Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 09-29-2009, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

You stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion.

And all scholarly opinion is that the characters of Popeye and Sherlock Holmes were based on real people.

So Popeye and Sherlock Holmes must have existed....

Joan of Bark · 09-29-2009, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

You stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion.

And all scholarly opinion is that the characters of Popeye and Sherlock Holmes were based on real people.

So Popeye and Sherlock Holmes must have existed....

The difference being that Arthur Conan Doyle and the creators of Popeye comics don't try to claim their stories are accurate representations of the characters, quotes and all.

But here's my last question for MJers. Have any of you ever engaged in correspondence with scholars who believe not only in an HJ, but also that we can judge the authenticity of the words associated with Him? Have you asked them why they believe in an HJ? I'm not talking about devout Christian scholars, who are obviously not objective, but skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Robin Lane Fox.

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm honestly curious as to any answers you might get.

TimBowe · 09-29-2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:

The gospels of the New Testament have always been cherished by Christians wanting to know what to believe and how to live. As we have seen, though, they are somewhat problematic for historians who want to know what really happened during the life of Jesus. We will need to consider carefully how to make appropriate use of these documents, if we want to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus. If we look at the historical record itself- and, I should emphasize, for historians there is nothing else to look at, it appears that whatever his influence on subsequent generations, Jesus impact on society in the first century was practically nil, less like a comet striking the planet than as stone tossed into the ocean. This becomes especially clear when we consider what his own contemporaries had to say about him. Strangely enough, they said almost nothing.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

dog-on · 09-29-2009, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And all scholarly opinion is that the characters of Popeye and Sherlock Holmes were based on real people.

So Popeye and Sherlock Holmes must have existed....

The difference being that Arthur Conan Doyle and the creators of Popeye comics don't try to claim their stories are accurate representations of the characters, quotes and all.

But here's my last question for MJers. Have any of you ever engaged in correspondence with scholars who believe not only in an HJ, but also that we can judge the authenticity of the words associated with Him? Have you asked them why they believe in an HJ? I'm not talking about devout Christian scholars, who are obviously not objective, but skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Robin Lane Fox.

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm honestly curious as to any answers you might get.

From reading some of their arguments, they really boil down to making certain assumptions. They tend to use words that allow for wiggle room when it comes to this specific issue. Additionally, many simply do not focus on the actual question of historicity, instead they take historicity as a simpe given.

The only writers that seem to be assertive in actually claiming historicity are apologists.

dog-on · 09-29-2009, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

The gospels of the New Testament have always been cherished by Christians wanting to know what to believe and how to live. As we have seen, though, they are somewhat problematic for historians who want to know what really happened during the life of Jesus. We will need to consider carefully how to make appropriate use of these documents, if we want to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus. If we look at the historical record itself- and, I should emphasize, for historians there is nothing else to look at, it appears that whatever his influence on subsequent generations, Jesus impact on society in the first century was practically nil, less like a comet striking the planet than as stone tossed into the ocean. This becomes especially clear when we consider what his own contemporaries had to say about him. Strangely enough, they said almost nothing.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Case in point...

show_no_mercy · 09-29-2009, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Historians and scholars regard the nonexistence hypothesis effectively refuted. Thats another fact.

Most Biblical historians have scoffed at the nonexistence of Jesus. This is a fact. However, they haven't actually refuted the position. Maybe you can do us a favor and post a critical refutation of the nonexistence of Jesus instead of Biblical scholars scoffing at the idea.

bacht · 09-29-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

But here's my last question for MJers. Have any of you ever engaged in correspondence with scholars who believe not only in an HJ, but also that we can judge the authenticity of the words associated with Him? Have you asked them why they believe in an HJ? I'm not talking about devout Christian scholars, who are obviously not objective, but skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Robin Lane Fox.

Well, the Jesus Seminar went throught the gospels trying to separate "authentic" sayings of Jesus from later additions. Their tally was approx 18% of the quotes being "real". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_S...yings_of_Jesus

This is only one assessment but it suggests the difficulty of the process. Even if you read just one gospel you'll encounter contradictory sayings and teachings (eg Matthew's Sermon on the Mount seems like a different planet from his Woes against the scribes and Pharisees).

dog-on · 09-29-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

But here's my last question for MJers. Have any of you ever engaged in correspondence with scholars who believe not only in an HJ, but also that we can judge the authenticity of the words associated with Him? Have you asked them why they believe in an HJ? I'm not talking about devout Christian scholars, who are obviously not objective, but skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Robin Lane Fox.

Well, the Jesus Seminar went throught the gospels trying to separate "authentic" sayings of Jesus from later additions. Their tally was approx 18% of the quotes being "real". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_S...yings_of_Jesus

This is only one assessment but it suggests the difficulty of the process. Even if you read just one gospel you'll encounter contradictory sayings and teachings (eg Matthew's Sermon on the Mount seems like a different planet from his Woes against the scribes and Pharisees).

(Of course the Jesus Seminar took HJ as a given...)...

bacht · 09-29-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Well, the Jesus Seminar went throught the gospels trying to separate "authentic" sayings of Jesus from later additions. Their tally was approx 18% of the quotes being "real". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_S...yings_of_Jesus

This is only one assessment but it suggests the difficulty of the process. Even if you read just one gospel you'll encounter contradictory sayings and teachings (eg Matthew's Sermon on the Mount seems like a different planet from his Woes against the scribes and Pharisees).

(Of course the Jesus Seminar took HJ as a given...)...

Well I guess they had to for the project to make any sense. But their findings are interesting from the pov of HJ advocates.

dog-on · 09-29-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

(Of course the Jesus Seminar took HJ as a given...)...

Well I guess they had to for the project to make any sense. But their findings are interesting from the pov of HJ advocates.

If they didn't question the historicity, then their number is wrong.

I can easily go through the Gospels and verify that everything said by Jesus was, in fact, said by Jesus.

In other words, by simply assuming historicity, their project became senseless.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.