FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-03-2013, 11:19 AM   #21
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decypher View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Ive found no apologetic bias in Crossan, Reed, Meyers, Sanders, Martin, Borg.


I think the list of apologetic scholars that are seriously biased is rather small, once we get beyond personal interpretation which they all hold.
They may not be cases of "apologetic bias", but Crossan:



It mentions he studied archaeology, but Crossan appears to be a qualified theologian rather than a historian.

And looking at Borg:

Quote:
He later changed his major to political science and philosophy. Though plagued by doubt as a young adult, after his undergraduate studies Borg decided to study at Union Seminary in New York City, where he became familiarized with liberal theology. One of the profound influences on Borg during his seminary years was his professor and the noted theologian W. D. Davies. After graduating from Union he then matriculated at Mansfield College, Oxford University, where he earned his D. Phil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg
Which again, doesn't look like the guy has a historian background.


You may be aware of plenty of others with a historian background?


If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point.

Right now, you do not.
outhouse is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 02:38 PM   #22
Robert Tulip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decypher View Post
They may not be cases of "apologetic bias", but Crossan: It mentions he studied archaeology, but Crossan appears to be a qualified theologian rather than a historian. And looking at Borg:
Which again, doesn't look like the guy has a historian background.
You may be aware of plenty of others with a historian background?
If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point. Right now, you do not.
Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.
Robert Tulip is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 03:38 PM   #23
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point. Right now, you do not.
Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.
That is not correct
outhouse is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:05 PM   #24
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.
That is not correct
Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?
Toto is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:21 PM   #25
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

I don't have a problems with people not being trained historians so much as whether they use appropriate historical methods and show they used them.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:51 PM   #26
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
I don't have a problems with people not being trained historians so much as whether they use appropriate historical methods and show they used them.
Very true.


The kangaroo court methodology around here seems to think scholars are not historians.

Laughable at what and who they claim are credible historians, when only a small handful follow the drivel often posted.
outhouse is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:58 PM   #27
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

That is not correct
Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

Do you even know what the definition of a historian is?

Or the definition of a scholar?


I suggest you read up on it.
outhouse is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:13 PM   #28
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?
Do you even know what the definition of a historian is?

Or the definition of a scholar?
Yes I do. Do you know how to avoid answering questions? I think you do.

The question is what evidence Crossan or Borg use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus.

The answer is: . . . .
Toto is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 07:50 PM   #29
Robert Tulip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

That is not correct
Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?
I attend a weekly Bible Study group. We used The Last Week by Crossan and Borg as a study. I have a number of their books. While they are very interesting and informed scholars, their starting point is the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This belief in the Gospels provides a basis for what they term "progressive theology", the liberationist argument that Christians should support the political left.

Because their Jesus underpins their politics, Crossan and Borg have a vested interest in arguing that Jesus actually lived, and a lack of interest in considering this question against objective historical criteria and methods.
Robert Tulip is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 08:29 PM   #30
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?
I attend a weekly Bible Study group. We used The Last Week by Crossan and Borg as a study. I have a number of their books. While they are very interesting and informed scholars, their starting point is the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This belief in the Gospels provides a basis for what they term "progressive theology", the liberationist argument that Christians should support the political left.

Because their Jesus underpins their politics, Crossan and Borg have a vested interest in arguing that Jesus actually lived, and a lack of interest in considering this question against objective historical criteria and methods.

There decades of study at a level few will ever achieve, is what have led them to their opinions.

Unless you can show otherwise, and you cannot.
outhouse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Top

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