Metacrock

Meta => Sure. it took me a long time to get under Greek religion, because I couldn't see past the little mythology stories. I didn't get a feel for it until I read Elliade. Elliade says that Greek religion was about balance. He has a lot examples to back that up, but the Sacred way and the Deiter cult that survived into the 1930s (see Michael Wood's special on the Sacred way). Harvest, seasons, balance and the eternal return, the cirularity of life; its all about being integrated. So the human problematic is imbalance, alienation. The UTE is the point of integration and that is medated through the mysteries and rites of the Sacred way.




Meta =>It's saying a lot, but there isn't much to be said in words. This is an experiential thing, it's beyond words. That's why God reched down to us by becoming one of us.

Metacrock

Meta =>HU? Where do you get the idea that I'm plugging verbal plenary? I said explicitly I don't accept it. I've said over and over that I'm a liberal. Don't you know what that is?

Yellum Notnef

Oh. Is that what it is? From way over here I get the impression that they have no idea. I hope you're right.


Please. I'm sure the people of Texas have had all the "metagetics" they can stomach.

Metacrock

Meta =>That's not McDowell style per se. It's just documenting the consensus in scholarship. Now I didn't push that as a "proof" but just as a caustionary word.





Meta =>Good question. I would still be a christian even if Doherty was right. I just happen to think that his methods are crack pot and he's getting a lot of miage out of a very amaturish approach. I think it makes a diffrence if JEsus was real or not. I would still call myself a christian, but in a very Bualtmannian way. It would certainly change the trajectory of my faith. I think the whole idea of God's solidarity with victims and the synthesis in the dialectical Trinitarian history of God as hope is much more concretized if Jesus really did die for our sins and rise from the dead.

But that doesn't mean I have to try and prove it by saying things like "how did they get the body past the guards?"





Meta =>I don't have to either. I just happen to have this knowledge and thought it would be nice to put it to a postive use since I paid thousands of dollars for it. Yea it sure would be, wonder where I could find a place to do that? not here that's for sure.

Yellum Notnef

Was it ALL your money or are the taxpayers unknowingly responsible for this?

Vinnie

That is correct!

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Another cautionary word would be that scholars who make emphatic pronouncements on the existence of a HJ almost never accompany them with argumentation.

But you do seem to think that you have to prove the existence of Jesus by saying things like, "how come the story is told again and again without varying versions?" Why is it that the existence of Jesus is a matter of evidentialist apologetics but His divinity and resurrection are not?

I think that the Internet Infidels is fortunate to have people with diverse viewpoints on a HJ and a willingness to argue about it rationally. Other forums might consider it taboo just to bring it up.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Yet another cautionary word is that most scholars might consider the question not worthy of serious argumentation. If a science article by an actual scientist mentioned the fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old I would not expect argumentation on this point. There is no need for it. Its common knowledge.

Most historians probably don't bother with mythicism (if they've heard of it) because its not worth the effort. I didn't see Meier or other mainline critical scholars going through any great lengths to refute conservative harmonizations of conflicting Bible stories in their Jesus reconstructions.

The historians may of course be wrong as this is only a cautionary word.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Enough with the cautionary words!

There is a difference between the academic consensus on the age of the Earth and the academic consensus on the existence of Jesus. The former was a hard-won result of scientific investigation; a researcher who knows the literature can point us to the tests and articles that established the fact. The latter has always been the belief of scholars, and scholars cannot point to a seminal work that laid the foundation of the HJ hypothesis. When pressed, scholars appeal to consensus (what I would term a self-perpetuating consensus) or to problematic external vectors (such as Josephus, Tacitus, and now the ossuary). Scholarship doesn't take the issue seriously, I will grant you. That is largely why scholarship hasn't developed a sophisticated body of evidence laying the foundations of HJ research, including the existence of Jesus. It is taken for granted. Does it make sense to appeal to the authoritative opinion of a person who has taken the answer for granted and holds an opinion without study? That person hasn't even brought his expertise to bear on the question.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Is that a cautionary word from a moderator?

I couldn't resist!

On what grounds would you consider the likes of say Sanders, Meier, Crossan and others to not have studied this issue? Do you think none of them have good reasons for accepting the historicity of Jesus?

Vinnie