Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
krkey said:
Are you saying the difference between Wells and Kent Hovind is what you wish to debate?
Open with the same message I did in RD room.
- Thread starter krkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
Are you saying the difference between Wells and Kent Hovind is what you wish to debate?
Ahh, Balaam, we have another talking ass.
Please present your credentials next to G.A. Wells. Please set forth how you devoted decades to Biblical scholarship.
Tell us whe you were invited to Oxford to speak.
Tell us what published articles you have presented.
Tell us what books you have written.
Me thinks you are simply a high school senior with a ken for Buybull inerrancy and access to Robert Turkel.
Your treatment of Josephus was a tour de force. I shall inform Steve Mason in Onterio that he should resign and stop writing about 'ole Joe.
Feel free to cite uberconservatives like Colin Hemer. But don't try and paint apologist churchmen like secular historians. It sounds like you've read one book in your illustrious career. You should read William Lane Craig - you'd like him, he's an ultraconservative, too.
If you equate Wells with Hovind, it shows what a reactionary you are. With an attitude like yours, I assume you agree with the determination that the world was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., that Noah got 80,000 animals on the ark, and that there's still a REALLY old disciple out there whose still hanging on til Yeshua returns.
Please present your credentials next to G.A. Wells. Please set forth how you devoted decades to Biblical scholarship.
Tell us whe you were invited to Oxford to speak.
Tell us what published articles you have presented.
Tell us what books you have written.
Me thinks you are simply a high school senior with a ken for Buybull inerrancy and access to Robert Turkel.
Your treatment of Josephus was a tour de force. I shall inform Steve Mason in Onterio that he should resign and stop writing about 'ole Joe.
Feel free to cite uberconservatives like Colin Hemer. But don't try and paint apologist churchmen like secular historians. It sounds like you've read one book in your illustrious career. You should read William Lane Craig - you'd like him, he's an ultraconservative, too.
If you equate Wells with Hovind, it shows what a reactionary you are. With an attitude like yours, I assume you agree with the determination that the world was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., that Noah got 80,000 animals on the ark, and that there's still a REALLY old disciple out there whose still hanging on til Yeshua returns.
I do not pretent to be a New Testament Scholar, however I do eventually plan to get my doctorate in that area. I most certain am a historian, or at least the college I am going to graduate from will certify me as one in december. But seeing Wells has his degree in German and I am going to get mine in History I already feel I am better then Wells.
Well Kent Hovind was invited to the University of Tennessee to speak, he most be a acceptable biologist now. He has also spoken at many universities around the nation. See I am not interested in Well's speaking engagements, I am interested in his relevance to NT studies. Which is none
Point me to the article Well's has published in New Testament Journals.
Me thinks you are trying to sell me skeptical snake oil.
Hate to break it to you about Hemer. He is a secular classical historian and was never a church man. Personally I find Craig to be bit better scholar then Wells, after at least he has a degree in what writes about and does not defend a belief as noxious as holocaust denial.
My treatment of Josephus comes from using secular sources( such as Hemer, Sherwin-White, Ramsey and Bruce) who have written about the book of Acts. Perhaps it might offend your pet views but there is no compelling reason to accept a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus.
Well Kent Hovind was invited to the University of Tennessee to speak, he most be a acceptable biologist now. He has also spoken at many universities around the nation. See I am not interested in Well's speaking engagements, I am interested in his relevance to NT studies. Which is none
Point me to the article Well's has published in New Testament Journals.
Me thinks you are trying to sell me skeptical snake oil.
Hate to break it to you about Hemer. He is a secular classical historian and was never a church man. Personally I find Craig to be bit better scholar then Wells, after at least he has a degree in what writes about and does not defend a belief as noxious as holocaust denial.
My treatment of Josephus comes from using secular sources( such as Hemer, Sherwin-White, Ramsey and Bruce) who have written about the book of Acts. Perhaps it might offend your pet views but there is no compelling reason to accept a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
krkey said:
So what? Shouldn't the question be decided on its merits and not on whether someone entered the fray as a believer or not?
If you dismiss everyone who is not a believer because they don't believe it, then, yeah, everyone who you don't dismiss is going to come down on the believer side.
Your bleating Xian claims are still unsupported, young Turkelite.
Mr. Hemer is identified on the back of one of his two books as a Research Fellow at Cambrige. It doesn't list him as a Dr. It doesn't provide that he has five degrees in NT studies from Bob Jones U. I don't know if he has them or not, but does that mean people should be ignored without advanced degrees?
What? What? Are you hoisted on your own petard if Mr. Hemer has no such provenance?
Only a whining Christian would make such a claim.
Please tell me how you know Mr. Hemer and please post his CV. Considering that he died when you were in short pants, what do you know of him.
And please don't describe him as some unbiased "secular historian." WMCraig calls him an "Anglican" historian and he apparently (as I have only read reviews) tries his best to establish Acts as accurate history and extraordinarily early. We can trust that he's a Xian apologist.
And from your half-arsed posting up to this point, you'll pardon me if I don't accept your global assertions of other "historians" assertions of mid-first century Luke.
And even an appeal to numerousity in NT "scholars" has inherent problems. You see, if you're an evangelical, bookish type and looking for a academic spot until Christ returns, it's only natural to follow NT studies. If you go into it with the bias of being a Buybull thumper, do you think your theories are going to side with reasoned logic, or are they bent over backwards towards orthodoxy?
Show me a group of Islamic scholars who have examined the evidence and find L/A to be before 85, and then I'll be more convinced.
Mr. Hemer is identified on the back of one of his two books as a Research Fellow at Cambrige. It doesn't list him as a Dr. It doesn't provide that he has five degrees in NT studies from Bob Jones U. I don't know if he has them or not, but does that mean people should be ignored without advanced degrees?
What? What? Are you hoisted on your own petard if Mr. Hemer has no such provenance?
Only a whining Christian would make such a claim.
Please tell me how you know Mr. Hemer and please post his CV. Considering that he died when you were in short pants, what do you know of him.
And please don't describe him as some unbiased "secular historian." WMCraig calls him an "Anglican" historian and he apparently (as I have only read reviews) tries his best to establish Acts as accurate history and extraordinarily early. We can trust that he's a Xian apologist.
And from your half-arsed posting up to this point, you'll pardon me if I don't accept your global assertions of other "historians" assertions of mid-first century Luke.
And even an appeal to numerousity in NT "scholars" has inherent problems. You see, if you're an evangelical, bookish type and looking for a academic spot until Christ returns, it's only natural to follow NT studies. If you go into it with the bias of being a Buybull thumper, do you think your theories are going to side with reasoned logic, or are they bent over backwards towards orthodoxy?
Show me a group of Islamic scholars who have examined the evidence and find L/A to be before 85, and then I'll be more convinced.
I could not leave this discussion in good conscience without explaining my seemingly stubborn demand upon strictly using scholarly sources and my refusal to recognize Maccoby, Wells or Doherty with this regard.
A scholar is a person who is trained in the various fields necessary to interact with the relevant data. For example a biologist at the least would need a good background in biology( to say the least) and chemistry.
The same logic applies to the New Testament Scholarship, which is a branch of classical scholarship. At the very least a scholar in this area should have the following attributes.
a.) a solid foundation in Roman, Greek and Jewish History
b.) fluency in Greek and at least a profectiancy in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic
c.) a background in Ancient cultures and their customs
d.) a solid background in archaelogy
e.) and lastly the holistic ability to tie it all together
Without this background a person cannot hope to interact with any ancient document, including the New Testament.
A prime example of this is the question being asked why doesn’t Paul show any knowledge of the life of Jesus. This argument is fallacious for numerous reasons.
a.) first he does now events from the life of Jesus. He knows his brother James (Galations 1:19, John 7, Mark 6.3) He knows about the last supper ( 1st Co 10:14-22 and 11:27-30) and the apostles, the empty tomb and the resurrection ( 1st Co 15). See also Romans 6:23 , 10:9-10 versus John 3:16.
b.) The next question is why should Paul have had to mention it in the first places in his epistles. He already told the story once. The only reasons he should have to repeat himself are:
1.) A point was forgotten ( unlike in a oral based society)
2.) A argument over a point occurred
3.) He needed to repeat himself
Final death nail in this argument is from the type of writing Paul was employing, which is that of an epistle. It assumes a high background knowledge among it readers, unlike the synoptics, John and Acts which are middle context documents.
An example of a high context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded. The person hearing this statement is assumed to know that this event happened in 1986, in Florida, to a space shuttle, during the launch because of ice on the o-rings
An example of middle context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded in 1986 during launch- This statement offers more information, but still the reader needs to fill in the relevant facts of the cause of the explosion
An example of low context statement
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on January 28th, 1986, during the Reagan administration, while in take off. It killed all the astronauts and was caused by ice on the o-rings. This statement has little need for background knowledge within the reader.
The reason I hold to scholarly concensus is that while not an absolute gurantee of correctness, it is certainly more probable that it is correct. I feel the same way about trying to revive long deads ideas in any applicable area of scholarship, they were abandoned for appropriate reasons. How many defenders of Lamarckan evolution exist now days. I do not embrace the methodology employed in this forum because to do it i would slow inquiry to a virtual halt, because nobody can trust the concensus of any expert and literally would have to proof the idea himself.
The Christ Myth has no support among New Testament scholars. Even Robert Price does not support it in his book Beyond Born Again. Even the extreme fringe the Jesus Seminar refuses to support it . Among regular historians it is received about as warmly as holocaust denial. To quote Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith, certainly not an evangelical historian. ( this comes from Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986)
a.) “I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
b.) “..many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space”
c.) "(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."
There are legitimate debates within New Testament scholarship, among them are explanations for the rise of Christianity; the resurrection( N.T Wright), hallucinations (Gerd Ludemann) and legend ( Burton L. Mack). No current NT scholar holds to the swoon, theft or copycat thesis, regardless of theological views.
Another legimate debate is the dating, authorship and order of creation for the synoptics ( John is held to be independent). Typical of scholarly views across the board are as thus:
a.) Mark-55AD-75AD
b.) Matthew 60AD-80AD
c.) Luke/Acts 60AD-80AD
d.) John- 60-90 AD
Another debate is the order of the creation and which book should be the priority in the synoptics. The classical views maintains that Mark was created first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Quelle as their sources, plus unique independent material. Challenging this view, and finding some revival of the Griesbach view (priority of Matthew). Also being debated is which is more important to atributing authorship to a book, church tradition( after all they were there) or textual sciences. I find it very unlikely that Well’s, Doherty or Maccoby have anything relevant to offer to this.
There is no compelling reason to accept the NT is not properly preserved. No historicial document has a greater degree of textual harmony( this means that text A agrees with the wording of text B) of about 99%. For example the Vedas are only preserved with 90% textual harmony. Also no document was written closer to event in question then new testament.( at most 40 years). Also no document has copies preserved from as close to event at hand, for example the oldest copy of Tacticus dates from the ninth century.
There is no compelling reason to belief the New Testament is not historicially accurate.( this is not the same as innerrant)
a.) Aristotles dictum- any document is considered innocent until prove guilty.
b.) It claims to be historicial.
c.) It deals with historicial events, places and people
d.) It was qouted as historicial by Pagans( such as Celsus), Christians and Hereticial Groups. The noncanocials never received this respect
e.) There is no known counter tradition for authorship of the books involved
f.) Noncanocial writings never wrote upon areas which the Canocial writings discussed
g.) It takes two generations to form a legend, regardless of dating of the documents, they were created within one.( Sherwin-White Study)
h.) Oral tradition is stable ( Sherwin-White Study)
For all these reasons, the NT passes the historians criteria for being a historicial document. Now to cut if off before the question comes forward, what about the book of Mormon or Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
a.) The book of Mormon is presumed innocent as with all historicial documents. However archaelogy and textual sciences have demonstrated it is a forgery.
b.) Dianetics is philosophy and self health, not history
c.) I already addressed the Koran, but I will do so again. It was never qouted as historicial by its critics. I am quote satisfied with scholarship on this subject, which would seem to indicate it is a composite of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christianity and Mohammeds writings.
