tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post115281940363836325..comments2023-07-08T06:13:19.344-07:00Comments on biblioblography: KEVIN HARRIS: A STUDY IN SURLINESSKrystalline Apostatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153269316844220982006-07-18T17:35:00.000-07:002006-07-18T17:35:00.000-07:00Ho humm...Ho humm...SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153244401683401202006-07-18T10:40:00.000-07:002006-07-18T10:40:00.000-07:00STNC:Er, ummm, I meant that HE was dictating, not ...STNC:<BR/>Er, ummm, I meant that HE was dictating, not I.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153240847073672762006-07-18T09:40:00.000-07:002006-07-18T09:40:00.000-07:00Ra said:"Is it me, or is BF dictating the premises...Ra said:"Is it me, or is BF dictating the premises of the discussion?"<BR/><BR/>I dont think its you at all. <BR/>Its a typical christian debate tactic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153240687825939302006-07-18T09:38:00.000-07:002006-07-18T09:38:00.000-07:00Ra said:"You mean 'moot'? ;)"Thanks. I do get a go...Ra said:"You mean 'moot'? ;)"<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I do get a good laugh at some of my spellings and misspellings. I cant type for pooh and sometimes my brain is going in many different directions. You know how women are, always multitasking. Its amazing that we get as much done as we do without mucking everything up. <BR/><BR/><BR/>MF said:"Except for stuff written in stone. Like ancient runes. ^_^ "<BR/><BR/>LolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153094536884594832006-07-16T17:02:00.000-07:002006-07-16T17:02:00.000-07:00Nothing is written in stone.Except for stuff writt...<B>Nothing is written in stone.</B><BR/><BR/>Except for stuff written in stone. Like ancient runes. ^_^Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153085112366212222006-07-16T14:25:00.000-07:002006-07-16T14:25:00.000-07:00SNTC:That is probably my fault. I'm sorry, but I k...SNTC:<BR/><B>That is probably my fault. I'm sorry, but I knew there were more scholars that dont believe in an historical Jesus than bf thinks there are.</B><BR/>Hey, de nada, darlin'. I've been playing the same game.<BR/>Is it me, or is BF dictating the premises of the discussion?<BR/><B>Either way the point is mute with him cuz he doesnt acknowledge any scholars with opposing views no matter what.</B><BR/>You mean 'moot'? ;) Sometimes, I wish there WAS a mute button (hehehehe, just teasin').<BR/>I've noticed that as well. <BR/>Views change: life flows, & there is nothing locked in stasis. 100 years from now, these discussions will roll the eyes of our ancesters - perhaps every 1 of us, from either side of the fence, will be laughed at. <BR/>But who knows?<BR/>Nothing is written in stone.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153083614485297402006-07-16T14:00:00.000-07:002006-07-16T14:00:00.000-07:00Ra said:"I'm a fine 1 to talk, but I thought we we...Ra said:"I'm a fine 1 to talk, but I thought we were going to stop the name-dropping?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>That is probably my fault. I'm sorry, but I knew there were more scholars that dont believe in an historical Jesus than bf thinks there are. Either way the point is mute with him cuz he doesnt acknowledge any scholars with opposing views no matter what. We're talking about someone who thinks Elain Pagels is a liar. So, I think it is pretty safe to say that there is no debate here no matter how strong the evidence is.<BR/><BR/><BR/>AmyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153081448797797952006-07-16T13:24:00.000-07:002006-07-16T13:24:00.000-07:00BF:Waitaminnit:That article's a little nutso.Kirby...BF:<BR/>Waitaminnit:<BR/>That article's a little nutso.<BR/>Kirby cited Garraghan. He then completely bypasses the 1st criterion.<BR/>He then lands squarely in the land of presupposition w/this gem -<BR/>"Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken <B>regardless of the general credibility of the author.</B>" <BR/>Oy gevalt! Then we should maybe take the gospel of judas seriously? Or the Gnostic gospels? <BR/>"An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually."<BR/>Pardon me if this sounds like poisoning the well, but WTF? What 'may'? <BR/>If I used this criterion to try to get work, I'd be laughed right out of the interview.<BR/>Likewise, in court.<BR/>How is it that credibility is everything when someone disagrees, but not if they agree?Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153080680810502662006-07-16T13:11:00.000-07:002006-07-16T13:11:00.000-07:00BF:As to G.A Wells -"In his last works, Wells has ...BF:<BR/>As to G.A Wells -<BR/><BR/>"In his last works, Wells has somewhat moderated his views, <B>allowing for the possibility that certain elements of the Gospel traditions might be based on a historical figure from the first-century Palestine.</B> However, Wells insists that this line of first-century traditions is separate from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early documents, and that these two traditions have different origins. Wells concludes that the <B>reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task.</B><BR/><BR/>Wells claim of a mythical Jesus has received support from Earl Doherty and a few other scholars, even though it is still a minority position among Western historians and theologians. One must note, however, that this position was much more prevalent in the Eastern block countries during the Cold War, where despite its atheistic bias, the historical research was known for scholarly rigor."<BR/><BR/>So Wells hasn't 'recanted', per se, but modified his views somewhat. <BR/><BR/>Price is a Professor of Theology, isn't he?<BR/><BR/>I'm a fine 1 to talk, but I thought we were going to stop the name-dropping?Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153080220482083622006-07-16T13:03:00.000-07:002006-07-16T13:03:00.000-07:00BF:Also, (RA) regarding the wikipedia “historical ...BF:<BR/><B>Also, (RA) regarding the wikipedia “historical method” MF brought up, that was written by a Christian (Peter Kirby from critianorigins.com)</B><BR/>Now, y'see, perfect example.<BR/>I was willing to accept it based on its logic, not its source. Because it made sense. <BR/>I'd accept Newton's theorems on physics, but not his theological take on the bible. <BR/>Proof's in the pudding: you can gather as many experts who proclaim it's vanilla, but if it's chocolate, it's chocolate.<BR/>Anyone gettin' hungry?Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153077253325615432006-07-16T12:14:00.000-07:002006-07-16T12:14:00.000-07:00That doesn't necessarily prove a historical Jesus,...<B>That doesn't necessarily prove a historical Jesus, but it<BR/>does affect the landscape of our discussions.</B><BR/><BR/>I love how he talks about the citing of other historical figures as evidence, such as-<BR/><BR/>John 12:21- "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ." <BR/><BR/>Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153073510182467112006-07-16T11:11:00.000-07:002006-07-16T11:11:00.000-07:00oops…that’s *christianorigins.com*oops…that’s *christianorigins.com*SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153071712282040162006-07-16T10:41:00.000-07:002006-07-16T10:41:00.000-07:00quote***"Heres a link that names a few scholars th...quote<BR/>***<BR/><I>"Heres a link that names a few scholars that believe jesus is a myth.<BR/><BR/>http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html"<BR/><BR/>Also Sam Harris is a scholar!"</I><BR/><BR/>***<BR/>/quote<BR/><BR/>Wells and Price are not historians, neither is Harris. They go out of their “scholarly field” and make their case. Of course, nothing *necessarily* follows from that. Only that those in the field (with some exceptions) reject it. <BR/><BR/>Also, (RA) regarding the wikipedia “historical method” MF brought up, that was written by a Christian (Peter Kirby from critianorigins.com) <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.christianorigins.com/2005/08/introduction-to-historical-method.html" REL="nofollow"> Introduction to the historical method</A><BR/><BR/>He also writes about the “historical intent” of the Gospels (if your interested):<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.christianorigins.com/2006/04/did-gospels-have-any-historical-intent.html" REL="nofollow"> Historical Intent of the Gospels </A>SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153067080258327242006-07-16T09:24:00.000-07:002006-07-16T09:24:00.000-07:00Hey RA here is a link about the Talmud and what is...Hey RA here is a link about the Talmud and what is says about Jesus in 100 BC. I think this is along the lines of Osmans Theory.<BR/><BR/>http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153064152889173732006-07-16T08:35:00.000-07:002006-07-16T08:35:00.000-07:00Heres a link that names a few scholars that believ...Heres a link that names a few scholars that believe jesus is a myth.<BR/><BR/>http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also Sam Harris is a scholar!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153008586864452742006-07-15T17:09:00.000-07:002006-07-15T17:09:00.000-07:00Being branded a lunatic is good cause to keep one'...<I>Being branded a lunatic is good cause to keep one's mouth shut, I think. Note your commentary on the Nat'l Enquirer.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps it’s the case that Bultmann’s quote is how historians look at the Myth position due to the absurdity of it. Moreover, Bultmann is no accomplice to the conservative evangelical as any one who has seen his disproportionate skepticism about the reliability of the gospel narratives.<BR/><BR/><I>Glad you reminded me. That 'refutation' of Pagels was unworthy of credence. If memory serves, it was unrepresented example combined w/poisoning the well?</I><BR/><BR/>I thought it was an obvious demonstration. <BR/><BR/><I>Anyone who disbelieves is also disqualified, in your book. Seems we can't agree on sources.</I><BR/><BR/>I offered some anyway. <BR/><BR/><I>Ask, & thou shalt receive' & all that, I know, I asked. Are these believers, or non?</I><BR/>They are non believers. I meant to state they deny the divinity of Jesus, his miracles etc…. ‘Non-Trinitarian’ came out for some reason. <BR/><BR/><I>That 1st reference quotes Carrier as a 'non-myther', though, & I know otherwise.<BR/>Why?<BR/>I asked him in person.<BR/>That website needs to do some serious updating. </I><BR/><BR/>The site doesn’t deny that Carrier is a Myther. Actually, they quote him stating the difficulty of history and the importance of multi factors. I think Carrier is dead on in his comment. All the other comments speak specifically of Jesus. I happen to know that Price is aware of Carriers position, since he has written several rebuttals to some things in his book. Carrier was speaking to “armature” historians. He seems to stand alone in his credentials and conclusions.SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153005348720973682006-07-15T16:15:00.000-07:002006-07-15T16:15:00.000-07:00Corrections:I thought that Bede's libary was refer...Corrections:<BR/>I thought that Bede's libary was referring to Bede. My apologies.<BR/>That 1st reference quotes <B>Carrier</B> as a 'non-myther', though, & I know otherwise.<BR/>Why?<BR/>I asked him in person.<BR/>That website needs to do some serious updating.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153005012911021282006-07-15T16:10:00.000-07:002006-07-15T16:10:00.000-07:00BF:I still think fear as a primary motivating fact...BF:<BR/><B>I still think fear as a primary motivating factor doesn’t sound persuasive.</B><BR/>Then I refer you to your quotation of Bultmann: "“ Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. <B>No sane person</B> can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."<BR/>Being branded a lunatic is good cause to keep one's mouth shut, I think. Note your commentary on the Nat'l Enquirer. <BR/>People lose their jobs over a whole lot less. <BR/><B>As Pagals and Acyra S hold zero credence w/me. Besides, I didn’t give any thing bede wrote, but Christopher Price’s article(s) that are hosted there.</B><BR/>Glad you reminded me. That 'refutation' of Pagels was unworthy of credence. If memory serves, it was unrepresented example combined w/poisoning the well? <BR/><B>So anyone who actually believes is disqualified?</B><BR/>Pot.kettle.black. Anyone who disbelieves is also disqualified, in your book. Seems we can't agree on sources.<BR/>This isn't personal: I find a lot of dishonesty in the theological academia. Sometimes it's blaring, sometimes it's subtly nuanced. I can't speak to whether it was intentional or not. This was another factor in my atheism.<BR/><B>So let me humor you with non-Trinitarian hypercritics who make me want to vomit k?</B><BR/>Maybe we should just stick to the argument at hand, instead of name-dropping. 'Ask, & thou shalt receive' & all that, I know, I asked. Are these believers, or non? <BR/>I'm not trying to insinuate that all believers are dishonest, BTW. But humanity shows a distinct propensity to, how shall I say? lie to itself. <BR/>Otherwise, all we end up doing is tripping over names, & indulging in he said/she said scenarios.<BR/>So let's just stick to the facts.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153003571243795042006-07-15T15:46:00.000-07:002006-07-15T15:46:00.000-07:00fear is a motivating factor in any walk of life.I ...<I>fear is a motivating factor in any walk of life.</I><BR/><BR/>I still think fear as a primary motivating factor doesn’t sound persuasive.<BR/><BR/><I>Bede & Holding hold zero credence w/me. </I><BR/><BR/>As Pagals and Acyra S hold zero credence w/me. Besides, I didn’t give any thing bede wrote, but Christopher Price’s article(s) that are hosted there.<BR/><BR/><I> Quoting folks who have a vested interest in JC's existence seems to be a conflict in interest in an objective debate. Provide, if you would, non-xtian references. I think that's a fair request.</I><BR/><BR/>So anyone who actually believes is disqualified? That’s a entire trial we can go on, but this is getting old. So let me humor you with non-Trinitarian hypercritics who make me want to vomit k?