"DrPostman" wrote in mmessage
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:12:17 GMT, "Dirk Hartog"
wrote:


The man was more scholarly than you apparently know. Dr Asimov

held a PH.D in Chemistry and was a professor at the Boston University

School of Medicine. Of the 466 books the man wrote in his lifetime

more than half were non-fiction. Not as easy to dismiss his

scholarship when you know who he was, is it?

If you yourself form opinions based not on the facts but on the say so of
some alleged authority, then hey, knock yourself out. I think it's a bad
way to do things, especially in this subject, where the "authorities" are
all over the map. You might want to read Professor Dr. Jonathan Z.
Smith's
book Drudgery Divine and educate yourself on that point. (Dr. Smith is a
scholar of the history of religion, and of the scholarship of the history
of
religion -- imagine, citing someone in the field!)


I was merely correcting your attempt to call Asimov a science fiction
amateur and unscholarly.

Asimov was an amateur _scholar of religion_.


Further, it's especially silly to cite the "authority" a chemist and med
school professor when the subject is the history of ancient religion.
It's
pretty clear he spent a lot of time NOT studying the issue in question.

You clearly have no knowledge of the work the man did in many
other areas or his qualifications.

#1 His scholarship in other areas is irrelevant to his authority as a
"scholar" of the Jesus myth. His scholarship in other areas is irrelevant
to his authority as to the truth of the Jesus myth.

#2 You have no ****ing idea what I know or don't know about Asimov.

#3 If he imagined that he could accept the Jesus myth based on based on "his
study of the Gospel writings" I know that in this area he has the
qualifications of a clueless amateur.


Further, Asimov's dismissal -- if the account here is accurate -- is
based
on a superficial understanding of the issues. Dismissing the theory
"based
on his study of the Gospel writings" is about as clueless as one can get.
You might want to read GA Wells books to educate yourself on the point.

Rather hypocritical of you to suggest that, when you haven't read
Asimov.

And this fantasy assertion of yours is relevant to the truth of the Jesus
myth exactly how?

DH