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

[ddt]

Far be it from me to call you a liar, DOC, but I've used my Pharaonic Powerz™ to access the hidden secrets of page 1 and I note that you removed most of Krikkiter's post before pretendeing to answer it.

Since you are unable to access Page 1 yourself, I'm happy to help you out in order that you can clear this matter up, as I'm sure you will be anxious to do.

​

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954dddfd876eb69.gif[/qimg]

Your Pharaonic Powerz™ seem to prohibit you from properly viewing page two?

"Access to the book" - what kind of weasel wording is that? You're again worshipping Wilbur, it seems. Didn't you get the part about worshipping false gods?

Why did you "forget" to quote Kritikker's second and third sentences:


And when you have "access", prove it and quote that last paragraph on page 36. You've posted so many lies here and have so obviously been quote mining that Kritikker's analysis that you just copy from other websites is far more credible than that you actually have read (parts of) the book.

 

[DOC]

And if that is being put forward as a reason to suppose that the resurrection happened, it is exactly circular reasoning; relying on the events related in the Bible to assert that events related in the Bible are true.

So then you disagree with Bart Ehrman who said on page 73 of his book:

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

__

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

Ehrman says on page 118 of his book that Paul's Thessalonians is usually dated 49 CE. So about 19 years after the crucifixion, Paul is writing letters to an already established church. Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

 

[dafydd]

__

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

How do you explain the growth of any crazy cult?

 

[Dinwar]

I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed.

I've spent hours pouring over a single scientific paper about 10 pages long. If you can understand this book in a half-hour, it's not worth using as toilet paper.

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.

A big step towards what? Both positions--that Jeshua bin Joseph didn't exist, and that he did--are justifiable. It depends on what evidence and logical arguments you find most reasonable. What NEITHER position is, is an acceptance of anything in Christianity or Catholicism. There probably was a guy named Jeshua bin Joseph sometime during the first century. There were probably a few dozen, Jeshua and Joseph not being uncommon names in that area. Similarly, there are probably a few dozen Harry Potters running around England right now, Harry and Potter not being uncommon names. There are 997 people in the USA named George Washington, over 24k people named John Smith, and 2,012 people named John Doe. None of that proves that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, that Jamestown was a booming success, or that John Doe really does die a few hundred times a week. There are 95 people named Peter Parker, yet I somehow doubt that radioactive spider bites are going to do much other than kill you.

 

[ddt]

Some one in here said on the first page (which I currently can't get on for some reason) that I basically say the Resurrection is true because the bible said so. I've never said the Resurrection is true because the bible said so,

Please properly quote me (emphasis added):

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

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.

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."

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.

but I have presented sites like the one below to give rational reasons to believe it happened.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Don't you really get tired of quoting that nonsense? You have quoted it here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and every time it got shot down. Time to blow another tune.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Having followed DOC's pathetic attempts to garner skeptical acknowledgment of the veracity of his claims of biblical historicity, particularly the resurrection of the alleged Jesus, I've come to the conclusion that the highlighted statement above is probably not true, and this is what accounts for his apparent desperation.

 

[Hokulele]

Ehrman says on page 118 of his book that Paul's Thessalonians is usually dated 49 CE. So about 19 years after the crucifixion, Paul is writing letters to an already established church. Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

A desperate desire to get out of a life that seemed hopeless, futile, and miserable, and the unfounded belief that joining this church cult would accomplish that. You do understand exactly what an Apocalyptic faith entails, yes?

It's pretty much the same thing that drives some people to your faith even today.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with Ehrman's book.

 

[Akhenaten]

Your Pharaonic Powerz™ seem to prohibit you from properly viewing page two?

That will teach me not to burn the candle from both ends, so to speak. I'm trying to work through the dross from Page 1 as well as keeping up with the new stuff as it appears and not doing too brilliant a job at either.



I'll be caught up soon.

 

[ddt]

So then you disagree with Bart Ehrman who said on page 73 of his book:

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

Your needle is stuck: you said so already in post #17.

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

Really only when you did your best to anger the authorities; see, e.g., Pliny's correspondence with Trajan. Why you'd need an actual Resurrection for people to believe it must one of the most inane arguments ever posited.

Ehrman says on page 118 of his book that Paul's Thessalonians is usually dated 49 CE. So about 19 years after the crucifixion, Paul is writing letters to an already established church. Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

You're a page off. Here's from your cheat sheet:

1 Thessalonians (49 CE), Galatians 4:4, Romans 15:8 …Paul was so convinced that Jesus was the Jewish messiah that he used the term Christ (messiah) as one of Jesus’s actual names. (119)

As you haven't been able to copy a single paragraph by now from the book, despite being asked to do so several times, I think that much is settled.

ETA: I was wrong above. The first line of page 118 reads:

letter (1 Thessalonians) is usually dated to 49 CE; his last (Romans?)

Thanks to Amazon's preview.

What's the first line on page 121, DOC?

 

[Dinwar]

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

You mean the Roman Empire where numerous Mystery Cults, most of which involved elements nearly identical to Christianity, were springing up all over the place? The Roman Empire which was seeing its state religion slowly being replaced by far more individualistic cults? That Roman Empire?

Gee, can't think of a single reason why Christianity would grow rapidly in an environment with a huge variety of extremely similar cults all growing rapidly. MUST have been the Son of God rising from the dead! And killing a bull. And all the rest...Man, he was one busy Son of God!

Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

Nero was bat-crap crazy, and what we call "torture" Romans called "normal every-day police work". Seriously, Virgil (or Pliny the Elder, forget which) argued that a slave that wasn't tied to a saw-horse that's 4' high and beaten with sticks until they fell off, breaking and dislocating their arms and legs, couldn't be trusted in court. Let that one sink in for a bit. THEN tell me that torture was reserved for Christians (the implication of your statements). As for willingness to die, all that means is that they really believed what they said they believed--something no one has ever, since Nero's time, doubted. The fact that someone believes what they say they believe in no way makes it true.

 

[Resume]

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.

Lot's of us will spot you a Jesus, of Nazareth even. We just won't spot you the miraculous crap, the whole son of god deal.

 

[Akhenaten]

And if that is being put forward as a reason to suppose that the resurrection happened, it is exactly circular reasoning; relying on the events related in the Bible to assert that events related in the Bible are true.

So then you disagree with Bart Ehrman who said on page 73 of his book:

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

On which page does Ehrman tell us that dismissing the resurrection of the alleged Jesus is neither fair or scholarly?

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

Number of times you've asked this idiotic question:

327​

Number of times it's been pointed out to you that it's an idiotic question:

327​

Picking up anything at all from that, DOC?

Ehrman says on page 118 of his book that Paul's Thessalonians is usually dated 49 CE. So about 19 years after the crucifixion, Paul is writing letters to an already established church. Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

Delusion.

There's a lot of it about.

 

[Resume]

Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

Ever hear of Jim Jones? Heaven's Gate? Branch Davidians? Aum Shinrikyo? Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh?

Apparently, it isn't all that difficult to assemble a bunch of knuckleheads.

 

[dafydd]

__

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

You have asked that question umpteen times and received the same answers every time. Most of us learn from experience. How do you explain the rapid growth of Hinduism? Do you believe in their pantheon of gods?

 

[Agatha]

So then you disagree with Bart Ehrman who said on page 73 of his book:

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

The power of So strikes again! I'd need to see what Ehrman says in context to see whether I agree with him, but really whether I agree with him or not has no bearing on the historicity of your fanboi. Undoubtedly there are some parts of the Gospels which mesh with recorded history, but there is much that does not - like the Census or the reign of Herod.

Also, without a Resurrection, how do you explain the rapid growth of Christianity in the brutal Roman empire ( by peaceful means), where being a Christian can get you nailed to a cross.

Ehrman says on page 118 of his book that Paul's Thessalonians is usually dated 49 CE. So about 19 years after the crucifixion, Paul is writing letters to an already established church. Roman Emperor Nero was torturing Christians in Rome in 64 CE. Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

You probably need to keep reading before you tout Ehrman as support for your belief in the resurrection, while it is clear Ehrman believes someone named Yeshua was crucified, he doesn't believe that the resurrection was an historical event. In fact, he says:

But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all - we don't know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.

This in itself (and particularly in context) makes it quite clear that the "something" was not a resurrection event. It's on page 164 if you want to check the quote.

Or on page 233:

For some reason, however, the followers of Jesus (or at least some of them) came to think he had been raised from the dead.

Again, in context, it is clear Ehrman doesn't believe that the reason was a resurrection.

Ehrman suggests that someone (who might have claimed to be a messiah, hardly an uncommon claim) had died and his followers didn't want to let it lie:

They were forced to come up with the idea of the crucified messiah because there really was a man Jesus who was crucified, yet they wanted to maintain that he was the messiah

(page 240).

And again:

Those who believed he was the messiah therefore concluded that the messiah had been crucified. And as a result they redefined what it meant to be the messiah. It meant one who had suffered for the sins of others.

(page 246, my emboldening).

In short, Ehrman does not believe in the resurrection. If this thread is about your support for Ehrman's beliefs as stated in this book, you cannot cite him as support for the resurrection, even while you accept that he believes there was a historical Jesus. The Jesus of this book is not the Christ, he's just an apocalyptic preacher who had a few followers and who was crucified. In short, Ehrman's opinion is that "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence".

 

[ddt]

Thanks for the review of Ehrman's book, Agatha!

 

[Audible Click]

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/

DOC answer the question and if you can't answer it we'll know this will be the same old exercise in futility. How do you reconcile your constant fabrications with the principles of the religion you claim to believe in? Deflection in 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[The Dark Lord]

Personally, I couldn't give two ***** less if there existed some crazy preacher named Jesus. The real question is whether miracle Jesus existed. He didn't. Bart Ehrman agrees.

 

[Resume]

Yet another thread that asks the question "Didn't think this all the way through, did you DOC?"

 

[ddt]

DOC answer the question and if you can't answer it we'll know this will be the same old exercise in futility. How do you reconcile your constant fabrications with the principles of the religion you claim to believe in? Deflection in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Amazon has a preview of pages 57, 58, and 61-64.