Davies is a well respected Minimalist scholar. That means Old Testament.

Minimalism does not deal with the NT but it seems he cannot resist sticking his nose in. In the article in question it was because of his good pal, Thompson.

This does not change the fact the xtians do not worship the man - they worship the magic tricks.

I went to the web site. It's a kind of a new cult - so new I couldn't find it on wikipedia. Note to cults: always make a wikipedia entry when you get going!

From their site:

Quote:Creatoism was founded in United Kingdom in 2012, after many years of investigation into not only the ancient texts of other religions, but also other ancient writings and and antique books. Our religion uses some of these texts as evidence of occurrences in history, but only where other collaborating evidence backs up the occurrence or event.

Quote:Our religion,is based on scientific fact and theories and unlike other older religions, we do not proclaim to believe in a god or omnipotent being! There is no scientific evidence for this, there is no scientific theory that could explain such an existence. Many other religions have used some times similar stories in past history, sometimes their beliefs are similar, our beliefs are totally different to all other religions, and all our beliefs are based on proven facts, or scientific theories.

Quote:We hold monthly "Family" gatherings, these are similar to what in some religions are called "Services". In our family gatherings we do pray,why some would say? Our reason for praying, is based on scientific fact, it has been scientifically proven, that mass praying, does indeed help people recover more quickly than those that do not receive prayers.

Caution: aviod the Kool-Aide.

(February 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Minimalism does not deal with the NT but it seems he cannot resist sticking his nose in.

He's criticising extremist scholars on both sides of the argument. From the article again.

Quote:Am I inclined to accept that Jesus existed? Yes, I am. But I am unable to say with any conviction what he may have said and done, or what his words and deeds might tell us about who or what he thought he was. Even what his followers thought about him is highly coloured with hindsight, embellishment, rationalization and reflection. Two articles in Is This Not the Carpenter? (by the two editors, in fact) amass a great deal of evidence that the profile of Jesus in the New Testament is composed of stock motifs drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. These parallels are valid: in trying to provide an account of who and what Jesus was such resources were inevitably drawn upon, consciously or unconsciously by the gospel writers.

(February 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In the article in question it was because of his good pal, Thompson.

He criticises his good pal, Thompson's approach too. He agrees that the figure presented in Christian writings is mythological but he doesn't regard this as absolute proof that there was nobody at all who got obscured by myths and legends. I'm guessing he thinks that the extremists on both sides of the argument can't claim they know everything for certain because none of them were there at the time.

Quote:But one should not argue from these, as do Thompson and Verenna, that Jesus was invented.

I found an interesting short article relating to all this - Did Jesus Exist? An An All Out War Among the Experts. It's worth looking at because it provides links to articles written by the warring experts so you can read about who attacked who. (The link to Thompson's reply to Erhman doesn't go to the article so you can find it here.)

One of the links is to an article by Maurice Caset who is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology.[1]. He has an interesting viewpoint. Mythicism: A Story of Bias, Incompetence and Falsehood

Quote:One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist.

In the later twentieth century, competent New Testament scholars believed that it had been decisively refuted in a small number of readily available books, supported in scholarly research by commentaries and many occasional comments in scholarly books.[1]

The presentation of this view has changed radically in recent years, led by hopelessly unlearned people. It has two major features. One is rebellion against traditional Christianity, especially in the form of fundamentalism. The second is the massive contribution of the internet. Unlike published scholarly work, the internet is uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable. Two of the most influential writers of published work advocating the mythicist view, that is, the view that Jesus was not a historical figure, but rather a myth, appeal directly to an audience on the internet.

He then goes on to explain who this audience on the internet is -

Quote: The internet audience is ‘lay’, but it is not open-minded. It has both ‘Christian apologists’, whom mythicists love to hate,and atheists who are determinedly anti-Christian. Both groups consist largely of people with closed minds who are impervious to evidence and argument, a quite different world from the critical scholars among whom I am happy to have spent most of my life, whether they were Christian, Jewish or irreligious.

The way he seems to see it, then, is that atheists who insist there was nobody at all are as bad as the Christian apologists.

I've finally managed to track down Kenneth Humphrey's Qualifications.

Quote:Kenneth Humphreys holds a Master's degree from the University of Essex in history and social sciences, a post-graduate pedagogic certificate from the University of Leicester, and a higher national certificate in business studies.

Religion, and in particular the claims of Christianity, have been a life-long interest.

So, he doesn't have the right qualifications to be an expert on Biblical studies. I've had a life-long interest in religion as well but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to write books about it.

(February 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This does not change the fact the xtians do not worship the man - they worship the magic tricks.

This is true. The possibility that there might have been a real man obscured by myths is no threat to atheism, though. I can't see any atheists converting to Christianity because an ordinary guy who didn't work miracles or rise from the dead might have existed.

(February 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(February 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm)traveller Wrote: I'm sorry to ramble on but I feel so strongly, that all religions are all based on the same historical events

'Ramble' is a understatement.

How is there references to Jesus in nonreligious texts from before he was supposed to have existed?

What historical events are you referring to?

Quote:You may have gathered I do not believe there was a god, but I am not an atheist, I believe in scientific fact and have recently converted to Creatoism. see creatoism.com

If you don't believe in the existence of a god, then you are an atheist. Why do people make this so difficult?

What 'scientific fact' are you referring to? Because there is no demonstrable evidence in any field that studies the origins of the universe and life on earth for creationism. All evidence points to natural processes.

If you don't believe that a god exists, what is responsible for 'creationism' ?

---

Hi thanks for your comments but please re-read

Quote: If you don't believe in the existence of a god, then you are an atheist. Why do people make this so difficult?

I am not an atheist! I am Creatoist, which is very different to a Creationist, please use the correct religion.


Quote: What 'scientific fact' are you referring to? Because there is no demonstrable evidence in any field that studies the origins of the universe and life on earth for creationism.

Again please refer to my correct beliefs, Creatoism, believes in the partial evolution, but no god.

Quote: All evidence points to natural processes.

There is no evidence that provides a continual link from the first formation of simple life to Homo Erectus, there are a large number of links missing that cannot be scientifically explained. Some of the big ones are why is there such a variation, if all life was formed from the same original "Life form", why is the evolution still not continuing, i.e why are apes not turning into humans, fish into bird and many more, is it hard to believe that we may have had some "Intervention" but not from an omnipotent being, just possible a meteorite or perhaps a satellite from another planet?



If you don't believe that a god exists, what is responsible for 'creationism'

---

(February 24, 2013 at 12:24 am)EGross Wrote: I went to the web site. It's a kind of a new cult - so new I couldn't find it on wikipedia. Note to cults: always make a wikipedia entry when you get going!

From their site:

Quote:Creatoism was founded in United Kingdom in 2012, after many years of investigation into not only the ancient texts of other religions, but also other ancient writings and and antique books. Our religion uses some of these texts as evidence of occurrences in history, but only where other collaborating evidence backs up the occurrence or event.

Quote:Our religion,is based on scientific fact and theories and unlike other older religions, we do not proclaim to believe in a god or omnipotent being! There is no scientific evidence for this, there is no scientific theory that could explain such an existence. Many other religions have used some times similar stories in past history, sometimes their beliefs are similar, our beliefs are totally different to all other religions, and all our beliefs are based on proven facts, or scientific theories.

Quote:We hold monthly "Family" gatherings, these are similar to what in some religions are called "Services". In our family gatherings we do pray,why some would say? Our reason for praying, is based on scientific fact, it has been scientifically proven, that mass praying, does indeed help people recover more quickly than those that do not receive prayers.

Caution: aviod the Kool-Aide.

---

Hi, I see you quote Wikipedia.........what a laugh. I have myself entered three entries that are fictitious which have been entered. Entries can be entered and amended by anyone, so don't rely on wikipedia.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:32 am)traveller Wrote: Hi, I see you quote Wikipedia.........what a laugh. I have myself entered three entries that are fictitious which have been entered. Entries can be entered and amended by anyone, so don't rely on wikipedia.

A good wikipedia article provides references for the information presented. These references can then be checked out. It will also provide a bibliography and links to other websites if this is relevant. Any entry which doesn't provide a source or book reference is suspect.

And surprise, surprise.... Creatoism is the only TRUE tm religion......

Who'd have guessed.

(February 24, 2013 at 8:00 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And surprise, surprise.... Creatoism is the only TRUE tm religion......

Who'd have guessed.

I just visited the website and it isn't very informative.

Quote:How do I learn more about Creatoism?

You can download any of our books, or attend a monthly worship, or even speak to one of our flock.

Where can people do these things? Is this a new website which is still being constructed or a joke?

(February 24, 2013 at 8:27 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 24, 2013 at 8:00 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And surprise, surprise.... Creatoism is the only TRUE tm religion......

Who'd have guessed.

I just visited the website and it isn't very informative.

It tells you that it's the one true religion...

Isn't that enough?

(February 24, 2013 at 8:45 am)Zen Badger Wrote: It tells you that it's the one true religion...

Isn't that enough?

I happen to be interested in new cults and what followers are supposed to believe. I can't see this new cult getting very far if nobody is told how to join it.

Quote:Am I inclined to accept that Jesus existed? Yes, I am. But I am unable to say with any conviction what he may have said and done, or what his words and deeds might tell us about who or what he thought he was.

But this is the very essence of the point. The legends are so absurd and/or obscure that no reasonable picture of the man can be discerned but he still "accepts that he existed?" Why? And why not then also accept all of the other gods who very silly men claim exist?

There is far too much special pleading when it comes to fucking jesus.