Judith said Then on December 31, 2014, Greg Matthews made the suggestion that Dr. Ehrman not hold things up on The Forum by reviewing first and stated he believed everyone could be relied on to be civil. So it seems to me I’m in good company in thinking that’s possible.
Thanks alot, Greg!! I hope you’re happy!!!!!
Judith said
Dr. Ehrman has repeatedly asked that we do all possible to help increase the number of bloggers. I have some ideas for how to do that and am working on it. The problem is that we want bloggers who make interesting contributions (no more lightweights:-) Keeping The Forum civil will be good for the purpose of attracting and keeping additional bloggers. Then on December 31, 2014, Greg Matthews made the suggestion that Dr. Ehrman not hold things up on The Forum by reviewing first and stated he believed everyone could be relied on to be civil. So it seems to me I’m in good company in thinking that’s possible.
There are a lot of subscribers to Bart’s blog. The percentage of those posting on the forum is extremely small. Probably not even 1 percent….That indicates that the forum is not why people subscribe to Bart’s blog. They want to read Bart’s blog posts. The forum, as I read somewhere, is here as a benefit for subscribers. Bart replying to someone suggesting two types of membership – open forum and subscriptions for Bart’s blog posts.
Bart: I’ve thought about it, but at this point I want to have this as a desirable part of the blog for paying members, as an added benefit that people can have if they join.
However, it does seem that this forum ‘benefit’ is not appreciated by the great majority of subscribers to Bart’s blog. One reason could well be that there are numerous forums online for which one does not have to pay a subscription. i.e. that is if a forum is ones major interest. Obviously, it is not so for the majority of subscriber to Bart’s blog. Hence, the forum ‘benefit’ is not viewed as a ‘benefit’ at all. Would an open forum increase membership? Undoubtedly – but along with more members one would get what some here would not want:
Greg: ”Basically just be nice and no posting mythicist or crack pot propaganda. Those last two are my own invention.”
That approach would of course negate the idea of an open forum….Yes, forums can have rules and depend entirely on the owner of the forum. In this case Bart would have to lay down very specific rules as to just what might be allowed to be discussed. However, that is hardly worthy of his scholarship.
I can well acknowledge that someone in Bart’s position would not want to go the route of an open forum. Not because questionable ideas might be debated but because an open blog is just too much bother. Even on forums with moderators things can become difficult – siding with specific posters, being lax with the rules re specific posters etc…A successful blog requires a very hands on approach by it’s owner. (Peter Kirby is doing a good job in that he can remove problem posters at his discretion…..)
I’m not sure Bart should go the route of an open forum. Reputation is hard won. An open forum can bring problems in that regard. I’m thinking of the disastrous end of the very popular Dawkins forum. Richard eventually decided enough was enough and pulled the plug. (yep – even reported in a newspaper…..)
So, looks like this forum is going to simply soldier on in it’s present format – a benefit for those wanting to discuss NT related stuff – and hopefully a benefit to all those willing to contribute …. However, trying to keep the forum a cosy corner on the internet for historicist ideas is just not realistic….and certainly not a worthy reflection of serious scholarship. Also, of course, subscription allows access to the forum for all subscribers – whatever their colour, creed or politics….
What a great summation, maryhelena, and how impressive to me the formatting.
Soldiering on it shall be but perhaps with the insight of all we’ve just shared.
As a believer, I am aware this is not the place for expounding why and exasperating all those who do not want to know anything about it. Still, I’ve been guilty of just that. In the future, I will refrain in the spirit of doing my part to keep The Forum good.
Mythicist postings may be just as unwanted. But we can still enjoy The Forum.
maryhelena said
Greg: ”Basically just be nice and no posting mythicist or crack pot propaganda. Those last two are my own invention.”
That approach would of course negate the idea of an open forum….
I’m not interested in your idea of an open forum. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Did you watch Bart’s latest video where he said how much he disliked and was irritated by mythicists? Do you really think he wants the forums on his own website to turn into a breeding ground for your kind of ideas? I wrote down his exact words, but it looks like I threw away that post-it note. I’ve done you the courtesy of staying out of your conversations for the most part although I do still think your ideas are crackpot and they’re obviously, regardless of your opinion on the matter, far from accepted except by the uneducated, the conspiracy theory crowd or the easily-swayed-looking-for-something-different-Patty-Hearst crowd.
