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

[Akhenaten]

If you have access to the book, why don't you just sit down and read it? Then you might have a clue what you're talking about.

I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that.

So what you did was read the text of the blurb on the inside cover, misquoted it so it would appear to be supporting your case for Magical Zombie Jesus™, falsely attributed it to Sir Bart in hopes of garnering some credibility and only bothered scrambling for online excerpts when you realised that you'd been caught lying again.

Comedy Gold, DOC.

And I don't agree with his conclusion.

There's less than a snowball's chance in hell that you even know what it is.

I have no desire to read much more but I would like to see the page #'s of what Agatha was talking about.

If she doesn't give the page numbers then I believe she was just talking from memory, and probably doesn't have the book anymore.

Why do you think anyone would be likely to care what you believe?

 

[Akhenaten]

Now you're just spouting dogma.

It will assuage believers and have zero effect on non-believers.

So what's the point?

It's an attempt to bolster his own weak faith. Given that he's been doing the same thing for years it seems that it fails even in that lowly task.

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you must believe these people died for Bart Ehrman's Jesus and not the resurrected Jesus of theologians and preachers:

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

Somehow, DOC, you seem to have missed the several questions that were asked of you in response to this post.

Can't have that, now can we?

I'll help you out with some big bold text . . .

Why aren't Muslim martyrs evidence for the truth of Islam in the same way that, according to you, Christian martyrs are evidence for the truth of Christianity?​

Take your time. I'm not going anywhere.

Just like Tyre.

 

[joobz]

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.

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.

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..

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?

*Yes, Ehrman uses that ugly neologism.

Agatha,
First, thank you for responding as you have. It is a demonstration of honest intellectual debate.

Unfortunately, The sole purpose for his demand of page numbers was to argue style and not substance. He was attempting to make it look like you lied about reading the book. I do not think DOC really understands that people actually read books. That people here are intellectually curious and go beyond reading wiki pages and online summaries. Remember, DOC hasn't even completely read the bible, the book he claims to be HIS guiding document.

Now that you made it impossible for him to argue style, he will avoid entirely the substance of your points. Since he has already decided that it is ok to take parts of a person's argument and ignore others, he will not feel any need to actually read what you post. the fact that Ehrman says that there was a historical Jesus is all he cares about.

 

[Agatha]

Thank you, joobz, I think anyone reading the thread can tell which of us is arguing from a position of having read this book (and, incidentally, I've also read the Bible several times in various translations all the way through), and which of us is resorting to fallacies and barely-concealed accusations of lying.

 

[pakeha]

I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that. And I don't agree with his conclusion. I have no desire to read much more but I would like to see the page #'s of what Agatha was talking about.

If she doesn't give the page numbers then I believe she was just talking from memory, and probably doesn't have the book anymore.

Are you admitting you started a thread about a book you haven't read, DOC?

 

[Mashuna]

I already know the historical evidence for Christ is there so I don't need to read most of the book which deals with that. And I don't agree with his conclusion.

The one thing you have repeatedly provided evidence for is that you are unable to present or follow a logical debate. Therefore, your disagreement with Ehrman's conclusion is of zero relevance.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Sorry I’m a bit late, had a terrible time, all sort of things cropping up at the last moment. Now, how are we for time? Umm...

Universe ends.

 

[Mojo]

The one thing you have repeatedly provided evidence for, is that you are unable to present or follow a logical debate. Therefore, your disagreement with Ehrman's conclusion is of zero relevance.

Especially because he is refusing to read the book in case he sees something that might upset him, so he has no idea how Ehrman reached his conclusions.

 

[Multivac]

But no, even though we got to the End of the Universe, the Great Prophet did not appear.

If you mean Jesus, then you would certainly be right, but the great prophet Zarquon did finally appear at the end of the Universe in Milliways - the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

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

Sorry if this appears to be off topic, but it makes as musch sense as the rest of the evidence presented so far.

 

[zooterkin]

If you mean Jesus, then you would certainly be right, but the great prophet Zarquon did finally appear at the end of the Universe in Milliways - the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

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

Sorry if this appears to be off topic, but it makes as musch sense as the rest of the evidence presented so far.

Well, it didn't happen last Thursday in Basingstoke; but then, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

 

[carlitos]

In which DOC completely misunderstands the words in the boxes:

.... So, just to let you know- I thank you. If knowing this you wish to continue in this way, that's fine, and it will absolve me of the feelings of guilty pleasure I currently have when I tune into your posts.

As I have been saying for nearly 5 years, my threads are not about me. Forget me, and just talk about the facts I present, or the occasional inference I make. If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread.

180 degrees wrong.

So nothing more than the tired criterion of embarrassment - an argument that is solely used in researching Biblical history, and nowhere else?

Wow. I had no idea that this was a formal thing. Thanks just weird. As others have noted, most good fiction has this to make the characters seem real. Especially the hero. Geez, Greek tragedy had this.

Are you admitting you started a thread about a book you haven't read, DOC?

He has started several of these IIRC. Notably his threads about the bible.

Especially because he is refusing to read the book in case he sees something that might upset him, so he has no idea how Ehrman reached his conclusions.

Which is probably why he hasn't read the bible either.

Ehrman's writing, as quoted here, does not impress. Disconfirmed?

 

[tsig]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

Faith.

 

[Multivac]

Well, it didn't happen last Thursday in Basingstoke; but then, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

Thanks for the link; hadn't heard about the new show.

Being a science fiction nerd, I have all five books in the trilogy as well as the CDs of all five radio series and DVD of the BBC TV adaptation.

Many, many years ago I went to see the play at the Rainbow theatre in London. The critics hated it, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC: If the authors of the New Testament told the truth, was the Last Supper a Passover meal, as the Synoptic Gospels say, or was it before Passover, as John says?

 

[DOC]

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.

If that was the case then they must not have believed or were paying attention when Christ said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to 'every' creature." And also when he said "this gospel will be preached in all the world and 'then' the end will come."

Either that or they must have had confidence in themselves to be able to preach to every person in the world (including such known places as Spain, England, Africa, and Asia) in their lifetime and while much of this area was controlled by the brutal Romans who had their own gods they built huge temples in honor of.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

If that was the case then they must not have believed Christ when he said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to 'every' creature." And also when he said "this gospel will be preached in all the world and 'then' the end will come."

Either that or they must have had confidence in themselves to be able to preach to every person in the world (including such known places as Spain, England, Africa, and Asia) in their lifetime and while much of this area was controlled by the brutal Romans.

my highlighting


We aren't discussing the drivel that you make up, DOC.

As Agatha correctly predicted, you are unable to quote Ehrman's views on the matter.

Why is that, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

If that was the case then they must not have believed Christ when he said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to 'every' creature."

DOC, you are talking about the authors of the NT believing in the things that were written in the NT.

Do you have any idea at all of why this is a fallacy?

Any?

And also when he said "this gospel will be preached in all the world and 'then' the end will come."

Again and again the Bible proves itself to be true.

As if.

Either that or they must have had confidence in themselves to be able to preach to every person in the world (including such known places as Spain, England, Africa, and Asia) in their lifetime and while much of this area was controlled by the brutal Romans.

When did Spain come into existence, DOC? What about England?

Show your working.

 

[pakeha]

Ah, yes, those brutal Romans.
They DID give us recipes like this, though.

In any case, there IS a lot of confusion about what the Gospel writers meant by what they wrote.
These people seem to have a certainty on the subject.
"... the generation being referred to is the generation born with the rebirth of Israel in 1948. ..."

Voilà!

 

[DOC]

As Agatha correctly predicted, you are unable to quote Ehrman's views on the matter.

Why is that, DOC?

Why should I, she brought it in, she should give the quote and page #.

I don't say some author said something and then ask others to go looking for the quote.