Steven Carr

http://michaelturton2.blogspot.co.uk...sus-exist.html

tanya

Wow, another excellent review (along with Neil Godfrey's)

thief of fire

Just how is it an excellent review? He hasn't even reviewed chapter one yet.

tanya

To my way of thinking, this attitude is precisely on target. Some mythicists, contrary to what Dr. Ehrman has written, may ALSO embrace crank theories, but it was improper for him to have lumped together all those who perceive the mythical character of the religion, with "conspiracy theorists," and holocaust deniers.

You are correct, of course, in suggesting that since there exists not yet more than a glimpse of what will be forthcoming, it was inappropriate for me to have offered an opinion about the merits of the unwritten text, but, the introduction remains outstanding, in my opinion.

Same kind of clash exists over euthanasia, abortion, tax subsidies for the oil companies, bailing out wall street, etc....

People feel strongly about certain things. Jews for example, fly into a rage, if one dares to point out, that the so called "holocaust" not only did not destroy Jewish culture and religion, in Europe or anywhere else, but left the world Jewry community STRONGER today, than at any point in its previous history. Compare that "holocaust", with the genuine "total annihilation" (that's what the words HOLO CAUST mean) of the Taino Indians, for example.

Anyone can waltz today into a Jewish synagogue in Berlin.
Can we find even one Taino temple, village, or person, alive today? They numbered nearly a million strong, when Columbus arrived in the fifteenth century (about the same quantity as the number of Jews alive in Europe five hundred years ago). I suggest that the average American, Jewish or non-Jewish, has no idea what kind of religious convictions and practices, had been held by the Taino. Why is that? I suggest it is because Judaism (and its offshoot, Christianity) despise "heathen", as the Taino were regarded. The Europeans, "Christians" for the most part, slaughtered the Taino. Unlike the Jews, however, the Taino no longer exist, today. That is a holocaust.

Same concept regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who argue that dropping the atomic bombs SAVED the lives of USA soldiers are deceptive. They are dishonest. Those bombs were dropped in revenge, not to win a war. The terms demanded by the Japanese were only one: retention of the emperor. The terms accepted by the Americans, AFTER the bombs were dropped, included exactly that one item: acceptance of the emperor. Why didn't the USA accept the offer of surrender made in May 1945? The USA wanted to demonstrate its new toy. The bombs were dropped on "heathen", (i.e. Taino Indians part deux) to signal the Russians that they needed to instruct the Communist Party to back off in Italy and France, where the electorate was overwhelmingly inclined to favor installation of democratically elected communist regimes. The bombs not only killed and maimed MILLIONS of innocent, unarmed Japanese, they also killed hundreds of innocent American soldiers, imprisoned in those two cities.

It is one thing to debate the evidence. It is something else again, to deliberately misrepresent the ideas or actions of an entire group, as Ehrman has done, by describing those who consider his beloved new testament mythical, as "conspiracy theorists".

aa5874

No, No, No!!! It is the HJ argument that is CRANK, completely baseless and without anY historical evidence and WITHOUT any credible sources.

The MJ theory is based on the ACTUAL written statements found in EXISTING CODICES and supported by Scholars who are on a QUEST, a SEARCH for an historical Jesus.

We have the NT Canon where a character called Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was SINLESS, the Son of God, and God the Creator.

Every single HJ argument is CRANK--all of them.

They are based on Embarrassments, Fiction, Forgeries and Unreliable sources.

The HJ argument is the FLAGSHIP of CRANK theories.

I have a copy of the CRANK theory called "DID JESUS EXIST".

I have Never seen so MUCH CRANK in my life as Ehrman produced in one book.

stephan huller

i am all in favor of debating the question of whether the gospel or myth. but the idea that ehrman is promoting "catechetical instruction" merely because he doesn't come to the same conclusions as some people at this forum is rhetorical nonsense. being a partisan sucks. absolute truth and absolute knowledge are impossibilities here. we're all dealing with the same fragmentary evidence. it unhelpful to engage in such vitriol

aa5874

The "fragmentary evidence" state Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was Sinless, was God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended so I do not understand why EHRMAN does NOT accept the "fragmentary evidence" is Myth instead of introducing CRANK theories based on logical fallacies, embarraassments, fiction, forgeries and Myth.

We have EXISTING CODICES. We have Apologetic sources.
In fact, perhaps we have more sources about Jesus that any other character of antiquity.

Let us compare the Existing sources that wrote about the contemporaries of the supposed Jesus.

How much existing written sources do we have that are dedicated to Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest and Herod the Tetrarch.

We have very, very, very little written sources on these characters but we have hundreds of books on Jesus perhaps from every century since the 2nd century.

The evidence for Jesus is NOT fragmentary at all--it is VOLUMINOUS and virtually all of them described Jesus as a MYTH, the Sinless Son of God.

It is ONLY CRANK theorists who argue that Jesus was a figure of history and EHRMAN is one of them.

I have EHRMAN'S book and it is CRANK.

tanya

Thank you Stephan, for defending Dr. Ehrman. We need someone to speak up for him. He is probably not nearly as terrible as I imagine.

However, not all folks are as coarse and primitive as I am. In particular, there was zero "vitriol" at Michael's web site. His post, introducing the subject, was a model of erudite analysis. He was forceful, determined, and projected a confidence that is appropriate for a critical review.

What he did not do, was generalize in an exaggerated fashion:

That's absolutely not why Michael criticized Ehrman. Come on, now. Show me one sentence, in his introduction, in harmony with your idea that his writing has criticized Ehrman BECAUSE THAT FAMOUS AUTHOR FAILED TO reach the mythical train stop, en route to heaven.

The rebuke offered was obvious to anyone who has read Ehrman's new book: he ridicules mythicists as cut from the same cloth as "conspiracy theorists". Michael elaborates, elegantly in my view, the importance of acknowledging that mythicists and others interested in studying the original texts, must rely upon the same documents, and the same analytical tools, as you yourself just pointed out.

There was no need for Ehrman to dismiss mythicists so contemptuously, nor is there a need for you to express such dismay with Michael's introduction, but, if you genuinely have a disagreement with what he has written, I for one, would profit from an expansion of your views.

stephan huller

"catechism"

stephan huller

yes there is a justification - they don't bother to explain how all the early witnesses apparently support the historical nature of jesus ministry