RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)
- Thread starter phelix
- Start date
- Status
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Wait? You just said there wasn't sufficient evidence.
Well there we have an honest portrayal of your scholarship.
You wish to read things that confirm what you believe, and ignore everything else. You are only interested in cherry picking arguments and not understanding the larger argument being made.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Probably one of his earlier works, say Jesus, Interrupted orGod's Problem; in Did Jesus Exist? he takes the non-divinity of Jesus as a simple fact..
Might that answer be in ....................the book?....................
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I'd have thunk he's going to church on Sunday.
He gets answers to questions on Tuesdays:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8138496#post8138496
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8153537#post8153537
Are you accusing me of lying when I said I have read the book, DOC? I would prefer that you did not accuse me of lying; it is a charge I take seriously and is most uncivil. I have the book on my kindle as you can see from the attached picture, and I purchased it because unlike you, I think it is important to read in context when making claims of what a book says or does not say. I am not the one who has cherry picked quotes from the book jacket and from an online source.
*Yes, Ehrman uses that ugly neologism.
Page 164."Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified Messiah, Jesus must really have existed [...] No Jew would have invented him." The theme of the 'story of Jesus being so unlikely to be made up, so must be true' is stated in multiple places in the book.DOC said:
Page 232 for example. "While he [Jesus] was living, they [his followers] thought that perhaps he would be the future messiah (who also, as we have seen, was not God). But this view was radically disconfirmed* when he was arrested by the authorities, put on trial, and then tortured and crucified. This was just the opposite fate from the one the messiah was supposed to enjoy. [...] And so [they believed] God exalted him to heaven, where he is now waiting..DOC said:
And? Can you quote the passage on page 247 beginning with "Paul knew nothing of Jesus's life and..." Do you actually own the book, or are you relying on what people have told you about it?DOC said:
*Yes, Ehrman uses that ugly neologism.
Attachments
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Curious. He says in the second one "next Tuesday or sooner". Maybe he has to ruminate a few days about what his pastor says? DOC, please explain us this mystery!
And DOC, why don't you answer these simple questions:
- which denomination do you belong to?
- do you attend church on Sunday
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Ignoring for a minute that this is meaningless gobbldigook, what is your understanding ot the 'no true Scotsman fallacy', DOC?
My opinion is that it's an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.
ie. Just like 99% of your posts.
You have no evidence that this alleged Christ even existed so your fairy stories about the adventures it had with its pet spook obviously have no basis in reality.
At least he'd be addressing the topic of the thread, were he here.
Polytheistic drivel.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Obviously one of the ones that you haven't been able to look at in the online excerpts that you've been cribbing from.
You think that quoting page numbers produces a veneer of credibilty for yourself when you pretend to quote from a book that you've never read, don't you?
And you think that not quoting page numbers undermines the credibilty of your opponents.
And you have no idea how childish and petulant this behaviour looks to people reading your posts.
Grow up.
Only in order to create an impression that you actually own the book. Who do you think you're fooling?
Here's a hint:
You lied when you pretended to be quoting Ehrman from the big, bold text on the inside cover of the book. Not only did you dishonestly omit a vitally important word when you tried to use that quote to support your contention that the book supports your claims of Magical Zombie Jesus™, but you completely ignored the fact that they weren't even Ehrman's words.
In other words, in the matter of this book, just as in all of your other intellectually bankrupt "arguments", you destroyed your credibility on your first faltering steps out of the gate.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Great! Which page is it from (and from which book?)
More seriously, does this mean that Bart Ehrman thinks the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? After all, Josephus was a Roman citizen and his Jewish War is late 1st Century.
ETA:
Apparently not. He thinks the passage has been tampered with but the Jesus reference is authentic.
