Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stone said:
But the creationists ARE comparable to the mythers.
Click to expand...

No, they are NOT. Creationists are totally ignorant of science and logic, have a chip on their shoulders and an emotional investment in their dogma.

People who believe that Jesus wasn't a real person either disagree about the evidence being presented, or are unaware of it because people like you are so bad at presenting it.
 
Belz... said:
No, they are NOT. Creationists are totally ignorant of science and logic, have a chip on their shoulders and an emotional investment in their dogma.

People who believe that Jesus wasn't a real person either disagree about the evidence being presented, or are unaware of it because people like you are so bad at presenting it.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if that was so, but too often the "Jesus Myth" position is taken up by Atheists because of an anti-theist bias.

They aren't basing it on any valid historical research, just personal incredulity.

That's not to say it is a deliberate attack on education, just another example of the "internet expert" phenomenon.
 
Brainache said:
It would be nice if that was so, but too often the "Jesus Myth" position is taken up by Atheists because of an anti-theist bias. ...
Click to expand...

Could you point to why you think this?
I there an example, some statistics and/or a study that backs up this assertion?
 
pakeha said:
Could you point to why you think this?
I there an example, some statistics and/or a study that backs up this assertion?
Click to expand...

Mostly because of this Blog article and the thread it spawned:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/why-history-isnt-scientific-and-why-it.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268331

In that thread you can witness the phenomenon first hand.


ETA: It is obvious that these people aren't basing their objections on valid Historical reasons, because they have no over all framework in which to fit their speculations. They are just throwing mud, hoping something sticks.
 
Last edited:
IMO, I think you're being less than objective.
After all, that blogger isn't a professional historian, you know.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/search.php?t=219

I've seen many, many posts of his over at the monster thread at RatSkep and while this person has an enormous amount of information at his finger-tips, at the end of the day, his opinion IS simply another opinion.

And as for mud-slinging, well...
Let's leave it at the pot calling the kettle black. ;)
 
pakeha said:
IMO, I think you're being less than objective.
After all, that blogger isn't a professional historian, you know.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/search.php?t=219

I've seen many, many posts of his over at the monster thread at RatSkep and while this person has an enormous amount of information at his finger-tips, at the end of the day, his opinion IS simply another opinion.

And as for mud-slinging, well...
Let's leave it at the pot calling the kettle black. ;)
Click to expand...

Please.

I haven't been slinging mud. I've been less than charitable towards those who insult me.:)
 
Brainache said:
It would be nice if that was so, but too often the "Jesus Myth" position is taken up by Atheists because of an anti-theist bias.
Click to expand...

Evidence that this is the cause ?


ETA: It is obvious that these people aren't basing their objections on valid Historical reasons, because they have no over all framework in which to fit their speculations. They are just throwing mud, hoping something sticks.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in your methodology that makes your conclusion "obvious".
 
Stone said:
If/When the mobs come to torch the centers of higher learning, you may feel quite differently. I don't know where you're from, but I have to say point-blank that there are certain pockets in the U.S. where graduate schools feel quite threatened with the yahoo bigotry all around them. Maybe people from other industrialized countries of the so-called free world just don't feel so threatened. If so, my congratulations. Here, we do feel threatened. I know of no other advanced country that actually has certain pockets and regions that downright glorify ignorance as though it's somehow a sign of freedom. And that's no exaggeration. I wish it were.

Stone
Click to expand...
True. No Bible Belts in Europe.
 
Stone said:
But the creationists ARE comparable to the mythers. They both have an undying hatred and bigotry against academia and specialists and would have been in the vanguard of those torching the Library of Alexandria. They are also not interested in data. They are only interested in brainwashing.

Stone
Click to expand...



Creationists are disputing proven science. They are doing that for religious reasons. Mostly reasons of believing in God and Jesus.

In contrast - sceptics here (and in the published books) are disputing religious beliefs presented in the bible (which mostly contains beliefs in miracles and the supernatural).

I think you will find the sceptics here are overwhelmingly on the side of science. Hence their request for objective evidence of Jesus.

I doubt if any sceptics here dispute evolution. But it would not surprise me if some pro-HJ posters in these threads doubted that scientific discoveries such as evolution are as solidly confirmed as science shows they are.
 
Brainache said:
Please.

I haven't been slinging mud. I've been less than charitable towards those who insult me.:)
Click to expand...

Sorry, Brainache!
I've written my reply so ill it looks as though I pointed to you.
Not the case.
I referred, albeit obliquely, to the blogger in question, not you.
But as they say, if the foo *****...
 
dafydd said:
True. No Bible Belts in Europe.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see you're unfamiliar with the Opus DeiWP*.
Even so, they're not to be compared to the USian Bible Belt.



*The real one, unrelated to the Dan Brown fantasy.
 
Belz... said:
Evidence that this is the cause ?

I'm interested in your methodology that makes your conclusion "obvious".
Click to expand...

Do they have a valid Historical Framework into which a non-existent Jesus fits? No. What they have is uninformed speculation. Talk to a real Historian and get back to me.


IanS said:
...
I doubt if any sceptics here dispute evolution. But it would not surprise me if some pro-HJ posters in these threads doubted that scientific discoveries such as evolution are as solidly confirmed as science shows they are.
Click to expand...

Care to name names?
 
dafydd said:
I've heard of them. The are a minority nutacse group, and not concentrated in one place.
Click to expand...
True. It's more of an Old School Tie thing, with very, very conservative leanings.
Juan will oblige Sebas who'll in turn have a word with Javi who'll mention your problem to the minister's secretary.
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Do they have a valid Historical Framework into which a non-existent Jesus fits? No. What they have is uninformed speculation. Talk to a real Historian and get back to me.
Click to expand...

You have not answered my question. In fact you seem intent on never answering it, rather relying on an appeal to authority.
 
Brainache said:
IanS said:
...
I doubt if any sceptics here dispute evolution. But it would not surprise me if some pro-HJ posters in these threads doubted that scientific discoveries such as evolution are as solidly confirmed as science shows they are.
Click to expand...

Care to name names?
Click to expand...

He probably wouldn't, Brainache, because deliberately confounding the fundie J with the academic HJ is the oldest -- and sleaziest -- trick in a nettie's book. So unwrapping the difference between the two is the last thing you should expect. You're asking the impossible. Answering that would give the whole show away.

Stone
 
Belz... said:
You have not answered my question. In fact you seem intent on never answering it, rather relying on an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

What was the question? What method do I use to determine that their ideas are not a valid Historical Framework?

I don't need a method if they don't have a framework.
 
Brainache said:
What was the question? What method do I use to determine that their ideas are not a valid Historical Framework?

I don't need a method if they don't have a framework.
Click to expand...

What if the framework doesn't have a method?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom