Factoid: Back in 1973 I replaced Randy Stonehill on a bill when he had to cancel. 46 years ago, but I remember it well, and jotted down the date. Of course, should you wish ever pass that on to anypone, they’ll have to take your word for it, as “handed down to you by he who from the first was an eye witness” (to paraphrase Luke, who also claims to have spoken to eye-witnesses to Jesus).
And if someone else passes it on yet again, the facts that they report are intrinsically false and not worthy to be believed, even if written down.
3 Likes
I don’t believe you. 
(To my loss.)
Absolutely cool!! No wonder I liked you so much!
Have you seen the boxed set of of the early CCM artists, containing two DVD’s and two CD’s, called “First Love --An Historic Gathering of Jesus Music Pioneers?”
I’ve noticed that the artists change their lyrics from occasion to occasion, and that the published lyric sheets don’t always jibe with every performance… so, I’ve concluded the whole Jesus Music generation thing is actually a myth. At least, until you show up and claim to have actually been there… :o) Guess I’ll have to rely on your dubious eyewitness testimony. ;o)
Another helping of sarcasm, anyone?
2 Likes
There’s a sociological point to be made, maybe. I never saw Stonehill, but subbed for him, and know that he was around at that time, and might very well say what you attribute to him. You heard him play, but have only my word for my anecdote (which I could expand about my musical partner’s uncool stage gear, the starter switch of my Mini breaking on a farm rut, the biggest bonfire in the world messing up the Gatwick flight path, etc…
The point is that historical testimony doesn’t arise in a vacuum: we have an interest in a known historical figure, and ask, “What was he like? What did he say?”
3 Likes
(There’s a distinction to be made between sarcasm and irony, I think. Sarcasm includes irony, but it adds mockery, and we don’t want to be doing that – and you weren’t. 
)
Good to know I wasn’t transgressing any illustrative or apologetic boundaries. :o)
1 Like
At that gig the most popular (at that time) UK gospel band, Parchment, were also on the bill - and evidently not in a good mood, probably because they were working full-time for peanuts after their minor UK hit, and I wasn’t.
I tried to quote an early Graham Kendrick lyric in my book (another person I gigged with then), but his wife said the copyright has passed from hand to hand and is now owned by Sony or some other faceless corporation.
These were the days of hair:
2 Likes
Actually, Paul and others biblically employ sarcasm on occasion… Just sayin’ !
Gath needs it more than I do… but, thanks! Friend of mine was the traveling sound engineer for the BeeGees, so zi asked him who was in charge of the blow dryers. “Believe me, brother…” he said, " there was one stashed in almost every case we carried." Days of hair, indeed!
1 Like
Another point in not believing: I said I didn’t believe you – to my loss. Being a disbeliever rather inhibits personal relationships. You are a very interesting person and enviably articulate, and I will be glad to get to know you and hear some more stories. (I have fun ones of my own that you might enjoy… but I guess you’d have to believe me, wouldn’t you. 
)
Yeah, maybe he did use some sarcasm, and possibly Jesus too, to the Pharisees. In general though, we do have a mandate to avoid mockery – it’s not a seat we want to be sitting in.
Nobody has suggested that makes it “intrinsically false.” However, it makes the assertion intrinsically unreliable.
There was just a wee bit of irony in that, and you took it literalisticly.
The ones who disbelieve true stories are the ones who lose out.
1 Like
Well, I suppose there is a point to this. But I don’t see it.
If somebody makes a claim or assertion which makes no difference at all to my life, then there is no reason for me to question that claim. The easiest path is to accept the claim, but then forget it.
If somebody makes a claim such that believing that claim would completely transform my life, then of course I should question it and require more evidence that a mere hearsay report.
Perhaps you are asserting that the claimed resurrection of Jesus should make no difference to anybody’s life. And if that’s your point, I’ll admit that it is an interesting one.
Maybe the point is more about being childlike before Father (what he wants) than about being a denialist (what you want). The former get to know him and the latter don’t. (Little children don’t demand a chain of custody and notary seals. That is hardly to say that we should be gullible.)
Physical evidence!