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

Status
Not open for further replies.
kmortis said:
To be fair though, there is nothing illogical or unsupportable about an intenerant preacher named Jesus (or the local variant) existing at the time that later had legends draped upon. While I haven't read the book in question, I've read two of Ehrman's other books and that's what it seemed to me to be his postion. Whether the sources of the legends came from other preachers, other myths or just made up out of whole cloth can be discussed endlessly, but to say categorically that there was no one named Jesus at the time isn't supported.
Click to expand...
Yes it's impossible to really show either way.
What annoys me about Ehrman's latest book is the poor quality of the scholarship and his resorting to dubious tactics to try and make his case; it's terrible stuff after his previous quality output. He almost addresses a number of potentially interesting points, and then shys away. For example he fails to justify, or support, his dating of the oral tradition of the gospels to the thirties CE.
Really for a capable scholar to reduce himself to this mass of begging the question, circular reasoning and logical fallacies is quite shocking.
 
kmortis said:
but to say categorically that there was no one named Jesus at the time isn't supported.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that it WAS supported that there was no one named Jesus in the area during the 1st century AD. The word "Jesus", if memory serves, is an adulteration of the name "Jeshua", I want to say by Greek speakers, to make the name easier to pronounce. It'd be like saying there almost certainly wasn't a John in a relatively minor city in Gernania during a specific 30-year period in the Middle Ages. You can have a great deal of confidence in this statement, because "John" would have been spelled "Johann".

It's a tad pedantic, but then Christians have slaughtered each other much more minor issues. And it doesn't PROVE that there was no Jesus; it merely gives a very strong indication that the people using the name "Jesus" don't understand history all that well.
 
catsmate1 said:
Yes it's impossible to really show either way.
What annoys me about Ehrman's latest book is the poor quality of the scholarship and his resorting to dubious tactics to try and make his case; it's terrible stuff after his previous quality output. He almost addresses a number of potentially interesting points, and then shys away. For example he fails to justify, or support, his dating of the oral tradition of the gospels to the thirties CE.
Really for a capable scholar to reduce himself to this mass of begging the question, circular reasoning and logical fallacies is quite shocking.
Click to expand...
From the reviews of the book that I've read, I have to agree. I see no good reason to read it if it's not up to the level of his previous work.


Dinwar said:
My understanding was that it WAS supported that there was no one named Jesus in the area during the 1st century AD. The word "Jesus", if memory serves, is an adulteration of the name "Jeshua", I want to say by Greek speakers, to make the name easier to pronounce. It'd be like saying there almost certainly wasn't a John in a relatively minor city in Gernania during a specific 30-year period in the Middle Ages. You can have a great deal of confidence in this statement, because "John" would have been spelled "Johann".

It's a tad pedantic, but then Christians have slaughtered each other much more minor issues. And it doesn't PROVE that there was no Jesus; it merely gives a very strong indication that the people using the name "Jesus" don't understand history all that well.
Click to expand...

And it's why I put in the parenthetic "(or the local variant)" earlier in my post. His name would have been Yeshua, which in turn gets Anglicised to Jesus. Pedantry aside, my comments still stand.
 
kmortis said:
To be fair though, there is nothing illogical or unsupportable about an intenerant preacher named Jesus (or the local variant) existing at the time that later had legends draped upon. While I haven't read the book in question, I've read two of Ehrman's other books and that's what it seemed to me to be his postion. Whether the sources of the legends came from other preachers, other myths or just made up out of whole cloth can be discussed endlessly, but to say categorically that there was no one named Jesus at the time isn't supported.
Click to expand...
No indeed; it was a spectacularly common name. However Earl Doherty seems to be arguing that Christianity is vacuo-centred, if i may use the expression. No teaching or crucifixion of any of these earthly Jesuses gave rise to it. Indeed, he argues that the earliest Christians had no concept of Jesus as anything other than a spiritual entity operating in the heavenly realms. So in this sense there was no Jesus, even if itinerant preachers of that name abounded.

