Did Jesus Exist

Ella S. said:
Could you stop moving the goalposts and actually make a point?
Click to expand...

My point.

The question shouldn't be "Did Jesus Exist"?

The question is, given He did exist, did He have a plan and if so did He succeed.

To my mind He had no plan.

Even if He had a plan He failed.

Now, you could make the point that He influenced some people to start a new religion and after many years they succeeded in giving the world one of the biggest causes of death and destruction in the form of brutality, famine, war etc.. The list is too long to set out.

But even those that say He existed, point out that wasn't His plan. No! That was their plan.

Had they not been so influenced, its possible the world would be a better place.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Bart Ehrman responding to a series of leading questions, interruptions and waffling digressions attempting to 'borrow' him..
Click to expand...

I've watched a bit of it..
I'm up to the point where Ehrman says that the reason he left Christianity was not due to discrepancies in the Bible, but due to "the problem of evil" ..
i.e. how could there be a God that allows suffering? etc.

..watch the rest later..
 
So people misuse and misrepresent religion as a cause for violence and war. Is that all Christ gave the world? It's like saying all that science has given the world are the dark web and more efficient weapons.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
So people misuse and misrepresent religion as a cause for violence and war. Is that all Christ gave the world?
Click to expand...

Jesus did not encourage us towards violence .. Quite the opposite, I would say :)


..watching more of the video..
Bart Ehrman thinks that from an HISTORICAL viewpoint [ non-theological ], that Jesus didn't consider himself to be God, but "son of God" as in "chosen by God".. and as the promised Jewish Messiah.
I agree with him, not only theologically as in my beliefs, but I see it as a logical conclusion of what we know about Jesus, excluding the Qur'an.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
but Thomas post seemed very technical...
Click to expand...
OK, I can see that.

An issue is this is what Ehrman does, he takes a sometimes complex point, and simplifies it according to his opinion. To test the truth of what he says, you'd have to examine the evidence and weigh the arguments. People generally can't be bothered, which is why theology according to the proper process rarely make best-sellers. People take what he says as 'gospel' because they don't look beyond it.

For example:
A: Ehrman's contention is that early Christianity did not see Christ as a pre-existent divine being; that the idea of incarnation was late.
B: Paul's Letter to the Philippians would appear to say otherwise:
"Who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men,
and in habit found as a man."​
(Philippians 2:6-7)

Simply: Jesus took human form.

As this is regarded as an authentic letter, written around AD55, So Ehrman's contention would seem to be wrong.

Further, as this is believed to be a popular hymn, that Paul included in his letter, then the idea of the incarnation must have been around for years before the letter, which pushes back perhaps to the 40s, then as a theological development, it's quite early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
To be clear –

I do not dislike Bart Ehrman. I got some good stuff off a blog before he monetised it. He knows his stuff, and he has a knack of making difficult things simple.

On the flip side, he is quite dogmatic in his own way, and someone has to take radical religion in the locality to task – I've said before to Wil, I often think the American idea of Jesus is something like John Wayne, and the hope is He'll come back and kick some butt.

I applaud his stand against fundamentalism, but a wrong doesn't make a right, and even where it's seen as 'expedient, it's dubious.
 
Thomas said:
A: Ehrman's contention is that early Christianity did not see Christ as a pre-existent divine being; that the idea of incarnation was late.
B: Paul's Letter to the Philippians would appear to say otherwise:
"Who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men,
and in habit found as a man."​
(Philippians 2:6-7)

As this is regarded as an authentic letter, written around AD55, So Ehrman's contention would seem to be wrong.

Further, as this is believed to be a popular hymn, that Paul included in his letter, then the idea of the incarnation must have been around for years before the letter, which pushes back perhaps to the 40s, then as a theological development, it's quite early.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert as is Ehrman, but your argument seems thin to me..
Is Ehrman saying that there wasn't ANY community of Christians in existence
[around the time of the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem, for example] that didn't believe Jesus was G-d?
..I doubt it very much.
I think that Ehrman is saying that the majority of Christians DID NOT believe him to be divine until later.
I would agree with him.

Ehrman believes that Jesus was crucified, and actually died.
He argues that the early Christians did not believe him to be G-d.
They were Jewish, and believed him to be the promised Messiah.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
Your argument seems thin to me
Click to expand...
Therefore how do you respond to Paul's letter raised by @Thomas contradicting Ehrman's contention that early Christianity did not see Christ as a pre-existent divine being; that the idea of incarnation was late:

"Who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men,
and in habit found as a man."
(Philippians 2:6-7)

What is your take on Paul's intended meaning?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
What is your take on Paul's intended meaning?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I have read that Paul might not even have written it, and
that he might have got the prose from others .. who knows?

My point is the one about whether the disciples believed Jesus is G-d or that Jesus taught such.
[ Paul not being a "true" disciple]
 
muhammad_isa said:
Paul not being a "true" disciple]
Click to expand...
Ehrman does not dispute Paul. He uses Paul as the earliest written authentication. Ehrman points out that Paul knew Peter and also Jesus's brother James.


How do how do you respond to the passage from Phillipians quoted above? Do you dispute its authenticity?
 
RJM Corbet said:
Ehrman does not dispute Paul. He uses Paul as the earliest written authentication. Ehrman points out that Paul knew Peter and also Jesus's brother James.
Click to expand...

Well, you clearly know more about Ehrman than me..
I doubt very much whether Ehrman considers Paul as a companion of Jesus,
which is what I meant about "not being a true disciple".. :rolleyes:

RJM Corbet said:
How do you respond to the passage from Phillipians quoted above? Do you dispute its authenticity?
Click to expand...

I've already commented on it..
Do I consider it some kind of forgery? Why should I?
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
OK. There's no substance here, it's all assumption ... I rather go with the weight of evidence.
Click to expand...

That's it .. dodge the issues ;)
Clearly, you think that Ehrman is NOT "going with the weight of evidence".
..yet you can't show us why Ehrman's argument about Jesus not being G-d, is so obviously wrong.

i.e. you have no strong evidence that shows us that the majority of Christians in the first century CE,
believed that Jesus is Divine.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Well, you clearly know more about Ehrman than me..
I doubt very much whether Ehrman considers Paul as a companion of Jesus, which is what I meant about "not a true disciple".. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. The passage is used to show what the earliest Christians believed, shortly after Jesus's death. What do you think the passage means?
muhammad_isa said:
I've already commented on it..
Click to expand...
You said:
I have no idea. I have read that Paul might not even have written it, and
that he might have got the prose from others .. who knows?
Click to expand...
What do YOU think the words mean?
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
And yet I have, twice ...
Click to expand...

Oh dear .. I think you are being a bit optimistic here.. o_O

Here is Bart Ehrman's lecture at UCC on the topic "How Jesus became God".
The series of three are over 4 hours long, and your evidence that he is wrong is in a couple of posts?
Really?



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top