RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
December 4, 2014 at 3:34 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2014 at 4:19 am by Mudhammam.)
Thanks Min, there's actually a few Ehrman books I plan to get next year that I hear are very good, including Lost Christianities, Forged, and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. I would take you up on the PM but I much prefer to read hard copies (and have them on my shelf)...actually, I will never convert to electronic books! 
I can't argue with your claims because I'm simply not edumacated enough. Just last month I read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, and Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, edited by Frank Zindler and Robert Price, and I discovered just how much of a cobweb it is to really dig deep into all of the issues involved in coming to an informed opinion about the historicity of Jesus, much less the other figures that wrote on him. I suppose the initial skepticism (I'm sure I've said this before, but it will probably be my view until I--if I--get around to exploring the topic further) I have in dismissing the legitimacy of certain characters and a "standard" dating of their works, such as those we've touched upon (Paul, Clement, Ignatius), is that even the majority of secular academics (such as the Jesus Seminar--remember when they were all the rage?) seem to find such claims to be extreme, and these are people who aren't particularly favorable to orthodoxy.
On another note, whether it's fair to judge it this way or not (okay, it's not, but in terms of perception), I did feel that the mythicist case received a major boost when Thomas L. Brodie came out in support. You might know about him, but for those who don't, he's a practicing Catholic priest in the Dominican order (you can imagine how that went over).
I can't argue with your claims because I'm simply not edumacated enough. Just last month I read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, and Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, edited by Frank Zindler and Robert Price, and I discovered just how much of a cobweb it is to really dig deep into all of the issues involved in coming to an informed opinion about the historicity of Jesus, much less the other figures that wrote on him. I suppose the initial skepticism (I'm sure I've said this before, but it will probably be my view until I--if I--get around to exploring the topic further) I have in dismissing the legitimacy of certain characters and a "standard" dating of their works, such as those we've touched upon (Paul, Clement, Ignatius), is that even the majority of secular academics (such as the Jesus Seminar--remember when they were all the rage?) seem to find such claims to be extreme, and these are people who aren't particularly favorable to orthodoxy.
On another note, whether it's fair to judge it this way or not (okay, it's not, but in terms of perception), I did feel that the mythicist case received a major boost when Thomas L. Brodie came out in support. You might know about him, but for those who don't, he's a practicing Catholic priest in the Dominican order (you can imagine how that went over).
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
