[QUOTE]Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
SWL: That's fine and dandy, but really, I don't see what that has to do with the topic of the thread. I posted a scholarly review of a book that is often under discussion here.

Just having a little fun actually. The quote you posted can be applied to many things. As for the scholary review it comes down to his authority against theirs. Guess we'll have to see how many more "authorities" throw their hat in this ring. (Lots of the stuff I read in this particular forum is about trotting out scholars or historians on both sides of the issue to get them to support what people already believe. Kinda funny in a way actually. )

SWL: That's not a controversial claim, as there's really hardly a piece of ancient history that scholars would say is 'objective and unbiased'. But you referred to 'scholars'. May I ask what scholarly works you have read?

Well I've read the Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar folks, though you may argue their not "real" scholars. My brother (he's a Christian) loaned me his copy of The Jesus Quest by Witherington. I read Burton Mack's Who Wrote the NT? and I have Randel Helms book Who Wrote the Gospels? I am currently reading Richard Fletcher's, The Barbarian Conversion. (Not a bible scholar I know but a respected historian in any case)

And of course I read all the fine posts here on the web that cite this or that scholar.

I try to get my hands on whatever books are touted as good, that someone will lend me or that my library has or can order. If I know anything, its that books are expensive! (And my time is very limited )

SWL: Actually there is external criticism recorded in the Gospels - for instance the charge that Jesus works miracles by the power of the prince of demons, or Matthew's recorded charge that the disciple's stole Jesus' body from the tomb, or the charge that Jesus made physical threats against the Temple.

Well external criticism recorded outside the bible would be far more impressive to me. I don't consider those instances highly critical in nature. Indeed a charge that "demons" are the source of power for miracles leaves a lot to be desired in a critic.

You also wrote: "[these writings] pretend to describe what really happened 2000 years ago concerning a man called Jesus, including all kinds of fantastic claims that should be viewed as no more than myths."

Would you care to show us what claims you're talking about and why they should be viewed as no more than myths.

Virgin births, rising from the dead, healing powers, those kind of claims.

As I have no good reason to believe any such things can actually happen that is sufficient reason for me to believe they should be viewed as myths. In the same vein as ghosts, channlers, UFO abductions and reincarnation. Of course I am willing witness any empirical evidence for such things that someone might present. It would take a lot of evidence for me to believe in the those things and likewise a lot of evidence for me to believe in 2000 year old claims writen down in ancient manuscripts.

SWL: Good to see you, max.

Same here. Do you hang out at the Yahoo site much? I changed jobs to where I actually have to work now instead of being bored silly and going off to listen to people mostly gossip, rant and fight.

This review should be read with caution. The author pretends to be an objective, non-biased scholar. This review is agenda- driven and should be treated that way by anyone who wishes to take the time to read it.

rodahi

Come now. Surely gospelcom.net is a respected, unbiased look at literature and history.

Hello rodahi

Rather than attacking the source, could you offer a crique of the arguments put forward?

Thanks,

Nomad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
This review should be read with caution. The author pretends to be an objective, non-biased scholar. This review is agenda- driven and should be treated that way by anyone who wishes to take the time to read it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello rodahi

Rather than attacking the source, could you offer a crique of the arguments put forward?

Thanks,

Nomad

You seem to have missed the point, Nomad. I repeated, almost verbatim, the words of the reviewer. If you believe I "attacked" the reviewer, you must believe the reviewer attacked the writers.

rodahi

rodahi, I don't think that SWL intended for you to take only the conclusion as the only words of the reviewer. This is probably why he provided a link with substantive information that backs up the posted conclusion. I don't think Nomad missed anything...

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 23, 2001).]

You seem to have missed the point, Nomad. I repeated, almost verbatim, the words of the reviewer. If you believe I "attacked" the reviewer, you must believe the reviewer attacked the writers.[/quote]

In the review the reviewer offers a number of reasons to treat the book with caution, and points out some significant flaws in its arguments.

Your post, on the other hand, was totally devoid of content except for your attack on the writer as being a biased source. Since I see no reason to take your word for it that he was, in fact, biased, I am asking you to substantiate your claim.

Give it a try, if you can.

Nomad

Hey Nomad,
While you're waiting for rodahi's response, why don't you mosey on over to the thread where you tried to defend God's law regarding rape victims?

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000332.html

Give it a try, if you can

I have replied. My apologies. I do not normally go to that particular forum, and had not checked it since my last post.

Nomad

I read the "review" in question. You and Nomad missed the point.

rodahi