Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 10-03-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Ive found no apologetic bias in Crossan, Reed, Meyers, Sanders, Martin, Borg.

I think the list of apologetic scholars that are seriously biased is rather small, once we get beyond personal interpretation which they all hold.

They may not be cases of "apologetic bias", but Crossan:

It mentions he studied archaeology, but Crossan appears to be a qualified theologian rather than a historian.

And looking at Borg:

Quote:

He later changed his major to political science and philosophy. Though plagued by doubt as a young adult, after his undergraduate studies Borg decided to study at Union Seminary in New York City, where he became familiarized with liberal theology. One of the profound influences on Borg during his seminary years was his professor and the noted theologian W. D. Davies. After graduating from Union he then matriculated at Mansfield College, Oxford University, where he earned his D. Phil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg

Which again, doesn't look like the guy has a historian background.

You may be aware of plenty of others with a historian background?

If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point.

Right now, you do not.

Robert Tulip · 10-03-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

They may not be cases of "apologetic bias", but Crossan: It mentions he studied archaeology, but Crossan appears to be a qualified theologian rather than a historian. And looking at Borg:
Which again, doesn't look like the guy has a historian background.
You may be aware of plenty of others with a historian background?

If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point. Right now, you do not.

Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.

outhouse · 10-03-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

If you could find any apologetic bias in either's work, you may have a point. Right now, you do not.

Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.

That is not correct

Toto · 10-03-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Crossan and Borg believe in the Historical Jesus. That is apologetic bias.

That is not correct

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

MrMacSon · 10-03-2013, 04:21 PM

I don't have a problems with people not being trained historians so much as whether they use appropriate historical methods and show they used them.

outhouse · 10-03-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

I don't have a problems with people not being trained historians so much as whether they use appropriate historical methods and show they used them.

Very true.

The kangaroo court methodology around here seems to think scholars are not historians.

Laughable at what and who they claim are credible historians, when only a small handful follow the drivel often posted.

outhouse · 10-03-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

That is not correct

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

Do you even know what the definition of a historian is?

Or the definition of a scholar?

I suggest you read up on it.

Toto · 10-03-2013, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

Do you even know what the definition of a historian is?

Or the definition of a scholar?

Yes I do. Do you know how to avoid answering questions? I think you do.

The question is what evidence Crossan or Borg use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus.

The answer is: . . . .

Robert Tulip · 10-03-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

That is not correct

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

I attend a weekly Bible Study group. We used The Last Week by Crossan and Borg as a study. I have a number of their books. While they are very interesting and informed scholars, their starting point is the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This belief in the Gospels provides a basis for what they term "progressive theology", the liberationist argument that Christians should support the political left.

Because their Jesus underpins their politics, Crossan and Borg have a vested interest in arguing that Jesus actually lived, and a lack of interest in considering this question against objective historical criteria and methods.

outhouse · 10-03-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is it not correct?

Neither Crossan nor Borg are trained historians. What evidence you they use to conclude that there was a historical Jesus?

I attend a weekly Bible Study group. We used The Last Week by Crossan and Borg as a study. I have a number of their books. While they are very interesting and informed scholars, their starting point is the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This belief in the Gospels provides a basis for what they term "progressive theology", the liberationist argument that Christians should support the political left.

Because their Jesus underpins their politics, Crossan and Borg have a vested interest in arguing that Jesus actually lived, and a lack of interest in considering this question against objective historical criteria and methods.

There decades of study at a level few will ever achieve, is what have led them to their opinions.

Unless you can show otherwise, and you cannot.

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

10-03-2013, 04:21 PM	#25
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	I don't have a problems with people not being trained historians so much as whether they use appropriate historical methods and show they used them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.