Response

[jd01]

"McDowell and Lewis seem like odd comparisons to me, since I don't think the study of the historical Jesus was their research specialty. I'm more curious about how this book builds on (or disagrees with) books written by other scholars who study Jesus. I'm thinking, for example, of NT Wright and Marcus Borg, both of whom have written books about the historical Jesus within the last 30 years; or the work of the Jesus Seminar; or, farther back in history, Schweitzer's classic book; or various other scholars in the field. Which scholars do you agree with, or disagree with, and why?"

Thanks for the question about 'the book' (the mods deleted the thread). Actually I have reviewed McDowell, Lewis, Wright, Borg, Seminar and Schweitzer in writing the book. I cite them and many others in the bibliography. I picked the first two as they are very popular (but flawed) in the Christian community, ones that are handed out to new Christians. I disagree with apologetic works on principle; they are not interested in a hard-headed discussion. My book starts out by reviewing ALL of the early Christian Sources (over 250) that we do have for information on Jesus, something I have not seen done anywhere. Then I lay out what we can and can't say about Jesus. One of my major disagreements with traditional scholarship is the placing of the Gospels "late", I show that they are quite "early" (eg I date Mark to late 40 CE) which has major implications for understanding of Jesus.

 

[PloverWing]

Thanks for the information about the book. Your very early date for Mark is interesting. I can see that that would affect how one interprets the stories found in the gospels.

I agree with you about disliking most modern apologetic works. I don't know that I disagree with the apologetic effort "in principle" -- hypothetically, something of quality could exist, maybe? -- but I find that most apologetic works fail in practice. I'm not a fan of McDowell.

Congratulations again on getting your book published.

 

[Halbhh]

"McDowell and Lewis seem like odd comparisons to me, since I don't think the study of the historical Jesus was their research specialty. I'm more curious about how this book builds on (or disagrees with) books written by other scholars who study Jesus. I'm thinking, for example, of NT Wright and Marcus Borg, both of whom have written books about the historical Jesus within the last 30 years; or the work of the Jesus Seminar; or, farther back in history, Schweitzer's classic book; or various other scholars in the field. Which scholars do you agree with, or disagree with, and why?"

Thanks for the question about 'the book' (the mods deleted the thread). Actually I have reviewed McDowell, Lewis, Wright, Borg, Seminar and Schweitzer in writing the book. I cite them and many others in the bibliography. I picked the first two as they are very popular (but flawed) in the Christian community, ones that are handed out to new Christians. I disagree with apologetic works on principle; they are not interested in a hard-headed discussion. My book starts out by reviewing ALL of the early Christian Sources (over 250) that we do have for information on Jesus, something I have not seen done anywhere. Then I lay out what we can and can't say about Jesus. One of my major disagreements with traditional scholarship is the placing of the Gospels "late", I show that they are quite "early" (eg I date Mark to late 40 CE) which has major implications for understanding of Jesus.

Hi there. A helpful tip you will need to know -- I noticed you used a person's username in the title of your post, and that's against the rules at CF, but you can edit the title, and thus make your post obey the CF rules. (Here are the site rules -- Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums -- and you accidentally broke the '"Calling out" a member' rule, though I think you didn't mean for it to be goading or such)

To edit your title, you just go to the top of your first post, post #1, and on top of the blue bar at the top of the post itself, to the right hand side, is a "Thread Tools" menu you can click on, and then you can edit your title. Having made many posts here at CF, my suggestion is you could simply retitle to make it about the subject you are addressing.

