FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2010, 12:45 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default Earl Doherty and mainstream journal

Didn't Earl Doherty or a sponsor once offer to fund an issue of a journal to discuss the historical Jesus?

And the offer was rejected as the subject was 'of no interest'?

Does anybody have a copy of what was said in the rejection?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 10:24 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Here is the original thread, from the archives:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=147064

It wasn't Doherty - it was someone who offered to fund a discussion of the issue. And it wasn't a mainstream "journal" - it was the "Fourth R" publication from Westar (the Jesus Seminar) which is called a magazine, but is more like a short bulletin, with a few articles of interest to religious liberals.

The exact words:
Quote:
I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism. But the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 11:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Why doesn't Earl either publish a book at an academical publisher ot try to get an article published in an academic journal?
hjalti is offline  
Old 02-06-2010, 04:20 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Yes, the mythical Jesus theory apparently was a living issue 100 years ago. It is sort of like donating $5000 to Discover magazine to debate the issue of whether humans descended from monkeys. It would be ethically responsible to turn it down like any other bribe, especially if their readers are not interested in it.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-07-2010, 12:25 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Yes, the mythical Jesus theory apparently was a living issue 100 years ago. It is sort of like donating $5000 to Discover magazine to debate the issue of whether humans descended from monkeys. It would be ethically responsible to turn it down like any other bribe, especially if their readers are not interested in it.
The historical Jesus theory, by contrast, is very much a living issue.

After the failure of 3 Quests to find the Historical Jesus, you can now earn at least that 5000 writing books documenting the repeated failures to find an historical Jesus that people can agree existed.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-07-2010, 04:46 AM   #6
2-J
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Default

I was in the big Waterstone's bookstore in Birmingham last week and in the Religion section I saw the shelves were littered with books claiming to offer an account of the authentic Jesus behind Christianity. Agreeing on virtually nothing, if anything. Very depressing.
2-J is offline  
Old 02-07-2010, 07:50 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Here is the original thread, from the archives:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=147064

It wasn't Doherty - it was someone who offered to fund a discussion of the issue. And it wasn't a mainstream "journal" - it was the "Fourth R" publication from Westar (the Jesus Seminar) which is called a magazine, but is more like a short bulletin, with a few articles of interest to religious liberals.

The exact words:
Quote:
I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism. But the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.
But, when this passage is closely examined there appears to be some gross fallacy or error.

This writer fallaciously implies that once a person is deemed a skeptic that they will always be a skeptic.

There must be some who were once skeptics that now believe Jesus did exist.

His experience is beyond belief.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-07-2010, 07:12 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Yes, the mythical Jesus theory apparently was a living issue 100 years ago. It is sort of like donating $5000 to Discover magazine to debate the issue of whether humans descended from monkeys. It would be ethically responsible to turn it down like any other bribe, especially if their readers are not interested in it.
The historical Jesus theory, by contrast, is very much a living issue.

After the failure of 3 Quests to find the Historical Jesus, you can now earn at least that 5000 writing books documenting the repeated failures to find an historical Jesus that people can agree existed.
I can not disagree. There will probably always be debate about who Jesus was. Some people think that the lack of agreement about who Jesus was undercuts the theory that he ever existed, but the argument is a non-sequitur, because the most direct and relevant evidence that Jesus existed does not speak to the specific personality that he had.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-09-2010, 12:28 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I can not disagree. There will probably always be debate about who Jesus was. Some people think that the lack of agreement about who Jesus was undercuts the theory that he ever existed, but the argument is a non-sequitur, because the most direct and relevant evidence that Jesus existed does not speak to the specific personality that he had.
There has always been disagreement about who Jesus was.

2 Corinthians 11
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Even in Paul's time, Christians had different historical Jesus's.

If it could not be settled then who the historical Jesus had been, how can it be settled now?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-09-2010, 09:58 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I can not disagree. There will probably always be debate about who Jesus was. Some people think that the lack of agreement about who Jesus was undercuts the theory that he ever existed, but the argument is a non-sequitur, because the most direct and relevant evidence that Jesus existed does not speak to the specific personality that he had.
There has always been disagreement about who Jesus was.

2 Corinthians 11
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Even in Paul's time, Christians had different historical Jesus's.

If it could not be settled then who the historical Jesus had been, how can it be settled now?
The times are not really comparable, because it wasn't so much about historical accuracy as it was about gaining the greatest number of Christian followers. But, yeah, the issue is not going to be settled any time as long as there are people willing to sacrifice the greatest likelihood in favor of personal wishful thinking.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:12 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.