Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-14-2013, 07:58 PM

Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) - $9.99

by Richard Carrier Ph.D. (Author), D.M. Murdock (Author), René Salm (Author), Earl Doherty (Author), David Fitzgerald (Author), Robert M. Price Ph.D. (Editor), Frank R. Zindler (Editor)

Quote:

When New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, he not only attempted to prove the historical reality of a man called “Jesus of Nazareth,” he sharply criticized scholars who have sought to develop a new paradigm in the study of Christian origins—scholars who have claimed that Jesus was a mythical, not historical, figure, and that the traditional, Jesus-centered paradigm for studying the origins of Christianity must be replaced by an actual science of Christian origins. In the present volume, some of those scholars respond to Ehrman’s treatment of their research and findings, showing how he has either ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented their arguments. They present evidence that “Jesus of Nazareth” was no more historical than Osiris or Thor. Several contributors question not only the historicity of “Jesus of Nazareth,” they present evidence that the site of present-day Nazareth was not inhabited at the time Jesus and his family should have been living there.

aa5874 · 04-14-2013, 10:31 PM

After reading "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman it is clear to me the Quest for HJ is finally dead.

The third Quest has ended.

No argument for an HJ can be maintained--there is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth.

No non-apologetic, Jew or Gentile, mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and no Apologetic saw him alive except Paul after the Ascension.

Chili · 04-15-2013, 04:48 AM

In our mythology we are said to have a dual nature wherein we are rational as animal. This second identity is wherein we are Adam, and that is like a dam whereon we stand to see and write own CV in defense of who we think we are, while the animal we do not see.

From this follows that scholars are like highly decorated beech combers just trying to make a living by selling us the craps they find, here now going short in a declining market place.

Tommy · 04-15-2013, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After reading "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman it is clear to me the Quest for HJ is finally dead.

The third Quest has ended.

No argument for an HJ can be maintained--there is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth.

No non-apologetic, Jew or Gentile, mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and no Apologetic saw him alive except Paul after the Ascension.

If He really never existed you`d think early critics of Xianity would have made more of this rather than trying to assert He had existed but was a sorcerer, fathered by a Centurion etc.

Tommy · 04-15-2013, 07:26 AM

Ehrman is currently writing a book saying Paul thought Jesus was an angel. He keeps on putting teasers on facebook but then you have to subscribe to his site to read on. If anyone`s subscribed would you let us know what Bart`s arguing.

Toto · 04-15-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After reading "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman it is clear to me the Quest for HJ is finally dead.

The third Quest has ended.

No argument for an HJ can be maintained--there is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth.

No non-apologetic, Jew or Gentile, mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and no Apologetic saw him alive except Paul after the Ascension.

If He really never existed you`d think early critics of Xianity would have made more of this rather than trying to assert He had existed but was a sorcerer, fathered by a Centurion etc.

That wasn't how they thought back then. Critics of Christianity scored more points by claiming that Jesus was an obscure bastard son of a Roman soldier.

Modern mythicists have more in common with some Christian heretical sects who thought Jesus was a god or an angel, but had not come in the flesh. It's just that the ancients believed that gods and angels were real, and modern people tend to doubt in the supernatural.

Toto · 04-15-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Ehrman is currently writing a book saying Paul thought Jesus was an angel. He keeps on putting teasers on facebook but then you have to subscribe to his site to read on. If anyone`s subscribed would you let us know what Bart`s arguing.

Is this a new book?

This is from his public blog:

http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel/

Quote:

Here’s a bit from my chapter 7 of How Jesus Became God where I talk about why I think Paul understood Jesus, before coming to earth, to have been an angel. There’s more to the argument than just this, but it’s a start. As you’ll see, this isn’t just a crazy idea I had. I learned this from some very smart colleagues in the field, who have convinced me. It’s one of the HUGE surprises that I’ve had writing this book, coming to this realization. It affects a LOT in terms of New Testament interpretation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something numerous times, over and over, and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians literally hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what Paul says in Galatians 4:14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul indicates that Christ was an angel. The reason it never registered with me is because the statement is a bit obtuse, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. But thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.

In the context of the verse Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst, and they helped restore him to health. This is what the verse in question says:

Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.

edit - yes this is a new book that he is writing. But there is already a book When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk)

outhouse · 04-15-2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's just that the ancients believed that gods and angels were real, and modern people tend to doubt in the supernatural.

Not all. Most people now just dont understand the context of language used back then, and try and place a modern literalization to it which doesnt fly.

Divinity was something given to mortel men

"Son of God" was a mortal term.

Did later people come along and make him more divine then he was originally writen? absolutely. Since he was parralleled with the Emperor some aspects of the movement mythologically surpassed his divinity.

Quote:

It's just that the ancients believed that gods and angels were real, and modern people tend to doubt in the supernatural.

yes and no.

Just like now there are different beliefs.

Toto · 04-15-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...
Did later people come along and make him more divine then he was originally writen? absolutely. ....

This is the story that some modern people have constructed - allegedly Jesus was originally a man who was turned into a god. But there are no ancient sources that describe Jesus as just a man. If Paul is the earliest source, Jesus is primarily a divine spirit.

outhouse · 04-15-2013, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...
Did later people come along and make him more divine then he was originally writen? absolutely. ....

This is the story that some modern people have constructed - allegedly Jesus was originally a man who was turned into a god. But there are no ancient sources that describe Jesus as just a man. If Paul is the earliest source, Jesus is primarily a divine spirit.

Almost all of the earliest ancient sources describe Jesus as being human first and formost.

I see a problem that I mentioned in my post.

Poor translations to the context of words used.

Divine spirit was a feeling one had that was pure of thought within ones heart, and it can be translated in different ways.

But Paul definateley places Jesus as a human first.

Biological lineage from David.
Died on a cross.
Came back from the dead.
Was a messiah.
Had flesh and blood.
Son of God which was a mortal phrase.

Yes Paul creates his own mythical deity out of the foundation he had to work with. But his deity was not 100% spritual as written. Not only that, the divinity he does attribute to Jesus has more to do with Jesus powers in the afterlife.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2013, 10:31 PM	#2
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	After reading "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman it is clear to me the Quest for HJ is finally dead. The third Quest has ended. No argument for an HJ can be maintained--there is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth. No non-apologetic, Jew or Gentile, mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and no Apologetic saw him alive except Paul after the Ascension.

04-15-2013, 04:48 AM	#3
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	In our mythology we are said to have a dual nature wherein we are rational as animal. This second identity is wherein we are Adam, and that is like a dam whereon we stand to see and write own CV in defense of who we think we are, while the animal we do not see. From this follows that scholars are like highly decorated beech combers just trying to make a living by selling us the craps they find, here now going short in a declining market place.

04-15-2013, 07:26 AM	#5
Tommy Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Posts: 383	Ehrman is currently writing a book saying Paul thought Jesus was an angel. He keeps on putting teasers on facebook but then you have to subscribe to his site to read on. If anyone`s subscribed would you let us know what Bart`s arguing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.