His position is weird, in that he's not an academic, not a reader, just a podcaster, who views the Tanners as legitimate historians. Does one need anything more than that to consider him anti-Lite? Except he has a forum and people actually quote him.
Too bad, anti's don't have an academic heavy-weight. Of course, that would require effort and regimen, instead of relying upon hyperbole and actual evidence.
There are legitimate questions a thinking person can raise, but when one is sloppy as Dehlin has been, you lose credibility.
Who uses podcasts? Marketers and people without time to do legitimate scholarship.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
|