Academic Fail

[FallentoReason]

I found out, by chance, that he was a Young Earth Creationist. That put doubt into my mind about the veracity of everything he had said. How anyone could have the knowledge that he did, while also believing that it happened within a few thousand years of the creation of the planet... was just saddening.

It's beyond me as well. You could be forgiven for being ignorant of the deeper historical issues, but I would of thought a univeristy lecturer knew better. He's not ignorant, he's in denial, which I would personally categorise as being far worse.

Then again, I'm willing to accept that he actually doesn't have the slightest clue about NT scholarship and what not. Given that he's a historian AND a Christian I would of thought the chances of that would be low. I mean, Christians quite often boast about the uniqueness of the religion when it comes to the nature of scripture--historical documents and letters.

I was a history major, and before graduation I had to take a class on problems with historical sources

Thanks for that post festive.

We've already learnt very basic things about this. Again, I'm surprised that this particular difficulty with history completely escaped his mind when it came to the Gospel of Matthew. Convenient eh? Like I said to Red Celt (and you mentioned it as well) I'm willing to accept that he just hasn't looked into the topic that much. But now that I think of it that actually can't be. In the lecture itself he brought up the point that the resurrection can't be narrated. He compared the Gospel of Peter to the Gospel of Mark and made us notice how simplistic Mark was compared to the over-the-top and supernatural-packed account found in Peter.

I think you nailed it when you said this:

I can't help with the smart people believing in the Gospels question, I don't get it either, but I'd imagine they'd describe it as a leap of faith.

Christianity can't be proven so the true believer is actually taking that leap from rationality onto something without proof. That is true faith. It seems like my lecturer wants the best of both worlds though; he wants to retain erroneous historical knowledge on why Jesus is the truth while still being a legit historian. As I explained in the OP though, this doesn't fly and his intellectual dishonesty was revealed within a few questions.

And you can tell me that you have mastered these basics?

This is exactly my point. I have not mastered the basics and yet my internet research cornered a professional historian. This isn't saying that I'm something great. It's actually saying something about him. His agenda (being a Christian) has lead him to abandon all reasoning that his own degree taught him to be able to make the Jesus story fly. That really made me cringe.

To be honest, friend, it's not him that you ought to hold accountable for these. Whomever declared today's four gospels to be the ones that describe Christ's life and deeds best, they are your targets.
But they're all dead, and they've been through a few more gospels before deciding on these four only.

Yes, I absolutely agree with the first bit. I'm determined to know why these people wrote what they wrote basically. The reality is that we have been left with these Gospels and so it's only logical that we find an answer to why they wrote these things.

I still don't know what exactly is your hypothesis. Whether an academian can be christian or not?

Whether one can be taught all the history and still sincerely believe there aren't lethal flaws that make the whole Jesus story come crashing down.