Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 06-29-2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Do you have any primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim? Apparently the answer is none.

So if I take a cheque for the bank for 1,000,000 dollars with your signature on it, you would have to produce the untampered cheque that you had written before you could dispute that you had written that cheque?

dog-on · 06-29-2011, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Somebody pointing out that it must be genuine because we have no evidence about what it said prior to the 4th century.

Yep, that convinces me....

Do you have any primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim? Apparently the answer is none.

Mark LE
John's adulteress
etc...

Now, we are aware that writings were changed. So the ball is now in your court to prove that any writing is, in fact, original. As you have no autographs for the writings in question, I suppose you must now concede...

mountainman · 06-29-2011, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

There is no credible evidence for the HJ outside of textual analysis, period.

So if an actual scholar trained in these matters thinks there is a possibilty jesus existed he should just admit he's wrong and you are right?

Biblical historians are not trained as ancient historians.

Quote:

This doesn't seem very rational.

It isn't. Biblical history assumes we have a "Holy Writ" in our possession, which is not a very rational starting position, is it?

Steven Carr · 06-29-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Biblical historians are not trained as ancient historians.

For example, look at NT students at the University of Edinburgh, as reported by Larry Hurtado

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...-in-edinburgh/

The sort of work they are doing is indistinguishable from the sort of work scholars do when analysing Romeo and Juliet or Twelfth Night, or tracking down the editions and folios of Shakespeare's plays.

' But we typically require further prior studies, e.g., a true masters degree in the subject, such as our MTh, preferably including a dissertation component. '

Biblical scholars are required by this British University to have studied theology, but there is no compulsory requirement for them to have studied history.

sweetpea7 · 06-29-2011, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Biblical history assumes we have a "Holy Writ" in our possession

Are you claiming that there are no Bible Scholars who are historians? And that none of these are Non-Christian? Both professors on the Open Yale website, under religious studies, do not make the assumption you state above.

Even if a Bible Scholar is a Christian, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot be trusted. Many professionals separate their personal beliefs from their professional life. Nearly all professions have a code of ethics which require this. Of course there are going to be some unethical people in all fields, but it is not fair to tar the entire group as being so based upon the deeds of those who are. Caution is warranted, certainly, but disregarding the entire group is an unfair generalization.

mountainman · 06-29-2011, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Biblical historians are not trained as ancient historians.

For example, look at NT students at the University of Edinburgh, as reported by Larry Hurtado

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...-in-edinburgh/

The sort of work they are doing is indistinguishable from the sort of work scholars do when analysing Romeo and Juliet or Twelfth Night, or tracking down the editions and folios of Shakespeare's plays.

' But we typically require further prior studies, e.g., a true masters degree in the subject, such as our MTh, preferably including a dissertation component. '

Biblical scholars are required by this British University to have studied theology, but there is no compulsory requirement for them to have studied history.

Anyone interested in a New Testament post at Edinburgh?

Quote:

New Testament post at Edinburgh
Published May 12, 2011 Uncategorized 2 Comments

We’ve just started looking for a new person to join the NT team here at Edinburgh. It will be at entry/lecturer level and if you are interested (or know anyone who might be) I’ve put a link to the advert below.

Particular specialism within NT doesn’t really matter – we just want the best person out there – but we’d particularly welcome applications from people with research interests in Pauline studies and/or the OT in the NT. The successful person would be expected to teach at both under- and post-grad level, maintain an excellent research output, and supervise PhDs. Starting date is negotiable, but we’d like to have someone in place by January.

If you have any questions, or would like an informal chat, please contact myself or one of my colleagues.

