Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[NotBlinded]

When Paul wrote about the 500, he said that many of them were still alive and could therefore verify what he was saying. He wasn't making this claim in a vacuum. Therefore, it could be corroborated by the audience to whom he wrote the letter. The fact that we cannot now is irrelevant as we cannot for any history more than 100 years ago as that generation has passed. It seems that you are setting a standard that would cause us to distrust all history that we have not personally experienced as it may be hyperbole.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE

 

 

Oops...did I shout?

 

I could believe that 500 people saw Jesus if he wasn't KILLED first. It's the coming back from the dead that is extraordinary.

[LNC]

That was not made clear and so it would not be right for me to speculate. However, two things can be suggested. First, we don't know how many species, kinds, or taxonomic classifications existed prior to the flood, and Noah would have only needed to take aboard those kinds that could not have survived the flood. <snip other baseless speculations>.

 

It really amazes me why any adult in the 21st century would want to waste their time speculating about Noah's ark, how big it was, how many species were in it, etc. Admit it is just beyond me.

 

Can anyone say "allegory" or "metaphor"?

 

What does the 21st century have to do with anything? Does time determine truth? How do you know this was allegory or metaphor? What would it be a metaphor about?

[RationalOkie]

What does the 21st century have to do with anything? Does time determine truth? How do you know this was allegory or metaphor? What would it be a metaphor about?

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/noah-story.htm

 

Read it. It's a hoot.

[LNC]

That leads to a whole bunch of follow-up question.

 

If the Christian argue that Free Will is the greater good, to overcome some issues and problems with morality, then how does the Devil's Free Will play into it all? Does the Devil serve a greater good? In other words, is the Devil the tool for good in God's hands? Is "evil" ultimately good?

 

And secondly, if the Devil had Free Will, and could rebel against God, even though he was in front of God, at the throne, seeing God eye-to-eye, then what kind of guarantee is there that some Christian might do it too when they get to Heaven? I mean, obviously Free Will and begin rebellious against God and seeing God face-to-face, all allow this to happen. And if all that exists in Heaven, then why would anyone be forced to make a choice in this world

 

And another one is, if the soul and free will is somehow connected, does this mean the Devil has a soul?

 

Etc...

 

Maybe I could ask some questions for clarification. When you say that Christians argue that free will is the "greater good" greater than what? I say that free will is better than being a completely determined being, but you may have something else in mind. Do you mean greatest good? If so, I would disagree. To use one's free will to do good is better than just having free will.

 

I also believe that Satan or the devil has a free will. That is clear from the Scriptures as he used his freedom to try to usurp God's authority and position, which led to his fall. So, the answer to your next question is no, evil is evil and not good.

 

Your next question is a good one as well. The angels were given a time to make free moral choices and Satan and a third of the angels chose to rebel. Since that time there has not been recorded an event where an angel rebelled and fell, so apparently that time is over. In heaven we will have free will, but apparently our wills will be purified so that we will not have the desire to sin and rebel, just as the angels don't desire to rebel now, yet still retain free will.

 

The devil is a spirit being, we are spirit and flesh. The spiritual aspect of us is called the soul. So, technically, the devil doesn't have a soul since he doesn't have a body.

[agnosticator]

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.

 

I thought a bit more about the difference between the new testament's usage of "faith" as you say in the above quote, and the new testament's usage of "faith" when it comes to christian doctrines. Both usages are found in the New Testament.

 

For example, anyone (and everyone) can verify that you or I will wake up to another sunrise each and every day until our death. But can everyone verify sin, salvation, heaven, hell, Jesus and the Trinity, identification of objective morality, as being real and true?

 

I have confidence that anyone can verify the direction and effects of the wind, and can even verify it's source. But faith, in the religious sense I refer to, has confidence or trusts that an unseen and unverifiable source exists. The effects of that source (the immaterial trinity) are also unverifiable. This faith is at best, a belief in hearsay evidence from the revealed word of god found in the New Testament. How can anyone verify all that to the same degree we verify that humans exist and the wind is real? It takes a different kind of trust, and that is christian faith.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

It's ridiculous what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that people who see miracles would not believe, while Jesus were doing (supposedly) a whole bunch of miracles to make people believe, and not only that, but his disciples too!

