Nope... Is their red headed step child...Americans.And there's me thinking it was the English
Did Jesus Exist
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
TheEndIsNigh
Prepare Thyself....
Now, I'm not familiar with the contents of the Torah, but I suspect there's not one sylable of anything Jesus said in it.
I also suspect there are no entries of his analysis (if He ever did any) to be found in there.
At the very least you would think the "remarkable" insight shown when he went to the Temple in His early years would get a mention, given He hadn't upset anyone by then. I've never heard of any such, but then I can't read it to check.
As for the "free from political corruptions of the time", isn't that what brought about His downfall.
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 216
- Points
- 43
Possibly, I'll give you that
Anyway:
Went to my local pub – when I was a collier – and there they all were, serving free drinks to a bloke who had a flat head, and a cauliflower ear.
‘Oi,’ I cried, angrily. ‘Don’t go buying drinks for ‘im, mun. He’s English!’
‘Fair play, boy’ said my butty (work-mate). ‘The man’s a hero, see.’
‘O aye’ I said. ‘How come?’
‘Well yewsee, we were working the coal yesterday, when there do be a squeeze, and the roof was coming down like mad. That man there, well, he stood tall..…and he held the roof up on his own, while we all got out. That’s why he’s got a flat head, see.’
‘Great, mun’ I said, ‘But how come he’s got a cauliflower ear?’
‘Ah’ said my butty., ‘That’s where we ‘ad to ‘ammer him into place.’
LolPossibly, I'll give you that
Anyway:
Went to my local pub – when I was a collier – and there they all were, serving free drinks to a bloke who had a flat head, and a cauliflower ear.
‘Oi,’ I cried, angrily. ‘Don’t go buying drinks for ‘im, mun. He’s English!’
‘Fair play, boy’ said my butty (work-mate). ‘The man’s a hero, see.’
‘O aye’ I said. ‘How come?’
‘Well yewsee, we were working the coal yesterday, when there do be a squeeze, and the roof was coming down like mad. That man there, well, he stood tall..…and he held the roof up on his own, while we all got out. That’s why he’s got a flat head, see.’
‘Great, mun’ I said, ‘But how come he’s got a cauliflower ear?’
‘Ah’ said my butty., ‘That’s where we ‘ad to ‘ammer him into place.’
We're looking at you Welsh then @Grandad ?
Seriously: IMO the English are a far more scary race than the Americans. I'm of the Irish extraction ...
Last edited:
A bit of balance re Ehrman's video.
Ehrman is an informed scholar, one who followed a well-known path, from an extreme evangelical Christianity to its polar opposite. Such is not uncommon in any field. He has now taken up a particular position, and has become a hero of skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc. It must be acknowledged then, that when he talks to his audience, he often tells them what they want to hear, and glosses over weaknesses or flaws in the arguments.
A point on the Trinity:
Although a term coined by Tertullian, it was a shorthand for the triune doxological formula found in Matthew, in Paul, in the Didache, in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. So yes, Tertullian coined the shorthand, but the idea was already common, he wasn't introducing anything novel. Greek writers had already used the term 'trias'.
(At least he accepts Arius believed in a trinity, if not the one dogmatically defined!)
"Exaltation" v "Incarnation":
His contention that a belief in Jesus as a 'preexistent divine being' (incarnation) is late is hard to assert because both are deducible from the NT.
It might not be explicit in Luke or Matthew's genealogies, but then you have to read the book as a whole, not base an argument on a part. For example, it could be argued from Luke 10:18 "And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven."
It would seem however, that a pre-existence theology of the Messiah pre-dates Christianity, in Jewish theological speculation (it's there in the Book of Enoch), so it's not 'out of the blue' as it were, and not utterly alien to the early Christian community.
The hymnody in Philippians 2:6–7 says: "Who being in the form (morphe) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself (keno), taking the form (morphe) of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Most scholars see this as an affirmation of pre-existence. Paul wrote this around 55-56AD, so again it's hard to accept the idea that it is late, if it is, on the material evidence, very early.