I'm not sure about all this, but I do find it fascinating, even if interminable.
 
kmortis said:
And it's why I put in the parenthetic "(or the local variant)" earlier in my post. His name would have been Yeshua, which in turn gets Anglicised to Jesus. Pedantry aside, my comments still stand.
Click to expand...
Fully agreed. I just wanted to raise the issue. :)
 
catsmate1;;8361014 said:
DOC said:
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?
Click to expand...


Unlike you I've actually read Ehrman's book and I can see how weak his case is.
Click to expand...


Thanks to people like yourself, Agatha and others, as well as all the reviews that have been linked here I can see that as well.

It beggars belief that anyone who has actually read the book would be unable to see the same thing.


catsmate1;;8361014 said:
There is no significant evidence that the core figure of xianity ever existed as a physical being.
Click to expand...


No evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!


catsmate1;;8361014 said:
It's more likely that the biblical "Jesus" is a composite of a number of messianical and other preachers, various older myths and a lot of sheer invention.
Click to expand...


Surely nobody could argue against such an obvious, evidence-based explanation.
 
JoeBentley said:
It is sorta heartbreaking to watch the "True Believers" jump all over even the tinniest, most abstract, shred of peripheral evidence that there mythologies could be correct like a starving man on a bacon cheeseburger...
Click to expand...

Actually it is no big deal to me because I've known for years the historical evidence was there. It's the skeptics who are doing the most jumping and complaining (at Ehrman), read the reviews.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually it is no big deal to me because I've known for years the historical evidence was there. It's the skeptics who are doing the most jumping and complaining (at Ehrman), read the reviews.
Click to expand...

Did you read them? Better still, try reading the book.
 
DOC said:
Actually it is no big deal to me because I've known for years the historical evidence was there.
Click to expand...


Then why have you been so totally, abjectly unable to do so and unutterably disingenuous in your many, many failed attempts?


DOC said:
It's the skeptics who are doing the most jumping and complaining (at Ehrman), read the reviews.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that a book which you yourself introduced into the discussion is the very antithesis of the evidence that you claim to possess is hardly "jumping and complaining".

In fact, it's more like this:

​
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually it is no big deal to me because I've known for years the historical evidence was there. It's the skeptics who are doing the most jumping and complaining (at Ehrman), read the reviews.
Click to expand...
Ehrman has argued in multiple books that the bible contains forgeries and that Jesus was not divine but just some guy.

I'm glad you agree with him.
 
joobz said:
Ehrman has argued in multiple books that the bible contains forgeries and that Jesus was not divine but just some guy.

I'm glad you agree with him.
Click to expand...


I must admit to being even more mystified than ever about what DOC is trying to achieve by plugging this book.

It's basically pointing out that everything he's been claiming for years is exactly the hogwash that we've been telling him that it is.
 
Akhenaten said:
I must admit to being even more mystified than ever about what DOC is trying to achieve by plugging this book.

It's basically pointing out that everything he's been claiming for years is exactly the hogwash that we've been telling him that it is.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I mean, the alternative is DOC is a horribly dishonest person who will quotemine individuals to serve his own means.

But that's not the case, is it?
 
joobz said:
Ehrman has argued in multiple books that the bible contains forgeries...
Click to expand...
So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read? Those forgers really pulled a fast one on Jefferson to get him to include 60 + pages of their forgeries and to have them translated into four languages in his book.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read. Those forgers really pulled a fast one on Jefferson to get him to include 60 + pages of their forgeries and to have them translated into four languages in his book.
Click to expand...

So then do you agree that TJ was correct when he removed the magical parts of the Bible?
 
DOC said:
So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read. Those forgers really pulled a fast one on Jefferson to get him to include 60 + pages of their forgeries and to have them translated into four languages in his book.
Click to expand...


How many times do you need to be told that the forged parts, which is to say the parts that talk about Magical Zombie Jesus and his fabricated life story are exactly the parts that Sir Thomas made sure to exclude?

Or do you not need reminding since you know full well that this is the case but you're going to continue lying about it anyway?


Do you have any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth? The years are dragging on, you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom