Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 08-31-2012, 11:05 PM

Ehrman and Acharya have a history.

Who can forget Ehrman going on to the radio to laugh at Acharya for fabricating the existence of a statue, even going so far as to draw a picture of this non-existent statue herself....

'“It’s just made up! There is no such – it’s completely made up. [laughs]”

Only for him to write a few days later 'The statue does appear to exist.'

It is that level of research that convinced me that Ehrman was telling the truth when he said he had not got his graduate students to find things out for him, but had done it all himself.

aa5874 · 09-01-2012, 01:27 AM

I personally find Ehrman to be unbelievable.

Ehrman claims he is agnostic yet DECLARES that God will triumph is a positive message and can be preached today.

This is Bart Ehrman a supposed Agnostic in an interview.

Quote:

....The world may have a lot of pain and suffering going on right now but God has the last say and death isn’t the end of the story. The power of God transcends death and ultimately God will triumph. I think that’s a very positive message and I think it can be preached today.

See http://www.religiondispatches.org/bo...h_bart_ehrman/

Does Ehrman believe in a physical resurrection by God??

It would appear to me that Ehrman is NOT Agnostic because he claimed that it can be preached today that "God has the last say".

PhilosopherJay · 09-01-2012, 07:44 AM

Steven Carr,

LOL.

Yes, college professors do not need graduate students to do bad research, they are quite capable of doing it on their own.

In partial defense of Ehrman, one offen encounters unusual, crazy and strange things in History that are unbelievable. You dismiss them as being made up by a sick and/or perverse mind and then you find out that it was true and well attested.

For example, for many years, I dismissed the idea that most of the leadership of ancient Democratic Greece engaged in homosexual activities with young men. I thought it was only in the imagination of modern gay Classics Professors. It was only when I read better translations of Plato and I saw the vase paintings of such activities that I had my "Oh My Stars" moment that it was true.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Ehrman and Acharya have a history.

Who can forget Ehrman going on to the radio to laugh at Acharya for fabricating the existence of a statue, even going so far as to draw a picture of this non-existent statue herself....

'“It’s just made up! There is no such – it’s completely made up. [laughs]”

Only for him to write a few days later 'The statue does appear to exist.'

It is that level of research that convinced me that Ehrman was telling the truth when he said he had not got his graduate students to find things out for him, but had done it all himself.

outhouse · 09-01-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Yes, college professors do not need graduate students to do bad research, they are quite capable of doing it on their own.

Everyone makes mistakes, never seen a historian who has made a decent enough case in all areas, for me to follow 100% as accute because its not possible.

different people have specialties in certain areas, and I personally lump the specialist into my overall view.

whats funny if you take someone who is into greek mythology, the next thing you see is the influence of greek mythology into every aspect of Israelite history and mythology, when there was only partial evolution of these influences. Often all taken out of context or from different times periods.

metacristi · 09-07-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Having read 'Did Jesus Exist?' I can only say that Ehrman's argument against mythicists is very solid.

Have you read the numerous replies to Ehrman that point out his errors?

"These guys"??

Quote:

Only if one wants to set up ad hoc standards in the science of history can one safely ignore the early Christian documents. Not the best of options.

You seem to have swallowed some Christian apologetic arguments hook, line, and sinker. It is the proponents of a historical Jesus who have invented ad hoc standards in their treatment of early (or not so early) Christian documents.

Well I don't think that Bart Ehrman's arguments can be so easily demolished. Having read carefully his arguments (nothing to do with 'some Christian apologetic arguments') pro the historicity of Jesus I just do not see what 'explanations' can mythicists provide to save their ship, full of water by the way (yes these guys, all mythicists possible). Attacking some minor, secondary, aspects does not invalidate the major conclusion, namely that a historical Jesus did in fact exist.

What counts is that making parralels with Osiris for example are definitely completely wrong (Bart is right when he says that Osiris did not rise from the dead, read the article from Encyclopedia Britannica for example: "This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth."). And the same is the case with other ancient gods (anyways the majority of the very early Christians did not think that Jesus was god). At the end of the day there are much more reasons to think that a Jesus existed, even if he is probably far from what believers think.

Instead of investing so much effort in an obviously lost case as this (only to discredit religion with all costs) I prefer Rationality. Honestly I never understood why some atheists chose this extreme path, some claim for example that evolutionary psychology shows without doubt that a sort of teleology is impossible to be at work and so on, when in fact there are much more reasonable approaches, based on Rationality not on hating religion and religionists.

Ratel · 09-07-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

What counts is that making parralels with Osiris for example are definitely completely wrong (Bart is right when he says that Osiris did not rise from the dead, read the article from Encyclopedia Britannica for example: "This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth.").

Please explain this then:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plutarch

Later, as they relate, Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle. After a time Osiris asked Hor us what he held to be the most noble of all things. When Florus replied, ‘To avenge one's father and mother for evil done to them,’ Osiris then asked him what animal he considered the most useful for them who go forth to battle; and when Horus said, ‘A horse,’ Osiris was surprised and raised the question why it was that he had not rather said a lion than a horse. Horus answered that a lion was a useful thing for a man in need of assistance, but that a horse served best for cutting off the flight of an enemy and annihilating him. When Osiris heard this he was much pleased, since he felt that Horus had now an adequate preparation.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Asection%3D19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plutarch

In this way we shall undertake to deal with the numerous and tiresome people, whether they be such as take pleasure in associating theological problems with the seasonal changes in the surrounding atmosphere, or with the growth of the crops and seedtimes and ploughing ; and also those who say that Osiris is being buried at the time when the grain is sown and covered in the earth and that he comes to life and reappears when plants begin to sprout.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Asection%3D65

Toto · 09-07-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read the numerous replies to Ehrman that point out his errors?

"These guys"??

You seem to have swallowed some Christian apologetic arguments hook, line, and sinker. It is the proponents of a historical Jesus who have invented ad hoc standards in their treatment of early (or not so early) Christian documents.

Well I don't think that Bart Ehrman's arguments can be so easily demolished.

I infer that you have not in fact read the numerous rebuttals.

Quote:

Having read carefully his arguments (nothing to do with 'some Christian apologetic arguments') pro the historicity of Jesus I just do not see what 'explanations' can mythicists provide to save their ship, full of water by the way (yes these guys, all mythicists possible). Attacking some minor, secondary, aspects does not invalidate the major conclusion, namely that a historical Jesus did in fact exist.

Would you care to state in your own words what the basis for that conclusion is?

Quote:

What counts is that making parralels with Osiris for example are definitely completely wrong (Bart is right when he says that Osiris did not rise from the dead, read the article from Encyclopedia Britannica for example: "This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth.").

Here is an indication that you have not read enough. Only a few mythicists base their arguments on the parallels with Osiris, and citing the Encyclopedia Britannica is not enough to show that Egyptians did not think that Osiris rose from the dead.

Quote:

And the same is the case with other ancient gods (anyways the majority of the very early Christians did not think that Jesus was god).

Are you sure? What did Paul think?

Quote:

At the end of the day there are much more reasons to think that a Jesus existed, even if he is probably far from what believers think.

Such as?

Quote:

Instead of investing so much effort in an obviously lost case as this (only to discredit religion with all costs) I prefer Rationality. Honestly I never understood why some atheists chose this extreme path, some claim for example that evolutionary psychology shows without doubt that a sort of teleology is impossible to be at work and so on, when in fact there are much more reasonable approaches, based on Rationality not on hating religion and religionists.

Then please demonstrate some rationality, rather that sparring with straw men.

Ratel · 09-07-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

And the same is the case with other ancient gods

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Their belief in their immortality is as follows: they believe that they do not die, but that one who perishes goes to the deity Salmoxis, or Gebeleïzis, as some of them call him. [2] Once every five years they choose one of their people by lot and send him as a messenger to Salmoxis, with instructions to report their needs; and this is how they send him: three lances are held by designated men; others seize the messenger to Salmoxis by his hands and feet, and swing and toss him up on to the spear-points. [3] If he is killed by the toss, they believe that the god regards them with favor; but if he is not killed, they blame the messenger himself, considering him a bad man, and send another messenger in place of him. It is while the man still lives that they give him the message. [4] Furthermore, when there is thunder and lightning these same Thracians shoot arrows skyward as a threat to the god, believing in no other god but their own.

95.
I understand from the Greeks who live beside the Hellespont and Pontus, that this Salmoxis was a man who was once a slave in Samos, his master being Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus; [2] then, after being freed and gaining great wealth, he returned to his own country. Now the Thracians were a poor and backward people, but this Salmoxis knew Ionian ways and a more advanced way of life than the Thracian; for he had consorted with Greeks, and moreover with one of the greatest Greek teachers, Pythagoras; [3] therefore he made a hall, where he entertained and fed the leaders among his countrymen, and taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants would ever die, but that they would go to a place where they would live forever and have all good things. [4] While he was doing as I have said and teaching this doctrine, he was meanwhile making an underground chamber. When this was finished, he vanished from the sight of the Thracians, and went down into the underground chamber, where he lived for three years, [5] while the Thracians wished him back and mourned him for dead; then in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what Salmoxis had told them. Such is the Greek story about him.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Achapter%3D95

Passover Plot, Thracian style.

outhouse · 09-07-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Outhouse, Thomas Verenna has come a long way since his Rook Hawkins days. Probably worth a relook.

I have noticed.

Glad he joined up. Seems like a nice guy.

I look foward to picking up a few pointers

aa5874 · 09-07-2012, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

...Having read 'Did Jesus Exist?' I can only say that Ehrman's argument against mythicists is very solid.

Carrier is a Peer of Ehrman and found "Did Jesus Exist?" to be a Failure of Facts and Logic--the very worst review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacristi

Well I don't think that Bart Ehrman's arguments can be so easily demolished. Having read carefully his arguments (nothing to do with 'some Christian apologetic arguments') pro the historicity of Jesus I just do not see what 'explanations' can mythicists provide to save their ship, full of water by the way (yes these guys, all mythicists possible). Attacking some minor, secondary, aspects does not invalidate the major conclusion, namely that a historical Jesus did in fact exist...

Ehrman has no real argument because they were destroyed in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman claimed His Jesus was Scarcely known and that the Gospels provide Powerful evidence of an historical Jesus.

Well, the Gospels Powerfully Contradicts Ehrman--Jesus of Nazareth was WELL-KNOWN--See Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Ehrman may have some kind of memory problem because he seems to forget what he stated.

If Ehrman argues that Ignatius was an early Christian then early Christians claimed Jesus was God.

IGNATIUS to the Ephesians

Quote:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. ..

Ignatius to the Trallians

Quote:

... Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God..

Ignatius to the Romans

Quote:

...For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory].

Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Quote:

.. You have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God...

Ignatius to Polycarp

Quote:

I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ...

Ehrman Demolishes his own arguments.

The Argument for an historical Jesus has gone up in Smoke--thanks to Ehrman.

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

08-31-2012, 11:05 PM	#141
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Ehrman and Acharya have a history. Who can forget Ehrman going on to the radio to laugh at Acharya for fabricating the existence of a statue, even going so far as to draw a picture of this non-existent statue herself.... '“It’s just made up! There is no such – it’s completely made up. [laughs]” Only for him to write a few days later 'The statue does appear to exist.' It is that level of research that convinced me that Ehrman was telling the truth when he said he had not got his graduate students to find things out for him, but had done it all himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.