I would highly recommend with those in this room to read real scholarship. This is now my last post, I do have a debate to concentrate on.
A scholar is a person who is trained in the various fields necessary to interact with the relevant data. For example a biologist at the least would need a good background in biology( to say the least) and chemistry.
The same logic applies to the New Testament Scholarship, which is a branch of classical scholarship. At the very least a scholar in this area should have the following attributes.
a.) a solid foundation in Roman, Greek and Jewish History
b.) fluency in Greek and at least a profectiancy in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic
c.) a background in Ancient cultures and their customs
d.) a solid background in archaelogy
e.) and lastly the holistic ability to tie it all together
Without this background a person cannot hope to interact with any ancient document, including the New Testament.
A prime example of this is the question being asked why doesn’t Paul show any knowledge of the life of Jesus. This argument is fallacious for numerous reasons.
a.) first he does now events from the life of Jesus. He knows his brother James (Galations 1:19, John 7, Mark 6.3) He knows about the last supper ( 1st Co 10:14-22 and 11:27-30) and the apostles, the empty tomb and the resurrection ( 1st Co 15). See also Romans 6:23 , 10:9-10 versus John 3:16.
b.) The next question is why should Paul have had to mention it in the first places in his epistles. He already told the story once. The only reasons he should have to repeat himself are:
1.) A point was forgotten ( unlike in a oral based society)
2.) A argument over a point occurred
3.) He needed to repeat himself
Final death nail in this argument is from the type of writing Paul was employing, which is that of an epistle. It assumes a high background knowledge among it readers, unlike the synoptics, John and Acts which are middle context documents.
An example of a high context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded. The person hearing this statement is assumed to know that this event happened in 1986, in Florida, to a space shuttle, during the launch because of ice on the o-rings
An example of middle context statement
a.) The Challenger exploded in 1986 during launch- This statement offers more information, but still the reader needs to fill in the relevant facts of the cause of the explosion
An example of low context statement
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on January 28th, 1986, during the Reagan administration, while in take off. It killed all the astronauts and was caused by ice on the o-rings. This statement has little need for background knowledge within the reader.
The reason I hold to scholarly concensus is that while not an absolute gurantee of correctness, it is certainly more probable that it is correct. I feel the same way about trying to revive long deads ideas in any applicable area of scholarship, they were abandoned for appropriate reasons. How many defenders of Lamarckan evolution exist now days. I do not embrace the methodology employed in this forum because to do it i would slow inquiry to a virtual halt, because nobody can trust the concensus of any expert and literally would have to proof the idea himself.
The Christ Myth has no support among New Testament scholars. Even Robert Price does not support it in his book Beyond Born Again. Even the extreme fringe the Jesus Seminar refuses to support it . Among regular historians it is received about as warmly as holocaust denial. To quote Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith, certainly not an evangelical historian. ( this comes from Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986)
a.) “I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
b.) “..many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space”
c.) "(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."
There are legitimate debates within New Testament scholarship, among them are explanations for the rise of Christianity; the resurrection( N.T Wright), hallucinations (Gerd Ludemann) and legend ( Burton L. Mack). No current NT scholar holds to the swoon, theft or copycat thesis, regardless of theological views.
Another legimate debate is the dating, authorship and order of creation for the synoptics ( John is held to be independent). Typical of scholarly views across the board are as thus:
a.) Mark-55AD-75AD
b.) Matthew 60AD-80AD
c.) Luke/Acts 60AD-80AD
d.) John- 60-90 AD
Another debate is the order of the creation and which book should be the priority in the synoptics. The classical views maintains that Mark was created first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Quelle as their sources, plus unique independent material. Challenging this view, and finding some revival of the Griesbach view (priority of Matthew). Also being debated is which is more important to atributing authorship to a book, church tradition( after all they were there) or textual sciences. I find it very unlikely that Well’s, Doherty or Maccoby have anything relevant to offer to this.
