Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Enough about the cranks. We have several well-informed and balanced people posting here and just for a change, I would like to appreciate spin, whose posts are ever well-informed and balanced. His clear thinking and expression of ideas has been very helpful and educational.
Ben has equally been very, very useful and helpful and so has been Andrewcriddle. Zeichman too has been very very useful and sensible. So has Gakuseidon though sometimes he leans too much to the right - just like Roger Pearse.
Gibson is useful but I think he is angry about something [oops, did I just break a forum rule?] and often his putdowns overshadow his useful contributions.
Vork and Doherty seldom post anymore but Malachi and spandaman and Philosopher Jay. Stephen Carr and Iasion soldom post but they are also very useful contributors. Toto always guiding and giving a helping hand and Amaleq zeroing in on those who spew too much nonsense. I am not too happy about the moderation myself but these guys are volunteers and for whatever its worth, I appreciate what they are doing. Keep it up.
Ultimately, I think we need everyone here, including the crackpots. They enrich this forum and I love them all with their differences.

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't mean to pull anyone's chain here, but... am I alone in finding that this forum is becoming increasingly dominated by marginal theories?

By these I mean ideas which are not mainstream, whatever their merits. I include in this the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, and the oft-reviled yet endless posts that no Christians existed before 325 AD.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I tire of these posts. Every discussion of early Christian origins inevitably becomes polluted by one or another of these theories, which means that the general value of all the threads has been reduced appreciably over the last 12 months.

What do you think? Is any of this true, or is this more likely a symptom that I've been reading this forum too long?

If others share this view, would there be merit in hiving off the JM guys (etc) into their own forum?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

1. No, he is not.
2. Even if he were correct, it would still be irritating.

Ben.

Originally Posted by No Robots

For those who see mythicism as dangerous and irresponsible, the current state of this forum is a vast improvement.

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Yes. Francis of Assisi.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Buddha & Zarathustra.

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

'stupid crap' characterises everything that those propagate who believe in first-century canonical gospels, a pre-70 Jerusalem community, authentic Paulines, authentic Clement and Ignatians, and other hilarious frauds.

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Smith is just spreading the usual Eusebianist desinformations in order to deceive mankind.

Originally Posted by lpetrich

What makes Jesus mythicism "dangerous" and "irresponsible"?

No, they are still active; just not here much of the time.

Where?

And please no Brunner-thumping. His arguments ought to stand or fall independent of his ipse dixit.

Details?

Much the same thing happened with St. Francis Xavier; later accounts of him credited him with lots of miracles that are absent from earlier accounts. For example, in earlier accounts, he related how difficult the Japanese language was for him, while in later accounts, he could speak other languages without having had to learn them. Andrew Dickson White in his A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom had discussed him in detail.

However, the interesting thing about St. Francis Xavier, and perhaps also St. Francis of Assissi, is that the earliest accounts present him as being completely human with little or no miracle-working ability.

But the earliest accounts of Jesus Christ, in Paul's letters, present him as a sort-of god with little or no earthly presence.


I've seen serious doubts about the historicity of both gentlemen.


Where's your evidence? Why don't you start a thread on that? And present ARGUMENTS, not "It's the TRUTH! It's the TRUTH! It's the TRUTH!"


How so?

Hylics? Pneumatics?

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

.
.
The idea that all modern scholars hold these views seems curious to me. Does that include all the French Roman Catholic priests, publishing the Sources Chretiennes?

Originally Posted by squiz

Many (probably including the majority on this forum) would indeed call anyone who believes in prophetic literature or the supernatural or inerrancy a crank.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since when would a God need to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communcating with humans when he could easily telephatically or verbally communicate with everyone in the world, thereby discouraging dissent instead of needly inviting dissent? Did God use written records to communicate with Adam, Eve, Noah, and Abraham? In North America, in the year 1500 A.D., how many written records had God given to native American Indians? The obvious explanation for this is that the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, and New Testament writers pirated and revised Judaism. False religions by necessity have to start in only one place, and must be spread entirely by word of mouth. If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it. I find that to be quite odd if the God of the Bible exists.

Originally Posted by squiz

Many (probably including the majority on this forum) would indeed call anyone who believes in prophetic literature or the supernatural or inerrancy a crank. The group you mentioned seem to specialise in collating and translating ancient texts. While a laudable endeavour, I am not sure whether that necessarily qualifies them as scholars (although they might well be).