First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Who was Jesus Christ?
8353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/6/16 , edited 8/8/16

Shishiku wrote:

I put the note in Spoilers for people like you...with a Christian Scholar. Although the Evangelical community doesn't do scholarship lmao. The fact he is an atheist takes nothing away from his credibility as an academic or his ability to produce work as an academic. It still has to go through peer review publication if being published as an academic work - the fact you want to make personal beliefs an issue in an academic paper is what is pretentious lol.


It's one thing to say you don't like evangelical scholarship but to say they don't do scholarship is absurd. A good deal of historical New Testament research is done by Evangelicals/Protestants.
15811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/7/16
I don't know.

But what I do know is that he wasn't deemed the son of god until he died. Ironic don't you think?
249 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 8/7/16
I think he was a pretty cool dude who wanted to help people and make everyone love each other. I also think he would be pretty pissed if he knew what some people do in his name.
24488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

Shishiku wrote:

I put the note in Spoilers for people like you...with a Christian Scholar. Although the Evangelical community doesn't do scholarship lmao. The fact he is an atheist takes nothing away from his credibility as an academic or his ability to produce work as an academic. It still has to go through peer review publication if being published as an academic work - the fact you want to make personal beliefs an issue in an academic paper is what is pretentious lol.


You treat academics like gospel, no pun intended... Well maybe a little. That's not bad when it comes to maths and sciences. Not so for history. You can only use the evidence left behind (of which there is very little when it comes to Jesus) to base your ideas. You know modern day higher education institutions are increasingly secular. The two fellows you mentioned are both atheists. That does put things into context. Because it's a peer-vetted academic study doesn't mean it's free of bias. You would be a fool to believe that. Especially when you can gather up group of people with a similar school of thought and motivations. You can put all the emphasis on academics you want, doesn't change your intentions.

Just like Chritians see Jesus in rose-colored glasses the opposite is true for non-Christians. Like I said he's the most polarizing person to ever walk the Earth.
9138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/7/16
Can we discuss Muhammed next or will it get shut down instantly?
munruo 
99 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/7/16
This could be fun. Jesus is all of us. Originally, this word came from other words relating to yeesus hesus yes us and a bunch of other ways in which a lot of individuals used to answer cosmic questions about knowledge and our origins being the same. Every society, except those geared towards further figuring this stuff out, since the revelations of how to do this came out (literally the book of revelations shows this) has been rewriting their history after someone destroys it replacing all past books with rewritten simplified versions. The many times rewritten book of revelations and the gospels can show what blinding reduction of spiritual texts can happen when societies start simplifying everything so that those that call themselves authorities on a subject look better for not abiding by their own rules. This began way before the cave men era as the book of revelations shows (yes there is a cave man prophecy there that is highly neglected and not discussed in christianity), but back then it was all oral tradition and the temptation of man's desires to compromise knowledge for personal objectification and blinding materialism hadn't begun. Btw if you wanna break your mind and realize that all time is not the way mankind interprets it, then recognize that all matter can change form with perception and in each era reality appears different. This would also affect the decay rate of all to the extent there might not even be decay if circumstances are right; all of carbon dating is invalidated if you believe this. Me personally I am way past believing in this.
Now Jesus is 1 word of 2 that have become commonly used as Jesus Christ to summarize the commonly re-occurring figure of some individual that starts figuring stuff out to undo the babbling lies of a society already set to crumble. Sure, someone can also be born differently like the actual figure jesus in the current bible, but before that there were many other he's us jesus yesus figures that all had the same message, everyone can do it and it all began with a much earlier sacrifice way back when that was far before written tradition. To avoid temptation is achieving self-mastery, the folly of written tradition can obviously be seen when societies give into their temptation to interchanging words and overwrite much of history. No matter all the various ways this has already been happening, still priestly misguidances continue to reinterpret once real paths into simplified ways to tempt others into paths of subservience like the priests themselves, for the glory of their rotting leaders (even if they'll deny it)!
15959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/7/16

Xxanthar wrote:
Can we discuss Muhammed next or will it get shut down instantly?
less heard about it, the better (to some degree)

12352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

Iconodule wrote:

It's one thing to say you don't like evangelical scholarship but to say they don't do scholarship is absurd. A good deal of historical New Testament research is done by Evangelicals/Protestants.


