eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 10,268
- Team supported
- Manchester city
See, arguing about religion again.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
You’re still arguing with me thinking I’m making a Christian argument, I am not, so you don’t need to say “doesn’t make it true”.ha ha i've lost a little patience, your arrogance has no bounds
erhman himself has stated previously carrier is one of few to have sufficient qualifications to argue the non historicity of a jesus, he may not agree with his methods but he obviously thinks hes of sufficient knowledge to do so
i get the conclusion for "q" but that doesn't make it as fact and to do so is as arrogant as you
in your last 3 paragrahs the only thing i agree with is the gospels say he's the messiah(don't make it true though)
Q document is just a theory, as you get within the scientific method of doing things but it’s the best theory we have for Matthew and Luke being so similar.
They all say Messiah, they all say crucified for sins and they all say son of god. They all also say miracles, lots of Mark is just about the miracles but they’re present across all 4. The main points are all there but the significant difference for Christians is that Jesus doesn’t seem to be God in Mark but gradually becomes so and by John, is definitely god.
This is from Ehrman’s own blog:
Carrier and James the Brother of Jesus
I hope I am not beating a dead horse by going at some length into this discussion of James, the brother of Jesus, in response to the Mythicists, who have a very real stake indeed in saying that he wasn’t really Jesus’ brother, since that would mean Jesus existed. I’m pursuing the matter in part because it is such a key issue and as well to show that it would be possible to argue to all eternity with Mythicists on point after point after point. Some of them are truly inexhaustible. If I wanted to spend my entire life and career doing nothing but answering Mythicists rejoinders to my replies to their responses to my comments on their claims – it could occupy my next twenty years! I am giving a taste of what it involves here. The short story: The historical man Jesus from Nazareth had a brother named James. Paul actually knew him. That is pretty darn good evidence that Jesus existed. If he did not exist he would not have had a [...]
November 5th, 2016|Bart's Critics, Bart's Debates, Historical Jesus, Mythicism, Paul and His Letters, Public Forum
Read More
Attacks from the Other Side: An Ill-Tempered Richard Carrier
Sometimes I think that if I’m “getting it from all sides,” I may be doing something right. The religious conservatives seems to be up in arms about my book How Jesus Became God – both conservative evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics like the Very Reverend Robert Barron. In fact, as I’ve said, I do not think anything in the book is inimical to Christian faith, unless it is completely committed to a view of the infallibility of the Bible and its full, historical accuracy. The Christianity I admire is not like that. But I get it from the non-religious left as well. Yesterday a member of the blog sent me the following critique – delivered in terms of mocking incredulity – by Richard Carrier, the mythicist (i.e., one who does not believe that Jesus existed) who has shown more vitriol, hatred, and mean-spiritedness toward me than almost any of the fundamentalists who attack me from the other side. The following is in reference to my point that we do not have any references to [...]
I’ve already given you non Christian sources for the historical Jesus existing as a man.you should try it with jesus
at least you say theory nowYou’re still arguing with me thinking I’m making a Christian argument, I am not, so you don’t need to say “doesn’t make it true”.
Q document is just a theory, as you get within the scientific method of doing things but it’s the best theory we have for Matthew and Luke being so similar.
They all say Messiah, they all say crucified for sins and they all say son of god. They all also say miracles, lots of Mark is just about the miracles but they’re present across all 4. The main points are all there but the significant difference for Christians is that Jesus doesn’t seem to be God in Mark but gradually becomes so and by John, is definitely god.
This is from Ehrman’s own blog:
non from the most important time, the first century especially the first 30 yearsI’ve already given you non Christian sources for the historical Jesus existing as a man.
I’ve never said that it wasn’t a theory. It’s all a theory but when you get the best theory and most widely accepted among scholars, that has been so for a significant amount of time in the modern era, you tend to go with it as a point of reference.at least you say theory now
non from the most important time, the first century especially the first 30 years
As Ehrman says, Paul wrote about meeting James within 20 years of it. Jospehus was first century. Not that your timescales are anything other than your own parameters set to try to win the argument, no historian would ever say “if we don’t have biographical unbiased evidence within 30 years of death then that person didn’t exist” but nevertheless, we have the evidence needed to be entirely confident of Jesus the man existing. It’s Jesus the god or son of god where we should focus our efforts of argument.
MaineDAWG2008
Well-Known Member
Why was Paul summoned to the council ? And if Jesus said he came to uphold the law. Why did Paul change it? This Paul dude is a shady character.
In nature there may be said to be cycles of death and rebirth. In the world of man, it often appears that there is a clinging to/ protection of the life before death - as though, if this life were to be released, that would be the end. Am reminded of the 5(7) stages of grief in the work of Elizabeth Kubler Ross and wonder whether humanity has become hooked on the idea of ‘winning’ whilst in the stage of denial, as a substitute for the growth that comes with acceptance.
you show me where my timescales are not broadly correctI’ve never said that it wasn’t a theory. It’s all a theory but when you get the best theory and most widely accepted among scholars, that has been so for a significant amount of time in the modern era, you tend to go with it as a point of reference.
As Ehrman says, Paul wrote about meeting James within 20 years of it. Jospehus was first century. Not that your timescales are anything other than your own parameters set to try to win the argument, no historian would ever say “if we don’t have biographical unbiased evidence within 30 years of death then that person didn’t exist” but nevertheless, we have the evidence needed to be entirely confident of Jesus the man existing. It’s Jesus the god or son of god where we should focus our efforts of argument.
joesephus wrote the antiquities of the jews in the early 90's
the testimonium passage is likely to have insertions(widely accepted) therefore probably mostly fraudulent
which leaves us with james and that is not conclusive either
and that is it absolutely nothing else
and don't put words into my mouth i never said if we don't have unbaised evidence within 30 of death then that's it
as far as i'm concerned the divine part has long since sailed
and once again i've never said the man didn't exist but there are plenty of queries that for me need a credible answer
defo, he hated christians to begin with then got dehydrated and blind and all change when a disciple performed a miracle to restore his sightWhy was Paul summoned to the council ? And if Jesus said he came to uphold the law. Why did Paul change it? This Paul dude is a shady character.
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
Bloody hell, you're like two bald men fighting over a comb! Dare I say, it's now becoming tiresome. Would it not be more illuminating to all those who have taken an interest in this thread for both of you to identify the issues on which there is broad agreement (of which there is plenty) and agree to disagree on the remainder?you show me where my timescales are not broadly correct
joesephus wrote the antiquities of the jews in the early 90's
the testimonium passage is likely to have insertions(widely accepted) therefore probably mostly fraudulent
which leaves us with james and that is not conclusive either
and that is it absolutely nothing else
and don't put words into my mouth i never said if we don't have unbaised evidence within 30 of death then that's it
as far as i'm concerned the divine part has long since sailed
and once again i've never said the man didn't exist but there are plenty of queries that for me need a credible answer
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
It’s just not enough to make me believe Jesus is anything more than a mythical story. All that anyone can present, is evidence to show that people believed he existed; but it is not hard evidence to show that he actually did exist.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.
Just because Paul knew Peter and Peter had a story, it doesn’t mean Peter is reliable evidence.
It’s an argument that’s only 200-300 hundred years old (which ties in with Enlightenment) because enhances in historicity studies have occurred in that time. Historians and archaeologists have found hard evidence of the existence of named humans going back thousands of years, but there still isn’t any hard evidence to show a Yeshua of Nazareth, the man we think of as Jesus Christ, ever existed.
Josephus’ work is not reliable because many of the other things he wrote about, he contradicts himself over the years, and much of what he wrote has been proven to be false by historians and archaeologists. So why would his Jesus story be any different?
Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus’ supposed death and never referenced any of his claims to anyone. So it can’t be reliable as evidence.
I won’t completely dismiss your book recommendation but Ehrman comes from a background of believing in Jesus despite now being secular. And despite there being more people who’ve written books about the historicity of Jesus who believe he did exist than those who don’t, that doesn’t provide any hard evidence and there could be as many people who would be reliable scholars who don’t believe who just happen to to have not written a book about it.
If it was just some fella, even an important figure or leader from the time we didn’t have any evidence for, like so many we don’t from the period, I wouldn’t be calling into question the evidence as they’re just people of some historical interest who were of their time with no impact on us today… But Jesus is a supposed man that has had billions of followers and a two millennia old religion that’s still going today in his name and makes ridiculous fantastical claims, and I think that requires more evidence than there is to prove it’s worth.
And there’s nothing that’s ever remotely convinced me of his existence.
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
Did you even read what I posted in reply to you on Page 235? You keep posting things about atheism that are not correct. Atheism is solely - and absolutely nothing else - the absence in belief in gods and the myths of religion.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.
