Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-14-2002, 01:48 PM

Michael,

Bias has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact that Freke and Gandy do not belong on a scholarly website any more than Josh McDowell does. Wells and Doherty may deserve the tiniest of footnotes, but no more than that as they are irrelevant amateurs. Doherty's positive review of Freke and Gandy is a disgrace to his pretentions of scholarship.

I know you think this unfair and wrong, but now you know what it feels like for creationists trying to get their tripe a fair hearing. Your problem is you are in complete opposition not only to mainstream HJ studies, but the entire ediface of academic historical research. You have your little cliques like the Jesus Mysteries group where you are protected from criticism and your fans here. Be happy with that.

Apart from only containing the extremists from one side, Peter's website is a very useful resource and I have said as much on my own site. Personally, I'd rather kick out the fringe instead of introducing the other fringe to get balance, but he seems to feel they are necessary.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
Apart from only containing the extremists from one side ...

Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, and Gerd Theissen are "extremists"?

godfry n. glad · 06-14-2002, 02:09 PM

Bede did state:

Quote:

Apart from only containing the extremists from one side, Peter's website is a very useful resource and I have said as much on my own site. Personally, I'd rather kick out the fringe instead of introducing the other fringe to get balance, but he seems to feel they are necessary.

Heh...I agree. Peter needs to excise that Johnson/Stein/Wright extremist wing. That way, we needn't introduce the UFO/Urantia/Atlantian movement folks.

Man...these people with their hallucinations.
<sheesh>

godfry n. glad

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 02:16 PM

Which is one of the reasons I asked.

I'm not familiar with Luke Timothy Johnson. Peter Kirby states: "Johnson believes that Jesus is who the New Testament and the creeds say he is: the Son of God who came to suffer willingly and die for our sins."

On the other hand Doherty, for example, claims Jesus never existed at all. Yet Bede says, "Apart from only containing the extremists from one side ..."

So who is the "extremist," Doherty, or Johnson? And how is that that these particular "extremists" are "from one side"?

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 02:39 PM

Meanwhile, in light of the somewhat bitter and sarcastic denunciation of another poster above, I'll take Bede's comments with a gigantic grain of salt.

offa · 06-14-2002, 02:48 PM

offa; Yes, my fundie friend. You omitted Barbara Thiering. Everybody says that everybody else says that Thiering is a fluke, yet, nobody specifically labels anything she writes as profound.
BTW, Earl Doherty basis his thesis on the deluded proof that John was not written first.
Robert Eisenman prooves that Thiering is a true scholar because he mentions many points that she had already made. Eisenman uses slight of tongue to put a thought in your head.
The problem is you pseudo-scholars are playing a game by the rules made by religion. You fail to realize that our media is of the Jewish persuasion. Eisenman is a Jew. Thiering is not atheist. I am!

thanks, Offa

Vorkosigan · 06-14-2002, 03:19 PM

Michael,

Bias has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact that Freke and Gandy do not belong on a scholarly website any more than Josh McDowell does.

Bede,

level of scholarship has nothing to do with it. The remark is a clear ad hominem within the rules set forth in a private emailing to me after my remarks on Swinburne's ridiculous abuse of Bayes theorem. XTALK operates on a double standard. That's what I was complaining about.

I know you think this unfair and wrong, but now you know what it feels like for creationists trying to get their tripe a fair hearing. Your problem is you are in complete opposition not only to mainstream HJ studies, but the entire ediface of academic historical research.

Bede, you already got this one in your face once with your remarks about Confucius. Shouldn't that be a signal that you are in over your head? In fact it is normal in all other religious research, indeed, in historical research, to question Founding Myths and regard them as largely fictional. Do you know any historian who accepts that Romulus and Remus were real, or that Washington chopped down a cherry tree? For social reasons, Jesus is regarded as a historical figure. I don't mind being in opposition to mainstream HJ studies -- whatever that is -- you can't even identify the mainstream position -- as "mainstream" HJ studies is without solid methodological foundation. As Crossan, arguably the dean of HJ scholars, has pointed out. No methodology, no truth. Period. That's the difference between the creation/evolution debate and this one.

I've said it before -- there are no methodologies that can pull a historical rabbit out of the Jesus hat. That is a prior assumption the scholar brings to the texts -- and most of the "scholars" are faith-committed to their position.

If Jesus really were historical, why the vast disagreement on everything about him? Are there other "historical" figures with similar documentation for which there is such complete disgreement among the relevant scholars on even the most fundamental aspects of his life?

You have your little cliques like the Jesus Mysteries group where you are protected from criticism and your fans here. Be happy with that.

I'm not on JesusMysteries. Apparently the existence of people who regard your religion the way you regard other religions really gets under your skin. I feel sorry for you.

As for that remark about "fans," I will only say it reveals more about you than me.

Apart from only containing the extremists from one side, Peter's website is a very useful resource and I have said as much on my own site.

What....NT Wright is not an extremist? ROTFL.

