Metacrock

Meta: Till? You mean the former Chruch of Christ guy? If that's him, it was probably just disgust with his tactics. that guy can't discuss things fairly.

But so what? Having a Ph.D is no garuntee of being right. But we are talking about the top shcolars, that Vork was insulting. We aren't talking about some guy like me who no one has ever heard of. He was saying that the top rung of Biblical scholarship has nothing and tha'ts foolish. They are world experts. This discussion would have no boundaries without them!

B. H. Manners

Metacrock said:


"""Meta: Till? You mean the former Chruch of Christ guy? If that's him, it was probably just disgust with his tactics. that guy can't discuss things fairly. """""""""

BH: I think Till was very calm and professional throughout the whole thing and has much to be commended in this regard. If you had been raised in the Church of Christ as I and he was (though he is 30 years older), you would understand his aggressive debating and writing style. That is how CoC preachers were in the past, though they are trying to wean themselves away from this I understand.


Metacrock says:

"""'But so what? Having a Ph.D is no garuntee of being right. But we are talking about the top shcolars, that Vork was insulting. We aren't talking about some guy like me who no one has ever heard of. He was saying that the top rung of Biblical scholarship has nothing and tha'ts foolish. They are world experts. This discussion would have no boundaries without them!""""""


BH: There are a whole lot of people "falling" for Doherty's opinion and I think he should be addressed and dealt with by these "top scholars" if he is indeed leading so many astray. I'm glad you agree having a PhD doesn't necessarily make one right because I agree with you.

I disagree with Doherty's theory by the way. I think the early Christians thought there was a real Jesus here on earth on not in some "spiritual realm" only.

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by B. H. Manners
[B]Metacrock said:


"""Meta: Till? You mean the former Chruch of Christ guy? If that's him, it was probably just disgust with his tactics. that guy can't discuss things fairly. """""""""

BH: I think Till was very calm and professional throughout the whole thing and has much to be commended in this regard. If you had been raised in the Church of Christ as I and he was (though he is 30 years older), you would understand his aggressive debating and writing style. That is how CoC preachers were in the past, though they are trying to wean themselves away from this I understand.


Meta: I was! And I know that. I understand why he has that style, I remember gobs of preacher men in my childhood who were like that. I would have spotted him for a CofCer even if he hadn't said it (let's compare notes sometime--I've been out of that since I became an atheist at 15 but my family stayed in it for a time after that so I know that tradition really well). *hey you know what that means? He and you and I all know the same people within 3 peole. I bet we do!* I'm always finding CofCers know people I know even if there is no apparent connection between us.

But the thing I can't forgive is the content he puts with the style. Look at his responses to Geilser. I' am not fan of Geilser, but I found his approach to that debate to be nothing short of shameful. He threw the book at the guy, he was shouting, and he lied. He said that "dying rising savior gods were a dime a dozen" and he names several, saying "eversingle one of them was curcified and rose form the dead and born of a virigin." I looked them all up and none of them fit that. IN fact you have to look in a myther book to find anything saying they were! that to me is big time dishonest. I'm sure he didn't mean to be, he probably just got a note form some helper or something and didn' look them up himself. But you know I knew more about mythology when I was eight than he does.


Metacrock says:

"""'But so what? Having a Ph.D is no garuntee of being right. But we are talking about the top shcolars, that Vork was insulting. We aren't talking about some guy like me who no one has ever heard of. He was saying that the top rung of Biblical scholarship has nothing and tha'ts foolish. They are world experts. This discussion would have no boundaries without them!""""""


BH: There are a whole lot of people "falling" for Doherty's opinion and I think he should be addressed and dealt with by these "top scholars" if he is indeed leading so many astray. I'm glad you agree having a PhD doesn't necessarily make one right because I agree with you.


Meta: Well he shouldnt' because that whole thesis is 19th century re-hash. Doherty hasn't said anything new about it. It was all settaled back in Schweitzer's day.



Meta: Well then you are one of the good ones! Come on down to Texas and I'll buy you a beer. You and Pete and Jim Still, you get down here, and I'll buy the beer! How's that? Mexican beer!

B. H. Manners

Metacrock,


I am in Corsicana, right under you. I'll take your offer about the beer if one day we could meet.

I understand what you were saying about Till and the crucified saviour gods being a dime a dozen. It first struck me as being very awkward when I first read that from him myself. Most of those "gods" did not, if indeed any, get crucified and raised from the dead.

The debate that I was thinking of was the one he had with Jim Laws. Till may have been mistaken about the "crucified savior gods" but I don't think he did try to lie or anything willfully unethical.

Metacrock

Meta: Ah, fellow Texan! yea, that's not too far, Sure I'd love too. Is that Navaro county? My Grandfather was from Carsicana.



