Meatros

IIRC, one of the details that changed over time (that both Evans and Erhman agreed to) was the bit about Jesus sweating blood. I think this is supposed to have fulfilled OT prophecy (not sure though).

Erhman's point in their initial debate, IIRC, is that the closer we get to the original material, the more errors/changes there were.

I guess the conclusion is, if we can trace some embellishment to fulfill OT prophecy that occurred later, then how much of the NT can we actually trust?

sotto voce

Then surely one must find out before posting such a thought, not rely on memory or on the comments of others, who may have an agenda.

There does not seem to be any evidence for prophecy about this, nor any claim for it. Some have seen allusion to the sweat of the man thrown out of Eden, but this is neither prophecy nor part of prophecy (though it seems theologically dubious, anyway).

This is a debate. Posters must prove what they write, not assume it.

That was always true. One first has to demonstrate embellishment. The world did not begin with Ehrman.

Toto

The contradiction belongs to the Christian blogger, not to Ehrman.

That's how Christians try to weasle out of facing up to the errors in the Bible.
Academics who claim to study the historical Jesus, and archaeologists who claim to use it for archaeology

Nope. The Bible is used as a historical source by Christian apologists and theologians, and has not been shown to be correct (except for one minor archaeological detail that has no theological significance.)

Of course it's nothing new. And nothing can penetrate some believer's bubble of certainty.

Toto

Shortly after the 2 hour mark, an audience member poses a question on whether Jesus really existed, and Ehrman says to read his book coming out in March, available in bookstores.

sotto voce

Who knows who is a Christian? But there is, as yet, no reason to believe that the skeptical position is misrepresented.

There is, as yet, no reason to believe that the skeptical position is misrepresented.

... who do so because of its universal religious value.

But not as Christians.

What is that?

Then why is Ehrman so central?

One must find sharp points if one is to establish that.

aa5874

Of course historians like Ehrman use the NT as an historical source. The very claim by some historians that there was an HJ of Nazareth, that was Baptized by John and crucified under Pilate is DIRECTLY from the NT and found ONLY in the Gospels and Acts.

But, what is even more bizarre, Craig Evans does NOT even understand what is meant by the "historical Jesus".

Craig Evans believes his Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

What a joke.

Only Myth Jesus can resurrect.

Craig Evans supports the resurrected Myth Jesus and thinks he supports an HJ.

Toto

You only have to listen to Ehrman to see that the skeptical position is misrepresented. But you are just building a thicker bubble to avoid that.

sotto voce

If he can successfully explain the difference between a major detail and a minor detail he can at least begin to make a case.

aa5874

It is most remarkable that you don't understand that the resurrection and post resurrection visits by Jesus in the Gospels are MAJOR details that simply cannot be historically accurate even if Jesus did exist.

It must be NOTED that the earliest Jesus story in gMark does NOT include any post-resurrection visits but the author of gJohn dedicated 2 chapters to the resurrection and post-resurrection visits of Jesus which are TOTAL fiction whether or not Jesus did live.

Meatros

I qualified the statement and I referenced the debate. Here's a link to the debate.

As to the prophecy part, you might be correct, I don't know.

?

This isn't a debate, it's a discussion board.

Here's some stuff from Erhman's conclusion:

+

As to my summary of Bart's position on the earlier you go, the more mistakes, this is what he says specifically: