It's interesting how the New Testament writings themselves are not given historical worth it seems by the garden-variety skeptic/atheist.

Christianity History

Honestly, I have to laugh when I see that theists have actually posted responses to this challenge in the belief that their OPINIONS might actually sway you. 

When I read the types of responses that the theists have posted, I can understand why you hold them in such low esteem.

Firstly, you and I both know that there is no CONTEMPORARY evidence of Jesus' existence.  So your challenge is nothing more than a show to make some "not very bright" theists look foolish.

Secondly, even if some documents were discovered tomorrow that stated the author personally knew a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified under Pilate and this same person claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus and carbon dating PROVED beyond a shadow of doubt that the documents dated back to 30AD, for example, all you have to do is say they were a forgery or a hoax or request something corroberative and you've destroyed whatever "credibility" the evidence might have possessed. 

Lastly, even if somebody could provide you with conclusive evidence, you would no more accept it than a hard -core Christian Fundementalist would accept "proof" of evolution, for example. 

Have you not figured out by now that aside from your views, you're no different than them..?? 

To an outside observer, it's so obvious it's actually funny..!!

Here's my challenge to you. 

Prove to me that you love somebody - it could be a husband / a wife / mother / father / sister / brother/ etc. But PROVE it - give me an argument that is so conclusive that I can't counter it or come up with an alternative argument.

 I'm sure we all acknowledge that love exists. So PROVE it to me..!! 

Good luck..!!

 Spumoni, that's right and its a very good point. Simple Theist you also made good points. By the way, creation scientist Dr Hovind is offering a million dollars to anyone who can show him evidence for evolution. But the evolutionists are complaining that his criteria for evidence is so high that it is impossible to meet. Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis is offering ten thousand dollars to anyone who can prove the earth revolves around the Sun. As far as I know, no one has met his challenge.

I thought about what Matt said in reference to the Lord of the Rings. I didn't see the full movie. I don't know if he was refering to a book about the movie or the movie itself listing the chronology of Frudo (or however you spell it). But I'll address both issues.

If the movie lists a chronology then within the context of the movie, yes, he would exist. He is part of the story line.

If a book about the movie lists a chronology then obviously it would be mythical, based on the characters of the ficticious movie.

But this would be a false analogy if compaired to Christ because the authors of Lord of the Rings admit its just a story and the movie is ficticious. We never find anyone in the Bible or extra-biblical liturature ever suggesting that Christ was ficticious. In addition, Matthew and Luke specifically link the geneology of Jesus to historical persons (King David, Abraham, etc). The people in Bible times believed those people were indeed historical. So to link a mythical figure to real historical persons makes no sense at all to anyone who has a brain. The Jews have always believed that a real historical Messiah would come. The purpose of Matthew and Luke was to show that Jesus qualified for this title in that he belonged to the Messianic line. If Jesus was a myth, why beat around the bush. Why didn't they just come out and say so? Why even bother linking his geneology to historical persons? In conclusion, why die and suffer for someone who was non-existant? All the apostles, with the exception of John, were killed for their faith that Jesus arose from the dead. Its interesting that other "teachers" of that time were historical, but their followers died out. Yet we are expected to believe that a mythical figure had the impetus to generate the kind of movement necessary to launch the greatest religion the world has ever seen? If he was a myth, the movement would never have survived beyond the first decade of its foundation. But he was not a myth. In fact, history was made for him. He is the meaning of history.

Spumoni: 

You and I don't believe in (pink) unicorns, but I'm willing to bet that on a planet of 6.0 billion, there are people who believe in unicorns. 

But could you imagine getting up each day knowing that your life - your reason for living -  is devoted to disproving the existence of (pink) unicorns. Or debating or arguing with people who do believe in (pink) unicorns. 

Just think about that for a moment. 

You would actually spend countless hours debating with people about something that you don't believe in.!!!

In my opinion, a rational person would look at somebody who believes in (pink) unicorns, smile, shake their head in amazement and move on and actually do something that's alittle more productive or interesting.

Honestly, I find it very funny that we theists supposedly suffer from some  kind of "mind disorder". I wonder what it says about the hard-core posters on this site who have hundreds or thousands of posts to their credit who spend countless hours of their lives debating with people who supposedly suffer from some mind disorder.

