Something Really Strange...

reply to post by autowrench


I'm sorry, I think what you're really asking me for is proof that Jesus was God. If that's what you're asking for I can't prove that. That's something you have to believe or not believe. That's not what I was claiming.

But trained historians do have a consensus that there was probably a historical Jesus. Even most atheist historians. Now what Jesus actually did/said/taught, that's all up for debate. But I did have to conclude I was probably wrong about there being absolutely no Jesus figure whatsoever.

But I'm not a historian and I'm not here to prove anything nor am I qualified. I was only doing my own research. But I will leave you with this. This atheist scholar and historian can explain it much better than I can.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by autowrench

 

I'm sorry, I think what you're really asking me for is proof that Jesus was God. If that's what you're asking for I can't prove that. That's something you have to believe or not believe. That's not what I was claiming.

But trained historians do have a consensus that there was probably a historical Jesus. Even most atheist historians. Now what Jesus actually did/said/taught, that's all up for debate. But I did have to conclude I was probably wrong about there being absolutely no Jesus figure whatsoever.

But I'm not a historian and I'm not here to prove anything nor am I qualified. I was only doing my own research. But I will leave you with this. This atheist scholar and historian can explain it much better than I can.

Ehrman was discredited.


Refer to the blog war between Carrier and Ehrman.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret


He's not biased because he's just an atheist. He's biased because he has a self stated agenda that he wishes to prove all religions false. That's not how history or science works. In science you should stay objective and see where the evidence leads you.

That's not what he's doing. He's starting with his premise first, that all religions are false, and then trying to find the evidence to prove it. Which means if he finds contradicting evidence can he really be trusted to pay that evidence any attention?

Now I'm not saying he'd lie or anything like that, but his paycheck does pretty much depend on it. So instead of just trusting that ONE guy who's paycheck depends on you believing what he said, perhaps it's best to get multiple different view points.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret


So, as a Christian when people post his misquoting Jesus stuff I can say, none of that stuff is true, Ehrman was discredited then? Thanks that's great to know. We've discredit an atheist! Awesome.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

So, as a Christian when people post his misquoting Jesus stuff I can say, none of that stuff is true, Ehrman was discredited then? Thanks that's great to know. We've discredit an atheist! Awesome.

Only Ehrman's book on the historicity of Jesus was discredited. But everything else seems fine.

Richard Carrier said "That he hosed this book doesn’t mean he hosed the others. In fact, he very conspicuously didn’t. You cannot find anywhere near the number, scale, or degree of errors and fallacies in them that you can find in this book. That alone demonstrates this is some sort of special animal."

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

He's not biased because he's just an atheist. He's biased because he has a self stated agenda that he wishes to prove all religions false. That's not how history or science works. In science you should stay objective and see where the evidence leads you.

That's not what he's doing. He's starting with his premise first, that all religions are false, and then trying to find the evidence to prove it. Which means if he finds contradicting evidence can he really be trusted to pay that evidence any attention?

Now I'm saying he'd lie or anything like that, but his paycheck does pretty much depend on it. So instead of just trusting that ONE guy who's paycheck depends on you believing what he said, perhaps it's best to get multiple different view points.

edit on 30-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Anything I've seen or read of Carrier involves a constant stream of facts and evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

So, as a Christian when people post his misquoting Jesus stuff I can say, none of that stuff is true, Ehrman was discredited then? Thanks that's great to know. We've discredit an atheist! Awesome.

Only Ehrman's book on the historicity of Jesus was discredited. But everything else seems fine.

Richard Carrier said "That he hosed this book doesn’t mean he hosed the others. In fact, he very conspicuously didn’t. You cannot find anywhere near the number, scale, or degree of errors and fallacies in them that you can find in this book. That alone demonstrates this is some sort of special animal."

edit on 30-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)

Well that's good to know, but does anyone else other than Carrier discredit Ehrman? Is there a consensus on the matter yet or is it just Carrier's opinion?

And the video doesn't talk about Ehrman's book. It talks about other scholars work and if you say everything else he did was good. Then I think the claims he makes about other historians in the video still stand.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

He's not biased because he's just an atheist. He's biased because he has a self stated agenda that he wishes to prove all religions false. That's not how history or science works. In science you should stay objective and see where the evidence leads you.

That's not what he's doing. He's starting with his premise first, that all religions are false, and then trying to find the evidence to prove it. Which means if he finds contradicting evidence can he really be trusted to pay that evidence any attention?

Now I'm saying he'd lie or anything like that, but his paycheck does pretty much depend on it. So instead of just trusting that ONE guy who's paycheck depends on you believing what he said, perhaps it's best to get multiple different view points.

edit on 30-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Anything I've seen or read of Carrier involves a constant stream of facts and evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about.

It's not about that. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with his work. This is about the consensus. It's not about just buying one guy's view. I don't believe there was a Jesus just because one guy says there was or not believe just because one guy says there wasn't.

You have to look at the consensus of all the historians and what they're currently saying. If you're just going with the minority opinion statistically you'll be wrong most of the time. I understand there are people out there that don't believe Jesus was real and make a compelling case, but there are also others that do believe he was real and they ALSO make a compelling case.

And the last time I looked into it the majority of scholars were still saying that all things considered, there probably was a historical Jesus figure.

The evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ can only be questioned in theory. This because it is outside of our current technology to disprove it. In reality the idea of human similar to Jesus exist throughout the world, in regards to ancient history. But in this case the person was tortured and killed instead of being exalted as a new leader. All of these individuals came at a time when someone else was running things. They were born, allowed themselves to get noticed and then allowed to take charge in some very literal way.

From my perspective Jesus Christ could have been some kind of favorable mutation. As a result his contact with God made possible though his access to all things.

This being a direction I feel humans are evolving into.

One cannot prove something does not exist. Can one for example prove Dragons did not exist when in fact Mammals, Insects, and Birds fly? What is wrong with Lizards? Even Fish are designed in such a way that they "fly" though water.

To prove a negative one must first know everything...

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Our thoughts on if Jesus had a genetic mutation? I don't know if we're evolving towards that. I have no way of knowing. But at times I have thought that maybe the virgin birth story, that what they were really trying to tell us, is that Jesus was somehow genetically different or had altered DNA or something. Perhaps by God, or some people say aliens, or maybe just by random chance.

No way to really know though. That wouldn't be my first thought on the matter, but maybe my second or third option.

reply to post by tinfoilman


In a very real way and considered common interpretation of the New Testament, God as the father. Shared "DNA" with Mary in order to make Jesus possible.

In that sense in to be construed that Jesus was a mutation...

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Not really any thoughts, I agree with you because it's a logical idea. I've thought the same in the past and I don't think we're alone in that thought.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by Kashai

 

Not really any thoughts, I agree with you because it's a logical idea. I've thought the same in the past and I don't think we're alone in that thought.

edit on 31-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

I of course am fully aware,as to the Old Testament and the prophesy of his birth and death. Though cause in relation to Revelations and what it implies, I feel is an issue. Specifically in respect to consequences and in regards to behavior. I could think that in respect to other's, who were dignified with the conclusion of having raised the dead? As having some advantage in relation to how they were considered, as opposed to Jesus who was not treated that way. That reason why this particular event ended the way it did should be the result of investigation.

Clearly in the Holy Bible, Gods wrath is imposed because of the specifics of why Jesus Christ was killed.

Any thoughts?