 

 

 

Not to mention that LNC's claim that people wouldn't believe in Jesus because of the miracles contradicts what the bible says about why Jesus performs miracles in John 20:30-31

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah,* the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

But then he'll probably later deny that he ever said that and he doesn't need this verse to prove the resurrection, so I'm not allowed to use it. And why did he dig up a post written two months ago about Noah's ark if he only wanted us to focus on the screened verses he wants us to use to argue against the resurrection? I question if he really is having difficulty catching up when he's already responded to posts made more recently yet digs up a random post from two months ago on a subject we've already moved on from.

[Ouroboros]

That leads to a whole bunch of follow-up question.

 

If the Christian argue that Free Will is the greater good, to overcome some issues and problems with morality, then how does the Devil's Free Will play into it all? Does the Devil serve a greater good? In other words, is the Devil the tool for good in God's hands? Is "evil" ultimately good?

 

And secondly, if the Devil had Free Will, and could rebel against God, even though he was in front of God, at the throne, seeing God eye-to-eye, then what kind of guarantee is there that some Christian might do it too when they get to Heaven? I mean, obviously Free Will and begin rebellious against God and seeing God face-to-face, all allow this to happen. And if all that exists in Heaven, then why would anyone be forced to make a choice in this world

 

And another one is, if the soul and free will is somehow connected, does this mean the Devil has a soul?

 

Etc...

 

Maybe I could ask some questions for clarification. When you say that Christians argue that free will is the "greater good" greater than what?

Yes, I have heard that phrase. I thought it was you who used it, but I could be wrong. It was in regards to the view of evil in the world and that sin exists etc, and that Free Will is a "greater good" than peace, health, and long life. So basically Free Will would be said to be a greater good than God going in and fixing all problems and protecting the innocent from rape, murder, and abuse.

 

I say that free will is better than being a completely determined being, but you may have something else in mind. Do you mean greatest good? If so, I would disagree. To use one's free will to do good is better than just having free will.

That's not really part of the question. What you use the Free Will for has nothing to do with comparing Free Will with God getting rid of evil.

 

God has the power to undo evil in the world, but he/she doesn't, because there is some higher purpose in play. Isn't it so? What is that higher purpose? Why do I hear Christians argue that evil exists because of Free Will?

 

I also believe that Satan or the devil has a free will. That is clear from the Scriptures as he used his freedom to try to usurp God's authority and position, which led to his fall. So, the answer to your next question is no, evil is evil and not good.

I think you misunderstand the comparison.

 

Your next question is a good one as well. The angels were given a time to make free moral choices and Satan and a third of the angels chose to rebel. Since that time there has not been recorded an event where an angel rebelled and fell, so apparently that time is over. In heaven we will have free will, but apparently our wills will be purified so that we will not have the desire to sin and rebel, just as the angels don't desire to rebel now, yet still retain free will.

Hmm... okay. So you have free will to sin, but you don't want to sin because God brainwashed you. Or spirit-washed you, since you don't have a brain in Heaven.

 

The devil is a spirit being, we are spirit and flesh. The spiritual aspect of us is called the soul. So, technically, the devil doesn't have a soul since he doesn't have a body.

It's not easy to get technical about supernatural things...

[agnosticator]

The devil is a spirit being, we are spirit and flesh. The spiritual aspect of us is called the soul. So, technically, the devil doesn't have a soul since he doesn't have a body.

 

 

And Satan sang...."I ain't got no body!!" I guess he sings like a white boy, since he ain't got no soul!

[Antlerman]

LNC - What does LNC stand for? A church group like "Living Nordic Church" or "Live Nude Chickens"? If it's your REAL name then obviously just state that it's your initials. I already know that you live in the bible belt.

It's not his real name. I know his name, and we'll keep it that way.

 

LNC stands for Logical Non-Contradiction. *shaking my head*

That's his god, you know? That's what defines his so-called 'religious' experience. He persists as he does because he thinks that through a good, solid argument he will find truth that means something to him, that fills something he doesn't have.

 

Sad...

[Mriana]

Judas saw many, if not all of the miracles and yet he didn't trust Jesus, so why should I believe that an earthquake alone would make someone trust him? I don't know that the people who see visions or supposed images of Mary trust in Jesus, it seems that it makes them trust in Mary instead. Mary has no authority or power to save anyone according to the Bible. To speculate that it is a later addition is just that, speculation. It is not based upon empirical evidence. Again, you speculate that Christians are hiding something, but you have no evidence of that. I see no reason to accept your explanation as being valid.

