• In total there are 33 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 32 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

youkrst wrote:
but if you dont know, how on earth can you claim to know that god does?
but kindly base it on real evidence. ;)
I didn't come to faith by accepting the Bible, but rather through having experiences in life pointing to the existance and truth of what the Bible asserts. I then had experiences continually affirming those.

Like I said though, I'm going to post that in a thread a bit later ;)
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

tat tvam asi wrote:
Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.
Well then I guess since you think the evidence supporting my view is weak then we might as well move along past me and consider what you think Doulos.

Would you kindly provide your 'strong' evidence for the existence of God in order to establish the first premise you've put forward. We have to first see evidence that God exists before considering that God "knows" anything at all one way or the other. And then after you can strongly establish that much then you can move on to apply the proven God(1), who knows(2), to the asserted "truth" of this knowing God in the Judeo-Christian bible(3)....

So let's begin shall we?
See post to youkrst :)

I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.

I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

^You'll have to pardon me again Doulos, but that's precisely the angle Stahrwe was coming from. He was representing a Southern Baptist Evangelical Young Earth Creationist perspective. And we covered these grounds repeatedly. Then Ant came along. And now you're announcing much of the same. For whatever the reason, when one person promoting this precise literalist or inerrancy perspective steps aside another promptly appears to take their place - and all under the same guise of a person calling for sound logic and reason around here while greatly lacking such logic and reason concerning their own personal belief systems...
Doulos wrote:I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.
So then it's safe to say that you in fact base your belief's NOT on strong evidence?

So it's rather odd that you would have come at me from the angle that I hold "beliefs" which are NOT supported by "strong" evidence then isn't it?
Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.
In trying to belittle my worldview you sort of threw yourself under the bus in the process didn't you?
I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
Proof for individuals to come to faith?

But this proof nonetheless DOESN'T involve starting out from a foundation of "strong universal evidence" though?

A "literal" understanding of the bible, however, begins with error instead of truth Doulos. And this starting point of inquiry has been well covered in a variety of places here at BT. The main place starting right here in my signature line:

http://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-the ... t8061.html
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

Doulos wrote:
tat tvam asi wrote:
Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.
Well then I guess since you think the evidence supporting my view is weak then we might as well move along past me and consider what you think Doulos.

Would you kindly provide your 'strong' evidence for the existence of God in order to establish the first premise you've put forward. We have to first see evidence that God exists before considering that God "knows" anything at all one way or the other. And then after you can strongly establish that much then you can move on to apply the proven God(1), who knows(2), to the asserted "truth" of this knowing God in the Judeo-Christian bible(3)....

So let's begin shall we?
See post to youkrst :)

I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.

I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
You must have interesting definitions for "evidence" and "proof."
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

tat tvam asi wrote:^You'll have to pardon me again Doulos, but that's precisely the angle Stahrwe was coming from. He was representing a Southern Baptist Evangelical Young Earth Creationist perspective. And we covered these grounds repeatedly. Then Ant came along. And now you're announcing much of the same. For whatever the reason, when one person promoting this precise literalist or inerrancy perspective steps aside another promptly appears to take their place - and all under the same guise of a person calling for sound logic and reason around here while greatly lacking such logic and reason concerning their own personal belief systems...
Well, if they've been asking for sound logic and reason I can see why you're entirely safe... ;)
tat tvam asi wrote:^
Doulos wrote:I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.
So then it's safe to say that you in fact base your belief's NOT on strong evidence?
Ummm no.
strong universal evidence
tat tvam asi wrote: strong universal evidence
So it's rather odd that you would have come at me from the angle that I hold "beliefs" which are NOT supported by "strong" evidence then isn't it?
Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.
In trying to belittle my worldview you sort of threw yourself under the bus in the process didn't you?
I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
Proof for individuals to come to faith?

But this proof nonetheless DOESN'T involve starting out from a foundation of "strong universal evidence" though?

A "literal" understanding of the bible, however, begins with error instead of truth Doulos. And this starting point of inquiry has been well covered in a variety of places here at BT. The main place starting right here in my signature line:

http://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-the ... t8061.html
Since I've never said I support a Young Earth position, I guess you've again been trying to argue with a person I'm not.

Kindly get off your conspiracy theory train ride and talk about HERE, NOW. Instead of running off on these strange tangents, it would help if you'd read the text more carefully in the first place.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

Doulos wrote:I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
Ok, so you're pushing a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. We've established that much. Now let's consider your next approach:
Doulos wrote:Since I've never said I support a Young Earth position, I guess you've again been trying to argue with a person I'm not.

Kindly get off your conspiracy theory train ride and talk about HERE, NOW.
We are talking about here and now Doulos.

And here and now you've just pushed 'literal Biblical interpretation', and when taken literally we must start with the first book of the Bible and apply literalism to the interpretation of the text. Once literalism is applied to the interpretation of Genesis 1 we arrive at a situation where the earth was created in 6 days, literally. And literally speaking there's a line of humans traceable from Jesus to Adam which produces a "Young Earth Creation" scenario by literally calculating their life spans. Literalism = YEC.

If not literal, then of course we have to say it's symbolic or metaphorical or something else besides literal, which, then dumps the literal interpretation that you're trying to push. So this applies to Stahrwe, or you, or anyone else in the world trying to push literalism. The link is merely an example of what happens to literalism when analyzed closely (both YEC and OEC theories are addressed BTW).

If I thought that you are Stahrwe and not simply another apologist come to argue on behalf of Christianity then I wouldn't have had to give you the link in order to better orient you concerning this former debate in the first place...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
Doulos wrote:...about your assertion that Christian hatred of Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'
How do you see this in light of the Jewish origins of Jesus and the early church?
My view is that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other Gospels were primarily based for their story of a historical Jesus, was probably written in Alexandria in Egypt after the exodus of the Jews from Israel following the Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Christianity was originally aimed at linking Jews and Greeks as 'all one in Christ Jesus' as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:28. However, over time Christianity became primarily a religion for non-Jews, since continuing Judaism rejected the messianic claims around Jesus. Across the diaspora, the Jews retained a tribal identity through Torah and synagogue. As Christianity evolved into an imperial religion, providing moral legitimacy for Christendom, the existence of Jews as unbelievers in Christ became more of an anomaly.
I'd be in general agreement with you on the main points here, though not on the dating of Mark.
Robert Tulip wrote: The anti-Semitic lines in the Bible, especially Matthew's blood guilt line at 27:25, then came to serve a racist propaganda purpose. My view is that the Gospel authors sought to blame the Romans and the Jews equally for failing to understand Christ. However, as Christianity was co-opted by empire, the Jews were scapegoated and the Roman guilt was minimised.
Possible, but do you have any evidence to support this theory?

I would also question the Gospel authors' 'blame' idea, since there are many passages which make the explicit point that fulfillment of prophesy is the primary message, and not establishing guilt in Jesus' arrest, trial and death.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father
(John 10:18)

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?
(Matthew 26:53-4)

...he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!(Phillipians 2:8)
Robert Tulip wrote: The situation of the Jews was most certainly a product of tribal identity shaped by Empire. The mixing of all people in the common era left the Jews as recalcitrants who refused to worship Caesar, rejecting what the Gospels call the 'abominating desolation in the temple'. This old insistence on maintaining their cultural identity was a main reason for the emergence of racism against them among the dominant culture.
I'm afraid this is where your arguement breaks down the most.

Whose tribal identity is shaped/being shaped?

The 'mixing of peoples' theme is also questionable, since Christians themselves were persecuted and did not 'mix' until BEGINNING in the reign of Constantine in 313 AD, and even then we have the Julian turning back the clock in 361 AD.

At best then, you're talking of a late 4th century START to your idea, which would place roughly 350 years where Christianity was not anti-Judaism.

This does not mean that your idea isn't a possibility, but it does mean there would need to be strong evidence to counter the difficulties within it. Good thought process in general though. Well done ;)


'abominating desolation in the temple'- please try to get your quotes right though. This has been translated 'the abomination that causes desolation' or 'abomination of desolation,' but I'm not even sure grammatically what an 'abominating desolation' would be
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

tat tvam asi wrote:
Doulos wrote:I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.
Ok, so you're pushing a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. We've established that much. Now let's consider your next approach:
Doulos wrote:Since I've never said I support a Young Earth position, I guess you've again been trying to argue with a person I'm not.

Kindly get off your conspiracy theory train ride and talk about HERE, NOW.
We are talking about here and now Doulos.

And here and now you've just pushed 'literal Biblical interpretation', and when taken literally we must start with the first book of the Bible and apply literalism to the interpretation of the text. Once literalism is applied to the interpretation of Genesis 1 we arrive at a situation where the earth was created in 6 days, literally. And literally speaking there's a line of humans traceable from Jesus to Adam which produces a "Young Earth Creation" scenario by literally calculating their life spans. Literalism = YEC.

If not literal, then of course we have to say it's symbolic or metaphorical or something else besides literal, which, then dumps the literal interpretation that you're trying to push. So this applies to Stahrwe, or you, or anyone else in the world trying to push literalism. The link is merely an example of what happens to literalism when analyzed closely (both YEC and OEC theories are addressed BTW).

If I thought that you are Stahrwe and not simply another apologist come to argue on behalf of Christianity then I wouldn't have had to give you the link in order to better orient you concerning this former debate in the first place...
'literal' vs literal.

Again, read the text carefully and do not assume. If you don't understand a line/phrase, then the polite thing is to ask for clarification.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

So let's have it Doulos. Enough stalling. Why don't you interpret the Bible literally starting with Genesis 1 and see where it leads us. Then we can fast forward to Matthew or Mark if you please.

What did you just ask Robert?
Doulos wrote:Possible, but do you have any evidence to support this theory?
Good question, but let's consider your own evidence for your own assertions before we move on to others...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Doulos
Asleep in Reading Chair
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
11
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

DWill wrote:I agree that it's a cogent argument. I just don't agree that a reading of the Gospels demonstrates this shared, equal responsibility of Jews and Romans for Jesus' death. I stress a reading of the Gospels, letting the words register just as we would in reading fiction, judging how the writers are channeling our emotions through dramatic technique. I can only say that however deeply the Romans may have been implicated in such similar scenarios that may actually have occurred, in the Gospels (which I consider to be a quasi-historical literature incorporating fictional techniques) we have a revisionist version.
It's nice when there's a sound argument to analyze. Takes a bit more thinking and weighing of ideas, which is what we should be doing more of.

I think the gospels are clearly 'historical literature,' but historical literature in the 1st c. AD sense, and not the 21st century sense. With that in mind, I would definitely agree with your 'fictional techniques' comment. There's a nice treatment of that theme here:

V. Philips Long, "History and Fiction: What is History?" in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, Vol.5 (Grand Rapis: Zondervan, 1994)
Last edited by Doulos on Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”