Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[NotBlinded]

OH, Shyone wants it too!! He's not so shy afterall huh?

[Ouroboros]

OMG, now I'm embarrassing myself!

And you didn't notice that until now?

[Ouroboros]

OH, Shyone wants it too!! He's not so shy afterall huh?

He got it too now.

 

Anyone else?

 

You want it?

 

You know you want it!

[NotBlinded]

OMG, now I'm embarrassing myself!

And you didn't notice that until now?

Well I am a little slo...hey!

 

[Antlerman]

OMG, now I'm embarrassing myself!

And you didn't notice that until now?

Well I am a little slo...hey!

 

Yes, I remember you were slow at getting subtle hints. So you want to go to the SEX forum? I wonder what the key is...? hmmm.....

 

I know you won't figure it out...

[Shyone]

OH, Shyone wants it too!! He's not so shy afterall huh?

He got it too now.

 

Anyone else?

 

You want it?

 

You know you want it!

Funny that you would think we we had already shed our inhibitions, but it doesn't work that way.

 

Do I have to post naked pictures of myself?

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I remember you were slow at getting subtle hints. So you want to go to the SEX forum? I wonder what the key is...? hmmm.....

 

I know you won't figure it out...

It's a very long and hard password.

 

 

 

No, not that word!

 

Funny that you would think we we had already shed our inhibitions, but it doesn't work that way.

The protection of that forum is more of making sure the spiders won't pick it up, and some wanted to be able to block that section, by their own choice. Simple solution was to lock it with password. I give it to anyone who asketh.

 

Do I have to post naked pictures of myself?

PLEASE NO!!! We will immediately revoke your entrance in the holy of hollies (yes, the shrubbery) if you do. The shock. The horror. The intense and painful procedure of, and not to forget costly, psychotherapy for the rest of our lives, is reason enough to plonk you from our precious section of stupendous venereal entertainment. (no, seriously, it never go that far. )

[Mriana]

This thread has really become a RIOT!

[NotBlinded]

OMG, now I'm embarrassing myself!

And you didn't notice that until now?

Well I am a little slo...hey!

 

Yes, I remember you were slow at getting subtle hints. So you want to go to the SEX forum? I wonder what the key is...? hmmm.....

 

I know you won't figure it out...

Well, I never!

 

Okay, maybe once.

 

So, are you going to tell me or what?

 

 

[LNC]

Your religion is not the answer, it's part of the problem,

 

Good post Hans! I've said exactly this to religionists many times. They are so conditioned as to become totally blind to it.

 

and as society we are running wildly towards the cliff because people are screaming there is an invisible dragon behind us.

 

This groupthink blindness is the very thing that will be our undoing. It has led us into conflicts and wars, while at the same time they say it is about peace. They even believe our undoing will be due to unbelief! It's maddening!

 

Why wouldn't the same explanation work regarding atheists? I see no reason why it wouldn't using your logic. The truth is that it wouldn't be a valid explanation for either side of the argument. It is just a broad brush approach that explains nothing.

[LNC]

My whole argument that could be taken as a defense of your faith, is that its a logic error to take something whose basic nature is about faith, and put it on the examining table for a scientific dissection.

 

I've been thinking this the whole time LNC has posted on this site. He's really going against what new testament christianity is. Faith needs no worldly proofs.

 

If that is the case, then why did Paul commend the Bereans who checked his message against the Scriptures to see if he was telling the truth? It seems that Paul often told people to consider the evidence (see 1 Cor. 15 for example). You are setting up a straw man understanding of what you believe faith is. The word for faith means to have trust or confidence and that is usually based upon a valid grounding in reason, proof, or evidence. I have faith that I will fly safely in a couple of weeks because I have had experience with the airlines, I know that they are regulated, they have a vested interest in getting me there safely, etc. I don't have a blind faith that they will fly me safely. This is the kind of faith that the Bible talks about as well, a faith based upon good reasoning and evidence. That is the kind of faith that the Apostles preached.

[LNC]

Not at all. What I am saying is that there are possible answers to these apparent problems, which means that they aren't necessarily problems. If my answers are subjective and based upon my personal whims and preferences, why is that also not true of your objections? The knife cuts both ways.

Yes it does and I’m glad to see you recognizing that your truth is subjective.

That makes validation subjective as well, which renders the issues circular, with no resolution.

It doesn’t render the Bible as a superior form of truth and history, nor does it render it as being inspired directly from a supernatural male being that lives in the sky.

 

You misread my answer, I never said that my truth is subjective, I am not a postmodernist; I believe that truth is objective and have a valid reason for believing so. Therefore, the rest of your answer is moot. I have not based my arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, only on the fact that the Bible records valid history. However, if you read my answer (again) you will noticed that I said if my answers were subjective, then your objections were subjective also. Is that what you are arguing by your answer, that your objections are merely your subjective whims? If so, then they are not real problems for me, just for you. However, you don't seem to be indicating that, so I will also assume that you don't think that my answers are merely subjective either unless you can give valid reasons for believing so, which you haven't done.

 

centauri:

LNC:

The term "reasonable" is used in our legal system, so it must not be as subjective as you think. Maybe instead a making assertions about my "history" and my "version" of truth, you could instead give your definition of these terms so we can come to some agreement on their usage.

 

centauri: No, I think it's best that you go back to square one and start making the same claims all over again. Then it can all get rehashed for another 20 pages.

 

I am not sure what you mean by your answer and how it applies to what I said. Nor did you give a definition of what you mean by history and truth.

 

LNC:

I don't believe that I have defined any group as a cult here on this thread, so just because others may do so, is not really relevant to our discussion. The important point is that you set a definition for the term "cult" that would define many other groups that are not generally considered cults, and that should indicate that you have either cast too broad a net, or misused the term.

However, even if the term "cult" properly applied to Christianity, it still wouldn't mean that Christianity is untrue, so I don't know what your application of the term to Christianity does for you.

 

centauri: The issue came up because you rely heavily on cult writings as validation for history and reality.

You’ve appealed to the authority of these cult writings over and over again.

They are not however the sacred cow you consider them to be, nor is the character called “Jesus of Nazareth”.

 

Again, you didn't address what I said in my post, you simply are rehashing your point again which is contrary to what I have written in my posts. I don't appeal to the Bible as an authority or as a sacred writing, I appeal to it as history. Would you mind addressing your response more directly to what I have written rather than creating straw man arguments of my position so that you can more easily knock them down? I don't think that you are being fair to me or my positions.

[LNC]

You are still asking the wrong questions. BTW, I think you mean "law of excluded middle" as this is more applicable to this than the "law of non-contradiction"

 

The black and white thinking I am referring to is that you seem to be suggesting that the bible is either entirely true or entirely false.

 

First, finding one fragment from the first century (often with only a couple dozen legible words on it) says nothing about the accuracy of what is not on the fragment. Second, we often find evidence in these fragments that show that later copies were tampered with. The passage in the gospel of John where the women caught in adultery is brought before Jesus is a classic example (so I am sure you know of it) The earliest copies do not contain this story, suggesting that it was added at a later date.

 

Certainly, black and white thinking is not always wrong. There are claims that naturally exclude any middle ground, like "god exists or does not exist" As long as one can agree to a definition for god there is no middle ground between these two points.

 

However, there most certainly IS a middle ground between the claims that the bible is either entirely true or entirely false. Indeed these are two extremes on a scale in which statistically it is almost guaranteed to fall somewhere in the middle.

 

What I mean is, If you have a percentage scale of how much of the bible is true, is it more likely to be 0%, 100%, or somewhere between 1% and 99%? Certainly it is more likely to fall somewhere in the middle. I have never argued that everything in the bible is false.

 

You're right, the law of excluded middle is probably more appropriate.

 

I don't believe that I have said that the Bible is either entirely true or entirely false; however, I think that others have tried to argue that case to show that one cannot trust the Bible. For example, someone has argued that if the account of the people rising from their graves after Jesus rose from the dead is not true then we cannot trust the Bible. I argued that this account is not pertinent to my case and was slammed for not making the case for this account. So, it appears that I don't have to argue for every account to make my case; however, others are intent on showing that parts of the Bible are factually wrong to make theirs.

 

I also don't think that I tried to make the case that you ascribe to me regarding the fragments. I am simply saying that the accounts are older, and therefore, closer to the actual events than some here would have us believe. I don't dispute the fact that there have been changes over time to the manuscripts; however, we have enough data to know what was in over 90% of the original, with the remaining less than 10% not leading to any doctrinal changes. The account of the woman caught in adultery, along with the ending in Mark are both clearly marked in most, if not all English Bibles as variants.

 

There is a difference between variants in the Bible and whether the Bible is true or false, so I hope we can separate those off into two distinct discussions. I would also like, for the sake of this discussion, to limit our look at the Bible to the specific texts to which I referred in my argument as they are generally attested to be reliable by the vast majority of NT scholars. That way, we can avoid this black and white discussion about whether the whole Bible is true or not. That is an important discussion, but not an argument that I am making or relying upon in this case. So, maybe we can set that aside for now and focus back upon the argument that I gave earlier in the thread.

[LNC]

LNC I would like you to explain what YOU mean by the term objective.

 

You continually claim that standards set by god are objective but ones set by ourselves are not.

 

Yet this is a gross misuse of the term objective in terms of the philosophy you claim to be so fond of.

 

In philosophy a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent" If you consider god as personal, which you most certainly seem to then your proposition cannot be considered objective because it is being asserted by a mind, and therefore is subjective, the only difference is that the subject has been switched from humanity to god.

 

Something that would be objective would be say...gravity, which functions exactly the same on Jupiter where there is no life as it does here on earth. Morality is, and cannot, be the same, because there cannot be morality unless there are at least two beings present. In a universe where no life exists there is no such thing as morality.

 

 

Oh, and Asserting that the claim is correct based on the claim that god is more powerful, or created everything is a sort of might makes right argument.

 

 

So how exactly are you defining objective here? It seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, by suggesting that god is both personal, and hands down objective rules, you are necessarily defining objective outside its common use in philosophy.

 

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

[LNC]

I think this is a good sentiment on your part. I also believe that it is important to seek wisdom and search for truth, whatever that might be and wherever that might lead.

 

I'm curious as to what you have to say to folks like me who took that same path and found that it led to a very different understanding than your own?

 

I would say to keep an open mind and keep looking at all of the evidence. I have a good friend who is going through this process now. He is a student of philosophy and has been considering the claims for objective morality, the mind, and truth. He concluded that it makes more sense to believe that objective morality exists than that it doesn't. He also believes that the mind exists and that we can apprehend truth and truly experience reality. Neither of these make sense to him given naturalism. In fact, we just finished reading a book on evolution written by an evolutionist and the claims by the author, Paul Ehrlich, just weren't adding up for him. About a month ago he moved to pantheism, and just recently, to theism as the best explanation of reality. He is honestly trying to make sense of reality and that is where his search has led him, independent of my input, by the way. So, keep looking at all the facts and evidence and see which worldview best accounts for all of them in a coherent manner.

[NotBlinded]

My whole argument that could be taken as a defense of your faith, is that its a logic error to take something whose basic nature is about faith, and put it on the examining table for a scientific dissection.

 

I've been thinking this the whole time LNC has posted on this site. He's really going against what new testament christianity is. Faith needs no worldly proofs.

