Cross Examiner

Family Man,
He's learned to be more careful because of you? Great. Layman and I have talked about meeting up when I'm in the LA area next or when he's in San Diego again. I'll remember to ask him about this alleged beat-down you gave him
No. A case is not a case that is disorganized like the mess this thread is. I'll take all this continued evasion as a 'no, I don't wish to affirm the proposition that the Gospels are classified as myth in any formal way'. Can't say I'm surprised. I'd not take that spot even playing Devil's advocate for the fun of it.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
Well, shucks, Mageth. That needn't stop you! See, we can set up the rules to accommodate your resource constraints. For example, we can limit the debate to 3 rounds each with a 1500 wd. limit (including citations) on a one-week per post type of schedule. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout: flexibility. Frankly, I'm very confident backing the proposition that the Gospels fit 'Hellenistic Biography' better than 'myth' by a country mile. Before we jump on it though, we should iron out all the details to keep everything nice and orderly.

Regards,
BGic

Family Man

In part. There were a lot more people involved than just myself, and my part was probably the least. But you really should look at how carefully he posts now. I admire his contributions to the board now even if I don't agree with his religious position. That wasn't true a few years ago.

Family Man

Here's the thread you requested.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=77655

Doctor X

I just watch Dennis Miller's show--good interviews/cut the monologue.

He interviewed Michael Douglas. When he asked about the historicity of the movie, Michael responded matter-of-factly that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and were written "something like a hundred years after the fact."

:notworthy

There is hope . . . not much . . . but there is hope.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Grant hardly knows what he is talking about; which is not surprising, really, since he is a classical scholar and not an NT scholar. No scholar of the first rank has ever annihilated the myth hypothesis. And several very serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus. Finally, there is no abundance of evidence to the contrary.

In any case, an enjoyable thread. Carry on.

Cross Examiner

I read the first line only and immediately realized that this essay you've posted doesn't address my challenge. I'll reiterate. Do you want to take Mageth's position that the Gospels are 'myth'? If so, please respond to this so we can iron out the details and get this show on the road. If not, no worries. I'm a patient man.

Regards,
BGic

spin

I have tried to find anything substantive that you have said, BGic, but unfortunately all I've found is the easy effort of criticising people for sustaining certain claims.

Do you have anything to say at all or are you just here to get a few kicks?

No, I don't support the mythical christ, though I can't reject it. Do you support the historical christ? if so, you might defend that position.


spin

Vorkosigan

The Jesus Seminar is an large group of scholars. They didn't just "vote" but instead, did presentations and discussions on each passage, and then "voted."

BTW, you do know that the colored bead method is used in all serious Bible translations, right? Passages are voted on and then graded and ranked by certainty of translation.

In other words, such votes are the norms in fields where decisions must be made, but the certainty of truth is unclear.

The idea that a methodologically-free hack like Wright, a sell-out like Witherington, or a simple apologist like Habermas is the equal of a serious critic and thinker like Crossan is laughable.

Vorkosigan

Family Man

Good grief, man, I stated very clearly in that post why the gospels are largely -- not wholly -- myth. It is clear to me that you are simply avoiding the issue because you have no response. If you have a problem, I think it's about time you lay out what you're thinking instead of pretending that people aren't responding to what is rapidly being to appear to be a bogus challenge.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that this sentence:

is enough to tell you that I'm not explaining why much of the gospels must be considered as myths? Pray tell, how in the world did you come to that conclusion?