Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan Huller wrote: I think it comes down to the fact that science can't work well unless the researchers have no vested interested in the results.

That is fact.


I don't think my opinion should be considered minimal, to me its the truth. To scholars as a whole, I don't attribute enough historicity. At this website I attribute to much. At the other website I hang at I attribute to little.

Apologetics need to be thrown out as credible history to tip the scales in favor of reality.


If we cannot do that, were not going to get closer to having the truth represented here.

Just as the athletes who 'make it' take being their sport 'seriously' - i.e. believe in the value of football or basketball as an enterprise - I think Biblical studies is necessarily dominated by those who think that all that has been written about Christianity is worth something. The 'fact' that Jesus was a human being and the gospel and New Testament texts were about something 'real' is front and center in all of these studies. This doesn't mean any of it is true or that you are forced to believe in Jesus's historical nature but for crying out loud - there is a massive wall blocking anyone who thinks 'it's all a waste of time' from pursuing this as a field of study too.

As a result the fact that there is 'near unanimity' among Biblical scholars that Jesus existed doesn't mean much. It's like finding out that there is near unanimity among fat people that going to restaurants is important or 'unanimity' among bird watchers that we should do more for to protect the environment.

Stephan Huller wrote: - '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.


.

The problem is most people are still stuck on illusion and mythology as being real. MOST people find great value and hope and promise and a light at the end of the tunnel following the mythology.

Right or wrong. It is theology.


I understand what your getting at. Your aware, But I think your two steps ahead of the current reality.

Stephan Huller wrote:As a result the fact that there is 'near unanimity' among Biblical scholars that Jesus existed doesn't mean much. .

True.

The fact mythcist cannot explain the scraps of poor evidence we do have, is why Jesus remains historical.

But that's not the point of this thread. My point is that it works both ways but people (scholars) tend not to see it. My father was a little like that. He was German from a previous generation so everything had to be practical. It wasn't like he could have been this gay interior designer and then he just 'decided' that it was better to have a Spartan household. He couldn't help himself. His nature led him to build our downstairs basement on our own ('why pay someone when you can do it yourself'). So I remember having to do all this tile work and none of us had ever done something like this and it looked like a pile of shit (or at least compared with a professional). It wasn't bad but in the end he would always mutter (in similar situations not necessarily with the downstairs bathroom) that there was no real difference between this shitty tiling effort and a professional job. And I would argue with him all the time. Not because I want to shame him but just to see if it was possible for him to admit - no this looks like shit compared to a professional job, but it's what I want anyway. No, he was controlled by his presuppositions.

And it's the same thing with Biblical scholars. It's not like everyone of them can think objectively about the possibility that what they have spent their life studying MIGHT be full of shit. Why? Because they are in too deep. It's why the gangs often make members murder someone as an initiation test.

It's like when you're in a village in some remote part of Africa and you see a white person (and you're white). If I was walking down the street in America I never spend much time thinking 'I am white.' But in a remote village in Africa with everyone speaking a weird language I only half understand and there all these roosters running around and then all of sudden you see a white American or French person walking along the street - I am white, I am American or whatever. But how many times do Biblical scholars ever face up to that kind of situation where their inherent biases are laid out like that? Never.

Stephan Huller wrote:But that's not the point of this thread. My point is that it works both ways but people (scholars) tend not to see it. My father was a little like that. .

Understood. I see a pattern of over attributing historicity by most non apologetic scholars. And in different areas.


I just think it is a fallacy for anyone to complain or inject into this argument, the current state of Jesus historicity. Until there is a reasonable case for his lack of it.


I cannot fault the current state of studies "if" they seem to be right.

I don't understand what you mean.