Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 10-26-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Apocalyptic nut job was my interpretation of Ehrman's Jesus, not his term.

Granted, but that point is not a very good differentiation between Christian and non-Christian scholars. One could call the Jesus the Schweitzer imagined an apocalyptic nut job, too. Same might go for Sanders.

Ben.

Roger Pearse · 10-26-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Crossan on religious beliefs:. . . we are hard-wired for religion. And by religion, I would mean some response, some required response to the mystery that surrounds us.
... In my own work, as you know, I much prefer to concentrate on Christianity itself, not at all because I’ve any presumption that it is the only way to God or the holy or justice or anything else, as I really don’t, but because it’s my responsibility as a Christian and also as a biblical scholar.

In my case the hard-wiring takes the form of a holy desire to shove the rough end of a pineapple up the backside of anyone who makes money off a religion but considers believing in it for the punters.

Step forward, Archbishop, Dr Crossan, and bend over.

I trust no-one will dare suggest, intolerantly, that this is wrong...?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 10-26-2007, 03:09 PM

Roger - it's not wrong as long as you don't act on the desire.

But Crossan is no Benny Hinn, nor is he Karl Rove. He's an academic and makes his living however he can. I see no evidence that he doesn't think that everyone would do well to believe what he believes.

Salam · 10-26-2007, 05:50 PM

All Muslim scholars.

squiz · 10-27-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In my case the hard-wiring takes the form of a holy desire to shove the rough end of a pineapple up the backside of anyone who makes money off a religion but considers believing in it for the punters.

Step forward, Archbishop, Dr Crossan, and bend over.

I trust no-one will dare suggest, intolerantly, that this is wrong...?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What really annoys me is when people distort the honest quest for truth and the study of these fascinating texts and period of history into some sort of devotional exercise. The knee-jerk dismissal of non-believing scholars' arguments as coming from people who "hate Christianity" really irritates me too.

But this sort of venom shocked and amazed me. Crossan actually resigned his priesthood and works as an academic. In what way is he making money off religion? Does the study of the religion that has shaped our society in so many ways belong exlusively to believers?

In my case, however, I don't feel any urge to consummate this annoyance with any sort of violent act. :devil1:

squiz · 10-27-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

William Arnal, an atheist.
James Crossley, non-religious.
Burton Mack, definitely not Christian, but I'm not sure of his religious affiliation, presumably non-religious.
Paula Fredriksen, Jewish
Julie Galambush, Jewish
Geza Vermes, Jewish
Jeffrey Gibson, agnostic (that's right, I said it!)
Bart Ehrman, agnostic

Do I really have to keep going? I might as well say "all living, credentialed NT scholars except RM Price who is agnostic on the issue of historicity." There are presumably a few hundred that I'm leaving out.

Whether or not one counts "atheist Christians" is another matter. I don't think there are any on the list above.

But they all seem to believe in different Jesuses. You know, the Cynic, the Marginal Jew, the Apocalyptic Revolutionary? Where is the scholarly consensus that we laymen are supposed to follow?

Antipope Innocent II · 10-27-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

But they all seem to believe in different Jesuses. You know, the Cynic, the Marginal Jew, the Apocalyptic Revolutionary? Where is the scholarly consensus that we laymen are supposed to follow?

List 25 scholars of Shakespeare and analyse who they say he was and what they say he was saying in his works and you'll get 25 different Shakespeares as well. Big deal - scholars tend to disagree.

What they don't disagree on in the case of Jesus is that the guy existed. You can count the number of actual professional academics who give the "Jesus Myth" idea any credence on the fingers of one hand.

squiz · 10-27-2007, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

But they all seem to believe in different Jesuses. You know, the Cynic, the Marginal Jew, the Apocalyptic Revolutionary? Where is the scholarly consensus that we laymen are supposed to follow?

List 25 scholars of Shakespeare and analyse who they say he was and what they say he was saying in his works and you'll get 25 different Shakespeares as well. Big deal - scholars tend to disagree.

What they don't disagree on in the case of Jesus is that the guy existed. You can count the number of actual professional academics who give the "Jesus Myth" idea any credence on the fingers of one hand.

The point of the works of Shakespeare is not the man himself (whoever he really was), but the works themselves. This is no analogy at all.

What do you mean exactly when you say that they all agree that "the guy" existed. Which "guy"? The full Jesus of the gospels? All I see is a lot of different "guys" being talked about.

judge · 10-27-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

Can somebody list some non-christian scholars who believe Jesus existed. I know a few like Gerd Ludeman, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman and James Tabor.

Was Joseph Campbell a non christian?

Maybe he was a scholar in the wrong field though?

Zeichman · 10-27-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

William Arnal, an atheist.
James Crossley, non-religious.
Burton Mack, definitely not Christian, but I'm not sure of his religious affiliation, presumably non-religious.
Paula Fredriksen, Jewish
Julie Galambush, Jewish
Geza Vermes, Jewish
Jeffrey Gibson, agnostic (that's right, I said it!)
Bart Ehrman, agnostic

Do I really have to keep going? I might as well say "all living, credentialed NT scholars except RM Price who is agnostic on the issue of historicity." There are presumably a few hundred that I'm leaving out.

Whether or not one counts "atheist Christians" is another matter. I don't think there are any on the list above.

But they all seem to believe in different Jesuses. You know, the Cynic, the Marginal Jew, the Apocalyptic Revolutionary? Where is the scholarly consensus that we laymen are supposed to follow?

Hardly. Most scholars' Jesus can either be fit fairly neatly in the "prophetic" or "wisdom sage" boxes.

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

10-26-2007, 03:09 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Roger - it's not wrong as long as you don't act on the desire. But Crossan is no Benny Hinn, nor is he Karl Rove. He's an academic and makes his living however he can. I see no evidence that he doesn't think that everyone would do well to believe what he believes.

10-26-2007, 05:50 PM	#14
Salam Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 440	All Muslim scholars.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.