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

[Ouroboros]

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.

Yes, I noticed Doc Price have turned more supportive of her views.

 

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.

I didn't know that the Council for Secular Humanism was involved in the Jesus seminars, and I thought it was Funk and Crossan who started that project.

 

I think the Jesus Seminar is still active under new leadership, and the Jesus Project is a completely independent project started by Hoffmann and Price, and some others.

 

There's overlap of people who work in both projects, but I don't think they the same projects at all. If I remember right, Hoffmann and Price tried to get the Jesus Project under the Jesus Seminar, but failed, and had to go on their own.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

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.

Okay.

 

Why is she afraid to mentioning that in her credentials? It would actually be a very nice feather in her hat. http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

 

(I hope you take my response the right way, because I'm not trying to argue with you. I just don't think Murdock got very reliable theories all the time. We had these discussions a couple of years ago on this board, and we found several "proofs" she used to be unsubstantiated, and in the interviews she is very hard-core on her opinion. So I could tell she was the atheists-apologist, and I just didn't like that. It doesn't mean that she's right about some things. It only means that she's not right about everything. And if I have a choice, I rather pick educated guesses by the more authoritative sources.)

[Ouroboros]

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's issue with Doc Price is that Price claims that ALL Pauline letters are forgeries, not just some. That would mean: several different authors would write under the same pen-name (Paul) to gain trust in the different churches.

[Badger]

DarthOkkata

 

I have not claimed that Jesus' existence as a historical figure is irrefutable proven fact. Instead, I'm arguing his existence as a historical figure is not any less certain than other "personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Now it is interesting that Michael Grant, a classical historian, admit there is something we can regard as historically certain, and then puts Jesus in that category. In other words, Jesus as a historical figure is, according to him, as certain as anything in the ancient history can be. Do you accept Alexander the Great as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. Do you accept Cleopatra as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. Do you accept Tiberius as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. This is what Grant is basically saying.

 

You say, "at no point does he [Grant] claim to have proof of Jesus as a real man, or show any evidence to support that he was." Yet this is exactly what Grant does. Then you goes to say, "the Gospels themselves do not qualify as historical evidence." Yet Grant claims that "information about Jesus can be derived from the gospels." (204) And in the passage I previously quoted he says that if we apply standard historical criteria to the New Testament we cannot reject Jesus' existence any more than than we can reject the existence of personages whose reality is historically certain. It would be totally absurd to claim that criteria prevent us from rejecting the existence of historical Jesus and still insist we cannot conclude he did exist.

 

A few have tried to make the claim and put it forward, but all have been conclusively debunked, and their Theories have been rejected by lack of evidence, false evidence, and incorrect assumptions based on presented evidence failing testing and examination. Those claims have no support within the Historical community.

Please name those who have tried to make the claim and also by whom it is "conclusively debunked" and "rejected."

[Mriana]

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.

Yes, I noticed Doc Price have turned more supportive of her views.

 

I didn't know that the Council for Secular Humanism was involved in the Jesus seminars, and I thought it was Funk and Crossan who started that project.

 

No, Westar was part of it too: http://www.westarinstitute.org/ (that is the home of the Jesus Seminar, BUT Joseph Hoffmann took over CSER when Funk died and started the Jesus Project.

 

I think the Jesus Seminar is still active under new leadership, and the Jesus Project is a completely independent project started by Hoffmann and Price, and some others.

 

There's overlap of people who work in both projects, but I don't think they the same projects at all. If I remember right, Hoffmann and Price tried to get the Jesus Project under the Jesus Seminar, but failed, and had to go on their own.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

Not exactly, it was a tandem effort between Funk and Weststar, I believe. Last I knew though, the Jesus Seminar disbanded when Funk died and Hoffmann is trying to get this Jesus Project up and running now.

 

Why is she afraid to mentioning that in her credentials? It would actually be a very nice feather in her hat.

 

I am uncertain and would not dare speak for her.

 

(I hope you take my response the right way, because I'm not trying to argue with you. I just don't think Murdock got very reliable theories all the time. We had these discussions a couple of years ago on this board, and we found several "proofs" she used to be unsubstantiated, and in the interviews she is very hard-core on her opinion. So I could tell she was the atheists-apologist, and I just didn't like that. It doesn't mean that she's right about some things. It only means that she's not right about everything. And if I have a choice, I rather pick educated guesses by the more authoritative sources.)

 

I wouldn't call her the atheist apologist. She isn't trying to make anyone an atheist, she has even stated this. If you think I am saying I agree 100% of the time with all those I refer too, I think Spong could tell you that I indeed do not and even Acharya and I have had our disagreements at least once. Do not mistake support with being blindly dragged by the nose. Everyone of the people I've mentioned can tell you I do think for myself and my opinions about the Bible are a hodgepodge of knowledge. Be that as it may, I think Acharya has done a lot of important work and is a viable source of information.

 

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's issue with Doc Price is that Price claims that ALL Pauline letters are forgeries, not just some. That would mean: several different authors would write under the same pen-name (Paul) to gain trust in the different churches.

 

I don't know about ALL of them being forgeries- here is where I get information from different sources and form my own opinion, based on the knowledge I have to work with. As for Bob being more supportive of Acharya's views, I don't know if it is more or not, but it was he who encouraged me to read her books and well... long story, but everything went from there. I will admit I am more partial to those I have had involvement of some sort with and those I currently have some sort of involvement with. However, my views are not necessarily any one particular person's, as I referenced prior to this. I referred to different individuals- thus how Jack Spong, Bob Price, and few others ended up in this conversation.

[Ouroboros]

I wouldn't call her the atheist apologist. She isn't trying to make anyone an atheist, she has even stated this.

Maybe I should call her an Pagan Jesus Apologist instead.

 

From the interviews I've heard, she's quite stubborn on her points, and she reminds me too much of several Christian Apologists, but she's just on the other side.

 

But with that being said, I also believe that she contribute to some of the picture too.

[Badger]

The gospels are not bios.

Loveday Alexander in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (26)

There is and emerging consensus that the best place to look for parallel genre for the gospel is Greek biography.

Richard Burridge in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (436-437)

These marked similarities of form and content demonstrate that the gospels have both the external and internal generic features of ancient biographies... The biographical hypothesis has now become the accepted scholarly consensus.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (64)

Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.

[mwc]

How does this ever help? Every one of these "discussions" becomes the fight of the experts. Just whip out the list of your prefered group, quote mine and tada! It's tedious. It never moves the conversation forward since it's nothing but quibbling over whether or not that expert is really an expert and if that quote was really in context. And on and on.

 

Here's how it works. People on this side over here (I'm pointing...see?)...we'll call them "Side A" will likely not like the "experts" chosen by "Side B" and vice-versa. And if you do manage to find some common ground you'll still likely interpret it differently. So who cares? Does "Side A" win if they get more experts than "Side B?" Does that mean anything or that "Side B" just managed to not look as hard or not care as much? Maybe their guys didn't publish or do so on the net? Maybe if we wait all their articles will hit and "Side B" will suddenly take the lead and be declared winner?

 

Citing experts is nice but that's all that ever seems to happen. Ever. Then their dismissed because their "too <something>." So why bother asking? Present your list of approved sources and then make everyone agree to use only them or require everyone to submit their sources ahead of time and we can maintain a list of pre-approved sources somewhere.

 

So the proof that "jesus" existed is that a bunch of other people think that he existed and the probability that he existed is the same that, say, Cleopatra (one of many but whatever), existed. That's it? We're done? And if I say no. No, "jesus" did not exist. Period. You'll then, what? Cite more "experts" that will say? Nothing. They will simply reiterate what the others did and that's no more convincing than anyone saying "Yes, 'jesus' existed. Here. Read the gospels and these other texts." Because that's ALL the experts can do for themselves. They have no special information that isn't contained there. Nothing. Not one thing. So why read the experts when I've already read what they've read? So that I can think to myself "Hmmm...I'm in the minority. I guess I'll alter my position since they can read those texts much faster than I can." No. Explain to me the WHY I should alter my position. The WHY "jesus" existed beyond there are stories that state he existed. I can deny the existence of Cleopatra if I so choose and you can hopefully produce more than some stories to bring her into the realm of the (once) living. You cannot do this with "jesus." And it doesn't matter with Cleopatra. If "jesus" influenced my daily world to the extent of any of the Cleopatra's it wouldn't matter with him either. Sadly, there are buildings in his honor every block or two and the people that go in those buildings won't let "jesus," real or imagined, go the way of Cleopatra.

 

mwc

[Badger]

And Spong claimed he know of no scholar who regard the gospels as bios. It definitely tell something about him and his scholarship.

[Dagan]

Archaeological proof of Cleopatra -- something she wrote herself still remains.

 

Did Jesus write anything down? There was that time when he wrote in the dirt but that's long gone.

 

I agree with you mwc -- duelling experts is pointless. Yet it always devolves into this, either here or in the university debate or on TV. Why can't God speak for himself? Why let people's faith and eternal souls hinge on the arguments of a few scholars? Maybe because he... doesn't exist?

[Badger]

Citing experts is nice but that's all that ever seems to happen. Ever.

I don't know what you're reading then. Since I'm also trying to give arguments not only quotations.

[Badger]

removed.

[Mriana]

The gospels are not bios.

Loveday Alexander in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (26)

There is and emerging consensus that the best place to look for parallel genre for the gospel is Greek biography.

Richard Burridge in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (436-437)

These marked similarities of form and content demonstrate that the gospels have both the external and internal generic features of ancient biographies... The biographical hypothesis has now become the accepted scholarly consensus.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (64)

Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.

 

I have no use for apologists. I said that before. As for Ehrman, I have his book. I do not put a whole lot of stock in what he says, BUT I put more stock in what he says than Billy Graham Cracker.

[Mriana]

Here's how it works. People on this side over here (I'm pointing...see?)...we'll call them "Side A" will likely not like the "experts" chosen by "Side B" and vice-versa. And if you do manage to find some common ground you'll still likely interpret it differently. So who cares? Does "Side A" win if they get more experts than "Side B?" Does that mean anything or that "Side B" just managed to not look as hard or not care as much? Maybe their guys didn't publish or do so on the net? Maybe if we wait all their articles will hit and "Side B" will suddenly take the lead and be declared winner?

 

mwc

 

I think side A had a slight split, except we still agree Jesus never existed, but you are right. I have no use for badger's sources.

 

Badger said:

 

I don't know what you're reading then. Since I'm also trying to give arguments not only quotations.

 

That's just it. That is all you're doing- arguing, with no support to back anything you state. At least when I say something, I have sources backing what I say. I don't just pull horse puckies out of my head.

 

And Spong claimed he know of no scholar who regard the gospels as bios. It definitely tell something about him and his scholarship.

 

That it's decent, intelligent, and rational.

[Badger]

I have no use for apologists. I said that before. As for Ehrman, I have his book. I do not put a whole lot of stock in what he says, BUT I put more stock in what he says than Billy Graham Cracker.

Apologists? Billy Graham Cracker?

 

That's nice trick.

[Badger]

At least when I say something, I have sources backing what I say.

Yet I havent's seen any source for your claims. I asked why I should believe what you claim, remember? But you provided nothing. I'm still waiting.

[Badger]

That it's decent, intelligent, and rational.

Would you trust in a doctor who claims to never heard about antibiotic?

[Badger]

How does this ever help? Every one of these "discussions" becomes the fight of the experts. Just whip out the list of your prefered group, quote mine and tada!

I think your criticism is not justified. I have not made up my mind first and then picking out those scholars who agree with me. Moreover, I see no fight of the experts here. What I have done is criticizing some claims of Price and Spong, and demonstrated why I believe we should be careful when appealing to them.

 

Here's how it works. People on this side over here (I'm pointing...see?)...we'll call them "Side A" will likely not like the "experts" chosen by "Side B" and vice-versa.

That would be ad hominem.

 

Citing experts is nice but that's all that ever seems to happen. Ever. Then their dismissed because their "too <something>." So why bother asking?

I have commented this already. First, I always try to explain why I think something is the case and then make quotation or two. Second, I do not "dismiss" Price and Spong simply because I think they are too something.

[Mriana]

I have no use for apologists. I said that before. As for Ehrman, I have his book. I do not put a whole lot of stock in what he says, BUT I put more stock in what he says than Billy Graham Cracker.

Apologists? Billy Graham Cracker?

 

That's nice trick.

 

You have an odd definition of trick, because that wasn't a trick.

 

 

At least when I say something, I have sources backing what I say.

Yet I havent's seen any source for your claims. I asked why I should believe what you claim, remember? But you provided nothing. I'm still waiting.

 

Oh contra, I did state my source, even stated the exact book in some cases- you must have missed where I italicized Spong and Matthews' books. That is the source. I suppose you want Biblical sources, well you will need both the Bible, Torah, and other mythological religious texts, but you will find all that I stated right there. I also made reference to a couple of Biblical sayings. I guess you didn't want to see all of that or did not read thoroughly. Skimming can cause such things to happen. I did give you plenty of sources to work with, but if you want exact page numbers and/or chapter and verse for everything I stated, I can do that too, but page numbers are useless if you don't have the book.

 

That is how things are cited- book, page number, author and sometimes just book and author. So, I take it you never wrote any scholarly papers before. I have written a plenty and if you prefer that I cite just as I would if I were writing a paper, I will, but as I said, it would be worthless unless you have the book or will get the book and actually read it. So I'd be wasting my time to write a paper here.

 

BTW, you have made up your mind about sources you will accept. You have rejected Spong, Price, Matthews, Acharya... Shall I move on to Cupitt, Freeman, Borg, Funk, and others that I prefer over your Graham Cracker?

[Guest Thor]

The gospels are not bios.

Loveday Alexander in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (26)

There is and emerging consensus that the best place to look for parallel genre for the gospel is Greek biography.

Richard Burridge in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (436-437)

These marked similarities of form and content demonstrate that the gospels have both the external and internal generic features of ancient biographies... The biographical hypothesis has now become the accepted scholarly consensus.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (64)

Many recent scholars have come to recognize that the New Testament Gospels are a kind of ancient biography.

 

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

 

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

 

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) page 84

 

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

 

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

 

- WWJ (24)

[Guest Thor]

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts??? Acharya I can agree on, because here degree is in some complete different area...."

 

Actually, Acharya is even MORE qualified in other areas where they are not - she isn't stuck in any narrow discipline of study. For example Dr. Price doesn't read, write Latin - Acharya does. She can read, write &/or speak around 10 or more languages. I know it's often easy to launch attacks on her but it's usually il-founded & based on not really knowing much about her.

 

"What Are Acharya's Credentials?"

http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm

[Ouroboros]

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts??? Acharya I can agree on, because here degree is in some complete different area...."

 

Actually, Acharya is even MORE qualified in other areas where they are not - she isn't stuck in any narrow discipline of study. For example Dr. Price doesn't read, write Latin - Acharya does. She can read, write &/or speak around 10 or more languages. I know it's often easy to launch attacks on her but it's usually il-founded & based on not really knowing much about her.

 

"What Are Acharya's Credentials?"

http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm

The question was if Robert Price and Shelby Spong are hacks, which they are not.

 

Robert M Price got 1 BA, 2 MA, and 2 PhD, while Murdock got 1 BA. I think Price got several times more education and experience than Murdock.

 

But it's true, Murdock got good things to say, I don't deny that, but if I had to pick between those two, I would pick Price over Murdock.

 

Doc Robert M Price credentials: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/rob.../price-bio.html

And short bio: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bio.htm

[DarthOkkata]

have not claimed that Jesus' existence as a historical figure is irrefutable proven fact. Instead, I'm arguing his existence as a historical figure is not any less certain than other "personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Now it is interesting that Michael Grant, a classical historian, admit there is something we can regard as historically certain, and then puts Jesus in that category. In other words, Jesus as a historical figure is, according to him, as certain as anything in the ancient history can be. Do you accept Alexander the Great as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. Do you accept Cleopatra as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. Do you accept Tiberius as a historical person? Then you can do the same with Jesus. This is what Grant is basically saying.

 

There are many sources that support the existence of Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, and Tiberius.

 

Cleopatra is supported by multiple written sources, Archeological evidence, and first hand accouts of her existence, as well as writings she made herself, plus other secondary sources to bolster her existence.

 

The same can be said of Alexander, and Tiberius.

 

Jesus's existence is supported by one single source, no Archeological evidence, no first hand accounts, and left no writings of his own.

 

So no, it's not even close to the same thing. There is a great deal more evidence to support the existence of Alexander, Cleopatra, and Tiberius as real people who actually existed. There are coins and statues of all of them created during their lifetime with their likeness on them for example. Records of them interacting with others, supported by many varied and reliable sources. Even though some elements of their lives may be uncertain and possibly even mere legend, the fact that they existed is proven. Not by their names being mentioned in one single book that appeared after they died either. There is a lot of evidence, both primary and secondary to support that they existed.

 

Aside from a single source, a book of myths no less, there is no supportive evidence of Jesus being a real person anywhere.

 

As I mentioned, one man's personal opinion does not qualify as 'History' regardless of who he was. History is a Science, and it requires evidence. Cleopatra, Alexander, and Tiberius are all supported by mountains of physical evidence from -within their lifetimes-, both physical, and first hand accounts from others that they existed supported by secondary evidence, and no evidence that contradicts their existence or invalidates the evidence that supports their existence.

 

No such evidence exists for Jesus. There are no writings from within his lifetime, no records of him interacting with others within his life, and no archeological finds that support that he was real. So your comparisons are completely irrelevant, and no, you cannot 'do the same for Jesus'. No history comes solely from one book or source.

 

If it is like you say, and this is the claim Grant was making, then he is wrong, and he should have known better. He should have known that you can't make claims of Historical accuracy with no evidence beyond a suspect source of Jewish Mythologies.

 

I'm having trouble finding any claims that Jesus was a real Historical person outside of theology and faith based suppositions. No claims to this effect appear to have ever been made in Archeology or History with any evidence backing them.

 

I've found such a thing being mentioned in writings and books. Never anything that was put forth as a workable theory to any Histoirical institutions for review or verification. It doesn't appear as if anyone has ever tried, probably because they knew better because of the complete lack of supportive evidence.

 

Any claims to that effect I can find seemed to be based upon the Bible itself, Josephus, Sertonius, Piny the Younger, or Tactius. All of which are Hearsay and have been rejected and discounted as such by legitimate Historians. None of them are strong enough supportive evidence to hold up the claim that Jesus was a real man. No such evidence has been found.

 

The legitimacy of Josephus is highly contested, and it has been that way since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the view has been that it has -at a minimum- been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly is an outright forgery. I don't recommend using that source to site as evidence in any sort of argument in the future in particular. It's extremely suspect, and I'm not sure why so man Apologist continue to site this, especially given that even a great many Christian experts advise against it. Even most of them agree on that matter, Josephus isn't a reliable source at all and is probably outright forgery. Citing such a source in any argument will do more harm than good to your claims.

 

So, perhaps I was wrong in saying that 'theories of Historical Jesus have been disproved'. It doesn't appear as if such claims have even been made by any legitimate Historian or Archeologist at all. Only by theologians, and Christian Apologist with a vested interest in it being true, and there is no evidence to back their claims at all.

 

A few instances of 'it might be' and 'possibly' have come up, but nothing that has gone beyond it by any legitimate sources.

 

There is still no Historical proof or evidence of Jesus being a real person. Nothing outside of claims of belief with no evidence to support them that I can find.

 

'Test everything; hold fast what is good.' 1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

I personally would have nothing against Jesus being a real person. That's not what I'm arguing against here. It wouldn't make me believe he was any more or less the Son of God if he was proven to be a real man.

 

My entire argument is simple. 'No proof or evidence to support that he was real has been found'.

 

As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been found, and you've yet to provide anything to disprove that.

 

All you've provided are the philosophical musings and suppositions of 'experts' and that does nothing to prove anything.

 

I'm asking for evidence, not the opinions of others.

 

What -evidence- do you have. Not what journals and opinions of people with doctorates can you dig up.

 

What physical evidence or first hand accounts can you point to that prove Jesus was real?

 

Not what books papers and journals of people writing about their opinion on the matter can you site.

 

What -proof- do you have?

 

Hearsay, argumentative opinions, and suppositions are not proof, be they 2,000 years old, or as recent as yesterday.

 

Your experts opinions are not evidence. It doesn't matter how many you can bring up. I'm asking for -evidence- not opinions.

 

What first hand accounts can you site? What archeological evidence can you provide? Personal writings of Jesus that he wrote himself? Something one of the many writers and observers in his time who lived in the areas and places he walked in speak of him during his lifetime? Something someone who actually saw him walking about that confirms that they saw him?

 

You have no such things, because at present, no such things have been found.

 

You have no proof at all, yet are claiming 'Jesus was real' as if it's something we should know as a fact.

 

Yes you are. You've explicitly stated as such. Just because you didn't use the word 'fact' doesn't mean it was not implied. It was, and you know it. You spoke of the matter in earlier posts as if it was irrefutable fact, backed by evidence.

 

Now, all you can provide as evidence, is the writings of people who argued about it.

 

That's not evidence, that's not proof.

 

I'm not arguing that there's no possible way he ever existed as a real man. I'm arguing that there is no proof or evidence that he existed.

 

You've yet to provide a convincing argument otherwise. Instead, you've just brought up people who argued over it. Not actual evidence to support your claims.

 

Where is your smoking gun? Where are the Archeological findings? Where are the first hand accounts? Where are reports of him existing by a source not so far removed or beyond his lifetime to be credible as anything more than hearsay?

 

The only thing you've proven is that there's an argument about it. You've provided nothing that proves the argument one way or the other.

 

This is not a matter of Law. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' here.

 

I don't have to prove that it isn't true. You have to prove that it is. That's how Science works. You're not correct until you prove that you are.

 

History is a scientific field. You have to prove yourself correct, and there is absolutely no need or requirement for me to 'prove you wrong'. I don't have too. You have to prove that you're right.

 

So.

 

Where is this evidence? Stop quoting so called 'experts'. That's not evidence. You need 'the smoking gun' not the opinions of others. All you're doing is avoiding the real question here.

 

Evidence, or nothing.

 

You claim that there is such a thing as 'Historical Jesus'.

 

I said 'prove it'.

 

All you've done since is skirt around the real issue and toss out distractions. You've yet to provide any evidence that actually supports your claim.

[Guest Thor]

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts??? Acharya I can agree on, because here degree is in some complete different area...."

 

Actually, Acharya is even MORE qualified in other areas where they are not - she isn't stuck in any narrow discipline of study. For example Dr. Price doesn't read, write Latin - Acharya does. She can read, write &/or speak around 10 or more languages. I know it's often easy to launch attacks on her but it's usually il-founded & based on not really knowing much about her.

 

"What Are Acharya's Credentials?"

http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm

The question was if Robert Price and Shelby Spong are hacks, which they are not.

 

Robert M Price got 1 BA, 2 MA, and 2 PhD, while Murdock got 1 BA. I think Price got several times more education and experience than Murdock.

 

But it's true, Murdock got good things to say, I don't deny that, but if I had to pick between those two, I would pick Price over Murdock.

 

Doc Robert M Price credentials: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/rob.../price-bio.html

And short bio: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bio.htm

 

Yes, I understand you would select Price but, it's a false choice. Dr. Price has actually come to her side on a few things like the late dating of the gospels being a mid/late 2nd century creation. Dr. Price has also come out & publicly said he learns much from Acharya's work in his positive review of "Suns of God" calling her "know Acharya has given me many new questions and much to think about. That was true of her first book and equally true of this one. I do not mind acknowledging her as my teacher as well."

 

Anyway, these two shouldn't be pitted against one another as they're largely in agreement on many things.

[mwc]

I think your criticism is not justified. I have not made up my mind first and then picking out those scholars who agree with me. Moreover, I see no fight of the experts here. What I have done is criticizing some claims of Price and Spong, and demonstrated why I believe we should be careful when appealing to them.

I could say that in this specific case my post wasn't leveled directly at you but since you and I have been down this path before it's not surprising you may have felt that way. You have made up your mind and you do cherry pick the scholars that "agree" with you. That's perfectly OK. That's how you further your argument. But I just don't see any true argument. Just a claim and "These guys all agree, see?" with some citations and that's it. Nothing more. The discussion doesn't move. It stagnates at that point. No discussion of the point just some debate on whether or not those "experts" are worthy of backing your claim. Well, so? Does the claim even have merit in the first place? So what if "experts" agree with a bad idea?

 

I'm not going to discuss it here (since it would derail this thread) but it was brought up. At one point there were, what? 13 legitimate letters from Paul? Ask any panel of "experts" and that would have been the answer. "13." Then new "experts" came into being. They used different methods. Had different ideas. And over time we're down to what? 7 legitimate letters? So now someone suggests they're all false and that's crazy? Crazy was anything less than 13 according to the "experts." Now it's roughly half and that's just fine. Anything less than that is now unacceptable. See how it goes? Introducing ideas isn't crazy. Discussing ideas isn't crazy. Citing bunches and bunches of people ("experts") to say "Well, all these people side with this idea so your idea must not have merit" is crazy because it's now accepted that Paul didn't write 13 letters. To say that is now crazy. (Take "crazy" however you want)

 

That would be ad hominem.

It may be. The Lion's Den has different rules.

 

I have commented this already. First, I always try to explain why I think something is the case and then make quotation or two. Second, I do not "dismiss" Price and Spong simply because I think they are too something.

You do and you don't. You'll mine them. If you find a sentence or two that you believe helps you then you will use them. Like you do Ehrman. You don't appear to care for him but you "use" him to try to appeal to those who may like what he has to say. So you can say "See? Even someone like Ehrman agrees with me." But Ehrman does not agree with you. You and I have been down this path before and you failed to understand it so I won't do it again.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I understand you would select Price but, it's a false choice. Dr. Price has actually come to her side on a few things like the late dating of the gospels being a mid/late 2nd century creation. Dr. Price has also come out & publicly said he learns much from Acharya's work in his positive review of "Suns of God" calling her "know Acharya has given me many new questions and much to think about. That was true of her first book and equally true of this one. I do not mind acknowledging her as my teacher as well."

Sigh, I think you're missing the point.

 

Badger pretty much said that Acharya (Murdock), Price, and Spong were unreliable hacks (not his words, but basically the essence of what he said), and my point was that Price has several degrees and qualify very well to make his points, and so does Spong with a life-long study being a Priest, while Murdock doesn't have the same high degree as Price, neither have the same lifelong experience as Spong. So Badger put all three in the same pot, and considered them unreliable. My point was that even if I would agree with Badger that Murdock doesn't meet up to a high criteria, Price and Spong are still highly qualified.

 

Anyway, these two shouldn't be pitted against one another as they're largely in agreement on many things.

That's not the point. You're arguing a point which wasn't really my intention to make.