I do not know where you got your Catholic apologist crap but here is an article about Hoffman You can also google New Oxonian and read Hoffman's articles on the new pope. They are pretty snarky and hardly Catholic. Geesh!Research before making statements is a good thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Joseph_Hoffmann.

I went to the home page and read from there. I did see his articles about the Pope.

The parts I read did strike me as apologetic- in a formal theologian-schooled kind of way. Maybe that is just my reaction to what he has said about certain atheists in the past.

You're right, though. I did over react and I apologize.

His views seem very similar to yours, except you are more of an apologist. ;-)

Bahahahahahaha!

"A Unitarian, he has been a senior editor on Free Inquiry."

But still, nice try dagny!

Please continue to think he is a Catholic. Oh please. Oh please. I'll be so disappointed in you if you let a little fact get in your way!

http://philosopedia.org/index.php/R._Joseph_Hoffmann

The spirit of Daniel Peterson lives! On exmo!

Just one more line! Ppppllllleeeeeaaasssee!

"His The Origins of Christianity was once cited by Gordon Stein as one of the best works on the subject."

I apologized above.

They are like potato chips! You can't have just one!

"In 1987 he translated Celsus’s On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. Celsus was an early critic of Christian scriptures and the Christians destroyed most of his works."

So wait! He translated an early critic of Christians scriptures?!? That can't be right! He translated what remained of a writer whose work was mostly destroyed by Christians!

Boy, with apologists like these, who needs critics? Right?

It is also interesting to compare his career and standing in his field with that of NT history's l'enfant terrible -- UNEMPLOYED Richard Carrier.

"Now, on to Richard Carrier’s response. It is called “Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism.” And it is a disappointing and ineffective response that will only carry weight with people who desperately want there not to have been a historical Jesus, so much so that they cease to care about historical methods and evidence. It is disappointing to find folks like P. Z. Myers, who works so hard to defend science from internet attackers, applauding a similar attack on mainstream history."


So by all means -- attack mainstream history the way the Mormons attack mainstream history of the Americas.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

The French are so wise, don't you think.

I would have been glad to link to the article, but the editor won't let me. The editor too is still a bit Mormon in orientation. Binging "Responding to Richard Carrier's Response to Bart Ehrman" should get you there.

Carrier's juvenile attack on Ehrman' s book was one of the most unprofessional pieces of trash I have ever read. He not only attacked Ehrman on minor issues such as Pilate's title which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' existence, it turns out that Ehrman was right after all.

Take the stick out. Dagny apologized.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2013 10:57PM by fidget.

I appreciate that although I will.add that I don't consider trying to be fair the same as being an apologist

I will admit what bothered me from him in the original article you referenced.

I consider using “mythers” or “mythtics” or “mythicists” an attempt to be derogatory to dismiss the legitimate points they make.

In his article, he said, "It is important to them that Jesus should not exist... The mythtics don’t want history, they want a victory. They don’t want serious discussion or best interpretation, they want to score points. Almost every discussion I have seen on their sites or mythtic-friendly atheist sites resembles nothing so much as the citizens of Lilliput trying to pin down a sleeping Gulliver with sewing thread, with lots of back-slapping and cheer-leading points presumed to be won against mainstream scholars with more…conservative ideas."


I completely disagree. It is not a "victory" but rather an alignment of conclusions to match facts that I seek. Surely you can see why this comes across as apologetic.

OK, that's all I'll say. Hopefully you can understand my reaction to him, although I agree with many of his comments.

I understand how Hitchins was such a turn off for you. This guy is the equivalent in tone. At least that is how he came across to me. Thanks for the link.

Mythers describes what they believe. I didn't see it as derogatory. At any rate it is a lot nicer than Gawd, Jeebus or Christers which posters here use frequently.It is also a fact that very few historians have much respect for the scholarship or methods of the mythicists



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2013 11:17PM by bona dea.

Agree.

If I had a blog on topics related to my formal education, I would not be saying anything like I can get away with here.

So, you can see myther and Christer are equivalent in that they both describe what they believe.

OK, thanks. Good topic.

What would you consider a better name for them? We need to call them something and 'those who doubt the historicity of Jesus' is pretty cumbersome



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2013 11:34PM by bona dea.

I am concerned with both camps being seemingly unwilling to consider the alternative point of view. An historian should keep an open mind and never call an unknown thing known.

I agree that it is theoretically possible that Jesus never existed ,but there is enough evidence for me and almost all historians to find it highly unlikely. It is also possible that Elizabeth I wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare or that the government faked the events in Boston, but I wouldn't bet on it.I.find the equally unlikely