Those over there! .... They are not Christians!

[thormas]

You're thinking of Christian apologetics of course.
Historical Jesus research ends (for me) not long after the last week in Jerusalem and any rdeferences to resurrection in G-Mark were later additions........ even the first sentence of that book was fiddled with.


Sure.....
I don't challenge Creeds directly, I try to acknowledge them, but obviously some of my ideas do bump in to Christianity..... quite hard.
But I have more trouble with the Mythers, to be honest.

In Mark, there is the risen Jesus or the announcement that he is risen and the woman are to go tell the disciples.......... but there are no 'appearances' - they are a later addition.

So Jesus risen is not a later addition, only appearances of the risen Jesus.

This is not a faith statement, it is simply reading what is original to Mark.

[thormas]

I think it's generally reasonable to assume that the public ministry of the Jesus described in the gospels is largely correct.

It depicts a person who speaks of himself as a prophet and who had a lot of teachings about social reform. There's nothing at all inherently unusual about that, given Israel's multi-century history of self-proclaimed prophets (e.g. see the OT), and given that Josephus notes a couple of dozen different reform and revolutionary movements active in Israel within a +/- 70 year window of Jesus.

I would add one item: Jesus did not teach social reform and it could be and has been argues that this was not his focus (at all). His only concern was the Kingdom of God, which would be established by God and God alone; and the Jews were to repent and prepare or be ready. There was no need to reform since Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet believed everything, i.e all earthly kingdoms, all their rules, laws and reforms (or need to reform) were ending. The Kingdom of God once established would have no need of 'reforms' because it would be 'ruled' by God.

[thormas]

Elder,

As we have been discussing in another thread, I recognize your opinion and respect your right to it but to refer to people who read scholarly works as 'waving their scholar flag' doesn't get us anywhere. Again I give you Mark, you read it as a disposition (I believe) and take it (completely?) literally. However, other guys and women (i.e. scholars), who happened to understand the ancient languages and have studied, like you (and I suspect, even more) the history, ancient OT texts, the secular history of the 1st C CE, ancient religions of the area, and on and on - read it very differently and have and can point to reasons for their positions. I am, respectfully, not seeing that in your claims. It reads as opinion.

[rogue06]

I must admit.... I've not heard of Duane Gish.
I'll Google him.....

Duane Gish was a Young Earth Creationist apologist. He was known for going around and engaging in debates where his favorite tactic was to spew out a stream of claims and accusations practically non-stop. Jumping around from topic to topic. The point was that nobody could, in the allotted time, refute them all (and they were spurious claims) so in the end Gish could strut about claiming victory because they never addressed XYZ which means they knew it was true.

The tactic became known as the Gish Gallop and is regarded as being an unscrupulous and disreputable debating technique.

Gish was also known for when cornered and shown that one of his claims was absolutely false, conceding the fact but then going on to other debates and repeating the same claims he had admitted were false in front of other audiences counting on them not hearing about his previous admissions.

[Starlight]

I would add one item: Jesus did not teach social reform and it could be and has been argues that this was not his focus (at all). His only concern was the Kingdom of God, which would be established by God and God alone; and the Jews were to repent and prepare or be ready. There was no need to reform since Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet believed everything, i.e all earthly kingdoms, all their rules, laws and reforms (or need to reform) were ending. The Kingdom of God once established would have no need of 'reforms' because it would be 'ruled' by God.

I'm not a huge fan of this view, but let's say it's true. In that case he was still teaching people to prepare, which in and of itself was a reform.

[thormas]

I'm not a huge fan of this view, but let's say it's true. In that case he was still teaching people to prepare, which in and of itself was a reform.

Still don't think it was a reform, simply preparation for the Kingdom. However, I have no problem with saying that with the 'delay of the Kingdom' (in other words it didn't come in the lifetime of the disciples of Jesus and it still has not) that there was a change: Christianity turned to 'a reform' by following the teachings of Jesus.

[eider]

In Mark, there is the risen Jesus or the announcement that he is risen and the woman are to go tell the disciples.......... but there are no 'appearances' - they are a later addition.

So Jesus risen is not a later addition, only appearances of the risen Jesus.

This is not a faith statement, it is simply reading what is original to Mark.

I don't have any problem with that.

[eider]

Elder,

As we have been discussing in another thread, I recognize your opinion and respect your right to it but to refer to people who read scholarly works as 'waving their scholar flag' doesn't get us anywhere. Again I give you Mark, you read it as a disposition (I believe) and take it (completely?) literally. However, other guys and women (i.e. scholars), who happened to understand the ancient languages and have studied, like you (and I suspect, even more) the history, ancient OT texts, the secular history of the 1st C CE, ancient religions of the area, and on and on - read it very differently and have and can point to reasons for their positions. I am, respectfully, not seeing that in your claims. It reads as opinion.

No, that isn't what I meant, Thormas.

'Waving a scholar's flag' is simply saying 'Look, this is what Professor XXX says!' to win a point.
And then the opposing debater waves a scholar's flag who disagree with the other scholar.
And so on.
Look at what Prof X said!
Oh Yeah? Well look at what my favorite scholar said!

Waving scholar flags.

[eider]

Duane Gish was a Young Earth Creationist apologist. He was known for going around and engaging in debates where his favorite tactic was to spew out a stream of claims and accusations practically non-stop. Jumping around from topic to topic. The point was that nobody could, in the allotted time, refute them all (and they were spurious claims) so in the end Gish could strut about claiming victory because they never addressed XYZ which means they knew it was true.

The tactic became known as the Gish Gallop and is regarded as being an unscrupulous and disreputable debating technique.

Gish was also known for when cornered and shown that one of his claims was absolutely false, conceding the fact but then going on to other debates and repeating the same claims he had admitted were false in front of other audiences counting on them not hearing about his previous admissions.

Thank you for that.
I wonder what goes on inside such heads as his.
That mindset cannot actually believe it's own arguments in the end.
Did he fade away, or is he still going strong?

[thormas]

No, that isn't what I meant, Thormas.

'Waving a scholar's flag' is simply saying 'Look, this is what Professor XXX says!' to win a point.
And then the opposing debater waves a scholar's flag who disagree with the other scholar.
And so on.
Look at what Prof X said!
Oh Yeah? Well look at what my favorite scholar said!

Waving scholar flags.

Ok but there is no problem in an 'appeal to authority,' to someone with in-depth expertise. And, at times, if someone only quotes 1 scholar, at a time, it is simply to present a contrasting POV. And if one presents more than one they are tying to establish that there is consensus on issue. The critical scholars are not as different in their positions as you suggest, rather there is a great deal of agreement among different people with very different religious or no religious positions.


For me the point is not to 'win' but to establish a credible position by appealing to expertise........rather than just opinion.

[eider]

Ok but there is no problem in an 'appeal to authority,' to someone with in-depth expertise. And, at times, if someone only quotes 1 scholar, at a time, it is simply to present a contrasting POV. And if one presents more than one they are tying to establish that there is consensus on issue. The critical scholars are not as different in their positions as you suggest, rather there is a great deal of agreement among different people with very different religious or no religious positions.


For me the point is not to 'win' but to establish a credible position by appealing to expertise........rather than just opinion.

There are no experts, thormas.

If you name an 'expert' together with their basic belief about HJ, or Christianity, then I would be pleased to name an 'expert' who disagrees with your expert. So the experts cancel each other out. This can go on, until in the end you just make your own case from your own research......... Now that has value.

But, it's true to say that when folks argue/debate an issue that pieces of information fly up, giving a spectator/participant a new 'angle' about something. That's how I learn more, I admit.

But scholar flag waving is a waste of time, only the scholar's findings are worthy, not their opinions, imo.

Try it...... Name a scholar with their opinion about Jesus, or Christianity.

[rogue06]

Thank you for that.
I wonder what goes on inside such heads as his.
That mindset cannot actually believe it's own arguments in the end.
Did he fade away, or is he still going strong?

He passed away several years ago, in 2013. From everything I know about him he loved those debates enormously but he tended to do them by rote, for instance, reusing the same jokes in the exact same way and places. And as I said, he would continue to repeat the exact same claims over and over even after acknowledging they were wrong. It was almost as if he saw it as a duty -- but one he still enjoyed.

[eider]

He passed away several years ago, in 2013. From everything I know about him he loved those debates enormously but he tended to do them by rote, for instance, reusing the same jokes in the exact same way and places. And as I said, he would continue to repeat the exact same claims over and over even after acknowledging they were wrong. It was almost as if he saw it as a duty -- but one he still enjoyed.

It sounds as if his main objective was the promotion of Duane Gish!
Ah...... those jokes...... yes, he played to an audience.
Fair enough, I expect that his debates were very good viewing/listening once or twice.

[rogue06]

There are no experts, thormas.

If you name an 'expert' together with their basic belief about HJ, or Christianity, then I would be pleased to name an 'expert' who disagrees with your expert. So the experts cancel each other out. This can go on, until in the end you just make your own case from your own research......... Now that has value.

But, it's true to say that when folks argue/debate an issue that pieces of information fly up, giving a spectator/participant a new 'angle' about something. That's how I learn more, I admit.

But scholar flag waving is a waste of time, only the scholar's findings are worthy, not their opinions, imo.

Try it...... Name a scholar with their opinion about Jesus, or Christianity.

I think you'll find that in every field and not just scholarly ones. You can, for instance, get two of the world's top auto mechanics together and they could very well argue what is the most efficient way to, let's say, vent the exhaust.

Just because you have some disagreement doesn't mean you should simply toss out expert opinion on things.

I'll also add that in many cases that someone is regarded as an expert based on being a leading proponent of a certain idea, not because they really know what they're talking about. They might be a second rate intellect compared to others who are the top in their field but get the same level of respect as those who have really put in the work researching and examining a study and have an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

And some are seen as top experts simply because they are good with words and or charismatic. For instance I'd put Richard Dawkins in this category. While he really does have a good understanding of how evolution works there are others that put him to shame but don't get nearly the same level of attention or credit because Dawkins is really eloquent. His books in the field are a pleasure to read.

[Cow Poke]

I think you'll find that in every field and not just scholarly ones. You can, for instance, get two of the world's top auto mechanics together and they could very well argue what is the most efficient way to, let's say, vent the exhaust.

Just because you have some disagreement doesn't mean you should simply toss out expert opinion on things.

I'll also add that in many cases that someone is regarded as an expert based on being a leading proponent of a certain idea, not because they really know what they're talking about. They might be a second rate intellect compared to others who are the top in their field but get the same level of respect as those who have really put in the work researching and examining a study and have an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

And some are seen as top experts simply because they are good with words and or charismatic. For instance I'd put Richard Dawkins in this category. While he really does have a good understanding of how evolution works there are others that put him to shame but don't get nearly the same level of attention or credit because Dawkins is really eloquent. His books in the field are a pleasure to read.

Reminds me of the congressional hearings where they actually listened to 'testimony' from dimwits for no other reason that they were movie stars or celebrities.