What kind of a mind disorder must they have that would would invest so much time debating with people who believe in (pink) unicorns..!! 

I think atheists primarily fall into two categories.

There are atheists like my wife - a physician - who really doesn't give a damn if people (like her husband, for example) have faith and religious beliefs or if her young son, Brandon, is baptized in a Catholic church. 

Her position is that our son will grow up and get the benefit of two very different points of view and will have an opportunity to come to his own beliefs based on the "evidence" and, most important, how his mind interprets that evidence.

 But if people get some satisfaction or hope or happiness from their beliefs, then that's fine.

 And, of course, you have theists who fall into this similar category.  

And then, of course, you have the types of atheists who spend countless hours on sites like this telling the world why they don't believe in "pink unicorns".

 Many of these types of posters remind me of the hard core Christian fundamentalists who feel they're here for one reason and one reason only - to convert the world to their way of thinking. 

To me, there's 0.00000% difference, for example, between the founders of this web site and the late Jerry Falwell, for example.  

Like I said in a previous post, I have no idea why someone would log onto a computer each and every day and spend their time debating with somebody who believes in pink unicorns. 

What kind of a mind disorder must that person suffer from I wonder..???

Dude, go see a psychiatrist.  Seriously.  Because if you actually believe this stuff, you have some serious issues.  I was going to respond to the previous posts you wrote, but there ain't no way I'm going to debate with somebody as fruity as this.  If what you posted was a joke, then congratulations, you got me pretty damn good, just tell me and I will continue where I left off, and I will respond to your previous posts.  Otherwise, go get some serious help (or do you thik Psychiatry is run by the Masons as well?)

By the way, my friend from work wants to know, when you talk to God and Jesus, do they talk back to you?

 Fellow, you and I may be theists, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the atheists on this one who may be thinking - but not necessarily expressing the opinion - that you're not playing with a full deck..!!

RRS, is it safe to say in your opinion, that the only proof of Jesus either comes from the NT or 4-5 other sources that were previously mentioned?

So, you couldn't tell them apart?

Here's one way.

One of them has no problem with using methods of delusion to gain power, no matter the possible negative ramifications for the world.

The others are concerned precisely with this. 

I can't take you seriously. The question of 'god' is one of the most imporrtant questions facing mankind.

If it's true, it deserves my attention as a human.

If it's false, it deserves my attention as a psychologist, a logician and a philosopher.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

Here is a site with information on historical Jesus. 

This site didn't really have anything new.  The only evidence I could find in it was from the gospels, and couple of references to Josephus (namely the Testimonium Flavinum, which has been thouroughly debunked as a 3rd/4th century forgery).  And that's basically it.  The rest seems to be opinions on what a historical Jesus would have been like from those who believe that Jesus existed, and all of this opinions seem to be based on what is said in the gospels, and archeological evidence of what life was like at the time Jesus was suppose to have existed.  All without making a single reference.

It's also interesting that while this article says there was a historical Jesus, it also says that Jesus wasn't divine, or the Son or God.

I don't think that's going to cut the mustard.  From the first post on this thread:

Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there.

They are asking for (i) contemporary evidence and (ii) evidence not just for an historical Yeshua, but evidence for the supernatural being depicted in the gospels. 

Of course, this is stacking the deck quite a bit.  Contemporary evidence doesn't survive or exist for all kinds of ancient figures, but to pretend this means they didn't exist is plain dumb.  And ruling out the supernatural Jesus of the gospels is NOT the same thing as ruling out any historical Jesus at all.

I was all worked up to read the article and it didn't work  

How much will you pay?  Also would you please certify in some manner your seriousness by extrapolating a little?  We don't want you to weasel out after we do so.  After you meet these terms, we'll take care of that for you.  If you want to make it fair and similar to our contest, ask for "contemporary proof" not a "scolar."

Looking forward to the money,

RRS

P.S. you have a paypal account, right? 

You start out using wikipedia, which shows me that already you show you are unfamiliar with historical methodologies. You seem to think that manuscript attestation is the only form of contemporary evidence.

This statement is pretty incoherent. The historicity of Jesus is presupposed - it is assumed, and taken for granted. It has never been "proven" - and if you wish to continue pushing this point, I want you to give me one event of the life of Jesus that is considered to have actually happened in history. The key is, you have you prosent me one event that scholars unanimously agree is historical and is attested. We'll go from there.

That is fallacious. Again, you seem to think that the only evidence for somebody elses existence is manuscript attestation. You are living in a fantasy world that died one-hundred years ago.

Bart Ehrman is a fossil, in my opinion. He is of the opinion that Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher, a false position held by Schweitzer at the turn of the last century. It has been exposed as a false position by many modern historical Jesus scholars, yet Bart Ehrman holds to this presupposition. Second, Bart Ehrman, like the rest of the historical Jesus scholars, have done more to confuse the evidence of the so-called historical Jesus than actually solve the mystery. Can you present me one face of the hiostorical Jesus that is, again, unanimous among scholarship? I already know you can't.

You had better pay, or you're a liar. We have contemporary evidence of Alexander the Great. The first are a large number of inscriptions which speak of him and his campaigns against the Persians. The most famous is the Astronomical Diary which discusses his victory at Gaugamela. We also have contemporary coins and currency with his face on them, which was a common thing for a Greek king to do (print their images on currency).

We also have contemporary attestation which, although lost, is well documented. General Ptolomy wrote a whole history of the campaign, which Arrian and Plutarch both had copies of. The fact that it is attested to by name in two seperate accounts, and was known to other Hellenistic philosophers and poets suggests that it did exist. But even if you want to claim that as hearsay, there is also the contemporary Aeschines who wrote Against Ctesiphon, a prose which not only discusses the Macedonian campaign, but also specifically mentions Alexander.

We also have archaeological attestation due to the fact that the Hellenistic Age did occur, and the Greeks did conquer the Ancient Near East under Alexander the Great.  Of the later attestation, we also have Diodorus of Sicily, which he names the following sources:

• Ephorus of Cyme on the History of Greece (It's origins until c. 356)
• Cleitarchus' history of the conquests of Alexander the Great
• Hieronymus of Cardia who wrote on the wars following the death of Alexander.

We do not have anything similar to this for Jesus. In other words, (1) no named sources, (2) no contemporary accounts, (3) conflicting accounts of his life (Irenaeus actually attempts to argue that Jesus died in his 50's!), (4) narratives which reflect scripture reinterpretation, (5) where the authors invented and fabricated events and sayings to fit their ends, (6) no archaeological data has been gathered, (7) conflicting accounts of the twelve disciples (what were their names?), etc...

I expect that $50 to be in the RRS Pay Pal account asap.

Good. When can we expect payment?

You should know better to not use wiki. You have obviously not read any published works on the evidence/life of Alexander the Great.

He knows his stuff when it comes to textual criticism. Beyond that, I find him to be too stuck on old scholarship and sensationalism. He has a chance to come on the show and prove me wrong.

No, it is not. This proves how little you've read on the subject. Consider the list of scholars who write on the historical Jesus; E. P. Sanders, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Ben Witherington, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, Burton Mack, Hyam Maccoby, Morton Smith, Bruce Chilton, John Meier, N. T. Wright, S.G.F. Brandon, G.W. Buchanan, John M. Allegro and many others; there are practically just as many claims from the community as to who Jesus was as there are scholars writing on him. Jesus, according to the questers, was one of the following: An itinerate preacher,[iii] a cynical sage,[iv] the Essene’s righteous rabbi,[v] a Galilean holy man,[vi] a revolutionary leader,[vii] an apocalyptic preacher,[viii] a proto-liberation theologian,[ix] a trance-inducing mental healer,[x] an eschatological prophet,[xi] an occultic magician,[xii] a Pharisee,[xiii] a rabbi who seeks religious-reformation,[xiv] a Galilean charismatic,[xv] a Hillelite,[xvi] an Essene,[xvii] a teacher of wisdom,[xviii] a miracle-working-exorcist prophet[xix] and yes the list goes on. Somewhere in this mess, some really believe to find the historical Jesus. Paul Rhodes Eddy sums up the conflicting dramatis personae by saying that the new quest has been “anything but uniform.”[xx]

The facts on Jesus aren't in yet, because there are no facts - just assertions.

That is only because it was then that historical criticism, or redaktionsgeschicte, started. Before that time, there was no science in history. Funny how when you add science, the delusions go away.

That is a fiction. The same could be said about the Old Testament. thirty years ago, nobody questioned the existence of the patriarchs. Now, everyone recognizes the Old Testament as Persian and Hellenized fictions. When you stop taking for granted the conclusions, and assuming the points in dispute, that is when you will be a real historian. Until that day, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Watch how easy it is to melt these. First you just ripped off Gary Habbermas or Mike Licona, both of whom have been taken to task by mythicists like Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. In any case, lets get down to why these are fictions and not facts.

(1) The town of Nazareth, although it existed, was a literary development. The root of the word "Nazir" is specifically related to Old Testament reinterpretation. In other words, it was chosen as a fiction writer chooses a city for their characters to be from. This intent was to relate the Jesus of the authors narrative to the story in Judges 13:7. The author of the narratives is letting you know he is doing that when he even relates back to this in his narrative! (Matthew 2:22-23, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene.&quot Although Matthew seems to have mistranslated the scriptures as it is "Nazirite" not "Nazarene" - unless he was using the LXX, which is more than probable. This is not fact any more than your other claims, which are also just the authors creative imagination when reinterpreting scripture.

(2) John the Baptist is representative of literary fiction as well. (No attestation exists for him either, and the only mention in Joephus is not "John the Baptiser" but "John the Essene" - Christian imaginations fly and here is an example of one making a "Johnson mistake" at reviewing the data with "Gospel colored glasses&quot. Again, in Mark, the author is portraying John as Elijah, and even makes this known by having John wearing camel-hair robes and a leather belt, exactly the same attire as is discribed in 1 Kings. Matthew reuses Marks narrative and copies this part (as he does with most of Marks Gospel) which is why it appear. Luke then takes Marks account and Matthews birth narrative and expands on the Legend to reinterpret the birth narratives of Isaac in Genesis to create the births of Jesus and John.

(3) This is speculative. It all comes from the Gospel accounts. Orpheus had that reputation too - but he never existed either.

(4) The 12 disciples is not attested by early Christians - according to Paul, there were many disciples (Paul includes himself) without giving us a number. The 12 disicples comes from Mark reinterpreting scripture again. 12 disciples is representative of 12 tribes of Israel, and also the calling of the 12 heads of the 12 tribes by Moses in the Old Testament. Not historical fact, but literary invention - just as the Gospel author intended to have his narrative read as.

(5) The last supper comes from Pauline theology, NOT from history. Mark is aware of Pauline theology, and in the Epistles Paul recounts a vision (NOT AN ACTUAL EVENT, in 1 Cor. 11:23, he writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you," right before he gives the account of Jesus' supper - Paul never met Jesus, but received his knowledge through revelation or visions which he makes clear in Gal. 1) of Jesus in heaven before he was killed by the Archons (heavenly rulers, the initiators...the Archons are those who αρχε) eating and drinking. This is not factual, but again it is rather the reading of Paul with "Gospel colored glasses". Another "Johnson mistake", as opposed to a "Nixon mistake".

(6) The crucifixion is more literary creation. Especiall the concept of it happening on passover. Paul believes Jesus to have been crucified on another plane of existence, one of the several heavens which Paul believes in (and Paul attests to in the Epistles), by the Archons (again, the rulers of the aeons). It is Paul, this time, who is reinterpreting Isaiah's account of the messiah, as well as Mark who draws in the Psalms of David, to create the account of the crucifixion. Mark just adds onto Paul's version, which is similar to the account written of Prometheus' crucifixion (stauros) as attested to by the poet Aeschylus. This poem was not only known to Hellenized Jews, but the author of another Jewish pseudepigrapha, the so-called third maccabees, not only drew from the concept of Prometheus Bound, but uses the name Aeschylus more than any other in his fictional narrative, which was written around the first century CE.

(7) Another fiction, which is again, you speculating. His followers had visions, yes - that was how this all started. Somebody had a vision. That vision got reinterpreted, and continued to be reinterpreted up until Athanasius issued his Easter edict banishing all other narratives save for the books we now have in the New Testament, not long after the Council of Nicea. The Gospels we have in the New Testament were a product of that reinterpreting, not the originators of a tradition. And that reinterpreting is seen within the Gospels themselves, such as the growing legend and tradition surrounding the resurrection and crucifixion.

