I am sure there exist New Testament scholars who are religious, and I think some who are not. Serious study of the New Testament as a historic text has a way of destroying faith in at least some people.
The point though is that experts on ‘New Testament studies’ aren’t experts on Jesus’ magical powers, they are experts on the history of the text and the people described in the text. On those topics (those on which papers in journals are actually written), their beliefs are more accurate than yours or mine or a typical Christian faithful’s. On Jesus’ magical powers they aren’t speaking as experts, regardless of what they say. No one can be an expert on that because it’s not a scientific topic.
I am annotating this, even though it is old as hell, because new readers go through stuff like this (or at least my n=1 says so), and I want to highlight something.
As I understand the below quote, this is the clearest “No True Scottsman” [1] I have seen on LessWrong.
On those topics (those on which papers in journals are actually written), their beliefs are more accurate than yours or mine or a typical Christian faithful’s. On Jesus’ magical powers they aren’t speaking as experts, regardless of what they say. No one can be an expert on that because it’s not a scientific topic.
I highlight this so that I can be corrected if I am wrong (as the positive comment score would usually indicate this mistake isn’t being made), or so that, if I am right, we can see how easily a conversational slip like this can happen, even when debating “good arguing stuff”.
I am sure there exist New Testament scholars who are religious, and I think some who are not. Serious study of the New Testament as a historic text has a way of destroying faith in at least some people.
The point though is that experts on ‘New Testament studies’ aren’t experts on Jesus’ magical powers, they are experts on the history of the text and the people described in the text. On those topics (those on which papers in journals are actually written), their beliefs are more accurate than yours or mine or a typical Christian faithful’s. On Jesus’ magical powers they aren’t speaking as experts, regardless of what they say. No one can be an expert on that because it’s not a scientific topic.
I am annotating this, even though it is old as hell, because new readers go through stuff like this (or at least my n=1 says so), and I want to highlight something.
As I understand the below quote, this is the clearest “No True Scottsman” [1] I have seen on LessWrong.
I highlight this so that I can be corrected if I am wrong (as the positive comment score would usually indicate this mistake isn’t being made), or so that, if I am right, we can see how easily a conversational slip like this can happen, even when debating “good arguing stuff”.