Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 11-26-2007, 11:30 AM

Jeffrey, are you saying self professed xian scholars do not assume the existence of the supernatural, or the man behind the curtain? Is that not the default position?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Jeffrey, are you saying self professed xian scholars do not assume the existence of the supernatural, or the man behind the curtain? Is that not the default position?

Where ever did you get that idea?

Jeffrey

dog-on · 11-26-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Hi Jeffrey!

Forgive my unclear terminology.

In this context:

historicist = one who supposes that Jesus, (referenced in Christian writings), actually existed in some form.

historicist Christian = same as above, but also including the theological/supernatural.

Someone referred to Sponge...heretic...

Thanks for this. But defining "historicist" or "historicist Christian" isn't what I asked you to do.

I asked you

1. to define "the man behind the curtain" argument;

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

3. to name the "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology that you yourself have directly "heard" (i.e., actually read);

4. to list the ones you have directly "heard" who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do?

As I noted before, I have a sense that your claim that "Modern day "historicists" ... use the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument", is as overblown as it is uninformed (much and greatly respectively), since it appears that you really haven't "heard" (read) any modern NT scholarship at all -- or that whom you've "heard"(read) is a very very small circle of voices, and then only at second and third hand.

The fact that you avoided answering my questions, and instead answered one that I didn't ask, seems to confirm what I suspect.

Jeffrey

Jeffery, the man behind the curtain, in the sense I meant it refers to the fact that the HJ position, from a non-theistic viewpoint is, simply, a priori based special pleading. The HJ position from a theistic viewpoint is based on supposing that the supernatural may be a rational explanation. Both are extremely weak, (to put it kindly), points upon which to support one's argument, in my opinion.

Remove the a priori assumption of existance from the non-theistic HJ argument and you are left with who and what exactly?

If you disagree that this is the case, please, oh please, present your evidence for the historical individual, without making him up.

For the theists, supernatural explanations....please....

We can then discuss specific scholars and their views on the Christology of the NT to your heart's content. I'd be happy to be shown that my view of their work should be ammended, if such proved to be the case.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Thanks for this. But defining "historicist" or "historicist Christian" isn't what I asked you to do.

I asked you

1. to define "the man behind the curtain" argument;

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

3. to name the "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology that you yourself have directly "heard" (i.e., actually read);

4. to list the ones you have directly "heard" who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do?

As I noted before, I have a sense that your claim that "Modern day "historicists" ... use the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument", is as overblown as it is uninformed (much and greatly respectively), since it appears that you really haven't "heard" (read) any modern NT scholarship at all -- or that whom you've "heard"(read) is a very very small circle of voices, and then only at second and third hand.

The fact that you avoided answering my questions, and instead answered one that I didn't ask, seems to confirm what I suspect.

Jeffrey

Jeffery, the man behind the curtain, in the sense I meant it refers to the fact that the HJ position, from a non-theistic viewpoint is, simply, a priori based special pleading.

Perhaps you'll explain how this is "special apriori based pleading" (whatever that is) to atheist HJ scholars like Gerd Ludemann.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Is this because you (1) don't know of any NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) who actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument and/or any who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do; and (2) you haven't yourself directly "heard" (read) "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology?

Quote:

If you disagree that this is the case, please, oh please, present your evidence for the historical individual, without making him up.

The question at hand is not the evidence for any individual. It's the validity of your claim about what "historicist" scholars do.

So once again I ask you

1. to define "the man behind the curtain" argument; (you still haven't done this);

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

3. to name the "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology that you yourself have directly "heard" (i.e., actually read);

4. to list the ones you have directly "heard" who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do?

Quote:

We can then discuss specific scholars and their views on the Christology of the NT to your heart's content. I'd be happy to be shown that my view of their work should be ammended, if such proved to be the case.

Whose work, specifically, have you in view?

And note, too, that I won't continue this exchange with you unless I know to whom I am writing.

Jeffrey

dog-on · 11-26-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Jeffery, the man behind the curtain, in the sense I meant it refers to the fact that the HJ position, from a non-theistic viewpoint is, simply, a priori based special pleading.

Perhaps you'll explain how this is "special apriori based pleading" (whatever that is) to atheist HJ scholars like Gerd Ludemann.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Is this because you (1) don't know of any NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) who actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument and/or any who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do; and (2) you haven't yourself directly "heard" (read) "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology?

The question at hand is not the evidence for any individual. It's the validity of your claim about what "historicist" scholars do.

So once again I ask you

1. to define "the man behind the curtain" argument; (you still haven't done this);

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

3. to name the "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology that you yourself have directly "heard" (i.e., actually read);

4. to list the ones you have directly "heard" who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do?

Quote:

We can then discuss specific scholars and their views on the Christology of the NT to your heart's content. I'd be happy to be shown that my view of their work should be ammended, if such proved to be the case.

Whose work, specifically, have you in view?

And note, too, that I won't continue this exchange with you unless I know to whom I am writing.

Jeffrey

I did define the "the man behind the curtain" argument.

Special pleading is what is required to accept the available data as evidence for a specific claim of knowledge relating to a person in history known as Jesus Christ.

Ludeman should just go all the way, or at least admit that the truely rational position can be no more than agnosticism with regards to an HJ instead of making one up...(see Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity and The Resurrection of Jesus).

Now, about that evidence...

dog-on · 11-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Figures...

:wave:

gstafleu · 11-28-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

Going by this post, would The Jesus Legend by P.R. Eddy and G.A. Boyd qualify given that, according at least to quoted review by Lamont S "Perhaps more helpful than any chapter was that of the very first in which the authors argue for an approach to historicity that does not rule out, a priori, the possibility of supernatural explanations for historical events (e.g. Jesus' alleged resurrection) when all naturalistic alternatives fail to explain the scope of the data."

Now you seem to have read the book, does this Lamont S fairly represent what is said in Ch 1?

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Jeffrey, are you saying self professed xian scholars do not assume the existence of the supernatural, or the man behind the curtain? Is that not the default position?

Where ever did you get that idea?

Jeffrey

Because most self professed xian scholars I have come across - there are exceptions like Spong and Sea of Faith - do tend to repeat various versions of a creed - which in my ignorance I thought most people believed those words - and if they do not that means it is difficult to define them as xians. I thought the ex Bishop of Durham - Jenkins - not believing in the virgin birth was a rarity, and I am sure a catholic with such a view openly expressed would not stay a catholic for long.

Just believing in a god is assuming the existence of the supernatural.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-28-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Where ever did you get that idea?

Jeffrey

Because most self professed xian scholars I have come across - there are exceptions like Spong and Sea of Faith - do tend to repeat various versions of a creed - which in my ignorance I thought most people believed those words - and if they do not that means it is difficult to define them as xians. I thought the ex Bishop of Durham - Jenkins - not believing in the virgin birth was a rarity, and I am sure a catholic with such a view openly expressed would not stay a catholic for long.

And just how many which self professed Christian scholars who repeat versions of the creed have you come across. What are their names?

By the way, very few NT scholars who deal with Matt 1-2//Lk 1-2 speak of a virgin birth. They speak of a virginal conception.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2007, 02:22 PM

Will the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury do? I would define them as xian scholars? And virgin birth is surely a result of a virgin conception is it not?

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/about/bio.html

Quote:

Rowan Douglas Williams was born in Swansea on 14 June 1950. He was educated at Dynevor Secondary School, then at Christ's College Cambridge, where he read Theology. After research in Oxford (on Christianity in Russia), he spent two years as a lecturer at Mirfield Theological College near Leeds. From 1977, he spent nine years in academic and parochial work in Cambridge. From 1986-1992, Dr Williams was Professor of Theology at Oxford. He was enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth in 1992 and Archbishop of Wales in 2000.

Dr Williams has written a number of books on the history of theology and spirituality and published collections of articles and sermons – as well as two books of poetry. He has been involved in various commissions on theology and theological education. He was a member of the Church Schools Review Group led by Lord Dearing and chaired the group that produced the report ‘Wales: a Moral Society?’

Dr Williams is a Fellow of the British Academy. His interests include music, fiction and languages.

If you look elsewhere on that site it states the role of the archbishop, and then there is this link to the Church of England where it states:

Quote:

What it means to be a Christian

Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and in common with other Christians in the church seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught.

For Christians God is understood and known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

…Father… God is love, caring for creation and for every human being as God's beloved child.

…Son… God is as he has revealed himself to be in the historical person of Jesus Christ. Jesus' life, death and resurrection holds the key to knowing and loving God, and to making sense of life, before and after death.

…and Holy Spirit… God is alive, loving and active today, inspiring faith, justice and truth, sustaining the life of the world, giving spiritual gifts to the church and bearing his spiritual fruit in the world - changed lives and a transformed society.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/christian/

Stating Jesus is historical is in fact a statement of faith.

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

11-26-2007, 11:30 AM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Jeffrey, are you saying self professed xian scholars do not assume the existence of the supernatural, or the man behind the curtain? Is that not the default position?

11-27-2007, 11:52 AM	#16
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Figures... :wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.