We Have Two Swords

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because there's no reason to bring up Mark or Matthew as if the interpretation would differ.

I did not. I merely used the Marcan text because it is the earlier and there is little to choose between that and Matthew..

Because you don't like it when people turn your quips around back at you? I never said the Ancient Aliens theory was true or that one ought to be persuaded by it. It's merely an alternative interpretation.

An interpretation of text [and that is all any of us are doing with these narratives] premised on the known socio-religious and political situation pertaining at the time is not irrational. Lunatic fringe ideas concerning ancient aliens are.

[Diogenes]

I did not. I merely used the Marcan text because it is the earlier and there is little to choose between that and Matthew..

Using Mark wouldn't change the interpretation I gave.

An interpretation of text [and that is all any of us are doing with these narratives] premised on the known socio-religious and political situation pertaining at the time is not irrational. Lunatic fringe ideas concerning ancient aliens are.

That would entail detailing what consists of a rational interpretation and "lunatic fringe ideas", which would be a sperate thread.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Using Mark wouldn't change the interpretation I gave.

Firstly we do not know if Jesus considered himself the "legitimate temporal king of the Jews" although the gospel accounts suggest that he gave all the appearances that he was the expected Messiah. Secondly, your interpretation is no more valid than the one I offered.

That would entail detailing what consists of a rational interpretation and "lunatic fringe ideas", which would be a sperate thread.

If you consider the notion of ancient aliens has some rational basis feel free to start a thread.

[Diogenes]

Firstly we do not know if Jesus considered himself the "legitimate temporal king of the Jews" although the gospel accounts suggest that he gave all the appearances that he was the expected Messiah. Secondly, your interpretation is no more valid than the one I offered.

Jesus' statement of giving that which is Cæsar to Cæsar's is evidence enough that Jesus did not believe Himself as a claimant to temporal rule of 1st cent. AD Judea. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus stated one sword was sufficient for His stated reason also precludes any notion that Jesus intended to incite rebellion against Roman occupation of 1st cent. AD Judea.

If you consider the notion of ancient aliens has some rational basis feel free to start a thread.

It is your claim of being a "lunatic fringe idea" therefore the burden is on you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus' statement of giving that which is Cæsar to Cæsar's is evidence enough that Jesus did not believe Himself as a claimant to temporal rule of 1st cent. AD Judea. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus stated one sword was sufficient for His stated reason also precludes any notion that Jesus intended to incite rebellion against Roman occupation of 1st cent. AD Judea.

All of which is nothing but your interpretation which is no more valid than that of anyone else.

It is your claim of being a "lunatic fringe idea" therefore the burden is on you.

You introduced Ancient Aliens.

[Diogenes]

All of which is nothing but your interpretation which is no more valid than that of anyone else.

You have your interpretation, I have mine.

You introduced Ancient Aliens.

To paraphrase:


"I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. I simply noted that archeological evidence may be interpreted [given the known situation at the time] in an alternate manner."


Who am I to say that the ancient astronaut theory is not a valid interpretation? What is even the criteria for a "valid interpretation"? Ancient astronauts theory is true for ancient astronaut theorists but are they not allowed to have their own truth?

[tabibito]

You have your interpretation, I have mine.





To paraphrase:


"I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. I simply noted that archeological evidence may be interpreted [given the known situation at the time] in an alternate manner."


Who am I to say that the ancient astronaut theory is not a valid interpretation? What is even the criteria for a "valid interpretation"? Ancient astronauts theory is true for ancient astronaut theorists but are they not allowed to have their own truth?

Astronauts and buildings, I'll leave to others. WRT the scriptures, only lame assessments that try to undermine their veracity seem to be deemed valid.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have your interpretation, I have mine.

I made a comment on one interpretation, I did not state it was mine. And that interpretation is as valid as your own.

I simply noted that archeological evidence may be interpreted [given the known situation at the time] in an alternate manner."