Judith said
What a great summation, maryhelena, and how impressive to me the formatting.Soldiering on it shall be but perhaps with the insight of all we’ve just shared.
As a believer, I am aware this is not the place for expounding why and exasperating all those who do not want to know anything about it. Still, I’ve been guilty of just that. In the future, I will refrain in the spirit of doing my part to keep The Forum good.
Mythicist postings may be just as unwanted. But we can still enjoy The Forum.
Yes, Judith, it requires everyone to be courteous when disagreeing with a fellow poster – I’m sure the last thing forum posters want is for Bart to pull the plug…..
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Greg: ”Basically just be nice and no posting mythicist or crack pot propaganda. Those last two are my own invention.”
That approach would of course negate the idea of an open forum….
I’m not interested in your idea of an open forum. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Did you watch Bart’s latest video where he said how much he disliked and was irritated by mythicists? Do you really think he wants the forums on his own website to turn into a breeding ground for your kind of ideas? I wrote down his exact words, but it looks like I threw away that post-it note. I’ve done you the courtesy of staying out of your conversations for the most part although I do still think your ideas are crackpot and they’re obviously, regardless of your opinion on the matter, far from accepted except by the uneducated, the conspiracy theory crowd or the easily-swayed-looking-for-something-different-Patty-Hearst crowd.
Your mistaken. I never proposed an open forum. Quite the opposite. I said that I did not think Bart should have an open forum.
If Bart said that he ‘disliked and was irritated by mythicists’ – that is of course his prerogative. However, as to the forum, there is no rule stating that Bart is only allowing posters who share his dislike and irritation with mythicists. As it stands, Bart takes subscriptions to his blog from people of any colour, creed or politics. Part of that subscription is the benefit of the forum. That being the situation – all members of the forum have the responsibility to treat each other in a civil manner and not resort to sarcastic belittlement. Bart can’t be seen to be taking people’s money and restricting their access to the benefits of that subscription. Discrimination is never a good policy….only for people with blue eyes went out of fashion years ago….Bart can, of course, change the rules…..a separate forum subscription for those prepared to sign a declaration of dislike and irritation with mythicists….
Indeed, this is not a freedom of speech issue. I never said it was. It is though a question of subscription to Bart’s blog and the benefits that subscription grants subscribers – i.e. access to the forum.
———————-
Oh, and by the way, I’ve not referred to your historicist theory as crackpot – I could do but that is not the manner in which I desire to address a debating partner….schoolyard tactics serve no purpose in the adult world of seeking knowledge…Ideas are best served by rebuttal not ridicule….
maryhelena said
Oh, and by the way, I’ve not referred to your historicist theory as crackpot – I could do but that is not the manner in which I desire to address a debating partner….schoolyard tactics serve no purpose in the adult world of seeking knowledge…Ideas are best served by rebuttal not ridicule….
By all means, knock yourself out. If nothing else it would be interesting hearing from an anti-historicist position. The world needs more of that type of lunacy.
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Oh, and by the way, I’ve not referred to your historicist theory as crackpot – I could do but that is not the manner in which I desire to address a debating partner….schoolyard tactics serve no purpose in the adult world of seeking knowledge…Ideas are best served by rebuttal not ridicule….
By all means, knock yourself out. If nothing else it would be interesting hearing from an anti-historicist position. The world needs more of that type of lunacy.
Lunacy – one more word to add to the growing list of uncivil ways a historicist should deal with the ahistoricists on Bart Ehrman’s forum……
Greg, Bart has agreed to debate Bob Price – and I’m pretty sure ‘lunacy’ is not a word that Bart will use against his debating partner…..very poor show if he does because such rhetoric says more about the one using it than it does about the subject matter…..
You know something – it’s just as well this forum is not an open forum. The animosity and sarcastic belittlement that Bart allows to flourish here would not do him any favors at all…..
maryhelena said Greg, Bart has agreed to debate Bob Price – and I’m pretty sure ‘lunacy’ is not a word that Bart will use against his debating partner…..very poor show if he does because such rhetoric says more about the one using it than it does about the subject matter….
Soldiering on?
Soldiers get shot at, bombed, mortared and killed. Are you sure that is the right choice of words?
