Christ not destructive says Animated Dirt

[Gawen]

The aforementioned authors are pretty much apologists each with their own spin. Some agree with the others, some don't. I won't go into all of them, but here's a couple
Margaret Barker - a Methodist minister. Developer of Temple Theology, an example - When a man enters the Holy of the Holies it becomes a mystical experience that transforms the man into an angel. This idea is allegedly related to the Resurrection. No bias here.

It's always easy after the Jesus mythicist destroys a certain argument for historicity to say certain arguments aren't the best arguments for a historical Jesus. When scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan (Crossan claims the resurrection did not literally occur) wave a dismissive hand and declare it's not necessary to take those arguments out of the closet, maybe all that closet contains are the emperor's old clothes. In my opinion this is liberal apologetics that seem to say we are so lucky when we read Paul critically he's actually a feminist and environmentalist. And by the way, Jesus was actually a liberal.

Crossan and Richard Horsley, among others, assert that Jesus led a covenant renewal movement. Crossan is the most prominent exponent of a noneschatological Jesus today. In 1973 he wrote that the scholarly consensus that Jesus' message was "apocalyptic eschatology" had become "extremely problematic."- The Continuum history of apocalypticism
It amazes me that all of them have two things in common. Jesus was real and they are satisfied to rewrite history that doesn't exist.

Robert Price, however, already resides in my library.

[Achronos]

Shouldn't the real point be that if orthodox christianity was the one true religion shouldn't there be no other denominations?

It depends on who you ask. Since I'm not trying to convince you, or anybody else that the Orthodox Church is "the one true Church" it means nothing to me. I just do not care. I only cared about you arguing straw men, and holding others to a standard in debate you were not holding yourself to. Since you're the atheist, I figured I'd have better luck pointing that out to you, than I would a Christian who thinks every word of the Bible is “god breathed”...(which BTW is NOT a doctrine of the Orthodox Church, so why so many Orthodox Christians demand this of themselves is beyond me)

What you are suggesting is what my dad says actually, "there should only be ONE Church" no others should exist...etc. I respect that POV, and it does make some sense, but then OTH who says that's how things should be? Where do we get the idea that “truth” is designated by the fact no other opinions should exist? Isn't this really just wishful thinking on our part that the world be a lot easier than it actually is? Isn't this just a way for us to say, “we wish truth, if it exists, was so plain it required no thinking on our part?” There is something to the idea that if God founded a religion, wouldn't it in fact be the only one, then again, who says? Different religions teach different things about this. And different Churches teach different things about this as well.

Generally speaking the existence of many ideas on a particular subject does not mean the the subject at hand doesn't have a single truth.  Evolution is true, yet there are sorts of other "theories" out there....the various other “ideas” does not mean there isn't a truth about the origins of life. The multiplicity of ideas/religions/philosophies says nothing about the truth of one or many. You seem to think because there are thousands of denominations that, well that means none can be true. But why? One could very well be true! With evolution one theory is in fact true despite all the other BS out there. A multiplicity of religions says nothing about whether one is or is not true, it only says there are a  bunch claiming to be true, as then of course not all religions claim to be "the only true" religion either.

Can you point out a few denominations of christianity that do not make the claim that they're the only one that's right?

Uh, yeah, most of Anglicanism for starters. Most Quakers also do not claim theirs is the only "right way" to God. Methodists as well. Also liberal Mennonites, and technically Orthodox Christianity which even though says it is the one true Church, does not say all non Christians are going to hell. Of course EVERY human group has some faction that says “this is not only the best way to live for us, it is the only way to live for us and for you too!” That is true of people of all beliefs, none beliefs and all the rest. There are atheists determined to make other people atheists simply because they think they have “found the one truth” and demand everyone else must adhere to this “one truth” as well. So while it is true one can find a Quaker here or there who has taught “only quakers go to heaven” these people are exceptions to the rule.

Could someone who's bored and has some time on their hands maybe put up a page or two of quotes from him where he defends his belief in god and the orthodox church?

Huh?  You want me to go get someone to dig up my old posts? Huh? Second why would I need to “defend my belief in God?” I have no desire to defend it. This may seem like a contradtiction because right now you'll see TheJackel and myself go back and forth on the very "existence" of God, the discussion deeply intrigues me (from a scientific response rather than a philosophical one he asserts). However I guess I should be past the point where I need to defend what I say or believe, or think or feel to people I do not know.  It's just not of interest to me to “defend” myself. Like Bob Price, I'll defend the Bible if I feel it is being used unfairely as a whipping boy by some skeptic, but I'm not defending religion, or my faith, or God. I just do not care. If there is a God he doesn't need me defending him.

It should be obvious that we focus on the bible because it's relevant in our time, when was the last time you met a follower of zoroastrianism? they don't need to be debunked because they're not the ones knocking on doors, shoving bibles in faces, protesting at abortion clinics, or trying to run for public office so they can legislate their morality.

With the exception of Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, where and when has the Orthodox Church been shoving bibles and “Christian morality” in people's faces? You're lumping all followers of Christianity into one giant pot, not distinguishing one group from another. Look I too am sick and tired of the Christian right bible thumping, trying to legislate against gay marriage, and all the rest; but do you really think that coming to an Orthodox Christian, a Church which has almost nothing to do with American politics (save for the few Greeks who want Greek Independence day to be an AMERICAN holiday (absurd, I know...LOL!) and then to argue “Christianity” in such broad generalities as you have is the best way of stopping Sarah Palin or some Tea Partiers from taking over the country? I just don't see it.

Farscape fan?

Haha it's one of my favorite sci-fi shows of all time!

The aforementioned authors are pretty much apologists each with their own spin. Some agree with the others, some don't. I won't go into all of them, but here's a couple

Uhhh, you  think Raymond Brown, Margaret Barker and Raphael Patai are apologists? Holy Moley!! I just can't say anything more about that. Wow!!!! No offense, have you even READ these people? If you think these people are apologists then I think our conversation is over because, OMG...that's like like claiming Bob Jones is an apologist for the Catholic Church....outrageous!

Margaret Barker - a Methodist minister. Developer of Temple Theology, an example - When a man enters the Holy of the Holies it becomes a mystical experience that transforms the man into an angel. This idea is allegedly related to the Resurrection. No bias here.

You are aware that people are capable of talking about religious beliefs, studying them, and expressing what the people believed about their own religious experience and yet not actually believing it themselves, right? Anthropologists do it all the time! You don't really believe they too believe it when they expound upon the religious beliefs of some African tribe, do you? I sure hope not.

And besides, what does the fact that Barker is a minister have to do with anything? Are you saying only atheists can be real biblical scholars? If that's the case then why are so many atheists so utterly ignorant of the Bible to begin with? (yeah they might know more than the pew potatoes, but they no nothing compared to people like Barker)

Are you dismissive of her scholarly work based on it's weaknesses, or because she is a Methodist?

She also says the Old Testament is full of polytheism and goes to great lengths to prove this, do you think this means she must be a polytheist too? Man, if you think Barker is an apologist, then you must think Crossan is an orthodox Christian.

It's always easy after the Jesus mythicist destroys a certain argument for historicity to say certain arguments aren't the best arguments for a historical Jesus. When scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan (Crossan claims the resurrection did not literally occur) wave a dismissive hand and declare it's not necessary to take those arguments out of the closet, maybe all that closet contains are the emperor's old clothes. In my opinion this is liberal apologetics that seem to say we are so lucky when we read Paul critically he's actually a feminist and environmentalist. And by the way, Jesus was actually a liberal.

