more like scattershot.August 7 2006 at 8:21 AM
|Kate (no login)|
Response to Patches
We are taking two very different approaches to this conversation.
When I open one of your posts, I read the whole thing. At least twice. Then I open another window to answer, so I can go back to your post and reference your words. I try to imagine we are having a conversation, and I often copy and paste exactly what you wrote, so you know exactly what words I am responding to. Sometimes I already know my answer; sometimes I don't know, and have to do some research, and I try to provide the addresses from any online sources I use. I try to answer you point by point, and carry on a logical thread of continuity, key ideas and themes that link those points together.
It appears -- and I may be wrong -- that you skim my posts, pull out one or two sentences or phrases that jump out at you, and then hit the ground running in whatever direction that takes you.
You said nothing corroborates the gospel accounts, there is no record in Jewish history of the Jesus of the gospels, and no secular historical records.
I replied, "The Gospels were written by four different authors, and corroborate each other. Jesus was not a political leader. He didn't command an army. He wasn't a king. He didn't lead a revolution. He was a working man, a carpenter -- then at some point he gave up his trade, gave up his home, and wandered around from town to town, preaching and teaching in one very small part of the world. He was arrested and crucified by the Romans -- but so were thousands and thousands of other people over the years. If you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then he is a very insignificant person in history -- it's amazing that there is any secular documentation about Jesus at all. Why would Jesus be any more than a tiny footnote in Jewish history? They don't believe he was the Messiah."
My point: it's no wonder there is very little secular or Jewish record of the man Jesus -- if you do not believe he is the Son of God, the Messiah, then he is insignificant.
Your response? 1. the gospel accounts are in conflict with each other and 2. Jesus was not crucified. OK...point #1 is not a response or acknowledgement of what I wrote -- that there is a valid reason that there is virtually no secular or Jewish history of Jesus -- but at least it's a related topic, and a sort of logical flow. But your second point, that Jesus wasn't crucified but was stoned by the Jews? That is not what we were discussing at all, and is going off in a completely different direction. Not that it's not an interesting topic, and worth discussion...but you pulled out one tiny little piece of my post (from one paragraph, addressing one issue you brought up) and went totally somewhere else. I don't think it's fair to categorize or criticize my responses to you as "patching" this problem over here, and that problem over there, because that's how you are presenting your questions or points -- a little bit over here, a little bit over there. How else can I answer you? It's like free-association.
You brought up some interesting points in your last post, and I'm game to discuss them. I find the conversation and the research interesting, and it gives me something to do to break up the day, since I'm still off work for a while longer. However, if you are just asking rhetorical questions, if what you believe is already set in cement and you really aren't interested in discussion...then, just let me know, and we'll move on to something else.
I already know what I believe, Vince, but it's not set in cement. It's more like a kaleidescope. All the pieces are there, but sometimes they shift and relate to each other in different ways. And sometimes someone hands me a new, interesting gem -- and I drop it in, and it fits right in with all the rest. Sometimes it doesn't work with what I know is already definitely in my kaleidescope, but it's always worth a look.