Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[chefranden]

You misread Paul's admonishment in Colossians, it says, not to be taken captive by deceptive philosophy...thankfully, I have not been taken captive by deceptive philosophy of this world.

 

 

 

[agnosticator]

I pointed out to LNC that he was going against his biblical directives in utilizing the worldly heathens' rational philosophy, and then he responds with irony! He won't get the humor either, I bet. Faith really is blind since he can't see that philosophy threatens the irrational new testament christianity he embraces.

[LNC]

I want to let everyone know that I am on the road for the next two weeks and most likely will not be able to post. I am back on the 20th and can pick it up then if the threads are still live.

 

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I don't use that account in building a case for the resurrection, so I don't know why it is of concern to the argument. Also, you have given no reason, other than an anti-supernatural bias, to not accept Matthew's account as accurate. If you can give me more than an argument from silence or an anti-supernatural bias argument as to why to reject it, then I will consider your appeal as being possibly valid; however, I don't see the need to "move the goalposts" on the acceptance of this account.

Bullshit. You specifically stated earlier in the thread that the majority of biblical scholars agree that everything in the gospels is historically accurate, not myth. Everything means everything. If you admit there's no evidence to support this scripture and you admit this scripture is not important to validate the accuracy of the gospels, then you admit your earlier claim that the gospels are historically accurate and that there is nothing mythological about them is a lie and you must retract your earlier false claim. Either everything in the gospels is historically accurate as you claimed and so these verses are important to validate the historicity of the gospels or if you admit it's not an important part of the gospels to validate, you must admit it's mythological and that the gospels are not historically reliable.

 

 

Where is your grounding for rejecting this account as that of an eyewitness or the relaying of an eyewitness account? You say that proof is not found in the Bible, yet it is a biblical account that we are discussing. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that it is not reported in other Gospels? If so, we have already discussed that and that is not evidence that it did not occur, but merely an argument from silence on your part - that is not proof or your claim. The question is not hard to grasp, but the justification of the basis for your request is questionable. Maybe you can do better to give a valid justification.

 

But again, I don't have to use that account to build a valid case for the resurrection, so to me it is a moot point.

Do you not grasp the concept of circular logic? You can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. That would be like me using the Koran to prove that Islam is true and since you have no non-scriptural evidence that Muhammed was not visited by the angel Gabriel in a cave and given the words of Allah, then surely it must be true that Muhammed was visited by Gabriel and so you must convert to Islam!

 

Did you actually count how many people are associated with them? I count 145, not 200 as you claimed and not all are NT scholars as I said. I think that my point stands.

Whoopedoo, 145 instead of 200. Because everyone knows that 145 scholars is a minority view and the three or four conservative sources you cited must somehow magically be the majority because we live in a magical alternate universe where four is a bigger number than 145. It's obvious you need to go back to kindergarden and learn how to count.

 

I have no unfounded presumptions, I simply look at what a person's field of study and expertise is and judge based upon that like everyone else. Do you have different criteria by which you judge?

Uh, I judge by facts and evidence? So, in other words, you don't judge a scholar by whether or not what they say is true, you judge them by whether or not you agree with them?

 

I am by no means a martyr for the faith, nor do I consider name-calling and insults to be a personal attack against me. I simply consider them for what they are, a smoke screen behind which skeptics can hide the fact that they don't have a valid counter argument for their case. So, I say if all one can do is call names, then it actually gives credence to the arguments that I have made - so, keep them coming.

Again, you have no right to tell us that we can't insult your beliefs yet you can turn around and insult us by making judgment claims that we're all hiding behind smoke screens. It's obvious you're not interested in what we have to say and want to tell us what we really think because you magically know what we think better than we do. Also, last I checked, this was webmaster Dave's site, not LNC's site. If you don't like the way the Lion's Den is run, perhaps you should post in the Colosseum forum instead which is for more serious debates. You'd think the name "Lion's Den" would give you an idea as to what this part of the site is like. If we've posted anything that's violated forum rules, I'm pretty sure the mods would have warned us by now and I would have backed off if I was saying something inappropriate. Given that the mods have not said anything yet, I assume I haven't broken forum rules yet and I don't see why what we've been posting is any worse than what you've been posting.

[Justin]

Such as? If you are going to make these statements, it may serve you well to actually follow it with evidence or an example. It may make your claim seem more reasoned.

 

Right back at you. All you need is a quick search of the internet to see the errors and fallacies in the Bible. We have argued with you till the cows came home and went back out again, providing numerous examples. You just give your typical LNC 'answering a question with 10' response and flat out deny there is a problem when it is starring you in the face. The flat earth and solid sky dome arguement you still haven't said jack on. Only die hard religious fanatics still cling to the ridiculous idea that the Bible doesn't state a flat earth with a solid sky dome covering it. Only die hard fanatics can say with a straight face that the Biblical flood and the creation myth are original and not at all copied from the nearly identical and older Babylonian myths. Only fanatics can say that Leviathan and Behemoth weren't monsters.

 

The is no difference between Christianity and any other religion being debunked. It's only you that continues to argue on and on to the contrary. Just like any mormon who still tries to hopelessly argue his/her faith

 

How do you know that there wasn't an exodus from Egypt? Did some contemporary historian record that there wasn't? What is your evidence? What "contradictory" events do you believe the NT records? How do you know that they are contradictory? Again, you haven't given any specific examples, just vague generalities.

 

How do you know Medusa never existed, or that Poseidon doesn't have a trident or that Godzilla doesn't inhabit the interior of Neptune? Remember, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

 

You ask Han to cite evidence that there wasn't an exodus out of Egypt. Well, just like with the slaughter of the innocents in the NT, something of that horrific magnitude would have been recorded by somebody somewhere. There would be evidence LNC, and you know it. It would be like the Holocaust going unrecognized and unrecorded in the last 60 odd years. I think it's very telling that the major and fantastic events and happenings in the Bible all leave you faithfull empty handed and without proof. That is the very heart of the Bible's claims, the fantastic and supernatural. Without that, it is just a scattering of vague accounts of trible life from the bronze age on up to the Roman era of Israel. The very core of the NT has no meaning if Jesus cannot be proven to be anything more than an ordinary man. Do you see what i'm saying LNC? Without any proof to the main events of the Bible, nothing seperates them from any other old writings or myths.

 

As you mentioned in another post, Pilate has now been found to have existed. So what? My head will roll only when proof of the Bible's supernatural and miraculous events can be validated. Proof of a person means nothing LNC. However, proof of the impossible happening is another thing entirely. Proof of a man named Jesus is nothing, proof that he rose from the dead and was born of a virgin and raised the dead and healed the blind, etc, and the dead went out and preached is earth shattering. But like i said in the above paragraph, all you christians have is ordinary bland stories without any substance or flare to set them apart from Aesop's fables.

[Justin]

Second, you assume very liberal dating for Daniel. The best scholarship dates it in the 5th century B.C., not the second as you state. That dating is based upon the fact that Daniel foretells the desecration of the Temple; however, that is a prophetic vision that Daniel has which naturalists chalk up to knowledge of the actually event. This is simply based upon naturalistic presuppostions. So, the fact that Daniel didn't also foretell other events is not problematic at all.

 

Is it very liberal? Do the best scholars date it to the 5th century B.C.?

 

"Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by most[29] of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century. While a number of conservative scholars accept a sixth century date, "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at least a century ago" [30] Even leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_daniel#Dating_and_content

 

Not just on wiki, but everywhere i look it seems that it is predominatly the hardlined religious who believe it was written in the 5th century instead of the 2nd.

[Justin]

Yes, and maybe aliens hit the guards with stun rays just before the Apostles came to steal the body

 

Did anyone else catch the screaming irony in this? On top of everything else you believe in your holy book, i would honestly not rule out the possibility of you actually believing this.

[LNC]

While normally I would be completely content to let Antlerman take you apart - some of the things you say are so innacurate and outright full of shit that I can't help but respond.

 

Interesting that you seem to think one must be a Greek and Hebrew scholar in order to know or understand the Bible, hence Christianity. That is quite an admission from a Christian. Obviously if this were a divinely inspired work with the words of God, he is surely capable of translating it into clear English, right? Or, maybe that is too much for him. You are very mistaken if you think we haven't read any commentaries.

 

I don't argue that one must be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible; however, one should be familiar with Greek and Hebrew and the usages of each language as that understanding will help a person more accurately interpret the given text. Along with that understanding should be an understanding of the context of the passage within the chapter, book, testament, and the Bible as a whole. Also helpful is to understand the author and audience. In other words, one cannot simply rip a few words from the Bible and try to make them say what they want and believe that they have done justice to the text. That doesn't work no matter what a person is reading.

 

I don't know that God translated the Bible into English, where did you get that idea if that is what you are suggesting? Don't you think that people with a proper understanding of the issues that I discussed above are capable of translating the text? However, with that being said, one cannot convey all of the issues that I describe above merely by translating words from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek into English. So, the reader still has to do some work in order to properly understand and interpret even well translated texts.

 

So, the point that you disputed me on stands.

 

I am sure Antler will be happy to oblige, if he thinks it worth his time. "Pull out a Bible and read it for yourself" as if he hasn't. You are nuts if you think many of us havent' read it many times through.

 

Will you oblige me in this? If not, why not? I haven't seen evidence that the people on this site with whom I have interacted have read beyond the English words on the page to understand the passages in proper context. So, if that is the case, I would need to see some better interactions with the texts to show me that you understand the context and real meaning, rather than sound bites from other skeptics.

 

This is quite insulting to everyone here on this site. What you are really saying is that any understanding of reality that doesn't conform to the Bible must be jettisoned. How's this for questioning assumptions - your statement that you are here for "honest discussions" is a pretence with no grounding in reality.

 

Why, I am willing to do this myself, why shouldn't you? I have not made any assertions to that point. I am willing to test my assumptions and jettison those that don't conform to reality, even if that means that the Bible is wrong. Are you willing to jettison yours if the Bible is right? For example, a few years ago I was a young earth creationist. I then examined the evidence and found that my position was not supportable by the evidence from science, so I moved away from YEC and now hold the position that the universe is ancient. I was and am more interested in pursuing truth than holding views that don't conform to reality.

 

The fact that you are able to post your Christian bullshit on a a site that clearly says "EX-CHRISTIAN" is enough proof that we are not shielding ourselves. As far as being different - hell no, you haven't said anything we haven't heard a thousand times. I don't know you as a person but all I have to judge you by is your writing. Heck, maybe in real life, if you are a person and not a committee, you might even be a nice guy.

 

I wouldn't totally agree with you since I know that people are suspended or kicked off this site when someone on this site is offended by that person's views. I appreciate that people tolerate my presence here, but your attitude doesn't seem to be one who really wants to engage the ideas as much as you want to use epithets about my ideas. As for being a nice guy, I try, but sometimes I fail, and when I do, I try harder.

 

Finally we get down to the threats, which it always is with Christians. We are not afraid. Do you get that? We are not going to be "in peril" if we don't believe Jesus ever existed. By the way, the Bible is not "data". Its a work of fiction. It is not history, it is not eyewitness accounts, it is stories made up a hundered years after the events described. Whether or not you believe it is something more is entirely up to you, but I don't care anymore, having studied it for decades.

 

There was no threat in my post. I am simply saying that if a person doesn't want to spend eternity with Jesus, he will not force the issue with you. I don't know why you consider that a threat as many people with whom I speak say that they would prefer to go to hell rather than be with Jesus for eternity. Is hell a bigger threat to you than spending eternity with Jesus? If so, then maybe that says that you need to think through your position on the issue.

 

Regarding whether the Bible is data, let me ask you, does the Bible have information in it? I am not asking you whether it is true information as that is a different discussion, just whether it has information. If so, then it is by definition, data. Whether or not you consider it a work of fiction, and you have no grounding for such an assertion, it is data.

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible. If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

[LNC]

And why did I say that? Because I tried to wake you up to the possibility that people are discussing these things because of OTHER reasons, or perhaps they get upset of OTHER reasons.

 

So to say that someone is getting upset or arguing because they are not convinced, then you commit a fallacy, since there could be OTHER reasons. Isn't so?

 

And why can both you and I agree to that there would exist other reasons?

 

Because I made you just now admit to it!

 

OK, I will concede the point and admit that there are other reasons that people might be on this site.

 

So can you agree that just like you, people have a lot more reasons to do what they do besides your assumptions? You assume much about people, but you don't like the treatment when you get it back to you!

 

I only turned the argument back to YOU. And you don't like it. Well... welcome to the club.

 

You're the one who should treat people the way you want them to treat you. And so far, we are treating you very much the way you deserve, and yet you don't change your tactics.

 

A mistake is when you do something wrong, but stupidity is when you keep on using the same method repeatedly and expect a different result. Haven't you learned yet that the way you act doesn't fit people here? Haven't you noticed the animosity you raise? Do you really believe it's only because of Jesus? Or could it just simply be your attitude?

 

Sure, I can agree, sorry if I was presumptuous. Now, can we get back to the real discussion?

[LNC]

I've already posted about the conflicts between the the birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, and the post resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Did you not read them?

Did you wave them away as inconsequential?

Apparently you expect to make the same claims over and over and over until everyone on this forum finally just gets tired and let's you run wild with your assertions.

 

And I have posted possible resolutions to those apparent conflicts. Did you read my posts? I don't wave them away as inconsequential, nor do I see them as irreconcilable, nor do most NT scholars. If there were absolutely irreconcilable contraditions in the Bible we would see those headlines blasted across every media outlet. The truth is that these problems have reasonable answers.

 

No, I'm stating the obvious.

I cited several dictionary definitions of a cult and gave specific examples of what the cult leader said and did to fit the attributes of a cult mentality belief system.

 

Saying that you are stating the obvious is mere question-begging and not proving the point. You and I both know that Christianity is not considered a cult by reasonable people and to insinuate that it is is simply to cast aspersions on the majority of Americans who identify with Christianity. You need to do better than to make weak assertions.

[Deva]

I don't argue that one must be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible; however, one should be familiar with Greek and Hebrew and the usages of each language as that understanding will help a person more accurately interpret the given text. Along with that understanding should be an understanding of the context of the passage within the chapter, book, testament, and the Bible as a whole. Also helpful is to understand the author and audience. In other words, one cannot simply rip a few words from the Bible and try to make them say what they want and believe that they have done justice to the text. That doesn't work no matter what a person is reading.

 

But Christians "rip a few words from the Bible and try to make them say whatever.." all the time. In one sense I do agree that if a person really wants to understand the Bible all the Greek/Hebrew studies are necessary since those are the languages it was originally written in, but my main point is that the concept that God would make it necessary to understand his word through all this effort and he couldn't make it more obvious or easy doesn't make sense.

 

 

I am willing to test my assumptions and jettison those that don't conform to reality, even if that means that the Bible is wrong.

 

This statement is untrue. LNC, I have read many of your posts. You have been told many times by many of us why the Bible is wrong, yet you stubbornly ignore the evidence.

 

Are you willing to jettison yours if the Bible is right?

 

I don't have assumptions about the Bible to jettison. After years of reading and study I decided it was false and so I had no reason to further pursue it. To "assume" truth or falsity about the Bible would mean I never took the time to read it or commentaries about it, and just came to a conclusion. That was not the case.

 

For example, a few years ago I was a young earth creationist. I then examined the evidence and found that my position was not supportable by the evidence from science, so I moved away from YEC and now hold the position that the universe is ancient. I was and am more interested in pursuing truth than holding views that don't conform to reality.

 

Congratulations on moving away from YEC, but you still hold views that don't conform to reality.

 

I wouldn't totally agree with you since I know that people are suspended or kicked off this site when someone on this site is offended by that person's views. I appreciate that people tolerate my presence here, but your attitude doesn't seem to be one who really wants to engage the ideas as much as you want to use epithets about my ideas. As for being a nice guy, I try, but sometimes I fail, and when I do, I try harder.

 

Not often. The moderators here are very tolerant. After all, you have been allowed to post many pages. "Your ideas" are no longer "yours" when you believe something like Christianity.

 

There was no threat in my post. I am simply saying that if a person doesn't want to spend eternity with Jesus, he will not force the issue with you. I don't know why you consider that a threat as many people with whom I speak say that they would prefer to go to hell rather than be with Jesus for eternity. Is hell a bigger threat to you than spending eternity with Jesus? If so, then maybe that says that you need to think through your position on the issue.

 

It is a threat. Heaven/with Jesus or hell is a threat. I heard it all my young life. It is ineffective with me, since I don't believe in Jesus or hell. I have thought these things through and none of them correspond to reality. I can't answer your question since it doesn't make any sense.

 

Regarding whether the Bible is data, let me ask you, does the Bible have information in it? I am not asking you whether it is true information as that is a different discussion, just whether it has information. If so, then it is by definition, data. Whether or not you consider it a work of fiction, and you have no grounding for such an assertion, it is data.

 

You must admit most people do not use the word "data" with regard to the contents of a book, unless its a scientific or mathematical text. People don't say "did you see all that data in "Gone with the Wind"? I have plenty of grounds for regarding it as fiction. Others have pointed out to you many reasons why, which you reject.

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible. If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

 

Modern fiction authors set their stories in real cities or towns to add credibility. Why shouldn't ancient ones? H.P. Lovecraft set his stories in Providence, RI, does that mean the Old Ones or the Cult of Cthulhu is there today? The stories in the Bible are equally incredible.

 

Thirty years is still thirty years, decades from when the original event took place. Just to humor me, what fragments are these you are referring to?

[Antlerman]

That's very sly, trying to convince this person that the reason they spend time discussing this is because they have doubts about how they see all of this, that they secretly are concerned about the Wrath of Jesus. Of course it's all based on ill-founded reasoning on your part, or glossing over the reality of why for the sake of making an evangelical ploy. One of the reasons I rejected Evangelicals: insincerity.

 

Anyway, not that you will read this or respond as you haven't my other posts to you. But here's why people here spend a lot of time discussing religion.

 

#1 reason, they are trying to sort it all out for themselves and define how they now see things by addressing head-on those manipulative little tactics used through misquoting Bible verses laced with emotional messages, like fear of rejection by God. To stand up to it is an act of empowerment, reclaiming what was taken from them through manipulators, who say things such as, "But, if Jesus was who he said he was and you are wasting your time trying to convince yourself that he wasn't, you are missing the opportunity that he gives you."

Actually, what I said is true, it was not meant to be a sly trick. BTW, I have never tried to convince you to accept Evangelicals, that is not my concern.

 

I wonder if you are actually reading my posts if you claim that I am not responding to yours. So, let me respond to you point for point lest you accuse me further.

 

1. If anyone is misquoting the Bible and manipulating the meaning of it, it is the people on this site. The main problem is that most here read snippets of the Bible in English language and don't ever go any further. There is no hard work done of trying to understand the passages in context, understanding of the words in their original language, or even reading a simple commentary. You claim that his words were passed down through manipulators but give not a shred of evidence for this assertion. Finally, my statement is true and logical. If you don't think so, then tell me where my logic is missing rather than dismissing it with a mere wave of the hand.

To clarify my statement that you weren’t responding to my posts, that was true at the time I said it from what I had seen. It seems you did respond, but it was time-delayed as I assume you were busy trying to catch up. Check the time stamps of when things were said. You do respond, but hadn’t at the time I made my complaint. Now to your responses:

 

I disagree strongly that people misquoting snippets of the Bible is representative of all people on this site, as your wording suggests “it is the people on this site”. Some people, surely yes, but sure as hell not everyone. That some might make inappropriate quotes from the Bible… well… I attribute it to where they learned the Bible from – the apologists who approach the texts badly themselves. It takes awhile to shake off the bad habits of those who taught them.

 

That you say there is NO hard work being done to understand the Bible, that is utterly absurd and foolish for you to say. I spend a great deal of time seeking knowledge and understanding of it, not from skeptics sites which you falsely accuse me of, but from Christian scholars who take a more liberal approach to the texts, allowing themselves to evaluate it as literature and not some assumed work of perfection that we have to find someway to make it fit that model – as you do.

 

Do you seek knowledge and understanding outside party line apologist material, which you claim that I don't? Do you take and honest look at your faith through the eyes of Christians your church normally dismiss as 'confused'? Or are you looking to see how they're in error, and your views are right? How open is your quest for understanding? As open as you're asking me to be?

 

I refuse to have the parameters of understanding be defined and limited by others. This is why religious faith through the doctrines of the 'orthodox' fails so miserably for me. "God", whatever you want that to mean, becomes limited into the boxes of priests and theologians. More on that later.

 

I don’t go to skeptics sites to build my understandings. Though they have some value, for me it’s a bit limited at times in the overall scope of things I’m diligently trying to understand. It all goes vastly beyond just a case of ‘this is true” or “this is wrong”. So your assumptions about me are plain ignorant. Then there is MWC, whose knowledge and continuing research pales yours in comparison. Then there is Hans, and a whole lot of others here who are anything but just buying into rhetoric of those more hard-core skeptics whom you seem to try to lump the lot of us in with.

 

Your statement about “no hard work is being done” here, betrays your political desire for that to be true, but the facts flatly contradict you. Your logic may be valid based on your premise, but your premise is false so your argument collapses into a lifeless heap.

 

2. You have not shown that you know a lot about the subject, merely that you know what you have read on skeptic websites. I have not seen any sign of actual scholarly interactions with the texts that you cite. I see the same skeptical interpretations on every other atheist and skeptic site. You are merely toeing the line of the Infidels site and every other one of its kind. If you feel like you represent the Bible accurately, then show me the evidence, show me your actual research on the history, the hermeneutics, and the theology; don't be satisfied to simply parrot what Bart Ehrman says. Let's dig into the text and the history and get off the empty assertions. Pull up a website or pull out a Bible and read it for yourself. Read the books all the way through to get the context. Read the NT all the way through (again, if you already have). I am happy to wrestle through these texts with you.

So, because you haven’t seen it, you therefore conclude, pass your judgment with divine and precise insight, that I fit this world of toeing the party line with the skeptic and atheist sites? Ask any one member here on this site if this in any way describes me.

 

I do not parrot Bart Ehrman. In fact I really haven’t read much of him, as my interests about the origins of the Christian faith delves into areas that he doesn’t touch upon. From what I’ve read, even though he has a respectable ability, doesn’t touch into the more social/philosophical perspectives that I see value in. So… once again, you are making leaps in your assessment of me that are false.

 

Why are you so quick to dismiss when you don’t have the facts? More to the point, what propels you to make these assumptions, as opposed to actually trying to understand? Is that about defending your point of view through dismissing critics? An ad hominem???

 

BTW, how many years have you been studying the Bible? I’ve been studying it for 32 years (since you suggested that I open it and actually read it – just wanted to point out that other error you went leaping off to).

 

3. I have no problem with you all getting together to bind one another's wounds, it sounds like some of you have had it rough in your upbringings. But, that discussion should be grounded in truth and truth is grounded in reality. We all need to question our assumptions and check our understanding of reality - our worldview - to see if it matches that reality. When it doesn't, we should be willing to jettison those parts that don't fit and adopt better explanations. I do it in my life and it is part of the reason that I try to have honest discussions with all of you on this site.

These discussions are grounded in truth. They are the truths of our experiences. They really happened. We really feel what we do.

 

Yes, we all need to question our assumptions. This includes you, as I have made clear in what I’ve said above about your unexamined assumptions about me and others of this site. You were plainly wrong. So I suggest you take the spoonful of medicine you just prescribe here and administer it to yourself as well.

 

So are you now willing to jettison your assumptions, or do we need to do this dance again for you?

4. I hope that when you say that it is a safe environment, that you don't mean that you want to shield yourself from other perspectives that may challenge your core worldview. Because, if any of us has our worldview wrong and we try to play it safe with others who think exactly like us, then that is not a safe environment, that is a destructive environment masquerading as a safe haven. I don't shun any of you, nor do I intend to. I hope that you have seen that I interact with you differently than other "Christians" who have come to this site. I respect you and hope you will show the same to me.

 

What I said was not meant to be an indictment against anyone, simply a "gut check" question. Hey, we all want to protect what we believe as it is very personal to us. But, we have to ask questions about our motives and intents. I see a lot of people who use terms like "sky daddy" and say things like that Jesus told people to eat actual flesh and drink actual blood, and other assertions that show that there is an agenda going on with them. My question is simple and logical, if Jesus is who he said he was, then being in rebellion against him would put a person in peril. What we are here to wrestle through, and hopefully we can continue to do that honestly, is whether he was who he said he was. I believe he was and believe that there is good evidence to that effect, others disagree. So, let's keep looking at the data and figure that out.

Thanks for asking. No, in no way whatsoever by saying this is a safe environment do I mean a sheltered one. The more exposure to opposing ideas the better, IMO. We all need to have our assumptions challenged. It keeps us on the path of growth, rather than falling into a pool of rhetoric, and set of doctrines - like we did as Christians.

 

As far as terms like ‘sky daddy’ and whatnot, I accept that people use them for reasons that have meaning to them. I consider it to be a means of reclaiming power to be smash the sacred idols of the past and take power over them in their lives. I’d use the term “Therapeutic Blasphemy”. If they feel to say that, they are supported here to level their criticisms of the religion as they wish to. I don’t feel those symbols hold power over me anymore, and in fact I have very different perspectives on all of it at this point, so where I’m at I don’t feel a need to approach things like that now. At one point it was appropriate, and even now and then I like to tease about it (such as my teasing “Jesus Countdown thread).

 

You say that your question about if Jesus is who is says than we are all in peril if we don’t see things as others do about him (being in “rebellion” as you chose to frame that), is the heart of the matter, is in fact what I did and do object to. First it’s a restating of Pascal’s wager, which has inherent and fatal flaws. And secondly, it preys upon people’s fear. It preys upon the fear of this all powerful God of Love and Contradiction, to send them into darkness and suffering for all eternity for not, essentially, become a member of church (which it really all boils down to).

 

As far as the scope of your whole argument, I think it lacks dimension and understanding. It’s not just a simple matter of agreeing on an understanding of an ancient text from a culture we only have at best an outsider’s perspective on, but delves into the reality of why people believe.

 

People adopt Christianity without being Greek scholars, or even having cracked the Bible open. So why then should that be the criteria for us, and not them? You see? Go there with me, then I will discuss with you. I would welcome a discussion with you on that level. For me, you are hiding behind your theology, and not seeing the true nature of faith, either for that system or elsewhere. Come there with me, if you care to venture beyond the ‘protection’ of your doctrines. If you have truth it will guide you, without needing to quote this verse or that.

[Antlerman]

 

I wouldn't totally agree with you since I know that people are suspended or kicked off this site when someone on this site is offended by that person's views. I appreciate that people tolerate my presence here, but your attitude doesn't seem to be one who really wants to engage the ideas as much as you want to use epithets about my ideas. As for being a nice guy, I try, but sometimes I fail, and when I do, I try harder.

 

Not often. The moderators here are very tolerant. After all, you have been allowed to post many pages. "Your ideas" are no longer "yours" when you believe something like Christianity.

What he's saying is false. People don't get kicked off because their views offend, but if their speech is inflammatory, that is another matter. The harsh response I had, which is probably the first time I've ever slammed my hand down so hard, was based on the way it came across in his word choices, outright implying we support and condone rape and child abuse. That is an offense against us as human beings. Very different than finding someones views offensive to our sensibilities. One is a view, the other an action. I can say I find his view that God plans to shove people into a lake of fire offensive, but he is allowed to share them because its his perspectives.

 

Just to clarify in the hopes that LNC states the facts honestly going forward. I let him back in because he explained to my satisfaction how I mistook his intentions. I would never ban anyone for having views differently than me. I welcome diversity of opinions, but not false or inflammatory accusations.

[chefranden]

...Why, I am willing to do this myself, why shouldn't you? I have not made any assertions to that point. I am willing to test my assumptions and jettison those that don't conform to reality, even if that means that the Bible is wrong. Are you willing to jettison yours if the Bible is right?...

 

Willing? By Thor's Holy Gonads, I was willing. I believed it was right. I studied it from the it was right point of view. I was a Christian a Pastor and Evangelist for 40 fucking years. I discovered it was wrong against my will. I wanted it to be right, but it wasn't right. I told people it was right even as I was loosing my own faith. I didn't think, "gee I'd like to quit being a Christian, I'd better find a few excuses."

 

Much the same can be said of everyone you are arguing with here. So your question is a bit insulting, which is your usual mode of operation.

 

I do agree with you that some middle east archaeology does agree with some bible history. But that doesn't support the supernatural baloney. Historical novels have some actual history in them, but that doesn't make the particulars of their stories true.

[Kuroikaze]

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible. If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

 

Once again displaying your astonishing lack of ability to go beyond simplistic black and white thinking.

[Ouroboros]

OK, I will concede the point and admit that there are other reasons that people might be on this site.

...

Sure, I can agree, sorry if I was presumptuous. Now, can we get back to the real discussion?

Thanks. I appreciate you admitting this. It makes you look a bit more human. People who can't admit their mistakes are narcissists and suffer a god-complex, and it's just a waste of time trying to discuss with someone who is full of themselves. Perhaps the tide is changing?

[centauri]

I've already posted about the conflicts between the the birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, and the post resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Did you not read them?

Did you wave them away as inconsequential?

Apparently you expect to make the same claims over and over and over until everyone on this forum finally just gets tired and let's you run wild with your assertions.

 

And I have posted possible resolutions to those apparent conflicts. Did you read my posts? I don't wave them away as inconsequential, nor do I see them as irreconcilable, nor do most NT scholars. If there were absolutely irreconcilable contraditions in the Bible we would see those headlines blasted across every media outlet. The truth is that these problems have reasonable answers.

Your resolutions were based on wishful thinking and weak assertions.

You want your speculations to be valid history and somehow think that positing any rationalization makes it so.

Much like your version of God, the phrase "reasonable answers" is subjective, based on your personal whims and preferences.

 

I'm stating the obvious.

I cited several dictionary definitions of a cult and gave specific examples of what the cult leader said and did to fit the attributes of a cult mentality belief system.

 

Saying that you are stating the obvious is mere question-begging and not proving the point.

I outlined the characteristics of a cult and the cult leader attributes that Jesus clearly displayed.

No point can ever be proved because you live in your own reality, where you wave your magic wand and determine reality for yourself and then declare it as truth.

 

You and I both know that Christianity is not considered a cult by reasonable people and to insinuate that it is is simply to cast aspersions on the majority of Americans who identify with Christianity. You need to do better than to make weak assertions.

Once again, the word "reasonable" is subjective, just like your "history" and your version of "truth".

I also already gave examples of Christians defining other sects of Christianity as cults.

You ignored that of course and are right back at your usual game, which is dance your jig of "truth", place it on a pedestal and expect others to acknowledge it as such.

[Deva]

Just to clarify in the hopes that LNC states the facts honestly going forward. I let him back in because he explained to my satisfaction how I mistook his intentions. I would never ban anyone for having views differently than me. I welcome diversity of opinions, but not false or inflammatory accusations.

 

Antler, I apologize if I misrepresented your position in my answer to LNC regarding moderators.

[oddbird1963]

I've already posted about the conflicts between the the birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, and the post resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Did you not read them?

Did you wave them away as inconsequential?

Apparently you expect to make the same claims over and over and over until everyone on this forum finally just gets tired and let's you run wild with your assertions.

 

And I have posted possible resolutions to those apparent conflicts. Did you read my posts? I don't wave them away as inconsequential, nor do I see them as irreconcilable, nor do most NT scholars. If there were absolutely irreconcilable contraditions in the Bible we would see those headlines blasted across every media outlet. The truth is that these problems have reasonable answers.

Your resolutions were based on wishful thinking and weak assertions.

You want your speculations to be valid history and somehow think that positing any rationalization makes it so.

Much like your version of God, the phrase "reasonable answers" is subjective, based on your personal whims and preferences.

 

I'm stating the obvious.

I cited several dictionary definitions of a cult and gave specific examples of what the cult leader said and did to fit the attributes of a cult mentality belief system.

 

Saying that you are stating the obvious is mere question-begging and not proving the point.

I outlined the characteristics of a cult and the cult leader attributes that Jesus clearly displayed.

No point can ever be proved because you live in your own reality, where you wave your magic wand and determine reality for yourself and then declare it as truth.

 

You and I both know that Christianity is not considered a cult by reasonable people and to insinuate that it is is simply to cast aspersions on the majority of Americans who identify with Christianity. You need to do better than to make weak assertions.

Once again, the word "reasonable" is subjective, just like your "history" and your version of "truth".

I also already gave examples of Christians defining other sects of Christianity as cults.

You ignored that of course and are right back at your usual game, which is dance your jig of "truth", place it on a pedestal and expect others to acknowledge it as such.

 

I think there is a dimension to the word cult that involves its status in society. There are mainline religions and denominations. There are spin offs from those which have gained more or less accepted status. Then there are the less accepted to scorned sects and spin offs that are given the derisive term "cult" by either the more accepted religious groups or society as a whole.

 

Cult has little to do with the psychological processes or extremes of behavior and more to do with its status with the accepted majorities. Certainly a great many are shunned because of their extreme practices and the psychological harm they do, but in terms of group dynamics and psychology, cults and mainline/accepted religious groups can look very similar in nature.

 

So, I must come down on the side of centauri on this issue.

[Antlerman]

Just to clarify in the hopes that LNC states the facts honestly going forward. I let him back in because he explained to my satisfaction how I mistook his intentions. I would never ban anyone for having views differently than me. I welcome diversity of opinions, but not false or inflammatory accusations.

 

Antler, I apologize if I misrepresented your position in my answer to LNC regarding moderators.

No, I didn't take it that you had. I was underscoring and agreeing with you by including what you said in my response. I appreciated the support, and the truth of it. I was just hoping to clarify for him what my actions were based on, both in going after him and letting him back in. It had nothing to do with not agreeing with views.

[Legion]

LNC I have to admit. As I’ve read through this thread, I am disheartened by the fact that Christianity seems to have such a grip on you. But I am generally impressed that you are able to maintain a relatively kind stance in the face of our onslaught.

 

These days I see irony in your signature line...

 

"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

 

I think ‘truth’ is often a fighting word however, as this thread seems to demonstrate. I like this passage from Proverbs better.

 

Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed. Proverbs 3:13 - 18

 

I don’t know why you come here LNC. But if you desire understanding as I do, then I wish you all the best.

[Ouroboros]

I don't argue that one must be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible; however, one should be familiar with Greek and Hebrew and the usages of each language as that understanding will help a person more accurately interpret the given text. Along with that understanding should be an understanding of the context of the passage within the chapter, book, testament, and the Bible as a whole. Also helpful is to understand the author and audience. In other words, one cannot simply rip a few words from the Bible and try to make them say what they want and believe that they have done justice to the text. That doesn't work no matter what a person is reading.

Agree.

 

But I've met many Christians who do the same, even during the time I was Christian, I met people from all different kinds of denominations doing exactly that. The verses where applied to their belief, not the other way around. Where is God and the Holy Spirit to keep them all in line? Why doesn't God reveal his true intentions for everyone when they read?

 

I used to belong to a Faith movement church, and they used verses to support the belief that God will give you anything, as long as you believe it. ... well, it didn't work so well. But I used to know hundreds of verses to support this view.

 

And over time I have noticed that every Christian do this to some degree, even you. You read the verses using the glasses of your belief, so the verses fit what you think they should fit, and not what they actually might say. And when you're challenged with an alternative interpretation, then it's the other persons fault or error to not understanding your particular view. In other words, you demand others to bow to your interpretation, because you consider that you are right, and others are false. And you should be very careful with this, because one day, you could come crashing down when you discover the card house you built doesn't have a foundation. That's what happened to most of us here...

 

Why, I am willing to do this myself, why shouldn't you? I have not made any assertions to that point. I am willing to test my assumptions and jettison those that don't conform to reality, even if that means that the Bible is wrong. Are you willing to jettison yours if the Bible is right? For example, a few years ago I was a young earth creationist. I then examined the evidence and found that my position was not supportable by the evidence from science, so I moved away from YEC and now hold the position that the universe is ancient. I was and am more interested in pursuing truth than holding views that don't conform to reality.

So you realize that you once were wrong? Did you believe you were right back then? Probably you did, didn't you? Or perhaps you knew already back then that your belief was wrong? If so, why did you believe it?

 

You see the problem is that we all believe we are right at this particular moment in time. But I know this to be a fact, so even if I have opinions and views at the moment, I don't hold them as absolute truths, just because I have lived long enough to see my world-view change many times over. I started as a Pentecostal, then became a Faith movement, then Vineyard, then agnostic, and then atheist, and lastly something between everything. I went through these changes because I learned new things, and now my view is that I know that I might be wrong, but currently I hold certain ideas as probably true. I'm not a hard-core atheist. But I can't believe in something just because it feels good. The only true state is to keep a certain level of doubt and agnosticism.

 

I wouldn't totally agree with you since I know that people are suspended or kicked off this site when someone on this site is offended by that person's views. I appreciate that people tolerate my presence here, but your attitude doesn't seem to be one who really wants to engage the ideas as much as you want to use epithets about my ideas. As for being a nice guy, I try, but sometimes I fail, and when I do, I try harder.