I see you're trying to channel Price's argument that even the Jesus seminar fellows are “apologists”, but your'e doing a poor job of it actually because you're taking him out of context. While Price and Doughty and others certainly are mythicists, they do not “believe” Jesus was a myth. I'm sorry, those are his own words, just listen to his Jan 3rd podcast. (maybe the 2nd?) In some sense Price is correct, Crossan and others are “apologists” for a historical Jesus who just happens to be exactly what they want him to be. Um,  Schweitzer said the same thing long ago. However which subject are we discussing here? Are we discussing the Bible or the historical Jesus? You seem to want to change subjects, which is fine but be honest about what you're doing. Crossan, Borg and some of these guys are “apologists” for a Jesus that looks like their reflection, but they are NOT religious apologists, and if you think they are then just go ask a Fundamentalist Christian what they think of Crossan. (or ask the Pope)  Crossan's scholarship is so brilliant that Price even once said, “compared to Crossan I can barely write my own name!” You're being dismissive of some of these guys and gals because you don't like that they hold to some sort of theistic belief, but what do you do with Raymond Brown then? A Catholic, in good standing but who obliterated the Virgin birth stories and the showed how the Gospel of John was formed in layers upon layers and filled with Gnostic, docetic and paged together from various sources. For crying out loud his work lead to his student writing a book “the Illigetimacy of Jesus”...I suppose you reject his work to then, huh? Funny, Price, Avalos and Carrier don't. Are you more qualified than they are?

One needs to judge one's scholarship and Biblical criticism based on the work alone, not based on the person's personal philosophy. Do you reject brown's work because he still was a faithful Catholic in good standing? If you do you're not being a very good “rationalist” at all but are allowing emotions to determine what you see as true and untrue and what you will and will allow into your paradigm. Interesting.

Crossan and Richard Horsley, among others, assert that Jesus led a covenant renewal movement. Crossan is the most prominent exponent of a noneschatological Jesus today. In 1973 he wrote that the scholarly consensus that Jesus' message was "apocalyptic eschatology" had become "extremely problematic."- The Continuum history of apocalypticism
It amazes me that all of them have two things in common. Jesus was real and they are satisfied to rewrite history that doesn't exist.

I'm not familiar with Horsley at all. But you have Crossan's work caricaturized as you seem to do with Christianity in general. You do realize there is 150 year old debate on whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet or not, right? This is not new, it is not something Crossan invented, though he did do new work in showing how the question should be raised again. (after it's acceptance for a generation)

You seem so dismissive of everyone who's not a mythicist but how familiar are you with their work I wonder? Realized exchatology is not something Crossan invented...it is something Canonical Luke invented. (it could go back even further, it just depends on how late you date Luke, or Ur Lukas) Crossan's (and others) idea that the original Q source was essentially a group of Cynic sayings, and that Jesus was probably a Gallilean styled Cynic is probably correct. Burton Mack also says the same thing. Price also agrees that Crossan is probably right about the Cynic=Q community thing, though Price feels Q only gets us to the original Q community and not back to Jesus himself. (good point, however Crossan and others raise equally good points) You write as if the Christ myth theory is a slam dunk and that all other scholars are undergoing a conspiracy to cover it up....Price, Doughty and the other mythicists have claimed NO SUCH THING. However if you're reading some of these “Christ myth” websites put up by laymen, the ones who invent pagan parrallels to Christ, like Krishna being “born of a virgin, visited by wise men, being crucified etc” then yeah, you might get the impression it's a slam dunk. It isn't. None of the real scholars say it is, and they never said that. GA Wells even back peddled and said there probably was an “historical Jesus” though there is NO WAY we can know anything about the guy. (That's what Bultmaan said as well) That there was  man, who was kernel of truth that everything else got built up around. I think this makes the best sense of the evidence, but I admit I could be wrong. Jesus may never have existed. I admit, Price and the others have some fantastic points. Especially the issues in “paul's” letters which talk in purely mythological terms. Very interesting points. I also find one point about Jesus on the cross quite convincing, when the “sun went dark” and Jesus cried Eloi Eloi La ma Sabathani”...a recent book suggests this is from a paganized telling where Jesus was actually crying “Helios Helios why have you forsaken me” just as the sun is going dark.

Wow! That is an awesome point. Yet, it says nothing about whether a historical Jesus existed or didn't. It could be, but it is not as certain as you believe though, nor do any of the Christ myth theorists say it is. They just feel they have the best arguments, but then so does everyone else. In the end agnosticism on the issue is the best we can come up with at the moment.

Robert Price, however, already resides in my library.

