Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[youkrst]

Sometimes the 'prayers' you make when joking reflect what is really going on in your heart.

yes and sometimes the patronising BS in your posts reflect what is really going on in yours Doulos. to wit...

The Bible never says there are things wrong with having questions, doubts or even anger. If you read the Psalms, many begin with very honest cries addressed to God.

oh i never thought of that uncle Doulos, geez in decades of bible study i never noticed, but now you've pointed it out to me in your kindness and niceness why the whole bible will be like a new book. of course i'll have to take it more literally which will probably lead to guilt followed by anguish and an endless cycle of falling short and repenting until i'm some kind of psychological quasimodo but with the sweet fellowship of Doulos ant and Stahwre it will all be worth it. (not to mention historical jesus, cant wait to talk sandals and togas)

God already knows our hearts. There's nothing wrong with being honest with Him. Or each other.

ok, i'm sick to death of patronising halfwits who think there miniscule ill-informed outlook is a vision splendid, who think that their pathetic literalised monstrosity of a deity could be anything more than the distilled puerility of a retarded 12 year old. it never occurs to them that they may have misinterpreted their own experience. it never occurs to them to read other religions and other mythologies so they can see for themselves the striking similarities and obvious metaphors. no they are smug and secure in the conviction that historical jesus can save them and if that means some people burn in hell forever well thats ok cause they didn't repent of their sins and trust in my jesus. (even though they were born in a hindu village and never heard of jesus so when they had their tremendous experience they naturally thought it was krishna)

look Doulos, it's not you personally, you seem like a swell guy, but i've been around a while, and the older i get the more i feel like screaming "f*ck off you literalist morons, come back when you get a clue" "i dont want your literalist jesus, i already tried him for two decades and he is a total failure - a monstrous perversion of sublime allegory"



here is an old buddhist story about a disciple - see any similarities to the story of simon peter?

Coming to the river where the water was deep and the current strong, he said to himself: "This stream shall not prevent me. I shall go and see the Blessed One, and he stepped upon the water which was as firm under his feet as a slab of granite. When he arrived at a place in the middle of the stream where the waves were high, Sariputta's heart gave way, and he began to sink. But rousing his faith and renewing his mental effort, he proceeded as before and reached the other bank.

The people of the village were astonished to see Sariputta, and they asked how he could cross the stream where there was neither a bridge nor a ferry. Sariputta replied: "I lived in ignorance until I heard the voice of the Buddha. As I was anxious to hear the doctrine of salvation, I crossed the river and I walked over its troubled waters because I had faith. Faith. nothing else, enabled me to do so, and now I am here in the bliss of the Master's presence."

The World-honored One added: "Sariputta, thou hast spoken well. Faith like thine alone can save the world from the yawning gulf of migration and enable men to walk dryshod to the other shore."

IT'S A METAPHOR

Wherever that truth may lead...

[youkrst]

Hey Doulos

maybe you and i should take a different approach. (with you being less patronising and me being less bristly)

we could co-operate

we could start a thread in which i point out various bits and pieces that indicate the jesus myth being a myth and you could counter with why it's not (sort of give a defense or reason for the hope that lies within you.)

and conversely you could point out ...etc etc

[tat tvam asi]

I guess that's always the crux of the matter isn't it Tat?

Do we trust ourselves, and our own desires and gut, or do we trust God? Is God real? Is He trustworthy? Is God represented by the God of the Bible?

These questions are not solved by myth, but by exploration of truth though. Wherever that truth may lead...

Yes, and the "truth" has led me towards understanding the polytheistic origins of ancient Judaism and how a tribal deity called YHWH was eventually elevated above and beyond the other deities to supreme deity status. And then everything was tainted and reworked thereafter towards the angle that YHWH had been the universal deity all along, when the forefront of archaeological inquiry has found other wise. And of course this mythological tribal deity is poured straight into the Christ myth later not only as if YHWH (yud, hey, vav, hey) were the universal deity all along, but also as if he came down to earth in the form of Yeshua (yud, hey, vav, shin, ayin).

Like they say in Avatar, "I see you."

Do I believe that the God of the bible represents the reality of God?

No, I actually lack belief in that assertion completely. And with good reason. And I also lack belief in the divinity of the gospel Jesus and I'll also go far as to take an agnostic position on the historicity of the Jesus fable. This is what mythicism boils down to. It's about taking the path of "truth" and declaring honestly that "I don't know."

Ehrman doesn't know.
You don't know.
Nobody really knows for certain.

Everyone who claims to "know" is essentially lying. They at best have faith in an "unknown" and what may prove to be "unknowable" altogether. Ehrman has faith that he can trust the late written gospel stories to some degree for historical accuracy, while discrediting the accuracy of the rest of it. Ehrman has not left faith behind completely, as you can see by this line of reasoning. Ehrman is currently a man of faith and his new book is hardly anything more than an article of faith in the historicity of the Jesus tale.

So what bothers me about all of this is that most people don't want to be up front and declare boldly to the public that there's no real science to any of this, it's squarely a matter of faith.

[Doulos]

Sometimes the 'prayers' you make when joking reflect what is really going on in your heart.

yes and sometimes the patronising BS in your posts reflect what is really going on in yours Doulos. to wit...

The Bible never says there are things wrong with having questions, doubts or even anger. If you read the Psalms, many begin with very honest cries addressed to God.

oh i never thought of that uncle Doulos, geez in decades of bible study i never noticed, but now you've pointed it out to me in your kindness and niceness why the whole bible will be like a new book. of course i'll have to take it more literally which will probably lead to guilt followed by anguish and an endless cycle of falling short and repenting until i'm some kind of psychological quasimodo but with the sweet fellowship of Doulos ant and Stahwre it will all be worth it. (not to mention historical jesus, cant wait to talk sandals and togas)

God already knows our hearts. There's nothing wrong with being honest with Him. Or each other.

ok, i'm sick to death of patronising halfwits who think there miniscule ill-informed outlook is a vision splendid, who think that their pathetic literalised monstrosity of a deity could be anything more than the distilled puerility of a retarded 12 year old. it never occurs to them that they may have misinterpreted their own experience. it never occurs to them to read other religions and other mythologies so they can see for themselves the striking similarities and obvious metaphors. no they are smug and secure in the conviction that historical jesus can save them and if that means some people burn in hell forever well thats ok cause they didn't repent of their sins and trust in my jesus. (even though they were born in a hindu village and never heard of jesus so when they had their tremendous experience they naturally thought it was krishna)

look Doulos, it's not you personally, you seem like a swell guy, but i've been around a while, and the older i get the more i feel like screaming "f*ck off you literalist morons, come back when you get a clue" "i dont want your literalist jesus, i already tried him for two decades and he is a total failure - a monstrous perversion of sublime allegory"



here is an old buddhist story about a disciple - see any similarities to the story of simon peter?

Coming to the river where the water was deep and the current strong, he said to himself: "This stream shall not prevent me. I shall go and see the Blessed One, and he stepped upon the water which was as firm under his feet as a slab of granite. When he arrived at a place in the middle of the stream where the waves were high, Sariputta's heart gave way, and he began to sink. But rousing his faith and renewing his mental effort, he proceeded as before and reached the other bank.

The people of the village were astonished to see Sariputta, and they asked how he could cross the stream where there was neither a bridge nor a ferry. Sariputta replied: "I lived in ignorance until I heard the voice of the Buddha. As I was anxious to hear the doctrine of salvation, I crossed the river and I walked over its troubled waters because I had faith. Faith. nothing else, enabled me to do so, and now I am here in the bliss of the Master's presence."

The World-honored One added: "Sariputta, thou hast spoken well. Faith like thine alone can save the world from the yawning gulf of migration and enable men to walk dryshod to the other shore."

IT'S A METAPHOR

Wherever that truth may lead...

Looks like I hit a nerve.

[Doulos]

Hey Doulos

maybe you and i should take a different approach. (with you being less patronising and me being less bristly)

we could co-operate

we could start a thread in which i point out various bits and pieces that indicate the jesus myth being a myth and you could counter with why it's not (sort of give a defense or reason for the hope that lies within you.)

and conversely you could point out ...etc etc

Sure youkrst, though as I've said to Interbane, I'm trying to reduce my forum time at the moment. I enjoy the intellectual challenge, but I've got some major IRL stuff happening right now. I'll take you up on this a bit later when I have more free time.

[Doulos]

I guess that's always the crux of the matter isn't it Tat?

Do we trust ourselves, and our own desires and gut, or do we trust God? Is God real? Is He trustworthy? Is God represented by the God of the Bible?

These questions are not solved by myth, but by exploration of truth though. Wherever that truth may lead...

Yes, and the "truth" has led me towards understanding the polytheistic origins of ancient Judaism and how a tribal deity called YHWH was eventually elevated above and beyond the other deities to supreme deity status. And then everything was tainted and reworked thereafter towards the angle that YHWH had been the universal deity all along, when the forefront of archaeological inquiry has found other wise. And of course this mythological tribal deity is poured straight into the Christ myth later not only as if YHWH (yud, hey, vav, hey) were the universal deity all along, but also as if he came down to earth in the form of Yeshua (yud, hey, vav, shin, ayin).

Like they say in Avatar, "I see you."

Do I believe that the God of the bible represents the reality of God?

No, I actually lack belief in that assertion completely. And with good reason. And I also lack belief in the divinity of the gospel Jesus and I'll also go far as to take an agnostic position on the historicity of the Jesus fable. This is what mythicism boils down to. It's about taking the path of "truth" and declaring honestly that "I don't know."

Ehrman doesn't know.
You don't know.
Nobody really knows for certain.

Everyone who claims to "know" is essentially lying. They at best have faith in an "unknown" and what may prove to be "unknowable" altogether. Ehrman has faith that he can trust the late written gospel stories to some degree for historical accuracy, while discrediting the accuracy of the rest of it. Ehrman has not left faith behind completely, as you can see by this line of reasoning. Ehrman is currently a man of faith and his new book is hardly anything more than an article of faith in the historicity of the Jesus tale.

So what bothers me about all of this is that most people don't want to be up front and declare boldly to the public that there's no real science to any of this, it's squarely a matter of faith.

Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

[Doulos]

...about your assertion that Christian hatred of Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'
How do you see this in light of the Jewish origins of Jesus and the early church?

My view is that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other Gospels were primarily based for their story of a historical Jesus, was probably written in Alexandria in Egypt after the exodus of the Jews from Israel following the Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Christianity was originally aimed at linking Jews and Greeks as 'all one in Christ Jesus' as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:28. However, over time Christianity became primarily a religion for non-Jews, since continuing Judaism rejected the messianic claims around Jesus. Across the diaspora, the Jews retained a tribal identity through Torah and synagogue. As Christianity evolved into an imperial religion, providing moral legitimacy for Christendom, the existence of Jews as unbelievers in Christ became more of an anomaly.

The anti-Semitic lines in the Bible, especially Matthew's blood guilt line at 27:25, then came to serve a racist propaganda purpose. My view is that the Gospel authors sought to blame the Romans and the Jews equally for failing to understand Christ. However, as Christianity was co-opted by empire, the Jews were scapegoated and the Roman guilt was minimised.

The situation of the Jews was most certainly a product of tribal identity shaped by Empire. The mixing of all people in the common era left the Jews as recalcitrants who refused to worship Caesar, rejecting what the Gospels call the 'abominating desolation in the temple'. This old insistence on maintaining their cultural identity was a main reason for the emergence of racism against them among the dominant culture.

This is the most lucid argument I've seen you put together Robert. Well done!

That doesn't mean I agree with you, but rather that you've got a decent argument here. I'll go over it later and demonstrate why I disagree with your theory though.

[DWill]

I agree that it's a cogent argument. I just don't agree that a reading of the Gospels demonstrates this shared, equal responsibility of Jews and Romans for Jesus' death. I stress a reading of the Gospels, letting the words register just as we would in reading fiction, judging how the writers are channeling our emotions through dramatic technique. I can only say that however deeply the Romans may have been implicated in such similar scenarios that may actually have occurred, in the Gospels (which I consider to be a quasi-historical literature incorporating fictional techniques) we have a revisionist version.

[youkrst]

Looks like I hit a nerve.

your patronising literalism may have hit a nerve but you failed to address the obvious similarity between the buddhist story and the simon peter story.

Sure youkrst, though as I've said to Interbane, I'm trying to reduce my forum time at the moment. I enjoy the intellectual challenge, but I've got some major IRL stuff happening right now. I'll take you up on this a bit later when I have more free time.

no probs, i'll look forward to it.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does

but if you dont know, how on earth can you claim to know that god does?

but kindly base it on real evidence.

[tat tvam asi]

Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

Well then I guess since you think the evidence supporting my view is weak then we might as well move along past me and consider what you think Doulos.

Would you kindly provide your 'strong' evidence for the existence of God in order to establish the first premise you've put forward. We have to first see evidence that God exists before considering that God "knows" anything at all one way or the other. And then after you can strongly establish that much then you can move on to apply the proven God(1), who knows(2), to the asserted "truth" of this knowing God in the Judeo-Christian bible(3)....

So let's begin shall we?