mymistake Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 As I see it, Ehrman gets a surprising number of things right. Jesus was a real historical person. The New Testament Gospels are our best source of information about that person. No. That is like saying Clark Kent was a real historical person and the Superman comic books are the best source of information about that person. The gospel stories are full of impossible nonsense. None of that could have happened. If Jesus was a real historical person then he was a con man and/or a crazy person. Either way he died long ago and he is never coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 As I see it, Ehrman gets a surprising number of things right. Jesus was a real historical person. The New Testament Gospels are our best source of information about that person. No. That is like saying Clark Kent was a real historical person and the Superman comic books are the best source of information about that person. The gospel stories are full of impossible nonsense. None of that could have happened. If Jesus was a real historical person then he was a con man and/or a crazy person. Either way he died long ago and he is never coming back. There are more choices than that. Regardless of whether Jesus was a con man and/or crazy person, or something else, the stories written about him could have been embellished, made up, invented, etc., i.e., fiction through and through. Tin Pony, in yet another demonstration of his shallow, myopic and narrow intellectual prowess, is attempting to assert (but is too much of a coward to do so) that because there is evidence that Jesus actually existed historically, therefore all the magic stories surrounding him, all the supernatural claims about him and all statements attributed to him must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Brother Jeff, I am familiar with Ehrman's book, but I have not read it yet. Here is part of a reader's review on Amazon that takes a critical view. By Robert M. Bowman Jr, As I see it, Ehrman gets a surprising number of things right. Jesus was a real historical person. The New Testament Gospels are our best source of information about that person. Jesus was crucified at the order of Pontius Pilate and died on the cross. Some of Jesus’ original followers sincerely believed not long afterward that they saw Jesus alive from the dead. Already, we’ve eliminated about 90 percent of the nonsense we so often hear from skeptics about Jesus, and we’re not done yet. Ehrman agrees that the earliest Christians regarded Jesus as in some sense divine and that within about twenty years, even before Paul, at least some Jewish Christians believed that Jesus was a preexistent divine being. (Skeptics usually try to blame this idea on Paul.) The belief that Jesus existed before creation as God (and yet not God the Father) arose even before the Gospel of John. One could hardly wish for more agreements and even concessions from the world’s most influential agnostic biblical scholar. Having given credit where credit is due, I must move on to identify what I think are some of the weakest links in Ehrman’s argument. For sake of brevity I limit the list to five. 1. Ehrman’s foundational premise of the fluidity of ancient concepts of the divine is certainly a major problem. Ehrman rightly finds such fluidity in Greco-Roman thought, but what he never addresses even once is the consistent, pervasive opposition to Greco-Roman notions of the divine throughout the New Testament—even when he touches on obviously relevant passages. For example, Ehrman discusses the tale of Jupiter and Mercury (or Zeus and Hermes) visiting Phrygia (19-22), commenting on the incident reported in Acts when Barnabas and Paul preached in Phrygia and were mistaken for Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:8-18). But Ehrman glosses over Paul’s response to the Phrygians, in which he summoned them to turn from their idolatrous beliefs to accept the God of Jewish monotheism (Acts 14:15-17). Generalizations about “divine humans” in antiquity are simply irrelevant to understanding the origins of a monotheistic Jewish movement that regarded its crucified human founder as God. Ehrman presents three models of the divine human in Greco-Roman culture: “gods who temporarily become human” (19-22), “divine beings born of a god and a mortal” (22-24), and “a human who becomes divine” (25-38). He admits that the case of Jesus does not fit any of these: “I don’t know of any other cases in ancient Greek or Roman thought of this kind of ‘god-man,’ where an already existing divine being is said to be born of a mortal woman” (18). He could have added to that sentence, “or Jewish thought.” This is the Achilles’ heel of Ehrman’s whole account of Christian origins. By his own admission, the Christian view of Jesus—a view he admits emerged within twenty years of Jesus’ crucifixion—was literally unprecedented. Ironhorse the Scholar™ speaks (though others). Note his laziness and vacuousness - "I haven't read the book, but someone else did and here's what he had to say about it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 "ironhorse the Scholar™ speaks (though others). Note his laziness and vacuousness - "I haven't read the book, but someone else did and here's what he had to say about it." ~sdelsolray Please also note readers that I was responding to videos posted in this thread by another member. Was this member being lazy? I don't think so. He posted a video that represented his view. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 "ironhorse the Scholar™ speaks (though others). Note his laziness and vacuousness - "I haven't read the book, but someone else did and here's what he had to say about it." ~sdelsolray Please also note readers that I was responding to videos posted in this thread by another member. Was this member being lazy? I don't think so. He posted a video that represented his view. No problem. You don't see the problem, which is not surprising in the least. That member watched the videos and commented on them using his own intellect and analysis using his own words. You, on the other hand, did not read the Ehrman book and merely cut and pasted someone else's comments without adding anything yourself. Then there's your, "Well someone else did it so it must be OK when I did it,", inanity, which is at least somewhat entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 "ironhorse the Scholar™ speaks (though others). Note his laziness and vacuousness - "I haven't read the book, but someone else did and here's what he had to say about it." ~sdelsolray Please also note readers that I was responding to videos posted in this thread by another member. Was this member being lazy? I don't think so. He posted a video that represented his view. No problem. Iornhorse, Brother Jeff made that video. So no, Brother Jeff wasn't being lazy when he shared the video he created. The complaint people have against you is that you offer zero opinion of your own. You don't bring your own ideas to the conversation. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Brother Jeff, I am familiar with Ehrman's book, but I have not read it yet. I am familiar with the bible, though i have not read it yet. i have leather bound, synthetic leather bound, paper back blah blah blah,,,,,,, for someone who rather read reviews than actual book, that speaks volume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest immoralchristian Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 - You are required to only read the approved Bible translation. - Speaking in tongues is taught as a must do. You must seek it to be a real Christian. - You are forbidden from certain foods or drink. - If you come down with a terminal disease, don't worry, God will heal you. - Don't be friends with non-Christians. - Whatever you ask, Jesus will give it to you. You must have faith and be pure. - Never question the pastor's teachings. - You must hold up your hands up during praise and worship. - Give your offering or God will punish you. - The Last Days are explained easily by a huge chart. You are told exactly the way it will unfold. That sounds like every church I have been too ironhorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest immoralchristian Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 A fair question Brother Jeff. I believe the scripture's core teaching is that Jesus was God. When asked he said the greatest commandment, was to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is how we understand the biblical message and our relationship to the world. You don't need to believe in the bible to have relationships with people ironhorse, you just need to believe in the desire God gave you to have them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 You dont need to believe in anything to have a relationship with people. A relationship with a person is obvious. No belief or hope is needed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 3, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2015 Excuse me, but have you read Dianetics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest immoralchristian Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 You dont need to believe in anything to have a relationship with people. A relationship with a person is obvious. No belief or hope is needed.I think you are right, maybe I mean in order to learn how to have a relationship with someone its something that takes some believing and faith until you know what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest immoralchristian Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Excuse me, but have you read Dianetics?If you're talking to me florduh, then it's something I'd like to read. But there's only so much you can learn in a life time, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 3, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2015 Have you studied Theosophy? The Golden Dawn? Spiritualism? Rosicrucians? There are seemingly limitless crackpot ideas floating around. You may pick one, combine a couple, or just make up your own reality. Or, now this sounds crazy, you could try using logic, critical thinking, and seek actual evidence before you decide to simply believe something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest immoralchristian Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Have you studied Theosophy? The Golden Dawn? Spiritualism? Rosicrucians? There are seemingly limitless crackpot ideas floating around. You may pick one, combine a couple, or just make up your own reality. Or, now this sounds crazy, you could try using logic, critical thinking, and seek actual evidence before you decide to simply believe something. I'll just lay back and let you fuck me good and proper florduh, no more kicking and fighting from me because you like it that way. Don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 "ironhorse the Scholar™ speaks (though others). Note his laziness and vacuousness - "I haven't read the book, but someone else did and here's what he had to say about it." ~sdelsolray Please also note readers that I was responding to videos posted in this thread by another member. Was this member being lazy? I don't think so. He posted a video that represented his view. No problem. Iornhorse, Brother Jeff made that video. So no, Brother Jeff wasn't being lazy when he shared the video he created. The complaint people have against you is that you offer zero opinion of your own. You don't bring your own ideas to the conversation. Ironhorse aka Tin Pony aka Pewter Jackass made his typical Sunday posts, got shot down and ran away. He follows this pattern almost every week. This is further empirical evidence of his cowardice and laziness. The next time he appears it won't be to address any of the dozens and dozens of questions, challenges and refutations from which he disappeared and ignored regularly over the past 18 months, or to provide discourse or posts that he promised to make numerous times in the past, but just to generate some new troll of yet another claimed True Christian™ revelation based on projection masterfully assimilated with yet another cut and paste from his wide library of Christian apologetic websites. For the lurkers out there...Ironhorse is a good example of what happens to your brain when you allow it to atrophy and pickle for nearly five decades while infected with the Christian religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts