Jump to content

Jesus In The Nt


thormas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Though not 'my' A grade biblical scholars, they are A Grade critical scholars and they all agree that Jesus existed. If you are more comfortable with saying probably existed, fine - then it must be added that these A graders put it at the highest probability - which means that it is highly improbable that he didn't exist. So, I'm fine with that.

 

"Accepted history is just that, blindly accepted without testing." Say what? Where did that come from? That is not what history is and it is not what historians engage in. Blindly accepted? Hardly. They not only bring their rigorous discipline to it, they are inter-disciplinary, using the insights and findings of other scholars. In the case of Jesus, 'a lot of people' happened to have it right and are in agreement with the A graders. In the case of the flat earth, 'a lot of people' (there might still be a few flat-ers) are also in agreement with other A graders and don't believe the earth is flat.

 

I appreciate anyone who reads widely on subjects of their interest, but I don't characterize it as dabbling: such reading/research is neither casual or superficial.

 

You see no conclusive proof while it is obvious that, it is concluded, for the A graders you refer to (and the vast majority of people) - it is not even a question, his existence is accepted. Even Ehrman (and I mention him because as an agnostic he has no axe to grind) basically considers it a waste of time to debate this issue - he would rather work on other issues. He debated Price because he must be paid about $5k and it all goes to his charities.

 

​I agree with Ehrman, time to move on to more important issues.

 

Thormas, you can have your belief Jesus existed to the highest probability. We disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

Multiple opinions is not what proves something. Evidence is what proves something. Again, we are going around in circles so I'll let it be.

 

I used the term dabbling more as a reflection of myself, but also as I presumed you weren't a professional scholar on the matter but somebody who reads up on the subject. I apologise if it caused any offence - none intended.

 

I giggle a little that Erhmann finds it such a waste of time that he publishes a book about it! :) But I do agree - time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat, here's my take ... Jesus likely existed. How much of what we find in the New Testament can actually be ascribed to Jesus (if anything) is a completely different matter.

 

When does it matter? If we were to take a literal or partially literal view of the scripture in question, then it matters.

If we treat it as metaphor it then becomes what did the later scribes mean by their stories or what they thought history actually meant.

 

And I agree that Jesus likely existed too, Rom, as I have said before. And I certainly agree that what can actually be ascribed to Jesus is a completely different matter.

 

However, I don't think this 'mattering' is restricted to a partial or literal view, but also how it shapes minds and influences opinion, particulalrly if those opinions make laws around their worldview or interpretation of the NT. Worse yet, if they mistakenly answer themselves as to "What Would Jesus Do?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thormas, you can have your belief Jesus existed to the highest probability. We disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

Multiple opinions is not what proves something. Evidence is what proves something. Again, we are going around in circles so I'll let it be.

 

I used the term dabbling more as a reflection of myself, but also as I presumed you weren't a professional scholar on the matter but somebody who reads up on the subject. I apologise if it caused any offence - none intended.

 

I giggle a little that Erhmann finds it such a waste of time that he publishes a book about it! :) But I do agree - time to move on.

 

Me too. I was simply going with your idea of probability and referring to professional historians, reporting the 'facts' regarding this question. I simply think, therefore, this issue is more than mere opinion. I believe Ehrman wrote in good part to take on and refute the mythicists by providing real history and thereafter, if he can make $5k for his charities, go for it.

 

As for dabbling, I just took it as defined: superficial. And I find this reading and study anything but superficial. There are levels of professional scholarship: I was studying this for my Masters when I was teaching theology (and the studying has never stopped). So never, ever at an Ehrman level but far from dabbling. No offense, merely a different take.

 

Time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe Ehrman wrote in good part to take on and refute the mythicists by providing real history and thereafter, if he can make $5k for his charities, go for it.

 

As an aside Thormas, I didn't see anything about Erhman donating the proceeds of his book, Did Jesus Exist?, to charity. You did previously mention him donating $5k from his debate with Robert price though. So just curious if I missed something and/or if Erhman has some sort of blanket condition that he donates all proceeds from his work to charity. A little off-topic I know, but just curious about the bloke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As an aside Thormas, I didn't see anything about Erhman donating the proceeds of his book, Did Jesus Exist?, to charity. You did previously mention him donating $5k from his debate with Robert price though. So just curious if I missed something and/or if Erhman has some sort of blanket condition that he donates all proceeds from his work to charity. A little off-topic I know, but just curious about the bloke.

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring back to the donation from the Price debate and mentioned it (again) since the mythicists were part of the reason he wrote that book.

 

From Ehrman's blog:

 

"I typically charge $5000 or $6000 (or more – depending on the situation) for a speaking engagement, whether that is a lecture or a debate or whatever........... I give every dime of my speaking fees to charity."

 

He also donates all money from his blog to the charities. Books, sort of doubt it, but don't know.

 

 

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring back to the donation from the Price debate and mentioned it (again) since the mythicists were part of the reason he wrote that book.

 

From Ehrman's blog:

 

"I typically charge $5000 or $6000 (or more – depending on the situation) for a speaking engagement, whether that is a lecture or a debate or whatever........... I give every dime of my speaking fees to charity."

 

He also donates all money from his blog to the charities. Books, sort of doubt it, but don't know.

 

 

 

 

Respect to the guy for donating much of his profits. It's only fair that he should make an income so I don't think anybody would begrudge him for keeping book profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service