Personally, I'd rather kick out the fringe instead of introducing the other fringe to get balance, but he seems to feel they are necessary.

I understand Bede, but why announce that you have no scholarly integrity on a public website?

If I constructed an HJ theories page, it would include everybody who had written a serious work on the issue, even fruitcakes like NT Wright and biased writers like Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown. There would even be a paragraph on Jesus popularizers like McDowell, Strobel and Lucado. I don't believe people suffer from knowing fringe positions like NT Wright's or Earl Doherty's and further, I am certain that anyone not faith-committed to a prior position would soon come to the same conclusion as I have -- that there is nothing in HJ studies to make one conclude anything about the historical Jesus, and much that would lead one to conclude that he is, like so many other major figures of myth and legend, a composite figure. Prior to my arrival on this site, I believed with Asimov above that the Jesus legend cycle was simply the garbled life of a Galilean preacher. Now I realize how optimistic even that position is.

Now for Christ's sake, prove with solid historical methodology that Jesus was a historical figure. You have consistently labeled my position "creationist" without providing even the slightest hint of an argument. I do not mind the ad hominems, as they reflect on you and not me, but your failure to support them simply demonstrates that my agnosticism on the HJ rests on a solid foundation.

Remember, my position is not that there was no Jesus. It is rather that the legends we have about him are composites, and contain almost nothing that can be demonstrated to be factual about his life and death.

Vorkosigan

Jayman · 06-14-2002, 04:52 PM

Question for Vorkosigan: do you hold other (supposedly) historical figures up to the same standards as Jesus? What are your thoughts on Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or even the moon landing?

Toto · 06-14-2002, 06:10 PM

Jayman, (excuse me for answering a question directed at Vorkosian) you are new. There are some things that pop up too often from Christian apologists. One is the the Caesar-Jesus comparison, which was laid to rest <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html" target="_blank">here</a> by Richard Carrier, (scroll down to "Julius Caesar Crossed the Rubicon, but was Jesus Resurrected from the Dead?") Briefly, Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, and his existence, is attested to by his own writings, writings from his contemporaries who were his enemies, physical evidence such as inscriptions and coins, etc. None of this sort of evidence exists for Jesus.

The moon landing is well documented. If you have been taken in by Fox News, check out <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com" target="_blank">the Bad Astonomy web site.</a>

Jayman · 06-14-2002, 07:19 PM

Toto, my question was posed to see why Vorkosigan believes certain events as fact and other events as fiction.

For example, if he believes that Caesar was an historical person and that records about him are basically true then I want to know why he holds this belief. I chose some people from ancient history as well as from modern history to better determine the methodology that Vorkosigan uses in determining historical fact. I'm not really interested in what he thinks about these figures/events but rather why he believes certain things.

P.S. I was not taken in by Fox.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-14-2002, 01:48 PM	#21
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Michael, Bias has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact that Freke and Gandy do not belong on a scholarly website any more than Josh McDowell does. Wells and Doherty may deserve the tiniest of footnotes, but no more than that as they are irrelevant amateurs. Doherty's positive review of Freke and Gandy is a disgrace to his pretentions of scholarship. I know you think this unfair and wrong, but now you know what it feels like for creationists trying to get their tripe a fair hearing. Your problem is you are in complete opposition not only to mainstream HJ studies, but the entire ediface of academic historical research. You have your little cliques like the Jesus Mysteries group where you are protected from criticism and your fans here. Be happy with that. Apart from only containing the extremists from one side, Peter's website is a very useful resource and I have said as much on my own site. Personally, I'd rather kick out the fringe instead of introducing the other fringe to get balance, but he seems to feel they are necessary. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

06-14-2002, 02:16 PM	#24
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Which is one of the reasons I asked. I'm not familiar with Luke Timothy Johnson. Peter Kirby states: "Johnson believes that Jesus is who the New Testament and the creeds say he is: the Son of God who came to suffer willingly and die for our sins." On the other hand Doherty, for example, claims Jesus never existed at all. Yet Bede says, "Apart from only containing the extremists from one side ..." So who is the "extremist," Doherty, or Johnson? And how is that that these particular "extremists" are "from one side"?

06-14-2002, 02:39 PM	#25
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Meanwhile, in light of the somewhat bitter and sarcastic denunciation of another poster above, I'll take Bede's comments with a gigantic grain of salt.

