Robert Perry
Member
As long as Freke stayed on spiritual matters, I liked much of what he had to say. I find it hard to argue with someone who says that it all comes down to love. That's a message I'd like to hear more often.
However, when he talks about Jesus, the credibility floor just falls out from under him. I've had an avid interest in the historical Jesus for 25 years, including writing an invited chapter for a scholarly anthology on the subject. And it's very much like listening to skeptics who tell you there's nothing to NDEs. If you don't know the field, and you rely on them to paint the picture for you, you watch this apparently amazing phenomenon disintegrate and vanish right before your eyes. Until you think, "You know, I really wanted there to be something there, but I've just heard the evidence and I guess there just isn't." But when you actually know the field yourself, you realize this person is simply a terrific communicator who is doing nothing more than weaving together colorful threads of smoke. And the more they talk, and the more they speak to the opposite position, the more completely they lose credibility.
Listening to Tim Freke talk about Jesus was a very similar experience to listening to Susan Blackmore talk about NDEs. Glib, articulate, with the evidence at his fingertips; everything seems to come effortlessly together--until you know the field yourself. One small example: he says that no one has an answer for the fact that the earliest writings we have in Christianity are the letters of Paul and "None of them tell anything about Jesus." That is objectively false. Paul does focus on Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, that's true, but not as mythic events. He tells us that Jesus was crucified, was buried, was raised on the third day, and then appeared to a list of people, whom Paul then lists. In other words, the crucifixion and resurrection are described as historical events. Paul tells us the story of the last supper, which happened on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. He reports a couple sayings of Jesus (maybe more), one about giving and receiving and one about divorce. And he tells us about going to Jerusalem where he met with Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciple Peter. To cite Paul as evidence that there was no Jesus is a remarkable move, because unless Paul is lying, then his writings do precisely the opposite: they leave no room for anything but that there was a Jesus.
Alex, I wish you could get a real Jesus scholar on the show. The field is a bit of a mess, I admit, and is really crippled, in my view, by naturalistic biases, as well as (with many scholars) traditional religious biases. But the mythicists you've been interviewing are much worse. Their work is even more completely under the sway of their biases. If you wanted to try to get a credentialed Jesus scholar on the show, I could ask around. Just let me know.
However, when he talks about Jesus, the credibility floor just falls out from under him. I've had an avid interest in the historical Jesus for 25 years, including writing an invited chapter for a scholarly anthology on the subject. And it's very much like listening to skeptics who tell you there's nothing to NDEs. If you don't know the field, and you rely on them to paint the picture for you, you watch this apparently amazing phenomenon disintegrate and vanish right before your eyes. Until you think, "You know, I really wanted there to be something there, but I've just heard the evidence and I guess there just isn't." But when you actually know the field yourself, you realize this person is simply a terrific communicator who is doing nothing more than weaving together colorful threads of smoke. And the more they talk, and the more they speak to the opposite position, the more completely they lose credibility.
Listening to Tim Freke talk about Jesus was a very similar experience to listening to Susan Blackmore talk about NDEs. Glib, articulate, with the evidence at his fingertips; everything seems to come effortlessly together--until you know the field yourself. One small example: he says that no one has an answer for the fact that the earliest writings we have in Christianity are the letters of Paul and "None of them tell anything about Jesus." That is objectively false. Paul does focus on Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, that's true, but not as mythic events. He tells us that Jesus was crucified, was buried, was raised on the third day, and then appeared to a list of people, whom Paul then lists. In other words, the crucifixion and resurrection are described as historical events. Paul tells us the story of the last supper, which happened on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. He reports a couple sayings of Jesus (maybe more), one about giving and receiving and one about divorce. And he tells us about going to Jerusalem where he met with Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciple Peter. To cite Paul as evidence that there was no Jesus is a remarkable move, because unless Paul is lying, then his writings do precisely the opposite: they leave no room for anything but that there was a Jesus.
Alex, I wish you could get a real Jesus scholar on the show. The field is a bit of a mess, I admit, and is really crippled, in my view, by naturalistic biases, as well as (with many scholars) traditional religious biases. But the mythicists you've been interviewing are much worse. Their work is even more completely under the sway of their biases. If you wanted to try to get a credentialed Jesus scholar on the show, I could ask around. Just let me know.
Last edited:
