of the several extraordinary parts of a narrative ends up contaminating the more pedestrian parts, rendering them dubious too."
It is an interesting opinion , but I am only trying to read the text as one belonging to that relevant ancient biblical culture would have read it.

What would Stephen Law accept as a good independent evidence of precisely what?
Post Reply