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

[Craig B]

So it was an opinion of his and he did not state it as fact.

What are you talking about? He believes it to be a fact that Jesus existed and thought himself to be God. He is an atheist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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."

Point 1: Ehrman is just one scholar. Nothing else. His opinions have no special precedence.

Point 2: Nobody dismisses the gospels from the historical record. They have a certain historical value. That does not, however, make any individual statement in them true.

Point 3: Using a reference from a book as evidence for the same book is circular reasoning, no matter which book it is.

Hans

 

[ddt]

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.

There is ample evidence for your claims though: over 6,800 to be precise.

Good catch.

Thanks. Your post prompted me to google for the quotes DOC gave.

ETA 2: Your link seems to be quite critical. Thanks.

Yes it is. Richard Carrier's review even more so. Particularly Ehrman's counting of sources seems worrisome: when it's in all the synoptic gospels, it's in M, Mark, Matthew and Luke and voila, we have four sources.

 

[dafydd]

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.

I am prepared to believe that Jesus existed, but stories about his life have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[wollery]

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.

No, it wouldn't, because it goes absolutely nowhere towards the idea that this Yeshua was the son of God or performed miracles. It says nothing about the wider veracity of the stories in the bible about Jesus.

The possibility of Yeshua bin Yusef having existed doesn't mean that the biblical stories are all about him, or that they are accurate, or that they weren't just made up.

 

[Beerina]

Does Erhman believe the supernatural bits about Jesus, DOC?

That's the key part. There are plenty of skeptics who think some preacher dude might have existed who then got whacked for, oh, I don't know. Stirring up the people against the Romans and/or Jewish Establishment?

 

[joobz]

How is Bart Ehrman a "Skeptic Favorite?"

He looks to be a standard religious apologist to me.

read a little more.
He's a leading expert on biblical analysis. From the books I read, he approaches the subject with a fair and measured analysis, that is quite often well referenced.

So, I have no problem with his analysis, in general.

What I do find funny is that DOC would use him as a source.
Shall I assume DOC is willing to accept Ehrman now as a measured and reliable source. Or will he simply pick and choose referencing him when it suits him...

 

[joobz]

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

I challenge this statement. Please show me exactly where someone has said this.

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."

Explain to me how these points are related.

 

[Craig4]

I'll give some more quotes from the book as time permits.

You know Ehrman is an agnostic right?

 

[RoboTimbo]

[b][size=4]YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.[/SIZE][/B]

On which page does he say that an apocalyptic preacher was the son of a god, had magical powers and rose from the dead?

 

[uk_dave]

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

I'm curious as to why you appear to be so desperate.

I mean, great, so you have faith in your christian belief system. Good for you, I hope it helps to get you through the day and keeps a smile on your face.

But surely that faith cannot be so shaken by the thought that other people don't share it that you feel the need to grasp at any endorsement, regardless of how weak it is?

 

[DC]

no, your jesus did not exist, have seen no evidence.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Which Jesus? The Hippy? The Jewish Reformer? The Buddhist? The Right Winger?

(Personally, I side with the Apocalyptic interpretation as well)

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

DOC, many skeptics here agree with Ehrman that there is much evidence that an early 1st century apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jeshu ben Joseph existed and that he became the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ. This is very similar to the situation in which a real person known as Nicholas of Myra, who lived during the 3rd and 4th centuries, became the basis of the mythical Santa Clause.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC, many skeptics here agree with Ehrman that there is much evidence that an early 1st century apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jeshu ben Joseph existed and that he became the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ. This is very similar to the situation in which a real person known as Nicholas of Myra, who lived during the 3rd and 4th centuries, became the basis of the mythical Santa Clause.

Or the existence of Alice Liddel means that rabbits can speak English and use pocket watches.

 

[carlitos]

and simply admit that:

"Yes, The historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist"

and then proceed from there.

Ehrman really says that Jesus was "from Nazareth?" I'm skeptical about that. Please post an excerpt from the book if this is the case.

 

[Belz...]

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".

I think you should re-read that. The Jesus of the bible -- the one making miracles and being generally non-human -- didn't exist. There may or may not have been an actual person who was the basis of the story. If there was, it isn't a problem for atheists, since you're still missing some important steps to validate Christianity's claims.

 

[Dinwar]

Let's assume for the moment that the evidence was conclusive. A rabid Jewish rabbi named Jeshua bin Joesph existed in what's now the Middle East in the 1st century AD.

There are still numerous problems with assuming that this guy did anything in the Bible.

First and foremost, we know that books were eliminated via committee decision (Nicea, for one). Second, we know that many of the books about Jeshua were written decades or centuries after he was gone. You still have to take each story in the Bible and prove that THIS Jeshua bin Joseph (Jeshua was not, as I understand it, an uncommon name) did these things, and not some other rabid Jewish rabbi of the time ("You Jews produce messiahs by the sackfull!" as Jesus Christ: Superstar quite rightly pointed out).

Ever read "Field of Dreams"? Many of the characters in the book actually existed. One's still alive--and in fact was extremely unhappy about the way he was portrayed in the book. How about "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer"? Ever hear the story of how George Washington chopped down his dad's cherry tree? The mere fact that a story is based on a real person in no way ensures that it's a true story.

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."

No,there are very sound reasons for dismissing the Gospels, and this quote makes me very dubious about anything Ehrman claims. The Gospels are known to have been altered, and contain things for which there are no historical records and for which there were not witnesses. Therefore before we accept anything in them as true logic demands that we get external verification. And since we need external verification for everything in the Gospels, we may as well ignore them completely. They'll only serve to distract us. Now, if Ehrman says that we can't dismiss the history around the Gospels, then yes, he's making a valid (though weirdly-stated) point; however, I doubt that is the case.

 

[Craig B]

Ehrman really says that Jesus was "from Nazareth?" I'm skeptical about that. Please post an excerpt from the book if this is the case.

We could say "Jesus the Nazarene" instead, which might refer either to the place or to the mysterious content of Matt 2:23.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

In the five years or so that you been here all you've done is start the same thread over and over again, and far from owning any of those threads you've been owned yourself more times that I've had hot breakfasts.

Well that is not what skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman says in his new book, "Did Jesus Exist".

The only way that Bart Erhman could be described as a a skeptic favourite is if someone named a pizza after him.

Which will probably happen, now that I come to think about it.

<adsnip>

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.

DOC, if you and Ehrman were to present evidence for my own existence I'd end up disbelieving in myself.

Do you genuinely not realise that TTTWND is a long-running joke that even people who aren't members of the Forum are aware of?