I mean first...do you even know what an actual Biblical scholar even is lol? Most people would throw out your basic bitch authors like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel & those are simple authors, not scholars. Most people just go to church and believe what they are taught & have zero clue about the field of Criticism (Textual or Historical) - but within the academic community, Evangelicals have been put in the corner & are in a crisis.

http://defendinginerrancy.com/can-still-trust-critical-evangelical-scholars/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/10/if-they-only-knew-what-i-thought-the-sad-cycle-of-evangelical-biblical-scholarship/


http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=14

You seem to be unaware that Evangelicals are widely mocked & disregarded in the academic community of scholars, & apart from like, James Barr, few of them have been taken seriously...but yes, there are always exceptions that have worthy work to call scholarship. But that is why Evangelicals stick to their Seminaries vs Theological Universities in case you haven't quite figured that out lol. The most cited & respected Biblical Criticism & New Testament Scholars are typically Catholic, and the Academic consensus on various issues within the Biblical Scholarship is rejected or debated by most Evangelicals....Quick Example: the fact of the 13 letters Paul wrote - Biblical Scholarship has extensively shown only 7 of them are actually written by Paul, but because of the Inerrancy doctrine Evangelicals hold they reject the scholarship & hold that all 13 are still written by him.

So I guess if you want to call it scholarship lol. Most Evangelical Scholarship is also put out by Evangelical Journals, backed by various Seminaries which are also largely Evangelical - largely because other Theological Journals won't publish most applicants because of methodologies. The Association of Theological Schools reported 251 member schools in the United States and Canada in 2005. (In the U.S., there were 215.) The vast majority of those schools are accredited. Others are working toward accreditation. Of those schools, 141 were Protestant, 53 were non-denominational or inter-denominational, 54 were Roman Catholic, and three were Orthodox Christian. Enrollment in all 251 member schools was 81,302 in 2005. It comes down to the Evangelical approach to Biblical Criticism with holding the Bible as Inerrant which makes them less worried about Biblical Criticism and Linguistic Analysis & more concerned about theological exegesis - meaning it is usually not academic.

Basically as Academic integrity became a big thing by the early 20th century, Biblical criticism shifted drastically out of the Evangelical favor because no one was holding the idea that the Bible couldn't have flaws as they did their examinations. So as objectivity has become more prevalent traditional fundamentalism has been dying.

You should read and be familiar with the following below, at minimum, before even trying to comprehend the field of Biblical scholarship & Jesus...because you won't have any genuine understanding of the field or subject until then lol.


12352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

MysticGon wrote:

You treat academics like gospel, no pun intended... Well maybe a little. That's not bad when it comes to maths and sciences. Not so for history. You can only use the evidence left behind (of which there is very little when it comes to Jesus) to base your ideas. You know modern day higher education institutions are increasingly secular. The two fellows you mentioned are both atheists. That does put things into context. Because it's a peer-vetted academic study doesn't mean it's free of bias. You would be a fool to believe that. Especially when you can gather up group of people with a similar school of thought and motivations. You can put all the emphasis on academics you want, doesn't change your intentions.

Just like Chritians see Jesus in rose-colored glasses the opposite is true for non-Christians. Like I said he's the most polarizing person to ever walk the Earth.


I share your criticism and concern of historical textual analysis; I actually just posted a small list that details the methodological and textual issues of Biblical scholarships. But an academic scholar is going to have so much more information because of the level of study, the resources for studying, and the connection and collaboration with other experts (because Biblical criticism is almost always a collaboration of different fields because it has become so specialized) that you can trust the consensus generally. & there is held consensus on topics sooo...

But to your point of bias, if you have any understanding of peer review literature, you know that an author shares their potential bias. Besides, if you are literate you can see when the author's bias comes through - but most Biblical authors actually do a decent job at listing their potential influences. Most importantly - you must be a fool to in one hand want to say that because someone is an atheist that their academic work is biased...you do comprehend that if you want to make a bias argument that the Christian that has dependent beliefs is more likely to be biased. That's actually why Bart Ehrman is so cited, his work is obejctive because he doesn't have specific theological beliefs guiding his exegesis....I mean this is really pretty simple to grasp man.

