On The Sofa (6)
This topic contains 1,013 replies, has 103 voices, and was last updated by 
Craig 10 years, 11 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
22 March 2015 at 02:33 #39063
@lisa Basically, I don’t see him as Jesus either: no Son of God claims, no miracles, a few companions rather than a dozen devoted disciples, a dud and a runaway as a kid (not brilliant lad confounding the adult scholars), roaming all of the universe in his vehicle rather than going by sandal-power from one village or town in a tiny area of the globe for a few years before being executed by an occupying power, married lots of times and has kids and grandkids although they’ve been mislaid, and on and on; nothing much matches in the backstory or the fore-story either. And he’s certainly not lurking in the future as a threatening (or comforting) judge of people’s whole lives, is not in any way the “creator” of the universe of that being’s child, and in fact only maps onto Jesus for me in a presumed disgust for the idea of becoming or rather being made into a God figure for people who never knew him.
Distinctions blur over time; but nonsense is nonsense, and wishful thinking is wishful thinking. Sorry if I seemed to suggest otherwise.
22 March 2015 at 02:59 #39064@ichabod Needless to say I knew I could rely on you make all the obvious points I
didn’t get into 😉 But I bet Jesus had some kids although I’ve never seen the Doctor
wearing sandals. So there ya goI saw lots of posting about the strange notions on the Messiah stuff but didn’t think
actually you were suggesting Jesus.22 March 2015 at 04:41 #39065Anonymous @
psst?? Can I come back? Is it safe? 🙂
Honestly. I love this site and I feel protective of it so that if some vague person in the middle of your night starts saying ‘we attack people’, I want to say “hey, no we don’t” and in fact to prove it, “I’m gonna explain exactly how I agree with you to show there are similarities between what we’re saying”.
Problem is, what’s the point when the account is deleted the next day? Also, I end up talking like a 4th grader in a vain attempt to create simplistic arguments proving that one can indeed compare the Doctor to Christ.
No, you really can’t. And I looked like a tool. It is a truism that analogies only go so far. Allusions and illusions are everywhere. If you look close enough they blur, any distinction is lost; and that’s the complexity of the world in which we live. And I love it. I love the precision of a concept: if you scratch at the surface blindly seeking a comparison you wind up twisting the facts to suit a theory and personally, I think that’s egotistical. As is “I’ve noticed something you haven’t.”
@bluesqueakpip you’re a scholar, and know a lot more about the scriptures than I. From my memory the etymology is difficult as is the language itself: Hebrew, Aramaic, demotic Greek, Gothic, (or was it Coptic before then?) , the Latin Vulgate, the Wessex gospels (I vaguely remembered those) then Erasmus’ translation in 1560 (?)
Then we have the Christ figure himself. In an effort to agree with our friend, above, I tied myself in knots but the fact is, Jesus is everywhere -if you want to look hard enough and tend to believe in such inclinations.
To my neighbour, her dog is Jesus: he’s loyal, he brings her the paper twice a day and curls up on the couch when she’s depressed. I went out with a guy when I was a tween who looked like Jesus and acted like what my 19 year old mind thought Jesus should be like: the sandals, the sandalwood scent, the long hair affected in a pony tail tied with hemp, olive glowing skin, overalls sewn of some strange old fabric, a vegetarian, a person with few possessions who worked for various voluntary organisations, and he was pre-med; therefore a ‘healer’.
So, the problem with some discussions is that there’s no point reaching for “messiah is The Anointed”. It may never be understood, no matter how well we put the ‘argument’ when we’re attempting to sincerely hand out the olive branch to a person who claims he’s a “professional Christian for 40 years and Jewish.” I don’t understand that – I really don’t, and never mind bringing in some juicy concepts from a co-authored work with Ron David about the issue of whether the Jews are a race or a religious group. Then we’re in tough territory which belongs on some other planet far, far away.
On a different forum.
So yes @craig you really have made a haven and in trying to defend it I went all “now this” and “now this” and “this evidence here means..”
Boy, have I a lot to learn. I should have simply topped out with: “thanks for your input and I’ll take that on board.”
@arbutus I think it was @jimthefish who referred to the Doctor as ‘trickster’ in a discussion with @summersmith regarding the many ways one can define him or ‘place him’. Either way, he’s tricky figure to define: he’s so many elements: as a regenerated figure, he can literally be anyone (and if Mixmaster is female) -even a gender swap isn’t out of the question in the future. Along as the point isn’t “wow, let’s go out there and make Him a Her’ for no particular reason.
I’ll say again the one thing I can wholly agree with. If the stories we read change us, open our minds to something new and delicious, theoretical or fictitious, then surely the protagonists need only stand for themselves. By comparing them to someone else, they might surely lose the flavour they once had, and in so doing, are diluted:
“[it] could be that it’s all nonsense: happy nonsense as Edward Lear’s biographers would suggest….all the stories appear to mean something in particular to everyone. Stories must do that: they resonate and conflate…We keep them alive by re-charging them: a new take, an idiot, not a lonely god, not a hero, a man in a box, wandering about. They change, and [the important part is]so do we.”
@janetteb Big Ears Tony?
I met so many people who voted him and his party in -many were teachers. Once thought to be the anti-conservatives, pro-unionists, they’re better described as the “leave it to Beaver trip back to the ’60s bunch; sitting in a corner, doing nothing except complaining and saying ‘please, don’t hurt me.’ ”
We get what we vote for – was it Churchill who said two minutes with the average voter will turn you against democracy until you look at all the rest?
@lisa you were talking about a Doctor Teddy Bear? Now there’s an idea. Funny, I had one bear which came with me to this house. When I gave it to Boy Ilion we’d end up finding it half way across the room! When he could speak it was (much like Buffy): “Bear, bad, evil. I hate.” I said “are you sure? Everyone likes stuffed animals!”
He said: “why?”
Why indeed.
Whinging, puro. (still learning the lesson ‘don’t feed the trolls’. A very slow learner)
22 March 2015 at 05:01 #39066@Purofilion A Stuffed Teddy Doctor ? We can start a business of Doctor costumes
for Teddy bears and how about each one gets the special device that makes you invisible
which would work for @ichabod‘s invisible friend idea! I like it! Then we can go on
that crazy ‘Sharks” show and get a boat load of investment cash to pursue the dream.
Hey! I believe you are onto to something girlfriend! Ready to give it a go……… 🙂22 March 2015 at 05:13 #39067@Purofilion The problem was that the Teddy Bear didn’t have any Doctor traits.
It was wrong and Boy must have instinctually realized this. This is my best
explanation as to why it ended up across the room and I’m sticking to it.22 March 2015 at 05:38 #39068@bluesqueakpip and @mudlark I really enjoyed reading what you both wrote and also the reference to The Seven Basic Plots? I need to put that on my personal reading list for the Easter break.
Blue -this is an interesting philosophical point which I first heard in the newly hatched ‘humanities’ depts. of the Univ of Qld some years ago:
“Even in story, I think you’d find there’s been developments. There’s been a ton of scholarly work on narrative since the 1980′s, and there’s a lot of current research on whether our self-understanding is basically ‘narrative’ – because of the way we perceive time and remember the past, do we understand our lives and our society as ‘story’?” A great discussion point.
Mudlark: “On a more universal level, myths and archetypes have always been the vehicles of one kind of truth, as people have perceived it throughout the ages. And in the field of the sciences, the way in which observed phenomena are ordered and classified seems to me to be a form of story telling, and even our understanding of the physical universe can be seen as a narrative told in the language of mathematics.”
So, our mathematical explanations -and our scientific ones – are a narrative; as relevant a descriptor as any literary format. From the doctor’s perspective, I recall that he has a deep respect for the writers and sociologists (and of course the artists and great chefs!) of Earth, madly scrambling through his boxes (each box containing things alphabetically) to locate a particular book.
I remember this when Tennant was looking for a specific Agatha Christie book -did he show Donna that, even in the 51st century, Ms Christie’s works were still enthusiastically published? The Doctor loves a good book and hordes them happily. He loves his black board; calculations and inventions equally. No matter what the Doctor is, can we agree that’s he balanced? Well, in one way, I suppose: he’s also a little bit mad, which, being ‘old’ (2000 years?) counts in his favour! Or is the appropriate word eccentric?
22 March 2015 at 05:46 #39069@lisa you stick to it! I’ll second you!
I partly believe it was that the thing was so very very old: missing an ear; a chewed eyesocket,and had that pilled appearance from being over-washed. Funny, when you have a baby, lots of people give you books (big tick) and also many stuffed animals. Maybe they are remembering a lost childhood. in the attic, there are currently 24 of the things packed in plastic (now that’s a horror movie in waiting). Apparently, many of his 13 year old mates still have them packed on the bed! He tends to being austere -which, for now, saves a bit of money!
22 March 2015 at 06:16 #39070@purfilion Oh, don’t give it another thought — most of us threw snacks to the troll! It’s a natural impulse among normal, decent people to try to move at least a step or two in the direction of the list-burglar (breaks in, steals time and energy), giving the creature a chance to respond to the climate here by becoming better and joining in. It rarely succeeds, but you’re never entitled to beat yourself up for acting like a human even though the other guy isn’t.
Stories — well, yeah, given that the whole shebang is, once you get below the surface with sufficiently wild maths, just knots and swirls and sparkles of energy, I guess you have to admit that every description we come up with about what the universe “is” has to be seen on some level as “a story”, because none of it is “real” — it’s just energy. Our perceptive grids give us the patterns to recognize, and we make stories out of that in various languages (like maths, or oil paint, or big long books about plots or gods or teddy bears, and so on ad infinitum) so we can regard the constructs we’ve made and think about them as if they were real. Maybe that’s just Whusisname’s cave — the shadows on the wall of the cave are what we make of our perceptions. The reality is energy, coils and flows and almost static shifts of energy . . . At least, that’s what science (and art) seem to be saying, AFAICS, when they stop talking about themselves and try to say something coherent about Everything as it really is.
I know this as an abstraction (of an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction of — ); in common sense terms, I stop knowing it and get on with dealing with the products of my perceptual grid, like everybody else. You can’t live life at the energetic level, I think. I think we merge back out of perception and into the energy flow when we’re done living the physical and mental life here.
Meantime, stories are how we fill our days and orient ourselves from one “action” to another. See, I read that “Einstein for Idiots” or whatever it was that I. Asimov wrote decades ago, and that bit about the table you’re leaning on being actually a little bit of atoms and a lot of empty space between them did not go unnoticed. It seems to be true; now you might as well forget it, and enjoy the stories, because I suspect this is the only place we get to have them, on any scale.
22 March 2015 at 09:23 #39071I bet Jesus had some kids
These would be the kids who are never mentioned despite our knowing a lot of Jesus’ other relatives by name?
😀
22 March 2015 at 09:39 #39072@bluesqueakpip — just realised going back over this very interesting discussion that you raised the Doctor as Ulysses thing first. Apologies for not acknowledging that.
And to add that this whole discussion has served to illustrate just what a special little corner of internet this is. Barring the odd bridge-dweller, we definitely do have a pretty unique set of courteous, interesting, witty and highly intelligent contributors here. And that’s not nothing.
22 March 2015 at 09:41 #39073@bluesqueakpip
Messenger in Greek is aggeliofors (= αγγελιοφόρος), aggelos is the angel. My Greek are good. It would be a shame if it wasn’t since I am Greek. 😛Guys don’t get me wrong but if we wanted to we could practically, really compare The Doctor to anything. I get the Jesus- Doctor comparison in the way you did but that’s the extent to it. I for example always compared The Doctor with a very good psyciatrist, a man of reason. Throughout the series we’ve seen many examples of The Doctor trying to reason and analyse every possible reaction the “opponent” would make with many different ways, and in many different species. He would firstly apply logic and then action.
In the 50th we can practically see throughout the whole episode an internal fight. The Doctor trying to evaluate his past and future actions, questioning them as he moves on.
@ichabod @purofilion
Now that I mentioned the 50th, how do you guys feel about changing the history of Gallifrey? I think that since Gallifrey didn’t fall in the end, shouldn’t his memories of it falling change? Can you explain which Doctor John Hurt is? Cause War Doctor doesn’t really explain thigns in my head.One last and major one. The Doctor is supposed to be able to regenerate 13 times. Does that mean that there is only one Doctor left for the series to end? Cause if it does, I’m gonna get really crazy.
Sorry if I make mistakes sometimes. If you see any grammar or vocabulary mistakes I’m sorry. :p
22 March 2015 at 10:05 #39075@jimthefish & @bluesqueakpip – the Ulysses / Odysseus comparison is a nice one. Ulysses often used tricks – the wooden horse, hiding his men among the sheep to fool the Cyclops – rather than brute strength and fighting skills. Perhaps the sadness of The Doctor is that he doesn’t have a Penelope waiting for him at home.
22 March 2015 at 10:18 #39076@purofilion – isn’t trying to engage with some one – even the bad troll kind – what a good teacher does?
On the fifth series, I’ve always seen it as a story about where stories come from, an in particular a story about the tv programme itself. Amy meets The Doctor when she’s a kid, just as RTD and Moffat watched old Dr Who when they were kids. The Doctor goes away but she keeps faith with him; she doesn’t forget him, she makes all kind of fan-art. In The Big Bang she brings him back from the place where forgotten things go. Amy in her wedding dress, jumping on the table and calling to her raggedy man as we hear that wheezy groaning is one of my favourite little scenes in the show.
22 March 2015 at 11:06 #39077true, but he had a River for a long time! Also, as we were discussing before you arrived on the Forum, he does have terrific friends!
TenthDoctorFTW @jimthefish @johnathan
yes I think that is what most of us have decided -or already had concluded: that we are stories in ourselves; narratives, in literary or even mathematical form. We can easily find an allusion to a Christ-like figure or some other heroic ‘saviour’ (like the Lonely God type which RTD initially constructed) within the Who narrative or within other, different narratives. As you said: “if we wanted to we could practically, really compare The Doctor to anything.”
I agree. I add that with some analogies, when we’ve scratched at its surface we lose the initial sharpness of the original ‘being’ so that the subtlety of the comparison may be lost in cryptic remarks; entrenched in a radical indeterminacy so that the ultimate destination -which is understanding -is passed by, and we’re left with a remnant only.
This isn’t always the case, but I find when people set strict limits on a particular world view, an irreducible tension and ideological rigidity take hold so that the gulf between a story, an idea and how one person perceives that idea grows inexorably larger.
The protocols on the use of language take hold manifesting in an annihilation of general debate until only rhetoric and hot air are left to fill the public work-space. As you said, and rightly so, the Doctor uses reason as enlightenment logically pursuing the solution and focussing on this, rather than the problem -in other words, finding common ground.
I guess we should all be so lucky to have friends who seek such similarities without demeaning others and who attempt to understand general historical controversy, the significance of archival research without provocative editorialising such as: FACT: ____; FACT________. That’s a naïve approach, but for some, it’s their raison d’etre -their own bit of media mischief.
Whilst Gallifrey Falls No More, the Doctor is not aware of the position of Gallifrey – no longer time-locked, it is out there but the Doctor is unaware of its place.
The War Doctor came after Paul McGann’s Eighth Doctor: he didn’t really survive the fall on the sisterhood of Kahn’s planet and the sisterhood asked him what he wanted to be: he chose Warrior: his planet in tatters, he said “what I did, I did because I had no choice” (a paraphrase, I’m afraid: I watched it too long ago!).
When we saw the Smith Doctor for the last time, the TLs granted him a whole new of regenerations. From the Eleventh Hour and the crack in the Pond’s wall, those three years were slowly cycling toward this point in time. This is indeed a new thing for the Doctor who must come to terms with the regens. Is he a good man because of what has been granted? Is he obligated to achieve ‘something’?
So, fear not, the Doctor has many more lives! @jimthefish -indeed, unique. Sometimes hard work, but I bloomin’ love it!
22 March 2015 at 11:16 #39078yes, I suppose we do; though I’m learning, even from Boy Ilion that I shouldn’t -it takes far too much out of me and I feel apologetic when that’s probably what they seek.
Generally, trolls have quite a unique little place -they hide, we don’t know them. There may be manipulative little wotsits in my classes (and the 20 -25 years olds I teach are the same -or worse sometimes!) but it’s my responsibility to get to know them and they enter into a contract too. The little trolls in classes don’t leave, come back, change a name and then disappear for good with another popping up willing, ready and yet without a face. You can always see other colleagues to solidify a conclusion and justify a position.
See? An analogy (the trolls!) that just doesn’t work for me. But I could be tired: I feel unusually so today and have missed some good telly (she whines)
Still, always up for stimulating discussion -it’s a refining fire, isn’t it?
Must catch The Daemons and see some others’ opinions on that.
22 March 2015 at 11:17 #39079sorry that was @tenthdoctorftw above
22 March 2015 at 11:24 #39080I actually laughed out loud at the suggestion that the original creators of Doctor Who envisaged him as some Christ figure. It would seem to indicate that you have never seen those early serials. I don’t remember any of the gospels talking about Christ about to cave in an incapacitated man’s head with a rock until one of his followers stopped him? You may be able to correct me on that though. The Doctor at the start is very different to what we see today.
Newman ordered a quasi-educational show and not a quasi-religious show, and that’s what he got. Famously he didn’t like the Daleks because he didn’t like the “bug-eyed monster” thing with science fiction. Lambert convinced him by explaining that if it was good enough for the Ancient Greeks to tell morality tales with monsters, then it was probably good enough for the BBC.
Talk of the Doctor being a healer is pretty obvious – it’s been pointed out in the show often enough. Jesus may have been called a great healer or whatever, but it was the Ancient Greeks in the shape of Hippocrates who defined what a Doctor IS. “I shall keep them from harm and injustice…” being the opening of his oath. He took his name as a promise, so the eleventh Doctor said. The idea of the Doctor as the wide ranging man of learning (a Doctor of “practically everything” as he’s said) probably calls upon the Aristotelian ideal of the wide ranging man of reason. The Philosopher – Scientist.
So before Christ came along to remind everyone that having a bit of compassion could improve the world these men of reason had come to the same conclusion. The discussed the laudable qualities of humanity and deemed them virtues. Of all of the virtues compassion was said to be the most valuable. The one to be most admired. Aristotle pondered on the question of how one could successfully maintain a virtuous life. He suggested that friends were an important part of the puzzle because being virtuous is actually quite difficult. A burden shared, etc, so choice of friends is integral to keeping your standards high. Your choice of friends will often reflect your aspirations as they are a mirror to your actions. “A friend is another himself” he suggested. Feedback and approval from your friends is important. Aristotle also pointed out that reserves of compassion can be depleted by circumstances or “overuse”. Compassion in any being is not limitless.
When we meet the first Doctor he’s a man of reason but lacks compassion for his fellow beings. The enforced relationship with his early companions changed the Doctor, reminding him of his need for compassion. Two teachers from Coal hill school changed him. They made him more empathetic (the ability to diagnose pain and suffering in others) and energised his compassion (the desire to end pain and suffering in others). As Aristotle pointed out, sometimes he needs to have his compassion recharged as events sap them. It’s why he needs the right friends to tread his path. See S8 through the lens of Compassion, and you see why he needs Clara, why Dan became a soldier, why Dan and the Brig can resist Cyberman control and why the Master will always fail – because the Master always sees compassion as a weakness.
If anything, Doctor Who is a 50 odd year love letter to the idea that Compassion is humanities redeeming quality. It stops us becoming the Monsters. That doesn’t make the Doctor Christ, or the writers Christians. It just makes them beings of reason.
22 March 2015 at 11:26 #39082it struck me that the Arthur stories were taken up by the Normans to legitimise their rule over the Saxons
So it seems. As Geoffrey Ashe argued, they needed something corresponding to the Matter of France – the cycle of stories concerning Charlemagne and the heroes such as Roland who fought against the Saracens. And Geoffrey of Monmouth, who was almost certainly Welsh, or possibly Breton, handed it to them on a plate.
It is significant that the name Arthur (which is considered to be a Welsh version of the Roman name Arturius) was shortly afterwards given to Henry II’s grandson; the prince who was, according to tradition, murdered by his uncle, King John. And three centuries later, when Henry VII was seeking to establish the legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty, he also turned to the Matter of Britain for validation, naming his eldest son Arthur – though the name didn’t bring that prince much luck, either, since he died young. It should be noted that The Round Table which hangs on the wall of the Great Hall of Winchester Castle is painted with the emblem of the Tudor Rose at the centre and an image of the King enthroned above it, as well as with the names of some of Arthur’s chief knights.
22 March 2015 at 11:35 #39083yes, Aristotle: a virtuous man being one who seeks reason thru habit and compassion. If I recall, Dante’s story asked the same. Being morally rigid and hypocritical was as bad (or ‘sinful’) as envy and greed.
22 March 2015 at 12:48 #39095@purofilion – I should have added that if they don’t want to engage back then it’s their problem. They’re the ones who miss out. Take good care of yourself.
22 March 2015 at 17:23 #39099@bluesqueakpip — I’d never made that connection before — I knew that “Christos” meant “Annointed One”, but not that “Messiah” was the same word in a different language (that would be — Hebrew?). “Healer” never seemed applicable in the case under discussion — healing the sick (and occasionally the dead0 was just something that figures like that did along the way, as proof of their god-power: expected behavior around the myth.
Thanks for the reminder about RTD’s idea of gods we “make” for ourselves; whatever plan you start with, over 50 yrs it *will* change, so exactly what he had in mind doesn’t carry all that much weight any more, seems to me.
@lisa — I watched the Campbell interviews too; I’d read his book in college, I think, and of course ate it up without question. Later on . . . well, even great minds can’t step clear out of the perceptual box their cultures have them locked into. Out of, well enough to see as an outsider, yes; clear of, no. Example Freud and his “penis envy” B.S., among other assumptions natural to a male European of his time. He couldn’t see men as privileged, so he couldn’t imagine that women might long for a bit of that power, that went with having a penis rather than not, for themselves . . . not that we’re so much further along today, for the majority of humankind.
@arbutus — I like SBNR as avoiding doctrine and making up your own; that does describe most of the people I know who use this term about themselves, and for many (myself included) it goes back to at least the sixties, when people began searching for beliefs that appealed to them or called to them and put together eclectic belief systems for themselves under the banner of “New Age”, very often. The eclectic part was what angered doctrinal religionists, who would get very huffy about “cherry-picking” the basic religions to cobble up a belief-set that you liked better — on no “authority” but yourself, or some one who set himself or herself up as a “guru”. They didn’t seem to be able to see that every time their own religions had calved another subdivision, the new outfit declared itself on some version of cherry-picking (no it does *not* turn into actual blood; yes it *does*).
@mudlark — thanks for the ID on that almost-quote.
22 March 2015 at 18:36 #39101@purofilion — missing an ear, mangled eye — for a minute there, I thought you were talking about the War Doctor, at least as I would have imagined him! Doesn’t the Doctor grow back missing bits, if they’re not too large and complex? I seem to recall — a hand?
@bluesqueakpip — The missing kids of Jesus — I’m just working off the norms of pastoralist and small farmer life I’ve come across for Ancient times, plus the Jewish cultural pattern of *everybody* gets married (gotta keep all that sexual energy of the young fenced in to avoid community chaos) and has kids, because that’s what you *do* or your whole family won’t talk to you. Jesus was a Jew, after all, and all that “celibate priesthood” stuff from other cults of the time (often with self-castration as sort of demonstration of one’s unusually devout life-path) was out (though I could have missed something here?).
Jesus was not far out of young manhood when he died, so the chances are pretty darn good that he had a wife and a young family by then (maybe not a *lot* of kids, if his family got him married for financial stability and familial alliance to an older woman, assuming his sibs already had kids of their own so it wasn’t that urgent in his case). That wouldn’t suit the various ranks of writers and re-writers of the NT at all, not to mention Peter’s project of erecting a structure of authority on Jesus’s life story, so . . . the story gets trimmed, and claims of blood-descent get quietly squelched, and presto: family is gone from the record. They certainly wouldn’t have wanted him behaving like, say, Zeus — running around making kids outside of marriage — either. But the likelihood of a prominent and brilliant young “teacher” reaching thirty or so without a wife and kids had to be pretty low, as I’ve seen it explained (the idea has been around for a while). It’s well to remember how compromised and comprisable a text the NT was (and is — I hear the Right Wing Nutjobs are working on a “Conservative” version of the Bible right now, so here comes another round of cherry-picking, craziness and schism, I guess).
Nor can we be sure, in the strictest sense, that the NT actually does have all the names of other people right, attendance at various events etc., right, either, isn’t that so? I’m not saying accounts of Jesus’s life are made up out of whole cloth — I’m a non-Christian (religion) who does believe that this person did exist, probably pretty much as recorded, except that all the written part came later than the events and then got revised so much and with so much political program involved that what we have is pretty iffy when it comes to historical accuracy.
TenthDoctorFTW — I’ve been wondering about what Twelve remembers now about Gallifrey, myself. He’s gone looking for it per MixMaster’s directions, so he knows he didn’t destroy it, but does he know that originally he *did*, and had to go back for a do-over to get it right, and how extreme a situation that was and why it was that way (The Moment and all)?
@summersmith — I like the comparison with Ulysses better than with JC too — monsters, cleverness vs. brute force, a long and rambling journey homeward full of detours and dangers — but I like the loose-cannon nature of the Doctor’s wanderings better for him. When he’s too focused on Gallifrey, I feel plot-walls closing in and (potentially) shutting out interesting side-trips that would be fun to explore (that planet made of the shrubbery — there’s *got* to be more to it than that!). The randomness, which has to be offset by the Tardis herself choosing some of his landfalls for him, is part of the Doctor’s eccentricity, and I’d hate to lose that to iron-jawed determination to get home *even though* there’s no Penelope waiting.
It feels arbitrary to me; but I’ve always thought of him more as a product of the Romantic imagination (in our day): a restless wanderer barely knowing what he’s looking for and stumbling upon wonders, loving companions, and soul-cracking ordeals does it just fine for me. That kind of *is* his “sadness” — not knowing what he’s looking for, not searching — just running from being defined, in ways he can’t fulfill, by others (the TLs, for starters). That’s also the wellspring of his eternal youthfulness and energy, no matter how “old” he is or appears to be. It’s a youthful state of human life — still exploring, not “tied down”, lighting out for the Territories. But that’s doubtless too restrictive a view, too.
Especially if, as purofilion suggests, he might think of his new regen-set as requiring him to do something specific in return — like getting Gallifrey unfrozen (without getting it obliterated at the same time)?
@phaseshift — “I shall keep them from harm and *injustice*” — Really? Wow! I had no idea that the Hippocratic Oath was so wide ranging! Is that a more accurate form of “First, do no harm”? How can modern doctors of medicine swear an oath like that, when they know their job now includes flooding their patients with drugs devised by the crooks and fools of Big Pharma (to the degree that this is so, which seems an uncomfortably large degree in the US these days)? And thanks for the analysis of the Doctor and compassion — you can certainly see why he’d fall victim, from time to time, to “compassion fatigue” and burn-out, like anybody else (a hermit living on a cloud, SmithDoc rejects the idea that he helps the helpless and solves their problems, telling Clara “I don’t do that any more”); especially so if he had to be taught compassion in the first place (by us); it didn’t come naturally.
22 March 2015 at 18:42 #39102<Waves to @whisht>
Thanks for your “troll” post. Absolutely agree. Generally it’s better to engage than to blast out of the water. We live by the question “What would the Doctor do?”
(Likewise I’ve been doing more lurking than posting recently. Damn that RL!!)
And welcome to cute Shetland troll @summersmith Some trolls are very welcome! 🙂
22 March 2015 at 20:09 #39105@ichabod I’m basically on the same page as your are regarding Jesus having kids
Its common sense when you think about how they all lived in those communities which
many later doctrines barely take that bit into account . Today for instance I caught
Governor Brown calling out Sen Cruz about conflating common sense global warming and
NT creationism myth. But why worry about global warming when the Kingdom is at hand/
Hate to be I’m saying this in a public place 😉 but the GOP game show line up is
so ‘messed up’ on so many levels! Why don’t we just give the job to Hillary for Geesh
sakes. Plus I’m so fed up over those candidates that cant/wont separate
their religion and state. Unfortunately we wont be done with this. Oh no no…
I’ve been seeing comparisons between Isis and the Evangelicals around the net
I’m a Elizabeth Warren fan truth be told.22 March 2015 at 20:22 #39106@lisa — Yes on Warren, but it’s been pointed out that we need her badly in the Senate . . .
22 March 2015 at 20:42 #39107@ichabod I’ve read that too. Well that’s cause ‘certain’ people didn’t vote
particularly in a recent election.
With the big presidential vote coming I hope those ‘certain’ voters come out and
swing the government away from where we are. In which case I will still be a Warren
fan then too.22 March 2015 at 21:36 #39108I’m just working off the norms of pastoralist and small farmer life I’ve come across for Ancient times, plus the Jewish cultural pattern of *everybody* gets married
Unfortunately for that pattern, we know as positively as anything is ever known in Ancient History that there was at least one group of celibate males in 1st Century Jewish culture. Namely, those awkward Essenes.
There’s also evidence that another group of people didn’t always marry until their 30’s – men studying Torah. Plus, there’s quite a bit of evidence in Exodus (e.g. 19:10-15) that it was considered properly holy to abstain from sex if you were in direct contact with God.
[There are quite a few Rabbinic ‘discussions’ about Moses’ poor wife Zipporah, stuck with a husband constantly conversing with God. The assumption is that she wasn’t getting any. 😉 ]
family is gone from the record.
I’m afraid you’ve been reading too much Dan Brown. The point is that the family (siblings, parents) are in the records. There’s even a tradition that two of them were hauled up before Dominitian. Who let them go because they were a couple of Galilean peasants belonging to some weird cult. But the descendants of Jesus’ relatives get mentioned a few times (often as leaders in the early Church) up to about the 3rd Century – by which time it was possibly now too indirect a relationship to bother about.
Nor can we be sure, in the strictest sense, that the NT actually does have all the names of other people right, attendance at various events etc., right, either, isn’t that so?
There is absolutely zero chance (unless someone is a very Conservative Christian indeed) that the NT has all the names etc. right – as I said up this thread, it’s now pretty certain that the Gospel writers were following the patterns of the Graeco-Roman biographical genre. Precise accuracy wasn’t a feature of that genre (because it was impossible back then). They were, however, expected to get the gist right.
It’s well to remember how compromised and comprisable a text the NT was
It’s well to remember how deeply embarrassing much of the NT is. That’s one of the criteria for authenticity. Was a story embarrassing to the early Church? Was it embarrassing to the Rabbis? Yes? We can be pretty sure it’s true. People who are lying generally try to make themselves look good. There’s quite a bit – either in the NT, or in the Rabbinic sources, which is embarrassing to one side or the other. Despite this, it’s still repeated as if everyone knows it to be the case.
Um, do you really want me to go on about this? I have an MA…
22 March 2015 at 22:48 #39109@ichabod @Bluequeakpip So the Essenes? I think there was a greek philosopher that
wrote about them. Did they have families? Maybe a lot did and a lot didn’t
Weren’t there some gospels found that said maybe Jesus had a wife too?
like the Doctor says in Listen “how do you know”?
The Dan Brown delusional freemason illuminati conspiracy one world order fun.
My favorite parts were following those connections he tried to make.
Our species is so good at propagating ideas 🙂23 March 2015 at 00:02 #39110@bluesqueakpip do go on please. I forgot about the Essenes: as for Rabbinic discussions about poor ol’ Zipporah, I didn’t know that either! Interesting.
23 March 2015 at 00:05 #39111I think there was a greek philosopher that wrote about them.
I think you mean Philo – who was a Hellenistic Jewish philospher who lived in Egypt. 😉
Did they have families? Maybe a lot did and a lot didn’t
Some Essene groups are argued to have families, yeah. We know others definitely didn’t. The point is that you can’t argue that Jesus was married (in the face of no available source saying he was married) or had kids (in the face of absolutely nobody saying he had kids) by using ‘everybody back then got married, and married young’.
Because we know not everybody got married, and even those who did weren’t always young.
Weren’t there some gospels found that said maybe Jesus had a wife too?
You might have seen something like that in the news, yes. It’s a forgery – one of a set of forged papyri. The text is all lifted from the Gospel of Thomas – well, apart from the ‘my wife’ bit. 😀
like the Doctor says in Listen “how do you know”?
Well, if a genuine papyrus turned up showing Jesus was a widower, or married with five kids, I’d certainly be very interested. It also wouldn’t affect my faith in the slightest, because it’s not remotely relevant to the important stuff. It’s just interesting.
And that’s the big problem with the Dan Brown/Baigant style conspiracy theories – they’re bloody stupid. Completely ahistorical. Nobody in the 1st Century Church would have cared if Jesus was married; half the disciples were married – it took centuries for priestly celibacy to take hold. The only people who might have cared were the Romans, who could possibly have been worried about a son of Davidic ancestry inheriting the ‘King of the Jews’ mantle.
And we know that the early Church had no problem with Jesus’ family members holding positions of authority. We know that because the church in Jerusalem was led by a relative.
What you end up with is Occam’s Razor. There’s no evidence that mentions a wife or children because there was no wife or children.
It’s a bit boring; but there it is. 😉
23 March 2015 at 00:09 #39112thank you -yep, I was rambling on.
23 March 2015 at 04:57 #39119you know it’s refreshing to read someone’s historically educated opinion like your self and with qualifications/credentials who speaks about the issue of the forged portion of the Gospel of Thomas -is that whole gospel a forgery?
I’m honestly so lost in theological discussions because of that particular piece of ‘evidence’. Also there are a number of other papyri which claim to have historical precedence and significance ? Which gospels are they? Is it only Thomas?
And is this the same one which claims “we are all capable of being gods?” and allude to Mary’s god-hood status as well (thus upping the feminist angle)?
Is this also the one claiming Christ flew away for 3 days and travelled elsewhere to deliver a further testament ?
Yes, the idea that JC was married because ‘everyone else was’ gets up my craw – one thing I did know (coz it’s common sense) was that not everyone necessarily followed thru with betrothal, or even began the process -particularly if arranged marriages were the norm and I’m assuming there were no other kind?
Gosh, there a few questions up there but I find that whilst reading the ontological and theological texts I have, many quash the discussions about Thomas’ ‘gospel’ immediately so it’s difficult to find a satisfactory debate that answers questions without throwing up another 100 in the process!
23 March 2015 at 05:07 #39120I think we can put the whole Doctor-Jesus debate to bed with this one quote:
“He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy”
Seriously though, keep it going, very interesting and engaging.
23 March 2015 at 05:21 #39121@whohar you bet! except I’m woefully ignorant!
was Eusebius involved in the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark and the importance of its place in the discussion at the 2nd Council of Nicea (or is that all wrong?). It appears that the Gospel of Mark and chapters within it discussing the Virgin Birth have since been considered false (as well as the more obvious Songs/Odes of Solomon) and even many of the ‘taken for granted’ miracles?
I think most believers today would claim that revelations is a collection of scary bed-time stories written out of time and haphazardly placed out of order -although a reverend within the Anglican church I recently met, claims most of the bible is exactly that -haphazard and out of sync (it made me wonder what he was doing as a recognised ‘priest’ in a mainstream church! But what do I know? Seriously, quite a …lot of naught!)
Blistering with questions, puro
23 March 2015 at 05:21 #39122@whohar you bet! except I’m woefully ignorant!
was Eusebius involved in the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark and the importance of its place in the discussion at the 2nd Council of Nicea (or is that all wrong?). It appears that the Gospel of Mark and chapters within it discussing the Virgin Birth have since been considered false (as well as the more obvious Songs/Odes of Solomon) and even many of the ‘taken for granted’ miracles?
I think most believers today would claim that revelations is a collection of scary bed-time stories written out of time and haphazardly placed out of order -although a reverend within the Anglican church I recently met, claims most of the bible is exactly that -haphazard and out of sync (it made me wonder what he was doing as a recognised ‘priest’ in a mainstream church! But what do I know? Seriously, quite a …lot of naught!)
Blistering with questions, puro
23 March 2015 at 05:23 #3912323 March 2015 at 05:34 #39124@purofilion
From what I’ve read of your posts so far, I’d disagree. My own tactic is to read the discussions and, if I can contribute meaningfully, do so. Otherwise (and usually) it’s just daft jokes.
I have been away from this hallowed place for some months now, it’s good to be back, especially as there are more of us in this time zone. For a while it was just me and @janetteb on the night shift. Quality, not quantity obvs.
23 March 2015 at 06:48 #39126@bluesqueakpip — You have an MA? Great, who better to learn better from? By all means go on; I’m not averse to learning something I didn’t know, or sharpening up outdated data (for example, about the inaccuracy of NT names). As for Dan Brown, lord knows I tried but could NOT get over the horrible writing and structure and characters and — well. I am a wuss. I gave up trying to read him, and fell asleep watching the movies made from his books, so, no, I can’t use him as an excuse. Don’t know who the other guy is that you mention, but I bet his books are better . . .
Where can I find articles on some of the newer “discoveries” being forgeries? I hadn’t heard anything more about the “my wife” bits since the news items about them being discovered.
I did think of the Essenes, but didn’t anything much about them, so I just, er, passed over mentioning them in my post. My recollection is that they were a small sect, not a major branch of Judaic culture, with — is this true? — only one known settlement of any size. What I’m asking is, would their existence be an argument for Jesus’s celibacy if he didn’t actually go and live with them instead of traveling around preaching (or did the Essenes do that too)? I agree, by the way, that whether or not he actually did have a wife and kids would has no bearing on believing or not believing in his story; and the subject only came up in the course of comparing the figure of Jesus with the figure of the Doctor, not as an attempt to undermine Jesus’s stature as a religious leader.
@whohar — Hi, then; I don’t think you were posting when I came on board here late last year, so glad to meet you. Thanks for the “life lessons” article. I’ve seen one or two others like it, and they usually spark some good discussion. You label the link “US view of DW” — is there a different view of the Doc’s lessons in, say, the UK?
@purofilion — Why has the Gospel of Mark come into question now? Has something happened — something been found, or released to the public, etc. — that’s stirred up new uncertainties about the Gospels?
23 March 2015 at 06:59 #39128@scaryb – thanks for the welcome. I’m actually from the Home Counties (Sussex currently). The cute Shetland trolls are my niece and nephew (well cute some of the time) who gave me the troll in my avatar.
23 March 2015 at 07:06 #39129@whohar well, thank you kind person -yes, the ‘night’ shift! There are the Canadians and the Americans contributing at this hour which is super. And I remember you (I think) posting about a year ago? But Real Life intervenes. Also, you’re right, there is so much to read and absorb.
I agree re: Dan Brown -violent and nasty; in plot and writing both. There’s another writer, Australian, who writes similarly but is even worse…his name is lost to me (rammed from my mind)
As to the Mark Gospels, I was reading about that some while ago -not the ‘net, though, some article in a periodical. If I had concerns of a theological kind, I’d stay clear of the net -simply too much confusion causing ruination. But you gotta start somewhere…
23 March 2015 at 09:17 #39130Hello and good to meet you. Yes, I posted quite regularly up to the 50th but then only sporadically on The Guardian website, getting disillusioned as time went on. IMO this forum is much better in terms of knowledge and discussion.
I don’t think that the US necessarily has a different Who-view to the UK, but it is interesting (to me) that a significant population in the US is so enamoured with DW and they may bring another perspective.
@purofilion
Yes, I did post around a year ago, prob a bit longer. Only been in Aus for 3 years and almost had to leave at the end of last year, due to visa issues and broken promises. Sniff. On the plus side, I managed to update my script, based on a DW obsessed internet forum ( @craig may remember), and am much happier with it now. A few more tweaks and I should be ready to submit.
23 March 2015 at 09:39 #39131I’ve been a bit rude and not acknowledged a couple of people so (knowing I will now rudely forget to mention even more people), welcome @summersmith Hi @scaryb , thanks @craig (I really appreciated that as I’ll admit after writing it I hung my head in shame as to my rambling lack of point – I blame the rugby and inevitable liquids consumed during it!).
Hi again @whohar – sounds like an interesting script! Where will you ‘submit’ it to? I’m not a writer so is it a bit like in medicine where things get submitted for peer-review, or is it just a general “I will nowspamsubmit to publishers”?I’ve absolutely nothing to add to the religion/theology discussion though it is interesting. The only thing I can add, is that years ago I read a page of a novel over someone’s shoulder while travelling on the tube. Very rude of me I know, but imagine – I managed to read the whole page between stops and it was execrable. Really terrible writing about ‘the mountain Assassins’ that reminded me of Robert Anton Wilson (though far worse).
When she closed the book to get off at the next stop I saw that it was by Dan Brown.
23 March 2015 at 11:32 #39133@whisht Oh I know. Brown, ick! But our own Matthew Reilly -now that’s a blast, truly an awful blast of crap. He uses a lot of capitalisation with stories of with powerfully muscled dudes f’wizzing about in weird plane/water devices, whilst discovering submerged alien attack ships in the Antarctic.
There’s usually some political wing of some military wing determined to utilise the alien ship as a WMD. I recall an interview with 8 Oz and other writers -some of great note who’d worked very hard to gain traction like Kate Grenville. These people couldn’t look at Reilly -I think the dislike was mutual as he maintains that only fast action with fast cars motivates him to read a book: basically a play station game with text.
23 March 2015 at 11:34 #39134@ichabod @purofilion I hesitate to jump in here, since I am very much an amateur student of Biblical history and textual criticism, but as far as I know, the main debate concerning Mark’s Gospel is not new, and it relates to the account of the resurrection. The nativity doesn’t come into it, since Mark’s account begins with the appearance of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. Only Matthew and Luke include narratives of the Nativity, and those narratives differ.
The problem is that the two earliest surviving manuscripts of Mark finish abruptly at 16:8, with the discovery of the empty tomb by the two Marys and Salome. It is possible that the copyist was working from a version from which the ending was missing, but differences in the style of writing suggest that the subsequent verses found in other manuscripts may have been added by a different, editorial hand.
The question of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic gospels and the Nag Hammadi texts generally is a whole different can of worms.
What may have caused some confusion is a book entitled Forgery, written by Bart D Ehrman, a leading biblical scholar. I have read only the reviews of the book, so I don’t speak from authority, but from what I gathered, the gist of his controversial argument is that in the original writing of much of the N T there were deliberate attempts to deceive. It has long been known, on the basis of textual analysis, that not all the Epistles attributed to Paul were written by the same hand, and it is widely accepted that the four canonical Gospels and the Acts were not written by the Apostles to whom they are nominally attributed. It can also be demonstrated, by comparison of the early manuscripts, that editorial changes were made to some texts (in addition to copyists’ errors). Whether any of this amounts to forgery in any usual sense, as Ehrman seems to imply, is another matter, but it seems to have put the cat among the pigeons in some quarters.
As a very readable account of the history of early New Testament texts and the problems in assessing them I would nevertheless recommend Ehrman’s book ‘Whose Word is It?’ (pub 1998). And for a critical examination of Jesus as represented in the New Testament and in the historical context of first century Judaism I would also recommend the books of Geza Vermes . @bluesqueakpip can no doubt suggest other recommendations.
23 March 2015 at 23:14 #39147Hi again, @whisht
Yeah, well the script is for television, so generally can send to Production companies or, if you have an agent (I don’t), send it to them and they can find a place for it, or not.
Because of the nature of this script, it would really only be a good fit for the BBC, which means I will submit to their Writersroom when the drama window opens.
There are a couple of smaller Prod Cos who have worked with the Beeb, so they may be options.
From a commercial standpoint, it wasn’t a smart move to write something so specific as it limits where it can be picked up. But, as the adage goes, write what you are interested in, don’t second guess the market.
The script would work as a one-off or as a recurring drama, which is a plus.
All that said, the chances are slim but I have one movie script and 3 other tv scripts in various stages of development right now. Keeps me busy…
23 March 2015 at 23:55 #39149@whohar — don’t forget as well as writers’ room (next drama window is not till October, I think), you can also try and submit it to Amazon Studios which has an open submission policy at the moment…
Or you can try adapting it to radio, which I believe tends to accept open submissions more easily…
24 March 2015 at 00:06 #39151Many thanks for the info. I was not aware of the Amazon Studios option.
Last I checked, Writersroom were yet to announce the drama window, but it likely late summer, early autumn.
Radio is really interesting and I have written scripts in the past. Quite a lot of work in adapting an existing TV script but, you are right, it is more accessible.
I had a notion that this board should develop a Who script -it’s a rich seam of knowledge and creativity after all – but I am not sure how the mechanics of it would work. A great USP too – a Who script written by a Who forum.
24 March 2015 at 00:46 #39152@mudlark, @purofilion, @ichabod et al
Funnily enough, I’m spending this week being lectured about worship in the Early Church. 😉 So I might be a bit late in replying.
Anyway, Ehrman. I think the general scholarly feeling is (to paraphrase) ‘overreacting a bit to his background’. He was from a tradition that believed in the complete inerrancy of the Bible, and discovering exactly how many variations there really were seems to have been a bit of a shock. (Thousands. Mostly copyist errors, though.)
That said, I’m not a Greek scholar, so honestly can’t comment on this row; it often relies on whether something must have been changed deliberately or could have been the result of a series of accumulated copyist errors. The proceedings of a 2008 conference on the subject have been published, @mudlark, it’s called ‘The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D Ehman and Daniel B Wallace in dialogue’
Fortunately, you don’t need to be a Greek scholar to find the variations: just get a decent Bible with footnotes. They’ll say something like ‘other ancient versions have…’
Gospel of Thomas – it’s not a forgery, @purofilion (I was talking about the so-called ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’, which is). However, it is considerably later than thought when first found. When it was first found, it fit the then popular scholarly theory of early collections of the sayings of Jesus, which the later Gospels were based on – so it got dated at 1st Century, possibly very early 1st Century.
At the moment, there’s been a lot of work which suggests it’s Thomas which is familiar with the Synoptics, not vice-versa. That puts its dating around 2nd Century.
24 March 2015 at 02:11 #39154@bluesqueakpip OK, I’ll stand down! 🙂 Right, the whole thing is not a forgery. Probably, I should have said “it’s not a respected piece of writing of biblical status”. Even that sounds wholly of the ‘nuttery’ variety as I’m assuming (bad word) that various biblical verses/chapters/books are considered more (or less) complete/correct than others. It’s a minefield.
Yep. I know nothing,. Soooo, continue on….(burp)
24 March 2015 at 03:47 #39157Do we have any Game of Thrones fans here? I didn’t start watching until the 3rd season and
then I wanted to watch the whole thing in a marathon. I think its very good stuff. So does
Margaret Atwood apparently and she wrote about it in the Guardian along with a few others.
Maybe someone saw the piece but in case you haven’t and would like to here’s the link
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/mar/22/margaret-atwood-on-game-of-thrones-season-five -
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘On The Sofa (6)’ is closed to new replies.
