Quote :

I assume you are referring to Dr Jonathon Miller

That's the lad - though not quite spelt that way - and president of the Rationalist Association is one of his bowstrings too which you seem to have forgotten to include. When it comes to sceptically stripping bald assertions bare there is more than just the historical approach, you know. Or maybe you wouldn't. Dialectic approaches to scriptural claims aren't something you have ever given serious consideration to in the past, I would guess. Too big a risk of having to admit that coming back from the dead, turning water into wine and walking on water might be a parlour trick too far for the retention of credibility in a story. As long as you cling to thinking these things really happened dialecticism ain't really your bag.

Spelling was never my good point. People should not be allowed to have Christian names that can be spelt more than one way - nobody could get Tim wrong

Agree that Dr Miller has many strings to his bow, although I am not sure that I would count being chairman as being one of them, however, being a historian is not one of them. It would seem Nordmann that you assess writers’ historical credibility not according to their achievements as historians but through the lens of whether or not you agree with them!

When have I ever said that I believe that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine? Judging by your choice of miracles you have been listening to JC Superstar too much!!

According to the gospels Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod Antipas [I seem to remember that you could get very imprecise over your Herods] was ruler of Galilee at the same time. Does that mean that you do not consider that they were so because it states that in the gospels? I would note that they both merit the same level of reference in Tacitus as Jesus does. Which brings me neatly on to Tacitus who writes and accepts that the Emperor Vespasian miraculously cured some people. Do you therefore either reject Tacitus as having any historical credibility or accept that Vespasian did carry out those miraculous cures?

Then there is Livy who, for some strange reason you seem to consider as writing historically about the supposed Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca. Following your logic concerning the me and gospels it would therefore seem that you accept that the sea caught fire, a cow gave birth to a colt, and it rained stones and statues at the temple of Juno Sospita oozed blood. Believing all those things you really should not find it that difficult to believe that someone, especially if they were God incarnate, walked on water.

Lastly I would mention the battle of the Teutoburger Wald 9AD. I have no doubt that you accept that that battle happened, but I doubt if you believe that the Alps collapsed upon one another or that the Statue of Victory in the province of Germany turned round as asserted by a Roman historian of the battle. I see the gospels as a mixture of authentic historical material, metaphor and the theological interpretation of Jesus that has developed between Jesus' time and when the gospels were written. In that view I am supported by the vast majority of scholars. Your views are supported by ....

regards

Tim

Tim of Aclea wrote:

I see the gospels as a mixture of authentic historical material, metaphor and the theological interpretation of Jesus that has developed between Jesus' time and when the gospels were written.

Me too, Tym.

But I am a woolly and confused person, so will scuttle back under my stone...

PS J. Miller's production of "Othello" (play, not opera) for the BBC was truly dreadful. It starred Anthony Hopkins, and his Moor was a sort of blacked-up Hannibal Lecter. Mind you, Hopkins later admitted he'd been drunk during most of the production - so I suppose we should forgive all involved.

PPS Bob Hoskins was very good as Iago.

Hi Temprance

As a teenager I remember seeing Miller's production of 'Alice in Wonderland' on BBC TV which he cleverly generated a large audience for by claiming it was 'not suitable for children'. In fact there was nothing unsuitable about it (shame) and Miller had great diffiulty in justifying his claim to critics.

regards

Tim (Who knows were the Tyme goes)

Quote :

[I seem to remember that you could get very imprecise over your Herods]

Don't even remember discussing those lads, Tim. Are you sure you're not confusing me with another dialectic? I'm sure you've had your moments with a few of us over the years.

Quote :

I see the gospels as a mixture of authentic historical material, metaphor and the theological interpretation of Jesus that has developed between Jesus' time and when the gospels were written.

But what you can't readily see is how that mix has been achieved. Kindly itemise those major parts of the narrative which are, according to you;

a) historical material
b) theological interpretation
c) metaphor for something else

In the case of a) give reasons for your certainty. In the case of b) give reasons for their presentation as factual data by the author(s). In the case of c) give reasons for your certainty, their inclusion as historical data, and on what scriptural or historical basis you then identify the actual data being referred to via metaphor.

If you can do this simple thing then we can all move on from what in dialectic terms is simply your opinion until thus analysed and explained.

And yes, Tacitus indeed contains some dodgy material, even without the dodgy transcriptions which also have been identified over the years. However that which remains is generally probable and even verifiable in a lot of cases according to trusted methods of assessment and validation. And even the dodgy bits don't have Jesus Christ Superstar (as you dismiss that characterisation of the central figure) parlour tricks in them. Do these claims fall under b) or c) above according to you? And as requested, give reasons for your answer.

Now, turn the page ...

'Don't even remember discussing those lads, Tim. Are you sure you're not confusing me with another dialectic? I'm sure you've had your moments with a few of us over the years.'

No definitely you, it must be old age affecting your memory from over the years. The thread was started by someone asking concerning Herod the Monstrous and 'the Murder of the innocents'.

'In the case of a) give reasons for your certainty. In the case of b) give reasons for their presentation as factual data by the author(s). In the case of c) give reasons for your certainty, their inclusion as historical data, and on what scriptural or historical basis you then identify the actual data being referred to via metaphor.'

Given your repeated failure to provide the evidence for your various unsubstantiated statements that is a bit rich coming from you. If you would firstly like to deal with you back log! For example

'The biblical portrayal of him places his [Pilate's] administration in Jerusalem'

For the third time your evidence for this

Also

nordmann I did not consider your post to be pompous, just your normal style in that you make a statement as if it is fact, when it is not, but your opinion with no supporting evidence. If you are 'within your rights' then so am I to ask you provide conclusive evidence to substantiate your claim that 'this is not surprising when one fuses judaistic morality with aristotlean philosophy.'

And

‘Philo, the man whose philosophical exploration from a Jewish standpoint into the validity of platonic idealism as a religious expres​sion(so much so that some christian theologians refer to him as "the first christian"), and who made a point of identifying evidence of platonism in Jewish theology, and who even used these evidences in a plea to the emperor not to persecute Jews, failed to spot the biggest example going - at least if we're to take the christians' own "history" of their faith on faith. Either Philo was incredibly short-sighted, deaf and not half the intellect he and others thought, or perhaps the christian version is a little skewey. I'm inclined to opt for the latter, myself.’

Lastly

"“Probably most damning of the lot is the fact that Christianity’s greatest spreader of the faith in the early days - Paul, a near contemporary - seems never to have heard of him. [incorrect] he talks a lot about god, but nothing whatsoever of Jesus the character [incorrect] . He doesn't quote him once [incorrect] , says zilch about any miracles, teachings or crucifixion [incorrect], and resurrection features on Paul's horizon with all the prominence of his sense of humour! Of course, if we conclude that Paul has as dubious historical grounds for existing as Jesus [incorrect], we still have to ask ourselves why those who invented him neglected to include a convincing 'tie in' with the Jesus character.”

Could you advise me how you came to these conclusions after having taken into account the following which Paul wrote and which you obviously read.

1 Gal 4 v .(4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
Jesus was not a spiritual being, he was born of a woman, a human being.

Rom 9 v 5 Theirs are the Patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ
Jesus is descended from the patriarchs, he is Jew

Rom 1 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
Jesus claimed descent from king David, he is of the tribe of Judah

Rom 9 v 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us as do the other apostles and the Lord’s bothers and Cephas?
Jesus had more than one brother.

Gal 1 v 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
One of Jesus’ brothers was called James

1 Cor 15 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
Jesus had 12 followers, known as apostles

Rom 9 v 5Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us as do the other apostles and the Lord’s bothers and Cephas?
Gal 2 v 8, 9 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle … James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars
Two of the apostles are called Peter (Cephas) and John

2 Cor 3 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit
This would seem to reflect the Transfiguration

Romans 9 to 11
Jesus was rejected by the Jews

1 Co r 11 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Jesus initiated the eating of bread and wine in remembrance of him.

1 Co r 11 23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
Jesus was betrayed and he initiated the eating of bread and wine in remembrance of him on the night he was betrayed.

1 Cor 1 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
Jesus died by crucifixion

1 Cor 5 v 7 For Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed.
Jesus died at the Passover.

1 Cor 15 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried,
He was buried

1 Cor 15 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Paul believed he rose from the dead on the third day.

1 Cor 15 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
He was seen by various people including Peter, James and the apostles.

1 Cor 15 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
This happened within fairly recent times as the majority of the 500 are still alive. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could verify the truth of this to the Corinthian church.

1 Thess 5 1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
They believed that Jesus would return.

1 Cor 7 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
It is notable how Paul differentiates between his teaching and that of Jesus.

In addition there are several references in Paul’s letters that seem to refer to Jesus’ teachings.

Rom 21You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
See Matthew 7 v 1

Rom 8 15 And by him we cry, "Abba ,Father."
Gal 4 v 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
See Mk 14 v 36
The addressing of God as "Abba" is very unusual if not unique.

Rom 13 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
See Mat 22 v 21

Rom 12 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse
See Mat 5 v 44

1 Cor 9 v 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
See Luke 10 v 7 and again Paul refers directly to a command of the Lord.

.1 Cor 13 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
See Mk 11 v 23 Faith to move mountains

1 Thess 51 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
See Mat 24 v 43 - 44

Gal 3 v. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
See John 14 v 15 to 17 20 v 22

1 Cor 1 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
.1 Cor 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Mat 28 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

In addition in order for me to ascertain what you would consider to meet your standards could you go through firstly go through all of Tacitus with regards to

(a) even without the dodgy transcriptions which also have been identified over the years. However that which remains is generally (b) probable and even (c) verifiable in a lot of cases according to trusted methods of assessment and validation

and advise which is (a) dodgy (b) probable and (c) verifiable and give your reasons for all three.

The trouble with you Nordmann is that you are so used to everyone treating you with awe and wonder and never daring to question your ‘divine fiats’ that you get offended that any one should question what you say even, when if it falls in to the ‘Von Daniken’ school of scholarship. As I have stated before what I believe is supported by the vast majority of scholars and what you believe is supported by messers Freke and Gandy aka Von Daniken. Therefore as a ‘godless Galilean' and ‘atheist’ I feel it is my duty to question those ‘divine fiats’ of ‘Q’.

Most interesting discussion though

regards

Tim

'On the subject of where the governor (or procurator) may or may not have been at Passover in the early first century CE there is definitely a traditional understanding that he chose to up sticks and travel to Jerusalem for the occasion, but it appears to me that this tradition comes from the story in question. Has anyone else put Pilatus in Jerusalem on the day?'

yes Josephus

He states that Cumanus was in Jerusalem with a cohort of troops at the Passover and that previous governors did exactly the same at the Passover.

Unfortunatley one of the soldiers decided to drop his breeches in the Temple area and caused a riot. Surprised they did not include that in 'Life of Brian'!

regards

Tim

a) b) and c) please, as requested above. If it's beyond you kindly admit as much. It's ok. You're amongst friends. I know it's hard

Here's a reminder about what you were asked:

Quote :

Kindly itemise those major parts of the narrative which are, according to you;

a) historical material
b) theological interpretation
c) metaphor for something else

In the case of a) give reasons for your certainty. In the case of b) give reasons for their presentation as factual data by the author(s). In the case of c) give reasons for your certainty, their inclusion as historical data, and on what scriptural or historical basis you then identify the actual data being referred to via metaphor.

Hi Nordmann

i see you have failed to provide any evidence for your various statements.

Do you just make them up as you go?

I forgot to add to the list your claim that Paul was Greek which even some of your supporters recognised as clearly being wrong.

Given that on several of them I have been waiting for a number of years for you to provide any evidence, the ball is clearly in your court.

You, in this thread stated

'The biblical portrayal of him places his [Pilate's] administration in Jerusalem'

This will be the fourth time I will have asked you for your evidence to substanciate it. You have ignored my request. If you have any evidence to substantiate your claim it should be very easy to state it. Pilate is after all only mentioned in 6 of the New Testamant documents.

i would, however, be happy do a compare and contrast between Hannibal Barca crossing the Alps, which you seem to believe and the crucifixion of Jesus, which you seem not to believe. How many sources can you come up for your believe and how close were they to the event? That can then be compared to the sources for the crucifixion. And after all people were undoubtedly crucified at the time of Jesus. Can you demonstrate that Carthaginian armies 'undoubtedly' crossed the Alps and defeated Roman armies several times? The crucifixion is one of those events in Jesus' life that virtually all scholars agree on.

Tim

I repeat my request (see below). It is important you answer these questions - otherwise for all I know we are simply discussing some extreme subjective fantasy on your part.

nordmann wrote:

a) b) and c) please, as requested above. If it's beyond you kindly admit as much. It's ok. You're amongst friends. I know it's hard

Here's a reminder about what you were asked:

Quote :

Kindly itemise those major parts of the narrative which are, according to you;

a) historical material
b) theological interpretation
c) metaphor for something else

In the case of a) give reasons for your certainty. In the case of b) give reasons for their presentation as factual data by the author(s). In the case of c) give reasons for your certainty, their inclusion as historical data, and on what scriptural or historical basis you then identify the actual data being referred to via metaphor.

nordmann wrote:

a) b) and c) please, as requested above. If it's beyond you kindly admit as much. It's ok. You're amongst friends. I know it's hard

Here's a reminder about what you were asked:

Quote :

Kindly itemise those major parts of the narrative which are, according to you;

a) historical material
b) theological interpretation
c) metaphor for something else

In the case of a) give reasons for your certainty. In the case of b) give reasons for their presentation as factual data by the author(s). In the case of c) give reasons for your certainty, their inclusion as historical data, and on what scriptural or historical basis you then identify the actual data being referred to via metaphor.