Maybe you need to do as Dr. Price suggests to everyone and that is to read EVERYTHING even the stuff you disagree with and try to see that their arguments are also valid. Having Price, but not Crossan, Mack, Brown, Strauss, Baeur, and Barker in your library is way too self limiting IMO. The reason I even mentioned Ehrman and Armstrong is because you yourself on the boards complained that you had studied the bible for years and still none of it made any sense. I therefore assumed you have never read anything from any scholars at all. (I failed to see how after reading Ehrman you'd still be utterly confused as you claimed to be about the Bible) Reading Ehrman, Armstrong, and some others is a good way for the bible to begin to make sense. Crossan and Barker are scholars writing for scholars but still appeal to non scholars at times. (though Crossan's biggest weakness is it takes him 70 pages to say something, then again he is trying to make a scholarly point and not writing for the masses per se) Barker, Price, Doughty, Brown etc are heavy duty yet you seem to reject all except the ones you already agree with. Kind of like a Christian who won't read about other religions because they already have the right one. (uh, then why not read about them, what are they afraid of?)  I also cannot understand how after reading Price you can still be confused about the Bible? Or were you just trying to bait some of the more Fundie posters?

[Stevil]

Two weeks or so ago, I joined this forum with a relatively open mind but sitting on a 6 on Dawkin's scale. I held onto an Agnostic stance that you can't prove gods one way or another.

After reading this discussion between Achronos and TheJackel I am now a 7 on Dawkin's scale with regards to Achronos' Christian God. I would be keen to know if the authoritative source with regards to Christianity deem that God lives outside of existence and is responsible for the creation of existence. If this is the case then I would be unquestionable 7 towards Christianity as a whole.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd be willing to bet Christ hasn't destroyed anything.

[Gawen]

Good grief...

I concede. Achronos is right. Logical fallacies, self-contradictions and contradictions elsewhere, Christian writers that write about Christianity aren't apologists, belief in something (superstition) not seen or heard through faith and hope, moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit one's beliefs is the correct world view.
I have nothing further to add.

[Achronos]

Good grief...

I concede. Achronos is right. Logical fallacies, self-contradictions and contradictions elsewhere, Christian writers that write about Christianity aren't apologists, belief in something (superstition) not seen or heard through faith and hope, moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit one's beliefs is the correct world view.
I have nothing further to add.

Well, it's too bad you don't want to have a real dialogue and possibly learn from each other; Its very odd to hear an atheist admit they won't read someone because they don't like that person's personal philosophy. Rejecting ideas and scholarship, especially historical scholarship on the basis of the scholar's worldview and not on the scholarship itself is very odd indeed. Not very rational.

BTW I would really love for you write to Bob Price and argue to him that Margaret Barker is a "Christian apologist" and that you reject her work based on the fact that she is a Methodist; I would actually pay money to hear his response to that poor reason. I suspect you've never read her, nor Strauss, nor Schweitzer, nor Crossan, or Brown, Bauer, or anyone else who isn't writing about what you already believe. I doubt you even have an idea who most of these people even are. Which is exactly what Fundamentalists do as well. Very interesting. I've read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Doherty, Price, Wells, NT Wright, studied the Old and New Testaments, Judaism, Hinduism a bit, am just now reading more about Buddhism, the majoirty of religions (beginning unto the obscure ones)...I read Sagan, Tillich, the Pope, Tolkien, and tons of others...pagan, neo-pagan, and everything in between. I read everybody and then try to make up my own mind. I do not fear reading these people, I once did, I understand that feeling. Maybe when you get more comfortable with the idea that you will never have the "truth" all figured out, and that you and I are but tiny specks in the cosmos, you'll become more comfortable with reading scholars and authors who have a different world view without the fear that by reading them you might get sucked in and accidently convert or something. Of course you should be open to being convinced that their arguments might convince you actually. If you enter a debate or begin reading a book and tell yourself "nothing I read here will change my mind!", what would be the point? Price has changed my mind on a great many things, as have EP Sanders, Helmut Koester, even Crossan. We should be open to new things and not be married to any one concept or idealogy. What ever your reason for rejecting people you've never read, it doesn't matter to me; if it works for you and your life makes sense, then that's cool. I will say no more. You wish to end our discussion and that's fine.

Hopefully you can find whatever it is you're looking for in life; good luck.