DBT

Well if Saul arrived inTarsus around the year 40 C.E, it was presumably only 7 years after the death of Jesus, and it appears that Christianity was already spreading by word of mouth.

Thanks, I'll check it out on the weekend - I've barely got ten minutes to spare during the week.

Chris Weimer

Contrary to Doug Shaver, Ben Smith has made a compelling case that Paul thought Jesus lived and died not long before himself.

No Robots

Chris spends a lot of time patiently working with mythicists. This is most commendable, and shows remarkable self-mastery.

The whole question of tone in online conversations is a tricky one.

I provided links to two threads, quoting Vorkosigan and Doherty. I should also mention Brian Flemming, who seems to be motivated by muckraker zeal and by his desire to exorcise his own Christian demons.

~M~

why is that?




as i said, dismissing religion as a variable is just stupid.

Chris Weimer

I'll let you figure that out.

When have I ever disagreed?

Dreadnought

You did quote Doherty but I fail to see your quote as evidence of any anti-christian motivation. I'm sure, though not particularly interested in, that there must be others. Please remember that atheists generally do have an anti-religious bias. This doesn't mean that everything we do is motivated by this. The key isn't bias, which everyone has, but use of proper method to limit the influence of the bias. I haven't yet read Dohertys book, though I have read some of his articles. And I don't intend to read his book until I have a firmer grasp of what more mainstream scholarship says. To that end I have a reading list that is a foot long. So far I'm a bit surprised about the general willingness to hang quite a lot of weight on what I consider very small pegs of evidence. This is perhaps where history is different from science.

aa5874

Ben Smith was very weak. Ben cannot determine the intentions or beliefs of the authors of the Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Epistles are now regarded as being written by more than one author, that is, the person called Paul in some or all is not Paul at all.

No Robots

The quotation seems clearly anti-Christian to me:

So long as we cease to search for meaning in the sphere of fantasy, or extrapolate the best in ourselves onto an idealized, larger-than-life individual or heavenly force (which the Jesus Seminar is still trying to do). Instead, we need only find it in the earth-based capacity of every human individual.

Quite right. And what I am stating is that the anti-religious bias of some mythicists has clouded there assessment of the evidence for Christ's historicity. (Before you take me to task, I will tell you that I use "Christ" as a title, just as I use "Buddha" rather than "Lord Sidharta").

When I started researching the question of the historical Christ, I too was appalled at the pallid, unconvincing fluff that I found everywhere in the mainstream literature. Eventually, I did find a book that satisfied me.

aa5874

You have not given any reasons why you think Jesus existed. You have only given the methodolgy used to make your determination. That process is the same used by MJers to make their determination on the mythicism of Jesus.

Toto

This may be anti-Christian in a technical sense, but it hardly evidences hostility to Christianity, especially the sort of hostility that would cloud one's judgment.