Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Ah -- but would Mack himself agree with your characterization of him? Would he not point out that you are equivocating in your use of the term you attach to him?

Are you willing to find out by writing him? If not, why not? And why do you keep avoiding my question on this matter as well as the other ones I've asked you?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Let's just note that in the above you not only engage in equivocation in changing the terms of the original comparison between degrees in in biblical studies vs any other degree when you switch, as you do there, from speaking, as you originally did, about the utility for obtaining facility in the historian's task of a Biblical Studies degree to speaking of a degree in Theology.

You also three times engage in rank petitio principii:

First, by assuming without proof that what geologists investigate (the earth), on the one hand, and what historians investigate, on the other (texts and other man made artifacts including images sound samples captured on film and tape, none of which originated through the "natural process" that formed and shaped the earth), are sufficiently analogous that a grasp of the particular methodologies that purportedly allow one to discover evolutionary processes over an historical period and that learning "useful ways of categorizing material substances and material processes", has any relevance for, or utility in, helping historians carry out what they consider to be the historian's task.

Can you name one degreed/professional geolgist who would make the claim that because he has obtained expertise in the methodologies required to be a good geologist, he is thereby qualified to be, let alone should be recognized by historians to be qualified as being, someone who would make a good ancient historian? Better yet, can you name one degreed/professional ancient historian who thinks so?

Second, in your assumption about what the study of theology has at its core.

Is it really the case, as you claim it is, that the core of theology, let alone at the core of all the classes taken by those who wish to obtain a degree in theology, is the study of "the rather abstract concepts of being and non being"? It wasn't of mine. It isn't of any other degreed theologians that I know unless they specialized the philosopy of religion and were trained specifically to be ontologists. And even then they have to do historical studies to become a master of this subsection of philosophical (not theological studies.

Let's see your proof for your claim. Show me any stated/published curriculum of the course of study of theology that any university or any department of theology lays out for those who wish to earn a degree in this subject that demonstrates the validity of your claim.

Third, even granting your claim about what lies at the core of theology, you've begged the question in your assumption that the study of "being and non being" would/does not involve the teaching of methodologies that professional historians would claim are part of, and necessary for carrying out, the historian's craft.

Would you care to state your evidence for this? How do you know, as you imply you do, that such methodologies are not taught to those who are attempting to gain degrees in theology and/or are not expected to be known, and to be employed, by those whom the faculty members of departments of theology teach?

It seems to me, Jay, that in what you write above you are talking through your hat. But I'd be delighted to be shown by you -- with hard evidence, though, mind you, -- that I'm wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

Originally Posted by Malachi151

When people like Burton Mack, scholar though he may be, say that "perhaps Jesus was a wandering sage", I find that completely absurd and a real discredit to their so-called scholarship.

On what grounds could he possibly argue this position? None, its just some random thought in his head.

There is ZERO evidence for "Jesus as a wandering sage". None of the evidence points to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The problem that I have with all of these lists and debates about so-called scholars, is that I find 99% of the scholars in this field to be idiots in the first place, or at least to make really idiotic assumptions and claims.

The scholars in this field, as far as I'm concerned, are useless.

Originally Posted by Toto

P. Jay is free to ignore anyone he chooses.

Originally Posted by Toto

My take is that PhilosopherJay and Jeffrey Gibson are working from completely different points of view, and P-Jay has concluded that any dialogue with Jeffrey is not going to be productive.