David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
(05-08-2014 05:09 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 01:32 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John AT the trial, standing over in the corner writing everything down? (Sorry if I've brought this up several times on this forum.) Maybe there was a court stenographer taking, accurate and copious notes on who said what and when they said it?

OR.......

Perhaps, just perhaps......there was a trial and some of the people watching the trial told their friends what happened (adding just a tad more to the story) and the friends of the friends who weren't there told their friends what happened (adding just an itty bitty more to the story) and those people told some other people what happened and then the story took a quick entrance onto the Chinese Whispering Expressway.

The authors of matthew mark luke and john were not even born yet...

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283).

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Exactly! They weren't even a twinkle in their daddy's eyes. That's why people quoting the bible is meaningless to me. Religious people debate intensely over every little tiny nuance of what Jesus meant when he said X or Y but where's the evidence that he actually said X or Y. Like I've mentioned in other posts, was someone following him around with a papyrus in one hand and a quill in the other taking his exact words down? If they did was there shorthand back then or did Jesus speak reeeeeaaaaallllly sloooooow so the person could get every word down, knowing that someday people would mull over each word as if it was verbal gold. Or was it retold from memory? If it was retold from memory and then retold from that memory and so on and so forth then....pfffft....what the hell does it matter what he said. Monty Python probably got it right in The Life Of Brian when one of the characters in the movie mishears "blessed are the peacemakers" as "blessed are the cheesemakers".

Years ago I asked someone about this and they responded something along the lines of..... "well we get the general gist of what he was saying". Really? The general gist?

Facepalm


Rant over. Feel better now. Big Grin

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
05-08-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
I find nothing "new" about anything he discusses.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
(05-08-2014 06:07 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 05:09 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The authors of matthew mark luke and john were not even born yet...

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283).

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Exactly! They weren't even a twinkle in their daddy's eyes. That's why people quoting the bible is meaningless to me. Religious people debate intensely over every little tiny nuance of what Jesus meant when he said X or Y but where's the evidence that he actually said X or Y. Like I've mentioned in other posts, was someone following him around with a papyrus in one hand and a quill in the other taking his exact words down? If they did was there shorthand back then or did Jesus speak reeeeeaaaaallllly sloooooow so the person could get every word down, knowing that someday people would mull over each word as if it was verbal gold. Or was it retold from memory? If it was retold from memory and then retold from that memory and so on and so forth then....pfffft....what the hell does it matter what he said. Monty Python probably got it right in The Life Of Brian when one of the characters in the movie mishears "blessed are the peacemakers" as "blessed are the cheesemakers".

Years ago I asked someone about this and they responded something along the lines of..... "well we get the general gist of what he was saying". Really? The general gist?

Facepalm


Rant over. Feel better now. Big Grin

Exactly! Yes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
(04-08-2014 02:55 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Sounds interesting. Let us know when it is ready.

My view now is that the NT is a work of Hellenists, perhaps following the line of Epicureanism thinking. I see it as a rejection of ancient phallic/fertility/astrological religion which is flawed, from a moral philosophical perspective, because it is ethically egotistical and results, I think, in the kind of barbaric behaviour exhibited by the Claudians, which plainly many Romans wanted to get rid of, before it got rid of them.

The NT is, imho, an entirely constructed religion which puts forward a rational, common sense moral philosophy and uses a figure who was central to the Nazarene movement at the time. I think the timing of the story as being from the time of Pontius Pilate needs a serious rethink. If the theory that the work is a unified one, then certain things flow logically from that, ie., that the inconsistencies are all deliberate, intentional, a spoof and a send-up of the "monotheism" of the pagan peoples of the area. This sort of monotheism: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39414/394...9414-h.htm

I think it is right that "Judaism" has phallic/astrological origins and was not at all like what we now know it as.

I would be interested in getting hold of an English version of Donnini's book. I'll see what I can do.

"The NT is, imho, an entirely constructed religion" YEP!
" which puts forward a rational, common sense moral philosophy" Huh? Please explain.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 03:47 AM
RE: David Donnini - New Theory of Jesus
(06-08-2014 03:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-08-2014 02:55 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Sounds interesting. Let us know when it is ready.

My view now is that the NT is a work of Hellenists, perhaps following the line of Epicureanism thinking. I see it as a rejection of ancient phallic/fertility/astrological religion which is flawed, from a moral philosophical perspective, because it is ethically egotistical and results, I think, in the kind of barbaric behaviour exhibited by the Claudians, which plainly many Romans wanted to get rid of, before it got rid of them.

The NT is, imho, an entirely constructed religion which puts forward a rational, common sense moral philosophy and uses a figure who was central to the Nazarene movement at the time. I think the timing of the story as being from the time of Pontius Pilate needs a serious rethink. If the theory that the work is a unified one, then certain things flow logically from that, ie., that the inconsistencies are all deliberate, intentional, a spoof and a send-up of the "monotheism" of the pagan peoples of the area. This sort of monotheism: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39414/394...9414-h.htm

I think it is right that "Judaism" has phallic/astrological origins and was not at all like what we now know it as.

I would be interested in getting hold of an English version of Donnini's book. I'll see what I can do.

"The NT is, imho, an entirely constructed religion" YEP!
" which puts forward a rational, common sense moral philosophy" Huh? Please explain.


Central principle of Christianity is God which is 'logos', therefore, not a pagan god but a concept of logic, reason. That's what it says. I can't see any other description of what god is in the NT.

What is the moral starting point in this religion? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is a reason based moral philosophical moral position and not based on a god who will punish or reward.

How does one apply this?: Jesus says in Matthew that for those who understand the workings of the kingdom of heaven, parables are not necessary. For others the NT uses parables.

Parables: These set out how to apply the golden rule in particular instances. For those who don't need parables, because they can figure it out on their own, then they can use their own reasoning abilities and the parables can be read or ignored.

After you look at it this way, the rest of the NT is just a fictional account, probably based on a well known figure of the time, with lots of filler and stuff to attract the credulous of the day who need "parables", miracles, god figures etc. This approach is supported by the second council of Nicaea at which the central issue was whether the church should allow images and iconography and it was decided in favour of allowing them because it was necessary to the religion to attract people to it who needed their iconography, saints, angels etc. These aren't people who reason. These are people who need religion and will just do what it says because they are that sort of person. We all know them. But, despite being these sorts of people, they are then lured into a religion which clearly sets out the golden rule with lots of examples for them. For those who are reasonable, and intelligent, they don't need the parables, understand the application of reason in morality and can also read all the inconsistencies in the NT which are a 'tip off' to them that it is a fictionalized work which actually makes a lot of the miraculous and supernatural events look ridiculous, as Atwill points out with the farce of the visits to the empty tomb by Mary, Mary and Salome, Mary and others, at different times with different and contradictory findings and meetings with Jesus.

If that is what it is, then it is a heavily designed work using religious writing techniques which we, today, just don't understand. It comes from an age when most people were totally uneducated, could not read and write and believed in all sorts of nonsense and did things which today we cannot conceive of, all based on oral traditions passed down over thousands of years.

If the NT was a new departure, a revival of Epicureanism and Hellenistic thoughts, then it is a remarkable piece of literature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: