Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Mriana]

I wonder if he's had enough yet? Like I anticipate, it will die not with a bang, but a whimper. The room fills with conversation, forgetting the reason we all came in the first place. It's all an exercise in futility.

 

It is an exercise in futility. What were we talking about anyway?

[LNC]

I found what supposedly happened to sleeping temple guards:

Mishna - Mas. Middoth Chapter 1

...

MISHNAH 2. THE OFFICER OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT USED TO GO ROUND TO EVERY WATCH, WITH LIGHTED TORCHES BEFORE HIM, AND IF ANY WATCHER DID NOT RISE [AT HIS APPROACH] AND SAY TO HIM, PEACE BE TO THEE, SUPERVISOR OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS ASLEEP,12 AND HE USED TO BELABOUR HIM WITH HIS STICK, AND HE WAS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO BURN HIS CLOTHES, AND THE OTHERS USED TO SAY, WHAT IS THE NOISE IN THE AZARAH? IT IS THE CRY OF A LEVITE WHO IS BEING BEATEN AND WHOSE CLOTHES ARE BEING BURNT, BECAUSE HE WAS ASLEEP AT HIS POST. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: ONCE THEY FOUND MY MOTHER'S BROTHER ASLEEP, AND THEY BURNT HIS CLOTHES.

They could expect a beating and possibly have their clothes burnt when their officer came to check on them.

 

mwc

 

Sorry that it has been so long since I posted on this thread, life's been busy and the threads are adding up. Anyway, in response to your post, I think this is good reason to reject the thesis that the guards fell asleep while the body was stolen. It would have been hard to do that while they slept anyway as the heavy stone would have to have been rolled away and that would have awakened them. Also, it seems to work against the argument that the guards were overpowered as well since their lives depended upon them doing their jobs. Thanks for looking this up.

[LNC]

However, there were people by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostles Peter and Paul, etc. I didn't say that the non-Christian historians agree that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, just that they agree that the minimal facts are reliable;...

 

What do you regard as "minimal facts"? Let's play Pick Something Out Of The Bible And Call It A Fact. Sounds fun if you are about 5 years old. Minimal facts - resurrection and Noah's ark?

 

Thanks for asking. Minimal facts would be those facts that are agreed upon by the vast majority of NT scholars and which, when put together, provide enough of a case to reasonably regard the resurrection hypothesis as the best explanation. It is something done by historians. I don't know that I have heard of 5 year olds playing such a game.

[Abiyoyo]

date='23 July 2009 - 06:15 AM[/b]' timestamp='1248347700' post='469755']

date='22 July 2009 - 10:20 PM[/b]' timestamp='1248315616' post='469670']

 

 

 

It's October man!

[Antlerman]

Holy shit! I thought this thread had finally died! It's still alive!

 

 

It's like the Truman Show. "How will it end?"

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for asking. Minimal facts would be those facts that are agreed upon by the vast majority of NT scholars and which, when put together, provide enough of a case to reasonably regard the resurrection hypothesis as the best explanation. It is something done by historians. I don't know that I have heard of 5 year olds playing such a game.

75% agree, 25% disagree. I'm not sure I'd call it a "vast majority." Are you intentionally using charged words to impress and persuade?

 

Obviously you have completely missed that we already sorted the numbers out a long time ago.

[LNC]

So lets say you have committed a crime. You get into court, in front of the judge, and the judge says: I had my son take the punishment instead, and you will be free to go under these conditions:

 

1) you have to believe my son took the punishment for you

2) you have to profess him to be your lord, savior, and king

3) you have to obey me, him, and messenger he will keep on sending you

4) you should read my book daily

5) you should pray, glorify, admire, and worship me, my son, and our messenger

6) you cannot revoke your belief of this salvation, because if so doing, you will nullify the contract

 

Is that a fair comparison to Christian salvation?

 

If the justice system allows for surrogates to step in to take the punishment and the surrogate was qualified, then there should be no problem. Apparently that was the case in Jewish law as animals served as surrogates for punishment for many years. If the judge is not only judge but the maker of the law (which most judges are not supposed to be, though our U.S. judges violate that standard regularly) then I would say that he should be qualified to set that standard. However again, most judges are not in a position to set that standard as they are to interpret the law, not make it. However, in comparing your scenario to the Biblical model here is my response.

 

1) obviously, we would have to believe that Jesus died for us.

2) the Bible tells us that we must confess him as Lord

3) the Bible doesn't make works a necessary condition for salvation and says nothing of obeying his messengers as a condition.

4) reading the Bible is good for edifying our lives; however, is not a condition for salvation.

5) praying and worshiping are part of developing a healthy relationship with Jesus, but not a condition for salvation. We are never told to pray to or worship any messengers.

6) revocation of belief would indicate that the belief was not genuine in the first place since he says that he will never lose one of his own, yet, Jesus did say that many will say to him "Lord, Lord" and he will say "I never knew you," so I would say that this is a sign of belief that wasn't authentic.

 

I hope that helps clarify.

[Antlerman]

 

I was just missing this thread yesterday! I wonder how this reincarnation with compare to previous incarnations.

 

Phanta

It's funny, I was just thinking about it then too.

 

I think we need an expert on the resurrection to explain this reemergence from the dead. Oh...

[agnosticator]

4) reading the Bible is good for edifying our lives; however, is not a condition for salvation.

 

If we didn't read it we would know nothing about Christianity or salvation...

 

 

revocation of belief would indicate that the belief was not genuine in the first place...

 

I (and I'm sure many others here) am insulted by your condescending ignorance. If there is no such thing as an ex-christian in your mind, then the only real reason you continue to remain on this site is for evangelism. Wait, there is another reason to add...you are full of yourself. I think the Bible calls that "haughty".

[Antlerman]

4) reading the Bible is good for edifying our lives; however, is not a condition for salvation.

 

If we didn't read it we would know nothing about Christianity or salvation...

 

 

revocation of belief would indicate that the belief was not genuine in the first place...

 

I (and I'm sure many others here) am insulted by your condescending ignorance. If there is no such thing as an ex-christian in your mind, then the only real reason you continue to remain on this site is for evangelism. Wait, there is another reason to add...you are full of yourself. I think the Bible calls that "haughty".

 

It's like I've always said, he has an arguement. And all this obsessive behavior of his trying to answer each and every arguement is to try to cover over the sad fact that for all his proofs, and for all his arguments of truth, he doesn't have it because it doesn't live in his heart. He masks that lack with his argument. This whole display of LNC is a naked exposure of his emptiness. This is all about him and his lack.

 

But it provides a sharpening stone for others to hone their swords, so it has a purpose. That, and as a profound example of the desperation of some to fill the void with theologies instead of spirit. If he in fact "heard" truth, he would never say that to any of us. He proves himself both the intellectual fool, and the spiritually crippled. Religion and apologetics is his God.

[LNC]

Acts 10, Peter's vision?[/quote}

 

It never says that this was a vision of Jesus. It simply indicates that Peter had a vision. Peter responds with “By no means, Lord," however, that term does not necessarily mean that he was hearing from Jesus.

 

Aaah! I'm starting to understand your view of "absolute." It's something that changes. Right? It's absolutely changing depending on God's decision, and is not absolutely the same all the time. I get it.

 

Morality is absolute, laws may change, I see no conflict in that. The people didn't have the Law until Moses; however, that doesn't mean that that is when God established morality, nor does it mean that people weren't responsible for living moral lives until that time.

 

So revelation from God is so clear that people misconstrue it? Why should we trust Jesus, Paul, or you to know what the correct understanding is, or which one of you got the right revelations of things? Should we just believe you to be correct?

 

People have minds that are tainted by sin, so yes we can misconstrue God's revelation, or simply ignore it. That says nothing about God, it says much about us. I believe that Jesus gave many signs to show his authority, the greatest of which was the resurrection from the dead. However, he was recognized as having lived a just and sinless life, something that no one had done before or has done since. As for Paul, he had direct revelation from Jesus. I don't ask you to necessarily trust me, you can check what I am saying against the Bible and if I am in error or telling you something contrary to the Bible, trust it rather than me. Be like the Bereans and test what I have said against the Scriptures.

[Mriana]

Holy shit! I thought this thread had finally died! It's still alive!

 

 

It's like the Truman Show. "How will it end?"

 

I thought it had too. I had not realized just how many posts were here since I replied last, until tonight. It's really getting old.

[agnosticator]

It's like I've always said, he has an arguement. And all this obsessive behavior of his trying to answer each and every arguement is to try to cover over the sad fact that for all his proofs, and for all his arguments of truth, he doesn't have it because it doesn't live in his heart. He masks that lack with his argument. This whole display of LNC is a naked exposure of his emptiness. This is all about him and his lack.

 

But it provides a sharpening stone for others to hone their swords, so it has a purpose. That, and as a profound example of the desperation of some to fill the void with theologies instead of spirit. If he in fact "heard" truth, he would never say that to any of us. He proves himself both the intellectual fool, and the spiritually crippled. Religion and apologetics is his God.

 

LNC is a Neo-Pharisee and he's like the white sepulcher full of dead men's bones.

 

I have learned a few things from the arguments, so you are right that it serves a good purpose. He just doesn't know when to quit! Maybe he's from THE DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT in Apologetics University of Fundagelicals?

[centauri]

2) the Bible tells us that we must confess him as Lord

3) the Bible doesn't make works a necessary condition for salvation and says nothing of obeying his messengers as a condition.

This is inconsistent.

First you say that people must confess Jesus as Lord.

Then you say works aren't a necessary condition for salvation.

Confessing is an affirmative action on the part of the believer and as such would be a work performed by them.

The Bible also states that people must repent, be baptized, maintain their belief, and perform at least some good works to have salvation through Jesus.

These are all works because they require the believer to take deliberate affirmative actions to qualify for salvation.

These actions are not automatic reflexes that happen without effort on the part of the believer.

 

6) revocation of belief would indicate that the belief was not genuine in the first place since he says that he will never lose one of his own, yet, Jesus did say that many will say to him "Lord, Lord" and he will say "I never knew you," so I would say that this is a sign of belief that wasn't authentic.

If a child firmly believes in Santa Claus, later grows up and rejects this belief, was the belief not genuine in the first place?

In the case of Christianity, authentic belief is vague concept.

Every sect has its own definition of what authentic means and many sects have no problem accusing competing sects of not having authentic faith.

Yet they all claim to be true Christians.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

But it provides a sharpening stone for others to hone their swords, so it has a purpose.

But wouldn't your sword eventually get a dent from poking LNC too many times?

[Antlerman]

 

 

But it provides a sharpening stone for others to hone their swords, so it has a purpose.

But wouldn't your sword eventually get a dent from poking LNC too many times?

I've exchanged my sword, though it still hangs on the wall. Everyone determines when the sword is better on the wall than in the sheath. LNC is transparent. He is weak.

[Auracle]

 

6) revocation of belief would indicate that the belief was not genuine in the first place since he says that he will never lose one of his own, yet, Jesus did say that many will say to him "Lord, Lord" and he will say "I never knew you," so I would say that this is a sign of belief that wasn't authentic.

 

 

I don't remember if anyone's asked you this before, but when a child stops believing in Santa Claus as they mature, does that mean that the belief wasn't real?

[LNC]

As I pointed out, Christianity has the key attributes of a cult, while it often denounces other beliefs as false because they have the same attributes.

Christianity even calls some of its own sects cults.

The point being that the bulk of your evidence comes from cult writings, not some superior form of established history.

 

I see no reason to carry on this discussion with you as you don't seem to respond to my posts. You have your mind made up and you are welcome to believe what you like. Maybe I will call you a member of the Christianity is a cult cult.

[centauri]

As I pointed out, Christianity has the key attributes of a cult, while it often denounces other beliefs as false because they have the same attributes.

Christianity even calls some of its own sects cults.

The point being that the bulk of your evidence comes from cult writings, not some superior form of established history.

 

I see no reason to carry on this discussion with you as you don't seem to respond to my posts. You have your mind made up and you are welcome to believe what you like. Maybe I will call you a member of the Christianity is a cult cult.

Christianity fits the definition of a cult much more precisely than the cult you just attempted to define and place me in.

I have responded to your claims by pointing out that the bulk of your evidence for the resurrection comes exclusively from cult writings, specifically those approved of by male clerics living long after the great event was to have taken place.

These writings were designed to sell a product and the image of an authority figure called "Jesus", who was the alleged leader of this cult.

The fact is that you have repeatedly used these writings to establish history, in an effort to validate events that you want all people to accept as "facts".

History according to a cult agenda isn't (nor should be) automatically deemed valid.

[Neon Genesis]

Why is LNC throwing a hissy fit over a post made three months ago? He's one to talk about ignoring what people say. He's been posting in this thread for three months now and he's still repeating the same arguments and not listening to anybody. At this rate, he'll probably throw a hissy fit over my post a year from now if I'm lucky.

[LNC]

Verbatim from the NIV:

Mark 7:18-19(NIV)

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

 

Verbatim from the NLT:

Mark 7:18-19((NLT)

“Don’t you understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you?

Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

 

To say that by this Jesus is declaring all foods to be ceremonially clean for the Jews is to misrepresent the context of the passages. Jesus is saying that it is not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out of us (speaking of our thoughts and deeds). Obviously, the Jews and the early Christians didn't understand Jesus as declaring all foods to be clean at that point. Peter, when he saw a vision of animals considered by Jews to be unclean, was told to kill and eat. He responded, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10:14) If he had understood Jesus as having declared all foods clean in these passages, he shouldn't have had the hesitation that he did caused by the vision. Certainly, in the Acts account all foods were declared to be clean; however, I don't think that the case can be made from the Mark passages as that wasn't Jesus' intent in these statements.

 

And this is the usual out used by apologists.

Jesus can do whatever he wants.

The "Jesus is God" claim is undermined by the Bible.

Although you employ wishful thinking in making such assertions, Jesus declared several times that he had a God, did not know everything God knows, and was subservient to God.

A subservient being doesn't undermine the rules of the Father.

 

How does the Bible undermine the claim that Jesus is God? He clearly made statements that were understood to the Jews to that effect and was ultimately crucified for that reason. "The Jews answered him, 'We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.'” (John 19:7) There is no conflict between Jesus being God and being obedient to the Father. Nor is it the case that Jesus undermined the the rules of the Father. He was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18)

 

Contrary to your incredibly convoluted apologetic, the scripture clearly says otherwise.

You don’t uphold the dietary law by telling people that all foods are acceptable to eat.

Jesus did not make the dietary law more restrictive, but less restrictive.

The Pharisees weren’t the ones that tampered with the law in that passage, it was Jesus.

In other words, it was Jesus that ignored the words of God through Moses, not the Pharisees.

 

By what standard do you say that a sovereign cannot change his own ceremonial laws? Do you know the difference between ceremonial and moral laws? Do you know the purpose of ceremonial laws? How can Jesus ignore his own words? Maybe you could address these questions.

[LNC]

You need to go back and read your bible. Didn't one of the thieves get a shortcut to heaven because he said Jesus was a nice man?

 

No. You may want to go back and reread that account. There is nothing there to indicate that that was the basis of Jesus inviting him to paradise.

 

So is Anne Frank going to hell because she was a Jew and not a Christian or not? Why do you keep ignoring my questions?

 

I don't know where Anne Frank stood with the Lord, do you have some inside information of which I am not aware? Which questions have I ignored?

 

Acts 10:9-16

 

I believe that the reference was to something Jesus said before the cross. We don't know for sure that it was Jesus whom Peter saw in the vision. However, at that point Jesus had all authority to change the ceremonial laws (Matt. 28:18), so I see no problem with it being Jesus if that is who it was.

 

Are you going to question the "great historian" Luke?

 

No. However, I will question your interpretation of Luke and the applicability of this account to the original question.

 

To some degree, LNC is right that Jesus didn't repeal the old law but simply revised as Jesus said in Matthew 5 that the old law applies until the end of time. But this doesn't mean Jesus made the old law more restrictive nor does this mean Jesus is God which by the way he never says he is in the bible and the Trinity was just made up by the Catholics. What it means is Jesus is a cherry picker who follows the laws when it's convenient for him and discards them when they're not just like all Christians do today.

 

You need to reread the Sermon on the Mount. Every time it says, "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you" it was a further refinement of the law making it more restrictive than the people were interpreting it. It really wasn't a change in the law or even a refinement of the law, it was more of a clarification of the way the law was originally to be interpreted.

 

You are also mistaken in saying that Jesus never claimed to be God as he clearly did a number of times. Check out the following: Matthew 26:63-66; John 8:48-58; John 10:30. Jesus forgave sins, he taught with authority that is reserved for God alone. There are a number of other ways that Jesus made it clear that he was God. Ultimately, he was crucified for these claims, so the Jews understood them as well (not to mention the number of times they tried to stone him for blasphemy as he made himself equal with God.) Also, your claim that the Catholics made this belief up is clearly fallacious as the NT writers were proclaiming Jesus as God and this was a common teaching of the early church.

[NotBlinded]

You are also mistaken in saying that Jesus never claimed to be God as he clearly did a number of times. Check out the following: Matthew 26:63-66; John 8:48-58; John 10:30. Jesus forgave sins, he taught with authority that is reserved for God alone. There are a number of other ways that Jesus made it clear that he was God. Ultimately, he was crucified for these claims, so the Jews understood them as well (not to mention the number of times they tried to stone him for blasphemy as he made himself equal with God.) Also, your claim that the Catholics made this belief up is clearly fallacious as the NT writers were proclaiming Jesus as God and this was a common teaching of the early church.

I want to chew this up and spit it out, but it wouldn't do any good, so I won't. Enjoy your delusion.

 

 

Poor Jesus...sometimes I feel sorry for the dead guy. The good news never got out.

[centauri]

Verbatim from the NIV:

Mark 7:18-19(NIV)

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

 

Verbatim from the NLT:

Mark 7:18-19((NLT)

“Don’t you understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you?

Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

 

To say that by this Jesus is declaring all foods to be ceremonially clean for the Jews is to misrepresent the context of the passages. Jesus is saying that it is not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out of us (speaking of our thoughts and deeds). Obviously, the Jews and the early Christians didn't understand Jesus as declaring all foods to be clean at that point.

Paul understood it to mean that all foods were clean and echoed the same decree.

A denial of Jesus declaring all foods clean in Mark 7 is to deny the validity of the Christian translations and the revelations of Paul.

According to hundreds of scholars at the NIV and NLT, all foods were declared clean by Jesus.

These passages are also used by Christian preachers to justify eating pork products and shellfish.

 

Peter, when he saw a vision of animals considered by Jews to be unclean, was told to kill and eat. He responded, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10:14) If he had understood Jesus as having declared all foods clean in these passages, he shouldn't have had the hesitation that he did caused by the vision. Certainly, in the Acts account all foods were declared to be clean; however, I don't think that the case can be made from the Mark passages as that wasn't Jesus' intent in these statements.

Who says that the version of Peter portrayed in Acts was even aware of the passages in Mark 7?

Luke doesn’t show Jesus making this decree in nearly the same sweeping degree.

 

centauri:

And this is the usual out used by apologists.

Jesus can do whatever he wants.

The "Jesus is God" claim is undermined by the Bible.

Although you employ wishful thinking in making such assertions, Jesus declared several times that he had a God, did not know everything God knows, and was subservient to God.

A subservient being doesn't undermine the rules of the Father.

 

LNC:

How does the Bible undermine the claim that Jesus is God? He clearly made statements that were understood to the Jews to that effect and was ultimately crucified for that reason. "The Jews answered him, 'We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.'” (John 19:7) There is no conflict between Jesus being God and being obedient to the Father.

Jesus himself indicates that he isn’t God in John 20:17.

In Revelation, Jesus has a God even after he had ascended to heaven and says that he has a God, declaring it four times in one verse.

There is a conflict between Jesus being subservient to the Father as the members of the Trinity are defined as co-equal, none being less than the other.

Jesus allegedly takes instruction from the Father who is his superior.

There is a hierarchy system in place between the Father and Jesus.

Jesus doesn’t know all that the Father knows, which renders him unequal to the Father.

Jesus sits outside of the Father, which makes him separate from the Father.

 

Nor is it the case that Jesus undermined the the rules of the Father. He was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18)

Where do the Hebrew scriptures validate and confirm that a king messiah would change God’s laws and be given full authority to do so?

 

centauri:

Contrary to your incredibly convoluted apologetic, the scripture clearly says otherwise.

You don’t uphold the dietary law by telling people that all foods are acceptable to eat.

Jesus did not make the dietary law more restrictive, but less restrictive.

The Pharisees weren’t the ones that tampered with the law in that passage, it was Jesus.

In other words, it was Jesus that ignored the words of God through Moses, not the Pharisees.

 

LNC:

By what standard do you say that a sovereign cannot change his own ceremonial laws? Do you know the difference between ceremonial and moral laws? Do you know the purpose of ceremonial laws? How can Jesus ignore his own words? Maybe you could address these questions.

You haven’t established that Jesus was a sovereign or that he had authority to change God’s laws.

For that matter you haven’t established that he was a valid king messiah sent by the god of the Hebrews.

But placing that aside for the moment, where do the Hebrew scriptures validate and confirm that a king messiah would change God’s laws and be given full authority to alter laws?

Please provide proof from the Hebrew scriptures that the food laws delivered to Moses by God were only ceremonial and not part of a moral code that was to be adhered to in perpetuity.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Paul understood it to mean that all foods were clean and echoed the same decree.

A denial of Jesus declaring all foods clean in Mark 7 is to deny the validity of the Christian translations and the revelations of Paul.

According to hundreds of scholars at the NIV and NLT, all foods were declared clean by Jesus.

These passages are also used by Christian preachers to justify eating pork products and shellfish.

 

 

I can't remember if it was Borg or Ehrman that said it, but the explanation I've heard is that this verse is unlikely to date back to the historical Jesus and more likely represents the beliefs of Mark's community. The reason for this was that in Matthew 5, Jesus says the old law still applies until the end of time and you're supposed to be more righteous than the Pharisees, and verses that are inconvenient to a Christian view are more likely to be true than those that aren't. Also, it was pointed out that if this verse was historical, then the early church would never have had a debate over whether or not Gentiles should follow the old law because then Jesus' view on it would have been clear. Also, Acts was written not to be historical but it was written to make Peter and Paul seem like they had a better relationship than they really did. Basically, the purpose of Acts is to make Paul look good.