James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Christmas Quiz

Who said the following:
If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers...If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over...If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as he did in his lifetime...

Was it:
a. NT Wright?
b. Richard Horsley?
c. John Dominic Crossan?
d. Leonardo Boff?
e. Fernando Segovia?
f. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

21 Comments:

Anonymous steph said...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So do I win champagne?

December 25, 2008

 
Anonymous steph said...

Thinking about it, a (may a plague of a thousand devils fall on his name) and d wouldn't have said 'if', because he is to them on earth sort of, and b, c and e wouldn't have said 'Christ' - they would have said 'Jesus'. Merry Christmas Mahmoud.

December 25, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I'm-a-dinner-jacket's "Christ" was on earth today, he'd be smiting Jews before seeing off all the Christians and being killed himself.

I have no time for Ahmadinejad's Christ. My Christ would be dealing with Ahmadinejad's tyranny and that of the mullahs who prop him up.

D@B

December 25, 2008

 
Anonymous steph said...

No, he'd be boxing your ears and telling you to look at yourself before you start casting stones. :-)

December 25, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

But the Saviour of the world is on the earth today. Psst.. his name is Gordon Brown.

December 25, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

It has to be someone who hasn't read the War Scroll, or if they have read it they have not understood its signifance in terms of what being a messiah meant - someone a bit like Osama bin Laden only on a much larger scale.

December 26, 2008

 
Blogger Leon said...

Would it be on point at all to mention that so many people think it would be just fine with Jesus to misrepresent what the Gospels say and continue to conduct a witch trial of ancient Jewish leaders and Judas? I get more than a little tired of hearing that Jesus is opposed to all sorts of injustice — from people who have no problem committing injustice in historical studies.

One example of what I mean: Every single scholar, as far as I am aware, would say that Mark 14:1 (Jewish leaders plotted to kill Jesus) is a piece of evidence against Jewish leaders and Luke 6:16, the only place in the entire Gospels where Judas is called a traitor, is a piece of evidence against Judas. Both these pieces are actually irrelevant.

They are accusations. The most they prove is that Judas and Jewish leaders were accused of such. They cannot be used as even one piece of evidence that the accusation was true because they could have been the result of malicious slander. This is the only field where scholars, on a regular basis, would use an accusation or allegation as part of the proof that the accusation is true. It is both irrational and immoral to argue that an allegation can be used to help prove the truth of same. If a judge told a jury that the charges he read against the defendant were part of the evidence against him or her, he would be kicked off the judiciary. But in NT scholarship, they are more likely to give you a literary prize for such "reasoning".

What you need for proof is a pattern of evidence outside the accusations. Mark 14:1 and Luke 6:16 are themselves irrelevant. Yet not one scholar has the moral decency to point this out. Instead, they use both these verses to create an atmosphere of evil around the accused. The same scholars will then boast they stand for justice in the world. I find all this utterly remarkable. Or I am being uppity in suggesting that scholars look to their own house before they start pointing fingers elsewhere?

Leon Zitzer

December 28, 2008

 
Anonymous steph said...

This must be a soap box for repeated rants.

December 29, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Don't you have any ideas Steph? Leon should complain to his playwrite about his having to whinge constantly on the same theme. He should ask for more variety like the parts given to Stephen Carr and Antonio Jerez. I think Leon's scriptwriter must have been too busy playing drag in Christmas pantomime.

December 29, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

On the subject of who wrote what, and just in case you don't believe me 'Steph', if you are 'Steph' that is, you might like to follow this up.

According to the back cover of his book The True Story of How Jesus Died and How We All Missed it for 2000 Years, 'Leon Zitzer' has written screenplays, quote: "and writing screenplays supplied the confidence to tell a story that has never been told before." Also for the back cover, he wrote:" The search for the true circumstances of Jesus’ death is an intellectual detective story."

Now I do know someone else who has an interest in the theatre. "His stage work includes stints with Court Theater, Chicago Rep, and Apple Tree Theater." And the same person sees himself as something of a Sherlock Holmes. Strangely, one 'Stephen Goranson' posted two reviews of a book Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus published by T & T Clark and supposedly written by Russell Gmirkin. In his review, 'Goranson' refers to 'Gmirkin's' interest in Sherlock Holmes. In the second review posted by Goranson, one 'greg Doudna' describes Gmirkin as being like Sherlock Holmes.

