Religion

[paulsimpson]

What you are stating is false.

Lots of Christians (mainly academics/theologians who specialise in New Testament Studies) have long acknowledged that the authors of the gospels made things up to suit their theological agenda and intended readership. The technical term for identifying traditions about Jesus that have been subjected to this process is 'redaction criticism'. The aim is ultimately to identify a core of material that might be regarded as authentic. This whole exercise has been described as 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'.

One example is the contrast between Jesus's teaching about divorce in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus teaches that a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful to him, and Mark's gospel, in which he forbids divorce entirely, teaching that ‘what God has joined together, man must not separate.’ As Mark's gospel mentions women divorcing men, it has been suggested that this gospel was aimed at a Gentile readership, as under Roman Law women did enjoy the right of divorce. Contrastingly, only men could divorce their wives according to Jewish law, which raises the possibility that whoever wrote Matthew's gospel had Jewish readers in mind, and wished to persuade them that Jesus was their promised Messiah. In both instances, whatever Jesus taught about divorce has been manipulated.

Of course, there are those (including Christians themselves) who regard the aforementioned quest as futile, and beyond acknowledging that Jesus existed affirm that the Christ of faith is what really matters.

But anyway, it is pure nonsense to suggest that every word of the Bible is literally true. Again, one further example, this time taken from the Old Testament, can demonstrate this: both the future King David and Elhanan of Jair are described as the slayers of Goliath in the books of Samuel. So it can't be both.

In closing, I should add that were three different endings to Mark's gospel in circulation initially. So the gospel ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb and without any resurrection appearances. These endings were appended at this point, so an explanation is in order as to why they were needed and which (if any) is trustworthy.

Really, I have just skimmed the surface of this topic with what little I have said here.

E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus would be the place to start for anyone who wants to explore the issue of what can reasonably known about Jesus in more depth. As a non-Christian, I was amazed when reading this book to discover just how ruthless Christians themselves have been when it comes to the synoptic gospels and episodes within them that they regard as fictional (for example, this is the line that Sanders takes with the accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke).

As for the vexed issue of whether Jesus actually existed in the first place, Maurice Casey is the person to look at:

Review of Prof. Maurice Casey's Scholarly Critique of the Work of Jesus Mythicists - Dr. Michael Heiser

I blogged a short time ago to alert readers about this book. Maurice Casey was a New Testament scholar and Aramaic specialist. He was also nowhere close to being a …

drmsh.com

Jesus historians get an earful from Maurice Casey - Macleans.ca

An academic who is ‘not serving the interests of any faith’ derides self-serving portrayals of Christ

www.macleans.ca

 

[tonea2003]

You’ve got the world’s most respected atheist scholar saying the opposite to you and you say “humour me”?

Why do you know more than Ehrman and his peers? Ehrman says those who push your line are engaging in pseudo-scholarship and are dishonest.

A huge chunk of evidence for me is Paul writing about Peter whilst Peter was still alive. Here is Paul writing about Jesus’s closest friend/follower and discussing a disagreement he and Peter have. So who invented Jesus, Peter? Paul? Did Paul invent both Peter and Jesus?

there’s more though:


It’s Mainstream opinion among those who have expertise in this field that he existed.

We’re much better trying to focus on dismissing the claims made about the man, rather than the existence of the man. Which is almost certain to have existed.

In the ancient world, nobody questioned the historical man existing. It’s an argument that’s only about 200-300 years old.

ehrman has a lot to say but he always writes with a bias and to be honest he's a bit of a bully when he dismisses anyone who has a view other than his
much prefer carrier,price and my new favourite fitzgerald who try to look at the evidence dispassionately
its a mainstream view because the majority of christian biblical studies are done at institutions that require you to have that view in the first place or no job
so nice try throwing a name at me, just try and answer the questions

 

[tonea2003]

When you seemingly believe nothing created matter , that matter somehow came alive and changed into plants, animalsn and people over billions of years then your beliefs would mean nothing can become anything. That's how you believe you got here. If you can make those irrational jumps then there's not much point in discussing Christ's historicity. What you're doing is relying on His immaterial eternal laws of logic to make rational and coherent statements. The Logos( translated as logic) Himself is who you rely on to make coherent statements yet you deny His existence. So your worldview is a total contradiction ,inconsistent and irrational.

where have i said nothing created matter, don't put words into my mouth
yet you write another paragraph of nonsense without answering the question that you are replying to
remarkable!!!

