outhouse

they claim YEC as well, but we dont pay attention to that either, is my point.


Christians dont have any credibility in the game and are well known to be biased. Credible Historians do not use their work.



scholars like Meyers, Ehrman, Crosson, Borg, Reed dont hold biased positions you described

Toto

Meyers, Crossan, Borg and Reed are explicitly Christian. Ehrman has staked his position on the existence of a historical Jesus. It's not clear what you are typing about.

Ehrman does hold the position I described, which I did not describe as "biased." It is just outside the standard tools of secular history.

outhouse

Yet you havent been able to refute their work in any way shape or form to claim christian bias in theior work, only because their work has led them to that understanding.

plain and simple, you dont like their results and claim biased results, which I havnt seen in any of those listed. as a matter of fact, they go against christian apologetics

outhouse

You know why there isnt a unified myther version of the evidence we have???


because no one has produced any work at all in the myther camp that isnt goofier then a 3 dollar bill. And every myther has a different version, none of which makes any real sense.


As to where the histoical position, credibly explains all the evidence and scipture that works identical to the history and evidence we possess.

Biblical jesus was never historical jesus and not viewed as such byany historian with credibility

Toto

OK, so you don't have a clue as to my point.

Have a nice day.

Toto

You appear to have nothing to contribute here except insults. Please stop posting in this thread.

andrewcriddle

Pelops was worshipped as a hero. (See hero_cults.)

This is not the same as being worshipped as a God. The rituals and their meaning are quite different.

Andrew Criddle

Ratel

Thank you, that's quite interesting, I had no idea that there was a distinction. I assumed he had divine status of some kind. Will have to look into that more deeply.

outhouse

Does my conclusion mirror Barts to close for you to even begin to refute??



I love this statement made by Bart, and it really does sum it up.

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/03/20/bar...he-mythicists/

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

Iskander

Thank you for posting, outhouse. It is good to have your input to balance the flood of mythicist output.

Your posts are like the boat that kept Noah afloat during the deluge!