Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Antlerman]

...'the vast majority of NT scholars agree...'

It's quite interesting to check the numbers of this "vast majority." Was it like 70% only that believed the Gospels to be telling the true story? So 70% is a vast majority, but then if we go to Evolution, where something like 99% support the current theory, then suddenly it's not vast enough to agree with Evolution. It shows (in LNC's own words) an a priori assumption to his approach.

Yes, I love that! 70% is solid enough to state it over and over again to support your case, but 99.9999% of the world's scientists (who are NOT, by default, married to a religious belief, unlike the NT scholars who are), who agree with unanimity that the model of the ToE is rock-solid, this is "only a theory". It's not good enough to place one's faith in! This is irrational, and why I level this accusation against this apologetic as disingenuous.

 

But again, who are these "70% agree"? Who did the survey? What were the questions? Do they actually agree with where Habermas takes whatever they may have said? I don't trust this at all. I know the level of quote-mining that happens when you have an agenda. And there is no doubt at all they have an agenda. But what's more, even if that is accurate without 'massaging' the data to fit what you want it to say, again, by default a NT Scholars is not doing science. This is not a discipline of objective study.

 

Let me see 70% of secular, non-Christian scholars of history and literature come to this conclusion. Then, only then, will that have any value for discussion. This "majority of NT scholars agree..." is more just a case of , "Well, that's nice - and not unexpected". But how are people supposed to respond to believers finding reasons to confirming their beliefs?

 

This is a fallacy of logic that is designed to impress the skeptic, but it doesn't because it's just self-confirmation. However, the majority of scientists saying something should impress the skeptic in their ranks. Science is not a religion, and incorporates people from every belief system in the world into its ranks. Show an Islamic scholar who accepts Habermas's conclusions. That would be a comparison then. But as this stands, it's a misleading argument that I would judge as lacking integrity; that I would judge as insincere.

 

It's not so much that they've lost real faith, its more that they can't take that system of belief and incorporate it into today's world.

I think losing faith to some degree is part of it, because if you believe without evidence, then you're not really searching for evidence or arguments. But when people go into a very deep philosophical journey to find the answers, it hints to a form of panic, i.e. their belief isn't enough anymore.

I suppose you can call it a loss of faith, but it's really more a matter, for me at least, of non longer thinking as narrowly, or as limited. There's more depth now, and that part of me has shifted from viewing the world through a fixed system of doctrines and beliefs (like sin, death and resurrection, etc) to a more aware understanding of the world that allows that part of me to grow.

 

It's like a child who moves from thinking that dad is a god, to seeing him as a human like himself. It's not a matter of losing faith in dad, so to speak. As it's a case of maturing in how YOU perceive the world. It never was a question of whether dad was a god or not, but about how you look at things. It's a matter of moving beyond the perceptions of our childhood.

 

Thought: why would a Christian need an outside explanation, argument, or reason to believe? Isn't the Bible and the Holy Spirit enough? Isn't that what Paul said, "you don't need a teacher"? And yet here we see a perfect example of someone searching the truth outside of the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

It's because they need a system outside themselves to give them meaning. They haven't found it in themselves yet. Once you begin to move to that stage, then you have to face that horrible terror of the Void. You have to move through the veil of meaninglessness to see the face of God on the other side: your own. That's a terrifying place to go, and people resist it, either through masking it with a system of gods, or ignoring it.

 

It's more a matter of their faith is not ready to face what reason reveals. The Anti-intellectual response to this confrontation is actually more consistent than this style of apologetic trying to make it rational.

Yes. Several religious philosophers consider pure fideism, without reasoning or arguments, to be the true form. If there were enough evidence and arguments to overcome doubt, then belief becomes knowledge. Belief is somewhere between doubt and knowledge in a sense. Knowledge as being a strong belief, which is justified by reasonable, or even undeniable, support. Doubt as the lack of belief.