Meta: O well I'm sure he didn't set out to be wrong on purpose. I just react negatively to that Cof C thing. That is not a good memeory, those preacher men. Although a couple of them were ok as people. I hate that arrogant "I don't need to think I know I'm right" swager, you know? I probably do that too, and for that very reason.

Layman

Been to Corsicana dozens of times. My families from the area. My father went to Nazarro County Junior College. I still have aunts and uncles in Persley, a few miles outside of town. Beautiful country. I wish I could return more often. Caught plenty of fish out there. They put a huge tower up with a blinking light, though, ruins the night sky.

Vorkosigan

that is so crazy! the whole historical critical method, which all of you are pretending to master is developed and cultivated by those scholars. Now tell me what you know aboutr it? NOthing I venture!

Stop it.

I at least have a Masters in it. So don't prtend to tell me about their lack of scholarship.

I said their ideas lacked methodological foundation, not scholarship. Big difference. Never have I claimed that Sanders or Koester or Crossan were not scholars. Only that they cannot support their claims with valid methodological approaches.

Then to support that quack and prtend that his little idotic theory has any merit and to base that pretense on a half assed version of Biblical scholarship, have you no shame?

When it comes to ideas, no, I have none.

The reason they don't give him the time of day is because he's not wroth it! His theory is silly, and they know that.

You mean, his theory has aspects that scare them, and they have closed ranks. Speaking of silly, did you see how NT scholarship held its collective breath over the ossuary? Do you still want to argue that faith commitments do not underlie their response to Doherty?

Speaking of silly, just read Meier's writing on miracles, or his extremely disingenuous presentation on the TF. If you write nonsense that reflects the prevailing view, it will fly, but attacks on it will sink.

To put him in a par with Bill Famer or James Barr or Helmutt Koster is just silliness! You do not know better than the academic authorities. and those of us who have trained under them know that

Get a grip, Meta. The historical critical method is hopeless for pulling fact from fiction in the gospels. Do you think that Crossan's comments in The Historical Jesus to the effect that his field is where archaeology was at the end of the 19th century (actually, he was off by about 4 centuries) and in The Birth of Christianity to the effect that there is no generally-accepted method by which one can pull out fact from fiction in the gospels are just meaningless noise? Do you think the field would be in such a mess if there were such a methodology? Believe it or not, you are not the only person on the planet with training in history, nor is history the only relevant training to sorting truth from fiction in the gospels.....that's why people are turning increasingly to interdisciplinary and comparative approaches.

Meta: what are you talking about? If the Sec Web isn't the place for a rant, where is? Are you telling me that the Sec web is not the place to argue about Doherty?

I don't mind rants, if they are good. But yours are neither witty nor informative. Where on Doxa have you an article on Doherty?

I thought that was the general idea about this thread. If this thread is not a place to argue about Doherty, why are so many of you defending him?

For the same reason we defend Wells and Crossan and anyone else with a good mind and interesting ideas, who gets a summary dismissal from heavily invested authorities.

That's bull and you know it! Without Paul you start the Christian testimony with the canonicals and that means Gospels as earlya s AD 60 with Jesus as a felsh and blood guy. That's only with Paul writting a decade earlier and Doherty prtending that he didn't believe that that he can even pretend that it was second century before it was firmed up.

Speaking of what critical scholars say, Mark at 60 AD is nonsense. You can talk the talk about critical scholarship, but you can't walk the walk, Meta.

My God he's your little sacred cow isn't he?

Irony of ironies. As I have stated many times, I don't think his idea is correct. What trips my trigger is summary dismissal. I doubt most of the people who dismiss mythicism have even read any of its major writers or are familiar with its major claims. And people who swallow Ossuaries whole are in no position to accuse others of a lack of critical thinking skills.

But of course, you can end this debate any day simply by proffering a valid methodology for retrieving historical truth from the fictions in the Gospels. But I've noticed that you haven't got one. When you can walk the walk, let me know.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Having a Ph.D is no garuntee of being right. But we are talking about the top shcolars, that Vork was insulting

Name top scholars I insulted prior to previous post.

B. H. Manners

Metacrock:

"""""""Meta: O well I'm sure he didn't set out to be wrong on purpose. I just react negatively to that Cof C thing. That is not a good memeory, those preacher men. Although a couple of them were ok as people. I hate that arrogant "I don't need to think I know I'm right" swager, you know? I probably do that too, and for that very reason.""""""""""


BH: Most Church of Christ preachers are indeed assholes, and are so on purpose with intent to intimidate and dominate their little herds.

B. H. Manners

I travel to Pursley a lot during the weekends. The little store has the best hamburgers too!