Actually, in his debate with Mike Bird, Bart referred to mythicism as “stupid” Mike Bird added that he had no problem with atheists, but one could not be a “stupid atheist” I’m not as inclined towards this description.My problem with mythicism is the way it is argued; often by mere recitiation and with very little understanding of both the subject matter or the standard of evidence.
I don’t mind a mythicist/a-historicist approach, but the advocate has a due diligence obligation to offer evidence as opposed to rhetorical flourishes, insinuation etc. Similarities, in and of themselves are not evidence. If one wants to engage in a discussion with people who are skeptical about their opinions, they also have an obligation to offer a substantive argument. Disagree all you like but it ought to be for some reason other than you have a pet theory. There simply hasn’t been any animosity expressed here and I can’t help but think that such objections are more a way of avoiding the issue than a concern for fairness etc.
As for whether the word lunacy gets used. I’d be surprised if Ehrman uses that word, but then I was surprised he referred to mythicism as stupid. However, if something is indeed lunacy, it doesn’t get to be treated like other ideas. Very few people would object to the idea that Holocaust denial is lunacy and it is not “uncivil” to say so.
Now Bart’s willingness to debate Price has to do with his charity work. I’m guessing it will be an interesting debate. He has often said that he thinks the matter is settled and that there is no debate among the experts. Now before anyone objects, one or two
experts objecting doesn’t make it false. New or at least different ideas have an uphill battle and one doesn’t get to propose anything they like. Cosmologists don’t get to publish papers explaining why the moon is made of green cheese. Further, Ehrman can’t just write a paper insisting that Jesus was a Roman creation to control the masses. I’m pretty sure, he would face ridicule from his peers and justifiably so.
Now a forum like this is clearly not a professional venue so maybe the standards here are a bit looser.
One of the benefits of having a moderator on a forum is that off topic posts can be moved to a new thread. It’s a pity this thread has degenerated into bashing of the ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus.
There are many versions of the ahistoricist/mythicist position – as there are many versions of the gospel Jesus. As there is no historical evidence to support either position it behooves all interested parties to keep the inadequacies of their own position in mind when attempting to score points against the other position. No side has the ‘truth’ – all each side has is an interpretation of the gospel story. While there is value to be had in both sides of the historicist vs ahistoricist debate the debate becomes stifled when antagonism rears it’s ugly head.
Leave your ‘guns’ at the door gentlemen and focus on the arguments – not on how hot under the collar you might get when your pet theory is disturbed….
maryhelena said
It’s a pity this thread has degenerated into bashing of the ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus.
That wasn’t bashing. Indeed I was careful to point out that I did not think the position was stupid and specified my objections.
Perhaps you are referring to my remarks about the moon, but this had more to do with the limits on what gets debated rather than a claim about mythicism. Consider that either a carpenter or an engineer might insist that cubits are a better unit of measure than inches or centimeters; but whether he can professionally make such a claim, is an entirely different matter.
There are many versions of the ahistoricist/mythicist position – as there are many versions of the gospel Jesus. As there is no historical evidence to support either position it behooves all interested parties to keep the inadequacies of their own position in mind when attempting to score points against the other position.
Score points!? No historical evidence? Yet historical evidence is what it’s all about. If you don’t have it then, I’m afraid you are conceding the argument. I happen to think you are conflating the standard of evidence with the idea that there isn’t any evidence. “historicists” as you call them have plenty of evidence. Whether you find it persuasive is another matter.
No side has the ‘truth’ – all each side has is an interpretation of the gospel story.
Yea, that is entirely false and it’s not uncivil to say so. It might SOUND great when you say it, but it’s completely and utterly false. Everyone had their interpretation of physics, but the world learned at Hiroshima that Einstein’s “interpretation wasn’t just Einstein’s interpretation; that Einstein had more of the truth than Newton. It would be absurd to claim that neither had the truth
From the perspective of quantum mechanics, Einstein’s understanding may have “inadequacies”
Now if you don’t think scholars have heated exchanges, you’re sadly mistaken. As to pet theories; coming from someone who concedes they have no evidence (pretty much the definition of a pet theory), complaints about civility, bashing etc seem more about avoiding that admission.
maryhelena said
Just to let forum members know – I no longer reply to spiker as I find his manner of debate to be unworthy of a reply…..spiker can continue to rant about my postings to this forum but I won’t be giving him any more of my time…Life is too short…..
