Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Recommended Resource on NT Writings

Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 8:43:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Udo Schnelle's "The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings" has now been in print for 17 years, but it remains an outstanding resource for those unafraid of the applicable scholarship. From the cover ...

This sweeping and authoritative introduction presents in a classic format full and up-to-date information about each individual writing of the New Testament with respect to its -+ date and author place of writing -+ structure -+ themes and theological aims -+ important historical and interpretive issues With its clear outline, judicious writing, and exhaustive American and European bibliographies, Schnelle's volume will equip readers to form their own judgments about Christianity's foundational documents. After providing an overview of the development of the New Testament canon, Schnelle then takes up, in turn, the letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels (including Q), Acts, the Deutero-Pauline epistles, the Catholic letters, the Gospel of John, and Revelation.

True, much of the material can be found at Wikipedia (or, even, Perter Kirby's excellent site www.EarlyChristianWritings.com), but I still find myself returning to Schnelle for input.

But a word of warning: those who string together quotes from scripture and then present the result as 'evidence' should probably not waste their money on this or similar texts.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective. You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 2:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective.
Actually, just the opposite. And just what "theological perspective" are you imagining?

You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
What peer-reviewed NT historians have you read and dismissed having found their works tainted by theological bias?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 2:11:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 2:09:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective.
Actually, just the opposite. And just what "theological perspective" are you imagining?

You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
What peer-reviewed NT historians have you read and dismissed having found their works tainted by theological bias?

Don't even remember most of their names. I am going into history, specifically ancient civilizations in order to study the origin and rise of Christianity. Most people's works I read, when I follow up on the sources, show obvious bias. There are very, very few NT historians without bias. History, unlike science, is not currently secular.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 2:11:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:09:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective.
Actually, just the opposite. And just what "theological perspective" are you imagining?

You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
What peer-reviewed NT historians have you read and dismissed having found their works tainted by theological bias?

Don't even remember most of their names.
That is convenient.

Since you deem yourself informed enough and unbiased enough to deprecate an entire category of scholarship - about which I suspect you haven't a clue - Shnelle's work would clearly be wasted on you.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 2:59:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 2:46:52 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:11:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:09:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective.
Actually, just the opposite. And just what "theological perspective" are you imagining?

You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
What peer-reviewed NT historians have you read and dismissed having found their works tainted by theological bias?

Don't even remember most of their names.
That is convenient.

When someone reads at least 5 articles about the Roman Empire during the 1st century a week, it is hard to remember names, especially when one is not concerned with who the author is but what the content is.

Since you deem yourself informed enough and unbiased enough to deprecate an entire category of scholarship - about which I suspect you haven't a clue - Shnelle's work would clearly be wasted on you.

Yes, I depreciated an entire field I want to go into, I definitely haven't just pointed out something that is even agreed upon by many scholars (that NT history is not very secular)... I am definitely ignorant on the subject.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, and as an fyi, Udo Schnelle writes theological works. Theology=/=history. Sometimes theological writings can be helpful for the study of history, but they always have religious bias in them.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 2:59:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:46:52 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:11:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 2:09:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 9:38:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess you are looking for it from a theological perspective (based off of what you wrote) and not a historical perspective.
Actually, just the opposite. And just what "theological perspective" are you imagining?

You have to remember that a lot of NT historians are biased (because they are actually theologians)
What peer-reviewed NT historians have you read and dismissed having found their works tainted by theological bias?

Don't even remember most of their names.
That is convenient.

When someone reads at least 5 articles about the Roman Empire during the 1st century a week, it is hard to remember names, especially when one is not concerned with who the author is but what the content is.

Since you deem yourself informed enough and unbiased enough to deprecate an entire category of scholarship - about which I suspect you haven't a clue - Shnelle's work would clearly be wasted on you.

Yes, I depreciated an entire field I want to go into, I definitely haven't just pointed out something that is even agreed upon by many scholars (that NT history is not very secular)... I am definitely ignorant on the subject.

