FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-21-2001, 02:08 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bede:
Michael,

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The only issue here is whether or not Jesus existed. There is no other. If Doherty said, yes there was a real person but we can know nothing much about him, I'd say fine. All this stuff on 'myth' just muddies the water. Doherty only matters because he claims Jesus never existed. Either you believe this or you don't. You don't.

And who are all these scholars who don't believe Jesus existed? I'd like to know.

Yours

Bede

PS: who said you weren't a post modernist?

Bede's Library - faith and reason
</font>
N.T. Wright, a leading British scholar, often mentions that mythicism and radical New Testament criticism is most common in the United States. Europe finds it rather laughable. Wright's proposed explanation is that religious fundamentalism in the U.S. has spawned a reactionary, criticial fundamentalism just as unsupported by history.

Of course, I have no idea what Japanese New Testament scholars think about all of this.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 21, 2001).]
 
Old 05-21-2001, 04:24 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Wright's proposed explanation is that religious fundamentalism in the U.S. has spawned a reactionary, criticial fundamentalism just as unsupported by history.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 21, 2001).]


Cute, but ahistorical.

What "history" supports the actual existence of Jesus? The gospels are myths and recovering sure history from them is not possible. Paul never met Jesus.

Michael
 
Old 05-21-2001, 04:32 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

Cute, but ahistorical.

What "history" supports the actual existence of Jesus? The gospels are myths and recovering sure history from them is not possible. Paul never met Jesus.

Michael </font>
Hey, you were the one who was whining about references to the consensus of scholars regarding the existence of Jesus. If you don't want to, or can't, defend your assertions, fine, but don't blame me for responding to your point.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 21, 2001).]
 
Old 05-21-2001, 04:35 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by Bede:

And who are all these scholars who don't believe Jesus existed? I'd like to know.

Yours

Bede


Scholars of myth and comparative religion. Take Campbell, for instance, with an interview here covering this very topic:

http://www.whidbey.com/parrott/toms.htm

Not all, though. I'm sure you've read King Jesus

[b]
PS: who said you weren't a post modernist?

That's a foul blow! When you least expect it.....


Michael

 
Old 05-21-2001, 04:40 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by Layman:
Hey, you were the one who was whining about references to the consensus of scholars regarding the existence of Jesus.

The only thing I noted was that actually there are many scholars, across a number of fields and countries, who have a more balanced view of things.

If you don't want to, or can't, defend your assertions, fine, but don't blame me for responding to your point.

What "assertion" am I supposed to be defending here in this morass of non sequiturs you've presented me with?

Speaking of defending one's assertions, you might answer, instead of evade, the question: what evidence is there that a historical figure underlies the gospels? I think it is probable that there was someone underneath it, but I don't consider the question clinched by any means. The gospels are myths, and are nigh-on useless as "history."

Michael
 
Old 05-21-2001, 04:52 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
Originally posted by Layman:
Hey, you were the one who was whining about references to the consensus of scholars regarding the existence of Jesus.

The only thing I noted was that actually there are many scholars, across a number of fields and countries, who have a more balanced view of things.

If you don't want to, or can't, defend your assertions, fine, but don't blame me for responding to your point.

What "assertion" am I supposed to be defending here in this morass of non sequiturs you've presented me with?

Speaking of defending one's assertions, you might answer, instead of evade, the question: what evidence is there that a historical figure underlies the gospels? I think it is probable that there was someone underneath it, but I don't consider the question clinched by any means. The gospels are myths, and are nigh-on useless as "history."

Michael
</font>
You postulated that scholars from among "many" countries would doubt the existence of Jesus. I responded with a leading British scholar who stated that it was American scholarship that tended to go over the skeptical edge.

I didn't "evade" your unsupported allegation that no historical figure underlies the gospels. This question has been discussed ad nauseum and in many threads. I've defended Josephus' references to Jesus many times, argued with you about Q (with no rebuttal), discussed many times the many independant sources (Q, Paul, Mark, L, M, Josephus, John, and Hebrews) that attest to Jesus' existence and teachings, and defended the accuracy of Acts.

For you to come along and accuse me of "evading" this issue is pretty pathetic Mike. I realize that I have not convinced you. But you have failed to convince me too. But I haven't dodged the issue.
 
Old 05-21-2001, 05:20 PM   #17
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
You postulated that scholars from among "many" countries would doubt the existence of Jesus. I responded with a leading British scholar who stated that it was American scholarship that tended to go over the skeptical edge. . . </font>
Doherty is Canadian.

The Brits live in a theocracy that still has laws against blasphemy. Americans are more open to off-beat ideas than our European friends, but I don't see the need to apologize for that. If you're agraid to examine new ideas because all the experts are against you, you never make progress.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-21-2001, 05:25 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Doherty is Canadian.

The Brits live in a theocracy that still has laws against blasphemy. Americans are more open to off-beat ideas than our European friends, but I don't see the need to apologize for that. If you're agraid to examine new ideas because all the experts are against you, you never make progress.
</font>
Fine. Then you agree with me.

Hey, Bede, lost any friends under those British laws against blasphemy?
 
Old 05-21-2001, 06:16 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
N.T. Wright, a leading British scholar, often mentions that mythicism and radical New Testament criticism is most common in the United States. Europe finds it rather laughable. Wright's proposed explanation is that religious fundamentalism in the U.S. has spawned a reactionary, criticial fundamentalism just as unsupported by history.

Of course, I have no idea what Japanese New Testament scholars think about all of this.

</font>
I'd like to know how anyone, even a reputable scholar, can make a legitimate claim to speak for an entire continent. This appeal to authority would require a great deal of support to avoid being fallacious.

 
Old 05-21-2001, 06:21 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
I'd like to know how anyone, even a reputable scholar, can make a legitimate claim to speak for an entire continent. This appeal to authority would require a great deal of support to avoid being fallacious.
</font>
You are misreading his statement. He does not claim to be speaking for a continent, he is characterizing the state of New Testament scholarship as one who is very familiar with both Continental and American scholarship.

At least he is a scholar. Turtonm, who has yet to demonstrate a familiarity with even American N.T. scholarship, asserts that: "[t]he vast majority of scholars across most disciplines (myth, history, comparative religion...) and from most countries would not regard Jesus as the son of god, and would probably agree that even his existence has not been conclusively proven."

Funny how you don't find that statement unsupported or out of bounds.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 21, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.