Will Jesus return on a white horse?

[Minimalist]

And yet Ehrman still thinks that there was some shlepper named jesus walking around doing something.

The problem...which all of these "historians" refuse to face is that the only evidence is the fucking gospels themselves. And they tell a story of a miracle worker who rose from the dead.

Ehrman, who rejects that for the absurd propaganda that it is, nonetheless feels compelled to try to dumb down the story into something in which an insignificant preacher gets himself executed. The trouble is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE... not even the fucking gospels...to back Ehrman up on that story.

I've read as many of his books as I can get my hands on and when he stays in his own field of ancient documents he is one of the best. But he is trying to let "faith" dictate his beliefs on an HJ and "faith" is one shitty way to run a railroad.

[Mark 13:13]

And yet Ehrman still thinks that there was some shlepper named jesus walking around doing something.

The problem...which all of these "historians" refuse to face is that the only evidence is the fucking gospels themselves. And they tell a story of a miracle worker who rose from the dead.

Ehrman, who rejects that for the absurd propaganda that it is, nonetheless feels compelled to try to dumb down the story into something in which an insignificant preacher gets himself executed. The trouble is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE... not even the fucking gospels...to back Ehrman up on that story.

I've read as many of his books as I can get my hands on and when he stays in his own field of ancient documents he is one of the best. But he is trying to let "faith" dictate his beliefs on an HJ and "faith" is one shitty way to run a railroad.

What faith last I heard he had lost it. But I could be wrong.

[Minimalist]

Only 'faith' can find evidence of a historical jesus...even a watered down one as Ehrman proposes.

Perhaps the former fundie is having second thoughts?

Or, more likely, trying to drum up book sales among the mentally deficient who would welcome him back to the fold...without of course reading what he actually has to say about their godboy.

[Mark 13:13]

I was hoping minimalist as you have read more of ehrmans material than me you may have had more information about what was the state of play with his religious belief or non belief.

[Cyberman]

Does it really matter what the man's belief may or may not be? Isn't it enough to consider the results of his work without needing to filter it through the lens of whose team he might be on?

[Mark 13:13]

Does it really matter what the man's belief may or may not be? Isn't it enough to consider the results of his work without needing to filter it through the lens of whose team he might be on?

It doesn't I was just curious.

[Minimalist]

I was hoping minimalist as you have read more of ehrmans material than me you may have had more information about what was the state of play with his religious belief or non belief.

Sorry, I cannot help you there.

Ehrman has spent his entire career pointing out the errors, omissions, edits and politicizing of the NT writings over time. Put another way, he has trashed the only documents which tell the alleged story of the alleged godboy and he has done so very effectively.

Now he has always felt that there was some recognizable personage as jesus but, much like Thomas Jefferson, discounted all the miracles and magic tricks and concentrated on the teachings. My point is this, without the magic tricks what is jesus? Xtianity without the resurrection is not very compelling. Basically it is "we had a teacher and he got himself killed." Big deal. Could be talking about David Koresh.

Was there a jesus son of joseph? In first century Judah there had to be a 100 of them as the names were very common. Was there a jesus of nazareth? Probably not. Nazareth cannot be shown to exist in the first century. That is probably a later misunderstanding or mistranslation by Greco-Roman writers. But a jesus bar joseph who does not do miracles and come back from the dead is missing from history. No one knows that better than Ehrman. So why he insists on dumbing down his own stories is beyond me.

[Brian37]

I was hoping minimalist as you have read more of ehrmans material than me you may have had more information about what was the state of play with his religious belief or non belief.

Sorry, I cannot help you there.

Ehrman has spent his entire career pointing out the errors, omissions, edits and politicizing of the NT writings over time. Put another way, he has trashed the only documents which tell the alleged story of the alleged godboy and he has done so very effectively.

Now he has always felt that there was some recognizable personage as jesus but, much like Thomas Jefferson, discounted all the miracles and magic tricks and concentrated on the teachings. My point is this, without the magic tricks what is jesus? Xtianity without the resurrection is not very compelling. Basically it is "we had a teacher and he got himself killed." Big deal. Could be talking about David Koresh.

Was there a jesus son of joseph? In first century Judah there had to be a 100 of them as the names were very common. Was there a jesus of nazareth? Probably not. Nazareth cannot be shown to exist in the first century. That is probably a later misunderstanding or mistranslation by Greco-Roman writers. But a jesus bar joseph who does not do miracles and come back from the dead is missing from history. No one knows that better than Ehrman. So why he insists on dumbing down his own stories is beyond me.

If I had been alive during Jefferson's time and could have debated him, I still would have blasted even his watered down version. He was a deist of some sort, looking at Jesus as, like you said, a teacher of God. But there is no way logically or even scientifically now, to even postulate a non material thinking being, by any name.

Of course there was a movement that started Christianity. The more likely situation, is that the name "Jesus" was used like "Smith or Jones" to start a legend(the upstart challenging authority). There is no contemporary evidence during the alleged time of the Jesus character. And any upstart challenging the powers that be, they would have taken great notice and great notes. Every non biblical reference is after the fact, and the earliest gospels are still after the fact, which would make them suspect and hearsay.

Jesus is a myth invented after the fact to reflect the struggles of a minority. But the magic baby and zombie god stories are bologna which would negate any claim to divinity. Like you said, it sounds like a cult leader got himself killed trying to martyr himself for the cult he wanted to start.