Welcome to CF. (also if you change the title, then I'll read your OP. )

 

[Dustoff]

I don't know anything about the discussion with Plover Wing but I will read anything on the subject of Jesus. Good (conservative like me) bad or even indifferent. If someone has something to say I'm interested in reading it. Even if I don't agree. I didn't think The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper was worth reading though. Unscholarly at best. I threw that one in the garbage.
Yours looks interesting so I downloaded the kindle copy from Amazon

 

[Halbhh]

I don't know anything about the discussion with Plover Wing but I will read anything on the subject of Jesus. Good (conservative like me) bad or even indifferent. If someone has something to say I'm interested in reading it. Even if I don't agree. I didn't think The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper was worth reading though. Unscholarly at best. I threw that one in the garbage.
Yours looks interesting so I downloaded the kindle copy from Amazon

From my experience in Christian book groups, and also from hearing thousands of sermons in many different churches, the single best books of all, even if one has read them once or twice (or 3 times) already, are the 4 gospels, because each time we read them again, with real listening, we gain wonderful new things that are better than even the best Christian writers' books about Jesus.

So, having read and heard so many things from so many people, now I know: go with the 4 gospels, again and again. Each time we directly what He said for us to hear, we gain more. It's not that I will never read another Christian writer's book -- one can hardly avoid them from time to time over the years in bible study groups -- it's just that I have, and now I know. I think it's because just like we read in the NT, His words are literally "living".

 

[PloverWing]

For what it's worth, I didn't interpret this thread as goading at all -- just a friendly conversation about a book. However, I wouldn't have seen the thread at all if I hadn't looked at "New Threads" at just the right moment.

One technique that can be used to get someone's attention in a post or thread is to tag them by typing "@" followed by their username, like this: @jd01 . They then get a notification that someone mentioned them in a post, and they can choose to respond to you if they're interested in the conversation.

Thanks, @Halbhh , for the reminder about the rules.

 

[jd01]

Thanks for the information about the book. Your very early date for Mark is interesting. I can see that that would affect how one interprets the stories found in the gospels.

I agree with you about disliking most modern apologetic works. I don't know that I disagree with the apologetic effort "in principle" -- hypothetically, something of quality could exist, maybe? -- but I find that most apologetic works fail in practice. I'm not a fan of McDowell.

Congratulations again on getting your book published.

Thank you.

I am against apologetics in principle since it is not an honest discussion - the author always has a set of assumptions and a destination in mind for the reader that are 'off limits' for discussion while posing as an open-minded exploration. As I have found while writing this book you don't need apologetics, plus apologetics turn off many people as they are dis-ingenious.

 

[jd01]

Hi there. A helpful tip you will need to know -- I noticed you used a person's username in the title of your post, and that's against the rules at CF, but you can edit the title, and thus make your post obey the CF rules. (Here are the site rules -- Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums -- and you accidentally broke the '"Calling out" a member' rule, though I think you didn't mean for it to be goading or such)

To edit your title, you just go to the top of your first post, post #1, and on top of the blue bar at the top of the post itself, to the right hand side, is a "Thread Tools" menu you can click on, and then you can edit your title. Having made many posts here at CF, my suggestion is you could simply retitle to make it about the subject you are addressing.

Welcome to CF. (also if you change the title, then I'll read your OP. )

Done. Thanks.

Question, completely off topic. You have ads in your forum where people can donate money to the Ukrainian army so they can kill other human beings?

 

[jd01]

I don't know anything about the discussion with Plover Wing but I will read anything on the subject of Jesus. Good (conservative like me) bad or even indifferent. If someone has something to say I'm interested in reading it. Even if I don't agree. I didn't think The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper was worth reading though. Unscholarly at best. I threw that one in the garbage.
Yours looks interesting so I downloaded the kindle copy from Amazon

Thank you. Please let me know your thoughts! I can answer any questions you have.

 

[jd01]

From my experience in Christian book groups, and also from hearing thousands of sermons in many different churches, the single best books of all, even if one has read them once or twice (or 3 times) already, are the 4 gospels, because each time we read them again, with real listening, we gain wonderful new things that are better than even the best Christian writers' books about Jesus.

So, having read and heard so many things from so many people, now I know: go with the 4 gospels, again and again. Each time we directly what He said for us to hear, we gain more. It's not that I will never read another Christian writer's book -- one can hardly avoid them from time to time over the years in bible study groups -- it's just that I have, and now I know. I think it's because just like we read in the NT, His words are literally "living".

