mindyourmind wrote:That manages to insult Buddhist opinion here and Ehrman all in one easy swoop.
Ehrman is well read, and accepted in Christian and non-Christian circles, and we can play the game where I show you who agrees with that and you tell us who does not. The fact remains that he is very well educated author, who used to be a seminary trained Evangelical Christian. He knows what he is talking about.
Indeed, Ehrman is highly regarded in Christian and non-Christian circles, scholarly and non-scholarly circles, but not for the same reasons: In Christian and scholarly circles, he is lauded for his ability to reconstruct the New Testament using the data available, not for his assessment of either; and vice versa for the non-Christian and non-scholarly circles. He himself has admitted that he is a confused sensationalist capitalizing on a post-modernistic assessment of God, Jesus and the Christian religion. I think Colbert handled Ehrman nicely.
You are hoping that we here, as Buddhists, do not know that there is no consensus on this historical Jesus.
No, I merely corrected yours and others incorrect assertions about the data we have available.
Ask widely respected Christian thinkers and authors such as Marcus Borg or Bishop Spong what they believe.
Again, if this represents your claim to be well-read on the issue of the historical Jesus, then such a narrow window truly is ignorant. Just because Ehrman, Borg and Spong are on the shelves at your local bookstore doesn't make them "widely-respected," and just because you've managed to read a few bestsellers doesn't make you knowledgable on a subject which is more intricate than the mere flat assertion that there is "no consensus." To understand more fully what I mean, I recommend reading Ben Witherington's The Jesus Quest
which demonstrates where contemporary scholars agree and disagree. I also recommend the anthology edited by Amy-Jill Levine entitled The Historical Jesus in Context
which discusses the same.
I have now shown you, in great detail, how there is no consensus on the so-called historical Jesus. All you do, and all you can do in the face of the facts, is to try to dismiss my sources, all of them, including current and past Christians, some teaching at Christian seminaries, and including someone as qualified as Bishop Spong. In response you quote one or two equally subjective authors, rather obscure ones, which simply shows the divergent views out there. People like Ehrman, Borg and Spong have the highest credentials and the fact that their books are relatively popular in no way detract from the authority of their views. I can mention a list of other Christian authors and apologists who will gladly admit that there is no consensus, and you know that this is quite simple.
If you want a very exhaustive and up to date exposition of this debate, have a look at John Loftus's blog, at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
, where in a post dated today he shows in great detail how much debate there is actually going on, and the array of respected scholars involved on both sides. Calling the other side's experts' qualifications into dispute is a hackneyed old Christian apologist stratagem, and only the very young or gullible will still fall for it. Have a look at Ehrmann's credentials and admit that he is up there with the best of them.
It is mind-boggling to see that you are actually arguing that there is a consensus view on hJ. There is not, accept it. You can claim all you want about "the data we have" but you have precious little, and there is no consensus about hJ at all. Presenting your argument in this unfounded, fact-free and unpleasant manner does not prove your argument.Between the proponents of hJ and the Mythers there is a lot of doubt and agnosticism, clearly and often expressed by both sides.
But I am not going to go on with this. This is a Buddhist discussion board, and I am not a Christian apologist. I think that members now have a more than adequate reading list to follow up, if they should so wish, to arrive at their own conclusions about where the ignorance lies here. You are trying, on a regular basis, to have these Christian-oriented discussions here, and you clearly are quite offended if we dare show that we know something about the subject. I do not have anything vested in the debate, and whether hJ existed or not is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I will however respond if someone posts patent nonsense here.
I have made my points, and there is no further benefit in this rather senseless debate for me.