Edward Feser has a blog post up that is highly relevant to much of the debate that takes place here at The Skeptical Zone between theists and non-theists.
Lazy shouts of “unfalisfiability!” against theological claims just ignore all this complexity — the distinctions that have to be drawn between empirical claims on the one hand and claims of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics on the other; between extremely general empirical claims and more specific ones; between philosophy of nature (which studies the philosophical presuppositions of natural science) and natural science itself; and between the testing of a thesis and the testing of the auxiliary assumptions we generally take for granted but conjoin with the thesis when drawing predictions from it.
So, falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up.
On the subject of excellent reading material:
I highly recommend The Master and Margarita a novel by Mikhail Bulgakov
In Dostoyevsian fashion, Bulgakov digresses with a side-bar story of Jesus’ encounter with Pilate while a nearby follower desperately and hurriedly copies Jesus’ words.
Outrageous and hilarious! A Must-Read!
Neil Rickert,
I agree with you here. I think if it is used the level of discussion should be well understood as a lesser standard then a tested scientific hypothesis.
Patrick,
Darwin’s inference is based on observations of microevolutionary evidence fossil records etc
Meyer’s design inference is based on biochemical evidence inside the cell.
Uhmm
Out of curiosity, whence came your misinformation regarding Darwinian Theory?
TomMueller,
Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation
Samir Okasha*
Eye glazing & Mind-Numbing stuff…
I need to note that you appear to have misread the very first paragraph on Darwin.
It’s getting late, maybe I am missing something.
‘nite all
The current understanding of Mithraism is that it was Roman mystery religion practiced from the first to the fourth century. Your 25 year old article is not the current understanding.
I’m not sure it ever was the scholarly understanding That is why I asked if you had any real proof that your article ever appeared in scientific American.
again check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
I’d venture to bet Ive read more of Ehrman than most people including most of misquoting jesus. I find his popular writings to be so profoundly biased by his theological outlook that they are of little value. He is simply an angry ex fundamentalist with an axe to grind and he uses his Scholarly credentials to do it.
I suggest you check this out to see how his claims stand up to scrutiny
peace
How so? I see nothing in the quote to support your negative picture of Paul’s motives. care to elaborate?
That is cool with me. participation is voluntary. Some people don’t want to their ideas challenged and life is too short to get so upset.
peace
But that only applies to theists!
I did! To wit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Plutarch
The Greek biographer Plutarch (46–127 AD) says that “secret mysteries … of Mithras” were practiced by the pirates of Cilicia, the coastal province in the southeast of Anatolia, who were active in the 1st century BC…
Now unless I am missing something, the 1st century BC predates Jesus
and
the Plutarch reference in the Scientific American article is confirmed according to the very source you throw at me by way of rebuttal.
QED!
Proof?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/1989/12-01/
You realize of course, my “irony-meter” just red-lined!
Damn it all, do you understand the meaning of the word “sophistry”?
Since you like to defer to the authority of Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament
For more detail, check out:
The best book on the subject I have read so far:
Does a very good job of explaining the emergence of early Pauline anti-Semitism not to mention a thorough examination of John 8:44 which is about as QED as it gets!
We are rehashing! You conveniently disregard my earlier mention of Barrie Wilson’s book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Jesus_Became_Christian
I cannot believe your claim as true. Statements you have ascribed to Ehrman are completely contrary to Ehrman’s thesis. Your vacuous ad hominem fails miserably given you clearly have not sat done to read Ehrman’s cogent scholarship buttressed by rigorous empirical methodology. He has no axe to grind. Read him in the original and you will discover what I say is true.
Quaecumque Sunt Vera
Let’s see https://books.google.ca/books?id=Hy1YNAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
versus https://global.oup.com/academic/product/forgery-and-counterforgery-9780199928033?cc=ca&lang=en&
and https://www.amazon.ca/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012622
HMMMM again! I agree with you there is no contest.
Please get back to me when you can cite Ehrman correctly.
