Chris Weimer

This historians.

All of it?

Which of these are you talking about?

Is it now? Demonstrate this.

Gregg

By the way, where did all this fucking political shit come from? It doesn't belong in the BC&H forum. This crap is why I avoid the political forum like the plague. I don't hate Bush, I'm going to vote for Rudy Guliani or Fred Thompson if either of them run, and Barack Obama? Give me a fucking break. I will take my chances with Billy Graham as President before I'll vote for some socialist jackass whose plan for dealing with Islamic terror is to wave the white flag.

Being an atheist does not automatically make one a liberal or a Democrat or a Bush-hater, and it infuriates me to no end when people spout this crap like they assume everyone who's reading agrees with it. Again, keep it in the political forum where it belongs!

jgibson000

No, we do not.

Besides that, the notion that Jesus was viewed as a saviour god in early Christianity is rank anachronism. An agent of a god, yes. One in whom -- as opposed to the divine Torah -- the God of Israel was most bindingly and definitively known, yes. One who deserved allegiance, yes. But a god, let alone a god man (whatever the hell that means) or god, no. And please don't point me to Jn 1 or Philippians 2 or 1 Tim 3:16. They do not proclaim Jesus to be god.

JG

Malachi151

Well, the Gospels are the first books of the New Testament, yet they are not the first Christian writings. The way the NT reads, you read the later books first, then you interject what you have read in the Gospels into the writings of Paul and Hebrews and the other early Epistles.

Chris Weimer

I was referring to Malachi151 here. As for Doherty, he has a Bachelor's degree, right? Never pursued a Masters?

Facts and stats please.

I disagree. Mythicism came out over a hundred years ago, and it became stagnant then. I also don't buy into the Augustinian view of the gospel tradition either for the same reason. Most Biblical Studies scholars aren't "in line" with the conservative Christians, and those that are in line are hardly taken very serious, for example N. T. Wright. There's a reason why he's only gotten so far with his research, and that's because most scholars can smell his bias.

That's your bias then.

As spin was prone to saying: RTFA.

Chris Weimer

Oh, please, Journal of Higher Criticism? That was created by mythicists (or quasi mythicists) for the support of radical theories. It's whole existence is to propogate radical theories. RADICAL. It was their intent. I hope you don't mind me dismissing them for purposely destroying their own credibility.

Get him to publish in JBL, JSNT, JECS, Novum Testamentum, or a real journal, and then we'll start talking.

Chris Weimer

As far as I know, the majority of educated Christians do not think that the Gospels were written first. Have you ever been to a school of theology?

Zeichman

Doesn't Price teach at a seminary? There are plenty of secular institutions that teach theology, too. You're overestimating the influence of orthodoxy on graduate education. Additionally, the thesis you are suggesting is far too comprehensive and agenda-driven for a worthwhile dissertation.

Probably because of its quality, not content. Give me some examples to prove me wrong.

That Ehrman is still "indoctrinated" does not logically follow from anything you said about him.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you've read ANYTHING about the historical Jesus by scholars. Crossan deals with this topic extensively.

Hurm. Nothing like ignoring the qualification I put on it earlier, eh?
"No credible graduate theology education is going to be indoctrination, other than teaching one the proper methods to use." So please read my full quote before making condescending remarks like that.

This doesn't really address my point, but whatever. A bunch of likeminded people with no critical scholarly qualifications (I'm assuming) is exactly like a fundamentalist Bible study, perpetuating unquestioned hermeneutics that are congenial to one's own belief system.

Doherty's work was published 7-1/2 years ago, and I'm, as far as I know, the first person to call him out on this. This seems to be strong evidence against such a model for "review". The internet is NOT a peer-review system, especially going to a message board that is made for people sympathetic to your worldview. It is for this precise reason that I sent my paper to a renowned scholar whose worldview was very close to that against which I was arguing. Otherwise it's just confirmation bias.

The fact that the first 1300+ years of Christian Bible scholarship can be relatively safely dismissed from critical discussion at most points is a strong indicator otherwise.

Surely you are joking.

You have been terribly misinformed about the state of Biblical studies in academia.

By perpetuating the same backwards mode of thought you're trying to subvert? Laughable at best. Dark-age inducing at worst.

Does Gregg have any basis for his speculation about forthcoming articles on the JM hypothesis? When I sent Doherty the link to my paper I suggested that he do submit something about the crucifixion per Paul, but we'll see what happens? I also think that Gregg overestimates Carrier's commitment to the JM hypothesis.

aa5874

Some of the previous posts remind me of the dificulties faced by those who claim to be atheist.

If someone claims that they believe God exists, they they are asked what Church do they attend. And if they claim that they do not believe, then they are labelled as Communist.

Now, if you claim the non-historicty of Jesus the Christ, you are questioned at lenght about your background. Do you know Greek, Hebrew, are you an historian, what college did you attend, have you ever written a book, do you know latin, have ever read this , that or the other?

Now, if I were to answer all these questions in the affirmative would that make Jesus real?

As far as I know one's ability to reason outweights one's knowledge of Greek.

The main problem of the MJ position is that billions of people are HJers for no reason

No Robots

Well, Gregg, I am satisfied that the rancour between HJ and MJ proponents is nothing compared with the rancour between academic snobs and the great unwashed.