There is no compelling reason to accept the NT is not properly preserved. No historicial document has a greater degree of textual harmony( this means that text A agrees with the wording of text B) of about 99%. For example the Vedas are only preserved with 90% textual harmony. Also no document was written closer to event in question then new testament.( at most 40 years). Also no document has copies preserved from as close to event at hand, for example the oldest copy of Tacticus dates from the ninth century.
There is no compelling reason to belief the New Testament is not historicially accurate.( this is not the same as innerrant)
a.) Aristotles dictum- any document is considered innocent until prove guilty.
b.) It claims to be historicial.
c.) It deals with historicial events, places and people
d.) It was qouted as historicial by Pagans( such as Celsus), Christians and Hereticial Groups. The noncanocials never received this respect
e.) There is no known counter tradition for authorship of the books involved
f.) Noncanocial writings never wrote upon areas which the Canocial writings discussed
g.) It takes two generations to form a legend, regardless of dating of the documents, they were created within one.( Sherwin-White Study)
h.) Oral tradition is stable ( Sherwin-White Study)
For all these reasons, the NT passes the historians criteria for being a historicial document. Now to cut if off before the question comes forward, what about the book of Mormon or Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
a.) The book of Mormon is presumed innocent as with all historicial documents. However archaelogy and textual sciences have demonstrated it is a forgery.
b.) Dianetics is philosophy and self health, not history
c.) I already addressed the Koran, but I will do so again. It was never qouted as historicial by its critics. I am quote satisfied with scholarship on this subject, which would seem to indicate it is a composite of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christianity and Mohammeds writings.
I would highly recommend with those in this room to read real scholarship. This is now my last post, I do have a debate to concentrate on.
Poppycock
You set forth a silly list of criteria, then in your first argument, there is no need for ANY of those criteria. Your PRIME example of why "fluency" in Greek is needed is a PRIME example why your statements are poppycock.
Part a) (while arguably factually incorrect - as no empty tomb discussion exists at all!) requires none of your essential elements
Part b) is clearly factually incorrect and requires none of your essential elements
The "death nail" is factually incorrect and is assumption on your part.
Your statement of "scholarly consensus" is a myth. No such animal exists.
Different analyses and arguments require different talents.
You set forth a silly list of criteria, then in your first argument, there is no need for ANY of those criteria. Your PRIME example of why "fluency" in Greek is needed is a PRIME example why your statements are poppycock.
Part a) (while arguably factually incorrect - as no empty tomb discussion exists at all!) requires none of your essential elements
Part b) is clearly factually incorrect and requires none of your essential elements
The "death nail" is factually incorrect and is assumption on your part.
Your statement of "scholarly consensus" is a myth. No such animal exists.
Different analyses and arguments require different talents.
TruthSeeker
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,587
Keneke
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 980
pgwenthold said:
For the last time, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. Could Oz be historic and therefore similar to the bible? Fine! That assumption does not invalidate my point.
Do you even understand my position?
I will state it one more time since you don't seem to be listening to me: WoO is not as good of a book for comparison with the Bible than another book presented as historical. I don't care that the only reason WoO is fiction is because people say so; the validity of that statement is moot towards my point. I am sure someone will argue that point with you, and you can go get your rocks off all you like.
Once again, stop creating my position for me. It's very annoying.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
krkey,
Your turn (fill in the blanks ) :
1. The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because _________
2. The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because _________
Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."?
How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected?
On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"?
Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it?
I am quite satisfied with the view of many scholars on the Bible that it is a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings.
Your turn (fill in the blanks ) :
1. The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because _________
2. The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because _________
Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."?
How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected?
On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"?
Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it?
Response to Loki
am quite satisfied with the view of many scholars on the Bible that it is a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings. Then it is evident you have never, ever read a single New Testament Scholar in your entire life ( the fact you read zero shows it takes little knowledge to satisify you)
The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because __
The New Testament is most certainly NOT a collection of jewish oral traditions. That view, of Midrashic history was abandoned a long time ago. It might be wise to read a history book. If you had read a history book say this one
you will have learned that in fact the Arians were a forth century Schism within the church about the nature of Christ. Now if you had read any book on biblicial scholarship (might I recommend this one here)
The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because Because they come from the seventh century AD, and the far older documents( read book above) which have a different take on the event were written within 20-40 years during a time period if they were not true they most certainly would have been rebuted by hostile witnesses, say the Pharisees or Sadduccees.
Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."? Actually I would say that Islamic scholar are on the right track in their view that the Qu'ran is a composite document from at least three sources, Arian Christianity( this part is mainly Hymns) Jewish Oral tradition and the writings of Mohammed. Also they have been heavily tampered with
How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected To this question I do not have a clue, but I would recommend if you are so curious then why don't you ask them?
On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"? I would say on no grounds
Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it Because historians have far better documents to deal with, not in the least the New Testament, Josephus, Suetinious, Pliny and Tacticus. Who should historians pick, document from the 1st and 2nd century or the 7th century?
am quite satisfied with the view of many scholars on the Bible that it is a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings. Then it is evident you have never, ever read a single New Testament Scholar in your entire life ( the fact you read zero shows it takes little knowledge to satisify you)
The Bible's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions and Arian Christian writings ) references to Jesus are true because __
The New Testament is most certainly NOT a collection of jewish oral traditions. That view, of Midrashic history was abandoned a long time ago. It might be wise to read a history book. If you had read a history book say this one
you will have learned that in fact the Arians were a forth century Schism within the church about the nature of Christ. Now if you had read any book on biblicial scholarship (might I recommend this one here)
The Quran's (a composition of Jewish Oral traditions, Arian Christian writings and some writings of Mohammed) references to Jesus are false because Because they come from the seventh century AD, and the far older documents( read book above) which have a different take on the event were written within 20-40 years during a time period if they were not true they most certainly would have been rebuted by hostile witnesses, say the Pharisees or Sadduccees.
Let me guess. *All* Islamic scholars are incorrect in their research, study and conclusions because "many scholars" say they are. I assume you meant to say "many christian scholars..."? Actually I would say that Islamic scholar are on the right track in their view that the Qu'ran is a composite document from at least three sources, Arian Christianity( this part is mainly Hymns) Jewish Oral tradition and the writings of Mohammed. Also they have been heavily tampered with
How many Muslim scholars agree that Christ was resurrected To this question I do not have a clue, but I would recommend if you are so curious then why don't you ask them?
On what grounds are the conclusions of Muslim scholars "invalid"? I would say on no grounds
Why would any historian researching the "truth" of the NT and Jesus overlook the Quran? It's a collection of writing some of which relate directly to the topic at hand, and which (claim) to add additional explanation. Why ignore it Because historians have far better documents to deal with, not in the least the New Testament, Josephus, Suetinious, Pliny and Tacticus. Who should historians pick, document from the 1st and 2nd century or the 7th century?
About Colin Hemer
He received his doctorate in 1969 and for awhile taught hellenistic Greek, He was also involved with research at Macquarie University . After reading Sir William M Ramsey writings especially on Acts Hemer decided to investigate the historgraphy of acts in his landmark study
Before his untimelly death of cancer in 1987 he was a senior researcher at Cambridge and was involved with its Tyndale House.
Here are some views on the book here
Well Hemer set the benchmark for all studies on the book of acts. And it may offend the pet notions of some atheist, but it should be dated no later then AD62. Incidentally my information on Hemer came from my copy of The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I wonder why Gregory couldn't find this stuff. And lastly Gregory are you so daft as to think Islamic scholars have an opinion one way or another about Acts
He received his doctorate in 1969 and for awhile taught hellenistic Greek, He was also involved with research at Macquarie University . After reading Sir William M Ramsey writings especially on Acts Hemer decided to investigate the historgraphy of acts in his landmark study
Before his untimelly death of cancer in 1987 he was a senior researcher at Cambridge and was involved with its Tyndale House.
Here are some views on the book here
Well Hemer set the benchmark for all studies on the book of acts. And it may offend the pet notions of some atheist, but it should be dated no later then AD62. Incidentally my information on Hemer came from my copy of The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I wonder why Gregory couldn't find this stuff. And lastly Gregory are you so daft as to think Islamic scholars have an opinion one way or another about Acts
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
krkey,
Hey, thanks for responding!
Absence of Pharisees rebuttal = Gospels accounts must be true.
How about :
Absence of Pharisees support = Gospels accounts must be false.
See any difference in these two statement's validity (or lack of)?
Hey, thanks for responding!
I assume this comment is in response to my using the term "Arian christian" in relation to the Bible. Fair enough! The dangers of making a fast post, I guess. The point I was attempting to make was in relation to the *method* in which the two books (Bible and Quran) have been assembled. It seemed to me that you were implying the Quran's *method of construction* was somehow different/flawed compared to the Bible. My quick "cut and paste" was aimed at demonstrating a similar comment was applicable to the Bible. But yes, the word "Arian" should be removed from my Bible comment. Arian concepts relating to the (potential)divinity of humans didn't make it into the Bible. I'd be intertested to see why you think some of the core Arian theological concepts are inherent in Islam?
I was referring to the Bible as a whole, but even so I guess this comment is supposed to relate to the Gospels?
Ah...a different take on the event. What is the (claimed) source for this "different take" again?
So :
Absence of Pharisees rebuttal = Gospels accounts must be true.
How about :
Absence of Pharisees support = Gospels accounts must be false.
See any difference in these two statement's validity (or lack of)?
Excuse me? You don't know how many Muslim scholars think Jesus was not resurrected? One? More than one? All? Why wouldn't you know? If you haven't studied their conclusions and their reasons, how can you dismiss them?
So you believe there *are* grounds for grading the two sources - dates, and time elapsed between event and writing.
Who should historians pick, documents from the 1st and 2nd century, or documents from the 7th century that claim to expand on the earlier doument, and which claim to be from the the same source? Seems to me historians need to examine *both*, unless and until the second documents claims can be shown to be false. Can you demonstrate that the Quran's claims to be "from God" and "about the real Jesus" to be false?
Gregory I have this novel notion for you, now pay attention. Whenever you translate from one lanquage to another, meaning is lost. Why is this you ask? Because some words in one language have no meaning or direct relation with a word in another language. Thus the first step to being a bible scholar is at least a proficiency in the language of its composition, in the case of the NT, Greek. But you are right there is no discussion in the New Testament about whether the tomb was empty, the vast majority view is that it was.( Only NT scholar I can think who disagrees with this is Crossan) Here are just a few reasons, that NT scholars, regardless of religious views accept the tomb as historicial fact.
a.) the use of women witnesses in a first century Judean setting. This is the equivalent of using blacks as witnesses in the 1930 southern USA
b.) The use of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had executed Jesus is almost certainly true. There is no apologetic need to make this man up and the town of Arimethea has no prophetic value( ie if they were making it up they would certainly used a different town)
c.) Pauls testimony implies an empty tomb. Compare the Christian saying in 1st Co 15:3-5 with Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:36-16:7
d.) Tombs of these nature have been discovered in Israel before
e.) The earliest account in Mark is not colored by legend. As further evidence of the antiquity of this account it does not mention the name of Caiphas, it simply says the High Priest( think what you would think if I said the president)
f.) the polemic of Matthew 28:11-15 implies the tomb and also implies it was empty
g.) There is no known counter tradition
To qoute secular historian Michael Grant- whatever the differences in the text, it is certain that the tomb was empty
These are the reasons, NT scholars, regardless of theological views except the tomb was empty.
Perhaps you should read this here and here . Perhaps I should email Ludemann ( A nonbelieving scholar and inform him he is wrong about the tomb being empty)
I will inform anthropologist and historians Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh
That they have been corrected by Gregor from the Randi forum and are in fact wrong about ancient documents being high context writings.