I've looked at that, and it gets complicated. But yes, I'd say there is more merit to that, in that it doesn't depend on rationalizations like what we see being presented "in defense of faith". But I'm coming to see that that is in a way regressive. It's acknowledging spirit, but isn't quite bringing it forward into reason. The existential 'leap of faith' has value, in that it acknowledges the 'heart' of what is experienced existentially for the subjective individual, but it doesn't marry it to reason. At least not when it's tied to those symbols of the past system. Or so it's seeming to me at the moment.

[RationalOkie]

All good points. I could say that of the worlds population 33% are Christian₁. This includes Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Assembly of God, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and SDA's. I doubt most fundies would agree that some of these on the list ARE TRUE Christians. However, they will use the 33% in an argument. Anything to further the delusion.

 

This reminds me of something that I read on WWGHA₂

"No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc."

 

₁ - source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

₂ - source: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

[Auracle]

1. Jesus died via crucifixion

2. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea

3. The disciples fled in despair after the crucifixion

4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty

5. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus

6. The disciples lives were radically changed by the event - they were willing to die for their belief

7. The resurrection became the central message of their preaching

8. They preached the resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after

9. The church was started

10. Worship was established on Sunday rather than Saturday as the day of the resurrection

11. Paul, a persecutor of the church, was converted after claiming to have seen the risen Jesus

12. James, the brother of Jesus, also a skeptic, was converted.

 

 

These are not 'facts' they are stories in a religious storybook that bear no outside corroboration.

 

If you think so, then you are contradicting historians who agree that these are reliable facts. Now, what is your evidence that these are not historically reliable? Am I merely to take your word for it? Sorry, I can't do that.

 

And you are contradicting historians who don't agree that these are reliable facts. You keep insisting that we take your word for a bunch of assertions from one or more persons upon whose word you are relying... Sorry, we can't do that...

 

Once again, pot meet kettle..

[Mriana]

1. Jesus died via crucifixion

2. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea

3. The disciples fled in despair after the crucifixion

4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty

5. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus

6. The disciples lives were radically changed by the event - they were willing to die for their belief

7. The resurrection became the central message of their preaching

8. They preached the resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after

9. The church was started

10. Worship was established on Sunday rather than Saturday as the day of the resurrection

11. Paul, a persecutor of the church, was converted after claiming to have seen the risen Jesus

12. James, the brother of Jesus, also a skeptic, was converted.

 

 

These are not 'facts' they are stories in a religious storybook that bear no outside corroboration.

 

If you think so, then you are contradicting historians who agree that these are reliable facts. Now, what is your evidence that these are not historically reliable? Am I merely to take your word for it? Sorry, I can't do that.

 

And you are contradicting historians who don't agree that these are reliable facts. You keep insisting that we take your word for a bunch of assertions from one or more persons upon whose word you are relying... Sorry, we can't do that...

 

Once again, pot meet kettle..

 

I will second that, Auracle. These are nothing more than parts of a story. If there ever was a man named Jesus under all this rewritten myth, it's too hard to find him.

[LNC]

I would actually agree, in the sense that it does not follow through deduction, but on the other hand you have know that it also does not follow that the story is NOT fiction either. We cannot be 100% certain either way.

 

Sure, we can't be 100% of anything; however, the archeological evidence does lend support for the credibility of these accounts.

 

Earlier in your post you said this

 

All of us should hold our views to be probabalistic truths since we cannot epistemically know truth at 100% on this earth. However, with that being said, I am not implying that objective truth does not exist or cannot be known, just that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

 

Now think objectively here if you can. If one hears a story about some fantastical claim for which there is no corroborating evidence is it MORE PROBABLE that the story is true or fiction?

 

If I tell you that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard you cannot prove with 100% certainty that I am lying, but it would be entirely reasonable for you do doubt me.

 

 

Edit: P.S. I would actually take issue with the statement that we cannot know ANYTHING with 100% certainty. Logical or mathematical tautologies can be known with 100% certainty. Rules like the "law of excluded middle" or the "law of identity" are necessarily certain, though application of them to real world situations are never this certain.

 

First, I would say that we would have to remain agnostic if there was no corroborating evidence, that is the best we could do since we couldn't prove them to be false either. I can't prove that there was no invisible unicorn in your backyard as that seems to be non-falsifiable, so I would have to remain agnostic in regard to your account. I would have to take all the data into account, including whether you are generally trustworthy, not suffering from a mental breakdown, whether you would have a motive to lie or see something like this, etc.

 

Now, in regard to the NT accounts we do have corroborating support for most of what is in them, including the resurrection, so I don't know that it is a completely applicable scenario to apply to the NT.

[LNC]

 

That along with the fact that the body was not produced

 

 

 

You can't prove that.

 

No I can't. However, we do know that there were people both motivated to produce it and motivated to put down the Christian movement, so if they had it, it seems likely that we would have known about it. The Christians had no power to stop such news from coming out. Conspiracies are hard to maintain and contain.

[LNC]

Is LNC just going to keep repeating the same tired old cliches we've already responded to but he either just ignored or responded to with insults? Is he going to ever actually present any physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus or is this thread just going to go around and around in circles and is LNC just wasting our time with spam?

 

Which insults did I respond with? How can a person present physical evidence for ancient history? We do have archeological support for many of the accounts, if that is what you mean. I guess I will have to continue to repeat my responses (which, by the way, aren't cliché as you claim) as long as the same questions continue to be repeatedly asked. Sorry, but I can't and don't simply make up new answers to the same questions.

[LNC]

No, the Bible is a work of fiction too. It is not the inerrant word of God nor was it inspired by God. It is clearly the errant word of man and inspired by man. I really get tired of Bible Thumpin' Xians insisting it is not fiction when there is a ton of obvious mythology in that book.

 

Can you supply evidence for your assertion that the Bible is a work of fiction? Maybe you could also show the "obvious mythology" along with your sources.

[NotBlinded]

No, the Bible is a work of fiction too. It is not the inerrant word of God nor was it inspired by God. It is clearly the errant word of man and inspired by man. I really get tired of Bible Thumpin' Xians insisting it is not fiction when there is a ton of obvious mythology in that book.

 

Can you supply evidence for your assertion that the Bible is a work of fiction? Maybe you could also show the "obvious mythology" along with your sources.

I've posted this before, but maybe you missed it.

 

Christian Mythology

[LNC]

However, there were people by the name of Jesus of Nazareth...

 

Prove it.

 

The 'bible' was not written but collected, and done so with an agenda. Whoever wrote down the 'gospels' may have believed every word they wrote but that doesn't mean it's not fiction.

 

First, I am trying to find where the quote came from that you attribute to me. I searched back and couldn't find it in the thread and the quote shows that it was posted after your post (not sure how you could put a quote of me in that I posted after your post). So, maybe you could go back and let me know from where you pulled that quote so that I can go back and check it out.

 

The Bible is a collection of written letters, historical accounts, etc. Sure they were written with an agenda, can you name me a work that was not written with an agenda? Now, if you mean that the writers had a nefarious agenda, then you will have to prove that. They may have believed every word that they wrote, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fiction. They read like history according to historians like Bauckham, Pincas and others; and, they have corroboration through multiple attestation, archeology and other source confirmation; so, it seems that you have the burden to prove that they were not historical.

[LNC]

And didn't LNC already concede that the story of God raising the Jews from the dead after Jesus dies is made up and not factual?

 

No, I don't believe that I did. However, if you have evidence that I did, you are free to post it. I have merely said that that account doesn't factor into the evidence that I present for the resurrection.

[RationalOkie]

.. the evidence that I present for the resurrection.

 

What evidence have you presented for the resurrection? Seriously, I'm all ears.

[Ouroboros]

Sure, we can't be 100% of anything; however, the archeological evidence does lend support for the credibility of these accounts.

But you do seem to be 100% certain about these things, even though the evidence only lends support for the credibility. How come? When and how does the possible/probable become absolute and definitive?

[RationalOkie]

.. the evidence that I present for the resurrection.

 

What evidence have you presented for the resurrection? Seriously, I'm all ears.

