Toto

Marcion of Pontus believed in two gods: the evil demiurge portrayed as the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the good God of the New Testament.

JoeWallack

JW:
The only rule I follow is that I never report rule violations to the Moderators but shoudn't the above be followed by a smilee face?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

Scottish Jew? :Cheeky:


nisp

Huon

Hyam MacCoby :

Maccoby is hebrew for Mac Gowan. Maccoby is a "hammer" in hebrew. See the Maccabees. In fact, Maccoby is the hebrew pronunciation for Mac Gowan (son of Smith). And Hyam is also the hebrew pronunciation for Liam (William). Hyam Maccoby = Liam Mac Gowan !

PhilosopherJay

Hi Solitary Man,

Walter Shandruk apparently has been having some doubts about the historicity of Jesus. Read his recent blog A Vision in the Mexican Desert and Jesus at http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=330

Loren Rossen says this about himself in an interview at (http://www.biblioblogs.com/featured-blogs/200612/)

LR: Though I grew up in a religious community (a mix of Episcopalians and Methodists), and had plenty of religious education in a Roman Catholic high school, I was never really interested in the bible prior to my agnostic years in college. In the last of those years, I took intro courses to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament with Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh, and the rest, as they say, is history. Dick is a member of the Context Group, and an exceptionally lively instructor who could make an atheist love the bible. Which is a good thing, since the student body of Lewis and Clark College was/is extremely liberal.

Since he describes his college years as his "agnostic years," I assume he has now returned to his childhood roots as a believer.

This apparently leaves us with Rick Sumner as our only sure atheist who believes surely in an historical Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Solitary Man

I've talked with Walter Shandruk personally. He does not buy the Jesus Myth, nor is he "having doubts". What followed on his blogpost was an explanation how a fictional character could enter the tradition. If you feel so inclined, so you can leave a message on the blog asking him yourself. Or post at the forum he posts at.

EDIT: He's also a member here as well.

William Arnal is also an atheist, and you seem to have forgotten Chris Weimer from the list. I've sent an email to Dr. Zeba Crook to confirm his status as a non-theist, and will update accordingly.

Also, Bart Ehrman is an agnostic, and as I already stated, Loren Rosson is a self-described Unitarian Universalist.

chrisengland

Hello
I,m not suggesting that atheist or agonostic schoalrs are untrustworthy.
But it does appear that they may rule out miricle from the start' most of the time when I hear that its from Christians though' but I may have heard it from some more neatral or possibly even atheist sources' somebody on hear said they couldn't except a supernatural event as historical.
It seems like some conservative Christian scholars do the opposite thing' they except Bible innerency from the begining.
It appears that some liberal Christians though except neither.
It appears that some e.g. Raymond Brown although a Christian didn't except Bible innerency' but didn't rule our miricle either wich meens your getting a better picture.
I have heard it said that(although again from Christian sources mostly) that the reason the Gospels are dated later is because it mentions the prophecy about the temple so schoalrs date it late because of that' but if alot of schoalrs are liberal Christians I dought they would because why would they have a problem ruling out a miricle.


Unless they do rule out miricle because they think it must be read mataphoricaly. I will try to look into this myslef but I don't have much time.
thankyou
chris

Amaleq13

There is no rule violation involved. PM me for clarification, if needed.

chrisengland

Somebody called John Barton I think hes a theologian at oxford university has said that most biblical scholars are christians of some sort.
I just wondered do liberal christian scholars rule out miricle aswell (beleiveing most of it to be metaphoric)or do they just investigate it and see where the evidence leads them.
I think it is significant because if they don't then there probably are good reasons for doughting certain things e.g. Raymond Brown apparently said that he thought the New Testament contained legendary embelishment.
If he as a liberal christian hasn't ruled out miricle then he would have no reason to say it did.
I pretty certain he wasn't suggesting the resurection was a myth just that the story got embelished over time e.g. the earth quakes 3 hours of darkness ect.
He also said I think that Luke didn't know Paul, wich was a question in another thread I did which wouls suggest to me unless he's ruled out miricle from the start and didn't want to admit there was accounts from somebody who spoke to eye witnesses' which it appears he hasn't then there probably are good reaons for doing so.
Of course it's important to look at the evidence not how many people beleieve it but I don't like to beleive something that no scholars take seriously.
chris

gstafleu

That's probably correct, compare it to the "Perpetual_motion effect." People have beeing trying for a long time to come up with perpetual motion devices. Every time someone came up with a new design, it was subsequently shown not to work. Add to this that we have the principle of conservation of energy, which rules out such machines. As a result nobody takes you seriously when you announce you have finally built one. In other words, the claim of having built a perpetual motion machine is an extremely extraordinary one, requiring extremely extraordinary evidence: the ball of proving you indeed have such a machine rests completely in your court, is made of lead, and is solidly glued to the concrete.

Something similar goes for supernatural effects. Lots have been claimed, all have been "debunked" (there even is a jargon term for this, so you can see how common it is). So anybody who operates from a scientific basis will dismiss supernaturality out of hand. Should anybody want to claim its existence, they will have to adduce very extraordinary evidence indeed, given that it has already been tried and disproven so often. And no, a set of aod scriptures does not exactly count as extraordinary evidence for this purpose.

Gerard Stafleu