Not to the extent of alleging ancient aliens visited the planet - except by those on the lunatic fringe

[Diogenes]

Not to the extent of alleging ancient aliens visited the planet - except by those on the lunatic fringe

I made a comment on one interpretation, I did not state it was mine. And that interpretation is as valid as your own.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I made a comment on one interpretation, I did not state it was mine. And that interpretation is as valid as your own.

Perhaps you can provide the connection [as you perceive it] between a lunatic fringe belief/notion in ancient aliens and a speculative interpretation of a piece of text [given the known socio-religious and political context in which it is presumed to have been made]?

I cannot see one.

[Diogenes]

Perhaps you can provide the connection [as you perceive it] between a lunatic fringe belief/notion in ancient aliens and a speculative interpretation of a piece of text [given the known socio-religious and political context in which it is presumed to have been made]?

I cannot see one.

Both are alternative interpretations of what they purport to interpret. Again, I've never made the claim the ancient astronaut theory is true or any claim other than that the ancient astronaut theory is an alternative interpretation that some hold.

[rogue06]

Of the three major monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – it was Christianity that proved to be the most destructive to the polytheistic religions and material culture of not only the Old World but also the New World. However, especially among Christians, Christianity is generally viewed today as a positive force – one that is even responsible for the preservation of the classical past. And while it is true that a number of artefacts, buildings, customs, rituals, and myths were taken over and preserved in some form or other, Christianity was directly responsible for the loss of a great deal of the rich literature, art, architecture, and culture of the many polytheistic peoples who inhabited the lands around the Mediterranean. Of course, the degree and forms of destruction varied throughout the former Roman Empire. Even the notion of Christian “appropriation” is problematic, since the question that is generally not raised is whether and in what way appropriation of cultural property is itself a form of destruction and desecration, especially when this question is considered from a polytheistic point of view.

Christian iconoclasm, or destruction of images, has long been recognized and studied by scholars. Yet when we speak or think about “Christian iconoclasm,” it is generally in terms of Christian destruction of Christian sacred images. Particular attention has been given to the so-called Iconoclastic Debate, a euphemism for the iconomachy, or battle over images, that raged during the 8th and 9th centuries, resulting in a bloodbath that nearly tore apart the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even the periodic resurgence of Christian iconoclasm from the Middle Ages until the present has been well studied and documented. However, relatively little attention, especially in academic literature, has been paid to the Christians’ destruction and desecration of ancient images, behaviour that in some circles was and still is considered justifiable because of the belief that what matters in the end is the so-called truth of the Christian message prevailing. Anchored in this belief is the notion of the “triumph” of Christianity, which modern scholarship has repeatedly cast in positive terms.

There is a great body of evidence for Christian attacks on images of classical antiquity[...]it is a well-established fact that Greek Christians did desecrate the Temple of Athena, as well as a great deal else of Greece’s classical heritage.. [From, “The Archaeology of Destruction: Christians, Images of Antiquity and Some Problems of Interpretation”, J. Pollini in Chaos e Kosmos, XIV, 2013, pp. 1-30]

You could also read this:

Rohmann seems to take the view that the academic consensus is that Christians strove to preserve classic writings and seeks to counter that view.

An interesting take.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Both are alternative interpretations of what they purport to interpret. Again, I've never made the claim the ancient astronaut theory is true or any claim other than that the ancient astronaut theory is an alternative interpretation that some hold.

I still fail to see any connection between an interpretation of a piece of text within its historical and political context [regularly practised in any lit crit class] and lunatic fringe beliefs in ancient aliens.

[rogue06]

It would seem that you are right - and it is not necessary to dig too far into the book to find that out.


All together now
①
②
③
She has presented a grossly oversimplified view of very complex circumstances.

NOOOooo!!! Say it ain't so.

I have it on the highest authority that it just cannot be the case

Nor do I engage in over-generalisations, a tendency among many who post here.

Unlike you I do not make sweeping generalisations.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Rohmann seems to take the view that the academic consensus is that Christians strove to preserve classic writings and seeks to counter that view.

An interesting take.

I recommend you read the Conclusion in its entirety. However, he is not polemical.