 

[paulsimpson]

What you are stating is false.

Lots of Christians (mainly academics/theologians who specialise in New Testament Studies) have long acknowledged that the authors of the gospels made things up to suit their theological agenda and intended readership. The technical term for identifying traditions about Jesus that have been subjected to this process is 'redaction criticism'. The aim is ultimately to identify a core of material that might be regarded as authentic. This whole exercise has been described as 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'.

One example is the contrast between Jesus's teaching about divorce in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus teaches that a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful to him, and Mark's gospel, in which he forbids divorce entirely, teaching that ‘what God has joined together, man must not separate.’ As Mark's gospel mentions women divorcing men, it has been suggested that this gospel was aimed at a Gentile readership, as under Roman Law women did enjoy the right of divorce. Contrastingly, only men could divorce their wives according to Jewish law, which raises the possibility that whoever wrote Matthew's gospel had Jewish readers in mind, and wished to persuade them that Jesus was their promised Messiah. In both instances, whatever Jesus taught about divorce has been manipulated.

Of course, there are those (including Christians themselves) who regard the aforementioned quest as futile, and beyond acknowledging that Jesus existed affirm that the Christ of faith is what really matters.

But anyway, it is pure nonsense to suggest that every word of the Bible is literally true. Again, one further example, this time taken from the Old Testament, can demonstrate this: both the future King David and Elhanan of Jair are described as the slayers of Goliath in the books of Samuel. So it can't be both.

In closing, I should add that were three different endings to Mark's gospel in circulation initially. So the gospel ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb and without any resurrection appearances. These endings were appended at this point, so an explanation is in order as to why they were needed and which (if any) is trustworthy.

Really, I have just skimmed the surface of this topic with what little I have said here.

E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus would be the place to start for anyone who wants to explore the issue of what can reasonably known about Jesus in more depth. As a non-Christian, I was amazed when reading this book to discover just how ruthless Christians themselves have been when it comes to the synoptic gospels and episodes within them that they regard as fictional (for example, this is the line that Sanders takes with the accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke).

As for the vexed issue of whether Jesus actually existed in the first place, Maurice Casey is the person to look at:

Review of Prof. Maurice Casey's Scholarly Critique of the Work of Jesus Mythicists - Dr. Michael Heiser

I blogged a short time ago to alert readers about this book. Maurice Casey was a New Testament scholar and Aramaic specialist. He was also nowhere close to being a …

drmsh.com

Jesus historians get an earful from Maurice Casey - Macleans.ca

An academic who is ‘not serving the interests of any faith’ derides self-serving portrayals of Christ

www.macleans.ca

The record of Goliath’s defeat at the hand of David is found in 1 Samuel 17. However, a verse in 2 Samuel seems to name Elhanan, instead of David, as the one who toppled Goliath.

Here’s what’s clear: 1 Samuel 17:50 says that David killed Goliath: “So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.” The “Philistine” in this verse is identified as Goliath in verse 4.

Here’s what’s not so clear: in some translations, 2 Samuel 21:19 seems to indicate that it was Elhanan.
Bringing clarity to the issue is 1 Chronicles 20:5, which says, “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi " "THE BROTHER OF" Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” This verse repeats the detail of the size of the spear shaft, and it clearly says that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother, rather than Goliath himself.

Why the discrepancy? Why does 2 Samuel 21:19 say that Elhanan killed Goliath?
Well , we have 1 Chronicles 20:5, which contains the correct Hebrew wording and informs us, through implication, that 2 Samuel 21:19 is missing the words "the brother of" . So David killed Goliath. Elhanan later killed Goliath’s brother.

 

[tonea2003]

Believing that something can come from nothing uncaused is irrational. Atheism is an irrational worldview. Nothing becomes everything uncaused, on that worldview . That is the atheist position. It is as irrational as it is embarrassing.
And setting up human ' experts' as some authority shows irrationality because they too propagate the nonsense that matter can come from nothing uncaused. 'Uncaused' is the key word here .
So on your worldview the universe ,stars , planets people just pop into being uncaused. Hawking believed this. Its an irrational belief.
Matter cannot create itself. All of the matter ( the universe ) is not eternal. It cannot have existed eternally into the past. So you can't regress back to an infinite past series of events. You wouldn't be able to get back to the present moment if there were an infinite series of past events. So the past is finite and has a beginning. The cause of matter ( the Universe ) must be outside time - a timeless, uncaused , spaceless, immaterial personal being . But you believe it got here uncaused from nothing.

do you really know what atheist means? i'm not sure you do

 

[MaineDAWG2008]

ehrman has a lot to say but he always writes with a bias and to be honest he's a bit of a bully when he dismisses anyone who has a view other than his
much prefer carrier,price and my new favourite fitzgerald who try to look at the evidence dispassionately
its a mainstream view because the majority of christian biblical studies are done at institutions that require you to have that view in the first place or no job
so nice try throwing a name at me, just try and answer the questions

totally agree what u said of ehrman. Watched a recent interview of his, and what u said about bullying. He sure does. Its his way or the highway. But his argument about whether Jesus claimed divinity is a strong argument.

 

[tonea2003]

totally agree what u said of ehrman. Watched a recent interview of his, and what u said about bullying. He sure does. Its his way or the highway. But his argument about whether Jesus claimed divinity is a strong argument.

i suppose its which side you stand on, divinity or the jesus of faith shall we say is a different argument from jesus the man

 

[Octavian]

ehrman has a lot to say but he always writes with a bias and to be honest he's a bit of a bully when he dismisses anyone who has a view other than his
much prefer carrier,price and my new favourite fitzgerald who try to look at the evidence dispassionately
its a mainstream view because the majority of christian biblical studies are done at institutions that require you to have that view in the first place or no job
so nice try throwing a name at me, just try and answer the questions

I did give evidence as well as Ehrman’s name. Why did you ignore 80% of my reply?

Have you ever read or heard from Ehrman? He spends most of his time arguing against Christians. To suggest he’s biased is absurd.

Ehrman isn’t alone, in fact, to suggest Jesus the man didn’t exist, as a scholar, is a bit like being a biologist who doesn’t believe in evolution these days. It’s a tiny fraction of historians and scholars and the only people who knowingly make that argument are seen as being dishonest.

 

[Kippaxpete]

Intelligent conversation must presuppose a logical basis for rational discourse. Logic is reflected in God's nature.
Believing that nothing created everything is Pete's starting point as he has quoted Hawking who believed that material objects could pop into being uncaused . This is also the irrational worldview of the atheist: Nothing created everything at the beginning of time. The universe (matter), planets etc exploded into being apparently from nowhere for no reason. The matter apparently arranged itself over billions of years into early life forms from non life- a secular miracle. In effect matter created itself This is religion , the religion of atheist naturalism.

I did vow not to engage further but your shameless straw man argument above leaves me with no choice. Generally, such a tactic is deployed by those who have already lost the argument or are simply too stupid to know it. For the record, I simply expressed amazement that someone could be so arrogant as to think that their crackpot views would receive widespread approval over those of one of the most respected scientists of modern times. In the interests of clarity, I've pasted the extract concerned below.
Your ego must the size of a fucking planet (pun definitely intended) if you sincerely expect anyone to accept your word over that of the pre-eminent physicist and cosmologist of the modern era.
Indeed, instead of repeatedly seeking to reassert your version of the 'truth' each time someone attempts to present a reasoned argument, perhaps offer some irrefutable evidence. Then, we in the real world might sit up and take notice. Until that point, I remain an agnostic atheist. Otherwise, don't misrepresent me.

 

[tonea2003]

I did give evidence as well as Ehrman’s name. Why did you ignore 80% of my reply?

Have you ever read or heard from Ehrman? He spends most of his time arguing against Christians. To suggest he’s biased is absurd.

Ehrman isn’t alone, in fact, to suggest Jesus the man didn’t exist, as a scholar, is a bit like being a biologist who doesn’t believe in evolution these days. It’s a tiny fraction of historians and scholars and the only people who knowingly make that argument are seen as being dishonest.

like the 80% of the questions you ignore of mine touche, your analogy is laughable
and the by the way ehrman as you know is a prior evangelist and is coming from biased standpoint that jesus existed and i don't feel he's as open minded as he could be, yes i've seen some of his debates and the way he shuts down people i don't really like

i'm not saying jesus the man doesn't exist i'm saying the jesus of the gospels is unlikely.

here is a quest for you, apart from the two dodgy quotes from Josephus give me any contemporary 1st century anything that corroborates anything said in the gospels

to your prior evidence just because paul talks about peter?? why not just talk about the man himself, you are just looking for pockets and hanging your hat on it, no hard evidence