I've just found this topic, and truly I do not have time to read all the posts to date. I've just looked at the first and last pages. I am responding to the OP. Apologies if I repeat any points made in pages 2 - 6.
I doubt that you would agree with many of Ehrman's other positions.
He says that before the NT was written down, specifically the stories of Jesus, the stories were told and retold orally through many links in the transmission, and like the children's game of telephone what emerged at the end was very different from the beginning. In the same vein he points out that for the written accounts what we have are copies of copies of copies through many stages and with each scribe, wittingly or unwittingly, introducing changes. Ehrman moved from fundamentalism as a young man (Moody Bible College) to liberal Christianity and finally to agnosticism, so clearly his scholarship has not convinced him of Jesus' divinity. In one of Ehrman's books, Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet, he argues that Jesus believed the world would end within the generation of his contemporaries. See Matthew 16:28, for instance. "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." I think Ehrman is quite right on this point, and he further says that it is the majority opinion of serious NT scholars.
I grant you the time frame, but it just shows you don't know much about the development of legends. They can spring up immediately. There are lots of stories of miracles being recounted every day about our contemporaries. It's a thriving industry in Pentecostal circles.
My inbox is besieged with legends. For instance, Albert Einstein, a non-observant Jew, who specifically denied the existence of a personal God, is presented as a devout Christian. A pro-Christian, anti-immigrant (anti-muslim) rant is ascribed to Julia Gillard, until recently the prime minister of Australia, and by her own admission an atheist.
One of the most remarkable legends is that of the Angels of Mons. In 1914 a British writer published a fictional story of bowmen from the Battle of Agincourt coming to the aid of British troops in the first World War. To his credit the author, Arthur Machen, always acknowledged that the story was pure fiction, but within a few short months he could hardly convince anyone in Britain that it was not a true story. See the Wikipedia article.
I would concede that the three synoptic gospels preserve a good deal of the authentic teaching of Jesus: the parables, the moral teaching (Sermon on the Mount) and the apocalyptic prophecies which did not come true. However, in general the NT is unreliable as a source of history. It contains historical errors and self-contradictions as I pointed out in another thread.
Why on earth would you think the Bible gives you reliable history? Many of the miraculous stories told of Jesus were also told of Gautama Buddha and of Jesus' near-contemporary Apollonius of Tyana. Do you believe these other miracle stories?
Quote:There's a number of you here that consistently deny that Jesus was a real historical person, which is utterly ridiculous and to that I would encourage you to listen to Bart Ehrman on this one:I'm quite familiar with many of Ehrman's books, and I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a real historical person as he contends. That means (as others have already pointed out) that there was a peripatetic Rabbi Yeshua in that era, who was probably crucified by the Romans. So what?
I doubt that you would agree with many of Ehrman's other positions.
He says that before the NT was written down, specifically the stories of Jesus, the stories were told and retold orally through many links in the transmission, and like the children's game of telephone what emerged at the end was very different from the beginning. In the same vein he points out that for the written accounts what we have are copies of copies of copies through many stages and with each scribe, wittingly or unwittingly, introducing changes. Ehrman moved from fundamentalism as a young man (Moody Bible College) to liberal Christianity and finally to agnosticism, so clearly his scholarship has not convinced him of Jesus' divinity. In one of Ehrman's books, Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet, he argues that Jesus believed the world would end within the generation of his contemporaries. See Matthew 16:28, for instance. "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." I think Ehrman is quite right on this point, and he further says that it is the majority opinion of serious NT scholars.
Quote:Now I'm going to assume that most of you are going to at least agree that Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God.No, I don't agree with the second part. In the three synoptic gospels Jesus uses the title Son of Man (taken from the Book of Daniel) to refer to the apocalyptic figure who is supposed to bring in the end of history. He usually speaks of this Son of Man in the third person, so I am not even convinced that he identifies himself with the Son of Man. There are a few passages where that would appear to be the case, but they may well have resulted from scribal emendation. As for the other gospel of John it is virtually all fiction concocted at a distance of several decades.
Quote:This idea that resurrection is a legend is also debunked in this one single passage. It could not have developed long after Christ's life, what we have here is a very early testament to the Christian faith - and then later Josephus also records independently that it is what Christians believe.I think you meant to say something like "the epistle to the Corinthians was written soon after Jesus' death [i.e., 2 or 3 decades] and that was too soon for a legend to have developed.
I grant you the time frame, but it just shows you don't know much about the development of legends. They can spring up immediately. There are lots of stories of miracles being recounted every day about our contemporaries. It's a thriving industry in Pentecostal circles.
My inbox is besieged with legends. For instance, Albert Einstein, a non-observant Jew, who specifically denied the existence of a personal God, is presented as a devout Christian. A pro-Christian, anti-immigrant (anti-muslim) rant is ascribed to Julia Gillard, until recently the prime minister of Australia, and by her own admission an atheist.
One of the most remarkable legends is that of the Angels of Mons. In 1914 a British writer published a fictional story of bowmen from the Battle of Agincourt coming to the aid of British troops in the first World War. To his credit the author, Arthur Machen, always acknowledged that the story was pure fiction, but within a few short months he could hardly convince anyone in Britain that it was not a true story. See the Wikipedia article.
I would concede that the three synoptic gospels preserve a good deal of the authentic teaching of Jesus: the parables, the moral teaching (Sermon on the Mount) and the apocalyptic prophecies which did not come true. However, in general the NT is unreliable as a source of history. It contains historical errors and self-contradictions as I pointed out in another thread.
Why on earth would you think the Bible gives you reliable history? Many of the miraculous stories told of Jesus were also told of Gautama Buddha and of Jesus' near-contemporary Apollonius of Tyana. Do you believe these other miracle stories?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