Sorry, but I'm laughing at that. I've got visions of nordmann at the Sermon on the Mount, jotting down questions to fire at Jesus when he's finished speaking.

It's not a hard task you've set; it's an impossible one, certainly on an internet message board - and one certainly beyond me anywhere.

But does that matter?

This seems to be a clash between two ways of looking, not just at the New Testament, but at the world. Isn't it Faust v. Prospero - the magician of knowledge/rational thought/science v. the magician of the imagination? Apollo v. Dionysus (and yes I know the latter was the god of drunkenness and madness)? It's surely what that exchange between Pilate and Christ was all about - what is truth indeed. Is truth only that which can be proved - can it never be that which is felt or experienced? Do we always have to produce "data" - the new holy writ? I suppose in nordmann's world you do. It's like standing in front of a Caravaggio, nordmann, and just talking about his bloody technique.

Sorry for intruding - among friends hopefully.

But you have to admit his bloody technique was indeed impressive. (If you read my posts about Caravaggio you'll see that I went a little beyond just admiring his draughtsmanship)

But thanks for putting the image of Tim as a drunken Dionysus in my mind so early in the day. On top of the flu that's already claiming ownership of my mortal coil it's probably as much as my Apollonic cells can handle at the moment ...

I know.

Hope you feel better soon (honest).

Shall we pray for his speedy recovery, Tim?

And by the way it's not at all an impossible request to answer. If I were, for example, to claim that the content and narrative of Lord Of The Rings could be split into three distinct components - reference to cultural history, Tolkien's philosophy and use of both to create metaphor, I could at least oblige a request to itemise exactly those parts of the narrative which fit these descriptions. It's the same for any story, biblical ones included.

However if I were to avoid answering this request and allow everyone to believe that I actually thought Tolkien had written only fact then everyone would be forgiven for thinking me a complete nutter. I am simply trying to save Tim from such a judgement. All he has to do is itemise the main points of the narrative that fit the three criteria he himself identified so that we know where his subjective distinctions between fact and fancy lie. Not a difficult task at all, Dio.

You can even have a go yourself if you want. A far better use of intellect and time than formulating entreaties to a figment of your imagination.

Now I'm going to lie down (as I'm at work this can't go well ...)

nordmann wrote:

And by the way it's not at all an impossible request to answer.... Not a difficult task at all, Dio.

Ok, not impossible, but *difficult*, and very time consuming: we can't all come up with detailed, apparently effortless, analyses at the drop of a hat, Apollo.

nordmann wrote:

You can even have a go yourself if you want.

Perhaps later. Too busy with the village panto at the moment - I can only cope with one intellectual challenge at a time, I'm afraid.

I was actually trying to make a serious point with the Apollo/Dionysus comparison. The similarities in the Christ/Dionysus stories are really interesting - or is such stuff now dismissed as being simply Freke 'n' Gandy nonsense?

nordmann wrote:

A far better use of intellect and time than formulating entreaties to a figment of your imagination.

Not so. Praying to the Figment, plus meditation and even a spot of yoga, are NOT a waste of time. It has been proven, by scientists in white coats working in laboratories, that such activities can be beneficial to humans whose production of beta-endorphins is faulty. Wonky beta-endorphin/dopamine levels can cause all sorts of problems in mice and men. Being the human equivalent of a C57bl/6 mouse is no joke.

That said, I don't think they've got the mice praying yet (or doing yoga).

Quote :

The similarities in the Christ/Dionysus stories are really interesting - or is such stuff now dismissed as being simply Freke 'n' Gandy nonsense?

I hope not. All links between christianity and the Greek culture which provided its first big fan base are worth investigating. They are dismissed only at the expense of understanding exactly where the ideas came from. It is an ideology which is presented through its own doctrine as a Jewish offshoot, which is all well and fine, but then actively discourages investigating what triggered that offshoot at that particular time and in that particular area. To me it is self evident that the then relatively recent and quite thoroughly enforced incorporation of Judaic society into a broader Hellenic culture was bound to produce some interesting philosophical departures. Christianity is the one with which we are most familiar yet - as Tim has previously demonstrated - its aficianados resent the ideology being portrayed in that light.