It's also worth noting that although scholars regard Philippians as authentically Paul's, the hymn contained therein they believe not from his hand, but a hymn copied into the text, one in Liturgical use and employed to strike a chord. So, like the hymn in Colossians, about the same time but not by Paul, we have an incarnation belief which was abroad in the community, before it was theologically defined, in the same way that the dispute with Arius rose first among his congregation, who complained he was teaching something other than the doctrine they had received.
In short, Ehrman's thesis, no doubt done scant justice in a 10-minute video, is neither clear-cut nor conclusive. It's an opinion, and widely regarded as a dubious one.
Ehrman is an informed scholar, one who followed a well-known path, from an extreme evangelical Christianity to its polar opposite. Such is not uncommon in any field. He has now taken up a particular position, and has become a hero of skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc. It must be acknowledged then, that when he talks to his audience, he often tells them what they want to hear, and glosses over weaknesses or flaws in the arguments.
A point on the Trinity:
Although a term coined by Tertullian, it was a shorthand for the triune doxological formula found in Matthew, in Paul, in the Didache, in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. So yes, Tertullian coined the shorthand, but the idea was already common, he wasn't introducing anything novel. Greek writers had already used the term 'trias'.
(At least he accepts Arius believed in a trinity, if not the one dogmatically defined!)
"Exaltation" v "Incarnation":
His contention that a belief in Jesus as a 'preexistent divine being' (incarnation) is late is hard to assert because both are deducible from the NT.
It might not be explicit in Luke or Matthew's genealogies, but then you have to read the book as a whole, not base an argument on a part. For example, it could be argued from Luke 10:18 "And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven."
It would seem however, that a pre-existence theology of the Messiah pre-dates Christianity, in Jewish theological speculation (it's there in the Book of Enoch), so it's not 'out of the blue' as it were, and not utterly alien to the early Christian community.
The hymnody in Philippians 2:6–7 says: "Who being in the form (morphe) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself (keno), taking the form (morphe) of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Most scholars see this as an affirmation of pre-existence. Paul wrote this around 55-56AD, so again it's hard to accept the idea that it is late, if it is, on the material evidence, very early.
It's also worth noting that although scholars regard Philippians as authentically Paul's, the hymn contained therein they believe not from his hand, but a hymn copied into the text, one in Liturgical use and employed to strike a chord. So, like the hymn in Colossians, about the same time but not by Paul, we have an incarnation belief which was abroad in the community, before it was theologically defined, in the same way that the dispute with Arius rose first among his congregation, who complained he was teaching something other than the doctrine they had received.
In short, Ehrman's thesis, no doubt done scant justice in a 10-minute video, is neither clear-cut nor conclusive. It's an opinion, and widely regarded as a dubious one.
So do I.
I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Not your evolved Nicean / Chalcedonian one though, as you know.
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 216
- Points
- 43
Born in the Rhondda. A Valley Boy (my sister claims that us VBs are: 'All macho and Mam!'). Shhhhhhh.....my wife is English!
I have a warm regard for Ireland and the Irish (except when they beat us in rugby). One of my grandchildren was born - and lives - in Dublin.
Shall we allow Megan Markle as truly scary?
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 216
- Points
- 43
Don't know that much about her. Have great regard for the Queen, but am indifferent about the rest.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Maybe you should read the Torah, then, if you want to discuss its relationship with Jesus. He makes constant references to it. One of the most famous is in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:43-48:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
It's so famous that many non-Christians erroneously assume "love thy neighbor" is a Christian aphorism, when it actually comes from the Torah, Leviticus 19:18:
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord."
Whereas a "corrupted" understanding of Leviticus would be more literal, calling against grudges between Jews, Jesus elaborates that the popular conception at the time was incorrect and that "your neighbor" refers to everyone and not just those who literally live next door and "thy people" meant humanity rather than the Jewish people.
Whether the "corrupted" understanding is actually corrupt and how popular it actually was at the time is debatable. Whether Jesus's interpretation of the Torah was remarkable or not is certainly up for discussion. That there's not one syllable of anything Jesus said in the Torah, however, is... well, to put it politely, very incorrect. This is just one example among many of Jesus providing exegesis on passages from the Torah.