ETA 2:
the Ehrman quote is from this debate with Craig Evans. Tune in at approx. 5:00 if you only want to hear the quote. Tune in at 4:10 if you want to hear Ehrman from the start but don't care for the apologetic drivel of Craig Evans. Ehrman mentions Josephus ("two offhand remarks") but doesn't count him as Roman. His argumentation about the hearsay character of the gospels is also well worth hearing.
Last edited:
Great! Which page is it from (and from which book?)
More seriously, does this mean that Bart Ehrman thinks the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? After all, Josephus was a Roman citizen and his Jewish War is late 1st Century.
Apparently not. He thinks the passage has been tampered with but the Jesus reference is authentic.
I see you've found a reference answering that; I found this one, too
Bart Ehrman said:
This is sort-of addressed on pp 56-65. After looking at some of the competing theories as to whether the passages referring to Jesus were written by Josephus or were later additions, he concludes "...in fact it [the Testimonium] is only marginally relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed."
In the end, Ehrman doesn't actually come down firmly on either side, although he does state that he feels it is more likely that the core of the passage came from Josephus rather than Eusebius, and that the passage was "touched up" by scribes and copyists. Part of his reasoning is that a Christian forger would have been more laudatory about Jesus. But that begs the question of the motive for the interpolation in the first place.
In the end, Ehrman doesn't actually come down firmly on either side, although he does state that he feels it is more likely that the core of the passage came from Josephus rather than Eusebius, and that the passage was "touched up" by scribes and copyists. Part of his reasoning is that a Christian forger would have been more laudatory about Jesus. But that begs the question of the motive for the interpolation in the first place.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Thanks. Well, there are of course, in principle, three sides to the question:
1) wholly authentic
2) tampered with / touched up
3) wholly fabricated
The first is apologetic drivel, of course: an observant Jew like Josephus would never call Jesus the Messiah.
Personally, I go with wholly fabricated: the passage sticks out like a sore thumb between two larger episodes and the start of the subsequent paragraph doesn't jive with the interpolation.
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman
To most modern people, it is surprising to learn just how little evidence there is for Jesus outside the Christian sources. He is not mentioned in any Roman (or Greek, or Syriac, or… whatever – any pagan [i.e., non-Jewish, non-Christian]) source of the entire first century. Never. That strikes people as surprising. He is mentioned a couple of times within about 80 years of his life by two Roman sources (Pliny and Tacitus; I’m not sure Suetonius can be used). And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph. But that’s it for the non-Christian sources for the first hundred years after his death. It’s not much. But it’s something, and since these are not sources that based their views on the Gospels (since these authors hadn’t read the Gospels), it shows that the non-divine Jesus was indeed known to exist in pagan and Jewish circles within a century of his life.
.
Woulda beena useful addition to the original text.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
TTTWND Part 1
TTTWND Part 2
Totals
Posts by DOC: 2514
Posts by everyone else: 17638
Posts by everyone else: 17638
TTTWND Part 2
Posts by DOC: 120
Posts by everyone else: 1572
Posts by everyone else: 1572
Totals
Posts by DOC: 2634
Posts by everyone else: 19210
Posts by everyone else: 19210
Therefore, DOC, according to your very own argumentum ad postcountam, the evidence that the New Testament writers made the whole thing up outweighs the evidence that they told the truth by a ratio of approximately 7.3:1
And that's not taking into consideration the scores of times that you've posted this whopper, which has nothing at all to do with presenting evidence for anything other than your own hubris:
But but? And the truth can be what?
quod erat demonstrandum, again.
Your arguments, DOC, demonstrate not only that you have been mistaken from the ouset with regard to Just About Everything, but that you are utterly incapable of learning from those mistakes.
I bet DOC doesn't quote the passages from Ehrman's book (or give the page numbers) where Ehrman makes it clear that all the writers of the NT believed that "generation", and "some standing here today" had their literal meanings, and they expected the return of their messiah within a very short time and certainly within their lifetimes.
It seems their poster boy is a little late.
It seems their poster boy is a little late.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
- Status