You are right about there being no such thing as scholarly concensus. When I get done I am going to the following debates
a.) did the holocaust happen
b.) is the earth round
d.) Did Booth kill Lincoln
c.) the merits of Lamarckan evolution
a.) the use of women witnesses in a first century Judean setting. This is the equivalent of using blacks as witnesses in the 1930 southern USA
b.) The use of Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin that had executed Jesus is almost certainly true. There is no apologetic need to make this man up and the town of Arimethea has no prophetic value( ie if they were making it up they would certainly used a different town)
c.) Pauls testimony implies an empty tomb. Compare the Christian saying in 1st Co 15:3-5 with Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:36-16:7
d.) Tombs of these nature have been discovered in Israel before
e.) The earliest account in Mark is not colored by legend. As further evidence of the antiquity of this account it does not mention the name of Caiphas, it simply says the High Priest( think what you would think if I said the president)
f.) the polemic of Matthew 28:11-15 implies the tomb and also implies it was empty
g.) There is no known counter tradition
To qoute secular historian Michael Grant- whatever the differences in the text, it is certain that the tomb was empty
These are the reasons, NT scholars, regardless of theological views except the tomb was empty.
Perhaps you should read this here and here . Perhaps I should email Ludemann ( A nonbelieving scholar and inform him he is wrong about the tomb being empty)
I will inform anthropologist and historians Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh
That they have been corrected by Gregor from the Randi forum and are in fact wrong about ancient documents being high context writings.
You are right about there being no such thing as scholarly concensus. When I get done I am going to the following debates
a.) did the holocaust happen
b.) is the earth round
d.) Did Booth kill Lincoln
c.) the merits of Lamarckan evolution
Most people date Islam to the seventh century. This view is not really contested. Muslims consider the Book of Barnabas to be the true story of Jesus. This is dated from the mid second century, as opposed to the synoptics and John from at most 40 years after the death of Jesus( and thats at most)
Actually lack of Pharisee support can be explained by the Radical Claim of the apostles, that a resurrection occured before the end of time( see John 11) and it did have some Pharisee support.
I have studied muslim scholars conclusion on the Qu'ran. If they are muslims then they believe that Jesus was never crucified. If the scholar is not a muslim, he might believe in the resurrection( assuming he was a Christian)
Arian element that can clearly been seen in the Qu'ran.
a.) Uniterianism, Jesus is lesser then God
b.) Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc
Why not use the seventh century ones. The older ones are far better and closer to the event at hand
Actually lack of Pharisee support can be explained by the Radical Claim of the apostles, that a resurrection occured before the end of time( see John 11) and it did have some Pharisee support.
I have studied muslim scholars conclusion on the Qu'ran. If they are muslims then they believe that Jesus was never crucified. If the scholar is not a muslim, he might believe in the resurrection( assuming he was a Christian)
Arian element that can clearly been seen in the Qu'ran.
a.) Uniterianism, Jesus is lesser then God
b.) Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc
Why not use the seventh century ones. The older ones are far better and closer to the event at hand
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Of course if you were attempting to appeal to the downtrodden, it wouldn't be so odd.krkey said:
actually yes it would because in that world, the downtrodden did not listen to women. Women were considered so worthless as witnesses that they were not allowed to testify about lunar changes. If they had wanted to use downtrodden witnesses, they certainly would have used downtrodden men.
Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to a women- J sot 19a
Happy is he whose children are mae and alas for him whose children are female- B Kidd 82B
Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to a women- J sot 19a
Happy is he whose children are mae and alas for him whose children are female- B Kidd 82B
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
krkey,
I suppose the fact that Unitarianism seems a better fit with the overall text of the gospels rather than the Trinity isn't really relevant to this conversation? I'm interested in the way you ascribe the "Jesus will come again, Judge the earth etc" to the Arian view, and therefore imply it's not part of the orthodox view.
Hmmm...I guess thre's no harm try to sneak a quick "assume the conclusion" into the conversation. The issue is *why* are the older ones better. You give two reasons - because they are "closer to the event" and because they are "better". I'll concede the first, but the second is just plain sneaky of you! Again, I'd ask why would the 7th century writings be dismissed, given that they *claim* to be from the same source (god) as the 1st century writings, and that they *claim* to expand and correct the originals. Can you address these claims?
You seem to forget that Arians held many views that were mainstream, they view that made them difference was their view on the nature of Christ. I will rephrase my prior response, NT documents are better because they are closer to the event at hand. Muslim documents are way to far removed as to have any historicial value on this issue.