Did Jesus Exist

muhammad_isa said:
A poor excuse for not wanting to find out what he believes and why..
..just dismiss it all, because he is an atheist, or it doesn't suit you to change any of your presupposed ideas.
Click to expand...
Well, I asked you a question, which as always you duck by slinging irrelevant and untrue red herring accusation at me. Anyone can take the parts they like and discard the rest. It makes the whole exercise unhinged
muhammad_isa said:
said: .. the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later
Click to expand...
You completely mis-represent Bart Ehrman here. He accepts the early origin of the Gospels. So if Shakespeare's works were written by someone else, does that mean they're a forgery? Not even the commentary in my Bible supports that the Gospels were actually written by the apostles named as their authors.

So ... same ole' ... yawn
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Ehrman chucks the miracles and virgin birth as fantasy. If I want to have Ehrman's historical Jesus, I cannot have the miracle worker Jesus. Which facts do I decide to keep, and which to ditch?
Click to expand...
You mean which beliefs (not facts) do you keep.

The more orthodox or conservative Christianity requires beliefs in unproven conjecture and hearsay.

For me, I take in many of the words and teachings purported to be of Jesus, I need no virgin birth or miracles for this.
 
Ella S. said:
it makes me feel a pretty heavy weight of responsibility to do the right thing, as well as shame when I fail to live up to that standard
Click to expand...
This saddens me.

I only know a small portion of what you describe. Unity belief says we are not punished for our sins but by them. Our meta viewpoint interprets thou shall not kill. As thou shall not kill, creativity, enthusiasm, a child's sense of wonder, other people's beliefs, others joy... It is a tall order! Our words and actions can affect others for the rest of their lives ... like an elder or a poison.

While we aint big on shame, there is/was definitely some anxiety over that level of responsibility. But I ain't a monk, nor on a monastery trail. And sometimes there are situations where you may murder one persons ambition while elevating another (judging 1st place in a competition)
Doing the best I can...is now good enough for me.

Hell let's be honest...i get by with doing less than my best often...and some self inflicted shame does occur.
 
wil said:
For me, I take in many of the words and teachings purported to be of Jesus, I need no virgin birth or miracles for this.
Click to expand...
Nor does Ehrman. Which means you and he are pretty much in agreement. But the religion of Islam does require them. So how much of Ehrman's historical Jesus does a person want to accept, as derived from the gospels -- in argument against Christian belief -- and how much to reject?

Does someone accept only the parts of Ehrman's historical Jesus that support his own religious beliefs, and disregard the rest?

We recently had a Matrixist quoting Einstein, but only the parts of it that agreed with his own theory.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I said: .. the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later...
Click to expand...
1: They weren't written in the name of the apostles by Christian writers, so get your facts right.
2: Those anonymous authors wrote later, but might quite well have been contemporaries of Jesus, you don't know.

muhammad_isa said:
Your defense would be to show us why he is wrong.
Click to expand...
I have, in #125 above. Respond to the points made, and we have a dialogue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
TheEndIsNigh said:
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/babylonian-talmund

The Talmud developed in two major centres of Jewish scholarship: Babylonia and Palestine. The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c.350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500, but was further edited for another two centuries. The Talmud served as the basis for all codes of rabbinic law.

Hardly contemporaneous accounts or flattering wonderment at the "deeper understanding".
As for reference to "practitioner of magic", hardly paints a glowing critique of events or teachings.

Plus (and obviously we have to take Wikiworld With a pinch of salt, but it seems a reasonable interpretation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

Both these articles seem to throw doubt on the references to Jesus in the Talmud.

As for the Paul and Thomas' gospels these are believed to have been written (As I said before) at least 20+ and 60+ years after the events and since Paul was supposed to be well educated (no one doubts he could write) one has to wonder what his agenda was and why it took so long for him, and his accounts to surface.
Click to expand...

Could you stop moving the goalposts and actually make a point?
 
Thomas said:
Those anonymous authors wrote later, but might quite well have been contemporaries of Jesus, you don't know.
Click to expand...
The whole anonymous author bothers me. Was it popular to spend days writing on papyrus and not signing your work?

In my mind after Jesus was gone the apostles kept on sharing and it was followers of Mathew that shared his stories...and followers of Mark...etc.

Like anything else...when I encounter the unprovable the most comfortable story percolator to the top...until some new information or concept takes it's place.

But that all is said Italy "the way I see it" but as conjecture (like heaven and hell and life after death) but not worth debating.
 
45 min
Bart Ehrman responding to a series of leading questions, interruptions and waffling digressions attempting to 'borrow' him. Quite amusing actually. Bad sound quality:

 
Last edited:
Ella S. said:
Could you stop moving the goalposts and actually make a point?
Click to expand...
Would be so interesting if we could put any post which violated standard ethical debate rules or did this and ask for rewrites until it conformed to actual discussion.

Sigh... We stuck with the realities of this life that just maybe teaching us to find ways to understand each other. Maybe we failed the training on cooperation, or fact finding last life and have been sent to this classroom.
RJM Corbet said:
Bart Ehrman responding to a series of leading questions interruptions and waffling digressions attempting to 'borrow' him.
Click to expand...
Editing and context distortion should be a sin. But in many situations it gets kudos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wil said:
Would be so interesting if we could put any post which violated standard ethical debate rules or did this and ask for rewrites until it conformed to actual discussion.

Sigh... We stuck with the realities of this life that just maybe teaching us to find ways to understand each other. Maybe we failed the training on cooperation, or fact finding last life and have been sent to this classroom.
Click to expand...

Some people are more afraid of appearing wrong than actually being wrong. I feel kind of bad for them. It's hard to grow and learn like that.

I get it, though. The internet can be a pretty savage place. The smallest insecurity or mistake can be used to beat you down. If you're used to that, it can be hard to adapt to a more even-footed discussion.
 
Ella S. said:
Some people are more afraid of appearing wrong than actually being wrong.
Click to expand...
Some? I think most. Even the best among us.

We spend much of our time either trying to look good or insuring we dont look bad. This only increases with everyone vying for the same position or title or raise. The pinnacle of which we see every year in election debates and commercials. Powerful individuals trying to wield more power...trying to convince the public they are more ethical, honest and worthy than the other guy. Most assuredly they are trying to hide any faults or issues that distract from that and are almost always trying to look good or insuring we dont look bad...

Me thinks every parent instills this in the tone of their voice "who spilled this" the worst of them respond with the back of their hand or a punishment for honesty....cementing the lesson and starting the process.
 
Thomas said:
If we had signatures, would it make any difference?
Click to expand...
idk.

It would definitely lend some credence. I mean even that is what we lack from Shakespeare....signatures on his work or original writings.

There is a reason legal evidence requires documentation and line of.custody....without which you dont have a case...you have conjecture..conjecture...and religion.
 
wil said:
idk.
Click to expand...
I think when you're going that far back, it's largely irrelevant. So this Gospel is signed by Mark, say. We're no better off than we were before.

The 'signature' for me is the 'voice', in the same way that what validates Plato or Aristotle is the ideas contained therein.

wil said:
It would definitely lend some credence. I mean even that is what we lack from Shakespeare....signatures on his work or original writings.
Click to expand...
I think, for the skeptic, it would make little difference. Ehrman could still make the same kind of accusation.

wil said:
There is a reason legal evidence ...
Click to expand...
To be fair though, we're not discussing legal evidence.
 
Thomas said:
..Respond to the points made, and we have a dialogue.
Click to expand...

Pass :D
I'm not speaking up for Bart Ehrman .. he can speak for himself.
Overall, a lot of what he says is true. It's not only atheists that like him.
He speaks in religious settings, invited by churches and so.
He is an academic. Agnostic, yes.
 
wil said:
and Spongs
Click to expand...
Bishop John Shelby Spong's last public address. Quite short but running to 70 min with intro and question time:

This is the video section, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top