Fallacy of false analogy. Evolution is a fact and a theory, as Jesus is neither - he is a literary character which people assume was real. Evolution is the foundation of all life science, including modern pharmaceutical sciences. Jesus is the foundation of peoples faith - as defined as belief in something without evidence, or in spite of evidence.

Except we have inscriptions from Persia which discuss Alexander, and tons of contemporary evidence. You OWE us $50. You said you'd give us $50 if we provided you with contemporary accounts. I gave you that. You owe us the money, or we'll just have to expose you as a liar and a fraud. At this point, I'm disappointed in your intellectual dishonesty.

Except for the fact that we have independant attestation from a contemporary in Greece. Again, you are ignorant. Ignorant, and now a liar on top of it.

Wishful thinking on your part.  Your speculations and poorly researched claims hardly count as evidence.

Now you're also an asshole. (1) You did not provide contemporary evidence. (2) The evidence I provided trumps your "circumstantial" garabage that I easily refuted. (3) None of the evidence for Alexander is circumstantial - I dount you even know what that word means. (4) You're a liar. (5) You're intellectually dishonest.

I expect that $50 from you today. Or, you'll be exposed to thousands of people as a fraud and a liar. Your call.

[i] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1992) Pg. xxvii

[ii] ------- Pg. xxviii

[iii] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992)

[iv] J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1992); Burton Mack, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic and Legacy (2003), The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (1993), and A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (1988); F.G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (1992); Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449-469.

[v] John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

[vi] Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1973), The Religion of Jesus the Jew (1993); B. Thiering, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story (1992).

[vii] S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (1967); G.W. Buchanan, Jesus: The King and His Kingdom (1984)

[viii] Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci CodeFrom Jesus to Christ (1988) (2004); Paula Fredriksen,

[ix] James M. Robinson, The Jesus of Q as Liberation Theologian, paper presented at the Jesus

Seminar, (October 25-27,1991).

[x] S. Davies, On the Inductive Discourse of Jesus: The Psychotherapeutic Foundation of Christianity, paper presented at the Jesus Seminar, (October 22-25, 1992) and Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (1995)

[xi] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (1985); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2: Mentor, Message and Miracles (1994).

[xii] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (1978)

[xiii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); Hyam Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee (2003)

[xiv] Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (1987); Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (2006); Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (1984)

[xv] Geza Vermes, Jesus in the World of Judaism (1984)

[xvi] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003)

[xvii] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (2003); John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1992)

[xviii] Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (1995)

[xix] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (1982)

[xx] Paul Rhodes Eddy, Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 3. (Autumn, 1996), pp. 449

Well, in that case I fear it's a goodbye for ever

I was hoping to learn something from you guys here, but you sound just as confident in your "facts" than Kent Hovind.

You only read and point to outdated data or ghetto-scolarship wich has the same historical value as the Davinci code and refuse to listen to someone who's profession is to investigate these kind of things (me).

I have no more hopes for you ever learing me something usefull since everything wich is said here is filtered by a "rational" (as long as it's anti-christian) filter.

Farewell

That was entertaining...did he pay the $50?

This is a perfect - PERFECT - example of why we're fighting theism. This dude had only three options after Rook offered exactly what he asked for.

1) Prove rook wrong

2) Pay up

3) Run away.

The thing is, he can't prove Rook wrong because there is proof of Alexander. He also can't pay up, because then he'd be admitting that there's a chink in his theist armor. He believes that absolutely everything he believes is certain, because Jesus lived, and he talks to him in his wee little heart, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or ignorant.

This leaves only one option. He must run away. He's going to go back to church and whine about how the mean people at RRS treated him so unfairly, and how they changed the rules, and how they didn't honor the spirit of his stupid bet.

A rational person would simply say, "Wow. You know what? That was a stupid bet on my part. Here's your fifty dollars. I'll try to think before I speak in the future."

Theism teaches him that he's got to be right. Jesus has to be as likely as Alexander! If he admits that Alexander is more likely than Jesus, he's admitting that dozens of apologists who've used this stupid argument are....

WRONG.

And then he might have to question those apologists, instead of taking them at their word simply because Jesus told them some secrets.