 

If that is the case, then why did Paul commend the Bereans who checked his message against the Scriptures to see if he was telling the truth? It seems that Paul often told people to consider the evidence (see 1 Cor. 15 for example). You are setting up a straw man understanding of what you believe faith is. The word for faith means to have trust or confidence and that is usually based upon a valid grounding in reason, proof, or evidence. I have faith that I will fly safely in a couple of weeks because I have had experience with the airlines, I know that they are regulated, they have a vested interest in getting me there safely, etc. I don't have a blind faith that they will fly me safely. This is the kind of faith that the Bible talks about as well, a faith based upon good reasoning and evidence. That is the kind of faith that the Apostles preached.

I just read 1 Cor. 15 and can't for the life of me see what you are talking about. What evidence are they considering? What Paul was telling them about Jesus being raised from the dead? You mention Paul commending the Bereans for checking the scriptures to make sure he was telling the truth. Is this why you try so hard to prove the bible a historical document? So you can claim that you are checking the "evidence"? Then you think all other "worldy" evidence is acceptable as proof?

 

LNC, I honestly don't think you will ever understand this. And by the time you get to this post, I won't either.

[NotBlinded]

 

Regarding the proper interpretation, I think we can both agree that there can only be one proper interpretation which means that others are false.

No we can't agree on that. I don't. You think there can only be one proper interpretation and that's why you will forever be stuck where you are. Black and White thinking.

 

LNC returns with this:

 

 

You misread my answer, I never said that my truth is subjective, I am not a postmodernist; I believe that truth is objective and have a valid reason for believing so. Therefore, the rest of your answer is moot. I have not based my arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, only on the fact that the Bible records valid history.

 

and this:

 

There is a difference between variants in the Bible and whether the Bible is true or false, so I hope we can separate those off into two distinct discussions. I would also like, for the sake of this discussion, to limit our look at the Bible to the specific texts to which I referred in my argument as they are generally attested to be reliable by the vast majority of NT scholars. That way, we can avoid this black and white discussion about whether the whole Bible is true or not. That is an important discussion, but not an argument that I am making or relying upon in this case. So, maybe we can set that aside for now and focus back upon the argument that I gave earlier in the thread.

 

Fallacy of wishy-washy?

[bdp]

About a month ago he moved to pantheism, and just recently, to theism as the best explanation of reality.

 

I feel sorry for the poor bastard.

 

No sale here.

[agnosticator]

Why wouldn't the same explanation work regarding atheists? I see no reason why it wouldn't using your logic. The truth is that it wouldn't be a valid explanation for either side of the argument. It is just a broad brush approach that explains nothing.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief-not an ideology. Ideology and religion have beliefs that exclude many other beliefs and cause conflicts between differing beliefs. The result is disagreement and division at best, and wars and murder at worst. Atheism alone makes no belief statements. It is simply a statement of non-belief in a god(s) Adding morality or ideology to atheism is a separate issue.

[agnosticator]

If that is the case, then why did Paul commend the Bereans who checked his message against the Scriptures to see if he was telling the truth? It seems that Paul often told people to consider the evidence (see 1 Cor. 15 for example). You are setting up a straw man understanding of what you believe faith is. The word for faith means to have trust or confidence and that is usually based upon a valid grounding in reason, proof, or evidence. I have faith that I will fly safely in a couple of weeks because I have had experience with the airlines, I know that they are regulated, they have a vested interest in getting me there safely, etc. I don't have a blind faith that they will fly me safely. This is the kind of faith that the Bible talks about as well, a faith based upon good reasoning and evidence. That is the kind of faith that the Apostles preached.

 

Sure there are two kinds of "faith" in the New Testament. The one I refer to is not trust between people, or confidence in how things work within the universe. That I take for granted. I am talking about the christian faith in sin, salvation, heaven, hell, Jesus as savior, and the rest of the doctrines. Those are not everyday trust issues.

 

Rom10:17 (NIV)...faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

 

Heb11:1 Faith is being...certain of what we do not see.

 

v.3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...

 

The above is the "faith" I am talking about when I use the term.

 

 

I realize that you believe everything is dependent upon evidence of the resurrection. But that doesn't mean all the rest of christian doctrines aren't to be taken by faith. Faith being things hoped for, not presently observed. You are to see by faith.

 

Are you saying that science and philosophy have shown that:

 

God the Father, Holy Spirit, exists?

 

Jesus was resurrected from the dead, flew into heaven, will come back to judge the earth (even dead people), and separate everyone to live forever in heaven and hell?

 

I would think this requires biblical faith.

[Ouroboros]

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

Exemplify objective morality, please.

 

Is "do no murder" objective morality?

 

Is "do not lie" objective morality?

 

Is "do not rape" objective morality?

 

What is the use of objective morality if you can't apply it?

 

If the above mores are objective, how come there are gray areas in each one of them?

 

If they're not, are we then out of luck of finding the objective mores?

 

Mores, morality, folkways, and taboos are based on values. What values are the above examples based upon? And how can they have a foundation in values, if they are independently objective in themselves? As objective, shouldn't they be based on God's nature and not on human values?

[Deva]

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

 

I seriously wonder how you know for a fact that God's nature is unchangeable. Even the Bible said he changed his mind on creating humans.

[Shyone]

I would agree with your definition of what "objective" means and would also argue that truth and morality is objective as it is not dependent upon God's mind, but flow from his nature which is immutable (unchangeable).

 

I seriously wonder how you know for a fact that God's nature is unchangeable. Even the Bible said he changed his mind on creating humans.

You are also supposed to forget the old testament stuff that was cruel, whimsical, arbitrary and capricious. Just think "New Testament". When Jesus says something that is completely different from the teachings of the OT, that's unchangeable. Not the other stuff which he changed.

[Mriana]

Why wouldn't the same explanation work regarding atheists? I see no reason why it wouldn't using your logic. The truth is that it wouldn't be a valid explanation for either side of the argument. It is just a broad brush approach that explains nothing.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief-not an ideology. Ideology and religion have beliefs that exclude many other beliefs and cause conflicts between differing beliefs. The result is disagreement and division at best, and wars and murder at worst. Atheism alone makes no belief statements. It is simply a statement of non-belief in a god(s) Adding morality or ideology to atheism is a separate issue.

 

And might I add, though I still struggle with applying the word atheist to myself and find labeling myself a humanist easier, a lack of a god-concept. The idea of a god is a human concept, which some of us don't have. Although I know of other people's god concept, I do not have one of my own. Most god concepts are either given to them as a child OR are purely neurological and this neurology is attributed to a deity because they can't explain it any other way. Does this mean one does not have a form of spirituality due to no god concept? No, it does not. There is natural spirituality derived from nature and the appreciation of nature, but it's not a deity. Morality can be derived from the love of nature and the desire not to do harm to nature or other beings. We don't need any book to tell us what is moral or not.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Fallacy of wishy-washy?

Isn't he contradicting his earlier argument that the Jesus Seminar had an anti-supernatural presumption because they cherry pick what parts of the bible are true? So, why is he cherry picking the bible then? Doesn't this mean he has an anti-supernatural presumption and so we shouldn't trust anything he says? He's also contradicting himself when he said before that nobody considers the bible mythological yet now he's admitting some things in the bible are mythology yet when I called him out on this before, he denied he ever said some parts of the bible aren't true. I also think it's hypocritical that he can cherry pick whatever parts of the bible he wants to "prove" the resurrection is true but then he turns around and tells us what scriptures we can and cannot use against his claims. This is one of the reasons I gave up debating with him. He doesn't get why these other verses we cite are important in our criticism and I don't see the point in debating with someone who wants to screen what evidence we present and only accepts what evidence he approves of. Besides, last I checked, this was not LNC's thread and he wasn't a mod to tell us what scriptures we can quote and which are unacceptable yet he acts like he owns the site. Now he'll probably respond a month from now and deny he ever said any of this, then a month later say the very things he denied. Basically, LNC drives me nuts.