Bart Ehrman turned atheist after he became a Biblical scholar lol (like Richard Price) - but either way Bart Erhman is literally one of the most cited scholars in the field. That matters. His beliefs don't. If anything the fact he can change his belief attests to his objectivity, not a bias. But anyways - if you want to be a pain in the ass about it.... Go to Dale Allison, Dennis MacDonald, Gerd Theissen, Richard Hays, or Robert Van Voorst....All excellent Christian scholars, all highly cited.

Next?
24488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

Shishiku wrote:

I mean first...do you even know what an actual Biblical scholar even is lol? Most people would throw out your basic bitch authors like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel & those are simple authors, not scholars. Most people just go to church and believe what they are taught & have zero clue about the field of Criticism (Textual or Historical) - but within the academic community, Evangelicals have been put in the corner & are in a crisis.

http://defendinginerrancy.com/can-still-trust-critical-evangelical-scholars/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/10/if-they-only-knew-what-i-thought-the-sad-cycle-of-evangelical-biblical-scholarship/


http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=14

You seem to be unaware that Evangelicals are widely mocked & disregarded in the academic community of scholars, & apart from like, James Barr, few of them have been taken seriously...but yes, there are always exceptions that have worthy work to call scholarship. But that is why Evangelicals stick to their Seminaries vs Theological Universities in case you haven't quite figured that out lol. The most cited & respected Biblical Criticism & New Testament Scholars are typically Catholic, and the Academic consensus on various issues within the Biblical Scholarship is rejected or debated by most Evangelicals....Quick Example: the fact of the 13 letters Paul wrote - Biblical Scholarship has extensively shown only 7 of them are actually written by Paul, but because of the Inerrancy doctrine Evangelicals hold they reject the scholarship & hold that all 13 are still written by him.

So I guess if you want to call it scholarship lol. Most Evangelical Scholarship is also put out by Evangelical Journals, backed by various Seminaries which are also largely Evangelical - largely because other Theological Journals won't publish most applicants because of methodologies. The Association of Theological Schools reported 251 member schools in the United States and Canada in 2005. (In the U.S., there were 215.) The vast majority of those schools are accredited. Others are working toward accreditation. Of those schools, 141 were Protestant, 53 were non-denominational or inter-denominational, 54 were Roman Catholic, and three were Orthodox Christian. Enrollment in all 251 member schools was 81,302 in 2005. It comes down to the Evangelical approach to Biblical Criticism with holding the Bible as Inerrant which makes them less worried about Biblical Criticism and Linguistic Analysis & more concerned about theological exegesis - meaning it is usually not academic.

Basically as Academic integrity became a big thing by the early 20th century, Biblical criticism shifted drastically out of the Evangelical favor because no one was holding the idea that the Bible couldn't have flaws as they did their examinations. So as objectivity has become more prevalent traditional fundamentalism has been dying.

You should read and be familiar with the following below, at minimum, before even trying to comprehend the field of Biblical scholarship & Jesus...because you won't have any genuine understanding of the field or subject until then lol.



Egad, someone's triggered. Everyone is basing their argument around texts that are clearly subjective, yet for you it seems to be objective fact... Chill out, it's history.


Shishiku wrote:

I share your criticism and concern of historical textual analysis; I actually just posted a small list that details the methodological and textual issues of Biblical scholarships. But an academic scholar is going to have so much more information because of the level of study, the resources for studying, and the connection and collaboration with other experts (because Biblical criticism is almost always a collaboration of different fields because it has become so specialized) that you can trust the consensus generally. & there is held consensus on topics sooo...

But to your point of bias, if you have any understanding of peer review literature, you know that an author shares their potential bias. Besides, if you are literate you can see when the author's bias comes through - but most Biblical authors actually do a decent job at listing their potential influences. Most importantly - you must be a fool to in one hand want to say that because someone is an atheist that their academic work is biased...you do comprehend that if you want to make a bias argument that the Christian that has dependent beliefs is more likely to be biased. That's actually why Bart Ehrman is so cited, his work is obejctive because he doesn't have specific theological beliefs guiding his exegesis....I mean this is really pretty simple to grasp man.

