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

[dafydd]

Seem to agree with you on everything above, so am just replying to this. Why is Matthew's dating better? It isn't to any significant degree, but the fact that Luke's account seems to place it during Herod's rein makes me think that both authors reckon that was about the time he was born. Even with the wildly divergent accounts, they both seem to think that Herod was around at the time.
Of course, this isn't "proof". It's not even a convincing argument, but Jesus had to be born at some time, and why suppose he was born 2AD and both authors somehow managed to get every detail wrong, rather suppose he was born 5BC and they got the basic timescale correct?

For the purposes of the story, yes. For reality, not so much.

 

[Akhenaten]

For the purposes of the story, yes. For reality, not so much.

I wouldn't worry about that drivel, Dai. Phelix has long since left the building.

 

[catsmate]

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,

Ehrman's book has been discussed here already. Given that I don't believe you've actually read it (I have) and that it's been shredded elsewhere for dubious scholarship, quote-mining and other problems I don't see why we should rely on it. There is a detailed, chapter by chapter, rebuttal by Doherty here.
BTW DOC, do you accept Ehrman's theses that Jesus wasn't the messiah and wasn't a godling?

 

[catsmate]

He's not.

No he's an agnostic and recovered xian.

Does Erhman believe the supernatural bits about Jesus, DOC? Or are you just cherry picking the parts of his writing that you like?

No he does not. However that doesn't supports DOC's beliefs so he'll ignore it.

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

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.

The book is poor stuff, full of inconsistencies, mined quotes and poor scholarship. Doherty's rebuttal is detailed and comprehensive.
Frankly Ehrman's inability to build a better case for a historical Jesus strengthens the mythicist case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped everything off topic>

DOC, if you posted the page number where Ehrman states that Jesus was the Christ, son of god and risen from the dead, I missed it. Could you repost where Ehrman states that he thinks Jesus was magical?

Thanks.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Apparently the bar has been lowered to the point where an admission of mere existence is cause for celebration.

Sad.

 

[Akhenaten]

Furthermore, you've already been called you out once on this lie:

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

What are you hoping to achieve by repeating it?


ETA: Just to clarify . . .

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

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Since it's blatantly obvious that you know what the book actually says, there's little scope for you to keep trying to get away with claiming that it says something else, now is there?

 

[I Ratant]

Apparently the bar has been lowered to the point where an admission of mere existence is cause for celebration.

Sad.

.
I'm happy about existing.
Fills in the day.

 

[ddt]

The thread I had for a few days in the Religion forum was called

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

That thread no longer has its title, no longer is in the Religion forum, and no longer has me as the author of the thread, Felix is now the author.

Your question implies that this thread should be in the religion section.

Ooh, weaseling out from under the question. Wilbur is so proud! Doesn't God forbid you from worshipping other deities?

Did you ask yourself for the threads to be merged so you could wiggle out of this question?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The thread I had for a few days in the Religion forum was called

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

That thread no longer has its title, no longer is in the Religion forum, and no longer has me as the author of the thread, Felix is now the author.

Your question implies that this thread should be in the religion section.

Then you're admitting that the Jesus that Ehrman says existed isn't Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with religion?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

.
I'm happy about existing.
Fills in the day.

Beats "or not to be"...

...though there may be some question about that!

 

[carlitos]

For the record, where in Ehrman's book does he say that Jesus was OF NAZARETH?

The inside book Jacket says in big bold oversized print:

YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Here is what Ehrman says on pages 173 - 174 of his new book "Did Jesus Exist".

"Jesus certainly existed. My goal in this book, however is not simply to show the evidence for Jesus's existence that has proved compelling to almost every scholar who has ever thought about it, but also to show why those few authors who have thought otherwise are therefore wrong. To do that I need to move beyond the evidence of the historical Jesus to the claim made about his existence by various mythicists. I will not try to refute every single point made by every single author who has taken that stand. That would require an enormous book...
Instead I will consider the most important {mythicist} issues... In the chapter that follows I will then consider several of the best-known mythicist proposals for how Jesus came to be created and argue that they too are thoroughly inadequate to establish the mythicist view."

____

He does talk about the there was no Nazareth mythicist view but I haven't read that yet. That mythicist view doesn't appear to affect his belief that the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed.

There were two people using the word "Nazareth" above. Some guy who wrote a blurb for Ehrman's book, and DOC.

Care to try again?

 

[Akhenaten]

I would never ask that a thread be merged, never. If I don't like a thread I stay out of it, or block it somehow.

Stop whining.


How do you explain this?

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

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

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

ETA: Answer Carlo's question while you're at it. It's closely enough related to mine that they'll fit in a single response quite nicely.

 

[DOC]

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

 

[ddt]

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

Don't try to wiggle out of the questions posed to you.

1) where does Ehrman say in his new book that Jesus was from Nazareth?

2) do you acknowledge that Ehrman never says Jesus was the Christ?

3) do you share that view (2) of Ehrman's?

 

[pakeha]

DOC, you really haven't gotten it yet, have you?

Anyway,

...
I hope you're not ignoring my question, DOC!

 

[Akhenaten]

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

You haven't yet demonstrated what Sir Bart believed one way or another, so it's a bit unfair asking who might agree with him.

Perhaps if you bought the book you'd be in a better position to take part in this discussion.

Also, where is the evidence demonstrating that you know one way or the other what "most other biblical scholars" believe?

And why do you feel that way?

The only thing I feel is that you're incapable of an honest discussion.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

Why are you asking this question after having already ignored these posts and many more just like them?

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?

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

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?

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 Claus.

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.

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.

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.

By the way, even Christopher Hitchens was willing to accept that there may have been a popular preacher living in the time of Jesus who may have fit the bill for such an individual.

But that doesn't prove:

A) he was God's son
B) that God exists
C) that Christianity is the one true faith
D) that miracles occur
E) that his death absolved the world of any sin
F) that the Bible is true or divine in any way
G) etc etc etc

But the Jesus he says existed is not the same as the Jesus you say existed. From Jerry Coyne's comments about the book:

It's one thing to say Jesus existed. It's quite another to say he walked on water.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who in here disagrees with Bart Ehrman and most other biblical scholars and believes the Jesus of Nazareth never existed? And why do you feel that way?

I missed your response to this post, DOC.

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".

Or are you waiting to get your own copy of the book before tackling it?

 

[DOC]

1) where does Ehrman say in his new book that Jesus was from Nazareth?

I don't remember ever saying Ehrman said Jesus was from Nazareth, I said his book says in big bold print in its jacket: Yes, Jesus of Nazareth did exist. And I said Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed" on page 173.

2) do you acknowledge that Ehrman never says Jesus was the Christ?

I'll answer this when you agree this is a religious question and not a historical question and questions like these should be in the religious section.