<BR/><BR/>Rudolf Bultmann<BR/>Stevan Davies<BR/>Bart Ehrman<BR/>Paula Fredriksen<BR/>Richard Horsley<BR/>Gerd Lüdemann<BR/>Hyam Maccoby <BR/>Marcus Borg<BR/>Robert Eisenman<BR/>Robert Funk<BR/>Burton Mack<BR/>John P. Meier <BR/>John Dominic Crossan<BR/>Stephen Patterson<BR/>Gregory Riley<BR/>E. P. Sanders<BR/>Luke Timothy Johnson<BR/>Robert H. Stein<BR/>Gerd Theissen<BR/>Geza VermesSteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1153001324998072262006-07-15T15:08:00.000-07:002006-07-15T15:08:00.000-07:00Ra and MFI'm not sure if Sam Harris is a scholar, ...Ra and MF<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if Sam Harris is a scholar, but his books get high ratings and from what I've read on the net they look very informative and he's a "Jesus myther". <BR/><BR/>http://www.samharris.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1152999729654357842006-07-15T14:42:00.000-07:002006-07-15T14:42:00.000-07:00bf:(1) Historian are using the same criterion, but...bf:<BR/><B>(1) Historian are using the same criterion, but coming to the conclusion that Jesus exited (at least) as a historical figure. This could be because (a) they believe that the NT has enough historical content to make such a conclusion, or (b) they are so scared of criticism if they don’t. ‘B’ sounds ridiculous to me.</B><BR/>Really? Sound logical enough to me. You seem to forget: unfortunately, fear is a motivating factor in any walk of life.<BR/><BR/><B>(2) Perhaps it’s the case that historians are using different criterion and coning to the conclusion that Jesus exited (at least) as a historical figure.</B><BR/>Well, I see it as this: the presupposition for many centuries was that it was (dare I say it? YES!) blasphemy to even think that JC didn't exist. Until the last 2, no 1 even questioned his divinity, except for a few brave folks. Same as in my example of the Ptolemaic system. <BR/>So the approach should be, IMHO, the same conclusions I reached when I did my research: <BR/>Does it hold up?<BR/>FYI, Bede & Holding hold zero credence w/me. Quoting folks who have a vested interest in JC's existence seems to be a conflict in interest in an objective debate. Provide, if you would, non-xtian references. I think that's a fair request.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1152992893715437282006-07-15T12:48:00.000-07:002006-07-15T12:48:00.000-07:00A quick look at the funding of colleges throughout...<I>A quick look at the funding of colleges throughout the country will show you that a lot comes from Christian sources.</I><BR/><BR/>If it’s a quick look, how about some examples? I take it we can eliminate any state universities. <BR/><BR/><I>My bet is that most of the scholars you're thinking of have developed a different method for determining historicity</I><BR/><BR/>So sense they conclude Jesus existed they are using invalid historical methods? Or do they not know what their doing? Or they are afraid of losing their Jobs? Sounds like an unsupported assertion.SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1152985993891641022006-07-15T10:53:00.000-07:002006-07-15T10:53:00.000-07:00Amy, the Queen of Google Search ^_^Thanks for the ...<B>Amy, the Queen of Google Search ^_^</B><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the names, and the complement. ^_^Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1152985864786395232006-07-15T10:51:00.000-07:002006-07-15T10:51:00.000-07:00bfTheir not scared of criticism, they're afraid of...<B>bf</B><BR/><BR/>Their not scared of criticism, they're afraid of losing their jobs. A quick look at the funding of colleges throughout the country will show you that a lot comes from Christian sources.<BR/><BR/>My bet is that most of the scholars you're thinking of have developed a different method for determining historicity. The problem that comes from not relying on contemporary documents rather immediately though are the vast amount of characters we now have to add in. Odin, Gilgamesh, etc. get a jump up on the list because they are written about. I've seen someone else include Gilgamesh in his history before, though it very doubtful that such a man really existed. But of course, 'normal' historians don't take the claim seriously.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1152985496794011092006-07-15T10:44:00.000-07:002006-07-15T10:44:00.000-07:00Well here are a few more Jesus myther scholars. Ba...Well here are a few more Jesus myther scholars. <BR/><BR/>Barbar Walker Scholar in mythology <BR/><BR/>Marija Gimbutas achaeologist and mythologist<BR/><BR/>Acharya S religious philosopher and scholar<BR/><BR/>And I am sure if I did a google search using the right words I could find many more. I am the queen of google search! <BR/><BR/><BR/>MF<BR/><BR/>I am very impressed with you and it sure does give me a little hope for the future, you being so young and yet so wise. Good job! :)<BR/><BR/>AmyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com