 

I'm sorry, I'm a bit slow sometimes but what "Archeological" evidence could you possibly put forth that would prove this resurrection?

[RationalOkie]

.. the evidence that I present for the resurrection.

 

What evidence have you presented for the resurrection? Seriously, I'm all ears.

 

I'm sorry, I'm a bit slow sometimes but what "Archeological" evidence could you possibly put forth that would prove this resurrection?

 

I qoute from an article on a Christian Web Site "Institute for Creation Research":

 

Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present. A recent incredible discovery may put to rest that criticism.

 

A secondary issue must first be considered. Is it reasonable to expect such artifacts or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and eventually suffered the death of a common outlaw. Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not.

 

Actually, Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large and extensive Roman cities, and adequate inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate and Festus. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but almost nothing can be found recording the lives of ordinary individuals. And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. Certainly the odds are against an artifact's survival.

http://www.icr.org/article/531/

 

It goes on to say that they've found a box that had Jesus' name on it. Wow!

What does any of this have to do with any resurrection proof?

[NotBlinded]

What does any of this have to do with any resurrection proof?

There's no bones in the box? You know...if there are no bones, then he ascended and that's that. If there are bones, that's not the right Jesus. It can be no other way. Keep repeating that over and over and over...

[Ouroboros]

Yes, they found the box. It said, "Jesse was here." The whole thing with was is very important. They also found his pipe, sandals, and spit-bucket, but they keep that under wraps since it could be interpreted that God allows smoking and chewing tobacco. And we all know how absolutely sinful those things are.

[RationalOkie]

What does any of this have to do with any resurrection proof?

There's no bones in the box? You know...if there are no bones, then he ascended and that's that. If there are bones, that's not the right Jesus. It can be no other way. Keep repeating that over and over and over...

 

So lack of a'hum "Evidence" is proof of something? Wow, I was totally lied to in college. Why did I even waste my time?

[Ouroboros]

So lack of a'hum "Evidence" is proof of something? Wow, I was totally lied to in college. Why did I even waste my time?

No, no, you can't generalize it. It's a unidirectional condition to that rule. Only lack of evidence for the supernatural is automatically proof of the supernatural. Any lack of evidence for a natural explanation is by default evidence that a natural explanation does not exist.

[RationalOkie]

Yes, they found the box. It said, "Jesse was here." The whole thing with was is very important. They also found his pipe, sandals, and spit-bucket, but they keep that under wraps since it could be interpreted that God allows smoking and chewing tobacco. And we all know how absolutely sinful those things are.

 

Sounds authentic enough for me then. I mean, an empty box with Yeshua on it clearly means that he rose from the dead. It's obvious now. Thanks for pointing all of that out. I guess MY standards for evidence are just waaaay to high.

 

How silly of me.....empty box....risen zombie god...it's so clear to me now. I'm now going to have to reexamine my disbelief in UFO's. Last night I noticed that the sky was empty.

[NotBlinded]

What does any of this have to do with any resurrection proof?

There's no bones in the box? You know...if there are no bones, then he ascended and that's that. If there are bones, that's not the right Jesus. It can be no other way. Keep repeating that over and over and over...

 

So lack of a'hum "Evidence" is proof of something? Wow, I was totally lied to in college. Why did I even waste my time?

Oh no, no...that's is evidence. That kind of evidence that doesn't need evidence to be evidence.

[Ouroboros]

How silly of me.....empty box....risen zombie god...it's so clear to me now. I'm now going to have to reexamine my disbelief in UFO's. Last night I noticed that the sky was empty.

That scored 11 of 10!

 

 

I also realized that are no pink elephant in our living room.

[Auracle]

To steal from the wikipedia page on Historical Method (I highly recommend everyone involved in this discussion give this page a quick once over):

 

**edited out for brevity**

 

I can't see how, by any of these techniques, a person can reasonably state that anyone has ever came back from the dead (and, no, this isn't the only thing on historical methodology I've read but it is the most accessible for posting to the forum).

 

mwc

 

I have seen this analysis applied to the NT data and it stand up. Maybe you could run it through and show us why you believe it would not hold up. I would be interested in seeing your analysis and reasoning.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion you are more interested in telling him/her why you think they are wrong and you are right, how the majority of scholars don't agree with their position, how they just need to go back and read more, yada yada blah blah blah.

[Mriana]

No, the Bible is a work of fiction too. It is not the inerrant word of God nor was it inspired by God. It is clearly the errant word of man and inspired by man. I really get tired of Bible Thumpin' Xians insisting it is not fiction when there is a ton of obvious mythology in that book.

 

Can you supply evidence for your assertion that the Bible is a work of fiction? Maybe you could also show the "obvious mythology" along with your sources.

 

Oh geeze! You haven't read any mythology to see that the Jesus story is the EXACT same motif, have you? And do you really believe only two people started populating the earth? An there was no planet wide flood either. In fact, Noah was a rewrite of Gilgamesh. Sources? Try the professor and O.T. scholar Victor H. Matthews for the O.T. for starters. Robert Price is a good place to start for the N.T., even John Shelby Spong can give you a clue too. Tom Harpur is good for the Jesus/Horus connection. Sorry they are all members of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, but that is a start. If you are daring, even Acharya S. You want original sources, see the Book of the Dead for starters. The one interesting thing about the Egyptians, they had four couples at dusk, midnight, dawn, and noon. The things is, even J.C.'s life can be explained like that too. Of course, you are going to say that is not the same Adam/Atum and Eve story. The thing is, it is the same motif.

 

Not only that, the whole book is loaded with various literary tools, such as metaphor, allegory, simile, etc. You cannot take any of it literally. The book of Revelation is of a genre that was popular during it's time and it's call Apocalyptic literature. I've already listed somewhere, I think it was here at least, the various Apocalyptic stories- even the Egyptians had one too, but there were a lot more, credited to specific people. They are not prophesy.

 

Even the Jesus Seminar stated the majority of what was accredited to J.C., J.C. did not say. Truth is, you can find some of what was accredited to him in other sources.

 

All the evidence points to the Bible being nothing but literature. One would have to choose to view it or choose to be blind not see that. I suggest that people dig deep and do their research thoroughly, otherwise they will only get what is spoon-fed to them. The problem is, the Church has been lying to the Vulgar for years and no one has bothered to dig into the mess. That and for centuries the Church has threatened people who tried. Mithra. Dig into that one, and I do mean dig and dig deep. You will really have an eye-opener.

 

You think you've been lied to about government, you haven't seen nothing yet, not until you dig into religion, history of religion (including and esp Xianity) and mythology. You will find the Church is at the bottom of it all and have for 1500 years, at least. They, the ministers, will only tell give you little pieces of what is agreed that can be divulged, but they won't tell you everything. But beware to have on angry minister on your hands when you reveal what you've learned. None of it ever happened- it's all rewritten mythology.

[Auracle]

I agree with LNC that a "god" of any kind could and perhaps should be above moral judgment, however, if a God is above human morality, then it still wouldn't be appropriate of God to command humans to breach the morals they have to obey. If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong, regardless if God commands it or not. I can go as far as to say that God can act anyway he/she/it wants, but humans are still obligated to follow the "absolute morality" (if such exists). So who did wrong in this situation? Perhaps not God, except for giving inappropriate commands conflicting with his own absolute dicta, but definitely the believers who obediently followed the commands to act immoral instead of following the supposedly higher moral law they earlier had received. It only shows how religion makes people morally corrupt.

 

I think that your argument only works if morals are somehow above God. In other words, if morals derive from God and his immutable nature (which by definition is the standard of good), then he cannot command something that is evil as that would violate his nature. However, as was said, God's nature by definition is immutable (unchanging and unchangeable), therefore, he cannot command something that would violate his nature. So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

 

Sounds like nothing more than a fancy-schmancy attempt at enabling God, if you ask me.

 

Btw, how does one "morally corrupt" something?