Vorkosigan

'dorth,

if you really want the questions you posted earlier in the thread on GosMark answered, why not read Chap. 4 of Loisy's The Origins of the New Testament which discusses Mark in detail and gives arguments showing how each part of Mark is the result of theological construction rather than of historical reporting.

Vorkosigan

Geoff Hudson

The question is what "nearby history"? The story is probably dissimulation rather than reconciliation. Better still, I would say it was a pack of lies.

Was John attempting to cause a rebellion, or was that his perceived intention? If anything, I would have said his rebellion was against the beliefs and practices of the establishment priesthood.


Geoff

Radorth

Oh, quite the contrary I think. First of all, he doesn't "praise" Jesus as if he were somehow Godlike. He lists reasons why we cannot doubt the reality of the character portrayed, including negative details. But more importantly, he could safely be said to weaken the faith (in the resurrection) of a hundred thousand Christians with one question, i.e "Was he really dead?"

He's little help to my cause and this mind reading about my belief in some "great man" theory of history is silly. Anyway, the question here is whether or not there is a historical Jesus and Durant's integrity, something he personally carefully cultivated, is rather apparent. It is always apparent to me, where someone takes the arguments of believers at face value, though he himself is an unbeliever. Instead of just ignoring a body of evidence and making cynical, simplistic assumptions, he does the intellectual work of integrating it into a theory which is difficult for either side to argue with. He has no appeal at all to extremists, another mark of his neutrality. Further, he talks about the good and evil done in the "age of faith" by Christians without missing a stride. He never picks out that which fits some agenda, and the reader senses this, however much the latter might disagree with Durant's final interpretaion.

Klausner probably ticked off every Jew in Palestine when he called Mark "in essentials, genuine history." Meanwhile, one wonders how many friends Wells ever made, talking about the creative force of evolution in one chapter of his history, and the genius of Jesus in the next. Integrity is about writing the truth that might tick off all your friends, and these guys are prime examples. I think the popularity of their work only speaks to the intelligence and wisdom of the average person.

I must ask who could possibly be in a better position to judge the Gospels than a philosopher who has studied so many religions and myths, and doubtless took a logic course. And Doherty's doctorate was in what again? Creative writing?

Heh.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Well Joseph Campbell started as a Catholic alter boy and then spent the rest of his long life studying almost every single religion and myth the human race has dreamed up.
Before dying as an atheist,Campbell concluded that your holy gospels were NOT based on historical facts. He even said that the Christianity we know today is best explained as "misunderstood mythology".

Hows that one taste going down?

Heh.

Radorth

An alter boy eh? That gives him some special authority in you eyes I suppose, since you provide nothing else but gratuitous assertions.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

No Dorth Vader. Thats not what I was saying,but nice try anyway.
Being an alter boy as a kid does not give anyone any special authority. I was simply showing that he came from a religious family and did not start out as an atheist,skeptic,cynic or whatever your overplayed label of the week is.

I did not make any gratuitous assertions. You asked who would be better to judge the gospels than your idol Durant and I provided someone.

You can babble about it all you want,but I have no intention of climbing into your playpen and playing your little games today.

Try and have a good day.

Family Man

Durant's 22-page summary of Jesus's life glossed over most of the major problems that more serious and specialized writers have gone over in far more detail -- including Brown, Crossan, Sanders, Grant, Meier among others. It regularly includes paeans to the Great Man that, without a doubt, was popular among the Christian reader of the time (not to mention Radorth).

Durant is simply one scholar out of many, and even then he wasn't a specialist -- or even a historian. His opinions are that -- his opinions -- and there is little reason to believe that scholarly research into Jesus, his time, and his background ended with him. Radorth's proclamations that "Durant proved you wrong" is silly because Durant proved nothing, as research both before and after Durant shows. He simply provided a short biography based on a credulous theory that the gospels represent true history.

Family Man

As for mind-reading, Radorth, nothing compares to your attempt to tell me that I was equating Muhammad to Jesus, when in fact I was talking about the societal conditions the Early Christians faced to the Early Muslims.

Gregg

He has a degree in ancient history and classical languages (Greek and Latin). He was not able to obtain his PhD due to his withdrawing from university because of a chronic health problem.

Didn't you recently accuse someone of impugning historians?

Gregg

Radorth

That sounds like an excuse, considering the accomplishments of Stephan Hawking. What disease did Doherty have which enables him to write but not get an advanced degree?

Huh? I doubt any Christians I know have ever read Durant. He is hardly writing for Christian readers.

Well I count 5 unsupported assertions, 4 inert facts and one argument from authority there FM. No quotes, examples, etc. Still waiting for someone to answer Durant's points and logic, but that would be beneath the avante gard dignity of the skeptics here, apparently. Oh who cares. When you've been preaching to a choir this long, you don't worry about such things I suppose.

Well the highlight of the thread for me turns out to be that you folks apparently reject the most effective argument a skeptical historian has ever made. Hey, you guys can make up tortured Jesus-myth theories all you want, with my blessing. The average person is smarter and less cynical than some of you think, and I believe will still find the swoon theory far more palatable. Fortunately they will never hear it here again. So glad the HC has risen above the writings of the lowly Durant, Wells, etc. One could make sense out of them.

I'll try to get up to Mars Hill again soon.

Rad