Of course everyone assumes that there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus, because they're getting paid to do so. If I was being paid to assume there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus maybe I wouldn't be thinking that the historical Paul and the historical Jesus were fabrications. We might be entitled to conclude that mainstream scholars reject the Mythical Jesus because they are being paid to accept the Historical Jesus. There is such a thing a "conflict of interests". Everyone should understand this. There are the INSIDERS who subscribe to the HJ hypothesis and theories, and there are the OUTSIDERS.

sweetpea7 · 06-29-2011, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Of course everyone assumes that there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus, because they're getting paid to do so. If I was being paid to assume there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus maybe I wouldn't be thinking that the historical Paul and the historical Jesus were fabrications. We might be entitled to conclude that mainstream scholars reject the Mythical Jesus because they are being paid to accept the Historical Jesus. There is such a thing a "conflict of interests"...

This does not follow from the description provided. It is ridiculous to say that these people are being "paid to assume there is a historical Jesus and a historical Paul." It is equivalent to saying that creationists should be allowed to teach in colleges because the Biology field assumes evolution is true. Mainstream scholars do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, do not believe that Paul wrote many of the letters attributed to him, and that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (among many other theories about Jesus). If scholars are so biased towards Christianity, why stop at a historical Jesus and historical Paul? Why not uphold the Christian "truths" about the rest of the Bible?

jgoodguy · 06-29-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Do you have any primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim? Apparently the answer is none.

So if I take a cheque for the bank for 1,000,000 dollars with your signature on it, you would have to produce the untampered cheque that you had written before you could dispute that you had written that cheque?

Twice you have been asked to produce the evidence and evaded. So for the third time, evidence please. Good old primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim?

jgoodguy · 06-29-2011, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Of course everyone assumes that there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus, because they're getting paid to do so. If I was being paid to assume there was an historical Paul and an historical Jesus maybe I wouldn't be thinking that the historical Paul and the historical Jesus were fabrications. We might be entitled to conclude that mainstream scholars reject the Mythical Jesus because they are being paid to accept the Historical Jesus. There is such a thing a "conflict of interests"...

This does not follow from the description provided. It is ridiculous to say that these people are being "paid to assume there is a historical Jesus and a historical Paul." It is equivalent to saying that creationists should be allowed to teach in colleges because the Biology field assumes evolution is true. Mainstream scholars do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, do not believe that Paul wrote many of the letters attributed to him, and that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (among many other theories about Jesus). If scholars are so biased towards Christianity, why stop at a historical Jesus and historical Paul? Why not uphold the Christian "truths" about the rest of the Bible?

However, employment for historians that deny the HJ as well as the Gospel one, is more limited. It is difficult to be a JMer and earn a living as one. I do not know of any studies of bias caused by this, but I think it is probable that it is there.

Achwienichtig · 06-29-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achwienichtig

....This is a false dichotomy through and through. You never once considered the possibility that Jesus was a real person but somebody else was the dumb-ass who called him a child of the Holy Ghost. You never once considered that all the idiocies of the Bible were falsely attributed to the real Jesus who was not an idiot.

Do you really understand what is a FALSE dichotomy?

Apparently not.

You are putting forward a logical fallacy also called a FALSE dichotomy

If Jesus in the NT was NOT as described then the NT is not credible or reliable.

I cannot use unreliable sources to determine the nature of Jesus.

I can only use the evidence presented in the NT

Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost and claimed he would resurrect on the third day and come in the clouds.

Have ever considered the possibility that Jesus existed as deaf-mute who was born blind with no limbs?

I can only discuss the written evidence about Jesus while you attempt to discuss a false dichotomy.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus lived as a "vegetable"?

The HJ theory is based on a LOGICAL fallacy since the theory assumes the very NT is unreliable and still use it to determine the nature of Jesus.

You mean to say that it is impossible for somebody to write a false story about a real person, or to exaggerate a story out of proportion? Haven't you ever heard of gossip or played the telephone game or read tabloids?

Homer's Iliad is actually evidence that Troy existed. Just because the story is made up, that does not mean it is not evidence that Troy never existed. Again, you turn this into a false dichotomy where the historical Jesus either needs to be exactly like the Biblical Jesus or he never existed. You needlessly narrow it down to two options.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.