Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Mriana]

I believe I got Acharya's degree wrong, but since people are listing Bob Price's and Jack Spong's credentials, here is her credentials: http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

 

And BTW, she too was on the Jesus Seminar too. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I will hunt that down too and no it is not on her site where she is listed.

[Badger]

but of course you don't want to believe that.

That's what you keep claiming, without knowing me. It's simply your assumption. But let me ask, why I should believe aything you claim?

[Vixentrox]

but of course you don't want to believe that.

That's what you keep claiming, without knowing me. It's simply your assumption. But let me ask, why I should believe aything you claim?

You belive in a invisible magic fairy daddy and a group of myth story written by some ancient, superstious men don't you? You already proved you'll belive just about anything no matter how ridulous it may be or unsupported by fact.

[DarthOkkata]

And Ehrman claims that he know of no legitimate scholar of the NT that deny Jesus's existence. Michael Grant, late atheist historian, rejected Jesus myth position and regarded Jesus as historical figure. Many other secular, non-Christian, scholars have this very same opinion. Jesus did exist.

 

Note the bold underlined word.

 

Once again you claim Jesus as proven fact.

 

I once again pose the same question that you are deliberately avoiding.

 

Based on what evidence?

 

NT scholars are not Historians, they are Theologists. Theology has no value as historical fact or evidence, and is a matter of Philosophy, not Science or History. They are seperate fields. Science and Philosophy are their own things, and aren't really linked directly. They can be useful to each other at times, but Philosophical 'truth' does not equate to 'Scientific proof and evidence' or 'Historical proof and evidence'. They are entirely separate issues.

 

Philosophy is the study of the human 'condition' Science is the study of the human 'environment'. They don't need to mesh or agree with one another. Philosophy is about 'what' humans think and feel, where Science studying the same area of humanity would look at it from an entirely different perspective, it would be more about 'how', and 'why' humans think and feel. It's called Neurology and Psychology.

 

Putting it in terms of say producing a car. Philosophy and Theology would be more concerned with aesthetic design and marketing where as Neurology and Psychology would be more interested in how it runs and making it run efficiently.

 

One would be more interested in what color it was, where the other would be more concerned with fuel economy.

 

To make a car, they need to be able work together, but they won't succeed by getting in each other's way either. Having the car run properly is more important as it doesn't matter how nice it looks, if it can't be driven, no one will buy it.

 

Are you seeing the difference there? Theology isn't really a Science. It's a philosophical area of study, and while it has it's own value and is by no means unnecessary or useless, it doesn't need to be sticking it's nose into this. It doesn't belong.

 

The value of Theology on History is entirely secondary and is more important to the study of cultures and their way of life and thinking. It's more important to Social Studies than History. It is not History in and of itself, but provides incite into the understanding of Ancient Cultures lifestyles, and their way of thinking.

 

It's a supplement to Archeology and History and a valuable tool for them. That doesn't mean that the beliefs within the religious beliefs of the culture being studied are valid or true.

 

In other words, you can list as many Theologists as you want, and it won't make them any more relevant to this. Theology is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here.

 

We're talking about History, Science. Proof and Evidence is required. Theological philosophical musings on the subject are irrelevant.

 

The personal opinions of anyone, no matter what the field is irrelevant. They aren't claiming it as a fact as you are here. They never claimed to have proof that he was real, or provided any evidence that he was real.

 

They stated that in their opinion that it was possible that he existed. Possibly even claimed that they personally believed that he did. They did not pose this as a workable theory, nor did they claim that it should be considered as a fact.

 

That is not the same thing as claiming that he actually existed as a fact, or that it was proven with any sort of evidence and should qualify as a Historical theory.

 

You must provide evidence to claim History. Yet you have none.

 

There is no evidence that Jesus existed as a man.

 

What proof do you have of this claim? What evidence is there? Where is it? Who found it? What sources can you site for it's validity? Where was it found? When? What sort of evidence was it? What about it points to Jesus being a real person who actually existed? Why does it infer this?

 

It's not a question of what people think might be true, or believe personally. That's not science, and that's not History.

 

Your claim has no backing, no evidence to support it, and has no solid validation whatsoever.

 

Michal Grant's argument was that the Historical Jesus has never been 'disproved' not that it is irrefutable fact or even correct. He assumes that there was such a man, but admits that there is no evidence that there was such a man. His entire argument was about the -possibility- that such a man might have existed, not proof that he actually did.

 

He was arguing against those who claimed that 'there's no way Jesus existed' by claiming that no, there is a way, it's possible that he did. He did nothing to prove that he did exist though and made no claims that he definitively did exist. He thought it was very likely that he did, but could not, and did not provide evidence that he did. He was arguing against the position that it was outside possibility for it to be true and should be completely ignored, and he was right.

 

His position is that it was -possible- that a Man named Jesus really existed.

 

It is possible, but it's also not proven. Which is what this is about.

 

Jesus is not History because Jesus has not been proven. The fact that something hasn't been disproved does not make it by default valid in Science, and by extension History. It just means the area is open to question either way, and it is. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't.

 

It is not however, Fact, nor does it qualify as History.

 

He is not History, he is possible, maybe even plausible, but not proven enough to qualify as a Historical figure or actual History. There isn't enough evidence to qualify his existence as even a Theory. A hypothesis to be sure, but as Historical Theory, there isn't enough to warrant such firm claims as you're making.

 

Stating that Jesus was a real man as if it is a proven fact and definitively true the way you are is misleading and incorrect.

 

There's not enough evidence to make the claim that he 'definitely' existed, regardless of how strongly you personally believe that he did.

 

Science and History do not care about your personal beliefs or opinion, only evidence, and that's exactly the way it should be. The level of emotional attachment you have to the idea is irrelevant.

 

Jesus as a real man is not History, he is not a historical figure, he is a myth until proven otherwise.

 

You shouldn't make such firm claims as if it's irrefutable, because in all honesty, it is very refutable.

 

Yeah. Jesus hasn't been disproved, but this isn't about faith and belief. It's about the standards of proof within the Scientific method, and Jesus as a real existing person simply does not meet them.

 

All the quote mining you care to do won't change that. You need actual physical evidence to make the claim you're making without being openly refuted and proven outright wrong.

[Badger]

You belive in a invisible magic fairy daddy and a group of myth story written by some ancient, superstious men don't you?

First, I don't believe in "a invisible magic fairy daddy." Second, in what sense you assume I believe in "a group of myth story written by some ancient, superstious men?" Also please define word "myth."

[Mriana]

but of course you don't want to believe that.

That's what you keep claiming, without knowing me. It's simply your assumption. But let me ask, why I should believe aything you claim?

 

Why should you believe anything your minister says for that matter? You shouldn't on both accounts. Go do the research yourself. Honest research, not just apologists, but real scholars. In your research include mythology, so you can see the evolution of human thought concerning the supernatural. I think you will see that we worshiped the sun (in some cases moon worship), which eventually became various deities, until we arrived at the religions we have today. I think between Easter, Christmas, and thorough honest research, it will be as plain as the nose on your face, that Jesus is modern day sun worship, except we have anthropomorphasized it. I also think you will see the early forms of paganism in Christian mythology as well as a lot of things from past religions/myths. IF you put in honest and thorough inquiry you will see for yourself. Don't take the word of apologists who want to keep the myth alive for some reason, but do some real research on the matter. Currently you are relying solely on what your church taught you and nothing more. What you church taught you isn't necessarily the truth.

[Mriana]

You belive in a invisible magic fairy daddy and a group of myth story written by some ancient, superstious men don't you?

First, I don't believe in "a invisible magic fairy daddy." Second, in what sense you assume I believe in "a group of myth story written by some ancient, superstious men?" Also please define word "myth."

 

You do, only I would have called it an adult Santa Claus. Secondly he assumes this because the Bible is a group of mythical stories written by ancient superstitious men and I dare add ignorant. Nothing more. Myth has four meanings- one is legend, historical myth (that is very little of history is left, but the hero or incident was made into myth), and two others. Myth does not necessarily mean false. Rowen Williams called the virgin birth story a legend (which is a category of mythology). However, I think it is more of a myth than legend. I would say he was being nice. Genesis is pure myth.

 

The thing is, you're clinging to the myth and insisting it is true because you don't want to believe it is a myth. There is a psychology behind this that goes a little like this, "If it's not true, then what is this life for/worth?" Such people fail to see that life is more precious than a set of fairy tales. You're not alone with this syndrome. Many people have it. It's like a desire to believe Tinkerbell exists so you clap your hands together and insist you do believe.

 

Here you go:

This is from Spong and he talks about how the Church controls people- esp with the concept of hell. Thus, why I say you should not take even your minister's word for it even, but rather go find out for yourself that it is myth. Even Spong has called it myth, BUT he does believe in a Jesus, just not as you imagine it to be. He has a totally different concept (which I do not share either, but let's go with it, meet you part way so to speak, since you are a Xian). Be that as it may, the death and resurrection story is a katabasis story and never actually happened. It is pure allegory, BUT if you want a scholar and theologians opinion, you can read Spong's "Resurrection: Myth or Reality". Joseph Campbell said this of the crucifixion "We are all Christ crucified" I think he was talking of the Gnostics at the time, but I can see reasoning in that, because humans crucify each other every day for various things- including and esp disbelief in a certain doctrine or religion.

 

The fact is, and thank goodness because it is so barbaric, there was no god-man who went through human torture and died for our sins nor did such a being actually conquered death and ascended into a mythical place called heaven.

[Badger]

Once again you claim Jesus as proven fact.

Actually I just corrected your claim.

 

NT scholars are not Historians, they are Theologists.

Are you saying scholar like Ehrman (Ph.D. M.Div. B.A.) is not capable of making judgements in this matter?

 

Michal Grant's argument was that the Historical Jesus has never been 'disproved' not that it is irrefutable fact or even correct. He assumes that there was such a man, but admits that there is no evidence that there was such a man. His entire argument was about the -possibility- that such a man might have existed, not proof that he actually did.

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels Michal Grant states that

But, above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,

we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

- - To sum up,

modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.'

In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. (Grant 1977: 199–200; quoted from

Wikipedia

)

You need actual physical evidence to make the claim you're making without being openly refuted and proven outright wrong.

All right. So what sources we do have? The Synoptic Gospels are "a key part of the evidence" for historical Jesus (Bockmuehl, 2001: 122). However, they are not the equivalent of a modern biography; instead, they are theological documents and therefore must be treated cautiously. Then we have Josephus and Tacitus, the most important non-Christian sources. "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score." (Christopher in The Cambridge Compaion to Jesus, 124).

 

Bockmuehl. M. (Ed.) 2001. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. In page 122 Christopher writes, "Further, few today would doubt that a key part of the evidence is to be found in the three 'synoptic' gospels of the New Testament."

[Ouroboros]

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts???

I might be wrong. Admited. But the comment was based on their opinions I have read or heard. I have feeling they are rather in the far left (not sure if that's correct expression).

Last time I heard or read any of them they were not completely in the Acharya S (Murdock) camp. Doc Price even criticized her material, and they had a debate once or twice. Doc Price perhaps opened up a bit more towards Murdock's side, but I never got the impression he denied the historicity of a human Jesus, but he with many other scholars deny the divinity of Jesus, and question the resurrection.

 

Quote from Ehrman about the resurrection:

Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don't know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus' tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living in a different country who had heard it was empty. How would he know?...Suppose...that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea...and then a couple of Jesus' followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate...But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane. The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commandeer a cart and take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus' original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why.

 

Is this scenario likely? Not at all. Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not. Is it more probable that something like this happened than that a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely! From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one..." [Ehrman, "Jesus Interrupted", 171-179]

 

Another doctor is Doc Hector Avalos, Religious Studies in Iowa State University, who (at least my impression from hearing an interview) question the divinity of Jesus, and the historicity of a Miracle/God-son Jesus, but doesn't deny a Human/Man Jesus.

 

So I think all these professors, doctors, historians, and priests are in the same category, which is that Jesus as a human man, teacher, and revolutionary, potentially existed (potentially as in historically possible), but deny God-son/Divine/Miracle/man-combo.

 

Here's a blog-spot of a couple of these guys: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

 

Oh, another one is R. Joseph Hoffman:

Hoffmann received theological degrees (M.T.S. and Th.M.) from Harvard Divinity School[4] and his D.Phil. from the University of Oxford, submitting his thesis on the heretic Marcion in 1982.[5] Following a year as senior scholar at St Cross College, Oxford in 1980,[6] Hoffmann served during the 1980s as an assistant professor at the University of Michigan.[7] From 1989 to 1991 he was a professor of humanities at California State University Sacramento[8]. He also taught at the American University of Beirut, Westminster College in Oxford, and Africa University in Zimbabwe. Hoffmann later became a visiting professor of religion at Wells College, and Robert and Henrietta Campbell Professor of Religion in 2004.[9][10]

(sarc) Yeah, I know. He doesn't qualify to know this things. (/sarc)

[Ouroboros]

One more thing, scholars, not just Acharya whose degree is in archeology, do support astro/solar mythology and some have even came out and stated that Samson, for example, is allegory for the sun and his hair was the rays of the sun. So no, I am not talking off the top of my head with that one. The Bible is loaded with it.

Just FYI,

 

Her degree is BA in Liberal Arts, which means so could compose her own program. It's not an official degree in Archeology/Anthropology. She might have read all the same classes, or she might have not, but she doesn't hold an official degree. She is said to have a "Classical Education" in Archeology, and more, but I'm not sure exactly what that really means.

 

But of course, this doesn't mean that she knows things or is right or wrong, but just that her education doesn't compared to Ehrman, Price, Avalos, or Hoffman.

 

And many of these, including Rational Response Squad, have been critical to many things said by Acharya (Murdock). Because, unfortunately, she has based many of her claims on unsupported sources.

 

Personally, I cut out her as a reliable source for arguments, since I can't really tell what is true or not in what she say. But I do trust Price and the others, because they do have the degrees, experience, and spent their whole (and long) lives just to find these things.

[Badger]

HanSolo, both Price and Spong have (some) questionable opinions and thus puts them on the fringe. I'm not saying they are morons.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, both Price and Spong favors questionable opinions and thus puts them on the fringe. I'm not saying they are morons.

So does the quote I gave you of Ehrman also put him on the fringe? He is also in the camp of denying the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.

 

And of course all scholars who deny the divinity and resurrection of Jesus are on the fringe, since it's more likely they leave the arena completely after losing their faith, instead of staying in the field.

 

Here's a link to the Jesus Project, where they are going to analyze the historicity of Jesus, and most of these guys are not believers in the divine, resurrected, Jesus: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows

 

* Arthur Bellinzoni
* Roland Boer
* Richard Carrier
* Bruce Chilton
* Allison Coudert
* James Crossley
* Andrew Davies
* Philip Davies
* Hermann Detering
* Arthur Droge
* Robert H. Eisenman
* J. Harold Ellens
* Bernard Farr
* Louis Feldman
* Gary Greenberg
* Van A. Harvey
* Ingrid Hjelm
* R. Joseph Hoffmann
* Naomi Janowitz
* Dorothy Lobel King
* Paul Kurtz
* Stephen Law
* Niels Peter Lemche
* Gerd Lüdemann
* Dennis MacDonald
* Angie McAllister McQuaig
* James McGrath
* Justin Meggitt
* Emanuel Pfoh
* Robert M. Price
* James M. Robinson
* Hanna Roebbeln
* Richard E. Rubenstein
* Solomon Schimmel
* James D. Tabor
* Robert B. Tapp
* Thomas L. Thompson
* David Trobisch
* Frank Zindler

 

These guys are not uneducated smucks from the street just doing it for fame and money. These are serious PhDs.

