Robert Price Part 2 (Skepticon 2)

Filmed and Edited by Rob Lehr

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Skepticon
• two
• robert
• price

[Ryansarcade9]

These videos soooo don't get enough views. This video ought to have over a million views.

[gerede1]

Sources mentioned by Robert Price

PART 2

Van A. Harvey, _The Historian and Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief_ 2:00

Collingwood, _The Principles of History_ (?) 5:00

F. H. Bradley, _The Presuppositions of Critical History_ 5:12

Bernard Lewis, _History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented_ 5:50

Robert Price, _The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist Critical Scrutiny_ 8:34

Ernst Troeltsch, [no title provided, _Religion in History_? principle of analogy] 10:24

[winston2015]

It is difficult to listen to Price because he sees so clearly through the conflicts and inconsistencies in the bible but then does not apply the same level of critical scrutiny when it comes to say, US propaganda.. (The 911 attacks being but one example)./ He just accepts what the TV says...instead of looking at the facts himself (and determining as any reasonable would, that the official story of 911 could not possibly be true

[sirdelrio]

Does he say at 2:45 'fault line' or 'folk line'?

[TheStann]

I hate seeing someone for the first time after listening to them talk for hours. Rob is supposed to look a lot older, and much more grizzled with a voice like that.

[WilhelmDrake]

@bayreuth79

I would not group Dr. Price with the "New Atheists". He does not try to "debunk" religion as the New Atheists seem to.

[snipebob]

@bayreuth79 How is it "overwhelming evidence?" There's no writings by Jesus, no accounts of any of the events of the gospels outside of the gospels. They are not even eyewitness accounts, and scholars don't even really know who the gospels writers were. He may have existed, but you're starting with a positive conclusion: 'Jesus existed' and justifying it backwards. Show us this overwhelming evidence. You can't use the bible to prove itself.

[ZOGcorp]

@bayreuth79

Praise Jebus! God bless Israel!

[winston2015]

People look at the bible too simply.The obvious thing (if you want it to make sense)is u must pick &choose. It was written in the ancient world. When u read about 'walking on water' that is an obvious allegorical allusion to rising above the material plane. (water being an ancient symbol of matter.. and the whole bible is like this.

Look at mysticism or esoteric Judaism. It must all be cognitive or what good would it be? 'the kingdom of heaven is within.' Price is historian and not a mystic.

[bayreuth79]

@OppressedAtheist By the way, I am NOT a christian nor do I have any particular commitment to theism or any other -ism. I just cannot abide the mirror opposite fundamentalism of the so-called "new atheists" (actually its a very old atheism, badly repackaged) who attempt to debunk all religion and religious beliefs on the basis of their very narrow definition of reason. They all believe in "scientism" which is a decidedly unreasonable superstition. Dawkins and his ilk disgust me.

[bayreuth79]

@OppressedAtheist It is all too convenient for atheists such as yourself to argue that Jesus didn't existed- even though the consensus of scholars (that is, ppl who specialize in ancient middle eastern hisory) say that the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is overwhelming. It is all too convenient, which makes me suspect your objectivity, I'm afraid.

I have no idea whatsoever why you corrected me regarding Ehrman not being an atheist but an agnostic. It does nothing to my argument

[bayreuth79]

@OppressedAtheist I wonder if your interpretation of the historical data has been biased at all by your atheism? If you respond that you are just taking an objective look at the evidence and this has formed your agnosticism as to the existence of Jesus, I would want to say that there is no such thing as an objective look at anything, only feeble attempts. Bart D Ehrman also pointed out that it is the consensus amongst scholars that Jesus existed. Who are you to go against the consensus?!