Blicero

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> TF
> > OK
> >
> > Let's go, we were talking about the word Like. My question
> > to you is:
> >
> > And where in the myths do you find Jesus likes being nailed
> >  to a cross?
> 
> It's the wrong question, Terrance. Jesus qua Jesus isn't in the myths.
> The people who write and read the myths are the ones investing the
> Passion with overtones of eroticism and fetish body-piercing, as well as
> all that stuff about heroic martyrdom and redemption and so forth.

Right or wrong I got the answer to the larger question and
so now we can deal with the other more important questions
you listed. Hey, and the rest of the group didn't have to
read or delete a bunch of posts on Chaucer--I planned to
bring him in hopes that we might find a common ground your
"expertise in Early Christian and Byzantine iconography
being scant at best.")

In any event we now have a framework from which to proceed.
I suspected that this would be your answer all along but I
did not want to be presumptuous. 

In my post on same books different readings I gave the
following example:

"For example, if one person is reading the story of Jesus
from a Freudian framework, while another person is reading
the story of Jesus from an Augustinian framework, they may
in fact agree on a whole lot and they may disagree on a
whole lot, but if the frameworks are not identified and the
principles made clear, the discussion is both unenlightened
and unenlightening."

It's clear that my fictitious Freudian and my fictitious
Augustinian can not discuss jesus and blicero (same books)
unless--- as I stated in my post on "same book/different
readings----  accept the fact that they have
the same books, but different readings and take the time to
understand the principles on which our conclusions or
different readings depend.




You wrote:

"The people who write and read the myths are the ones
investing the
 Passion with overtones of eroticism and fetish
body-piercing, as well as
 all that stuff about heroic martyrdom and redemption and so
forth."

It should be clear that there is no way that you and I can
have a discussion of jesus being nailed to a cross and
liking it if we don't agree that the people who write and
read the myths are the ones investing the Passion with
overtones of eroticism and fetish body-piercing, as well as
all that stuff about heroic martyrdom and redemption and so
forth.

I'll agree with this so we can get to the next step. 



> 
> > Being nailed to a stake and liking it? An omnipotent and wrathful god?
> > Sacrifice of a/the Son, His Word made flesh? Transcendence, apotheosis,
> > and vicarious salvation for the faithful?
> 
> If you want, retract "liking" and insert "loving" in the first line, as
> I suggested (sounds a bit too Maxwell Smart and totally sacrilegious to
> my ears but ... ). Or forget all about it. Or consign me to eternal
> hellfire. But *please* can we let this one slide.
> 
> best


Liking is fine now, "loving" os fine and erotic as well, but
you also wrote "erotic as well as something "higher"). What
do you mean by "something higher"??


"But *please* can we let this one slide."

We can do what ever we like, but I think we have made a lot
of progress here and it would be a shame imho not to steal
third base and hope someone can sacrifice us home. 

Or

We are halfway home now, so maybe with a couple more posts
and a little help from our friends we will back to
discussing Blicero by Monday New York Time.

Terrance