December 29, 2008

 
Blogger Leon said...

NT scholars are not above rational standards anymore than politicians are above the law. Scholars are not gods who can practice injustice whenever they feel like it.

I made one simple point above: It is incredibly unjust to use an accusation (like Mark 14:1 or Luke 6:16) as evidence to help prove the accusation, yet virtually every NT scholar does it. Instead of getting a rational response to this, I receive ridicule. From his silence on the matter, I can only guess that Dr. Crossley endorses ridicule over reason. Well, that's just great.

The interesting thing about the quote Dr. Crossley offered is that all those people could have said it and do say something like it. Yet these same scholars hone their skills at promoting their own injustices. This bothers no one. Just great.

Leon Zitzer

December 30, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

conizeteThere's a new equivalence relation that isn't E = m x c x c. It is LZ = JG = NTW. So why should JG go on about Mk.14:1? May be he should first focus on Mk.14:10. There there was no twelve or Jesus - they were pauline inventions. It was simply Judas the prophet who went to the chief priests, probably to declare that the Lord was coming. He and his fellow prophets were going to watch and pray for his coming, probably in the sanctuary. The time was Tabernacles, "the Feast" (14:1), not Passover. They would pour out the pure water of oblation, "offered to" God, from the jar into the earth, symbolic of the Spirit being poured out. This was the Spirit of the new covenant keeping God's promise to Noah. It was Judas who the high priests knobbled for being a false prophet - which is why he "fell headlong" from a high place and "his body burst open" - the first stage of a traditional stoning. Acts 1:18.

December 30, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

In a nutshell, the christ's from among the high priests killed the two kings Agrippa I and his son Agrippa II, and the two prophets Judas and his son James. The christs were bully boys, ill tempered, expansionist, warmongers, terrorists, hating humanity. This is why, after being let into Jerusalem by the prophets in 66, the Roman soldiers under Nero (not the Idumeans) jumped on the bodies of the high priests Ananus son of Ananus, and Jesus, then threw the bodies out of the city without burial.

December 31, 2008

 
Blogger Jim said...

steph's right, it's mohammad thingamajiggy. i wanna win something too!

December 31, 2008

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Don't you mean 'Steph' is wrong, NT that is?

It doesn't matter who wrote the question. More important is do you agree or do you not agree with the statement about christ? From the way in which the question is put it seems that James does not agree, nor does LZ = JG = NT Wro... In fact it seems they think that most scholars would agree with the statement, Jim.

But we know from the DSS what the christ was all about and it wasn't peace on earth and goodwill to men.

December 31, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul scholes

January 01, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

But it's far too profound for a loyal one team man Catholic.

January 02, 2009

 
Blogger Quixie said...

Forgive my confusion, but does anyone really think that LZ is NTW is JG?

I personally doubt it strongly.

January 04, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

Only those who also believe that Blitherington never tells whoppers.

January 04, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

There are no denials. And he is a good actor and mimic.

This web site http://www.erbzine.com/mag0/0017.html#Jeffrey%20Baldwin has:

"Jeffrey Baldwin Gibson is schizophrenic. While he has been involved in voice over work since he moved to Chicago some nineteen years ago, he is also a professional academic and holds degrees in Philosophy and Theater from Purdue University and an M.A. and a D.Phil in Theology from Oxford University. His stage work includes stints with Court Theater, Chicago Rep, and Apple Tree Theater and has been signed with Voices Unlimited for donkeys years. But he has also authored The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity (Sheffield University Press) and numerous articles that have appeared in professional academic journals. Describing himself as an almost pretty face who gives good phone, he is pleased to be making his first "appearance(?)" in Radio Theater at NATF. He did not win the hot dog eating contest in fourth grade, but he did win a KDKA TV sponsored Tarzan Yell Contest in fifth" .

January 04, 2009

 
Anonymous Mike Aubrey said...

The Court is a fantastic theater.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the point of this blog?

I mean, why is documenting supposed Aliases so important?

February 06, 2009

 

Post a Comment

<< Home