[Badger]

So does the quote I gave you of Ehrman also put him on the fringe? He is also in the camp of denying the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.

No it doesn't. All non-Christian scholars agree there was no resurrection; actually there might be some exceptions. I meant theories like "the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa" (Price) or that Matthew and Luke wrote midrash (Spong). I'm remembering that Spong, when debating with William L. Craig, claimed he know of no scholar who regard the genre of the Gospels as bios.

[Ouroboros]

So does the quote I gave you of Ehrman also put him on the fringe? He is also in the camp of denying the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.

No it doesn't. All non-Christian scholars agree there was no resurrection; actually there might be some exceptions. I meant theories like "the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa" (Price) or that Matthew and Luke wrote midrash (Spong). I'm remembering that Spong, when debating with William L. Craig, claimed he know of no scholar who regard the genre of the Gospels as bios.

 

Ehrman in the news: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/

 

Ehrman backs his arguments with a deep knowledge of the culture and history of the New Testament world. He's written 20 books on early Christianity and is an authority on ancient manuscripts used to translate the Bible.

 

His claims, though, take on some of Christianity's most sacred tenets, like the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says.

 

He says he doesn't believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.

 

"My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die -- they sometimes think they see them in a vision," Ehrman says. "I think some of the disciples had visions."

 

Another article about Ehrman's view on the forgeries in the Bible: http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2009/...art-ehrman.html

BART: This is one of those rare moments when I agree with Marcus and Dom. I agree that there are seven letters that scholars simply call “the undisputed letters” that certainly go back to Paul. There are other letters claiming to be by Paul that, in modern terms, are a literary forgery.

DAVID: Forgery is a harsh term that you use in your book so let's talk about it. Why "forgery"?

BART: Ancient people had terms that are similar and are just as negative as the term I’m using: forgery. A number of books in the New Testament are forgeries claiming to be written by other people.

and

DAVID: But explain this choice of terms: forgery.

BART: The modern term does have very strong connotations. But the ancient world had terms for this, too, when someone claimed to be someone other than who they really were. In Greek literature there are two words—pseudos, which means “lie” or “falsehood,” which is a strong term. The other is nothos, which means “bastard.” The idea is that some authors have legitimate children, namely the additional works they produce themselves—and they have bastards, books that are attributed to them that aren’t actually theirs.

The way it works in early Christian scholarship is that most people writing on early Christianity when they talk about this issue refer to it as pseudipigrapha, which means falsely signed. But, the words in Greek sounds rather antiseptic. When they talk about the same phenomenon outside the New Testament, they call these things in English “forgery.” Almost always this choice of terms is driven by a theological view that we have to protect people from the truth.

So does Ehrman agree with the term "pseudipigrapha", no, he the common word we all use and know: forgery.

 

And the other articles I've read with interviews with him, they all show one thing: Bart Ehrman do not believe in the Gospels as historically accurate or reliable, and he does not believe in Jesus as the miracle Son of God, and he has openly proclaimed he is an agnostic.

 

And he became that way after being a scholar and evangelical Christian. And the same goes for all the other ones too. That's the interesting part: all the non-Christian scholars once were Christian scholars.

 

Also, using the "fringe" argument is nothing but saying: the majority is right, and the minority is wrong. It's a sneaky version of the argument from ad populum. I don't think the majority of Christian scholars are right, just because they're Christian nor that they're in majority, but rather I prefer those who were on that side, learned everything, and critically analyzed it, and came to a more radical answer. They paid the price, while those who are paid by the Churches aren't really being honest, because that would get them fired. So which side is right? The one who doesn't believe, and can't see enough evidence? Or the side who will lose their income if they admit there's not enough evidence?

[Badger]

So does Ehrman agree with the term "pseudipigrapha", no, he the common word we all use and know: forgery.

But he doesn't regard ALL Paul's letters as pseudipigrapha as Price does. That's the point.

[Ouroboros]

So does Ehrman agree with the term "pseudipigrapha", no, he the common word we all use and know: forgery.

But he doesn't regard ALL Paul's letters as pseudipigrapha as Price does. That's the point.

That's more than I know. The last interview I listened too (and I admit it's a while ago) he didn't consider all Paul's letters to be forgeries, but some (or perhaps many) of them. Do you have a link to any particular interview so I can see the context? I will try to search for it myself, but if you have it handy, I'd appreciate it.

[Badger]

That's more than I know. The last interview I listened too (and I admit it's a while ago) he didn't consider all Paul's letters to be forgeries, but some (or perhaps many) of them. Do you have a link to any particular interview so I can see the context? I will try to search for it myself, but if you have it handy, I'd appreciate it.

 

You quoted the claim yourself

 

BART: This is one of those rare moments when I agree with Marcus and Dom. I agree that there are seven letters that scholars simply call “the undisputed letters” that certainly go back to Paul. There are other letters claiming to be by Paul that, in modern terms, are a literary forgery.

[Ouroboros]

That's more than I know. The last interview I listened too (and I admit it's a while ago) he didn't consider all Paul's letters to be forgeries, but some (or perhaps many) of them. Do you have a link to any particular interview so I can see the context? I will try to search for it myself, but if you have it handy, I'd appreciate it.

 

You quoted the claim yourself

 

BART: This is one of those rare moments when I agree with Marcus and Dom. I agree that there are seven letters that scholars simply call “the undisputed letters” that certainly go back to Paul. There are other letters claiming to be by Paul that, in modern terms, are a literary forgery.

No, no silly, not Ehrman. You said Price claims that all Pauline letters are fake. Do you have a link to that?

[Badger]

No, no silly, not Ehrman. You said Price claims that all Pauline letters are fake. Do you have a link to that?

Sorry

 

Here you are http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost...mp;postcount=44

I believe, as Van Manen and the Dutch Radicals did, that the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa (sic.).

[Ouroboros]

Here you are http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost...mp;postcount=44

I believe, as Van Manen and the Dutch Radicals did, that the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa (sic.).

Ok. Seems like he's move further to that side than last time I heard him interviewed.

 

I find it hard to think that someone who call himself Paul, writing a letter using the name Paul, isn't a Paul. Perhaps it's not the same Paul as we think of... but if all of them are from the false Paul, wouldn't that make that false Paul the real Paul? I don't know. I think that part of the debate doesn't really add much.

 

But even with those fringe opinions, he is a highly accredited scholar with many years on his shoulders, and can't be dismissed just because he got a radical view. I mean, it took him long time to get to that point. He didn't start with that view, but got there through his studies and long time contemplation. Just like Paul.

[Badger]

Yeah. My point was that his tendency to "fringe opinions" is good to keep in mind when appealing to him.

[DarthOkkata]

Actually I just corrected your claim.

 

No, you didn't. Correction implies that I was in error, and I'm not.

 

Are you saying scholar like Ehrman (Ph.D. M.Div. B.A.) is not capable of making judgements in this matter?

 

None of his degrees are in History. All of them are Theology. So, in the context of this discussion, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. He's not a Historian, it's not his field. None of his work involves Historical claims. Nor does it prove anything beyond the Theological idea that such a man may have existed. He's got no actual evidence one way or the other. Nor does he make any claim that he does have such evidence. He's making claims based on philosophy, and the ideas presented in the written text he was examining, not claims of history, proof, or physical evidence.

 

His arguments are within his field and have no real place in History, nor should they be considered as Historical or Scientific evidence. As far as I'm aware, he makes no such claims either. He stays within his field, and doesn't even try to stick his nose into the realm of history. He's got no place there, and no evidence to support fact. Truth maybe, but not fact, not Scientific Historical evidence of a real Jesus.

