Robert Price - The Case Against The Case For Christ

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

Having developed a keen interest in apologetics (the defense of the faith on intellectual grounds), Bob went on to enroll at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where he received an MTS degree in New Testament. Billy Graham was the commencement speaker.

It was during this period, 1977-78, however, that Bob began to reassess his faith, deciding at length that traditional Christianity simply did not have either the historical credentials or the intellectual cogency its defenders claimed for it. Embarking on a wide program of reading religious thinkers and theologians from other traditions, as well as the sociology, anthropology, and psychology of religion, he soon considered himself a theological liberal in the camp of Paul Tillich. He received the Ph.D. degree in systematic theology from Drew University in 1981.

After some years teaching in the religious studies department of Mount Olive College in North Carolina, Price returned to New Jersey to pastor First Baptist Church of Montclair, the first pastorate, many years before, of liberal preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick. Price soon enrolled in a second doctoral program at Drew, receiving the Ph.D. in New Testament in 1993. These studies, together with his encounter with the writings of Don Cupitt, Jacques Derrida, and the New Testament critics of the Nineteenth Century, rapidly eroded his liberal Christian stance, and Price resigned his pastorate in 1994. A brief flirtation with Unitarian Universalism disenchanted him even with this liberal extreme of institutional religion. For six years Bob and Carol led a living room church called The Grail. Now, back in North Carolina, he attends the Episcopal Church and keeps his mouth shut.

Robert M. Price is Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute as well as the editor of The Journal of Higher Criticism. His books include Beyond Born Again, The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny, Deconstructing Jesus, and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Forthcoming titles are The Crisis of Biblical Authority, Jesus Christ Superstar: A Redactional Study of a Modern Gospel, The Da Vinci Controversy and The Amazing Colossal Apostle.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• gospels
• theology
• theological
• discussion
• paganism
• bible
• scholar
• study
• robert
• price
• case
• against
• christ
• fundamentalism
• jesus
• myth
• historical
• debate
• yt:stretch=16:9
• seminary
• christianity
• catholic
• church
• history
• interview
• New
• Testament
• Scholar
• Refutes
• Lee
• Strobel

[mbturner625]

Price is priceless

[AdairZionist]

Love The Bible Geek!

[boblackey1]

@TulilaSalome The passage IS genuine but with a few minor changes done by some Christian scribe. Pines has shown the Arab version & Jerome's copy are most likely what Josephus wrote"was believed to be the Messiah" rather than "was the Messiah". Dr. Goldberg has shown that Josephus used as source material for the "TF" the same material the author of Luke used for a portion of his gospel. Feldman, Whealey, Erhman, Goldberg & many others support the view the TF WAS written by Josephus

[standinstann]

@TulilaSalome The problem is, that would have been instantly recognized by the people at the time. That's the biggest problem I have with Price's (Albeit compelling) Arguments to that effect; most of the time, the closer you get to the time that this stuff was written, the less you see objections on the grounds that it was borrowed form other materials.

[TulilaSalome]

@boblackey1 as you say: "ALMOST certain," meaning not certain. It has to be rejected as evidence already on that basis. The changes also were not that minor, mostly to do with Christ's, well, christness. He does mention Pilate and crucifixion - again, IF the passage is genuine and IF he is not repeating something he has heard from early Christians.

[TulilaSalome]

@standinstann I read it as a simple case of literary plagiarism. As Dr Price points out, he does not say "lo, behold, prophecy filled" - he just found he had no idea how to describe the event (he hadn't seen) so he borrowed something he had heard or read. Like if I wanted to write a piece about bullfights, and had never seen one, stole a paragraph from Hemingway to describe it.

[theoriginalprisonerX]

The Pope wears a very nice Dagon hat and the Jews with their mushroom cult caps, what a bunch of wacky guys.

[theoriginalprisonerX]

By the Holy Horns of Moses! The Moon Priest, I say Jesus is the Sun of God! So says Chronus or El of the very same Elohim, The Gods. If only we knew who Abram from Sumeria, or Abraham was sitting and breaking bread with. What planets were they the Gods of? And who were the "people" who were hanging around outside the Garden of Eden? Only Baal knows I suppose.

[standinstann]

30:39. Wait, if this wasn't a prediction or a prophecy (which I grant 100%), then why on earth would Mark have used it to "fill in the gaps" pertaining to the crucifixion? That sounds like a pretty arbitrary posit, why not use an 'actual' prophecy if he was going to insert anything into the dialogue?

[robtul12]

@mbturner625 Couldn't agree more. I love him.