Layman: So, there doesn't seem to be a lot to go on here, right?

Scholar: That's right. There's not. That's why we have these fancy degrees.

Layman: Why's that?

Scholar: Well, if there was a lot to go on, just anybody could point it out. These fancy degrees allow us to point out things even when there's not a lot to go on.

Layman: So, how does the fancy degree help you point out things when there's not a lot to go on, but doesn't allow laymen to point out things when there's not a lot to go on?

Scholar: That's easy. If a layman tried to point something out when there's not a lot to go on, everybody would think they were dumb. But when someone with a degree points it out, everybody thinks they're smart. Because they have a fancy degree that allows them to do that.

Layman: So basically, you see the same stuff as everybody else, but somehow your opinion matters more because you have a fancy degree?

Scholar: Right. If I didn't have a degree nobody would listen to me and they would think I was dumb.

Layman: But you agree there's not a lot to go on?

Scholar: Totally agree. There's very little to go on here. It's very complicated. If you don't have a degree you couldn't possibly puzzle it out.

Layman: But you just admitted that you see the same stuff as everybody else.

Scholar: Right.

Layman: So if you see the same stuff as everybody else, why do you come to a different conclusion?

Scholar: Because I have a fancy degree.

Layman: But what does your fancy degree allow you to see that I can't see?

Scholar: Nothing. But it allows me to point out things when there's not a lot to go on.

Layman: Why?

Scholar: Because that's my job.

Layman: Ok, now we're getting down to it. Your job is basically to point things out when there's not a lot to go on, and since you would look really dumb if you tried to do that all by yourself, you get a fancy degree that allows you to do it and seem smart at the same time, right?

Scholar: Exactly!

Layman: And if you just came out and admitted you don't see anything special, then people wouldn't pay you?

Scholar: Exactly!

Layman: So you and your scholarly friends have to pretend to point things out when there's not a lot to go on or everybody else would point out that the emperor has no clothes?

Scholar: No clothes? I don't understand.

Layman: That's because I have a fancy degree in literature.

Scholar: Ah, good for you.

Bwahahaha! ;P

Yep.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But wait, bona dea is going to complain.

She accepts very poor evidence to form that opinion

Why dont you and Breed em knock it off and ,FYI, virtually all svholars agree with me, not you and have no problem with the evidence. Now please stop following me around with your immature nonsense

>Layman: So basically, you see the same stuff as everybody else, but somehow your opinion matters more because you have a fancy degree?

So how many layman can read aramaic? Oh, that's right, they have to rely on the scholar for translation.

Do you have a specific document in mind that is written in Aramaic, that also indicates that Jesus was a real historical figure? Please share it here.

If not, then how is your comment relevant to the topic of this thread?

terrydactyl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So how many layman can read aramaic? Oh, that's
> right, they have to rely on the scholar for
> translation.

Can't imagine why that would be important. No copies of any bible books we have are in Aramaic, no claimed "historical mention" of Jesus is (or ever was) in Aramaic...
So why does knowing Aramaic matter?

Greek, sure. Latin, sure. Aramaic -- not so much.

The scholarly consensus, nearly universal, of all scholars in the field is that the Mormon Church is true, the BoM is true and historical, the Book of Abraham is true, and Joseph Smith was a prophet of god.
The few qualified scholars in the field who disagree with the scholarly consensus can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and their "fringe theories" clearly put them on the lunatic fringe. Also, since the few who disagree with the scholarly consensus are almost all ex-mormons, they are biased ideologically and have an axe to grind, making their opinions worthless.

Clearly, we should accept the scholarly consensus without questioning or examining the "evidence" they use, their methods, or their conclusions -- because they're the qualified scholars in the field, and their consensus is beyond question.

:)

When I was in college, I wish I'd counted how many times the answer to my questions was "I don't know".

One of the most important things I learned in college is how much the so called smart people don't know.

madalice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I was in college, I wish I'd counted how many
> times the answer to my questions was "I don't
> know".
>
> One of the most important things I learned in
> college is how much the so called smart people
> don't know.

"So-called" smart people still know more than dumb people. Furthermore, smart people will say "I don't know" whereas dumb people will make up some crap rather than admitting they don't know.

The majority of Bible scholars ARE CHRISTIAN, which is why they believe Jesus existed. Such circular reasoning has no place in actual science -- which tells us that Jesus did not exist.

Those scholars are just as biased as the atheist scholars (but on opposite sides) so the complaints about the atheist scholars' bias are invalid.
Bias does not make the points invalid, it just means that they should be analyzed with all the other points, which is something that always should be done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 07:20AM by Anon Dunn.

Sort of reminds me of that time one of my profs said, "There is no absolute truth." And believing him to be reliable, we all immediately dismissed his statement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:26AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

A historical Jesus who was not divine, matters about as much as a Michael Jordan who is a crappy basketball player. I mean, the guy ( a Michael Jordan who is a crappy basket ball player) probably really is out there, probably a couple dozen of them, really. And WHO cares - not many!!!! ? In 2000 years WHO cares? -NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(please, PLEASE! feel free to shove your historical Jesus right up the @$$ of some Michael Jordan who can not play basket ball very well ! because Historical Jesus only matters to IDIOTS = NOBODY cares !!!!!! )

If you don't believe in the Historical Jesus you're part of the LUNATIC FRINGE

do you want everyone to think you're part of the LUNATIC FRINGE?

no, obviously not...... just keep chanting this to yourself "Jesus was real, this I know, because bona dea tells me so"

BS and you are another posteer who needs to grow up.

(oops reply failed again)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:53AM by Anon Dunn.

This thread shows ex-Mormons defending a position by employing the precise pattern of thought Mormon apologists employ to defend belief in the Book of Mormon: mischaracterize the nature of scholarship, and then dismiss the scholarly consensus (and the evidence which compelled it) based only on that mischaracterization.

I would like to respectfully suggest that "being an ex-Mormon" means (or ideally *should* mean) more than viewing Joseph Smith as a charlatan. It should also mean becoming aware of, and rejecting altogether, the flawed thinking patterns Mormonism programmed into us.

Exactly and there is a difference between a scholar and an apologist. Besides, not all Bible scholars are Christian.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then dismiss the scholarly consensus (and the
> evidence which compelled it)

I have to say I have yet to find a clear overview of this "scholarly consensus". A handful of high-profile authors keeps coming up, the other "hundreds" of scholars who make up the consensus remain anonymous. If I were to dig through the last two weeks worth of historical Jesus threads on this board, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of authors on both sides is roughly equal.

Is there a graduate-level introductory textbook on the topic of the historicity of Jesus?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:52PM by rt.

Amen Tal

Tal and bona dea would have us not challenge the "scholarly consensus," or the supposed evidence behind it. Because it's the "scholarly consensus," and anything thing else is the "lunatic fringe."

Which my post above, about the "scholarly consensus" regarding "mormon studies," addressed.

I can hardly stomach the kind of posts this discussion has produced any longer, so I'll close with this:

EVERYTHING merits challenge, review, revisiting. And the only people keeping us from facts, knowledge, and "truth" are the ones insisting that things are already "settled," that you're on the "lunatic fringe" if you dare challenge "consensus," and who demand you go along with it.

I've spent years examining the claims of "Jesus historicists." I find them very uncompelling, based on numerous assumptions and claimed "facts" that aren't facts at all. They merit challenging. And I don't care if anyone doesn't like that.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've spent years examining the claims of "Jesus
> historicists." I find them very uncompelling,
> based on numerous assumptions and claimed "facts"
> that aren't facts at all. They merit challenging.
> And I don't care if anyone doesn't like that.

And as your posts demonstrate, you approach this topic as an ideologue, not someone attempting to assemble a reasonable narrative.

As I've noted before, history is not rhetoric that is defeated when you locate an inconsistency or flaw. There was an actual, vibrant, religious movement that was birthed at the exact place and time that all available documents confirm.

The reason why mythicists and deniers will be forever marginalized is they cannot account for the actual birth of this movement without gyrations and hidden conspiracies for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Nobody discourages inquiry, but when you dismiss documents that consistently recount a single basic story, you can lay no claim to being an honest inquirer. You're an ideologue who chooses to ignore the evidence.

It's no mystery why you find the evidence uncompelling. It does not fit your ideology: What you have is an opinion with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody discourages inquiry, but when you dismiss
> documents that consistently recount a single basic
> story

What documents are you referring to? So far, I've only taken a cursory look at the documentary evidence (still trying to figure out what "the consensus" is) but a consistent story is not what I remember from the New Testament. The most consistency is between the supernatural aspects of these accounts, not the factual ones, or so it seems to me?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:51PM by rt.

Bart Ehrman discusses those sources in detail in"Did Jesus Exist?"

Did you see my question above about an introductory textbook? I would rather like to start with one of those.

I think Ehrman is the easiest to read. There is no introductory textbook since the existence of Jesusmis pretty much a given. There are certainly some non scholarly works but they are ridden with errors-authors such as Achyra S aka Murdock or Freke and Gandy

Joseph Hoffman has a blog called the New Oxonian and has several entries on the issue. He is both a reputed scholar and an atheist

Agree again

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....
Thomas Jefferson