(September 14, 2017 at 1:49 am)Minimalist Wrote: Amusing. In that list is Bauckham who was trashed by Kurt Noll in a post I made just this morning about his "testimony" bullshit.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619129
And Rudolf Bultmann in the list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann
Quote:Bultmann is known for his belief that the historical analysis of the New Testament is both futile and unnecessary, given that the earliest Christian literature showed little interest in specific locations.
Bultmann relied on demythologization, an approach interpreting the mythological elements in the New Testament existentially. Bultmann contended that only faith in the kerygma, or proclamation, of the New Testament was necessary for Christian faith, not any particular facts regarding the historical Jesus.[
I humbly accept the rebuke. And yes, I did read the Wiki entry on Bultmann, I read all of them. At first I intended to add a side note the names of those who's opinions differed from mainstream 'bible scholars' but it would take too long. As it is, I spent five hours on that list, also it would ruin the single line format. There is another guy in that list (not Bauckham) who also bucked the trend, I can't remember just now.
But even so, my main point still stands, the overwhelming vast majority of 'bible scholars' are not trained in historical research.
And yes I read that post in the other thread, I think that's what gave me the idea. That and little Rik's ravings.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.