… again: de cetero fratres quaecumque sunt vera quaecumque pudica quaecumque iusta quaecumque sancta quaecumque amabilia quaecumque bonae famae si qua virtus si qua laus haec cogitate
Philippians 4:4-8 without 9
In short: quaecumque sunt vera!
LOL
My “irony-meter” just bent its needle!
Since you apparently did not bother to read what I linked I will quote the relevant section at length
quote:
Beginnings of Roman Mithraism
The origins and spread of the Mysteries have been intensely debated among scholars and there are radically differing views on these issues.According to Clauss mysteries of Mithras were not practiced until the 1st century AD. According to Ulansey, the earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the 1st century BC: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 BC the pirates of Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing “secret rites” of Mithras. However, according to Daniels, whether any of this relates to the origins of the mysteries is unclear. The unique underground temples or Mithraea appear suddenly in the archaeology in the last quarter of the 1st century AD.
Earliest archaeology
Inscriptions and monuments related to the Mithraic Mysteries are catalogued in a two volume work by Maarten J. Vermaseren, the Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (or CIMRM).The earliest monument showing Mithras slaying the bull is thought to be CIMRM 593, found in Rome. There is no date, but the inscription tells us that it was dedicated by a certain Alcimus, steward of T. Claudius Livianus. Vermaseren and Gordon believe that this Livianus is a certain Livianus who was commander of the Praetorian guard in 101 AD, which would give an earliest date of 98–99 AD.
Votive altar from Alba Iulia in present-day Romania, dedicated to Invicto Mythrae in fulfillment of a vow (votum)
Five small terracotta plaques of a figure holding a knife over a bull have been excavated near Kerch in the Crimea, dated by Beskow and Clauss to the second half of the 1st century BC, and by Beck to 50 BC–50 AD. These may be the earliest tauroctonies, if they are accepted to be a depiction of Mithras.The bull-slaying figure wears a Phrygian cap, but is described by Beck and Beskow as otherwise unlike standard depictions of the tauroctony. Another reason for not connecting these artifacts with the Mithraic Mysteries is that the first of these plaques was found in a woman’s tomb.
An altar or block from near SS. Pietro e Marcellino on the Esquiline in Rome was inscribed with a bilingual inscription by an Imperial freedman named T. Flavius Hyginus, probably between 80–100 AD. It is dedicated to Sol Invictus Mithras.
CIMRM 2268 is a broken base or altar from Novae/Steklen in Moesia Inferior, dated 100 AD, showing Cautes and Cautopates.
Other early archaeology includes the Greek inscription from Venosia by Sagaris actor probably from 100–150 AD; the Sidon cippus dedicated by Theodotus priest of Mithras to Asclepius, 140–141 AD; and the earliest military inscription, by C. Sacidius Barbarus, centurion of XV Apollinaris, from the bank of the Danube at Carnuntum, probably before 114 AD.
According to C.M.Daniels, the Carnuntum inscription is the earliest Mithraic dedication from the Danube region, which along with Italy is one of the two regions where Mithraism first struck root. The earliest dateable Mithraeum outside Rome dates from 148 AD. The Mithraeum at Caesarea Maritima is the only one in Palestine and the date is inferred.
end quote:
Again from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
peace
I scanned your links and no evidence that Paul was a Hater with an axe to grind were given. In fact Paul is barely mentioned there aside from the passage you linked.
What I would like to see is an explanation of how the text you linked demonstrates the negative motives that you ascribe to Paul. Can you do that?
peace
Again I have read him.
I realize you are a fan but I’m not
It’s possible that people can have different opinions on the quality and intentions of an author. As witnessed by our apparent disagreement as to the intentions of Paul. The world will go on even if we don’t all like the same folks.
Instead of arguing about Ehrman perhaps you might want to offer some actual evidence in support of his thesis here and see if it holds up to challenge any better than your failed “Christianity copied Mithraism” trope.
Peace
If Paul’s words in 1st Thessalonians are evidence of hatred. Here are some other authors with a hatred of Judaism
Quote:
“Why do you contend with me? You have all transgressed against me, declares the LORD. In vain have I struck your children; they took no correction; your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.
(Jer 2:29-30)
and
There he came to a cave and lodged in it. And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.”
(1Ki 19:9-10)
and
“Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies.
(Neh 9:26)
and
But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, until there was no remedy.
(2Ch 36:16)
end quote:
etc etc etc
I could go on with this sort of stuff for a long time but hopefully you get the point
peace
The prophets were bad people. It’s a surprise any of their writings survived. Is it any wonder the religious leaders were accused of killing them?
The book of Revelation makes the link clear which is one reason I take it to be describing the coming destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70) and not some future end of the world in the 20th century.
I pared down your lengthy quote to its bare essentials.
In other words, and according to your own citation, Mithraism arose in Saint Paul’s neck of the woods before Saint Paul could possibly have known of Jesus. I also find it remarkable that you are citing the same author of the Scientific American article that you wanted to dismiss earlier!
To continue with your citation:
Yeah, one other scholar raises a red flag and justifiably so, given Mithraism was a secret cult and we can only deduce theology and practice from secondary sources. like we once needed to with so-called Gnosticism.
I find it peculiar you do not want to take Plutarch at his word.
It matters not, according to the sources you cite, the latest possible emergence of Mithraism in Paul’s neck of the woods coincided with Paul’s first epistles.
Funny coincidence that.
I note you completely disregard my references to “diabolical mimicry”.
Forget the silliness of Freke, Gandy & Doherty. Elaine Pagles does a very scholarly and sensitive treatment of the question that cannot be easily dismissed by modern apologetics
Uhmmm… I am dumbfounded!
The Pieter van der Horst, Elaine Pagels and Barrie Wilson links; not to mention the wikipedia link (along the lines you seem to appreciate) are emphatically clear that Pauline Christianity is decidedly anti-Semitic!
Check out Elaine Pagels. She deals with the subject the best IMHO
ITMT, the Wikipedia article was quite explicit:
what part of
Antisemitism and the New Testament
do you not understand?!
The Johaninne/Pauline Christianity that contended with the competing Pharisaical/rabbinic tradition which survived the fall of the temple has Jesus call Pharisees “children of the devil”. John 8:44
Is that “negative” enough for ya?
Tom, when you call them anti-Semitic, are you using that according to the modern sense of the word, you know, as in the way we understand it today? If so, how do you justify using it as a label for people who lived 2000 years ago? It’s anachronistic.
Since we’re trading links. 🙂
In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity
Hi Mung – I do not want to appear obtuse here, but I do not know what you mean by “modern”?
Do you refer to the politically correct incarnation of BDS & anti-Zionism?
Do you refer to the pseudo-scientific racial definitions of the late 19th and 20th Century?
Do you refer to the world-domination conspiracy theories?
I think Paul and the authors of the Gospels were guilty of “Anti-Judaism” which somehow is supposed to be different than modern anti-Semitism given Jewish converts immediately become acceptable and no longer are continued to be identified as spawn of the Devil.
Call me less than convinced and reassured, given my reading of history
Impossible! If you gave even a cursory reading of Ehrman, you could not possibly have attributed the howling falsehoods you attributed to Ehrman!
Now why would that be? It revolves around the key concept of opinion and informed opinion!
Check out the title of this thread:
“Empirical Falsifiability”
You are prepared to uncritically believe on “blind faith” impossible views that can have no basis in objective reality!
That’s your prerogative.
TomMueller,
Samir Okasha is a sharp guy, Tom. Worth a look
It’s not a coincidence at all. Christianity was rapidly sweeping the empire it is only natural that other movements would try to get in on the action.
What is not plausible is that a Pharisee like Paul would enthusiastically borrow from an upstart and obscure pagan cult and get a whole movement of thousands of pious Jews and godfearers to follow him in his endeavor.
Remember Paul is not shy to speak his mind in his letters and we find no record of any of the other members of the movement objecting to his understanding of the Gospel. The only controversy we know of was about the role of the Mosaic law in the dawning Messianic age
To think that Paul would and could pull this sort of thing off is simply beyond unbelievable .
It is a Godzilla sized conspiracy theory. It is silly that you would buy into it.
peace
I provided an indepth scholarly review of his book that agreed with my appraisal of his contradictory claims .
Would you like to see it in his own words
quote:
Suppose, though, that the scribe got all the words 100 percent correct. If multiple copies of the letter went out, can we be sure that all the copies were also 100 percent correct? It is possible, at least, that even if they were all copied in Paul’s presence, a word or two here or there got changed in one or the other of the copies. If so, what if only one of the copies served as the copy from which all subsequent copies were made — then in the first century, into the second century and the third century, and so on? In that case, the oldest copy that provided the basis for all subsequent copies of the letter was not exactly what Paul wrote, or wanted to write.
Once the copy is in circulation — that is, once it arrives at its destination in one of the towns of Galatia — it, of course, gets copied, and mistakes get made. Sometimes scribes might intentionally change the text; sometimes accidents happen. These mistake-ridden copies get copied; and the mistake-ridden copies of the copies get copied; and so on, down the line. Somewhere in the midst of all this, the original copy (or each of the original copies) ends up getting lost, or worn out, or destroyed
At some point, it is no longer possible to compare a copy with the original to make sure it is “correct,” even if someone has the bright idea of doing so.
end quote
B. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
What you need to do is explain how given this understanding of the textual transmission we can definitely know what Jesus said or did.
Can you do that?
peace
Why not? It is widely accepted that both Christmas and Easter are “borrowed” from pagan festivities. Maybe there’s some relevance to the old saying “if you can’t lick them, join them.”
Again, you are being disingenuous and switching horses in midstream:
CHERRY-PICKING & QUOTE-MINING! Sophistry of the most venal!
Yes – yes… so logically there would be nothing more to be said and no more books to be written… Ehrman would better spend his time taking up carpentry.
…AND YET Bart Ehrman is a prolific writer on what Paul and other Gospel writers actually said!
Why would that be?!
Because you selectively misquoted Ehrman out of context by distorting and misrepresenting what he actually said!
Now read his book(s) again and next time when you get back to us, do not break the Ninth (respectively the eighth according to the Catholic and Lutheran count) Commandment!
Implausible?! You mean just as implausible as the Moonies and the Mormons? Joseph Smith’s Mormon Church is just as implausible, ditto Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. A little theological equivalent of Genetic Drift mixed in with a little Selection Pressure (gratis Constantine) and there you have it: a fait accompli Stranger things have happened (the Khazars jump to mind)
Meanwhile, you have explained better than I (thanks BTW) the hostility between Pauline/Johannine versions of the early church and a whole movement of thousands of pious Jews and godfearers who rejected such silliness as expounded in quite some detail in the NT and again (as rpeatedly mentioned above) elucidated in Elaine Pagels’ book
Meanwhile, I note with bemusement you have avoided altogether Elaine Pagles’ excellent elucidation of ecclesiastical plagiarism aka “diabolical mimicry”.
Again, please forget the strawman silliness of Freke, Gandy & Doherty. Elaine Pagles does a very scholarly and sensitive treatment of the question that cannot be easily dismissed by modern apologetics
A couple of my Mormon university buddies were complaining about just that! They were bemoaning the difficulty to compete with Catholicism in Latin America, given Catholic propensity to co-opt local pagan custom into their “mission statement”.
No arguments from me…
… just that this is not going to be a quick and easy read!
best
First Ehrman and Crossan and now Pagles. Why not make it a loony left hat trick and appeal to Marcus Borg next.
Seriously man you need to get out more.
limiting your self to this sort of biased scholarship does nothing to support your case with anyone who has not already made up his mind.
Because he holds contradictory positions that can not be reconciled. I thought I made that clear.
If you disagree present your evidence.
Simply agreeing that his stated positions are contradictory will not help your case.
peace
You are missing the point
That is what I’m proposing happened. Mithraism borrowed from the rapidly expanding Christian movement. This is the most plausible and oldest explanation.
Wacky conspiracy theories about Pious Jews in a rapidly expanding movement stealing from a obscure pagan religion that did not even exist at the time and that left no record of it’s rituals at all are laughably implausible.
It’s the sort of thing you might find in the Da Vinci Code but with even less basis in fact than that piece of fiction.
peace
quote;
He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated; you either know or can learn
end quote:
Justin Martyr
If Christians had “borrowed” these things from Mithras instead of the other way around Justin would not have urged outsiders to check it out for themselves.
The nonchristian recipients of the letter would be in much better position to know If Mithraism had been practicing these things before the Christians than folks living 2 thousand years later with no first hand access to the cult at all.
This all should be patently obvious by now. That you are unwilling to even entertain this well supported alternative scenario to your conspiracy theory simply amazes me.
peace
So much for everything being handed down orally for decades using a game of telephone. 🙂
Sometimes I think these “skeptical” characters don’t even think about what they write.
It’s either that or they think that no one will bother to compare one claim with another for consistency
peace
If you are interested in this sort of thing I would like to recommend the following book
peace
Thanks, but I haven’t gotten through the three volume set by James D.G. Dunn yet, haha.
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/3931/jesus-remembered.aspx
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/3932/beginning-from-jerusalem.aspx
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/3933/neither-jew-nor-greek.aspx
What is the relevance of the book of Revelation after the prophecies were fulfilled? Why is it in the Bible? Just to serve as an example that prophecies can be fulfilled? How is this different from having the writings of Nostradamus?
Why have the Old testament messianic prophecies in the Bible after they have been fulfilled?
Among other things to witness the sovereignty and providence of God
peace
@ fifthmonarchyman
You and I have nothing more to say to each other.
Either you indeed have read Ehrman and misrepresent what he is saying (deliberately or not) or you are rebutting by deferring to specious secondary apologetic sources.
Either way, you and I have nothing more to say to each other.
To any other lurkers, fifthmonarchyman is conflating two different concepts. Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism.
First of all, it is clear that the Bible is not inerrant and has accumulated the metaphorical equivalent of mutations (a biblical equivalent of a “molecular clock”)
In Biology, Phylogenetic Trees can be inferred with maximum likelihood methods, which calculate the probability that a particular tree will have generated the observed data. Any high school student can explain cladistics along these lines.
http://tinyurl.com/z99q8sr
Researchers can even employ these techniques to reconstruct many extinct gene sequences from naturally occurring organisms (such as the visual pigment protein genes from extinct archosaurs).
Ehrman and others can do the same for the New Testament. His premise is that many mutations have accumulated, but in lineage specific fashion. The original text can again be inferred according to cladistic analysis no differently than Phylogenetic Trees in Evolution.
So much for Lower Criticism and on to Higher Criticism.
“Higher Criticism”, endeavors to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text. Fundamentalist Christians who tenaciously believe in the untenable premise of the inerrancy of the Bible take great umbrage at Higher Criticism. Fundamentalist Christians suggest that all scholars such as Ehrman are atheists with axes to grind, who employ subjective and arbitrary criteria to justify their contrary conclusions. We already have witnessed similar protestation on this thread.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Blatant contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts which could not be harmonized or reconciled render previous orthodox belief untenable.
For just one example: For a number of many complicated reasons, the exquisite Greek of the four Gospels could not possibly have been composed by any of the four Jewish apostles of those names. If any are interested to pursue this line of inquiry further, I refer you to the conclusion that Greek authors were independently copying another Greek text called “Q” . The previous existence of this now-no-longer-existing Greek text called “Q” is irrefutable. To believe otherwise, and to suggest that four Jewish eye-witness apostles named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in fact wrote those Gospels is equivalent to a tenacious belief in Santa Claus. (FTR – the story gets somewhat more complicated, but in broad strokes suffices for our purposes here.)
So how can a scholar sift the wheat from the chaff and determine that Jesus was merely another Jewish apocalyptic preacher and never saw himself as part of Trinitarian Godhead? As in cladistics, there are empirical methodologies that make such deconstruction possible. The title of this thread “Empirical Falsifiability” again jumps to mind
Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’ would be a good place to start. Ditto Pagels’ ‘Beyond Belief’
ITMT, Howling ad hominem comparisons to Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code bear false witness to Ehrman. Ehrman’s book Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code slays much silly non-scholarship of Gandy & Freke and so much other pseudo-scholarship this movie is based on.
Meanwhile, the early church apologists, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian conceded the obvious similarities between Paul’s Christos and earlier pagan mythology and practice, and NOT JUST Mithraism. As a matter of fact, church apologists even conceded that plagiarism was obvious! They then concluded that the Pagan-Christian similarities were a satanic attempt at “diabolical mimicry.” Satan supposedly resorted to plagiarism by anticipation with a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was even born.
The important point here is that commonalities of Mithraism AND Pauline Christianity ALREADY had their antecedents in OTHER EARLIER Greco-Roman Mystery rites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries
This part of the story Earl Doherty got right.
Where Doherty got it wrong was his attempt to push this particular envelope too far. Commonalities between Pauline Christianity and Pagan Mystery Mythology are so striking that Doherty was prompted to conclude that Paul’s Christos was entirely mythological. That would be a “conceptual bridge too far”. If Paul was a real person who really did meet Peter in Antioch and the apostles during the Council of Jerusalem, then the conclusion that Jesus too was a real person becomes inescapable when considered in the context of other valid historical data. Again, I urge any to refer to Ehrman’s book on the question.
As best I can make out; the original historical Christ was indeed an apocalyptic Hebrew preacher as Ehrman, Pagels, Crossan and a host of others irrefutably elucidate. However (as I understand it) the Jesus story was later decorated by Greek-speaking former-pagan non-eyewitnesses (i.e authors of the New Testament) leaving traditional orthodox belief and practice far more pagan than Hebrew, rendering thereby an evolving “Jesus Christ” about as “christian” as Christmas.
Out of curiosity,
Should the Historical Jesus Question be given billing as its own OP on this site, or have we already dealt justice to this topic?
I fail to see what any of this has to do with religion.
I mean, we can be pretty sure that Joseph Smith existed and that 12 otherwise sane and respectable people attested to the existence of Smith’s golden tablets.
What does the existence or nonexistence of preachers have to do with whether one believes that they had a pipeline to god?
I think the difference is that we ALREADY have a pretty good idea that not only did Joseph Smith & Sun Myung Moon really exist…
…but we also have a pretty good idea what both really said.
In the Jesus story: some dispute whether he really existed (clearly he did) and also dispute whether the New Testament as written gives an accurate account of what Jesus really said (clearly it does not).
No historical deconstruction is necessary for Joseph Smith’s Mormon Church or Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. Much historical deconstruction is required to determine what the proto-pre-orthodox Christian Church(es) was/were all about.
Exactly and well put. The historical evidence for Jesus as a gifted preacher is not important. The supernatural claims are what I question.
I think we are all on the same page here.
That said, I think many would dispute your “not important” jibe.
Considering the impact Christianity has had on world history, the question of who Jesus really was becomes fascinating – far more fascinating than say who John of Gischala really was, and whether or not he too claimed himself to be the “Jewish Messiah”.
Agreed. I find his views on the ‘evolution of orthodoxy’ (one of my favorite phrases for purely cynical reasons) to be very convincing. I didn’t realize how many newer works he had authored that have been referenced in this thread. I need to get reading.