Would you mind responding to the first question posed in post #3? (Or perhaps I missed it?)
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:02:49 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Would you mind responding to the first question posed in post #3? (Or perhaps I missed it?)

It is quite simple.

Examples of how theological perspective is different then secular perspective:

Secular historian view, the Gospels are not reliable information for the life of Jesus.
Put your Christian Theological glasses on, the Gospels then have at least some truth and reliability to them.

Secular historian view, Mohammad was a pedophile and a mass murderer (though it might not be worded that way).
Put your Muslim Theological glasses on, Mohammad was a perfect man, not a pedophile or a murderer.

When you include a theological perspective, history is screwed to help fit your religious views.
That is why you need to look at secular historians, their secular works. Those are more reliable as they tend to try and ignore personal biases in their work. Yes, personal bias can still contaminate the work of a secular historian, but not nearly on the same level as a theological historian.

Now, not every theologian's works match the examples above, some are crazier, some are not as crazy.

Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

Science has actually managed to become a secular area of study. Depending on the prescription of your theologian glasses (in science), you might even doubt the big bang or evolution. People who do that, though, are spotted much easier then those that use their theological glasses for their work in history.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

You've read his historical work? Can you give me an example of a conclusion driven by theological concerns?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:28:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:02:49 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Would you mind responding to the first question posed in post #3? (Or perhaps I missed it?)

It is quite simple.

Examples of how theological perspective is different then secular perspective:

Secular historian view, the Gospels are not reliable information for the life of Jesus.
Put your Christian Theological glasses on, the Gospels then have at least some truth and reliability to them.

Secular historian view, Mohammad was a pedophile and a mass murderer (though it might not be worded that way).
Put your Muslim Theological glasses on, Mohammad was a perfect man, not a pedophile or a murderer.

When you include a theological perspective, history is screwed to help fit your religious views.
That is why you need to look at secular historians, their secular works. Those are more reliable as they tend to try and ignore personal biases in their work. Yes, personal bias can still contaminate the work of a secular historian, but not nearly on the same level as a theological historian.

Now, not every theologian's works match the examples above, some are crazier, some are not as crazy.

Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

Science has actually managed to become a secular area of study. Depending on the prescription of your theologian glasses (in science), you might even doubt the big bang or evolution. People who do that, though, are spotted much easier then those that use their theological glasses for their work in history.

Because Secular historians aren't bias in there accounts of history or the evidence.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:28:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because Secular historians aren't bias in there accounts of history or the evidence.

If you are trying to be sarcastic, then you, my friend, are an idiot. I pointed out that the works of secular historians can be contaminated, just not as often as theologians.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:38:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:26:30 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

You've read his historical work? Can you give me an example of a conclusion driven by theological concerns?

No, I have not read his works. Before I commented on this, I looked him up. Looked at what he writes, reviews about him, a couple summaries of his works. It even is stated that his works are theological in many sources. I haven't found anything to indicate his work being secular, and enough to indicate it being theological.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:44:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

You seem very much committed to serving as poster boy for confirmation bias.

Let's try the following experiment "

Check the book out of the library and read pages 219 to 225, specifically the following sections on The Gospel of Matthew:
3.5.2 Author
3.5.3 Place and Time of Composition
3.5.4 Intended Readership

If you feel that you've detected errors resulting from a theological bias, simply tell us.
Furthermore, if you feel the the information was inaccurate (irrespective of cause), simply tell us.
But, if you found the text valuable, tell us that as well.

I'll trust you to give the pages a fair reading.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:36:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:28:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because Secular historians aren't bias in there accounts of history or the evidence.

If you are trying to be sarcastic, then you, my friend, are an idiot. I pointed out that the works of secular historians can be contaminated, just not as often as theologians.

No I think what's going on is if the history doesn't support your view then the author is bias. And you want secular historians to conclude that the writings have no basis in reality and are in no way historical accounts.

But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives. To Deny this and not so many other works of the period would be bias. 2 different conclusions from similar provenance.

I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot either.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:44:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:13:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Udo Schnelle writes theologically, his works are not secular.

You seem very much committed to serving as poster boy for confirmation bias.

It isn't confirmation bias if sources that have been shown to be trustworthy say something, and you agree with it.

I do not need to read Answers in Genesis to know it is biased and theologically based. I can look at the summaries of what is said, reviews from secular scientists, etc. and determine it.

So, instead of ad homs, actually make the point.

Let's try the following experiment "

Check the book out of the library and read pages 219 to 225, specifically the following sections on The Gospel of Matthew:
3.5.2 Author
3.5.3 Place and Time of Composition
3.5.4 Intended Readership

If you feel that you've detected errors resulting from a theological bias, simply tell us.
Furthermore, if you feel the the information was inaccurate (irrespective of cause), simply tell us.
But, if you found the text valuable, tell us that as well.

I'll trust you to give the pages a fair reading.

If I have time and my library has the book, I might do that. But what you are asking me to do is to look at a specific section. Even theologians can be right about parts of what they are saying, but still have bias to influence what they do overall.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:11:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:36:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:28:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because Secular historians aren't bias in there accounts of history or the evidence.

If you are trying to be sarcastic, then you, my friend, are an idiot. I pointed out that the works of secular historians can be contaminated, just not as often as theologians.

No I think what's going on is if the history doesn't support your view then the author is bias. And you want secular historians to conclude that the writings have no basis in reality and are in no way historical accounts.

Not even close. If a historian is a theologian, they automatically have a religious bias to their work. That cannot be ignored, especially if their work is theological in nature.

But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives. To Deny this and not so many other works of the period would be bias. 2 different conclusions from similar provenance.

It is agreed upon by secular historians that none of the authors of the Gospels were eye-witnesses or had access to eye-witnesses of Jesus. They cannot be used to determine the life of Jesus.

I recognize that secular historians can come to different conclusions. I am okay with that. They might not even try using bias and still reach different conclusions. I am okay with that as well. You assume that I am not.

What I am not okay with is a theological historian being compared with a secular historian in terms of bias. A theological historian will automatically have some bias, a secular one might not. Because of that, secular historians are more reliable (in general). Now, if we go into specific historians, then we can analyze their works a little better when comparing them, and see which has more bias.

I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot either.

If I stated one thing, and you clearly ignored it and commented about it, then you are being a bit of an idiot. I said that secular historian's works could be contaminated, which you seemed to ignore to try and make a point that secular historians can be biased. That is idiotic, and so I pointed it out.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:19:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:04:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:44:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Let's try the following experiment "

Check the book out of the library and read pages 219 to 225, specifically the following sections on The Gospel of Matthew:
3.5.2 Author
3.5.3 Place and Time of Composition
3.5.4 Intended Readership

If you feel that you've detected errors resulting from a theological bias, simply tell us.
Furthermore, if you feel the the information was inaccurate (irrespective of cause), simply tell us.
But, if you found the text valuable, tell us that as well.

I'll trust you to give the pages a fair reading.

If I have time and my library has the book, I might do that. But what you are asking me to do is to look at a specific section. Even theologians can be right about parts of what they are saying, but still have bias to influence what they do overall.

I chose the section because I think it small enough to be read in a short amount of time while being representative of the book as a whole. Please feel free to substitute whatever section you wish. Again, I'll trust you to give it a fair reading.

Finally, by way of full disclosure, I am a Jew and in no way consider the New Testament as 'true' - whatever that might mean.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:22:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives.

What does this mean?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:23:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:19:09 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:04:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:44:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Let's try the following experiment "

Check the book out of the library and read pages 219 to 225, specifically the following sections on The Gospel of Matthew:
3.5.2 Author
3.5.3 Place and Time of Composition
3.5.4 Intended Readership

If you feel that you've detected errors resulting from a theological bias, simply tell us.
Furthermore, if you feel the the information was inaccurate (irrespective of cause), simply tell us.
But, if you found the text valuable, tell us that as well.

