Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-17-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Question: Given that Ehrman thinks that the Gospels are embellished bad histories, why would you suppose that he'd sell the NT as prophecies in the first place?

He would need some money. How else would he earn money?

Writing good greek polemic for
the dominant Roman hegemon.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Steven Carr · 02-17-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

...
And after all, Ehrman claims the Gospels are about someone who was just about to be born in 4 BC.

Has Ehrman ever made that definite a claim? There's a lot of difference between believing that Christianity started with a historical man, and thinking that the gospels contain specific evidence of his life or the date of his birth. In Apocalyptic Prophet (or via: amazon.co.uk), Ehrman rejects the historicity of Matthew's birth story.

Ehrman thinks it nonsense to deny that the Jesus of the Gospels existed.

So, if he just had a Greek New Testament, how could he make money to live in 5 BC by using this book about someone who was just about to come into existence?

Would he fancy telling Herod that this Jesus of the Gospels was about to be born, but was going to be born in Nazareth?

How could Ehrman back up that claim? What would Herod make of a claim that this book described somebody about to be born, who was not actually going to be born where the book said he was?

Ehrman might think it obvious that the Jesus of the Gospels existed, but he would still be killed as a fraudster if he had tried to pass off the NT to Herod as a description of one of Herod's enemies.

schilling.klaus · 02-17-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

He would need some money. How else would he earn money?

Writing good greek polemic for
the dominant Roman hegemon.

For example by using the Septuagint in order to prove that Augustus was The Messiah.

Klaus Schilling

jjramsey · 02-18-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Ehrman thinks it nonsense to deny that the Jesus of the Gospels existed.

"Jesus of the Gospels" is often used to mean the portrait of Jesus shown in the Gospels, and clearly Ehrman does not believe that a Jesus who matched this portrait existed. If you are using "Jesus of the Gospels" as a mere synonym for a historical Jesus who does not necessarily match the Gospels' portrait, then you are being needlessly ambiguous.

squiz · 02-18-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Ehrman thinks it nonsense to deny that the Jesus of the Gospels existed.

"Jesus of the Gospels" is often used to mean the portrait of Jesus shown in the Gospels, and clearly Ehrman does not believe that a Jesus who matched this portrait existed. If you are using "Jesus of the Gospels" as a mere synonym for a historical Jesus who does not necessarily match the Gospels' portrait, then you are being needlessly ambiguous.

I am also curious about what exactly was meant here. Could you give us an exact quote and reference?

jjramsey · 02-18-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I am also curious about what exactly was meant here. Could you give us an exact quote and reference?

Not sure what you are asking, but here is an example usage of the phrase "Jesus of the Gospels":

Quote:

Originally Posted by CX

Since it is clear that the Jesus of the gospels is a legendary figure, what possible difference does it make whether there is a real person behind the legend?

Here is another example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

It's interesting that lots of the people are voting "No" [to the question of whether Jesus had been a human being] on the grounds that the Jesus of the gospels didn't exist. That's not what the question asked. Pay attention people.

Here is yet another example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

If you mean the supernatural/magical Jesus of the gospels, I think your analogy holds. Both unicorns and the Magic Jesus are supernatural or mythical entities.

However, if one means an HJ who is just a human being, then I think your analogy fails. And I think this is the sort of HJ that most scholars would posit.

squiz · 02-19-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I am also curious about what exactly was meant here. Could you give us an exact quote and reference?

Not sure what you are asking

I was actually referring to Steven Carr's post where he said that "Ehrman thinks it nonsense to deny that the Jesus of the Gospels existed." I would like to see what Ehrman exactly said here.

Toto · 02-19-2008, 12:17 PM

I can't locate an exact quote, but Ehrman does not support the idea that the gospels are an accurate reflection of history, but believes that there is an actual millenial Jewish prophet that the stories were based on. He does not have an interest in challenging the existence of a historical Jesus.

quoted in wikipedia

Quote:

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

stuart shepherd · 02-19-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

quoted in wikipedia

Quote:

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

If the Jesus story were true, and Tacitus was reporting the story of a real historical person, Jesus, why does Tacitus only report the death of Jesus?
Wouldn't the BIGGER news have been to report the resurrection of Jesus?

If Tacitus wrote about Jesus, tally another point for those who say there was no resurrection.

Stuart Shepherd

aa5874 · 02-19-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I can't locate an exact quote, but Ehrman does not support the idea that the gospels are an accurate reflection of history, but believes that there is an actual millenial Jewish prophet that the stories were based on. He does not have an interest in challenging the existence of a historical Jesus.

quoted in wikipedia

Quote:

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

But, Ehrman statement is mis-leading. Tacitus never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, he never mentioned how Christus died, where in Judaea Christus died, the year that Christus was killed, or the age of Christus when he died.

And further, Jesus, based on the NT, had no problems at all with the Romans or Pilate, he used to pay his taxes and encouraged his disciples to do the same, and to give due respect to Caesar. And at his trial in the NT, Pilate said he found no fault with Jesus.

The Christus in Tacitus seems to be a different person.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.