06-14-2002, 02:48 PM	#26
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	offa; Yes, my fundie friend. You omitted Barbara Thiering. Everybody says that everybody else says that Thiering is a fluke, yet, nobody specifically labels anything she writes as profound. BTW, Earl Doherty basis his thesis on the deluded proof that John was not written first. Robert Eisenman prooves that Thiering is a true scholar because he mentions many points that she had already made. Eisenman uses slight of tongue to put a thought in your head. The problem is you pseudo-scholars are playing a game by the rules made by religion. You fail to realize that our media is of the Jewish persuasion. Eisenman is a Jew. Thiering is not atheist. I am! thanks, Offa

06-14-2002, 03:19 PM	#27
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Michael, Bias has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact that Freke and Gandy do not belong on a scholarly website any more than Josh McDowell does. Bede, level of scholarship has nothing to do with it. The remark is a clear ad hominem within the rules set forth in a private emailing to me after my remarks on Swinburne's ridiculous abuse of Bayes theorem. XTALK operates on a double standard. That's what I was complaining about. I know you think this unfair and wrong, but now you know what it feels like for creationists trying to get their tripe a fair hearing. Your problem is you are in complete opposition not only to mainstream HJ studies, but the entire ediface of academic historical research. Bede, you already got this one in your face once with your remarks about Confucius. Shouldn't that be a signal that you are in over your head? In fact it is normal in all other religious research, indeed, in historical research, to question Founding Myths and regard them as largely fictional. Do you know any historian who accepts that Romulus and Remus were real, or that Washington chopped down a cherry tree? For social reasons, Jesus is regarded as a historical figure. I don't mind being in opposition to mainstream HJ studies -- whatever that is -- you can't even identify the mainstream position -- as "mainstream" HJ studies is without solid methodological foundation. As Crossan, arguably the dean of HJ scholars, has pointed out. No methodology, no truth. Period. That's the difference between the creation/evolution debate and this one. I've said it before -- there are no methodologies that can pull a historical rabbit out of the Jesus hat. That is a prior assumption the scholar brings to the texts -- and most of the "scholars" are faith-committed to their position. If Jesus really were historical, why the vast disagreement on everything about him? Are there other "historical" figures with similar documentation for which there is such complete disgreement among the relevant scholars on even the most fundamental aspects of his life? You have your little cliques like the Jesus Mysteries group where you are protected from criticism and your fans here. Be happy with that. I'm not on JesusMysteries. Apparently the existence of people who regard your religion the way you regard other religions really gets under your skin. I feel sorry for you. As for that remark about "fans," I will only say it reveals more about you than me. Apart from only containing the extremists from one side, Peter's website is a very useful resource and I have said as much on my own site. What....NT Wright is not an extremist? ROTFL. Personally, I'd rather kick out the fringe instead of introducing the other fringe to get balance, but he seems to feel they are necessary. I understand Bede, but why announce that you have no scholarly integrity on a public website? If I constructed an HJ theories page, it would include everybody who had written a serious work on the issue, even fruitcakes like NT Wright and biased writers like Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown. There would even be a paragraph on Jesus popularizers like McDowell, Strobel and Lucado. I don't believe people suffer from knowing fringe positions like NT Wright's or Earl Doherty's and further, I am certain that anyone not faith-committed to a prior position would soon come to the same conclusion as I have -- that there is nothing in HJ studies to make one conclude anything about the historical Jesus, and much that would lead one to conclude that he is, like so many other major figures of myth and legend, a composite figure. Prior to my arrival on this site, I believed with Asimov above that the Jesus legend cycle was simply the garbled life of a Galilean preacher. Now I realize how optimistic even that position is. Now for Christ's sake, prove with solid historical methodology that Jesus was a historical figure. You have consistently labeled my position "creationist" without providing even the slightest hint of an argument. I do not mind the ad hominems, as they reflect on you and not me, but your failure to support them simply demonstrates that my agnosticism on the HJ rests on a solid foundation. Remember, my position is not that there was no Jesus. It is rather that the legends we have about him are composites, and contain almost nothing that can be demonstrated to be factual about his life and death. Vorkosigan

06-14-2002, 04:52 PM	#28
Jayman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 68	Question for Vorkosigan: do you hold other (supposedly) historical figures up to the same standards as Jesus? What are your thoughts on Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or even the moon landing?

06-14-2002, 06:10 PM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jayman, (excuse me for answering a question directed at Vorkosian) you are new. There are some things that pop up too often from Christian apologists. One is the the Caesar-Jesus comparison, which was laid to rest <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4b.html" target="_blank">here</a> by Richard Carrier, (scroll down to "Julius Caesar Crossed the Rubicon, but was Jesus Resurrected from the Dead?") Briefly, Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, and his existence, is attested to by his own writings, writings from his contemporaries who were his enemies, physical evidence such as inscriptions and coins, etc. None of this sort of evidence exists for Jesus. The moon landing is well documented. If you have been taken in by Fox News, check out <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com" target="_blank">the Bad Astonomy web site.</a>

06-14-2002, 07:19 PM	#30
Jayman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 68	Toto, my question was posed to see why Vorkosigan believes certain events as fact and other events as fiction. For example, if he believes that Caesar was an historical person and that records about him are basically true then I want to know why he holds this belief. I chose some people from ancient history as well as from modern history to better determine the methodology that Vorkosigan uses in determining historical fact. I'm not really interested in what he thinks about these figures/events but rather why he believes certain things. P.S. I was not taken in by Fox.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.