Who was the nuttiest nut of all time?

[Plotinus]

What scholars?

Most New Testament scholars think that, to the extent that the Gospels represent Jesus as claiming divinity for himself, they are unhistorical, and that Jesus himself never made any such claim. To the extent that such claims appear in the Gospels, they generally appear in John's Gospel, which most New Testament scholars also think is the one that preserves least well the content and style of the historical Jesus' teaching. If you want names, then obvious scholars to begin with are Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, who have both argued for such a position, which is certainly the mainstream scholarly position. That's not to say that all New Testament scholars hold it; N.T. Wright might be a good example of a dissenter.

 

[LightSpectra]

Some of the scholars in the field of New Testament studies use the most dubious logic I've ever encountered.

For instance, one claim for a late dating for the Gospel of Matthew is that it can't have been written before 70 AD, because Jesus predicts the fall of the Second Temple. Now, even if you take a complete secular approach to this, the possibility is still open that Jesus was not divine at all but simply made an informed guess.

Inversely, I have heard the claim that we know Jesus didn't really predict the end of the Second Temple because the Gospel of Matthew was, according to scholarly consensus, written after its destruction.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'd say Emperor Norton. Though nutty in a good way.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm a scholar, Nicole Kidman is far hotter than Penelope Cruz or Katie Holmes.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

??? Lolwut

 

[ParadigmShifter]

See previous page discussion of Tom Cruise.

 

[vogtmurr]

I'm a scholar, Nicole Kidman is far hotter than Penelope Cruz or Katie Holmes.

I agree - I'd sooner have her as a wife anyway.

 

[classical_hero]

Most New Testament scholars think that, to the extent that the Gospels represent Jesus as claiming divinity for himself, they are unhistorical, and that Jesus himself never made any such claim. To the extent that such claims appear in the Gospels, they generally appear in John's Gospel, which most New Testament scholars also think is the one that preserves least well the content and style of the historical Jesus' teaching. If you want names, then obvious scholars to begin with are Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, who have both argued for such a position, which is certainly the mainstream scholarly position. That's not to say that all New Testament scholars hold it; N.T. Wright might be a good example of a dissenter.

How do they know that Jesus did or did not say those things? What logic are they using to base there decision on that?

 

[Plotinus]

How do they know that Jesus did or did not say those things? What logic are they using to base there decision on that?

No-one can know one way or the other, but there are well-established tools of historical analysis which can give you a reasonable guess. This isn't the thread to discuss them. If you really want to know, any introduction to critical New Testament studies will tell you. The best lay person's introduction to the study of the historical Jesus that I know of, which shows a few of these principles in action, is The historical figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders (London: Penguin 1993).

 

[Kafka2]

There is this Paraguayan dictator named "Francia", I think -- I know that his nickname was "el supremo". Not only was he nuts, but he ruled for decades. Far longer than Bokassa or Nero or any of the other people mentioned here.

Good call.

Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia 1766-1840.

Or, as he preferred to be addressed, "El Supremo". He was Paraguay's first dictator, and under him Paraguay became a sort of prototype socialist state a good 100 years before it became trendy in the world at large. Dr Francia gets a mixed press- he was far from the average totalitarian dictator because certainly wasn't a corrupt man. Every day he withdrew a miserly two pesos from the treasury to fund his entire household needs. He was ruthless in his pursuit of the corrupt, and the state treasury's coffers swelled handsomely under his control.

However he was murderously egocentric. Anyone, without exception, failing to accord him the respect he felt he was due was immediately executed on the spot. He ruled without ministers wielding sole and total control of the nation. Being vehemently anti-religion he seized all church property, persecuted the clergy, and for a time made marriage illegal. He also banned fiestas, abolished every form of social distinction, closed all colleges and had all dogs shot (he didn't like dogs much).

Hating the aristocracy, and the racism they displayed to the Indians, he passed incredibly draconian marriage tax laws to ensure that the only people the landowners could afford to marry were native Indians. This worked rather well, and helped avoid racial conflict in the country, so he made mixed-race marriage compulsory.

Paraguay's borders were closed and it became a hermit state. Uninvited foreigners were imprisoned for years, while other immgrants simply had all their property confiscated. El Supremo liked confiscating things.

If you want a flavour of what this prototype Stalin was like, examine how he treated his own family. His sister married without his permission, so he had her husband shot. And the priest who married them. His sister disappeared, presumably bearing more bullet-holes than previously. Finally, when he realised that his daily allowance of two pesos was not enough to feed both himself and his daughter, he generously legalised prostitution so that she could lawfully earn a living. Bless him.

 

[Flying Pig]

Great - but he didn't like dogs, which turns his rating from awesome to really bad.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Good call.

Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia 1766-1840.

Or, as he preferred to be addressed, "El Supremo". He was Paraguay's first dictator, and under him Paraguay became a sort of prototype socialist state a good 100 years before it became trendy in the world at large. Dr Francia gets a mixed press- he was far from the average totalitarian dictator because certainly wasn't a corrupt man. Every day he withdrew a miserly two pesos from the treasury to fund his entire household needs. He was ruthless in his pursuit of the corrupt, and the state treasury's coffers swelled handsomely under his control.

However he was murderously egocentric. Anyone, without exception, failing to accord him the respect he felt he was due was immediately executed on the spot. He ruled without ministers wielding sole and total control of the nation. Being vehemently anti-religion he seized all church property, persecuted the clergy, and for a time made marriage illegal. He also banned fiestas, abolished every form of social distinction, closed all colleges and had all dogs shot (he didn't like dogs much).

Hating the aristocracy, and the racism they displayed to the Indians, he passed incredibly draconian marriage tax laws to ensure that the only people the landowners could afford to marry were native Indians. This worked rather well, and helped avoid racial conflict in the country, so he made mixed-race marriage compulsory.

Paraguay's borders were closed and it became a hermit state. Uninvited foreigners were imprisoned for years, while other immgrants simply had all their property confiscated. El Supremo liked confiscating things.

If you want a flavour of what this prototype Stalin was like, examine how he treated his own family. His sister married without his permission, so he had her husband shot. And the priest who married them. His sister disappeared, presumably bearing more bullet-holes than previously. Finally, when he realised that his daily allowance of two pesos was not enough to feed both himself and his daughter, he generously legalised prostitution so that she could lawfully earn a living. Bless him.

I think Stoessner (I think that's his name) was worse. Didn't he have the communist party leader's screams broadcast on radio while he was being chainsawed to death?

 

[Kafka2]

Almost. He was listening to the screams over the telephone was the unfortunate chap was chainsawed to death, to a soundtrack of polka music.

Stroessner was also a paedophile.