Praying to a figment in order to hopefully correct an endorphin imbalance is a poor trade-off in terms of mental health, I think. In any case meta studies of the few serious attempts to measure and understand the efficacy of prayer tend to show that the objectively adduced data bears no correlation to the subjectively imposed claims made on its behalf. Meditation, yoga and other methods of inducing levels of relaxation which can be measured in terms of brain activity generally on the other hand produce more testable data which conforms to what you say above.

Is your 'flu any better, nordmann?

It was BCP Communion this morning, and I prayed to St. Stephen (patron saint of airborne diseases) for you to feel better, and for you to set us an Advent Quiz, like the one on the "Anne Boleyn Files" Site.

Did my prayers work? Be honest - if possible for an atheist - can we have an Advent Quiz?

Of course, he's bound to say his 'flu became noticeably worse after 10.30am this morning.

But an Advent Quiz would be fun...

I would have thought Stephen might more appropriately have landed the job as patron saint of airborne stones.

Your attempt to murder the resident baccilli through intercessional pseudopsychology has been noted with all due appreciation for the gesture. My atheist corporation however has decided with as much honesty as it can muster not to abandon the more traditional use of antibodies which are now approaching full production levels. If however you could get St Stephen to pick up some Tamiflu from the chemist and drop it in to me then I would consider a re-evaluation of figmentalism and its practical applications.

Oh, and a small bottle of Jameson, thanks.

Temperance wrote:

Is your 'flu any better, nordmann?

It was BCP Communion this morning, and I prayed to St. Stephen (patron saint of airborne diseases) for you to feel better, and for you to set us an Advent Quiz, like the one on the "Anne Boleyn Files" Site.

Did my prayers work? Be honest - if possible for an atheist - can we have an Advent Quiz?

Good grief Temp, don't tell us you've gone over to the RCs?

I thought I had found a pic of Stephen doing the good fight on Nordmann's flu with a sword, but on closer inspection it turns out to be a whimpy feather. Possibly he will tickle a cure out of Nordmann instead. Something strange going on with Stephen's eyes as well, is he having a fit?

There is only one size of bottles in the deep cellars of the Pub - jeroboam - enjoy, and may your health soon grow better, so you may enjoy the 'end of the year festivities'.

Islanddawn wrote:

Good grief Temp, don't tell us you've gone over to the RCs?

I thought I had found a pic of Stephen doing the good fight on Nordmann's flu with a sword, but on closer inspection it turns out to be a whimpy feather. Possibly he will tickle a cure out of Nordmann instead. Something strange going on with Stephen's eyes as well, is he having a fit?

Definitely not, ID. I'd make a useless Roman Catholic. In fact I was praying to the wrong saint - should have been Sebastian. He's the man for dealing with epidemics spread by the arrows of Apollo, not Stephen.

But poor Sebastian looks rather peaky himself here:

There is only one Sebastian ...

This is the Lawrence of Arabia most people of my generation know - it's Peter O'Toole, of course, in David Lean's highly acclaimed post-imperial 1962 epic.

But was this an accurate portrayal of the man? I have no idea.

I've recorded the Archive on 4 programme (it was on yesterday): Lawrence of Arabia - the Man and the Myth. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the Lean film - and its historical accuracy.

I love David Lean's films - as films - but not for their historical accuracy.

For example Lawrence of Arabia features weapons and aircraft from after the First World War. The Browning .30 machine gun M1919 (as the name suggests) wasn't made until 1919. And the De Havilland Tiger Moth biplane (used widely in the film) didn't come into service until 1931 - more than a whole decade after the events depicted.

Also - the fictional character of the American journalist Jackson Bentley is shown talking to Prince Feisal about trying to get America into the war, in a scene which takes place after the fall of Aqaba. However, since Aqaba fell on 6 July 1917 then the US had already been in the war for 3 months.

The train that was blown up in the Hejaz is still there - or at least was until recently and quite a tourist attraction for western expats in Jeddah.

Nordmann

I am sorry that you are totally unable to come up with any evidence to substantiate the various statements you have made in relationship to the New Testament. I would have in particular been interested in your evidence concerning Plato (60 or 70 year error) and Aristotle (more like a millennium out). Still as I have asked you repeatedly for evidence without success I am not surprised. Your undoubtedly great intellect and knowledge seems to run out when it comes to the New Testament as witnessed by your many errors. I therefore fear that any reply by me will be lost on you. As a Christian, I obviously need to take credence of Jesus’ warning given in Matthew 7 v 6b (figuratively) as I would not wish to suffer the fate of the 5th track of my favourite Led Zeppelin album ‘Physical Graffiti’!!

Ps I was reading a piece by Richard Dawkins describing Jesus as ‘a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness’. Someone commented that at least Dawkins can quote Jesus without choking on his beer. I have an image of you choking on your Guinness or whatever you drink in Norway [based on the prices last time I was there, not a lot] if you were to quote Jesus.

Hopefully at some point you will actually be able to provide some evidence for what you write – I live in hope Tim

You needn't be sorry, Tim. Evidence which definitively debunks invention in the eyes of the followers of that which has been invented is - as you prove so often - rather nebulous. It has mass only to those who credit it with mass; the incredulous with a vested interest in sustaining the incredible choose to ignore it. If you are in the humour to lament then save it for the passing of common sense and healthy scepticism. They're in rather worse array than the human propensity to believe in fiction as fact, whether contradicted by evidence or not. It's alive and well, and enjoys permanent and natural residency in the minds of religious people.

Quote :

It has mass only to those who credit it with mass;

So is gullibility the Higgs Boson of faith?

Well I like Baby Jesus, so there.

I think it's a lovely story.

Oh Temp, I can still sniffle at Nativity plays, I'm not entirely heartless.
I was once at one in a primary school for children with physical impairments and when Joseph with his callipers pushed Mary on stage in her wheelchair, the entire audience dissolved in unsuppressed sobs.

We had a young Nordmann playing the Archangel Gabriel on Sunday - a very naughty little boy. He wouldn't keep his halo on; fiddled with it non-stop through "Away in a Manger"; and ended up unravelling all the tinsel from the wire. He then tried to strangle one of the sheep with it.

Sacrificing sheep is a religious thing - not my style. Senseless cruelty to dumb animals and unwarranted fiddling suggests to me that you're looking at a future religious leader in that little lad.

nordmann wrote:

Sacrificing sheep is a religious thing...

It was not a real sheep: it was a stuffed one. But still not a very nice thing to do, I agree.







Right, that's my lot for today. I'm off to be a Magic Bean now.

ferval wrote:

Oh Temp, I can still sniffle at Nativity plays, I'm not entirely heartless.
I was once at one in a primary school for children with physical impairments and when Joseph with his callipers pushed Mary on stage in her wheelchair, the entire audience dissolved in unsuppressed sobs.

Ferval - that has reminded me of Mickey's Christmas Carol. Here is Tiny Tim. TT would melt a heart of stone (I think?).





Really must dash.

Have fun as a magic bean, Temp.

I hesitate to ask, but are you going to be a String Bean or a Broad Bean, or even maybe an athletic Runner Bean. I personally don't see you as a French Bean, nor a more exotic Lima Bean, though I still think you're more worldly wise than just a Green Bean. But whatever you're bein', I'm sure you ain't a Has Been.

Just remember that botanically the legume family is a very, very noble one, and of great classical fame ... counting amongst its members the Piso, Lentulus, Fabius and Cicero families!

So! Good luck with bein' a bean!

OSCAR WILDE is reported to have said that. "one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."



All same Tiny Tim.

Nordmann

what I am sorry about is the way you state things as fact for which, when questioned, you are unable to provide any evidence, such as, for example, when you wrote

'The biblical portrayal of him places his [Pilate's] administration in Jerusalem'

If you have any evidence to substantiate your claim it should be very easy to give it. Pilate is after all only mentioned in 6 of the New Testament documents.

Merry Christmas

Tim

Definitely a troupe of Has-Beans, MM - and we weren't terribly magical, I'm afraid.

But it was fun.

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

OSCAR WILDE is reported to have said that. "one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."



All same Tiny Tim.

Laugh at Dickens by all means, but laugh at a tiny crippled mouse? Shame on you, Gilgamesh of Uruk!

Actually, the whole cartoon is excellent - the Muppets' Christmas Carol is nowhere near as good. Donald Duck stars as Ebenezer Scrooge, and Mickey Mouse is Bob Cratchit. Goofy puts in a brief appearance as the Ghost of Jacob Marley.

Sorry, Tim - posting nonsense in the middle of all the serious stuff. Logging out now.

Best wishes to everyone for what's left of this miserable year - and thanks to nordmann for setting up and running Res Historica for us all to enjoy. A year on Tuesday!

Happy Whatever to all.

And a very Happy Christmas to you Temperance

Tim

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Nordmann

what I am sorry about is the way you state things as fact for which, when questioned, you are unable to provide any evidence, such as, for example, when you wrote

'The biblical portrayal of him places his [Pilate's] administration in Jerusalem'

If you have any evidence to substantiate your claim it should be very easy to give it. Pilate is after all only mentioned in 6 of the New Testament documents.

Merry Christmas

Tim

If one was unfortunate enough to have to depend on the New Testament alone for adducing the fact then Jerusalem is where Pilate is positioned. This, as you must agree, would be misleading. I am not sure what evidence you require to substantiate this rather obvious fact but I would suggest the New Testament is just that. Your incessant cry for "evidence" would not be nearly as tiresome if, for example, you could provide a tad of the stuff for the same narrative's more outlandish historical claims. But this is not the thread to pursue this. Maybe you might consider opening a new thread in the spirit of the festive season devoted to your numerous corroborations for, amongst others, a census in the area in the reign of Augustus which included non-Roman citizens and which entailed people return to their birthplaces, a directive by a Roman client king to kill all new-born male children, an astronomical event which could be interpreted as a bright body in the heavens observable in the northern hemisphere which travelled in a westward direction and then became suspended in the sky, and the probability of a flight into Egypt (presumably captained by a pilot called Pontius) etc etc. But as I said - not here. Start your own topic why don't you?

Temp - isn't that Donald's Uncle Scrooge McDuck playing Scrooge? Typecast the poor divil for life, that role!

Quote :

Sorry, Tim - posting nonsense in the middle of all the serious stuff. Logging out now.

Now Temp, posting about a rather touching tale pinched from other sources and produced by a strange and authoritarian organisation with some very dubious views and practices: what's to apologise about?

Nordmann

You made a statement as fact

'The biblical portrayal of him places his [Pilate's] administration in Jerusalem'

You have specifically referred to the biblical portrait therefore we are not talking in this case about any other sources. You are either mistaken in your claim or you can provide chapter and verse, literally, from one of the only 6 New Testmant books that refer to Pilate.

It is your incessant failure to provide "evidence" that I find a tad wearisome. Or is it that you feel that you should just be able to make things up as you go given that you are dictator of the site.

Merry Christmas

Tim

Tim… the season’s greetings and goodwill to you. May I say without prejudice that if Nordmann says he’s become wearisome of this matter it’s hardly surprising… I have as well. It is because of the likes of you and your brethren with your constant ‘bible bashing’ that turned me away from the church in my youth…


I would agree with both the boss, and a previous contributor, and I imagine a few others that you agree to disagree or as Nordmann suggested start a thread of your own to argue the toss over what is obviously an obsession of yours…


I had a sign in my taxi cab with one set of rules… ‘no politics, no football and no religion…’… quite obviously the root cause of many a nasty incident.


Kind regards…, and in the words of another Irishman… “may your god go with you.”

Me confused! ... What exactly are you all arguing about?

As I understand it, Tim is asking Nordmann for documentary evidence, using Biblical sources only, that the Roman authority 'person', usually called Pilate was, as a Roman official, involved, to some as yet un-determined degree, in the administration of Law in it's widest sense - Judeaic or Roman, civil or religious, ... or whatever - in the then Roman-occupied city of Jerusalem at about the time that the 'person' commonly referred to as Christ, was executed.

(... In all that I think the critical verb is "was", meaning I think you both are in dispute whether Pilate actually "was" there in Jerusalem, or was not ... neh?).

Have I got that right? If not, do please state it even more clearly.

And well ... it's not for me to answer ... but I have The Book(s) open in front of me and I'm sure I can read as well as anyone, whether it's the King James Version or the New International Version ... oh and I've got another here too but that's in Modern French but the translation is sometimes a bit at odds with the English. But anyway, regarding the specific question: it seems quite clear to me! ..... That is IF you accept that these are accurate records, correctly transcribed and translated. And on that point I have my own doubts but that is not the question here.

So whatever are you all going on, and on, and on about? I am, I really am trying to understand ... but you're losing me.

EDIT :

Crossed posted with Norman .... But as he suggests: a separate thread might be good.

Goodwill amongst mankind and Seasons' Greetings to you all.

To get from the Sanhadrin to Pilate to Herod and then back to Pilate (and be crucified) all within the space of around 12 hours or so then either one has a prototype Israeli Air Force jet to hand or Pilate (and indeed Herod) is to be found in Jerusalem along with the Sanhadrin and the execution site. Hence the implication. "Evidence" doesn't come into it - that's what the story says. Some people say it was all because of the Passover Festival - though why a Roman governor would want to officiate in any way at such a festival is never adequately addressed. There's no "evidence" that the Romans had much time for the Jews ever (the opposite really), according to Josephus and Philo the man already had good reason to stay well away from Jews when they were in high religious mode, and in any case who was minding the shop while everyone was up in the backwoods? All very suspect historically, though I've no doubt Tim will be along shortly to provide the evidence that he was there (along with the nativity evidence I'm waiting for).

All very off topic for this thread (remember the subject of the thread, Tim?), so I'll apologise on both our behalves to the OP. Tarnished reputations brought Pilate into all this, but whether the literature that tarnished him is fiction or fact is actually quite immaterial in the context of the discussion here.

Before someone impudently thrusts us all back into myth I've a suggestion for someone whose reputation was also sorely misused in literature - Armand Jean du Plessis, aka Cardinal Richelieu of The Three Musketeers infamy. He is made out by Dumas to be a Machiavellian amoralist, more powerful than the king himself, but little else besides. Richelieu, when not skilfully using diplomacy to stymie the Hapsburgs , was a great patron of the arts, the founder of the Academie Francaise (still an influential body in French culture and language) and - despite Dumas' claim - very much dependent on Louis (as the Day of Dupes demonstrated). It is a pity we have ended up with so one dimensional and incorrect a portrayal of him. His legacy was worth more than that.

nordmann wrote:

Before someone impudently thrusts us all back into myth...

Oh dear - well, I'm going to do just that because I want to ask Tim something and I don't quite know what sort of thread to start. Sorry everyone who's bored with it all.

Tim - I've just discovered John Shelby Spong (I'm always a decade or two behind everyone else): I'm avidly reading his "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" at the moment. I think he is a very sane man, especially as his views coincide exactly with mine. But I believe he is considered to be an outrageous heretic - even the Archbish of Canters has said Spong is beyond the pale. Why? I wish you'd start a thread - I'm sure we could sort of mix history with religion...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shelby-spong/why-i-wrote-re-claiming-t_b_1007399.html

Christianity is, I believe, about expanded life, heightened consciousness and achieving a new humanity. It is not about closed minds, supernatural interventions, a fallen creation, guilt, original sin or divine rescue. I am tired of seeing the Bible being used, as it has been throughout history, to legitimize slavery and segregation, to subdue women, to punish homosexuals, to justify war and to oppose family planning and birth control. That is a travesty which must be challenged and changed.

Forgive me but I'm going to rant again.

What Spong and others of a similar viewpoint say is all very good and no one except the most blinkered could disagree with most of his points with regard to literalist interpretations but it still comes down to a belief in a supernatural being. Without that, saying 'Christian' has just the same import as 'Platonist' or 'Marxist'or 'Freudian'. It's the assertion of divinity that permits the 'travesty' he refers to.

The Bible, like any other piece of writing (or artefact), can be analysed, investigated and interpreted, and fascinating it is, but it is its status as, however imperfectly, the revelation of a god and his operation in this world that gives it its power above, for example, the Iliad.

I watched 'Goodbye to Canterbury' and enjoyed it a lot but, as ever, was perplexed by how such a fiercely intelligent and humane man could hold to the belief in a deity who not only existed but intervened directly in the world in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

Sorry once more, I will park my hobby-horse and make another coffee.

No need for apologies ferval, I always enjoy your rants and usually find myself in agreement.

Along a similar line I currently have a bee in me bonnet over that ghastly Ancient Aliens show, and the pure drivel pushed as fact despite what plain common sense would dictate.

An interesting article here on the phenonomen

The ancient alien theme is fine as fiction—Lovecraft turned it into
art—but when believed as truth, it destroys real appreciation for
history, suppresses historical investigation, and degrades belief in the
power of human creativity and ingenuity. No one ancient astronaut claim
will cause all of this, but taken together the ancient astronaut idea
suggests a medieval mindset where humans are helpless before a world
controlled entirely by the supernatural and therefore can at best be
passive cogs in the system. Any little push in that direction puts a
subtle thumb on the scale, and we just don’t know what the effect would
be on the minds molded by these ideas.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/01/skeptical-outreach-on-ancient-aliens.html

Quote :

humans are helpless before a world
controlled entirely by the supernatural and therefore can at best be
passive cogs in the system. Any little push in that direction puts a
subtle thumb on the scale, and we just don’t know what the effect would
be on the minds molded by these ideas.

(In best panto audience voice) Oh yes we do.

But can people please continue any discussion on religion, deities, the supernatural and religious myth over in the category designed for it? Disrespect for a member's intended theme when opening a discussion is just about the only "no no" on this site and this one has been abused enough, I reckon.