Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
After deciding not to post on Tim O’Neill’s vendetta against mythicist Fitzgerald’s Nailed yesterday — after posting on Howell Smith recently I had no interest in turning my attention to Tim, and the title of this post tells you why — but since a commenter (Evan) has addressed Tim’s polemic in another post, I have … Continue reading “From the sublime to the slime”
edited and added TLT quote Jan 26, 2010 @ 20:05 I think of myself as neither a “Jesus mythicist” nor a “Jesus historicist”, but as someone interested in exploring the origins of Christianity. Whether the evidence establishes a historical Jesus at its core, or an entity less tangible, then so be it. Nonetheless, I cannot … Continue reading “Responding to standard arguments for Jesus’ historicity (1)”
At about 57 mins of the MythVision podcast O’Neill underscores the importance of Paul’s claim to have met James the “brother of the Lord”. Not only is Paul’s claim from a contemporary of Jesus but it is even from one who is opposed to his source: Paul is saying, says O’Neill, “Yeh, I have met … Continue reading “Bad History for Atheists (3) — Proof-texting, Circularity, Fake Facts, Insults”
I do care about bad history. — O’Neill (13 min 50 sec) Bad history is carelessly getting basic facts wrong. It is also failing to acknowledge and engage honestly with other points of view concerning the sources. Two instances of “bad history” At about 27 minutes we are told that “mythers” say there is no … Continue reading “Bad History for Atheists (2) — Troubles Reading the Sources and Engaging with Different Viewpoints”
In mid-March this year James McGrath alerted readers to a new post by Tim O’Neill of History for Atheists, Jesus Mythicism 4: Jesus as an Amalgam of Many Figures, commending it for its take down of “amalgam Jesus” theorists for supposedly uncritically and emotionally concocting excuses to disbelieve in a historical Jesus. O’Neill inferred in … Continue reading “Much More Fully Informed History for Atheists — A Scholarly Introduction to the Two Jesus Parallels”
Proper indexing of my posts has fallen behind. One small step towards correcting this has been to collate all Vridar posts that have dealt with Galatians 4:4 and the famous “born of a woman” phrase. First I list persons whose various views have been presented here. Then . . . well, you can see how … Continue reading ““Born of a Woman” / Galatians 4:4 INDEX“
The following is a write up from notes I took at the time of my first listening to the debate supplemented by a second listening earlier today. So there will be more detail than in with my summary of Ehrman’s opener. If anyone thinks I have been unfair to Ehrman then let me know and … Continue reading “Ehrman-Price Debate #2: Price’s Opening Address”
When I consulted my reading notes for the recent post on Case’s The Historicity of Jesus, I noticed a couple of things I had meant to comment on, but left out. In this post I seek to atone for my sins of omission. [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74]
Romans 1:1-7 (YLT) 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God — 2 which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings — 3 concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who is marked out Son of God … Continue reading “Jesus the Seed of David: One More Case for Interpolation”
Professor Stevan Davies has re-published his book Jesus the Healer under a new and probably more appropriate title, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, a new introduction on the pentecostal origins of the Christian movement (including an account for comparative purposes of the origins of modern pentecostalism since 1906) and added a couple of … Continue reading “Evidence for a Pre-Christian “Christianity”?”
Recently I posted Paul the persecutor? in which I suggested that Paul’s confession in his epistle to the Galatians to having persecuted the Church did not necessarily imply that he literally jailed, beat and killed Christians before his journey to Damascus. J. C. O’Neill would have thought I was far too soft. Those passages in which Paul … Continue reading “Paul the Persecutor: The Case for Interpolation”
Proper indexing of my posts has fallen behind. One small step towards correcting this has been to collate all Vridar posts that have dealt with Galatians 4:4 and the famous “born of a woman” phrase. First I list persons whose various views have been presented here. Then . . . well, you can see how … Continue reading “The “Born of a Woman” / Galatians 4:4 INDEX”
J. C. O’Neill (1930-2004) was a well respected critical scholar with some controversial views and always offering stimulating argument. Possibly the most controversial was his Who Did Jesus Think He Was? in which he argued that Jesus did believe he was the Messiah and that even the doctrine of the Trinity could be detected in … Continue reading ““Born of a Woman” — Sober Scholarship Questioning the Authenticity of Galatians 4:4″
–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– What a careful, honest or even just competent treatment of the subject would do would be to deal with all relevant positions throughout the analysis . . . . (O’Neill, 2013) . Tim O’Neill (TO) repeats, and repeats again and again in … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald “Christ Myth” Debate, #8: Why should anyone have noticed Jesus?”