Understood. However in my book I discuss why several of the four gospels are NOT good sources of information on Jesus.

 

[jd01]

For what it's worth, I didn't interpret this thread as goading at all -- just a friendly conversation about a book. However, I wouldn't have seen the thread at all if I hadn't looked at "New Threads" at just the right moment.

One technique that can be used to get someone's attention in a post or thread is to tag them by typing "@" followed by their username, like this: @jd01 . They then get a notification that someone mentioned them in a post, and they can choose to respond to you if they're interested in the conversation.

Thanks, @Halbhh , for the reminder about the rules.

Ah got it, thank you.

 

[PloverWing]

I am against apologetics in principle since it is not an honest discussion - the author always has a set of assumptions and a destination in mind for the reader that are 'off limits' for discussion while posing as an open-minded exploration.

That makes sense.

I don't mind reading things in which the author has a particular point to make, and is presenting an argument in support of that point, so I don't object to apologetics on that ground. But I've read a lot of apologetic writing in which the author offers seriously flawed arguments for the existence of God or the veracity of the Bible or whatever, and I don't like that. I'd prefer to see an honest "I don't know", rather than an argument full of holes.

Question, completely off topic. You have ads in your forum where people can donate money to the Ukrainian army so they can kill other human beings?

The inappropriate ads used to bother me too. But I think the CF creators (or the creators of the software that CF uses) simply use a generic ad server like Google, and they may not have a way of filtering out the ads that are inappropriate. Whether Christians should use ad servers as a way to make money is an interesting ethical question.

 

[Halbhh]

Done. Thanks.

Question, completely off topic. You have ads in your forum where people can donate money to the Ukrainian army so they can kill other human beings?

I don't actually know anymore what automatic ad services ads here might show, since I paid for membership, and therefore see no ads. But typically the ads an individual sees are based on their browsing history at all variety of web sites (other than just CF).

Various ad intermediaries like Google ad services or another similar service that works in the same way will show individualized ads an algorithm guesses the individual might be interested in, based on their own individual past browsing history, on other websites (and probably not even CF at all).

 

[Halbhh]

Understood. However in my book I discuss why several of the four gospels are NOT good sources of information on Jesus.

I have an unusual biography. I was an atheist, but I was testing ideas about how to live life from around the world....

So, along with dozens of other ideas about how to live life, I also tested what Christ taught according to the 4 Gospel accounts.

And the first 2 things working amazingly better than I thought possible, I was still skeptical, thought perhaps I was lucky, and so I tested and tested and tested for many decades the specific instructions Jesus speaks in the 4 gospel accounts.

And incredibly, to my repeated surprise, every last instruction I could in any way test worked perfectly every time without ever failing....

Producing incredible strong good results, some of which where so remarkable that they might be hard for some people to even believe, including outright miracles.

So, because of those years of real experience and learning by doing, I now know all of those instructions are correct/perfect/true/powerful.

So, as you can see, I then know that anyone arguing against the wordings in the Gospels being true would mean that person saying the Gospels are incorrect/inaccurate/etc. is wrong and lost in error typically. (And also in real danger of being lost in the "second death", since Christ specifies that those who are His will listen to His words.)

If a person will follow the instructions Christ gave in the Gospels precisely (without leaving out crucial things like having faith (Mark 11), etc.)-- doing just what Christ said in the verses fully -- then they will learn what I learned, even if they were reluctant to believe it was all real and true, as I was reluctant.

It will make a believer out of you.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks for the information about the book. Your very early date for Mark is interesting. I can see that that would affect how one interprets the stories found in the gospels.

I agree with you about disliking most modern apologetic works. I don't know that I disagree with the apologetic effort "in principle" -- hypothetically, something of quality could exist, maybe? -- but I find that most apologetic works fail in practice. I'm not a fan of McDowell.

Congratulations again on getting your book published.

To me, the texts (4 gospels and all the rest) were likely to be mostly invention, and only somewhat helpful here and there at most, where I might find some jewel of wisdom from experience people had put into the text. So I read, and then tested. And tested. And tested. And more testing.

Now I know the text is consistently correct principles that radically improve life and work amazingly better than competing ideas, since I also tested ideas from around the world, of many kinds. Over decades.

Now I know, and it took about 12-14 years of that testing, that not only is the common bible full of truth about life, but everything in it is for real, and that includes even the miracles in the New Testament, incredibly.

It's all real, every bit of it, to my endless surprise, over those many years and even after I found out God is real (which was quite a shock in itself), still the text continued to surprise and surprise.

So, for me, the date of when Mark was written was truly irrelevant, see? See why? Because I would only believe solely in what I could test and test, and whatever idea in it, even if only 1, or even none, might prove out to be true by always working, every time, no matter how many ways you test it.

The last thing I would have cared to know was stuff like when Mark was written or who wrote it, or what group, and so on. That would all be irrelevant to me, in those decades.

But now I realize that date means something to some non believers, and could help some when they find out that Mark was written down while living eye witnesses were still alive, which the commonplace idea of it being written between 66 and 72 AD (the broad consensus or majority view) established instantly, since of course some of the 18 and 20 yr olds that heard Christ in person would still be alive 35 or so years later, statistically.

So, while to me, that reality of living eye witnesses around when this gospel was written down was irrelevant, I can see how it will matter to some other people, and so at times I point that out to a non believer that brings up the topic. Quite a few times here on CF included.

 

[jd01]

To me, the texts (4 gospels and all the rest) were likely to be mostly invention, and only somewhat helpful here and there at most, where I might find some jewel of wisdom from experience people had put into the text. So I read, and then tested. And tested. And tested. And more testing.

Now I know the text is consistently correct principles that radically improve life and work amazingly better than competing ideas, since I also tested ideas from around the world, of many kinds. Over decades.

Now I know, and it took about 12-14 years of that testing, that not only is the common bible full of truth about life, but everything in it is for real, and that includes even the miracles in the New Testament, incredibly.

It's all real, every bit of it, to my endless surprise, over those many years and even after I found out God is real (which was quite a shock in itself), still the text continued to surprise and surprise.

So, for me, the date of when Mark was written was truly irrelevant, see? See why? Because I would only believe solely in what I could test and test, and whatever idea in it, even if only 1, or even none, might prove out to be true by always working, every time, no matter how many ways you test it.

The last thing I would have cared to know was stuff like when Mark was written or who wrote it, or what group, and so on. That would all be irrelevant to me, in those decades.

But now I realize that date means something to some non believers, and could help some when they find out that Mark was written down while living eye witnesses were still alive, which the commonplace idea of it being written between 66 and 72 AD (the broad consensus or majority view) established instantly, since of course some of the 18 and 20 yr olds that heard Christ in person would still be alive 35 or so years later, statistically.

So, while to me, that reality of living eye witnesses around when this gospel was written down was irrelevant, I can see how it will matter to some other people, and so at times I point that out to a non believer that brings up the topic. Quite a few times here on CF included.

I admire your testing. And you are right, the dates are important to others. As you say dating can be crucial to others who have questions. It is a topic I cover extensively. Here are the traditional date ranges they are quite "late"

Mark 65-80
Matthew 80-100
Luke 80-130
John 90-120
Acts 80-130

In my view (and one that is becoming more popular) these are the correct date ranges:
Mark Fall-Winter 40
Matthew & Luke c. 58-61
John c. 64-65
Acts c. 62

There are many very good reasons why these dates or date ranges are correct. One very important point of these "early" dates is that eye-witnesses still lived who could vouch for the accuracy of the books. Not so if they were being written after 90+. And this is very important when discussing this with others.

 

[jd01]

Is there any evidence for the later dates?