 

Oh please! I don't mean to break out in song and dance, but somehow this comes to mind with that statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YPDXmEsQtQ&feature=related

 

Anyone up to dancing with the dancers and me as we do the rock opera? Now, let's see Jesus turn my swimming pool into wine now. Now that would be a real feat. Hey, that is Biblical- Herod mock Jesus. He doesn't need to walk across the pool- the Sun does that every day, but turn my swimming pool into wine and we could have a real party.

 

Yes, guys, I think I am in a weird mood tonight, but I am enjoying it.

[agnosticator]

Oh please! I don't mean to break out in song and dance, but somehow this comes to mind with that statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YPDXmEsQtQ&feature=related

 

Anyone up to dancing with the dancers and me as we do the rock opera?

 

 

That's my favorite scene of the whole opera!

[Ouroboros]

It's funny.

 

People see a blurry "face" of Mary on a toast and their faith is strengthen. Obviously people do not need much to revitalize belief. So if God makes a huge miracle in front of someone's eyes, then suddenly they would doubt and not believe it? Not likely.

 

There has been so many times when God could have stepped in and answered small prayers for small things in my life. All these excuses Christians have to come up with to explain why God doesn't do anything. It's a way of rationalizing the inevitable evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

Get a grip Christians. God doesn't answer, not because he doesn't want to, but because he can't. And he can't, because he doesn't exist! That's the simple answer. Stop fooling yourself.

 

That's his god, you know? That's what defines his so-called 'religious' experience. He persists as he does because he thinks that through a good, solid argument he will find truth that means something to him, that fills something he doesn't have.

 

Sad...

It is sad. He can't find God any other way. God doesn't answer prayers. God doesn't do miracles. God doesn't change people to become better people. He can't find the "objective morals," even when he's arguing they exist. He wants God to speak to him, but the only thing he can hear is his own thoughts. So what is left? Try to find some argument to convince himself to keep on believing. Without it... only emotions are left, and they could eventually dwindle, fickle as they are.

[mwc]

I have no evidence to support any other possibilities, I only have evidence to support the account of the eyewitnesses. Your two options are not the only two that have been offered over time. What we must do is look at each possibility and determine which best fits the evidence. What reason would the guards have to take the body and who would be paying the bribe? Suppose that the disciples did bribe them to take the body, then how do you explain the appearances to over 500 people at different times, locations, circumstances, etc.?

Wow. After nearly two whole months it's my turn? Do I even really care?

 

What reason would the guards have? Who would pay the bribe? I don't know. There was this whole conspiracy where the mean old Pharisee's and scribes just had to do away with "jesus" and his little dog too. So maybe they did it? I mean, they're the main suspects in the "bribing the guards" story. So maybe start there?

 

You want me to accept that the guards could be bribed to be silent but that these guards couldn't be bribed to do anything else? You want me to accept that those at the top (ie. the Pharisee's and the scribes) could bribe people like Judas Iscariot for betrayal and the guards for covering up a "miracle" but not for things like stealing a body? You want me to look at what fits the evidence? We have bribery from a certain group and another group that accepts those bribes. Then what we have is YOU telling me for what these people would be willing to pay and for what they others would be willing to accept. You certainly have more insight into the minds of conspirators than I do because the text seems to indicate these people were willing to do anything to accomplish their plan which included bribery and murder. But I guess tomb robbing for pay is where they drew the line. Sorry I brought it up.

 

I also can't explain the appearances to the 500 people that are now at different times and places. You've got me here. Before it was simply 500 people. Now they're at different times and places. In addition I have to explain it because you've no evidence this assertion actually happened. So since I cannot explain it that means it not only did happen but the tomb robbing could not have occurred and a miracle must have happened. My inability to explain Paul's comment has resulted in the occurrence of an ancient miracle.

 

When Paul wrote about the 500, he said that many of them were still alive and could therefore verify what he was saying. He wasn't making this claim in a vacuum. Therefore, it could be corroborated by the audience to whom he wrote the letter. The fact that we cannot now is irrelevant as we cannot for any history more than 100 years ago as that generation has passed. It seems that you are setting a standard that would cause us to distrust all history that we have not personally experienced as it may be hyperbole.