Arrr then ...
He received his Ph.D. (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna *** laude.[3]
While we would have to dig deep to find folks who don't...I suppose as chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina he was in control of who registered for his classes.
Well he started off....
Ehrman was raised in an Anglican family and was originally a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States; as a teenager, he became a born-againEvangelical
After he got a PhD at Princeton, taught at Rutgers and has now taught over 3 decades in that bastion of atheism the American bible belt.
Pretty solid path...and those he debates don't gloss over and do their level best to find and capitalize on his weaknesses and flaws in his arguments.
You dont think any of his students wrote their thesis on the mistakes they found in his teaching? Not in over 30 years?
TheEndIsNigh
Prepare Thyself....
@Ella S.
Quoting from the Torah doesn't constitute bringing deeper understanding. Nor does it re-attribute the words to Him. Presumably, His audience on the mount all knew all this (being avid Torah readers) so they wouldn't have gained any new insight. In fact, they would probably be bemused by Him not saying anything new.
If He had brought forward a new interpretation, or understanding, with arguments that turned their world on its head, surely there would be some mention of them somewhere in Jewish writing (written at the time). A verbatim copy of the whole sermon would have been written down by Jewish scholars and recorded in some important document for the future generations. Like what they did for say, Moses.
It should have gone -
"Hey, this Jesus fellow has just revealed the new, true meaning of the Torah. We must write it down immediately."
But no such "scribblings" exist. 5000 people heard the sermon, not one of them were inclined to record it. Not even those that used His “teaching” against Him, at His trial. Something that would have proved very useful to use against Him – as in, exhibit A, for the prosecution.
Even His followers managed to wait over twenty years + to “remember” what He said.
Quoting from the Torah doesn't constitute bringing deeper understanding. Nor does it re-attribute the words to Him. Presumably, His audience on the mount all knew all this (being avid Torah readers) so they wouldn't have gained any new insight. In fact, they would probably be bemused by Him not saying anything new.
If He had brought forward a new interpretation, or understanding, with arguments that turned their world on its head, surely there would be some mention of them somewhere in Jewish writing (written at the time). A verbatim copy of the whole sermon would have been written down by Jewish scholars and recorded in some important document for the future generations. Like what they did for say, Moses.
It should have gone -
"Hey, this Jesus fellow has just revealed the new, true meaning of the Torah. We must write it down immediately."
But no such "scribblings" exist. 5000 people heard the sermon, not one of them were inclined to record it. Not even those that used His “teaching” against Him, at His trial. Something that would have proved very useful to use against Him – as in, exhibit A, for the prosecution.
Even His followers managed to wait over twenty years + to “remember” what He said.
Last edited:
The majority of Jews in Judea during the time of Jesus were illiterate.
Niblo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 216
- Points
- 43
Shalom, Rabbi.
Great to find you here. You may remember me as 'Niblo' in another place.
May HaShem bless you - and all you love - and keep you safe.
As they did for Moses? Are you indicating it was not all oral tradition, stories passed from generation to generation before it was written down.
What part of the Torah do you believe was written by "reporters on the scene"?
TheEndIsNigh
Prepare Thyself....
So it's all Chinese Whispers then?*
The point is, that Moses' deeds eventually got in there.
Surely something as revolutionary as this "deeper understanding" brought to us by Jesus would have deserved a mention.
As for it being an oral tradition in Moses' time that obviously wasn't the way things were done by year zero+
Apparently the Torah was writen about 600 BC so permanent options were available.
--------------------------------------
*I can see it all now.
"Hey ****, did you hear what happened when Moses went up the mountain last week"
"No. Tell me more"
"Well, he said it got so cold up there, he had to light a fire using an aincient dead bush. Apparently he couldn't sleep, so stared into the flames all night praying to God for guidence."
Yes, by the year zero everyone pulled out their smart phones... I mean their camcorders, I mean microphones and breaking news live tv, yeah...nobody had a ball point pen, a notebook, pencil....nothing...
Wasn't like Moses's day when he carved commandments into stone and brought slabs down to show everyone...