Paul also met Jesus’s brother James, so it’s some level of fabrication if it is. The key indicators here is that James and Peter liked one another but had issues with Paul. If Paul was inventing this then he surely wouldn’t admit to them, as he does in his letters, that they didn’t like him.It’s just not enough to make me believe Jesus is anything more than a mythical story. All that anyone can present, is evidence to show that people believed he existed; but it is not hard evidence to show that he actually did exist.
Just because Paul knew Peter and Peter had a story, it doesn’t mean Peter is reliable evidence.
It’s an argument that’s only 200-300 hundred years old (which ties in with Enlightenment) because enhances in historicity studies have occurred in that time. Historians and archaeologists have found hard evidence of the existence of named humans going back thousands of years, but there still isn’t any hard evidence to show a Yeshua of Nazareth, the man we think of as Jesus Christ, ever existed.
Josephus’ work is not reliable because many of the other things he wrote about, he contradicts himself over the years, and much of what he wrote has been proven to be false by historians and archaeologists. So why would his Jesus story be any different?
Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus’ supposed death and never referenced any of his claims to anyone. So it can’t be reliable as evidence.
I won’t completely dismiss your book recommendation but Ehrman comes from a background of believing in Jesus despite now being secular. And despite there being more people who’ve written books about the historicity of Jesus who believe he did exist than those who don’t, that doesn’t provide any hard evidence and there could be as many people who would be reliable scholars who don’t believe who just happen to to have not written a book about it.
If it was just some fella, even an important figure or leader from the time we didn’t have any evidence for, like so many we don’t from the period, I wouldn’t be calling into question the evidence as they’re just people of some historical interest who were of their time with no impact on us today… But Jesus is a supposed man that has had billions of followers and a two millennia old religion that’s still going today in his name and makes ridiculous fantastical claims, and I think that requires more evidence than there is to prove it’s worth.
And there’s nothing that’s ever remotely convinced me of his existence.
Josephus writing about James, being the “so-called messiah’s brother” isn’t disputed among scholars and whether you believe it or not is inconsequential to the experts that do. The reason why it’s reliable is because he hates Christians, so any chance he would get he’d surely dismiss their man as not existing, yet nobody in the first, 2nd or 3rd century did. The Jewish argument at the time in Judea against Jesus was that he was the illegitimate son of a woman who went to committee adultery. They never said he didn’t exist as a person.
Ehrman is a staunch atheist that happened be be brought up a Christian. He’s been a staunch atheist for a long time and is considered the greatest modern scholar arguing from an atheist position. To say “I won’t completely dismiss your recommendation” is doing yourself a huge disservice and you don’t know Ehrman if you even suggest that. If you’re an atheist he’s your biggest ally alive. He’s as much as a nonbeliever of Christianity as anyone. He’s attacked more by conservative Christians than he is Mythicists. Reading his works and seeing his debates you would not for a moment consider him biased in favour of Christianity. Richard carrier was also a Christian who denounced his faith but apparently his opinion is ok because he’s a pusher of the Jesus myth theory?
If there’s nothing that’s remotely convinced you of his existence then you’ve not looked into it enough, I’m sorry, and I’m a secular amateur scholar who questions the supernatural claims.
Paul wrote about meeting James in 50-55AD, we think. That’s the time his letters are thought to be have written. He also talked about his disagreements with Peter.you show me where my timescales are not broadly correct
joesephus wrote the antiquities of the jews in the early 90's
the testimonium passage is likely to have insertions(widely accepted) therefore probably mostly fraudulent
which leaves us with james and that is not conclusive either
and that is it absolutely nothing else
and don't put words into my mouth i never said if we don't have unbaised evidence within 30 of death then that's it
as far as i'm concerned the divine part has long since sailed
and once again i've never said the man didn't exist but there are plenty of queries that for me need a credible answer
I’m not disagreeing about when Jospehus wrote about James.
The Roman sources 20-30 years after Josephus cannot be ignored. The Romans kept records of everything and they specially referred to Christians as people who “followed a man who received the highest punishment” or something close to that without googling it.
These aren’t some Roman piss heads, they were high ranking officers with senior positions.
You won’t find argument from me on the divine part, the argument you’ll get from me is that he existed and was a religious preacher, with a following, who was executed for what he said.
even that wouldn't you agree is curious , if they did as you said why is there nothing from pilate and his interactions with jesus and his reluctance to execute him. allegedly the trial of the centuryPaul wrote about meeting James in 50-55AD, we think. That’s the time his letters are thought to be have written. He also talked about his disagreements with Peter.
I’m not disagreeing about when Jospehus wrote about James.
The Roman sources 20-30 years after Josephus cannot be ignored. The Romans kept records of everything and they specially referred to Christians as people who “followed a man who received the highest punishment” or something close to that without googling it.
These aren’t some Roman piss heads, they were high ranking officers with senior positions.
You won’t find argument from me on the divine part, the argument you’ll get from me is that he existed and was a religious preacher, with a following, who was executed for what he said.
this is not to say he didn't exist but its just doesn't sit right
MaineDAWG2008
Well-Known Member
haha thats prob more accurate than the stories in the bible loooldefo, he hated christians to begin with then got dehydrated and blind and all change when a disciple performed a miracle to restore his sight
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,365
Modern day theologian regard the camel aphorism as a probable mistake in translation.“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
What if this could point to someone being rich in ‘understanding‘ of the the likes of the bible in their head but in such a way that there is little chance of them coming to understand how it is to experience the heavenly in their hearts…
Some Greek scribe wrote "Kamelos" (Camel) instead of "Kamilos" (Rope).
Plenty of typos' and mistranslations in the bible, "Virgin" (as in Mary) can also mean Young Girl.
About as reliable as the Grundian
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
It’s something I am interested in so need to do more reading around it. I want to find more evidence than I’ve seen or heard so far, even then it may only show that the Yeshua in question did exist but the Yeshua in question isn’t the man of the gospels.Paul also met Jesus’s brother James, so it’s some level of fabrication if it is. The key indicators here is that James and Peter liked one another but had issues with Paul. If Paul was inventing this then he surely wouldn’t admit to them, as he does in his letters, that they didn’t like him.
Josephus writing about James, being the “so-called messiah’s brother” isn’t disputed among scholars and whether you believe it or not is inconsequential to the experts that do. The reason why it’s reliable is because he hates Christians, so any chance he would get he’d surely dismiss their man as not existing, yet nobody in the first, 2nd or 3rd century did. The Jewish argument at the time in Judea against Jesus was that he was the illegitimate son of a woman who went to committee adultery. They never said he didn’t exist as a person.
Ehrman is a staunch atheist that happened be be brought up a Christian. He’s been a staunch atheist for a long time and is considered the greatest modern scholar arguing from an atheist position. To say “I won’t completely dismiss your recommendation” is doing yourself a huge disservice and you don’t know Ehrman if you even suggest that. If you’re an atheist he’s your biggest ally alive. He’s as much as a nonbeliever of Christianity as anyone. He’s attacked more by conservative Christians than he is Mythicists. Reading his works and seeing his debates you would not for a moment consider him biased in favour of Christianity. Richard carrier was also a Christian who denounced his faith but apparently his opinion is ok because he’s a pusher of the Jesus myth theory?
If there’s nothing that’s remotely convinced you of his existence then you’ve not looked into it enough, I’m sorry, and I’m a secular amateur scholar who questions the supernatural claims.
Cheers. Yes, Lamsa with his translation of the Aramaic peshitta pointed out the same thing. In this context, I still quite like the Dali-esque use of camel. In general though, it is amazing how one small mistranslation/subtle misunderstanding of context can lead to a hugely different meaning. Put a bunch of those together and it would make a game of Chinese whispers look like an accurate way of communicating the original message.Modern day theologian regard the camel aphorism as a probable mistake in translation.
Some Greek scribe wrote "Kamelos" (Camel) instead of "Kamilos" (Rope).
Plenty of typos' and mistranslations in the bible, "Virgin" (as in Mary) can also mean Young Girl.
About as reliable as the Grundian
Last edited:
It wasn’t the trial of the century, not at the time. Christians were a few dozen shepherds following someone seen a religious zealot. Pilate and the Jews would have sentenced many people to death at that time, it was only absolutely huge for the people who bought it all.even that wouldn't you agree is curious , if they did as you said why is there nothing from pilate and his interactions with jesus and his reluctance to execute him. allegedly the trial of the century
this is not to say he didn't exist but its just doesn't sit right
It’s seen as trial of the century to us now tho because of who Jesus became and how the religion grew and in my opinion, this is because the preaching done by Jesus the man (or what the gospels claimed he preached) was more impressive than other religious preachers at the time, so it caught on when it reached written form.
The biggest factor tho is that Pilate is specifically mentioned by the Romans, as being the governor when Jesus was executed by the Romans. This backs up the gospel account.