It's true. I tried looking up every single name on the list of the 500 that Paul mentions and they're all dead. So I can't verify any of their stories. However, whoever got that letter would have had no trouble whatsoever looking them up, right? Oh. Except there are no names. Not a single one. But I'm sure Paul had the list of names available for the asking. That's something people carried with them, right? No. Not really. I'm pretty certain that when "jesus" appeared that a scribe didn't pop out and ask the crowd for their names so they could have an accurate accounting of the sighting. At best there may have been a handful of names that Paul may have known of people who claimed to have seen "jesus" that he may have handed out if someone asked him for them. 500? Never. So realistically you have 500 becoming a handful of names and then what? Someone trying to find those people to ask them if "jesus" appeared to them? Okay. That's reasonable. If they had nothing but time and money on their hands. No one was going to investigate anything. The claim that people read things and simply went off to investigate is patently ridiculous.

 

No, we don't know if anyone recanted; however, if any of the main eyewitnesses had, we would most likely have a record of that as Christianity was not popular among those in power. It would have been in their interest to record if Paul, Peter, or any of the other leaders had recanted. We would also know if large groups recanted. However, since we have no record, it seems that we cannot make an argument from silence.

No one would have cared if Paul would have climbed to the top of the tallest building and screamed "Jesus is all bull shit" and then went over to a barnyard and fucked a pig. No one that was anyone gave two shits about Paul or his cronies. They're exalted after the fact.

 

Regarding your last statement, the story doesn't say that they have the Law, which was the only other means that the Jews would have known for salvation, it says "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." IOW, if they have not paid attention to the messages from them, sending someone from the dead will have no effect either. This had nothing to do with Jesus death and resurrection as it had not occurred yet. Christ's death and resurrection is a gift, not something that is forced upon a person. We are without hope apart from it.

Quite true. I confess I didn't read it before posting.

Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

And what's Moses? The first 5 books or the Torah. And the prophets? Well, the books of the prophets of course. The writings would be the other books. That's why the Hebrew bible is laid out in the three sections and this speaks of two of them. But xians consider books like Daniel, which is in the writings, to be one of the prophets so it's not all cut and dry of course.

 

Since this message is about two months old I have no idea if I had related it to "jesus" or not and if I did exactly how nor am I about to bother to go back and look. This is all an exercise in futility.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

"You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither

Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdH2ODFYV5s

 

Such a classic.

Not to be outdone in responding to old posts, I never responded to this one from three months ago! Remember it?

 

I can imagine the whole lot of us in this clip singing it to LNC.

[Ouroboros]

Not to be outdone in responding to old posts, I never responded to this one from three months ago! Remember it?

 

I can imagine the whole lot of us in this clip singing it to LNC.

Impressive. You're digging up posts older than the ones LNC is picking up.

[Antlerman]

Not to be outdone in responding to old posts, I never responded to this one from three months ago! Remember it?

 

I can imagine the whole lot of us in this clip singing it to LNC.

Impressive. You're digging up posts older than the ones LNC is picking up.

Never underestimate the Flores Hobbit.

 

 

"And lo, I am with you always."

 

 

(I think I might go back to that avatar. ).

[Ouroboros]

JeZeus Chromag.

[RationalOkie]

It is sad. He can't find God any other way. God doesn't answer prayers. God doesn't do miracles. God doesn't change people to become better people. He can't find the "objective morals," even when he's arguing they exist. He wants God to speak to him, but the only thing he can hear is his own thoughts. So what is left? Try to find some argument to convince himself to keep on believing. Without it... only emotions are left, and they could eventually dwindle, fickle as they are.

 

This is why he prefers a world of Philosophy as opposed to reality. People that are predisposed to believe in ghosts, spirits, invisible miracle working gods and even UFO's are usually of the same mind set. They make decisions based upon emotions rather than logic. When they can't win an argument based upon facts they steer the conversation toward a philosophical debate. He's been doing exactly that for thousands of posts now.

[Mriana]

Oh please! I don't mean to break out in song and dance, but somehow this comes to mind with that statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YPDXmEsQtQ&feature=related

 

Anyone up to dancing with the dancers and me as we do the rock opera?

 

 

That's my favorite scene of the whole opera!

 

Glad I'm not the only who enjoyed that scene. The other one was where Judas sang "Heaven on their minds". That one was good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNoiQ8LkS8

[Antlerman]

It is sad. He can't find God any other way. God doesn't answer prayers. God doesn't do miracles. God doesn't change people to become better people. He can't find the "objective morals," even when he's arguing they exist. He wants God to speak to him, but the only thing he can hear is his own thoughts. So what is left? Try to find some argument to convince himself to keep on believing. Without it... only emotions are left, and they could eventually dwindle, fickle as they are.

