| Author |
|
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12717
|
| Posted: 06 February 2013 at 4:58pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
JB: I have not read Ehrman's new book, but I have read several of his others. Many of my strongest arguments come from his work, in fact. But in all his writings on religion there is an unmistakable undercurrent: Ehrman was a believer, and his studies turned him away. But at center, he still wants to believe. Intellectually, he can't. But...
***
And this is Erhman in an NPR interview last year about his book:
"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."
Hmph.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Conner Dinkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 March 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 832
|
| Posted: 06 February 2013 at 6:47pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
The single biggest question about Jesus is Where Is He? Why is there not so much as a single reliable extra-Biblical reference that dates from his aleged lifetime? How did he move thru that time and place, even, as noted, intersecting with the single most important Roman in the land, and leave absolutely no "paper trail"?+++ I'm about to go to work but I just googled extra-Biblical reference to Jesus and came up with Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Julius Africanus, Origen and Pliny the Younger •• What part of "from his lifetime" are you having trouble grasping?
---
Your right I just googled extra-Biblical reference to Jesus.
But I don't understand why the Bible itself can't be considered historical evidence, as I said before there are over 5000 manuscripts in existence today. Bart Erhman has stated that there are maybe only 2 dozen places of disagreement with the original text none of which effect Christian Doctrine.* We also have quotes dating back to the first century by the Church Fathers that provides an almost complete New Testament except for a handful of verses. Now Erhman has come out with a book that says he believes Jesus existed, He is a Biblical Scholar and someone you respect and trust isn't this enough for a wait and see, or wait and read approach?
I'm sure Erhman will not give any validity to the supernatural claims of scripture but if he say's Jesus existed he does know what he's talking about.
My Question is what is the big deal with Atheists about Jesus actually existing? Does the Atheist worldview stand or fall based on whether the Bible was written in the 1st century and Jesus existing? I don't think it does. The only thing it accomplishes is for the Skeptic to be unable to say that Christianity is not based on evidence.
*Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18034
|
| Posted: 06 February 2013 at 7:07pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
But I don't understand why the Bible itself can't be considered historical evidence. ----------- Because no one can throw a staff on the ground and have it turn to a snake?
Because when Jesus died DEAD PEOPLE ROSE FROM THEIR GRAVES AND ROAMED THE STREETS and NO ONE ELSE IN JERUSALEM thought "Hey, maybe I should oughta write this down for posterity"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 06 February 2013 at 7:15pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."
iiii
Why not just say " love, mercy, and forgiveness should dominate our lives" and leave out the guy who's for them.....but only with a big string attached?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2096
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 1:54am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
There's a great documentary about Jesus never existing, called "The God Who wasn't There". It traces back the origins of the "Jesus" story and reveals how the entire story was simply rehashing older stories from older religions. (The Greeks, The Egyptians, etc) It also reveals the Catholic church's "answer" for these older Jesus stories/figures: they were all fakes created by the Devil, earlier in time before Jesus ever existed, so that when you look back at history it would cause you to doubt Jesus' existence and thus fall for the Devil's plan. Seriously. That's their explanation for how the Jesus story is not simply a rip-off of older /other religion's same story. No wonder the church doesn't talk historically about how Christianity actually began.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 4:44am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
My Question is what is the big deal with Atheists about Jesus actually existing? Does the Atheist worldview stand or fall based on whether the Bible was written in the 1st century and Jesus existing? I don't think it does.•• Neither do atheists. If you have to swing to this kind of extreme to support your argument, haven't you already lost it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 4:57am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Jesus and the Bible fall apart as soon as you start learning about real history and specifically about even older religions and cults that helped formed the matrix that would become Christianity.
The real issue, that's almost always glossed over, is that the central claim of any religion is that there is something that takes an active interest in man that exists beyond the nature that we know. Now, these things (like angels and sprits) were claimed to have interacted with man in the past, so it falls on the lap of the theist to give everyone else some shred of proof that these things exist using the science, and senses, that we have at our disposal. If you can't, then it retains no more credibility to the rational mind than unicorns and Thor.
Even if there were reliable ancient document signed by Roman officials stating that they witnessed the dead rising from the ground, it still wouldn't prove a single thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 5:09am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Even if there were reliable ancient document signed by Roman officials stating that they witnessed the dead rising from the ground, it still wouldn't prove a single thing. •• But the silence proves volumes.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 6:35am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I don't think evidence of there being a person called "Jesus" that preached back then means the biblical stories are true. It falls in the Robin Hood category: some person/people did something, and a huge legend, constantly revised and rewritten, emerged. The bible is thought of as a "book" today, but it is really a collection of writings put together years after the writings were done. Some of their contemporary writings about Jesus and other events in the bible that were not put in the bible are downright hilarious in their claims!
If I'm not mistaken, Muhammad and Buddha are real, too. Doesn't make me believe their stuff either.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12717
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 7:37am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The question -- did Jesus exist? -- is not quite as simple as asking, to pick someone who was supposed to have known Jesus, whether Pontius Pilate existed. What Pontius Pilate could have been is not a controversial hypothesis. But Jesus, surely so. Asking the question of his existence already carries assumed definitions. Did Pilate exist? Well, whom are we searching for, what kind of hypothetically extant 1st century person? Based on the sources we have (no, not many, some coins, and one inscription, and a few writings), it's reasonable to accept that he existed as a Roman, in Judaea, under Tiberius, as a prefect, who had probably some controversial dealings with Jews.
But when it comes to Jesus, whom are we searching for? An early 1st century Jew. Or Jews? How do we know that "Jesus" is not a composite? I mean, we already know that so very much supposedly about him is actually a pastiche of Jewish scripture, so why should we be limited to one man? For the sake of argument we might be, but as a thorough exercise in historical investigating let us search for either, one Jew or several Jews, of early first century Palestine. Then what? What other assumed definitions can one reasonably make in order to aid the quest? Jesus (or Jesuses?) was a maybe rabbi, maybe a preacher, maybe out of the northern part of the land, who it is said eventually entered Jerusalem and was killed by the Romans by crucifixion. Assuming those definitions, where do we go? The Gospels. But that's also where we came from! How can they be reliable when so much in them, as stated, is completely fabricated on the basis of using Christological reinterpretations of Hebrew Scripture, not even in the original but in Greek translation?
From what I've read Ehrman's approach is akin to apostolic doctrine. We know what we believe is true because we have an unbroken chain from our bishops to the first apostles who knew the disciples who knew our Lord. Ehrman similarly counts on Paul who says he knew Cephas and James, the brother of Jesus, and thus Jesus existed. The Gospels may be late but their core is early and preserves faithfully, accurately, enough of the first generation of traditions about Jesus, presumably in the 30s CE, that they are historically reliable.
By the way, Ehrman also states that the Greek of the Gospels is "very good" and marks the authors as "well-educated." Besides being a gross generalization about all four Gospels, whew, the idea that NT Greek is very good and marked by an upper class education makes my head spin.
Edited by Michael Penn on 07 February 2013 at 7:40am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 8:02am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Michael, I think your take is quite reasonable. It seems to me that the various Christian accounts, whether canonical or non-canonical, are enough to conclude that there was some sort of Jesus fellow who taught and was crucified in 1st century Judea. The evidence is easily ample enough to support such a position.
But what sort of man was he? What precisely did he teach? There are far, far too many theological barnacles that have accumulated on the documents to say with anything approaching confidence. Indeed, your point about Jesus being a pastiche of several similar figures also seems pretty plausible. Most likely we get a glimmer of the historical man and his teachings, but no more than a blurry vision at best. Given what else I've read of Ehrman's work, I'm surprised to hear that he would go further than that in his latest book.
I am, by the way, quite envious of your Greek. Alas, that too few, including myself, have that sort of education any more.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 February 2013 at 8:05am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Assuming those definitions, where do we go? The Gospels. But that's also where we came from! How can they be reliable when so much in them, as stated, is completely fabricated on the basis of using Christological reinterpretations of Hebrew Scripture, not even in the original but in Greek translation?•• Perhaps my greatest frustration! The whole "If you don't believe me, ask me!" madness!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
