Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wavy_wonder1 · 11-23-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The evidence? The quotes of Jesus in the synoptic gospels that predict the imminent end of the world ("...there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God..." and "...this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."). That and the late attempts to explain those words when the prophecies apparently failed (John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8). None of those passages can be easily explained had Jesus not been an apocalyptic cult leader.

Apocalyptic rhetoric is a standard component of Jewish literature. As the Jewish Encyclopedia makes clear, it does not necessarily entail anything about the end of the world. While Christ's followers, after his death, expected the end of the world, I don't think it likely that he did. He uses his phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in many non-eschatological passages:

Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.--Lk 17:21

I would also recommend that book by Ehrman. In fact, this is one of the passages he addresses--a later Christian development to explain away the failure of the coming kingdom. So the literal fulfillment was increasingly spiritualized away, hence your Johns and Thomas's.

Finis,
ELB

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavy_wonder1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So, if you are able to so misunderstand and wrongly accuse someone who lives in the same time as you and speaks the same language, perhaps you should mistrust your own judgments about the historical Jesus and trust the scholars who have given it careful study??

I don't recall saying a word about trust or distrust of any of those scholars' quotes.

Finis,
ELB

And you will notice that I didn't say that you did. I simply suggested that you should trust their judgment more than your own. Are you willing to do that?

TimBowe · 11-23-2009, 04:30 PM

I think Ehrman is right, he was a apocalyptic preacher.

Quote:

The logic of the principle, especially when dealing with ancient sources, is that as an event gets discussed and reports about it circulate, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be changed until just about everyone gets it wrong. The less time that has elapsed in the transmission process, the less time there is for alteration and exaggeration. Thus if you want to know about the Montanists who lived near the end of the second century, it’s better to consult sources from about their time than sources produced two centuries later. Of our four New Testament Gospels, John is the latest, written, probably, about sixty or seventy years after the events it narrates. On the whole, it is less likely to be accurate than Mark, written some thirty years earlier. There is very little mention of Jesus by early and reliable sources outside of the New Testament whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian with the notable exceptions of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas. Within the New Testament, apart from the four Gospels, there is very little information about Jesus life. The Gospels themselves are therefore our best sources for trying to establish what Jesus himself actually said and did. These Gospels were based on earlier sources such as Q that can be reconstructed, at least to some extent. At the same time, I should stress that the sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories indeed, sometimes invented the stories as they retold them.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

aa5874 · 11-23-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

So many different scholars have attempted to answer the question of what, if anything, can be known about the life Jesus. Can we (by historical reconstruction) find out with any certainty who Jesus really was?

Sure. I recommend the book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, by Bart Ehrman. As you can guess, his theory is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I would say he was a cult leader, but Ehrman doesn't use that word.

The evidence? The quotes of Jesus in the synoptic gospels that predict the imminent end of the world ("...there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God..." and "...this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."). That and the late attempts to explain those words when the prophecies apparently failed (John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8). None of those passages can be easily explained had Jesus not been an apocalyptic cult leader.

Of course the quotes of the supposed Jesus in the synoptics gospels can have alternate explanations.

And one simple explanation is that it was the author himself that was apocalyptic.

There need not be a real human Jesus at all. The first author of the Synoptics or the Jesus story could have have thought that the kingdom of God was at hand and it was for that reason he wrote the original Jesus story to warn people of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

If the first Jesus story was written around 75 CE or even later, the warning that [b]"some standing here will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God" would still be in effect and perhaps the time was ripe.

In gMark, these are the very first words of Jesus.

Mark 1.14-15

Quote:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15. And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The so-called prediction of Jesus will be in order, will still be applicable, for many decades to come, including around 75 CE.

And it can be deduced that all the writings including the Epistles were written after the Synoptics and Revelations since they contain other explanations or eliminated the supposed failed prediction of Jesus.

No writers of the NT, except for the authors of the Synoptics and Revelatians, claimed that the kingdom of God was at hand or was coming very quickly.

It was not necessary for an actual human being to have existed at the time of Pilate to have made the "failed prophecy. It would appear that the author of the first gospel story was himself apocalyptic similar to the the author of Revelation.

Toto · 11-23-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Mainstream" only because Christianity is mainstream. None of these are professional historians, and most are theologians.

Mainstream because they hold recognised academic positions, are recognised by their peers, and are from the centre of NT scholarship...

I started to list their academic qualifications, but it was too long and too tedious. Suffice it to say that all hold positions in NT literature and history, which makes them historians and not theologians. And do you want me to add quotes by ancient historians like Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox and AN Sherwin-White???

The Bishop of Durham is not a professonal historian and currently holds a position in the Church of England, not an academic position. Craig Evans is a conservative evangelical who, as the title of his book might indicate, is outside the general consensus - "faith masquerading as scholarship" to quote an Amazon reviewer. He is not a historian.

You don't have to add the other quotes - I've already read them, multiple times, copied and pasted here by people who think they prove something. Please check out this thread.

Discussion of the historical Jesus has tended to be one person quoting another to the effect that Jesus certainly existed according to all the experts. But if you try to trace all this back to find the actual data that would show he was a historical person, you find nothing but an attempt to read theological documents as if they were history.

So all of your quotes are true, but irrelevant.

aa5874 · 11-23-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So is anyone going to tell us all what their qualifications are for making these accusations and comments, and why we should believe them rather than the recognised experts?

Thank you.

This is like claiming that only experts can have an opinion or that a person must be an expert in every conceivable field in order to make a decision about any matter.

What qualifications do you have to question anyone's opinion?