 

This is why he prefers a world of Philosophy as opposed to reality. People that are predisposed to believe in ghosts, spirits, invisible miracle working gods and even UFO's are usually of the same mind set. They make decisions based upon emotions rather than logic. When they can't win an argument based upon facts they steer the conversation toward a philosophical debate. He's been doing exactly that for thousands of posts now.

I wouldn't call LNC philosophical at all. Philosophy does look at reality, and has nothing to do with ghosts and magic gods, nor is necessarily based on emotions to the exclusion of reason - unless its a chosen philosophy of hedonism or whatnot, but those themselves take reason and logic and apply it to regressive philosophies.

 

On the contrary, LNC's issue is that he avoids the philosophical by trying to bypass issues on that level arguing it as fact that we are therefore obligated to accept, like it or not, and therefore all the Christian philosophy solutions are thereby validated - end of discussion. This way artificially creates a case so he can avoid the stickier ground of reason applied to the internal aspects of it by claiming it as objective fact. That approach itself is an error, and moreover his 'evidence' methodology fails through an impressive list of logic fallacies (which if any member here should wish to compile a list with examples he uses - such as 'appeal to authority', it could be useful). It is a desperate attempt to avoid the philosophical questions of it. This isn't philosophy.

[NotBlinded]

The devil is a spirit being, we are spirit and flesh. The spiritual aspect of us is called the soul. So, technically, the devil doesn't have a soul since he doesn't have a body.

 

 

And Satan sang...."I ain't got no body!!" I guess he sings like a white boy, since he ain't got no soul!

HA!

[NotBlinded]

 

On the contrary, LNC's issue is that he avoids the philosophical by trying to bypass issues on that level arguing it as fact that we are therefore obligated to accept, like it or not, and therefore all the Christian philosophy solutions are thereby validated - end of discussion. This way artificially creates a case so he can avoid the stickier ground of reason applied to the internal aspects of it by claiming it as objective fact. That approach itself is an error, and moreover his 'evidence' methodology fails through an impressive list of logic fallacies (which if any member here should wish to compile a list with examples he uses - such as 'appeal to authority', it could be useful). It is a desperate attempt to avoid the philosophical questions of it. This isn't philosophy.

 

Here's a major one:

 

The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or Reification (fallacy)

 

"In the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, one commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality." Wiki

 

"Matter is pregnant with form: their intertwining is real, their conceptual separation is ideal. To conceive the phenomenon as the product of the coming together of discrete, really disjunct domains of different kinds of being (the physical and the mental, the transcendent and the immanent, etc.) is to reify abstractions, to commit Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness, to confuse the idealities constituted as separate entities in language with the realities manifest as phenomena. In short, the ontology explicity stated in terms of chaism/intertwining/flesh in the ontology implicit in the familiar doctrine of autochthonous organization." p156 Merleau-Ponty's Ontology By Martin C. Dillon

 

 

This is the "It" in It is raining. The lawgiver, the ghost in the machine, soul in the body, God the architect sculpting clay, etc.

[Shyone]

In short, the ontology explicity stated in terms of chaism/intertwining/flesh in the ontology implicit in the familiar doctrine of autochthonous organization." p156 Merleau-Ponty's Ontology By Martin C. Dillon

 

After reading the above sentence, I could have sworn that I read after that, "Monty Python's Ontology."

[NotBlinded]

In short, the ontology explicity stated in terms of chaism/intertwining/flesh in the ontology implicit in the familiar doctrine of autochthonous organization." p156 Merleau-Ponty's Ontology By Martin C. Dillon

 

After reading the above sentence, I could have sworn that I read after that, "Monty Python's Ontology."

HA! After trying to understand the fallacy more, which involves time and space, I can agree with you at this point!

 

Take a peek: Time and the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness

[Shyone]

 

Take a peek: Time and the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness

Ok, I took a look. The premise and description of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness has relevance to how Christians misperceive the world. Beyond that, the whole thing begins to sound like solipsism:

 

"Those holding this position have tended to speak of time as an illusion." Yeah, and I'm not older than I was when I was young... Right.

 

And then, when I read this:

 

Finally, process philosophy’s pantemporalist, panexperientialist position stands as a clear alternative both to reductionistic, materialistic nontemporalism, and to temporal-nontemporal, mind-matter dualism.

 

I knew that I needed another cup of coffee.