Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

[Retro Rob]

He is a historian though. Religious studies has a lot of overlap.

Bottom line, he is eminently qualified to write the book that he wrote and his "opinion" carries far more weight than anyone on this forum.

I'm not disagreeing, all am saying that just because he's a scholar, he isn't magical right.

In contrast, how many scholars believe the bibles account of Jesus? Are they "right" as well? Why does this guys opinion outweigh theirs?

 

[justoh]

Because people still aren't aware of this common scholarly interpretation, as you've demonstrated yourself. It's interesting stuff and I'm sure he has a lot of subtle nuances to his argument that are different from the stuff I've read in the past that makes largely similar arguments (as far as I can tell from what I've read about this book).

I have demonstrated no such thing. Someone claiming both faith and knowledge is lying about one or both. This much nobody would disagree with.

 

[Retro Rob]

He is a historian though. Religious studies has a lot of overlap.

Bottom line, he is eminently qualified to write the book that he wrote and his "opinion" carries far more weight than anyone on this forum.

Bottom line you want to discredit the man because you are a White Christian who feels "attacked" by a Muslim. You feel that because he is Muslim he cannot objectively write a book about Jesus that does not denigrate Christianity.

It is your small mindedness on display here sadly.

No I do not. I welcome his opinion so I can compare it with the Bible -- second opinions are good for learning.

And I am not white. Thirdly Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, so they aren't really that biased.

 

[soulcougher73]

ROFL

 

[berzerker60]

So innocent men have never been killed? You have to do something to be wrongly tried and murderd?

You're a conspiracy theroists, just like he is.

So wait, you think Jesus was framed for throwing the money-lenders out of the temple? And I'M the conspiracy theorist?

I'm not disagreeing, all am saying that just because he's a scholar, he isn't magical right.

In contrast, how many scholars believe the bibles account of Jesus? Are they "right" as well? Why does this guys opinion outweigh theirs?

And no one's arguing that. I am arguing that all else being equal we should give experts with proven depth of knowledge in the field more trust that an average Joe off of the street until we have a chance to examine their evidence and arguments ourselves. Could he be wrong? Of course! In some way or another, I'm sure he is, as there are precious few things in science or any other field that remain the same understanding forever. But considering he's a scholar at a good school, there's very good odds he knows what he's talking about and at least deserves to be judged on the merits of his arguments rather than dismissed as "a Muslim."

Almost no scholars believe in a literal account of the bible as history. They are correct. The bible is self-contradictory if you take it as literal history. That doesn't mean it's not "true" in an important spiritual sense, and certainly not that it's trying to be deceptive or anything, but it's not literal history and there are very, very few scholars who would argue otherwise. Including religious studies and biblical history scholars at excellent religious universities.

Give this a listen sometime if you're interested in this material: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911
Also: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
Also: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=643

The Yale guy above: "About Professor Dale B. Martin
Dale B. Martin is the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale. He was educated at Abilene Christian University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Yale University. His work explores the New Testament, Christian origins, the Greco-Roman world, the ancient family, and gender and sexuality in the ancient world. Professor Martin has been awarded fellowships by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Fulbright Commission, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Lilly Foundation. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 2009)."
Not exactly an athiest

Edit: Also this is a great course on the Old Testament:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't think anybody could say, with a straight face, that jesus was a trouble maker.

Can you link your sources please?

PS: bible does not count as a source/

 

[justoh]

Can you link your sources please?

PS: bible does not count as a source/

My source is myself? It was a statement pertaining to my thoughts. I'm genuinely confused as to why you might ask me to source my own self. Fascist.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm not disagreeing, all am saying that just because he's a scholar, he isn't magical right.

In contrast, how many scholars believe the bibles account of Jesus? Are they "right" as well? Why does this guys opinion outweigh theirs?

Fair enough, but how about presenting counter arguments to Aslan's claims instead of ad hominem attacks on perfectly acceptable credibility.

Look, if the guy were some 16 year old precocious kid, you'd be perfectly in line dismissing him on principle. This guy, though, is about as qualified as it gets. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but it does mean that if you're going to challenge him, you have to do it on the content of his arguments rather than on his personal life.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can you link your sources please?

PS: bible does not count as a source/

Lol, look at me (but you can't open your eyes).

 

[Retro Rob]

Fair enough, but how about presenting counter arguments to Aslan's claims instead of ad hominem attacks on perfectly acceptable credibility.

Look, if the guy were some 16 year old precocious kid, you'd be perfectly in line dismissing him on principle. This guy, though, is about as qualified as it gets. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but it does mean that if you're going to challenge him, you have to do it on the content of his arguments rather than on his personal life.

I never attacked him personally, and said he is more than welcome to have an opinion, and that Muslims respect Jesus -- what are you saying?

 

[justoh]

I never attacked him personally, and said he is more than welcome to have an opinion, and that Muslims respect Jesus -- what are you saying?

These pro-Aslan people are a bit much, aren't they rob?

 

[berzerker60]

Frankly I don't give a crap about Aslan and don't have any idea if his book is particularly worth reading. My stake in this is that I'm a historian and it irritates me to see people dismiss other serious historians for dumb reasons.

 

[justoh]

Frankly I don't give a crap about Aslan and don't have any idea if his book is particularly worth reading. My stake in this is that I'm a historian and it irritates me to see people dismiss other serious historians for dumb reasons.

You're a serious historian? Seriously?

 

[Retro Rob]

These pro-Aslan people are a bit much, aren't they rob?

They're pro-him because of his controversial views on Jesus -- they can careless about him as a historian, but he's feeding their already hostile non-belief.

 

[berzerker60]

You're a serious historian? Are you serious?

I guess I should have said "see other people dismiss serious historians, ie those employed in the same line of work I am." You're right that it comes off as fairly egotistical otherwise, so I retract that. I am a historian though - someone paid by a quality university to research, write, and teach academic history. My serious-ness can be left to others to judge.

 

[justoh]

I guess I should have said "see other people dismiss serious historians, ie those employed in the same line of work I am." You're right that it comes off as fairly egotistical otherwise, so I retract that. I am a historian though - someone paid by a quality university to research, write, and teach academic history. My serious-ness can be left to others to judge.

And you're Christian? Muslim? Link to your writing?

 

[ElFenix]

Sure, but people are free to ask questions such as, "why is a muslim writing a book about jesus" ? Or at least, why should we be taking it seriously?

so, you ask the question once, you let him list his qualifications, and then move on to real interview questions. you don't then ask him the same question again, then accuse him of hiding that he's a muslim (despite it being in his biography blurb on the second page of the fucking book), then read some twitter comment from some bumpkin in alabama along the lines of 'mooslems tuk er jerbs.'

Why the hell is that guy a bonefide muslim anyway. He seems otherwise pretty reasonable, based on other television appearances.

And you're Christian? Muslim? Link to your writing?

 

[berzerker60]

so, you ask the question once, you let him list his qualifications, and then move on to real interview questions. you don't then ask him the same question again, then accuse him of hiding that he's a muslim (despite it being in his biography blurb on the second page of the fucking book), then read some twitter comment from some bumpkin in alabama along the lines of 'mooslems tuk er jerbs.'

Agreed, I thought he was being overly defensive at first, but then she actually did go for it. I was surprised, but I guess it did get us discussing Foxnews, so that's something.

And you're Christian? Muslim? Link to your writing?

And here's where I get off the train. AnadTech is a fun forum to argue about dumb things with people too stubborn to actually listen to arguments, but I'd rather not have people searching my real life self come across flamewars on here about the latest thing Obama said or whatever (also why I use a username on here completely different from what I use elsewhere on the internet). I'm happy to give recommendations of other good history books on basically any topic, including religious history, but won't link to my own work anywhere. For what it's worth, religious history is not my area of expertise anyway.

 

[justoh]

so, you ask the question once, you let him list his qualifications, and then move on to real interview questions. you don't then ask him the same question again, then accuse him of hiding that he's a muslim (despite it being in his biography blurb on the second page of the fucking book), then read some twitter comment from some bumpkin in alabama along the lines of 'mooslems tuk er jerbs.'

Yes, absolutely, good points.

 

[ElFenix]

Sorry, who did i accuse of being a closet muslim? Why are you referencing the second page of his book? And where in god's green earth did that twitter comment come from?

you didn't. the idiot anchor on the video that's the whole topic of this thread did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uJd-lZ5cHU

 

[crashtestdummy]

I never attacked him personally, and said he is more than welcome to have an opinion, and that Muslims respect Jesus -- what are you saying?

You've strongly hinted that you disagree with him, and some of your comments have focused on his credentials rather than the content of his arguments.

If he doesn't have facts Jesus was a troublemaker, its only an opinion, period.

Secondly he oversold his credentials as a "historian" and was called out on it as he has no degree in history.

So scholars can't be wrong, biased, opinionated? I beg to differ.

Of course his degree isn't relevant, but he boasted about having "20 years" as a historian.

He was leading us on to believe his historical credentials gives him some sort of valid opinion. As we've seen, people can be badly mistaken, no matter how smart they are.

Those are, by their nature, ad hominem counters to his thesis.

I'll be the first to agree with you that there is a lot of ground to debate him on, as I pointed out in my first post of this thread. Trying to ascertain the life of a single individual though the sociology and history of a culture is a difficult task prone to error.

To some extent, what Aslan presents is "An Account of the Life of Jesus if He Were an Ordinary Jew in the First Century". He has a lot of good reasons for this perspective, ones I happen to largely agree with. If you're inclined to believe in the divinity of Jesus as an absolute first principle, though, those assumptions are harder to buy without substantially more corroborating evidence.

 

[moonbogg]

Jesus come into my harrrrt!

 

[justoh]

Agreed, I thought he was being overly defensive at first, but then she actually did go for it. I was surprised, but I guess it did get us discussing Foxnews, so that's something.


And here's where I get off the train. AnadTech is a fun forum to argue about dumb things with people too stubborn to actually listen to arguments, but I'd rather not have people searching my real life self come across flamewars on here about the latest thing Obama said or whatever (also why I use a username on here completely different from what I use elsewhere on the internet). I'm happy to give recommendations of other good history books on basically any topic, including religious history, but won't link to my own work anywhere. For what it's worth, religious history is not my area of expertise anyway.

He did seem overly defensive, and even more ready than you were to establish himself as a serious historian. Anyway, I suspect you are neither Christian nor Muslim, which was why I asked. The same reasons why you aren't religious should also cause you to be suspicious of those who are.

 

[Incorruptible]

They're pro-him because of his controversial views on Jesus -- they can careless about him as a historian, but he's feeding their already hostile non-belief.

Exactly. These people will support anyone who is anti-Christian and it's sickening how they do this.

 

[Retro Rob]

You've strongly hinted that you disagree with him, and some of your comments have focused on his credentials rather than the content of his arguments.





Those are, by their nature, ad hominem counters to his thesis.

I'll be the first to agree with you that there is a lot of ground to debate him on, as I pointed out in my first post of this thread. Trying to ascertain the life of a single individual though the sociology and history of a culture is a difficult task prone to error.

To some extent, what Aslan presents is "An Account of the Life of Jesus if He Were an Ordinary Jew in the First Century". He has a lot of good reasons for this perspective, ones I happen to largely agree with. If you're inclined to believe in the divinity of Jesus as an absolute first principle, though, those assumptions are harder to buy without substantially more corroborating evidence.

All I was saying, CTD, was that even scholars need evidence, especially if they're going to attack the Biblical narrative of Jesus.

And his religious beleifs cannot be ignored because they greatly affect every aspect of his life, and Muslims, while acknowledging Jesus, don't believe he was the Son of God.

I don't think his beliefs will color his opinion, but we will just have to read his book. But his faith shouldn't be completely out of the question.