chrisengland

Good poin't probably the evidence points towards the resurection.

But with other supernatural claims e.g. ghosts ect the evidence points towards that' but people try to come up with natural explinations but knowone cares.
Skeptics always say extraodinary claims require extraudianry evidence without quite being able to expalin whats so extraodianry about it.
Its not that supernatural things don't happen it's that theres loads of claims of supernatural things happening wich get debunked so it would be naive to except them without better evidence.
chris

PhilosopherJay

Hi Solitary Man,

Have you talked with Shandruk lately?

Reading the opening of Shandruk's article, posted two days ago, it sounds to me like he's having doubts, or at least, he is willing to consider an alternative to an historical Jesus (I have put the key phrase in bold):


The historical Jesus is not often a major object of my musings, but this time I will make an exception. Some of my recent readings in completely unrelated literature have brought to mind an interesting point of comparison for the development of Christian mythology and the historicity of Jesus. While Jesus as a historical figure is little questioned these days in academic circles, I would like to offer a fascinating parallel case which might illustrate one way in which he may have been a purely literary creation pulled off in the full light of history...

Yes, I did forget Chris Weimer.

Chris Weimer wrote on his blog: (http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c.../07/index.html)

someone who holds, as I do, that the Bible’s take on cosmology is revelation of the highest imaginable kind may nevertheless appreciate the theory of evolution, and regard it as the best working hypothesis available in explanation of the physical and biological data...

How does someone who thinks the "Bible's take on cosmology is revelation of the highest imaginable kind" differ from a religious fundamentalist who thinks the Bible's take on cosmology is revelation of the highest imaginable kind?

He also writes (http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...y_fish_sm.html)

Atheists, that is, those who passionately doubt God, are servants of God, as far as I’m concerned. They knock believers out of their complacency. In a paradoxical way, they are believers.

Thus to be an atheist is to be a believer. So when (and if) Weimer labels himself an atheist, he can proclaim himself a believer at the same time.

This writing reminds me of John stuart Mill who, as Karl Marx pointed out, was able to hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time. In "On Liberty" he denounces all government interference in individual liberty, but then lists a number of exceptions. Finally, it turns out that the government should interfere with every possible liberty except for the things that John Stuart Mill personally likes to do (like adultery and gambling, for example).

William Arnal certainly supports an historical Jesus, but seems open to the possiblility of a mythological one to some degree. Read his review of Thompson's Messiah Mythhttp://www.case.edu/artsci/rosenthal...ws/Messiah.htm. He summarizes:

In the end, the argument is too one-sided and insufficiently nuanced to be convincing; but Thompson’s approach should by no means be dismissed. It is precisely innovative, if flawed, work of this sort that may best point to future directions for scholarship.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jjramsey

That's John F. Hobbins, not Chris Weimer!

GakuseiDon

That blog appears to be owned by John F. Hobbins, a pastor of the Waldensian Church. He links to a number of other articles, including one by Chris Weimer, so the name is there. Am I right in thinking that you put "Chris Weimer" and "atheist" into Google and assumed you got back articles by Chris? :huh:

GakuseiDon

Unless... Chris Weimer = John Hobbins = Jeffrey Gibson???

Can the mods change the thread title to "Are most New Testament scholars Jeffrey Gibson?" please?

Solitary Man

Hello Jay,

J. J. Ramsey already pointed out that Ancient Hebrew Poetry is John Hobbins', blog, not Chris Weimer's. I guess that rigorous training for research to get your PhD really paid off, huh?

And yes, I've talked very recently with both William Arnal and Walter Shandruk. There's nothing wrong with exploring possibilities. That doesn't mean that either are mythicists. Historical scholarship is a field of inquiry - you ask questions, you get answers. Asking a question has no bearing on the position you take.

God Fearing Atheist

Ha!

Solitary Man

Once again for proof that most NT scholars are in fact Jeffrey Gibson:

gstafleu

To be a bit more precise, there are indeed lots of claims to supernatural happenings, but whenever they have been looked into more closely, they got debunked. There are, in other words, no supernatural happenings that have been checked and survived. And this has happened often enough that the heap of evidence now warrants the following statement: All supernatural claims are bogus. This will only be revised when someone shows a supernatural happening that survives scientific examination. Until that happens, though, it is irrational to assume that there are bona fide supernatural happenings.

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

Dr. Zeba Crook has also confirmed that he is not only an atheist, but also favors the Historical Jesus finding the arguments for a mythical Jesus unconvincing.