I'll trust you to give the pages a fair reading.

If I have time and my library has the book, I might do that. But what you are asking me to do is to look at a specific section. Even theologians can be right about parts of what they are saying, but still have bias to influence what they do overall.

I chose the section because I think it small enough to be read in a short amount of time while being representative of the book as a whole. Please feel free to substitute whatever section you wish. Again, I'll trust you to give it a fair reading.

Finally, by way of full disclosure, I am a Jew and in no way consider the New Testament as 'true' - whatever that might mean.

Even if you and the historian are of different religious backgrounds, that does not stop the historian from being biased.

Theology is history's greatest weakness.

In science, new discoveries are made all the time, people evaluate the new evidence AS WELL AS the old. That allows scientists to more easily move past theological influences (since science has not always been secular either).

In history, new discoveries are harder to find, especially for ancient times. When they are found they are evaluated by using the conclusions drawn by the old documents, the old documents are not always reevaluated. This makes it harder to break away from theological influences (since history was not secular, and is still not completely secular yet).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:23:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:19:09 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:04:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:44:21 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Let's try the following experiment "

Check the book out of the library and read pages 219 to 225, specifically the following sections on The Gospel of Matthew:
3.5.2 Author
3.5.3 Place and Time of Composition
3.5.4 Intended Readership

If you feel that you've detected errors resulting from a theological bias, simply tell us.
Furthermore, if you feel the the information was inaccurate (irrespective of cause), simply tell us.
But, if you found the text valuable, tell us that as well.

I'll trust you to give the pages a fair reading.

If I have time and my library has the book, I might do that. But what you are asking me to do is to look at a specific section. Even theologians can be right about parts of what they are saying, but still have bias to influence what they do overall.

I chose the section because I think it small enough to be read in a short amount of time while being representative of the book as a whole. Please feel free to substitute whatever section you wish. Again, I'll trust you to give it a fair reading.

Finally, by way of full disclosure, I am a Jew and in no way consider the New Testament as 'true' - whatever that might mean.

Even if you and the historian are of different religious backgrounds, that does not stop the historian from being biased.

You are committed to prejudging. There's a word for that. And you do so with remarkable condescension. There's a word for that as well.

L'shalom,
JS
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:11:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:36:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:28:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because Secular historians aren't bias in there accounts of history or the evidence.

If you are trying to be sarcastic, then you, my friend, are an idiot. I pointed out that the works of secular historians can be contaminated, just not as often as theologians.

No I think what's going on is if the history doesn't support your view then the author is bias. And you want secular historians to conclude that the writings have no basis in reality and are in no way historical accounts.

Not even close. If a historian is a theologian, they automatically have a religious bias to their work. That cannot be ignored, especially if their work is theological in nature.

But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives. To Deny this and not so many other works of the period would be bias. 2 different conclusions from similar provenance.

It is agreed upon by secular historians that none of the authors of the Gospels were eye-witnesses or had access to eye-witnesses of Jesus. They cannot be used to determine the life of Jesus.

I recognize that secular historians can come to different conclusions. I am okay with that. They might not even try using bias and still reach different conclusions. I am okay with that as well. You assume that I am not.

What I am not okay with is a theological historian being compared with a secular historian in terms of bias. A theological historian will automatically have some bias, a secular one might not. Because of that, secular historians are more reliable (in general). Now, if we go into specific historians, then we can analyze their works a little better when comparing them, and see which has more bias.

I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot either.

If I stated one thing, and you clearly ignored it and commented about it, then you are being a bit of an idiot. I said that secular historian's works could be contaminated, which you seemed to ignore to try and make a point that secular historians can be biased. That is idiotic, and so I pointed it out.

http://www.quora.com...

No contemporary accounts of Hannibal the General. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly a made up story to excite the moral of smaller countries battling the will and might of Rome. Stuff never happened. I mean common Elephants crossing the Alps?
http://www.nytimes.com...

Your distinction between secular historians and theological historians sounds much like a no true Scotsman fallacy. But here reading a review of a book advocating the Jesus Myth http://www.nobeliefs.com... We are told "The vast majority of biblical scholars, classical historians, and scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus once existed as a human being. Most of these scholars also think that Jesus mythicism theories have no merit or the authors of those theories have no scholarly qualifications or background information capable of establishing a workable theory."

Clearly there is bias because the same measures used to deny the existence of Jesus can be used to deny the existence of SOOOOO many other people in history.

The fact that you say, "Secular historian view, the Gospels are not reliable information for the life of Jesus." shows that you only want to read people that agree with your hope that Jesus didn't exist.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:36:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:32:37 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
You are committed to prejudging. There's a word for that. And you do so with remarkable condescension. There's a word for that as well.

L'shalom,
JS

Sorry if it sounds that way, but when talking about theological historians, I have yet to see a single one that does not have religious bias.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:22:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives.

What does this mean?

The arguments people put forward for a Jesus Myth, if they were being intellectual honest, would have to apply the same standard to other historical figures and conclude that a whole list of people from Socrates to Hannibal are myths as well.

But the consensus is Jesus was real, that the NT writings have value to discerning the timeline of events. Because the same process used to study the Roman state or Ancient Mongolia concludes in the historicity of Jesus.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:46:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:41:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:22:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives.

What does this mean?

The arguments people put forward for a Jesus Myth, if they were being intellectual honest, would have to apply the same standard to other historical figures and conclude that a whole list of people from Socrates to Hannibal are myths as well.

But the consensus is Jesus was real, that the NT writings have value to discerning the timeline of events.
What does it mean to say that "the NT writings have value to discerning the timeline of events"?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:48:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:33:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
http://www.quora.com...

No contemporary accounts of Hannibal the General. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contemporary accounts are not everything. It is best to have contemporary, they are the most reliable, but they are not required. So, strawman? I am calling strawman.

Clearly a made up story to excite the moral of smaller countries battling the will and might of Rome. Stuff never happened. I mean common Elephants crossing the Alps?
http://www.nytimes.com...

Maybe, maybe not. Anyways, this is a red herring.

Your distinction between secular historians and theological historians sounds much like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

No, it is not. Not even close. Someone who writes theologically is someone who writes religiously. They include, by definition, a religious bias.

But here reading a review of a book advocating the Jesus Myth http://www.nobeliefs.com... We are told "The vast majority of biblical scholars, classical historians, and scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus once existed as a human being. Most of these scholars also think that Jesus mythicism theories have no merit or the authors of those theories have no scholarly qualifications or background information capable of establishing a workable theory."

Except that there are three that are qualified:
1) Richard Carrier
2) Robert M. Price
3) Earl Doherty

Btw, I should have known that you were just attacking me for the position I have on this subject. If you wanted to debate it, that would be fine. Instead, you decide to act like a moron, criticize me (not in a positive way), etc.

Also, if you are not interested in the subject itself, then going along with the consensus is fine. If you are, then you should analyze the arguments for and against, look at the evidence, and then draw your conclusion.

Clearly there is bias because the same measures used to deny the existence of Jesus can be used to deny the existence of SOOOOO many other people in history.

Really now? Have you read the works of Richard Carrier? How does it deny the existence of "SOOOOOO many other people in history"?

The fact that you say, "Secular historian view, the Gospels are not reliable information for the life of Jesus." shows that you only want to read people that agree with your hope that Jesus didn't exist.

Once again, you are a moron. It is agreed upon that the Gospels cannot be used to find out about the life of Jesus (whether that be the life he lived, but reliable enough for existence OR not reliable enough to establish existence).

Also, you assume that I analyze the evidence looking for evidence that there wasn't a Jesus. To that, I once again call you an idiot. I came to the conclusion after looking at the arguments for and against, looking at the evidence, etc. I am actually going into Ancient Civilizations as a field of study so I constantly look at both sides.

Just because my conclusion isn't what you think it should be, you assume that I am biased in what I am looking for.

