Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I think what drove me to this understanding was reading LeDonne's insipid analysis of Jesus entry into Jerusalem as "a meeting of kings." Uggh! It never fucking happened!!!! All these comments that followed taking for granted this "had to be" historical. I can excuse ignorant illiterates but men of letters?

Stephan Huller wrote:All these comments that followed taking for granted this "had to be" historical.

Jesus was riding on a donkey and a colt at the same time. Nobody would invent any detail like that .

Stephan Huller wrote:- it's not just the biggest lie in history

...

It already is the biggest lie in history. Biblical Jesus IS NOT historical jesus.

History already shows the character is mythological. But the faithful will never believe the truth.


So adding a little more lie to the whole picture changes nothing. Turn historical Jesus into mythical Jesus, will never change BIBLICAL Jesus.

Stephan Huller wrote:I think what drove me to this understanding was reading LeDonne's insipid analysis of Jesus entry into Jerusalem as "a meeting of kings." Uggh! It never fucking happened!!!!

I agree.

I have had short arguments with him over his over use of historicity. Good luck with that.

The Crow wrote: . Frankly the entire jesus lived or not debate is a farce.
.

So you agree he was historical and the argument is inane?

OR

You have developed a replacement hypothesis that explains how they created a mythical character that explains the evidence we have?

Stephan Huller wrote:I just think being a "professional" scholars depends on maintaining a "profession" viz. something worthy of being studied. I think there is an unconscious conspiracy in favor of a "real" Jesus because it means professionals have a "real" field of study (as opposed to being professional Ghostbusters, para-psychologists, body language analysts, dream interpreters, astrologists, telekinesis etc)

Agreed.

But only if you kept it in light of apologetically biased scholars we all know about.


If your attacking all scholars, your doing so ignorantly.

Scholars, its about describing the past with credibility. If you or anyone here does not like the current state of studies, then get off your lazy asses and create some HISTORY that explains the evidence better then a martyred Aramaic Galilean at Passover in front of half a million people that generated mythology and theology found important by Hellenist and Proselytes who long wanted to divorce cultural Judaism.

So far all the brightest minds have failed miserably.

But this what McGrath and others do and I think it is a false comparison - i.e. 'on the one hand there are creationists and apologists and on the other radical atheists and mythicists, we the serious scholars are in the middle.'

I think it comes down to the fact that science can't work well unless the researchers have no vested interested in the results. I think that we see this with the documentaries on the air this season. I think there was a conscious rethink about the 'extremes' that people like Simcha were taking the media platform so they decided let's limit ourselves to the 'facts.' So we have 'finding Jesus, killing Jesus, A.D' etc This is the best that Goodacre, Moss etc can put forward. But it's not an accident that these are the 'stars' in the business of scholarship. The ones who get paid the most. I think that in a backhanded way they are actively engaged in promoting the idea that what it is that they get paid for is a knowable 'real' commodity. Not just for themselves but for the good of the 'community' as it were.

But is 'the Bible' a knowable 'real' commodity or have we just spent 2000 years reinforcing that illusion because it is useful for our collective well being?

Are Goodacre, Moss etc actively promoting the Bible as a knowable commodity strictly because the evidence led them to that conclusion or - unconsciously at least - their entire world (= paycheck) and those of others depend on that understanding?

Stephan Huller wrote: So we have 'finding Jesus, killing Jesus, A.D' etc This is the best that Goodacre, Moss etc can put forward.

Dude! that was a pathetic quote mined apologetic debacle.

So worthless, and so pandering to the popular belief in the USA.


Many great series on the past were based on credible history and the nature of current studies. This was just sad.


I don't blame the scholars for wanting to get paid, it s not like it was there view that was being promoted. The producer hacked their comments up to death to promote his apologetic nonsense.

Stephan Huller wrote:have we just spent 2000 years reinforcing that illusion because it is useful for our collective well being?

Of course they are reinforcing the illusion.

Historical Jesus is not even accepted at this point in time by most, OUTSIDE the context of biblical Jesus.

Indeed let's assume that Goodacre makes a six figure salary. Do they pay para-psychology, shamanistic studies, interpretative dance professors six figure salaries? The minute you 'degrade' the Bible into a collections of myths and delusions those teaching what would then be 'garbage studies' would get 'garbage studies' salaries, positions would be slashed in universities (especially in overtly religious population areas of the country). Again I am not saying this is consciously done but I know a few people who have decided to become 'professional Bible scholars' almost none of them are mythicists. Is that a coincidence?

Does mythicism lend itself to be taken seriously enough that someone would foresee a great career prospect in his line of work? I can't even imagine that young man or woman saying to their parents - 'Father, mother I've decided to spend ten years of my life getting the right to instruct others about a book and a religious tradition that I have determined is completely worthless. I want you to help fund that enterprise. I see it have great potential for me moving out of this house, getting married and settling down with children.' Not.