There is no proof of God ...

[RabbiO]

Similarly, if His audience were more mindful of their own prophetic heritage, they might have been expecting a Jewish Messiah, and not primarily political leader.

Isaiah 53– sorry to cite at length, but it is relevant:......

So I'm clear on this, are you saying Jews were/are spiritually blind and/or spiritually ignorant?

 

[Thomas]

So I'm clear on this, are you saying Jews were/are spiritually blind and/or spiritually ignorant?

Neither ...

Isaiah positions the expectation of Israel in the figure of the 'Suffering Servant' which the spiritual will see but whom the worldly will ignore.

One might suggest that the crowds who turned out to welcome Jesus on His entry into Jerusalem were the same as those who bayed for His crucifixion a few days later. Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, and Christianity regards Him as fulfilling His divine mission – and maybe God knows the hearts of his creature better than we know ourselves. Jesus was a man of peace, but there may well have been an expectation of something else ... ?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Neither ...

Isaiah positions the expectation of Israel in the figure of the 'Suffering Servant' which the spiritual will see but whom the worldly will ignore.

One might suggest that the crowds who turned out to welcome Jesus on His entry into Jerusalem were the same as those who bayed for His crucifixion a few days later. Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, and Christianity regards Him as fulfilling His divine mission – and maybe God knows the hearts of his creature better than we know ourselves. Jesus was a man of peace, but there may well have been an expectation of something else ... ?

Isaiah never mentions Yeshua the Nazarene . . . this is another lie perpetuated by Apologetics.

 

[RJM]

The Failed Messiah Movement

During the time of Jesus, Jews hungered for a strong leader who would overthrow the tyrannical rule of the Romans and deliver them from persecution and oppression. A fanatical, extremely pious, Jewish sect called the Essenes were obsessed with the concept of a messianic strong man, probably influenc

www.linkedin.com

We know all this.

I'm asking for a link to the context of the Bart Ehrman comment in your post #116

If you cannot provide it, I am entitled to conclude it is a single phrase taken out of context that does not represent Bart Ehrman's position on Jesus.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

We know all this.

I'm asking for a link to the context of the Bart Ehrman comment in your post #116

If you cannot provide it, I am entitled to conclude it is a single phrase taken out of context that does not represent Bart

The link is where I got it from . . . if you can find a full 'context' then present it, otherwise I am entitled to conclude that this phrase by Ehrman stands by itself and is indeed what he wanted to say.

Ehrman is a smart cookie and a critic of the historical Jesus, he wouldn't say something if he didn't mean to say it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The link is where I got it from . . . if you can find a full 'context' then present it, otherwise I am entitled to conclude that this phrase by Ehrman stands by itself and is indeed what he wanted to say.

Ehrman is a smart cookie and a critic of the historical Jesus, he wouldn't say something if he didn't mean to say it.

Nonsense!
I put "Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews" into Google, and guess what!?
It came up with the link to the site you quoted (linkedin) and our site (IO).

If it was a literal quote from Bart Ehrman, I'm sure it would have triggered more results.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Nonsense!
I put "Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews" into Google, and guess what!?
It came up with the link to the site you quoted (linkedin) and our site (IO).

If it was a literal quote from Bart Ehrman, I'm sure it would have triggered more results.

What gives you the idea it is not a literal quote?

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Rational Proofs For the Existence of God:

cosmological: if the past were infinite there would never be a future.

teleological: such a perfect creation requires an even more perfect creator.

ontological: if you could conceiver of a perfect being existing in your mind it would have to exist in reality otherwise it wouldn't be perfect in your mind.

A very brief summary of the rational proofs for the existence of God.

Go to youtube and look up inspiringphilosophy, dccraig and Professor John Lennox of Oxford University we these are largely elaborated on and athiests contentions to them are refuted.

They leave literally no room for doubt once they are correctly understood and all contentions are refuted including the view that the last one begs the question as well as the omnipotence paradox and the problem of evil.

A gold mine of wisdom.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Rational Proofs For the Existence of God:

cosmological: if the past were infinite there would never be a future.

This proves absolutely nothing

teleological: such a perfect creation requires an even more perfect creator.

Evolution clearly explains how nothing is 'perfect' and even more so that there is no need for a Creator

ontological: if you could conceiver of a perfect being existing in your mind it would have to exist in reality otherwise it wouldn't be perfect in your mind.

Not at all, I think you need to understand what Reality is ans is not. There is Objective Reality and Subjective Reality.

A very brief summary of the rational proofs for the existence of God.

Go to youtube and look up inspiringphilosophy, dccraig and Professor John Lennox of Oxford University we these are largely elaborated on and athiests contentions to them are refuted.

They leave literally no room for doubt once they are correctly understood and all contentions are refuted including the view that the last one begs the question as well as the omnipotence paradox and the problem of evil.

A gold mine of wisdom.

More like a dungeon of Tripe . . . Nothing you posted is rational proof or any proof for the Existence of a god:

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

This proves absolutely nothing

unsubstantiated

Evolution clearly explains how nothing is 'perfect' and even more so that there is no need for a Creator

unsubstantiated

Not at all, I think you need to understand what Reality is ans is not. There is Objective Reality and Subjective Reality.

how does that prove anything I said wrong?

More like a dungeon of Tripe . . . Nothing you posted is rational proof or any proof for the Existence of a god:

unsubstantiated

 

[RJM]

The link is where I got it from . . .