Folks, this is a great opportunity. Not only could we use the money, but if enough people chip in, Paddy would be single-handedly responsible for financing our server for a month, just by being a typical theist. Let's make sure that while he's lurking and reading everything we say about him (Yes, Paddy... we know when you are here...) that he realizes how much better things would have been if he'd just been a man of honesty and integrity (both Christian virtues, right, Paddy?) and paid up.

I donated to help make up for this assclown.

 Good day. 

The fact that Rook's work is being peer-reviewed is the important thing. Why do you want him to name-drop? 

If he did, would you respect that or say "He's appealing to authority so his arguments are invalid"?

And what does that have to do with Rook handing Paddy his hindquarters? 

Indeed.  Though the fact that he says he knows who is doing the reviewing is odd, since top academic journals use a blind reviewing process. 

I was merely curious about his claim that his reviewer is "the world's top theologian".  This person is the "top theologian" according to who?  How was this determined and when?  I wasn't aware that there was some kind of independent ranking of theologians, so it would be rather difficult to substantiate that claim.

Ditto for the claim about the world's "top academic journal".  There are several possible contenders for that status - The Proceedings of the Royal Society, for example.  Or The Lancet.  Or Nature.  But none of them publish material on Biblical history.  Even if Rook meant a journal that does publish on Biblical history, there's no independent ranking of them either, so there is no "top journal" in that field.

Er, no.  My point was simply that making claims like "I'm being reviewed by the most amazingest scholar in the world and will be published by the biggestest and bestest journal in the universe!" doesn't exactly do his credibility a lot of favours.  I've found in other threads Rook has a tendancy to overstate things.  It weakens his arguments, even (or especially) when his arguments are otherwise perfectly sound.

See above.  Rook weakens his arguments when he indulges in this kind of hyperbole.  "I'm being peer reviewed by a top rank scholar for a leading journal" would have done nicely.  And I suspect it would also have been closer to the truth. 

Yes, really.  If he meant "a theologian that I, personally, regard as the best in the world" then he should have said that.  To say that Thompson is the "best theologian" in the world by any objective measure is silly and doesn't exactly help Rook's credibility.

See above. 

 Perhaps some of them, sure.  That doesn't change the fact that claiming that Thomas L. Thompson is the "the world's top theologian" as though this is an objective fact makes him look rather silly.

 All historians try to do that.  None totally succeed.  All historians have their biases and blind spots, including the ones I happen to agree with.  So do the ones that you and Rook happen to agree with.  Again, to claim they have some superior claim to objectivity is a very strange claim.

Calling Thompson "the world's top theologian" certainly does sound like he has a hard on for him and, as I said, it makes Rook sound silly.  Which doesn't help his arguments.   

 I already knew who he was referring to (Google is good that way), I was simply pointing out the silliness of claiming that Thompson was "the world's top theologian".     

That link leads to a page that says "Page Not Found".  But my earlier Googling already dug up what you're referring to which seemed to be a scumbag called Tim O'Neill wasting his time.

Would a mod please clean the hijack and split it off to a new thread?

No problem. 

It's because people on this board regard you as something of an authority and a scholar.  Which means you have, I'd argue, something of a duty to be less of a polemicist/apologist and more of an objective source of information.  Stating, point blank, that a certain publication is the "world's top academic journal" might be meant as simply an opinion by you or taken as a bit of hyperbole or as a joke by me, but there are others here who seem likely to think that this journal really is (somehow) the "best in the world" by some kind of objective measure.  Which is, of course, nonsense.

 After all, you seem to have convinced people on this forum that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is a current, mainstream theory in scholarship whereas the Apocalyptic Jesus hypothesis is some kind of rather dated and marginal idea.  Where, in fact, the opposite is the case.  I can see why you - as a polemicist/apologist for the JM idea - would like to present things in this rather bizarre and backwards fashion, but I'd argue that if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar you have a duty to present things more accurately.

Ditto for your overstatements and statements of opinion as though they are hard facts.

 All in my opinion, of course.

 Your other comments could be addressed in detail, but their tone indicates that you've already taken umbrage at my criticisms so far, despite the fact I've tried to make them as professional and reasonable as possible.  So I won't exacerbate that and will leave things as they are.  Since you say you are open to genuine criticism and since my criticism is entirely genuine, I don't want to turn this exchange into anything less constructive or more heated.

So, until next time, good night and good luck to you Rook.

Cheers,