Bart Ehrman turned atheist after he became a Biblical scholar lol (like Richard Price) - but either way Bart Erhman is literally one of the most cited scholars in the field. That matters. His beliefs don't. If anything the fact he can change his belief attests to his objectivity, not a bias. Duh...but anyways - if you want to be a pain in the ass about it.... Go to Dale Allison, Dennis MacDonald, Gerd Theissen, Richard Hays, or Robert Van Voorst....All excellent Christian scholars, all highly cited.

Next?


I guess my above post applies to this as well. But yeah both sides are biased, it comes with your subject. It's impossible to be objective with the lack of information. You can roughly work out where and when Jesus was born and where and when he died. What he talked about and which religion he was apart of. But past that it's like piecing together a 2,000 year old mystery. Whatever evidence you come across is open to interpretation and a consensus is formed when you have enough people buy into your ideas. It's not rocket science...
12352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

MysticGon wrote:

Egad, someone's triggered. Everyone is basing their argument around texts that are clearly subjective, yet for you it seems to be objective fact... Chill out, it's history.

...

I guess my above post applies to this as well. But yeah both sides are biased, it comes with your subject. It's impossible to be objective with the lack of information. You can roughly work out where and when Jesus was born and where and when he died. What he talked about and which religion he was apart of. But past that it's like piecing together a 2,000 year old mystery. Whatever evidence you come across is open to interpretation and a consensus is formed when you have enough people buy into your ideas. It's not rocket science...


Seriously, name me the books that you have read man? If it isn't over 5 I don't know why you are talking. Everything is not biased, everything does not have an agenda, and while influences exist, most cited academics recognize it & proactively scrutinize their positions to remain as objective as possible. You're like a conspiracy theorist...you have no real argument so you just perpetuate bias to make one up lol.

First, the above scholars hold various positions, as that list is diverse in denominational background, especially in the more specific areas of theological exegesis; however, again, there is consensus on various theological areas as well. If you had any sort of prior reading "You can roughly work out where & when Jesus was born..etc" - you would understand how laughably wrong that statement is...regardless of what denomination you are..but as I said when I opened my statement; most people just go to their church and have never read an academic paper within the field of Biblical criticism...aka they are total basic bitches in faith.


I gave Dr Carrier because out of all of my readings, which is quite extensive, his has honestly been the most convincing. I do think his reliance on Bayesian theory is over stated by him, but it does have its strong points in historical analysis. That was the point - but as far as subjectivity...the last posted list was absolutely not. That will give you a well rounded understanding of the common beliefs and the various positions and the methodological backgrounds & the issues that you need to be aware of.

8353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

Shishiku wrote:

I mean first...do you even know what an actual Biblical scholar even is lol? Most people would throw out your basic bitch authors like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel & those are simple authors, not scholars. Most people just go to church and believe what they are taught & have zero clue about the field of Criticism (Textual or Historical) - but within the academic community, Evangelicals have been put in the corner & are in a crisis.

http://defendinginerrancy.com/can-still-trust-critical-evangelical-scholars/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/10/if-they-only-knew-what-i-thought-the-sad-cycle-of-evangelical-biblical-scholarship/


http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=14

You seem to be unaware that Evangelicals are widely mocked & disregarded in the academic community of scholars, & apart from like, James Barr, few of them have been taken seriously...but yes, there are always exceptions that have worthy work to call scholarship. But that is why Evangelicals stick to their Seminaries vs Theological Universities in case you haven't quite figured that out lol. The most cited & respected Biblical Criticism & New Testament Scholars are typically Catholic, and the Academic consensus on various issues within the Biblical Scholarship is rejected or debated by most Evangelicals....Quick Example: the fact of the 13 letters Paul wrote - Biblical Scholarship has extensively shown only 7 of them are actually written by Paul, but because of the Inerrancy doctrine Evangelicals hold they reject the scholarship & hold that all 13 are still written by him.

So I guess if you want to call it scholarship lol. Most Evangelical Scholarship is also put out by Evangelical Journals, backed by various Seminaries which are also largely Evangelical - largely because other Theological Journals won't publish most applicants because of methodologies. The Association of Theological Schools reported 251 member schools in the United States and Canada in 2005. (In the U.S., there were 215.) The vast majority of those schools are accredited. Others are working toward accreditation. Of those schools, 141 were Protestant, 53 were non-denominational or inter-denominational, 54 were Roman Catholic, and three were Orthodox Christian. Enrollment in all 251 member schools was 81,302 in 2005. It comes down to the Evangelical approach to Biblical Criticism with holding the Bible as Inerrant which makes them less worried about Biblical Criticism and Linguistic Analysis & more concerned about theological exegesis - meaning it is usually not academic.

Basically as Academic integrity became a big thing by the early 20th century, Biblical criticism shifted drastically out of the Evangelical favor because no one was holding the idea that the Bible couldn't have flaws as they did their examinations. So as objectivity has become more prevalent traditional fundamentalism has been dying.

You should read and be familiar with the following below, at minimum, before even trying to comprehend the field of Biblical scholarship & Jesus...because you won't have any genuine understanding of the field or subject until then lol.





There are things I could say about this post that I will refrain from saying. You are wrong regardless. Namely in the presumption that Evangelical/Protestants have contributed nothing to New Testament research, are bunch of ignorant fundamentalists who cannot treat the texts of the bible as a historical document. I didn't have in mind people like Lee Strobel, though I don't just dismiss them because they write to a popular audience instead of an academic audience.

The bible is approached from various perspectives none of which are free of bias. NT Wright makes this point in his Christian Origins series that we all strive for objectivity and fail to reach it. This doesn't negate our respective viewpoints, be that skeptical or accepting of the New Testament. Rather it makes us aware that we are not infallible, that we could be wrong, which is a good stance to engage anything from.

I am an Orthodox Christian and you might think I totally reject the work of evangelical scholars because they come at it from a different perspective, yet I don't, like I don't necessarily reject the work of skeptical scholars like Bart Erhman, though obviously we would both dissagree on the conclusions. Besides from the three authors you quoted on the evangelical side have you at all dealt with the more critical side of Evangelical/PRotestant perspectives on the Bible or Theology?

Some of the people I have in mind include:

David A DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament (Hardly a work which ignores all challenges posed by modern critics to the bible and gives a good introduction to critical issues surrounding the understanding of the New Testament within it's context and it's reliability) but it also approaches from the perspective of faith, balancing the two.

Or what about more in depth and involved commentaries on the New Testament like the International commentary to the New Testament series, with scholars like Gareth Lee Cockerill, Gordon D Fee (a Pentacostal of all things!) and others? Gordon D Fee I found particularly helpful into my understanding of Galatians, with it's precise detail as to grammar of the Greek and basic place that Galatians has had in the church throughout history.

What about conservatives like N.T Wright who clearly espouse an orthodox Christianity and believe in the reliability of the bible and actually have engaged with critical scholarship? Granted he is not evangelical and belongs to the Anglican tradition but he has found a good deal of acceptance among Evangelical/Protestant/Catholic scholars and thinkers.

You seem to confuse lay level theologising as equivalent to the work of historical critical approaches to the New Testament done by Protestant scholars. Naturally the skeptic atheist who approaches the text is going to approach it differently but that doesn't make their understanding automatically correct. To me that is like saying a scholar of my own tradition, say Fr John Behr apprehends the theology of the Orthodox Church like a lay person might (completely unchanged since Jesus and the apostles), his book series the Way to Nicaea and the Nicene faith demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about concerning the development of Christian understanding of the bible that lead to the faith we see at the council NIcaea.

One of my own lecturers refers to Marcus Borg as a scholar he likes and he attends a traditional Samoan Church. Marcus Borg is hardly an orthodox (in the general sense of that word) Christian.

I'll admit I haven't read any of the authors you have cited though I will probably get around to them. My only argument is that skeptical critics do not have the final authority on the New Testament, it's reliability and what it means. Now I would ask you, have you read of the works I have listed? Have you read beyond the popular level the works of Protestant scholars?


17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 8/7/16
To sum it up in short:

A miracle making alcoholic and a carpenter.
11234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 8/7/16
I share a concern with you then, Shishiku. People consistently accuse transgender studies which support current claims of being biased to the point that they deny the whole field validity.
12352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/7/16 , edited 8/8/16

Iconodule wrote:

There are things I could say about this post that I will refrain from saying. You are wrong regardless. Namely in the presumption that Evangelical/Protestants have contributed nothing to New Testament research, are bunch of ignorant fundamentalists who cannot treat the texts of the bible as a historical document. I didn't have in mind people like Lee Strobel, though I don't just dismiss them because they write to a popular audience instead of an academic audience.
...

You seem to confuse lay level theologising as equivalent to the work of historical critical approaches to the New Testament done by Protestant scholars. Naturally the skeptic atheist who approaches the text is going to approach it differently but that doesn't make their understanding automatically correct. To me that is like saying a scholar of my own tradition, say Fr John Behr apprehends the theology of the Orthodox Church like a lay person might (completely unchanged since Jesus and the apostles), his book series the Way to Nicaea and the Nicene faith demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about concerning the development of Christian understanding of the bible that lead to the faith we see at the council NIcaea.

One of my own lecturers refers to Marcus Borg as a scholar he likes and he attends a traditional Samoan Church. Marcus Borg is hardly an orthodox (in the general sense of that word) Christian.

I'll admit I haven't read any of the authors you have cited though I will probably get around to them. My only argument is that skeptical critics do not have the final authority on the New Testament, it's reliability and what it means. Now I would ask you, have you read of the works I have listed? Have you read beyond the popular level the works of Protestant scholars?



There are things I could say about this post that I will refrain from saying. You are wrong regardless. Namely in the presumption that Evangelical/Protestants have contributed nothing to New Testament research, are bunch of ignorant fundamentalists who cannot treat the texts of the bible as a historical document. I didn't have in mind people like Lee Strobel, though I don't just dismiss them because they write to a popular audience instead of an academic audience.

I didn't state that they had contributed nothing, and I listed James Barr, who is one of my personal more respected Evangelical scholars that was actually respected by most academics. I have no quarrel that Evangelicals made contributions - and I am not lumping Protestants as a whole with Evangelicals because they are separate - but as far as the 20th century forward in terms of comparative scholars that shaped the Biblical research community overall?...Come on.

Look, I was being blunt that I don't want to deal with the average idiot who sits in a pew and does nothing because I don't feel like wasting time. So sorry for treating you like your average joe dumb dumb....you clearly have done off hand reading & I respect that, even if we do share different conclusions.

I already went over bias in other posts - but in short. Just because bias exists doesn't mean you discredit the whole argument or piece. You maintain skepticism and critical approach when you read it and you recognize bias when it exists. Agreed?

& I am generalizing in my rejection. I have read most of David de Silva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture....I enjoyed what I read even though there were definitely theological inferences in parts of his analysis, but he is a well respected academic in his own right & I absolutely credit that. As far as others, isn't Richard Hays from Duke Divinity Methodist? - I read his commentary on Galatians and have read a lot of various articles he has published. I know who NT Wright is, wanker haha. & I am familiar with Darrel Bock, although I have not read any of his books. I haven't read as many Evangelical books, I don't like dedicating the time to that for them lol. I will read a short article on something to get a perspective, but I was raised Evangelical for 14 years so I usually have a pretty good exegesis & just need to see their critical reasoning/evidence.

& Okay so we have disagreement - how can you say you are trying to perform a textual criticism if you are purely doing so out of Theological motivation? That is why I think Carrier's importance as a historian is worth touting...the fact he is an atheist is just a plus. & Carrier has had strange religious beliefs before - but again, i don't care what he has personally believed - he cites his sources like a mad man and his writings are thorough so if it is easy to track where he is pulling information. But I do agree that just because you have theological beliefs that your work is not automatically void - what I was stating was that if you are maintaining that the bible is inerrant THEN your theological approach will NEVER yield anything but subjective piles of doo doo.

I am sorry, I am unfamiliar with Marcus Bogg. Seriously though, if you want my recommendation on the book to read, give Dr Carrier's book a chance - it is a two book, one over Bayesian approach in historical analysis, the second that is the main academic piece. Ehrman also has criticisms on it, I am currently working my way through that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.