Steven Carr

Translation.

Bart's book will refute mythicist arguments without mentioning them too much,

Bart himself alludes to these very passages as part of the wonderment of how a Jewish peasant came to be thought of as 'equal to God'.

If Bart alludes to passages from Paul about how early Christians thought of Jesus as being equal to God, and helping to create the world, Abe will not blanch if Bart puts them (accurately) as being within the first century, and then later states that such high Christology does not appear until at least 50 years after Jesus's death.

And Abe will maintain that the very passages Bart alludes to on page 1 of the Introduction do not entail the high Christology that Bart himself regards as something which has to be explained, but which he later claims only happened after Paul.

To sum up, page 1 of Bart's introduction alludes to 1 Corinthians 8 and Philippians 2, but even admiring reviewers of the book were led to believe by Bart that such thoughts about Jesus did not develop until much later.

Bart can refute mythicists by writing 'That claim doesn’t hold up for a number of reasons, chief among them: The historical Jesus and his early followers never claimed Jesus was a god.'

While simultaneously telling his readers about the amazing beliefs of early Christians , by alluding to passages in Paul (without, of course, letting his readers know that, references are for stinking mythicists - scholars don't need no references)

And Bart can write in 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' that Philippians 2 means Jesus given '...the name of God the Father Himself', while telling the readers of his new book that the early followers of Jesus just never thought of him as a god....

GakuseiDon

Using the internal search feature, it looks like Ehrman refers to Doherty 12 times and Acharya S 7 times. I guess this won't be enough for those who think that Doherty and Acharya S ought to be addressed in more depth.

Acharya S writes: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/...hp?f=15&t=3923

Re Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman, the book sounds entirely forgettable, but it's sure to stir things up. I know he contacted Bob Price for this one, but he did not contact me, of course. The fact that he came out with this ebook so quickly, along with his conclusion, indicates that he has not studied this particular subject in any real depth and is therefore not an expert on it. I would bet that most if not all of his arguments have already been addressed by one or more of us mythicists, from Doherty to Price to Humphreys, Lindtner and yours truly...

... I'll bet he didn't deal with much comparative religion and mythology at all, since from his writings he does not seem to know very much about the subject. That's not something you can learn in a year or two: I've been studying these specific subjects vis-a-vis the Christ myth - in multiple languages from materials dating back thousands of years to the earliest times - for over 20 years.

I should add that I have REAMS more material - it's pouring in every day - to PROVE essentially the contention that Christ is a mythical figure. There is a mountain of it, and dollars to donuts Ehrman didn't scratch the surface. It's fantastic that Ehrman has had to write this book, admitting that there's a vast number of people asking the question of whether or not Jesus existed. That's quite an improvement from yesteryear, when people merely believed based on fiat/decree from perceived experts like Ehrman...

I'm willing to bet that I've pretty much covered every point Ehrman has raised but that, because he has likely dutifully ignored all my research, he will not know that fact. If he did, it is probable he wouldn't have written this book.

Neil Godfrey wrote recently on Ehrman and his books generally to date: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...salms-website/

Ehrman happens to be a scholar who is good at detail and terrible at generalities. He needs to be called out. Mythicists need to show that the context of Ehrman’s thought is totally bogus.

At bottom Ehrman’s a defender of the tradition. He’ll lean on assumption, speculation, and illogic–the very antitheses of good historical method–when the chips are down and when it comes to placing his (sometimes carefully researched) specifics in context.

As far as I’m concerned Ehrman has sold out. He’s now primarily a seller of books. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, because he has/had all the equipment to be a fine historian. But the origins of Christianity are complex. One can simplify only so much before the argument becomes very wrong. And Ehrman is very wrong.

My favorite comment by one of Vridar readers: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/11/...ress-mythicism

Bob Carlson writes:

Ehrman’s wife is a believer, so it wouldn’t be good for marital harmony if he were to consider the ahistoricity issue with more objectivity. Even John Loftus, who runs the bog Debunking Christianity, thinks “there was an original historical founder to the Jesus cult.” He seems to just be going with what most theologists believe on the matter.

Ehrman believes the earliest Christians were "adoptionists", whom believed Jesus was just a man (a second Adam, in fact), at least until resurrection. Scholars like Ehrman and Dunn note that Phil 2's Jesus being "in the form of God" is consistent with Adam being "in the image of God", a term used for mankind. An example is 1 Cor 11:7 where Paul writes that "For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God".

Another example is seeing Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" through the light of Psalm 8:5 "You made him (Man) a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor", rather than trying to view Hebrews 2 as necessarily indicating a supernatural origin for Jesus.

hjalti

Steven, maybe Bart is contradicting himself in a colossal way, or perhaps, just perhaps, he isn't alluding to these passages you have in mind!

I agree that 1Cor 8 isn't convincing if the question is whether Jesus was thought of as the "only true god", but in that passage Jesus is pictured as god's instrument in the creation of the world. I would classify that as a high christology!

ApostateAbe

I agree. I do find it a bit anomalous that Paul had such a high level of christology for the time he was writing.

GakuseiDon

But does the passage talk about Jesus in terms of the creation of the world?

I think we need to take a step back and not try to look through the lens of 2000 years of apologetic thinking. Terms like "Son of God" in a Jewish setting didn't necessarily have the same meaning at that time elsewhere, much less in our modern times. Think of the expression "All things come to he who waits". We know the expression doesn't literally mean "all things, past, present and future."

1 Cor 8 in context is about eating the food offered to idols:

1Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Why does "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him" mean "Christ created all things at the start of time"? Why can't it be analogous to "all things come to he who waits"? I.e. Paul means Christ has given all good things to those of Paul's time, including the freedom to eat the meat offered to idols.

The word for "all things" is "pas", and it is also used in Rom 9:

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all [pas]...

Or 1 Cor 3:

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things [pas] are yours;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all [pas] are yours;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's.

Cege

Quite a few people say that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic preacher.

"Meaning that they were people who expected an abrupt and decisive change, that you might describe as the manifestation of the kingdom of God."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...hnbaptist.html

aa5874

Once you INTRODUCE gMark as evidence for an Historical Jesus then EVERY statement about Jesus in gMark MUST be examined.

gMark's Jesus WALKED on Water and TRANSFIGURED. Mark 6.48-49 and Mark 9.2.

Mark's Jesus story was a Myth Fable of a PHANTOM that was acknowledged as a Son of a God.

The Markan Jesus claimed he was the Son of God.

The Markan Jesus is MYTHOLOGICAL.

Mark 13.32 The HJ argument is DONE.

The Jesus of gMark, the Son of God, was a MYTH.

Sheshbazzar

Noooo! We doan' -wanna- doo dat! :crying: wah boo hoo hoo, Your an 'ol meaney!

Steven Carr

'Is it fair to describe John the Baptist as an apocalyptic preacher?



'I think the texts that have survived in Christian scripture certainly present John as viewing Christ as the figure who will bring on the kingdom, who will bring about this glorious moment of transformation'

Gosh it says in the Bible that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic preacher, so it must be true.

The Bible says it.

Ehrman believes it.

That settles it.

Steven Carr

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

If this review is an accurate summary of the contents, all we can do is estimate how small the pieces will be after Doherty is through with it.

It seems that all my prophecies about this book came true.