It is not necessary to be an expert to have seen, read or heard that there is no historical records of Jesus of Nazareth external of the Church writers and the NT.

It is not necessary to be an expert to realize that HJ apologists can ONLY say that there is an abundance of evidence but NEVER produce any evidence, instead, they ALWAYS give the opinion of a so-called expert but NOT sources of antiquity.

If you cannot produce any historical evidence from antiquity about Jesus, then it must be obvious that your experts opinion are all faith-based.

Now, it is not even possible to believe every recognised expert since it has been recognised so long ago that experts do not always agree or believe the same things.

aa5874 · 11-23-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

I think Ehrman is right, he was a apocalyptic preacher.

The passage by Ehrman is self-contradictory. He claimed that the Gospels may also be inventions.

Quote:

At the same time, I should stress that the sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories indeed, sometimes invented the stories as they retold them.

The apocalyptic Jesus may be an invention. Ehrman has no credible external sources to support his theory but self-confessed confusion.

Quote:

The of the principle, especially when dealing with ancient sources, is that as an event gets discussed and reports about it circulate, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be changed until just about everyone gets it wrong. The less time that has elapsed in the transmission process, the less time there is for alteration and exaggeration. Thus if you want to know about the Montanists who lived near the end of the second century, it’s better to consult sources from about their time than sources produced two centuries later. Of our four New Testament Gospels, John is the latest, written, probably, about sixty or seventy years after the events it narrates. On the whole, it is less likely to be accurate than Mark, written some thirty years earlier. There is very little mention of Jesus by early and reliable sources outside of the New Testament whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian with the notable exceptions of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas. Within the New Testament, apart from the four Gospels, there is very little information about Jesus life. The Gospels themselves are therefore our best sources for trying to establish what Jesus himself actually said and did. These Gospels were based on earlier sources such as Q that can be reconstructed, at least to some extent. At the same time, I should stress that the sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories indeed, sometimes invented the stories as they retold them.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Toto · 11-23-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

...
Tom Wright - "The resurrection was as shocking then as it is now" in the Guardian's Comment is Free (2009). ....

The comments after that article are fairly good.

Quote:

Dear Bishop Wright, while you may be an "internationally renowned New Testament scholar, who specialises in the historical and theological study of the resurrection", it is plain to see that to simply make statements such as "Jesus is the world's true Lord" is not an argument, it is an assertion.

Furthermore, despite what you say about the historicity, and the further assertion that "virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that [jesus] did [exist]", I found plenty who do not. I researched plenty who found the journey from not very strong actual evidence, via the obvious appropriation of other mythologies, to the assertion not only that he was real, but that he was the son of God who performed impossible acts, far from parsimonious and obviously driven by an agenda.

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good

No it's not. The evidence for Caesar's existence is good. How can something which does not match up to that be extraordinary?

The sceptics of today add nothing to the sceptics of the first and second century AD.

Straightbackatcha with the lazy ad hominem: bullshit is bullshit in every century

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Bishop of Durham is not a professonal historian and currently holds a position in the Church of England, not an academic position.

So it is logically impossible for him to be both? Please explain that to us all! : ) And you might also discuss his previous academic positions.

Quote:

Craig Evans is a conservative evangelical who, as the title of his book might indicate, is outside the general consensus - "faith masquerading as scholarship" to quote an Amazon reviewer. He is not a historian.

(1) Read his books and you'll find your characterisation of him isn't accurate. (2) So we judge people by their viewpoint now do we? But only those we disagree with?? (3) read his credentials and you'll see he has studied ancient languages, texts, archaeology, etc - sounds like history to me!

Quote:

You don't have to add the other quotes - I've already read them, multiple times, copied and pasted here by people who think they prove something.

What they "prove" is that the mainstream of scholarly study answers the OP's original questions and is contrary to many of the views expressed here. In most areas of human study, we either agree with the experts or demonstrate our own expertise. I don't have the expertise, so I defer to the experts, in this field as in others. What do you do?

Quote:

So all of your quotes are true, but irrelevant.

Thanks for the first admission. They are only irrelevant to those who are happy to avoid evidence and the consensus of those with the expertise to interpret it. That was all I was aiming to point out.

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is like claiming that only experts can have an opinion or that a person must be an expert in every conceivable field in order to make a decision about any matter.

We can all have an opinion, but the question is whether it is informed by the evidence or not.

Quote:

It is not necessary to be an expert to realize that HJ apologists can ONLY say that there is an abundance of evidence but NEVER produce any evidence, instead, they ALWAYS give the opinion of a so-called expert but NOT sources of antiquity.

I have read maybe 30 books on this topic and many articles. Many of them explain their methods - the same methods used to study other ancient history, except sometimes more stringent because the stakes are higher - and all present their evidence. It takes them many pages to do so. I can only summarise their conclusions. I can only assume you haven't read any of the books that explain these things or you wouldn't say this.

Quote:

If you cannot produce any historical evidence from antiquity about Jesus, then it must be obvious that your experts opinion are all faith-based.

The evidence is there in the books. That is what references are for - to avoid re-stating what has already been demonstrated. If you want to read some good books that explain all this, I'll give you a list.

Quote:

Now, it is not even possible to believe every recognised expert since it has been recognised so long ago that experts do not always agree or believe the same things.

Quite true. That is why it is safest to go with the consensus of scholars, and not rely on one or two scholars on the fringe. Which is what I have done.

In the end, my question to you remains: What are your qualifications for making your comments, and why we should believe you rather than the consensus of recognised experts?

Thanks.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.