Q.E.D
Looks like a reply, quacks like a reply? Must be a reply.
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Leave your ‘guns’ at the door gentlemen and focus on the arguments – not on how hot under the collar you might get when your pet theory is disturbed….“Pet theory” is not exactly how I’d describe virtual universal agreement.
If a ‘pet theory’ relates to original theories or ideas then a ‘pet theory’ would be meaningless as these are few and far between. A ‘pet theory’ is any idea or theory, from anywhere, that one makes ones own ‘pet’. As for universal agreement – ideas are subject to being devalued – especially so in the field of interpretation of NT written sources.
A ‘pet theory’ is not a derogatory term – although, of course, it can be used as such……..However, it’s a simple acknowledgement that everyone has their own likes and dislikes – even in the world of ideas.
As far as the issue of historicity for the gospel Jesus (of some variant) is concerned, universal agreement is hardly a recommendation. Millions of christians are indoctrinated with this idea from childhood – and that includes many NT scholars. From the Pope to the American TV evangelists they support incarnation christology for the gospel Jesus figure i.e. god in the flesh….That’s the primary christian idea that has ‘virtual universal agreement’ – not a man that was adopted/exalted after his death.
It’s only when that myth and it’s virtual universal agreement is shattered that serious NT scholarship can function.
(The Myth of God Incarnated , edited by John Hick, is what opened my eyes to the limitations in virtual universal agreement in connection to the gospel story.)
——————————–
Re Bart and adoptionist/exaltation christology vs Michael Bird and incarnation christology.
Bart’s latest blog post: ”But in his talk Michael DID clearly point out what view he *disagreed* with. That’s the view that the followers of Jesus ever thought of him as a human who had been exalted. He doesn’t think the early Christians ever thought that”.
So, when talk of a historical Jesus is debated the terms need to be clearly stated. What Jesus is being talked about as being considered a ‘virtual universal agreement’? A man, Jesus, that became adopted/exalted by god – or Jesus as a god-man i.e. a mythical figure. It’s the god-man that has ‘virtual universal agreement’……and that theory, of course, takes one dangerously close to the Carrier fundamentalist view…..incarnation in a celestial realm as opposed to incarnation on earth…..
The problem for both the christian fundamentalists and the Carrier fundamentalists is that incarnation christology is, as it were, the top dressing. The ‘body’ is adoptionist/exaltation christology. That does not equate to a historical Jesus – it simply relates to the gospel Jesus story…..
Greg Matthews said
“Pet theory” is not exactly how I’d describe virtual universal agreement.
Agreed. A pet theory is a theory held despite having, as a recent scholarly reviewer conceded, no evidence. Further, one would have to add in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary. These are usually recognizable when the owner, if you will, resorts to things like substituting insinuation, rhetoric, etc for evidence, etc. Marxists, for example are, famous for explaining disagreement as a matter of class consciousness. Indeed, the key Marxian concept of surplus value is built on an unsupported assumption and what Tom Sowell described as a rhetorical coup.
maryhelena said
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Leave your ‘guns’ at the door gentlemen and focus on the arguments – not on how hot under the collar you might get when your pet theory is disturbed….“Pet theory” is not exactly how I’d describe virtual universal agreement.
A ‘pet theory’ is not a derogatory term
It’s clear from your tone you meant exactly that. First you seem to want the possibility of staking out an anti-history perspective and now you demean what I called “virtual universal agreement” as merely some pet theory as if universal agreement is whimsically favoring that agreement over other irrational possibilities. Stop trying to be a martyr.
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Leave your ‘guns’ at the door gentlemen and focus on the arguments – not on how hot under the collar you might get when your pet theory is disturbed….“Pet theory” is not exactly how I’d describe virtual universal agreement.
A ‘pet theory’ is not a derogatory term
It’s clear from your tone you meant exactly that. First you seem to want the possibility of staking out an anti-history perspective and now you demean what I called “virtual universal agreement” as merely some pet theory as if universal agreement is whimsically favoring that agreement over other irrational possibilities. Stop trying to be a martyr.
Difference of opinion here, I’m afraid…..
‘Stop trying to be a martyr’ – I’m at a loss for words…..
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)