 

But, above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. - - To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. (Grant 1977: 199–200; quoted from Wikipedia)

 

This is supportive of my point. He's arguing against the idea that Jesus is a Myth as an irrefutable fact, and that the very idea of it should be completely ignored. As I said, he is correct. At no point does he claim to have proof of Jesus as a real man, or show any evidence to support that he was.

 

He is claiming that the idea that 'Jesus never existed as a real man' has no evidence to support it. He's right about that, but by contrast, neither does 'Jesus was a real human person'. Both are equally up in the air, and neither one is proven.

 

All right. So what sources we do have? The Synoptic Gospels are "a key part of the evidence" for historical Jesus (Bockmuehl, 2001: 122).

 

The Gospels themselves do not qualify as historical evidence. None of them were written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus and only qualify as hearsay, not evidence. The only thing they prove is that there were people who believed that Jesus was real and that his legend was true at the time they were written.

 

The NT and supporters of it also have a vested and biased interest in the subject being correct. The NT is completely invalid if it isn't true.

 

History as a Science does not. History is not disproved or in any way invalid if Jesus was a real person. It is merely modified and it is still just as valid. It will continue on just as it always has whether Jesus is proven or disproved. It cannot 'lose' either way, so why lie?

 

However, they are not the equivalent of a modern biography; instead, they are theological documents and therefore must be treated cautiously.

 

Exactly. This also supports what I said earlier about Ehrman.

 

Then we have Josephus and Tacitus, the most important non-Christian sources. "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score." (Christopher in The Cambridge Compaion to Jesus, 124).

 

Hearsay again, not physical or historical evidence. Neither Josephus [AD 37 – AD 100] nor Tacitus [AD 55–AD 117] was born before Jesus's supposed execution. Once again, the only thing you have here is proof of the existence of people who believed that Jesus was real, and that there was a cult that worshiped him. Both are third hand accounts based on unverified, uncredited claims from others. We have no idea where they got their information from, but we can be certain beyond doubt Josephus and Tacitus are not first hand information. It proves nothing and is not supportive of 'Historical Jesus' in any way.

 

Bockmuehl. M. (Ed.) 2001. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. In page 122 Christopher writes, "Further, few today would doubt that a key part of the evidence is to be found in the three 'synoptic' gospels of the New Testament."

 

Same as above. Hearsay, based on writings that did not appear until well after the supposed Death of Jesus. Not historical evidence, and proves nothing except that there was a cult that believed in him at the time of the writings.

 

None of this qualifies as irrefutable, scientific evidence of anything but the existence of a cult that believed in Jesus. It is no evidence at all that he existed as a real man.

 

There is none.

 

Beliefs and inferences do not qualify as evidence or proof of anything. No matter who it is that believes or infers it. There is no physical or reliable sources to confirm that Jesus was ever a real human being. There is only hearsay well after his supposed death, and that isn't proof.

 

You've still got nothing but the opinions of others with nothing to back them up or support them.

 

So, no. You've not proven anything more than there are/were some people who believe he might have been real, maybe, possibly.

 

Jesus is a real man is not a proven idea. It is not fact. There is no evidence that supports, or disproves it either way.

 

I'm convinced he wasn't a real person. You're convinced that he was.

 

Neither one of us has proof that our claim is correct, nor is there any conclusive evidence either way.

 

I'm not making my claim that I do not think he was real as if it is irrefutable proven fact. The only claim I've made, is that there's no evidence that satisfies the standards of Scientific proof that 'Historical fact' requires. Therefore, it is not a 'Historical Fact' that he ever existed. It's not a 'fact' at all, nor does it qualify as 'Historical'. Belief does not prove facts correct or satisfy the Scientific Method. So it doesn't matter how much you believe in it or who believes it.

 

You are making such a claim. Despite it being quite clearly not the case at all. 'Jesus was provably and definitely a real person' is quite refutable, just as much as the idea that he 'definitely without a doubt and an absolutely proven fact wasn't ever real'.

 

Therefore, you are the one who is in error.

 

There is no real evidence that Jesus ever existed.

 

You cannot wish, believe, quote mine, or weasel it into being.

 

The evidence is still not there. There is no proof of 'Historical Jesus'.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah. My point was that his tendency to "fringe opinions" is good to keep in mind when appealing to him.

Sure.

 

He might be right, it's hard to say, but since I haven't heard his argument to why the letters from Paul is not from Paul, I can't say if his argument is good enough (for me, that is). But I do know that he got a got other stuff which is good. And the opinions I take are usually presented by more than just him. When Ehrman, Price, Spong, etc agree on something, then I think there's something to it. If one just claim one thing, then I take it with a grain of salt.

 

You do know he was part of the Jesus Seminar a while back, when they established the Q document. I think he was still more Christian devotee back then.

[Mriana]

And many of these, including Rational Response Squad, have been critical to many things said by Acharya (Murdock). Because, unfortunately, she has based many of her claims on unsupported sources.

 

I honestly don't think much of the UnRRS. They're just kids and Rookie doesn't know as much as he thinks. As for Acharya, all I can report is what she has there and last I knew, Bob Price has been supportive of her work in recent years. However, the UnRRS is not the focus of this debate.

 

Here you go: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?s...n&page=CSER

 

Read and weep, because she was involved via CSER. As you can see, Karen Armstrong, Don Cupitt, Robert Price, and many others who are fellows of the Jesus Seminar (now Jesus Project) are listed there too, but not all the fellows. Spong, Borg, and others are not listed, but that does not mean those who aren't listed didn't participate. Some, according to a religious prof who did participate, aren't listed over on West Star.

[Mriana]

So does the quote I gave you of Ehrman also put him on the fringe? He is also in the camp of denying the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.

No it doesn't. All non-Christian scholars agree there was no resurrection; actually there might be some exceptions. I meant theories like "the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa" (Price) or that Matthew and Luke wrote midrash (Spong). I'm remembering that Spong, when debating with William L. Craig, claimed he know of no scholar who regard the genre of the Gospels as bios.

 

Um... Excuse me, but I learned under many Episcopal profs (they not only taught at the uni (ie Victor H. Matthews), but also taught the adult classes at church) who think like Spong (that and priests too) and even had a brief correspondence with Spong, before I left Xianity. The gospels are not bios. I would take Spong's word over what the apologist Craig says any day, and yes, Craig admits to being an apologists, even has a podcast called apologetics (in which such debates appear). I consider Spong more worthy of learning from than Craig. (Side note: I learned from priests too because I became a lay minister, so I had quite a bit of contact with the priests.)

 

 

Here you are http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost...mp;postcount=44

I believe, as Van Manen and the Dutch Radicals did, that the Pauline Epistles are one and all pseudepigrapa (sic.).

Ok. Seems like he's move further to that side than last time I heard him interviewed.

 

I find it hard to think that someone who call himself Paul, writing a letter using the name Paul, isn't a Paul. Perhaps it's not the same Paul as we think of... but if all of them are from the false Paul, wouldn't that make that false Paul the real Paul? I don't know. I think that part of the debate doesn't really add much.

 

But even with those fringe opinions, he is a highly accredited scholar with many years on his shoulders, and can't be dismissed just because he got a radical view. I mean, it took him long time to get to that point. He didn't start with that view, but got there through his studies and long time contemplation. Just like Paul.

 

That's just it, there are books attributed to Paul that he did not write. The key word is attributed, meaning his name was just slapped on as author of a book attributed to him, but there are obvious differences in writing styles that point to him not writing all the books. At this point, I'm not even sure the author called Paul was actually named Paul (yes, he was Saul who became Paul, I know), but hey... many authors use a penname. Not sure if I'm explaining that very well, but bottomline, not all the books attributed to Paul, did Paul write.

 

Badger said:

 

Today, 03:03 PM

Yeah. My point was that his tendency to "fringe opinions" is good to keep in mind when appealing to him.

 

I do not consider them "fringe opinions", but be that as it may, I think very highly of Bob too.

 

One last note: I do not rely on just Spong and Price, as I mentioned others, who I also like too and some like Victor were my mentors.