Grog

You have come into this forum spouting presumptions and assumptions and make no effort to engage the arguments, or even to understand them beyond what you have been spoon fed by Ehrman. You have ignored efforts to encourage you to participate in constructive fashion (for example I rwferred you to spin's blog on Gal 1:19 but then later I see you dithering on about James, the little bro of Jesus. You completely ignore the contradictory and questionable nature related to the supposed character of James, brother of Jesus, respected teacher of Jews. This character makes no sense when you assemble tue evidence. But you make no attempt to do that. Where does this James come from? Doesn't the gospel family of Jesus reject him? Is there any indication that James, the brother of Jesus, would rise to the position of respected Christian/Jewish leader?

Your positions are all assertions based on a lack of critical and detached scrutiny of received conventional wisdom. Your constant "appeal to Ehrman" looks like a dodge, passing the buck to big brother when you are not up to the fight yourself.

If you want to participate here and be taken seriously, you need to step up your game considerably. Otherwisr you are just trolling.

aa5874

It would appear metacristi is following the modus operandi of Ehrman. He believes the Bible is a source of history while simultaneously claims it is riddled with contradictions, discrepancies, events that most likely did NOT happen and other historical problems and attacks those who expose his logical fallacies.

outhouse

His post makes much more sense then yours ever do..

Not even scholars are taken seriously here, and most leave asap when confronted with the bias ever present here.

Iskander

Choosing of the Lancastrian and Yorkist Roses




Let him that is a true-born gentleman,
And stands upon the honour of his birth,
If he suppose that I have pleaded truth,
From off this briar pluck a white rose with me.
- Richard Plantagenet



Let him that is no coward nor no flatterer,
But dare maintain the party of the truth,
Pluck a red rose from off this thorn with me.
- Somerset
http://www.explore-parliament.net/ns...0166/0166_.htm

Grog

Thank you for the observation, outhouse. I will only say that it helps his case naught to have the most content-free poster on the board defend his honor.

metacristi

All I see here is the same patronizing attitude (I refer to all your responses to my posts) which I see in many mythicists over the net (many not having even a clue of what science is and how it works). Only that we are not so 'poor' to need your 'generosity'. We deal with a fixed set of data which historicism explain in an economic and elegant way whilst mythicism is rather 'ugly' as a theory and needs a lot of ad hoc 'epicycles' to be viable, including widespread change of methodology (mental gymnastics in my view to claim that Paul talks of a celestial Jesus). If I were a mythics I would wait for better times (you need some BIG new data for this or, of course, to wait until the current generation of scholars supporting historicism die and a new generation of mythicist scholars takes its place - the latter not necessarily a rational paradigm shift but sometimes it can happen like that, possible only IF mythicists will be more focused on publishing peer review articles instead of bashing Ehrman and historicists and putting pressure on academia). Let's see first what Carrier can produce, his impact in the academia, and after that we'll talk again. At the moment I can only say that GA Wells seems to me much more saner when he wrote

.

I don't think it will be easy to explain and be persuasive of how could Paul believe in the resurrection of someone celestial [mythicist version, sacrifice in lower spheres of heaven] and how could this pushed him to develop his theory of original sin. Until now all I've seen are grand words and grand claims from the part of the mythics but nothing of real substance. A tough task even for Carrier (who should have first publish his hypothesis instead of putting pressure on academia). But that's only my view of course don't take it as a personal attack.

Toto

metacristi - I am not sure what you interpret as patronizing. I find your posts difficult to follow because of the many run on sentences.

But I disagree with your idea that historicist explanations for the evidence are neat and rational, while the mythicist explanations are contorted or ugly. I think it is the reverse.

Carrier will be publishing his second book on historicity. We will see how the academy responds.

James The Least

Not sure what the people involved in New Testament Studies have done to deserve such genuflection. If Ehrman is in any way typical, NT professors come from right-wing conservative families where the Bible is studied intensely because it's believed to be all or mostly true. The kiddies then go off to college so they can study and teach the most important book of all time to save the world, only to find out that what their parents taught them about the Bible isn't actually true. Spiritual crises ensue. The consolation is that they still get to talk and write about their favorite superhero, Jesus, just not as a god, but an "apocalyptic prophet" unjustly executed. Different types of Jesuses are grudgingly accepted only as long as they are posited by a tiny elite of fellow scholars. You discover to your shock at age 30 that some heathens even once posited that Jesus never even existed, but fortunately you learn that their ridiculous arguments have been "refuted," so you don't have to think a moment longer about that horrifying possibility.

It's all rather juvenile and childish, and should have died as a profession centuries ago.

outhouse

If that is how you look at modern scholarships, your sorely mistaken.


There are a few biased scholarships, but they dont hold much credibility outside the apologetically inclined.

I have seen much worse work in mythicist camp then I have taught by professors. Most of the apologetic bias I see is with the biased students from lack of education.

Grog

You only make bland, unsupported assertions. Why even bother? You aren't saying anything worthy here. I have given you examples of numerous texts referring to the "seed of Noah," the "seed of Abraham" and the seed of David in reference to spiritual beings. Even "born of a woman" is used in reference to spiritual beings in writings from the second temple period. Why do you think that Paul uses such language should be of concern to mythicists? Aren't you just ignoring the broader context? Aren't you just refusing to account for evidence that disproves your cherished assumptions? That, my friend, is not science.

Here is an example from the Apocalypse of Adam:

This is about the Illuminator of Knowledge:

Must we assume that the Illuminator of Knowledge was an actual person because he is said to be born of a woman?