• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does Erhman believe the supernatural bits about Jesus, DOC? Or are you just cherry picking the parts of his writing that you like?
 
DOC said:
On page 328 of Ehrman's book, cited in post #1, he states there are solid reasons to believe that Jesus was betrayed by Judas.
Click to expand...
Hardly an argument for the existence of Jesus. Judas' betrayal is incumbent on Jesus having existed at all, so you then have already skipped the first step.

DOC said:
The quote from post #1 was from the book jacket.
Click to expand...
As Mashuna noted: you jumped right from the jacket text to page 328. You skipped 327 pages. :rolleyes: And those pages should include the evidence that Jesus existed, otherwise the whole issue of Judas' betrayal is moot.
 
@DOC

Richard Dawkins believes that Jesus existed. Christopher Hitchens believed that Jesus existed. On page 118 of the hardback edition of God Is Not Great he even opines that
Jesus believed himself to be “God” or the “Son of God”.
Click to expand...
That he believed himself to be God is not supported by the Synoptic gospels. Most atheists, I am pretty sure, believe that there is a person of that name underlying the stories. I have not made up my mind about this. There may or may not have been.

I was pleased to read Dawkins' view, which is the one I adopted long ago; that is, that he probably existed, but it is interesting and significant that the mythicists can make such a good case that he did not.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
As Mashuna noted: you jumped right from the jacket text to page 328. You skipped 327 pages. :rolleyes: And those pages should include the evidence that Jesus existed, otherwise the whole issue of Judas' betrayal is moot.
Click to expand...
There is much more to report before page 328, give me time or you can pay around $37.00 for the book.
 
I'm perfectly willing to concede that there probably was a Jewish preacher in the 1st century called Yeshua, who quite possibly had a father called Yusef.

So what?
 
Many times skeptics have told me, "Yeah, but that's in the bible and that's circular reasoning to say the bible said so."

Here is what Ehrman says on page 73 of the book in post #1:

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
I'm perfectly willing to concede that there probably was a Jewish preacher in the 1st century called Yeshua, who quite possibly had a father called Yusef.

So what?
Click to expand...

Well if everyone on this site felt the same way as you and Ehrman I think that would be a big step from where we are now.
 
Craig B said:
On page 118 of the hardback edition of God Is Not Great he even opines that That he believed himself to be God is not supported by the Synoptic gospels.
Click to expand...
So it was an opinion of his and he did not state it as fact.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well if everyone on this site felt the same way as you and Ehrman I think that would be a big step from where we are now.
Click to expand...

It still takes a lot of faith to believe that translates somehow into fulfilled prophecy and miracles.
 
DOC said:
Many times skeptics have told me, "Yeah, but that's in the bible and that's circular reasoning to say the bible said so."

Here is what Ehrman says on page 73 of the book in post #1:

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."
Click to expand...

You still don't understand circular reasoning do you? Provide me with a quote from one of these "many skeptics" saying that.

I would wager that you haven't even actually read the book in question.
 
Last edited:
I've read several of Mr. Ehrman's books. He is of the opinion that a historical individual, "Jesus", did exist. He identifies him as an Apocalyptic who was unwise enough to take his "the end is near and when the Romans have been kicked out I will be King of the Jews" message to Jerusalem during the Holy Days and the Romans had him snuffed for it.

He is far from an apologist, he points out the many inconsistencies with the NT and the reasons for them, and also the extreme diversity of the early church and how it lurched toward orthodoxy over hundreds of years.
 
DOC said:
Many times skeptics have told me, "Yeah, but that's in the bible and that's circular reasoning to say the bible said so."
Click to expand...
Because your argument amounts to nothing more than saying, for instance: "The resurrection happened because it is written in the Bible". That's circular logic.

DOC said:
Here is what Ehrman says on page 73 of the book in post #1:

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."
Click to expand...
And Ehrman doesn't say with that that the Gospels are 100% true, but he uses scholarly methods to assess which parts are true and which are fiction. That's a whole different ball game.
 
DOC said:
In the 5 years or so I've been on this site many people have written in my threads that Jesus is a myth, a fairy tale. Well that is not what skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman says in his new book, "Did Jesus Exist".

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

"As a leading Bible expert, Ehrman's supporters and critics alike have queried him about this nagging question that has become a conspiracy theorIst cottage industry the world over. The idea that the character of Jesus was an invention of the early church-- and later a tool of control employed by the Roman Catholic Church-- is a widely held belief, and Ehrman has decided it's time to put the issue to rest.

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of this field. Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular "mythicist" arguments against the existence of Jesus..."

____

Maybe the time has come on this site for everyone to accept the evidence that Ehrman mentions in his new book, and the evidence I point out in my Evidence thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

and simply admit that:

"Yes, The historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist"

and then proceed from there.
Click to expand...

1) what new evidence has come to light ?
2) if no new evidence has come to light, why does he change from highly probable to 100% sure ?

See if you can answer those and formulate a theory. Until then, I'll go reread the fullfilled prophecy thread for a laugh.
 
Krikkiter said:
DOC, cut the crap. You don't even have the book. You haven't read it and you don't own it.

Prove me wrong by quoting the last paragraph on page 36.

ETA: or the last paragraph on page 57, 58, 60-64....

Here's where you're getting your ******** from you ridiculously dishonest ignoramus:

http://vialogue.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/did-jesus-exist-notes-review/
Click to expand...

I was about to post that URL and then saw your ETA :). It doesn't have the Judas betrayal thing though. DOC lifted that one from here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/i-have-a-look-at-ehrmans-new-book-on-jesus/.
 
ddt said:
I was about to post that URL and then saw your ETA :). It doesn't have the Judas betrayal thing though. DOC lifted that one from here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/i-have-a-look-at-ehrmans-new-book-on-jesus/.
Click to expand...

:)

My post will be subject to mod frowning but that's ok. I'm so bloody sick of him thinking any of his blatant dishonesty has any traction. I'll take one for the team.

Good catch.

ETA: Bart must be so happy to have most of his book lifted and put on dodgy websites.

ETA 2: Your link seems to be quite critical. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom