Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-11-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

For many centuries, most Christians garnered their information about the birth of Jesus not from the New Testament but from popular writings that were not officially considered Scripture. One of the best known of these books is called the “Proto-Gospel of James,” composed probably in the late second century, a century after the canonical Gospels, and accordingly, far less likely that they contain anything like historically accurate information. But Christians throughout the Middle Ages were rarely interested in historical accuracy; they loved stories and reveled in their meaning, especially stories having anything to do with the appearance of the Son of God in the world.

Quote:

Moreover, both accounts contain contradictions with the known facts of history. Just take Luke as an example. Only in this Gospel do Joseph and Mary make a trip from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to register for a census when “the whole world” had to be enrolled under Caesar Augustus. The whole world? Luke must mean “the whole Roman Empire.” But even that cannot be right, historically. We have good documentation about the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there never was a census of his entire empire. Let alone one in which people had to register in their ancestral home. In this account Joseph and Mary need to register in Bethlehem (which is why Jesus is born there) because Joseph is descended from King David, who came from Bethlehem. But David lived a thousand years earlier. Is everyone in the entire Roman Empire returning to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier? Imagine the massive migrations for this census. And no historian from the time thought it was worth mentioning? This is not a story based on historical fact. It is a narrative designed to show how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem—whence the Messiah was to come—when everyone knew in fact that he came from Nazareth.

Everybody knows. . .

sotto voce · 12-11-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What do we really know about Jesus?

Quote:

For many centuries, most Christians garnered their information about the birth of Jesus not from the New Testament but from popular writings that were not officially considered Scripture. One of the best known of these books is called the “Proto-Gospel of James,” composed probably in the late second century, a century after the canonical Gospels, and accordingly, far less likely that they contain anything like historically accurate information. But Christians throughout the Middle Ages were rarely interested in historical accuracy; they loved stories and reveled in their meaning, especially stories having anything to do with the appearance of the Son of God in the world.

Quote:

Moreover, both accounts contain contradictions with the known facts of history. Just take Luke as an example. Only in this Gospel do Joseph and Mary make a trip from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to register for a census when “the whole world” had to be enrolled under Caesar Augustus. The whole world? Luke must mean “the whole Roman Empire.” But even that cannot be right, historically. We have good documentation about the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there never was a census of his entire empire. Let alone one in which people had to register in their ancestral home. In this account Joseph and Mary need to register in Bethlehem (which is why Jesus is born there) because Joseph is descended from King David, who came from Bethlehem. But David lived a thousand years earlier. Is everyone in the entire Roman Empire returning to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier? Imagine the massive migrations for this census. And no historian from the time thought it was worth mentioning? This is not a story based on historical fact. It is a narrative designed to show how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem—whence the Messiah was to come—when everyone knew in fact that he came from Nazareth.

Everybody knows. . .

Meretricious.

aa5874 · 12-11-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What do we really know about Jesus?

Quote:

For many centuries, most Christians garnered their information about the birth of Jesus not from the New Testament but from popular writings that were not officially considered Scripture. One of the best known of these books is called the “Proto-Gospel of James,” composed probably in the late second century, a century after the canonical Gospels, and accordingly, far less likely that they contain anything like historically accurate information. But Christians throughout the Middle Ages were rarely interested in historical accuracy; they loved stories and reveled in their meaning, especially stories having anything to do with the appearance of the Son of God in the world.

Quote:

Moreover, both accounts contain contradictions with the known facts of history. Just take Luke as an example. Only in this Gospel do Joseph and Mary make a trip from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to register for a census when “the whole world” had to be enrolled under Caesar Augustus. The whole world? Luke must mean “the whole Roman Empire.” But even that cannot be right, historically. We have good documentation about the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there never was a census of his entire empire. Let alone one in which people had to register in their ancestral home. In this account Joseph and Mary need to register in Bethlehem (which is why Jesus is born there) because Joseph is descended from King David, who came from Bethlehem. But David lived a thousand years earlier. Is everyone in the entire Roman Empire returning to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier? Imagine the massive migrations for this census. And no historian from the time thought it was worth mentioning? This is not a story based on historical fact. It is a narrative designed to show how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem—whence the Messiah was to come—when everyone knew in fact that he came from Nazareth.

Everybody knows. . .

Ehrman is obviously confused. He seems not to understand the Markan story of Jesus whether true or not.

The author of the short gMark never claimed his Jesus was born in Nazareth.

The author merely claimed his Jesus came from Nazareth and was baptized by John.

Mark 19

Quote:

And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.

Now, authors that used gMark claimed Jesus was the product of a Pregnancy by a Holy Ghost.

It really does NOT matter what Ehrman believes the story of Jesus is that he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin in Bethlehem and there is NO other birth story in the Canon unless Ehrman fabricates another.

Ehrman cannot invent stories from imagination. He must understand the Jesus story was based on so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Matthew 2

Quote:

1 But after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem,

2 saying: Where is he that has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising, and have come to worship him.

3 And hearing it, king Herod was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And he assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

5 And they said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet....

Apologetic sources that mentioned the birth of Jesus also claimed he was Born in Bethlehem and that the Cave in Bethlehem was found.

Origen's Against Celsus 1. 51

Quote:

With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born...

The Jesus story is extremely easy to understand, fiction or not. The Son of a Ghost was born in Bethlehem and then left and lived in Nazareth.

Chili · 12-11-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus story is extremely easy to understand, fiction or not. The Son of a Ghost was born in Bethlehem and then left and lived in Nazareth.

Very easy and that is because their world was still flat, and now we know better. Prophesy got a girl pregnant, delivered a baby in Bethlehem, moved to Nazareth and 40 years later the baby got baptized in the Jordan without a shave.

Toto · 12-14-2012, 04:50 PM

Albert Mohler

Quote:

Timed for this Christmas, Newsweek just released a cover essay by Bart D. Ehrman, who is well-known for his belief that the New Testament is largely historical fiction. “Who is Jesus?” is the question on the cover. “The Myths of Jesus” is the headline on the essay itself.

Newsweek’s agenda is clear, and it has chosen to feature a cover article denying the historical basis of Christmas as one of its last print editions.

. . .

But the New Testament does not present itself merely for the purpose of theological reflection. It makes unvarnished historical claims and direct statements of fact. Ehrman attempts to sideswipe this truth, stating that the New Testament contains writings identified as “gospels” rather than “histories.” But the word “history” in that sense is a fairly modern invention. The gospels do contain interpretation and theological elaboration, but all four gospels, including Matthew and Luke, contain explicit and pervasive historical material — the bedrock historical claims of Christianity itself.

Christianity stands or falls on the truth concerning Jesus, and thus it also stands or falls on the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. ...

Chili · 12-14-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Albert Mohler

Quote:

Timed for this Christmas, Newsweek just released a cover essay by Bart D. Ehrman, who is well-known for his belief that the New Testament is largely historical fiction. “Who is Jesus?” is the question on the cover. “The Myths of Jesus” is the headline on the essay itself.

Newsweek’s agenda is clear, and it has chosen to feature a cover article denying the historical basis of Christmas as one of its last print editions.

. . .

But the New Testament does not present itself merely for the purpose of theological reflection. It makes unvarnished historical claims and direct statements of fact. Ehrman attempts to sideswipe this truth, stating that the New Testament contains writings identified as “gospels” rather than “histories.” But the word “history” in that sense is a fairly modern invention. The gospels do contain interpretation and theological elaboration, but all four gospels, including Matthew and Luke, contain explicit and pervasive historical material — the bedrock historical claims of Christianity itself.

Christianity stands or falls on the truth concerning Jesus, and thus it also stands or falls on the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. ...

But remember Toto that myth is real and Jesus is, was and will always be real. But the Jesus as presented in the Gospels is not a person with a birth certificate as we all have. Christ was born and they called him Jesus, and so who [the hell] was Jesus is the question we should ask, and then consider also that they crucified him and he walked away from it.

In literature only beauty and truth is real in never ending forms of it, and this is one of those.

Christianity will never crash because it is the wolf that must nurse the lamb, and as I wrote before, at least philosophically, the Christ-mass has nothing to do with history, but is their [unspoken] 'altar call', and then just one of those. That is why they have a Catholic Calendar Year with different episodes, and Holy smoke, and bells and whistles and all sorts of symbolic imagery that holds a message, and nothing is done by accident, to even the color of the candles and what not else. Indulgences are super here,and Siberia was a good example, where they knowingly and purposely were send for that reason only.

Anyway, and Jesus is only part of the mythology. Of course, his audience is not here and all they want to do is gain popularity today.

sotto voce · 12-15-2012, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Albert Mohler

Quote:

Timed for this Christmas, Newsweek just released a cover essay by Bart D. Ehrman, who is well-known for his belief that the New Testament is largely historical fiction. “Who is Jesus?” is the question on the cover. “The Myths of Jesus” is the headline on the essay itself.

Newsweek’s agenda is clear, and it has chosen to feature a cover article denying the historical basis of Christmas as one of its last print editions.

. . .

Quote:

'THE MAJOR FESTIVALS OF THE Christian year'

Who's got the agenda?

Chili · 12-15-2012, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Everybody knows. . .

. . . and everybody knows that your world is your world and my world is my world and Nazareth wants it all or Bethelehem could not be Bethlehem in that 'your faith must deliver' or you could not be delivered (impersonal always).

It just makes Joseph the upright Jew he was in Luke and not the dreamer he was in Matthew, who so 'was from his mother's womb untimely ripped' and will have placenta dragging for many years to come, and hence no shave and back to Galilee he goes.

Just note how John was as much as puked out from the innermost depth of Joseph after his 'determinate cause' (Gen.3:15) was put to rest with the resign of Elizabeth to show the color of his coat (Lk 1:25).

Then also notice the curiosity of Herod in Luke 23:12 as opposed to his wrath in Matthew that never was in Luke.

Of course this is not a bible study, but that whole sensus thing is to urge the believer to 'pirate' one's own soul by way of engagement that Plato called 'in-surge' to see first hand the bare naked animal man he is 'to be' and there his einos will encounter (the exposition of the holy of holies is foreshadow here).

As for me? I see snot running all over Newsweek this Christmas and Barth Ehrman put it there.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.