Ok, but try to use more of your own logic, not exactly what you learnt (class?) from other people think, be objective to their ideas also ?
Yes, I totally agree with you , I never said it was historical, I was arguing with you saying that it had historical value becuse there was truth in it. BTW I'm Atheist and I never saw The Passion of The Christ, don't think I'm some crazy Christian, but I believe what makes sense in Christianity ,like Jesus who existed and not gods like Thor for example.
True. The Pharisees who liked him were probably more tolerant in a way.
Yes, but the Apostles told the Romans and the Jews not to sacrifice animals, saying something like this ''It was Jesus himself who told us this.'' So we know he probably talked to people on this subject. Also, many historically accurate movies show him saying this.
Yes but they explained why, it happened that Romans killed (said it earlier) him and if you are right why would they want to distance him? Because many Romans were or soon to be Christians?He was executed as a rebel because he took Barabas' place.
Barabas ACTUALLY existed. There is no proof but speculation that he did not.Yes it does. If you say it was Jerusalem, than that would be their property to execute this act but before ,your quote states the Temple grounds (Jerusalem?).And the Roman province of Judea encompassed much more than Jerusalem anyways.
And could someone tell me how to multiquote well?
Accidents for some, providence for others.
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
While I in no way cast aspersions on your own academic qualifications to discuss the subject, and nor do I lightly dismiss modern Biblical scholarship, I would argue as a classicist and Byzantine historian myself that we should refrain from passing such psychological judgments on historical figures from pre-modern times, especially figures that are known from such long and emotive literary traditions as Jesus Christ is. Aside from being tactless and potentially quite rude to Christians (whether or not you think they have a good reason to be offended is another matter entirely), it is not constructive and nor does it help us understand a historical period any better. The reason for this is that these psychological judgments are invariably based on personal reactions to texts and imagery. Thankfully such an approach is no longer prevalent in Classics, though it used to be.Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
To give one example, E.M. Blaiklock in a 1954 article argued an overtly psychological interpretation of the Hippolytus of Euripides, asserting that Euripides was deliberately depicting a "perverted" (in Blaiklock's words) homosexual athlete whose repressed psychological flaws expressed themselves through religious fanaticism and tendencies towards incest. I hardly need to say that this was a deeply inadequate (and in many cases factually incorrect) approach, and yet it was published in a mainstream classical journal.
Now it is true that all historians have to use a degree of their own judgment to some extent, but there are limitations to the usefulness of personal input. Blaiklock had some strange ideas about psychology, and this showed up strongly in his reading of Hippolytus. In exactly the same way, any psychological interpretation of Jesus Christ is going to be based as much on the ideas of the person making it as it is on objective historical evidence. For instance, I noticed back on the first page that you quoted some of the more, shall we say, apocalyptic extracts from the New Testament, and claimed on the basis of these that Jesus was a "nutter". This simply is not a helpful thing to bring to a discussion of any historical figure. To explain my point, I, as you know, am an Orthodox Christian, and so this means that my interpretation of those apocalyptic statements is signficantly different from your own. If I were to explain my views on Jesus and the Bible, it would become obvious to an educated person that I were an Orthodox Christian.
Likewise, by offering such psychological interpretations of Jesus, you are telling us more about yourself than about the historical period and the evidence.
Αρχιεπισκοπή Θυατείρων και Μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain
Under the patronage of therussian
Use the multiquote button and for the last one use the quote button. works nice for me.
Dunno why you are not allowed to vote. maybe you don't have enough posts yet? (don't remember the limit for voting and giving rep) or you have too many warnings...
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
It is all in the FAQ, here
"Can I vote in polls?
To vote in polls you have to have 25 posts and been registered for at least one week. This was introduced to prevent people creating duplicate accounts and spamming our site awards with them. "
"Users with less than 25 posts or who have been registered for less than a week will give a 0 rep point instead of 1, so any comments they leave will show up in your account, but you won't actually get a point for it. Please note, when a user jumps over the 25-post mark, rep they have given prior to that does not count retroactively."