In fact, I have yet to see you make a post about science or history where you don't make bull**** comments. I haven't criticized you much for it. I have not simply made assumptions and pointed them out because of it. Yet, it looks like you decided to be an a**hole about it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:51:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:46:49 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:41:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:22:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/5/2015 3:48:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But the process by which ancient manuscripts and accounts are investigated concludes that the NT writings have value as historical perspectives.

What does this mean?

The arguments people put forward for a Jesus Myth, if they were being intellectual honest, would have to apply the same standard to other historical figures and conclude that a whole list of people from Socrates to Hannibal are myths as well.

But the consensus is Jesus was real, that the NT writings have value to discerning the timeline of events.
What does it mean to say that "the NT writings have value to discerning the timeline of events"?

That by using the New testaments gospels and accounts a chronological reconstruction can be made of the places, people, and times.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:41:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But the consensus is Jesus was real, "
The consensus is that there was an historical Jesus - nothing beyond that.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:53:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:51:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
That by using the New testaments gospels and accounts a chronological reconstruction can be made of the places, people, and times.

Absolute rubbish.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:56:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 4:48:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:33:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
http://www.quora.com...

No contemporary accounts of Hannibal the General. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contemporary accounts are not everything. It is best to have contemporary, they are the most reliable, but they are not required. So, strawman? I am calling strawman.

Clearly a made up story to excite the moral of smaller countries battling the will and might of Rome. Stuff never happened. I mean common Elephants crossing the Alps?
http://www.nytimes.com...

Maybe, maybe not. Anyways, this is a red herring.

Oh so God is like fairies, leprechauns and mermaids is not a red herring. But Jesus is like Hannibal or Socrates is. Oh you Atheist and your double standards.


Your distinction between secular historians and theological historians sounds much like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

No, it is not. Not even close. Someone who writes theologically is someone who writes religiously. They include, by definition, a religious bias.

But here reading a review of a book advocating the Jesus Myth http://www.nobeliefs.com... We are told "The vast majority of biblical scholars, classical historians, and scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus once existed as a human being. Most of these scholars also think that Jesus mythicism theories have no merit or the authors of those theories have no scholarly qualifications or background information capable of establishing a workable theory."

Except that there are three that are qualified:
1) Richard Carrier
2) Robert M. Price
3) Earl Doherty

Btw, I should have known that you were just attacking me for the position I have on this subject. If you wanted to debate it, that would be fine. Instead, you decide to act like a moron, criticize me (not in a positive way), etc.

Also, if you are not interested in the subject itself, then going along with the consensus is fine. If you are, then you should analyze the arguments for and against, look at the evidence, and then draw your conclusion.

Clearly there is bias because the same measures used to deny the existence of Jesus can be used to deny the existence of SOOOOO many other people in history.

Really now? Have you read the works of Richard Carrier? How does it deny the existence of "SOOOOOO many other people in history"?

The same techniques need only to be applied to the likes of Socrates or Hannibal now.


The fact that you say, "Secular historian view, the Gospels are not reliable information for the life of Jesus." shows that you only want to read people that agree with your hope that Jesus didn't exist.

Once again, you are a moron. It is agreed upon that the Gospels cannot be used to find out about the life of Jesus (whether that be the life he lived, but reliable enough for existence OR not reliable enough to establish existence).

Also, you assume that I analyze the evidence looking for evidence that there wasn't a Jesus. To that, I once again call you an idiot. I came to the conclusion after looking at the arguments for and against, looking at the evidence, etc. I am actually going into Ancient Civilizations as a field of study so I constantly look at both sides.

Just because my conclusion isn't what you think it should be, you assume that I am biased in what I am looking for.

In fact, I have yet to see you make a post about science or history where you don't make bull**** comments. I haven't criticized you much for it. I have not simply made assumptions and pointed them out because of it. Yet, it looks like you decided to be an a**hole about it.

Oh Please find the thread where I made a such horrendous remarks concerning science or history and reply to them. I challenge you to do so.