Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090156479

From: (marshall kirk)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 18 Jul 2004 06:14:39 -0700
References: <> <>

As I write this, Google tells me we're up to 42 posts on this road to
nowhere, and the true believers (and true disbelievers) are coming out
of the woodwork.----However, I wrote that, IIRdC, taf had taken *me*
to task for getting into OT religious questions. A little searching
suggests that my memory was at fault -- taf did register an
admonition, but to someone else, albeit in a thread in which I
happened to be participating. (Perhaps he admonished me as well,
elsewhere, in this regard, but if so I can't seem to locate it.) I
I am not sure this whole line of discussion is going to get us
on-topic (in fact, I'm sure it is not). The historical nature of the
events described in the book of Genesis is an article of faith, and as
such falls outside the realm of normal scholarly analysis. Debating
logical or theological explanations for seeming inconsistencies
depends on personal beliefs, but more importantly is well beyond the
charter of this group and such discussions usually end badly.

While the personage under discussion flourished (if at all) much more
recently than the events of _Genesis_, and while a little discipline
could perhaps direct such a discussion into useful channels
(essentially, questions of methodology and the assessment of
documentary validity), it seems to me that Todd's last two lines trump
any such proposal. In any case, plenty of other genealogical subjects
offer ample scope for useful discussion -- subjects that are not OT,
and are free of religious valence (and violence).

(marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<>...
> wrote in message news:<>...
> > ...Just a quickie to say that, isn't there NO firm evidence that our Jesus
> > existed except possibly, and this is under scrutiny, a bit like Robin Hood, as a
> > composite of various individuals??!!
> > Ave, Peter
> IIRC, it was taf who took me to task, some months ago, for alluding to
> the pagan mythological roots of Genesis. Whoever it was, he was quite
> right to do so. This sort of thing usually goes from bad to worse, as
> the subject is vehemently emotionally charged for many, many people.
> Debate over the historicity and doings of King Arthur is contentious
> enough without turning to a topic seething with religious feeling (pro
> or con). Besides, y'aint gonna settle it, nohow.
> For the record, and altho' I may already have said so, I'm an
> agnostic.

This thread: