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

[Craig B]

... 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.

DOC, this is nonsense, as has been pointed out to you innumerable times! What you are referring to is not the truth if the resurrection, but mere BELIEF in the resurrection. Being willing to die for something is not proof of the truth of that thing.

After Christianity acquired power, its adherents inflicted worse oppression on other religions than they had ever suffered when they were an oppressed minority. Do martyrs to belief in Mithras or Zeus prove these gods truly exist? Do the innumerable Jews martyred by Christians for refusing to believe in the resurrection prove that it never happened?

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, this is nonsense . . .

Amen to that, mate, but I think your quote/link thingy is a bit dodgy.

 

[dafydd]

Doc,in the case of Christianity it was Constantine saying if you can't beat them, join them.

 

[Craig B]

Amen to that, mate, but I think your quote/link thingy is a bit dodgy.

Indeed. Didn't intend that. The words were DOC's.

 

[Seismosaurus]

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."

I certainly do.

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.

I don't see how the one has any bearing on the other. People became christians based on the ideas of christianity, including the resurrection. The idea would exist whether it had actually happened or not.

 

[joobz]

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.

How do you explain the recent rapid growth of mormonism, if Jesus didn't come to america and Joseph smith didn't translate golden plates?
explain that!

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

I don't see how the one has any bearing on the other. People became christians based on the ideas of christianity, including the resurrection. The idea would exist whether it had actually happened or not.

I think this is related to DOC's stated belief that there was no fiction in biblical times.

He would have it that Christianity spread because people in those days were incapable of making stuff up and therefore the stories about the resurrrection, miracles, etcetera all had to be true.

 

[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.

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?...

But according to the Gospels (written by such people as respected historian Luke, and which Ehrman says is part of the historical record) it wasn't unfounded to the apostles who instigated the great growth, they "saw" the risen Jesus which could explain what Wiki reports here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

 

[Hokulele]

But according to the Gospels (written by such people as respected historian Luke, and which Ehrman says is part of the historical record) it wasn't unfounded to the apostles who instigated the great growth, they "saw" the risen Jesus which could explain what Wiki reports here.

The Bible is true because the Bible is true?

Who knew?!

 

[Akhenaten]

But according to the Gospels (written by such people as respected historian Luke, and which Ehrman says is part of the historical record) . . .

Stop posting that dreck, DOC. It's even embarrassing just to read.

. . . it wasn't unfounded to the apostles who instigated the great growth, they "saw" the risen Jesus which could explain what Wiki reports here.

The scare quotes are a dead giveaway that even you know this to be false so why the bloody hell did you post it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Is that the list with our old mate Simon on it?

Pity it's irrelevant to this thread because I have a couple of questions about that.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Bible is true because the Bible is true?

Who knew?!

Meeeeeeeeeeeee!

Well, sort of.

 

[Krikkiter]

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.

Mad history skillz DOC. Quoting a secondary source that you don't even own or have in your possession.

The irony is that ddt's link here:

I'm not very inclined to buy this very book of Ehrman's after having read Richard Carrier's review.

... exposes Bart for not having read the primary sources!

Like I said DOC, mad history skillz!

 

[Foster Zygote]

How is Bart Ehrman a "Skeptic Favorite?"

He looks to be a standard religious apologist to me.

Actually, he describes himself as an agnostic who lost his faith through his academic study of the Bible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

So what? Does he argue that Jesus actually performed miracles or that he rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven? Does he argue that Jesus was the incarnation of God himself? Does he argue for the veracity of evangelical Christian belief at all?

 

[ddt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

So where and how exactly did Simon the Zealot die?

 

[Foster Zygote]

So could you sum up the evidence Ehrman gives in his book? Did you read it, or did you only copy the jacket text from a website?



That's a gross equivocation. I'm pretty sure that Ehrman didn't use arguments like "5,000 manuscripts existing" or invokes people like Sir William Ramsay or Norman Geisler.

And there's a second equivocation. "Jesus existed" and "Christ existed" are two different claims. "Christ existed" includes the virgin birth, the miracles, and foremost, the resurrection. That is your claim and you utterly failed to convince anyone of that.

"Jesus existed" only claims there was a wandering rabbi around the start of the 1st C. AD who stood model for the Jesus Christ in the NT. No miracles, no resurrection here. This is what Ehrman claims.

And now get your ass back to the "Evidence of the NT" thread or the "failed prophecies" thread. There's some Greek homework lying there for you.

Having actually read most of Ehrman's works intended for laymen, I can attest that his view is that Jesus was a member of a Jewish apocalyptic movement who's teachings were radically different from what has come to be known as Christianity today. The historical Jesus he speaks of would have been appalled by the blasphemy of claiming that he was God, and he would have been enraged if he'd learned that this blasphemy bearing his name would become the official religion of the hated Roman Empire.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Will you post any that present Erman's belief that your religion was fabricated over generations and has very little to do with the historical Jesus whom you reference?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

This is ample evidence that you pay very little attention to what others write. There are many atheists and agnostics on this forum who believe that an historical Jesus most likely existed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

To be fair, it isn't so much an apologist book, but was meant to be a response to some of the more "out there" points made by the Jesus-as-Myth supporters. I haven't seen Ehrman make any argument that Christianity is true, or that Miracle Jesus existed, so I don't think I would classify him as an apologist.

However, I do agree that this particular book is one of his weakest, as he goes a bit too far outside of his field as a linguist and textual expert, into the field of history, where he isn't an expert.

It is also worth noting, it is entirely possible that both the Jesus-as-Myth crew and the Miracle-Jesus-Existed crew are both wrong.

Yup. Ehrman's position is simply that the origins of the Jesus Christ myth are best explained if there was a real apocalyptic rabbi who was put to death by the Romans for proclaiming himself the heir to King David's throne and the leader of the impending revolution.

 

[Seismosaurus]

This is cargo cult academics. It's like "Well atheists value science and research and stuff, so if I can quote something by an academic guy, then they must believe it..." No need to understand the actual arguments, no need to really engage in any kind of debate. Why bother, all you need to do if anybody contradicts you is say "Well an academic said so..." as if it's a magic spell that will compel everybody to believe you.