But even before you get to one word of any holy book, they are still stuck with the naked assertion that a magic man with no body or brain or neurons pulls our strings from somewhere, nowhere and everywhere all at the same time.

[Cinjin]

Apparently your god isn't very good at math.

Maybe its just that people are very poor at listening to good advise.

This response doesn't even address what I said, nor does it even make any sense. Who's advice? Yours? Your god's advise? Most importantly, how does my statement have ANYTHING to do with people taking advise??

Since "broad is the pathway to destruction" and he admits that few get into heaven, his delaying of the inevitable isn't exactly saving more people, it's condemning more souls to hell.

To the Christian the belief in free will also means we are responsable for the choices we make not God some would even say that in reality we condemn ourselves by refusing Gods forgiveness even at the end.

Did you actually try selling me that somewhere "in reality" people condemn THEMSELVES to eternal torture?! That's a classic lie by filthy apologists. Sorry pal, Jesus speaks often of Hell, and it is very clear in your little Bible that we (the non-believers) are CAST into hell. We are not escorted or simply "allowed" to step into it. We are put there by YOUR god ... the same guy who created the place supposedly for Lucifer (another one of his own creations). I would never choose hell. Your god chooses it for me ... if I believed in that sort of ridiculous nonsense.

subservient lobotomized slaves to worship him in heaven.

Free will was the answer to this but it comes at a price

I have free will. You sir have none. Being told that I can choose either a lifelong boss or I can be burned with a blow-torch is NOT and never has been "free will."
It's a cosmic shotgun held to the head and if I don't say, "yes yes, you're my lord forever," than I get burned forever.

What a narcissistic bastard you serve.

The God I believe in is far from narcissistic as the image of him hanging on the cross shows

Hanging on the cross a few hours shows what?? How does an immortal being sacrifice his life?? Oh that's right, he doesn't ... he takes a nap.

Listen carefully ... your god could NEVER love you as much as he loves himself. NOT EVER.
You have more compassion and kindness in your heart than your angry desert god EVER could. I'd be willing to bet that you personally would never leave me to burn in a pit of oil if you had the means to save me. I'm willing to bet that you would never let your own children suffer and die simply because they didn't see the world the way you see the world. Mark, you are a far greater being than that horrible god you serve, and I don't even know you. If the story of Jesus were actually true (and of course it's not) all it would mean is that your god is a slave to some mystical blood requirement that absolves mankind of a nature that he gave us in the first place. It's utterly ridiculous and if there is a god I am quite certain that he has absolutely nothing to do with christianity or that collection of lies called the bible.

That same hand will let those rescued fish and all those left behind, fry on a grill.

By refusing to take the help offered wont the fish fry in the sun by their own doing?

Your analogy was terrible to begin with and now it's completely derailed. There is no correlation and you've now created a false dichotomy ... meaning, there are many alternatives for a fish left alone to live it's simple life.
Other problems with your retarded analogy:
1. Fish cannot refuse anything. People can.
2. Fish aren't capable of comprehending salvation from death.
3. There is no proof that the person pulling them from the water has an intention to save them. Their fear of "rescue" is rightfully placed.
4. and this is a big one --- The fish would've been saved without their rescuer requiring their undying loyalty throughout time.
5. ...there are actually many more, but for fucks sake, if you can't make a good analogy, leave 'em alone.

I always find it amusing that christards think that non-believers have never tried their religion.

that's not what I believe but I can't speak for all, I just assume that
some may not have and other may be in a place now that prevents them turning back.
[i]As far as your life goes, did you truly believe? or were you just kidding yourself because at that time you were not in a position to question?

Yes, yes I was a true believer and you have no right or evidence to claim that I didn't. This is a filthy apologist's tool; "You weren't a "True Christian." This of course is why I gave you this link here, which of course you conveniently omitted from your response. Men who have spent decades as certified men of god --- you know, TRUE CHRISTIANS that have finally realized that what they believe is a comforting fairy tale.

and what was the turning point - what changed your mind?

The lie that IS christianity. Your lies .... and of course the piles and piles of evidence that christianity's god is no more unique than any other silly god ever invented on this planet. I was a devout christian nearly twenty years. It's not real. We believe what we want to/need to believe.

I hope my answers don't come over as flippant its just that with so much in one place and so little information on source of comments its hard to give a lengthier thought out response. apologies

Your answers will always be flippant to me - don't worry about it. You can't help it because you cannot see it. You are brainwashed and I forgive you.

Ironic isn't it? I have more forgiveness and mercy in my heart than your god does. I would never condemn you to any punishment, let alone eternal damnation simply for your mistaken thinking.

[Minimalist]

Of course there was a movement that started Christianity.

The trick there is to figure out when "jesus" enters the mix. The earliest Roman source, Pliny the Younger, speaks only of Christ ( christos ) in the first decade or so of the 2d century AD. No, "jesus" anywhere. Suetonius, writing a bit later, mentions Chrestus in Claudius and Christians in Nero but still...nobody names "jesus." Even Tacitus...which is probably a much later forgery does not mention "jesus."

Chrestus was a Greek slave name - meaning "good."

Christos was the Greek transcription of the Hebrew Mosiach meaning "Anointed One" and is thus more a title than a name.

T'is a mystery.