Adam

That Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is pretty standard teaching from Albert Schweitzer a hundred years ago to Dale Allison currently. However, this is in the gospels primarily in a small subset of a subset. The subset is Q, but the Q1 portion seems free of any mention of John the Baptist or a doomsday cult. That is instead in Q2 only. I'll extract here from my Post #230 in my Gospel Eyewitnesses. See especially the first four paragraphs there:http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306983&page=10
A separate later Q2 in Greek makes better sense to explain about a dozen sequences. These include Lk. 3:7-9, 16-17; 6:36-42, [SB 7:18-23]
7:1-23; 9:57-10:24; 11:1-4, 9-32; 12:2-7; 12:22-31,39-46; 13:34-35; 17:1-2. These passages are disproportionately about John the Baptist and apocalypticism. These could come from someone who remained a follower of John the Baptist even after Jesus’s ministry began. Accordingly he was an eyewitness to Jesus only towards the very end, and apparently read his Qumran perspective into his reports.

Steven Carr

More evidence that Jesus did not exist.

Clearly, Jews were happy to go along with claims that the Messiah was this scriptural figure, but walked away as soon as Christians got to the bit where they claimed the Messiah died according to the scriptures.

The crucified Messiah the Christians preached would have had the crucifixion as the stumbling block.

While if Christians had been preaching a historical Jesus, Jews would have walked as soon as they heard the words 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

The historical Jesus Messiah that the Christians were supposed to be preaching would have had the person of Jesus as the stumbling block, for exactly the same reasons that it did when Jesus was alive.



We've already rejected him once - they would have said.

Steven Carr

Judge is right.

Christians were not preaching a dead Messiah.

To them , the crucifixion did not prevent them having a conquering Messiah who would soon come and kick out the Romans and usher in the Kingdom of God.

Steven Carr

SO historians get to wave invisible documents around as evidence? When was that rule passed?

And 7 independent Scientologists (all saying different things) all must be true....

Ehrman trashed the Gospels as historically inaccurate in his debate with William Lane Craig, and is now indulging himself in taking ONE document like John and claiming it is THREE bits of evidence.



This is apologetics, not history.

Real historians don't take anonymous, unprovenanced works, which never mention which sources they are plagiarising, and claim that ONE anonymous document is THREE lots of independent attestation.

William Lane Craig does that. But a real historian doesn't.

Ehrman simply destroys any claim he has to being a real historian.

Out of interest, does Ehrman have a degree in history?

Steven Carr

Paul wrote 16 chapters of theology in Romans, a huge deal of it do with how Jesus changed the relation between the Jewish religion, the Law and the new righteousness which the Prophets and the Law had testified to (no mention of Jesus testifying, of course).

And it never occurred to him that the destruction of the Temple, the huge centrepiece of Judaism, was a theme that was relevant to how things had changed?

blastula

It's very specious how Ehrman defines "independent." He says even though two gospels may have passages in common, as long as there are differences, they are independent.

Just like the Aramaic "sources" he's begging the question here that these differences must mean historicity and not fiction.

Steven Carr

I guess Ehrman doesn't really get history, does he?

I also guess that Luke and Matthew independently attest to Jesus being born in Bethlehem because there are differences.

By Ehrman's reasoning, the traditions of Jesus being born in Bethlehem must date back to just after Jesus died....

Perhaps I am misjudging Ehrman. Perhaps he means we know that sources are independent where they contradict each other.

aa5874

If what ApostateAbe say is true then why was the book written??? Why do we have to go through the same old Debunked arguments of HJers???

Ehrman merely TRUSTS the NT. That is all.

Typically, people who TRUST the NT usually believe Jesus did exist!!

judge

I have no doubt Spin will find that sufficient then.:devil1:

judge

But the early christian texts say nothing about god kicking the Romans butts! They only speak of the Romans kicking the jews butts. But , being written after 70 CE how could they say anything else.