I don't totally agree that we suspend people when they offend someone's view. You're here, still, aren't you? So the sheer presence of you, and that you've been allowed to stay here for so long, would be evidence against your point.

 

It's a very typical Christian persecution complex. They post articles in media and complain about persecution and that they're silenced. The become politicians, and then they complain they're suppressed and kept out of politics. And then they register to non-Christian websites, posts a lot of junk, and complain that they're not allowed to post anything... typical Christian double-speak.

 

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible.

Some they do, some they don't.

 

Like I posted earlier sometime, Jonah went to Nineveh, and supposedly there was a revival. The history of Nineveh is well documented by archeologists, every king accounted for, and nowhere, nothing, nada, ziltch, about a Hebrew-revival. That story is most likely pure fiction, and I've heard historians say as much. So not everything in the Bible is historical and true. Can you agree to that at least?

 

If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

Agree to the dating. The earliest fragment is around 100 CE, and it's probably fairly accurate. But then the fragments are getting quickly closer to 150-200 CE. And since Gospel of Thomas and Q and other sources are dated earlier, and the fragments for the more "filled" stories are dated later, we should (and so does Ehrman, and other historians) conclude that there has been additions to the stories. Things that didn't exist from the beginning. So how much was added? When did the adding start? What was the absolutely first, penultimate, prime story? We can't really know, can we?

[chefranden]

First, any faulty history could be immediately challenged for the more recently deceased person since others who lived contemporaneously could challenge false statements and ideas,

 

How do you know it wasn't immediately challenged? The church reppressed and burned a lot of material once it had the power.

 

Edit: The faulty history of Mormonism was immediately challanged and still is, and yet it is a religion with many believers.

[Ouroboros]

First, any faulty history could be immediately challenged for the more recently deceased person since others who lived contemporaneously could challenge false statements and ideas,

 

How do you know it wasn't immediately challenged? The church reppressed and burned a lot of material once it had the power.

 

Edit: The faulty history of Mormonism was immediately challanged and still is, and yet it is a religion with many believers.

And we do have a religion today that actually do suppress negative information about its beliefs. It's the infamous Church of Scientology. They use copyright and patent laws to shut down videos, books, text, critique and much more. They're constantly challenged, but the challenges are effectively silenced (not the people fortunately, but the actual information) I've read about some of them who came out, and the church sued them for everything they had. If it continues, they'll be mainstream religion in several countries within the next 100 years, and then we'll have people saying: "Well, if it wasn't true, then someone should have challenged the false statements and ideas, and since we don't have any, it all must be true." He's name will probably be LNC-II.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

If the Bible is not history, then you need to explain to me why archealogists keep discovering sites and people that are discussed in the Bible. If it is not eyewitness accounts, you need to explain why historians (and not just Christian historians) consider it to be such. If the stories were made up hundreds of years later, why do we have fragments that date within three decades of when we believe the original to be written? I believe you are claiming to have studied it for decades which makes me wonder how you could come to conclusions that even Bart Ehrman, about whom this thread was started, would not hold.

The Da Vinci Code contains historical sites and people that really exist too but that doesn't mean everything Dan Brown writes is historically accurate, does it? And who are these non-Christian historians you claim agree that everything in the bible is historically accurate? So far I haven't seen you post any other than the Christian sources you've cited earlier and that you keep saying they exist but you haven't told us who. And you need to explain why there's no evidence the Exodus never happened

 

I'm pretty new at studying the Bible and these peoples, so I don't know much about how things worked, but it struck me in the middle of one of my own demands for extraBiblical evidence for some Jesus stuff that it only makes sense that the best accounts of jesus-related experiences would be included in the Bible due to their quality as support, thus becoming scripture. Logically that leaves....what as extraBiblical evidence?

 

Where would you, Neon, expect to find evidence of all this Jesus miracle stuff that would NOT have been included in the Bible?

 

I know I found an interesting answer to this once, but I can't remember the details. I believe the a contemporary historian who tended to record such things, and makes no mention of Yeshua in his chronicles, was named as support for doubting Jesus was who the gospels say he was. I can't remember his name, though. I'm curious as to where, specifically, outside of texts that would logically be included in the Bible, you expect to see references to Jesus if he was who he said he was, or even was just a very important rabble rouser (minus all the miracle stuff).

I believe the historian you're referring to is the Jewish historian, Josephus. But most scholars agree that the part of Josephus' work about Jesus is either partially or completely forged. Ehrman, for example, holds to the view that Josephus' writings on Jesus was partially forged and that it's evidence that a historical Jesus existed, but all the supernatural stuff about Jesus raising from the dead and being the messiah was added by later Christians. But this is the kind of extra-biblical material I would expect to find. Weren't people back then like experts at recording everything that happened or something? If a bunch of Jews were suddenly raised from the dead, wouldn't you expect someone somewhere to have written about it? If we accept Josephus' writings as partially forged, why does Josephus confirm the existence of a historical man named Jesus who existed but does not write anything about all those Jews who were raised from the dead? It's like how in modern times, if you find an incredible story about a celebrity that's too hard to believe in a tabloid magazine, you'd expect reliable mainstream media to report on the news if the story was confirmed to be true. But if the only source of info for the story is the National Enquirer, wouldn't you be a little skeptical of its authenticity? But LNC is probably one of those people who believes there's a liberal conspiracy plot in mainstream media to silence the truth and loves Fox News.