FREE TAPATALK APP

DOC · 17th December 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

So you agree with Bart Ehrman that a mortal itinerant preacher named Jesus existed 2000 years ago? It's pretty simple, a YES or NO.

I agree with Ehrman that Jesus certainly existed, but I don't believe Jesus was not divine.

RoboTimbo · 17th December 2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I agree with Ehrman that Jesus certainly existed, but I don't believe Jesus was not divine.

Your beliefs aren't of much use. The Jesus that Bart Ehrman claimed certainly existed wasn't divine. Every time you cite him, you're agreeing with him. Why do you believe that morals originated with that mortal person?

eight bits · 17th December 2012, 11:29 PM

DOC

Quote:

Actually Ehrman said "certainly existed", not may have existed. I give the page number of that quote in my New Testament evidence thread in the history forum. The thread is no longer active.

ETA: the quote is on page 173 of Ehrman's latest book: "Did Jesus exist?".

That's OK, I gave a link to him saying it, back in post 645

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

Although you have quoted a few words accurately, they do not usefully characterize the argument Ehrman made. Here's a little bit more, to give some context to the cherry pickin's:

Quote:

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

So, Ehrman says plainly that his is a conclusion based on evidence. The article reviews the various and few bits of this evidence, and shows that in each category, there are unresolved objections to his estimate, that is, ample cause for rationally founded uncertainty persists.

But, according to the above quote, if a professional historian disagrees with Ehrman, then that historian is insane. Save for the weasel word virtually, of course.

Think about that, DOC. Focus. Ehrman knows the truth. Professionals who disagree with him about it are probably mentally ill.

These are troubled mutterings, not scholarly arguments.

On another matter, the thread has gone back and forth about the "empty tomb." Obviously, in a place where secondary burial was practiced, like First Century Palestine, any tomb would be empty after about a year anyway. So, even if we knew which tomb to look in, there would be nothing there of relevance to our inquiries.

The more foundational objection is, after resolving for the sake of argument all disputed claims of historical fact most favorably to your position, so what if Jesus did rise from his tomb? Lazarus did, too, according to the historical claim in John.

I repeat my question from post 645, then. If an empty tomb compels the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God and of the same substance with the One Almighty Creator of the Universe, then why is Lazarus of Bethany not the Son of God, too?

In terms of the thread, ought we not to be seeking advice about "right" and "wrong" from the sayings of Lazarus?

Dave_46 · 18th December 2012, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Ehrman didn't make a statement of fact that Jesus wasn't divine, he stated he is an agnostic who leans toward Jesus not being divine.
<snip>

Probably because there's ***** all (decent) evidence that he, or anybody, is/was divine.

17th December 2012, 07:18 PM	#681
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo So you agree with Bart Ehrman that a mortal itinerant preacher named Jesus existed 2000 years ago? It's pretty simple, a YES or NO. I agree with Ehrman that Jesus certainly existed, but I don't believe Jesus was not divine.

17th December 2012, 08:06 PM	#682
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 22,053	Originally Posted by DOC I agree with Ehrman that Jesus certainly existed, but I don't believe Jesus was not divine. Your beliefs aren't of much use. The Jesus that Bart Ehrman claimed certainly existed wasn't divine. Every time you cite him, you're agreeing with him. Why do you believe that morals originated with that mortal person?

17th December 2012, 11:29 PM	#683
eight bits Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 486	DOC Quote: Actually Ehrman said "certainly existed", not may have existed. I give the page number of that quote in my New Testament evidence thread in the history forum. The thread is no longer active. ETA: the quote is on page 173 of Ehrman's latest book: "Did Jesus exist?". That's OK, I gave a link to him saying it, back in post 645 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html Although you have quoted a few words accurately, they do not usefully characterize the argument Ehrman made. Here's a little bit more, to give some context to the cherry pickin's: Quote: One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. So, Ehrman says plainly that his is a conclusion based on evidence. The article reviews the various and few bits of this evidence, and shows that in each category, there are unresolved objections to his estimate, that is, ample cause for rationally founded uncertainty persists. But, according to the above quote, if a professional historian disagrees with Ehrman, then that historian is insane. Save for the weasel word virtually, of course. Think about that, DOC. Focus. Ehrman knows the truth. Professionals who disagree with him about it are probably mentally ill. These are troubled mutterings, not scholarly arguments. On another matter, the thread has gone back and forth about the "empty tomb." Obviously, in a place where secondary burial was practiced, like First Century Palestine, any tomb would be empty after about a year anyway. So, even if we knew which tomb to look in, there would be nothing there of relevance to our inquiries. The more foundational objection is, after resolving for the sake of argument all disputed claims of historical fact most favorably to your position, so what if Jesus did rise from his tomb? Lazarus did, too, according to the historical claim in John. I repeat my question from post 645, then. If an empty tomb compels the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God and of the same substance with the One Almighty Creator of the Universe, then why is Lazarus of Bethany not the Son of God, too? In terms of the thread, ought we not to be seeking advice about "right" and "wrong" from the sayings of Lazarus?

18th December 2012, 03:45 AM	#684
Dave_46 Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: UK (south Bucks) Posts: 943	Originally Posted by DOC Actually Ehrman didn't make a statement of fact that Jesus wasn't divine, he stated he is an agnostic who leans toward Jesus not being divine. <snip> Probably because there's *** all (decent) evidence that he, or anybody,** is/was divine.