Oh I see. Sorry I misunderstood.

It would still be interesting to see the full context of the comment because Ehrman does not dismiss Jesus as a nobody. We've had the discussion before:

This is from Bart Ehrman's Blog

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).

All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information … etc

If it was a literal quote from Bart Ehrman, I'm sure it would have triggered more results.

I think he said it, but I don't think it can be used out-of-context. Clearly Jesus does not meet the requirements of the expected Jewish warrior Messiah but it doesn't mean to say that Ehrman dismisses Jesus as a nobody?

 

[moralorel]

Isaiah never mentions Yeshua the Nazarene . . . this is another lie perpetuated by Apologetics.

Who here said it mentioned Him by name? Thomas's point is solid. Jesus often pointed to the writings of Isaiah when fulfilling prophecies. Nothing wrong there.

 

[Thomas]

Ehrman is a smart cookie and a critic of the historical Jesus, he wouldn't say something if he didn't mean to say it.

Well ... in some respects.

Let's be clear – Ehrman is not disputing the existence of Jesus – and he would toss your arguments on that score out for being the nonsense they are.

What Ehrman has done, and carved himself a niche by so doing, is set about trying to dismantle the foundations of early Christian orthodoxy, and thus orthodoxy per se, by an intense critique of the texts, to cast doubt on their veracity, and suggest that the early Church was a hot bed of anti-Semitism and hard at work forging documents and editing Scripture.

Here, while his audience laps up his books, scholars largely dismiss him as someone resting on dubious arguments and overtly polemical statements.

What is most evident is Ehrman’s evangelism has been replaced by skepticism, and although a PhD scholar, he evidences a lack of objectivity and a degree of invincibility with regard to his own conclusions.

Skeptics will find his works affirm their own prejudices and, thus satisfied, see no reason to look further. A more critical review of his conclusion, however, lead to an entirely different place. Ehrman exaggerates for hyperbolic effect, and plays somewhat fast and loose with his sources ... in short, he sells books to a hungry public, but his peers, while admiring his style and bravado, tend to dismiss his conclusions as too partisan and too often just unfounded.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What Ehrman has done, and carved himself a niche by so doing, is set about trying to dismantle the foundations of early Christian orthodoxy, and thus orthodoxy per se, by an intense critique of the texts, to cast doubt on their veracity..

..wouldn't be the only one

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Well ... in some respects.

Let's be clear – Ehrman is not disputing the existence of Jesus – and he would toss your arguments on that score out for being the nonsense they are.

What Ehrman has done, and carved himself a niche by so doing, is set about trying to dismantle the foundations of early Christian orthodoxy, and thus orthodoxy per se, by an intense critique of the texts, to cast doubt on their veracity, and suggest that the early Church was a hot bed of anti-Semitism and hard at work forging documents and editing Scripture.

Here, while his audience laps up his books, scholars largely dismiss him as someone resting on dubious arguments and overtly polemical statements.

What is most evident is Ehrman’s evangelism has been replaced by skepticism, and although a PhD scholar, he evidences a lack of objectivity and a degree of invincibility with regard to his own conclusions.

Skeptics will find his works affirm their own prejudices and, thus satisfied, see no reason to look further. A more critical review of his conclusion, however, lead to an entirely different place. Ehrman exaggerates for hyperbolic effect, and plays somewhat fast and loose with his sources ... in short, he sells books to a hungry public, but his peers, while admiring his style and bravado, tend to dismiss his conclusions as too partisan and too often just unfounded.

His statement along with my added comments does however suggest Yeshua being another failed Messiah in a line of failed Messiahs.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Who here said it mentioned Him by name? Thomas's point is solid. Jesus often pointed to the writings of Isaiah when fulfilling prophecies. Nothing wrong there.

Not much of a prophecy when you can't even mention the main character of the Play!

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Oh I see. Sorry I misunderstood.

It would still be interesting to see the full context of the comment because Ehrman does not dismiss Jesus as a nobody. We've had the discussion before:

This is from Bart Ehrman's Blog

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John).

All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information … etc

I think he said it, but I don't think it can be used out-of-context. Clearly Jesus does not meet the requirements of the expected Jewish warrior Messiah but it doesn't mean to say that Ehrman dismisses Jesus as a nobody?

True . . . thank you for pointing that out. The 'nobody' comment comes from me, I think LOL!

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

unsubstantiated

unsubstantiated

how does that prove anything I said wrong?

unsubstantiated

Is that ALL you got?
Evolution is SUBSTANTIATED, it is fact at this point in time and because the Christian scriptures say otherwise they cannot be the word of god but of Man.

 

[moralorel]

Not much of a prophecy when you can't even mention the main character of the Play!

Sooooo because Isaiah didn't specifically say "Jesus", it's null and void. I don't follow that logic one bit, but to each his own.

Can you imagine if the Bible did mention Jesus by His name? Every boy born in Israel would have been named Jesus. It would have been pointless to name Him in prophecy.

Likewise if a prophet had warned us that a man named Adolf Hitler would lead Germany into a war killing millions of people, nobody would name their kid Adolf Hitler. It would be pointless to name him in prophecy.

But like I said, to each his own.

 

[Thomas]

His statement along with my added comments does however suggest Yeshua being another failed Messiah in a line of failed Messiahs.

Until you examine the evidence without prejudice, then it suggests something else.