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
MINERVAE ET SOLIS INVICTI DISCIPVLVS
formerly known as L.C.Cinna
What a load of twaddle. Firstly history is history and I won't be changing the way I analyse history simply because some religious people find it "rude" to have their religious figures treated like any other historical figures. Secondly, while it's certainly difficult to guess at historical figure's motivations, personalities and psychological state, it's far from impossible and it sure as hell isn't counterproductive. In some cases, as hard and as speculative as it might be, it can help explain certain actions or decisions. If we want to understand why Caesar crossed the Rubicon or how Constantine interpreted what he saw in the sky before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge we can and do look at all kinds of factors, but thinking about how they may have been feeling and thinking can help.
In Jesus' case it is even harder to get a handle on what type of person he was, let alone his thoughts and feelings. But by looking at other leaders of Messianic and/or eschatological movements we can get an idea of what kind of person he may have been. And the comment that triggered your sermon was simply pointing out that it was unlikely he was a lunatic or simply a liar, based on other such apocalypcists, and that it was more likely he was entirely sincere. That is hardly a wild or unreasonable speculation. And I can't see how it's "rude" either.
It's a helpful thing to bring to a discussion about how modern people see Jesus, using modern terms. Some were trying to paint him as a "socialist". Others then began painting him as simply a cool, mellow modern-style moral teacher. I was simply pointing out that, given his apocalyptic teaching, the modern term most people would actually apply to him if they met the historical Jesus today is "nutter". I wasn't saying the guy was actually insane. In fact I say precisely the opposite above.For instance, I noticed back on the first page that you quoted some of the more, shall we say, apocalyptic extracts from the New Testament, and claimed on the basis of these that Jesus was a "nutter". This simply is not a helpful thing to bring to a discussion of any historical figure.
Total crap. If we get a good solid understanding of the historical period and the evidence we will have a good chance of knowing what models of thought and behaviour are going to be appropriate as a way of focusing our ideas about what a historical figure may have been like. Please don't seriously try and tell me that I can't get some potential insight into a First Century apocalypcist by looking at what we know about apocalypcists from other periods, because that is simply nonsense.Likewise, by offering such psychological interpretations of Jesus, you are telling us more about yourself than about the historical period and the evidence.
Last edited by ThiudareiksGunthigg; August 18, 2009 at 04:32 PM.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
Yes.
Another great reason not to like him!
I keed I keed.
But Jesus definitely seems to be socialist in nature. If he could he would feed everyone and provide for everyone, but the difference being jesus didn't do it at anyone elses expense because he could miracle that ish in to being. So this goes to show, idealistically, Socialism is a great concept. But when you start talking about taking more from people than what they are used to having taken and socializing things at the expense of others (i.e. taxpayers), people tend to get a little irritated and rightfully so.
The scribes on all the people shove
And bawl allegiance to the state,
But they who love the greater love
Lay down their life; they do not hate
Well, don't think that you have to elevate the tone of your response just for my sake.Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
I don't want to sound like a spoil-sport, but that's not actually what I said. Indeed I agree completely that you should not change your approach to history out of fear of offending people. I would not change the way I look at either Classical paganism, Roman Christianity, Zoroastrianism etc. simply to avoid offending anyone (or myself, indeed). What I was saying at that point in my post, however, is that you should not use words like 'nutter' that convey little more than a subjective, negative reaction on your own part and add little to the way we understand the historical period.Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
Actually, what prompted my 'sermon' - as you so endearingly call it - was your comment from the first page of this thread:
In your original post, there was no, "If you met him, you might think..." or any other such thing. I am sure that you meant that, but it is better that you clear that up for me. Is it rude? I don't take it personally, I should point out. What I did say however was that some people would, even if you do not agree that it is a rude thing to say. By writing that you bring nothing to the discussion except your own value judgments, and the only tangible result is that some people might be upset. Therefore I would advise you in future to save language like 'nutter' and 'twaddle' for chatting with your pals, not for historical arguments with pretensions to academic authority. Oh yes, and the 'total crap' could be... better judged.Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
Here endeth the sermon.
Now, onto more serious points. I must be fair to you; you did indeed go on to offer a more helpful interpretation, and I pretty much agree with it. We need to set Jesus into his historical context, and in that context the sorts of things that he is recorded as saying are not out-of-the-ordinary. I suppose that this question ties in with broader issues of historical interpretation, specifically the question of what we're actually looking for when we study history? To be honest, I have always disliked biographical or prosopographical history, largely because it interprets history through the lens of personal motivation/psychology. I grant you that at times it is possible, or even easy, to guess at a person's motivation. Let's take your example of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. His psychological motivation probably involved a fear of the personal danger that would inevitably ensue from disbanding his troops, a knowledge of the risks of not acting decisively, and probably an element of ambition for what he could gain if he succeeded. We could even go further, and say that he crossed the Rubicon because he was (presumably) bold, a good gambler, had a love of adventure, etc. etc. At least, that is the natural assumption from us, going off his actions and what ancient writers say about him.
But is that helpful? I'm sure that a psychologist would find it interesting to discuss, and in that one particular instance it would provide an immediate cause for the crossing of the Rubicon. But ultimately it suffers from the flaw that Caesar becomes the bottom line. As history it is, as one of my tutors once wrote on an undergraduate essay of mine, "a well argued and sensibly structured piece of hero-worship - but hero-worship nonetheless." It tells us next to nothing about historical systems and processes. It tells us next to nothing about why the political/social/economic situation of the late Roman Republic would be conducive to a general (with the right personality, it is implicitly understood) taking the action that Caesar took in crossing the Rubicon. That, I would argue, should be the aim of history. When I was an undergraduate my tutors would tell me off (nicely, of course) for using psychological motivation as a tool of historical explanation, and rightly so. Anyone can read a work of history and form an opinion about so-and-so's state of mind. The fact is that we can take it as read that there will always be people in history with all sorts of psychological motivations - the fact that Caesar was daring tells us nothing about that period. However, acknowledging the fact that the Roman Republic mixed the agonistic structures of an oligarchic city-state with the satrapal institutions of traditional Hellenistic empire does provide meaningful explanation for Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon (for example).
So, to return to Jesus Christ. You have very rightly made the point that in this case any psychological interpretation is pretty speculative anyway, since the only literary evidence for Jesus that avoids the taint of having a religious nature says nothing (as far as I am aware) about his personality. All we can say is that he was a religious figure and so, as you so rightly say, all we can do is draw attention to the religious context of the early Christians to highlight the social trends that gave rise to figures such as Jesus. However, as I say, I am of the view that psychological explanations have very little place in historical enquiry anyway. *Probably* Jesus was sincere - but so what? That doesn't really explain anything.
Oh, I'm not saying that. Comparison is all well and good and, no doubt, enlightening. I'm just saying that historians shouldn't waste their time on trying to get purely speculative insights into individual psychologies that don't of themselves provide any insight into historical processes. That sort of thing can be left to psychologists. Do you see the point I'm making? In fact, you implicitly make it yourself when you begin a sentence thus:Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
If we already have that good, solid understanding of the historical period, then why are we wasting time on debating back and forth our opinions about what sort of mindset Jesus had? Especially considering the quite obvious fact that our answer to that specific question (for what it is worth) will be at least 50% generated by our own prejudices?Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg
I feel that I've been a bit unfair on you, since I read some of your opening posts and clearly misunderstood your sentiments. This coloured my reading of some of your later posts somewhat. I'm very sorry about that. I realise that as a result some of what I have written may have come across as being lecturing and patronising. I apologise for that as well. On a personal note, I must say that I respect your intelligence and knowledge immensely and don't doubt your qualifications to discuss this subject.
Αρχιεπισκοπή Θυατείρων και Μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain
Under the patronage of therussian
I call a spade a spade and I call twaddle twaddle.
I wasn't conveying "a subjective, negative reaction on (my) own part", I was pointing out that the historical Jesus wouldn't be seen by a modern person as a "socialist" or as a mellow hippy guru, but as a bit of a nutter. And that observation does add to "the way we understand the historical period".I don't want to sound like a spoil-sport, but that's not actually what I said. Indeed I agree completely that you should not change your approach to history out of fear of offending people. I would not change the way I look at either Classical paganism, Roman Christianity, Zoroastrianism etc. simply to avoid offending anyone (or myself, indeed). What I was saying at that point in my post, however, is that you should not use words like 'nutter' that convey little more than a subjective, negative reaction on your own part and add little to the way we understand the historical period.
It was implied and it was made perfectly clear, for anyone who was confused, later.In your original post, there was no, "If you met him, you might think..." or any other such thing.
See above.I am sure that you meant that, but it is better that you clear that up for me. Is it rude? I don't take it personally, I should point out. What I did say however was that some people would, even if you do not agree that it is a rude thing to say.
I think most regulars here know my posting style. I don't pull my punches.By writing that you bring nothing to the discussion except your own value judgments, and the only tangible result is that some people might be upset. Therefore I would advise you in future to save language like 'nutter' and 'twaddle' for chatting with your pals, not for historical arguments with pretensions to academic authority. Oh yes, and the 'total crap' could be... better judged.
Hooray!Here endeth the sermon.
So your problem lay in how you misinterpreted what I was saying initially. Hardly my fault.Now, onto more serious points. I must be fair to you; you did indeed go on to offer a more helpful interpretation, and I pretty much agree with it.
I'd say we can't know enough about Jesus to even attempt "biographical or prosopographical history". But we can know enough to look at him through the lens of what we do know about apocalyptic preachers. It's not like there's any shortage of them.We need to set Jesus into his historical context, and in that context the sorts of things that he is recorded as saying are not out-of-the-ordinary. I suppose that this question ties in with broader issues of historical interpretation, specifically the question of what we're actually looking for when we study history? To be honest, I have always disliked biographical or prosopographical history, largely because it interprets history through the lens of personal motivation/psychology.
My example of Caesar is different in an important respect to what I'm doing with Jesus. In Caesar's case we have a lot more detail that we can safely feel is biographical. In Jesus' case, I would argue, we don't. Which is why the way we can apply this kind of speculation about the two men differs, but only in degree. The fact remains (as you've now agreed) that we can use this kind of analysis usefully.But is that helpful?
Yes, it does. A sincere Jesus, working from the model of other apocalyptic preachers, gives us a very different picture to an insane Jesus or a fraudulent Jesus. So we can use the model of other apocalyptic preachers to show that it's highly likely Jesus was sincere rather than insane or a liar. Given that Christian apologists often try to use C.S. Lewis' flawed argument that Jesus wasn't mad or a liar so therefore what Christianity claims about him must be true, this observation is actually very useful.However, as I say, I am of the view that psychological explanations have very little place in historical enquiry anyway. *Probably* Jesus was sincere - but so what? That doesn't really explain anything.
Okay. And thanks. Personally, I think what I was saying was pretty clear, thus my sharp replies. No hard feelings I hope.I feel that I've been a bit unfair on you, since I read some of your opening posts and clearly misunderstood your sentiments. This coloured my reading of some of your later posts somewhat. I'm very sorry about that. I realise that as a result some of what I have written may have come across as being lecturing and patronising. I apologise for that as well. On a personal note, I must say that I respect your intelligence and knowledge immensely and don't doubt your qualifications to discuss this subject.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
After all this I think we can agree Jesus was a like a leftist for his days..
He was leftist but not particularly Liberal, he still had Conservative values. Robin Hood another semi-mythological character would have been leftist as well but liberal in that you can steal and pretty much do what you like.
Edit: Robin Hood could have actually been right wing seeing as he was against taxation and state interference of the individual. While Jesus actually befriended tax collectors rather than robbing them. And also he went ape at the market stalls in the Temple so certainly not a free market Capitalist.
Last edited by Helm; October 04, 2009 at 05:43 PM.
The Christ lived during a time when the idea of Mercantilism had not even been developed. I seriously doubt that He originated terms which grew up in the 18th and 19th centuries. He spoke of a world beyond politics, in my opinion.
"Pauci viri sapientiae student."
Cicero
how is mercantilism socialist?
according to exarch I am like
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Simple truths
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He may have been before we came up with the concept of left and right but now that we do have those concepts we can look back at what he said and did then slap a label on him.
Applying modern terms and ideas to figures of thousands of years ago makes Baby Jesus cry. That's about it.
قرطاج يجب ان تدمر
I'm not saying you should do it in a serious way. But Jesus was very much a non-materialist and he certainly believed in a certain level of social justice and equality, at least for his time you don't see him with much in the way of female disciples for instance.