Bart Ehrman's about to dropkick the Christ Myth

[William Wallace]

Rumborak, this is why I think of Ehrman as a sometimes unintentional aid to apologetics.

[Ħ]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a little too late.  Rumby's already left for his trip.

[William Wallace]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a little too late.  Rumby's already left for his trip.

That was just to introduce the thread; it wasn't necessarily directed at him. But I'm very interested to read this book when it comes out.

[rumborak]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a little too late.  Rumby's already left for his trip.

Sitting in my hotel room, nibbling on my breakfast before I hit the museums

WW, I can see how this book would "help" against the moron atheists who claim Jesus didn't exist at all. But, that seems to me rather a phyrric victory on the side of the apologetics. Unless Bartman did a 180, he will drive the same line as in his other books: It is almost historical certainty that Jesus existed. And certain things, especially in the synoptics, are pretty close to being certain too. But the rest you can almost forget about as it was a result of textural corruption and authors' zeal.
So, if apologetics actually praise this book as vindication for their beliefs, and people actually pick it up as a result, it will be a shot in the foot I think.

Will it change the minds of moron atheists? I certainly hope so. But last time I checked, having a more realistic opinion about a subject is always good.
Will it change the minds of hardcore believers? Hell no, they are beyond reason.
But the ones in the middle will certainly benefit from an injection of facts in the discussion.

rumborak

[tjanuranus]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a little too late.  Rumby's already left for his trip.

Sitting in my hotel room, nibbling on my breakfast before I hit the museums

WW, I can see how this book would "help" against the moron atheists who claim Jesus didn't exist at all. But, that seems to me rather a phyrric victory on the side of the apologetics. Unless Bartman did a 180, he will drive the same line as in his other books: It is almost historical certainty that Jesus existed. And certain things, especially in the synoptics, are pretty close to being certain too. But the rest you can almost forget about as it was a result of textural corruption and authors' zeal.
So, if apologetics actually praise this book as vindication for their beliefs, and people actually pick it up as a result, it will be a shot in the foot I think.

Will it change the minds of moron atheists? I certainly hope so. But last time I checked, having a more realistic opinion about a subject is always good.
Will it change the minds of hardcore believers? Hell no, they are beyond reason.
But the ones in the middle will certainly benefit from an injection of facts in the discussion.

rumborak

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

[Perpetual Change]

For fuck's sake, rumby. You're supposed to be travelling the world now, and yet here you are, debating Christian apologetics again on a prog-metal message board. 

This book sounds interesting and I will be picking it up. I know Erhman isn't the best scholar I could be reading, but he boils things down simply enough for me to understand them without having to give it a graduate school reading. Since I have to spend all my other time reading academics who write like academics (cringe) I'll be happy to read something like this. Even if the scholarship isn't the most rigorous out there, I know it'll be up-to-date, accessible, and, despite a couple of short-comings for the specialist, completely sound.

[GuineaPig]

Hate to break it to you, but you're a little too late.  Rumby's already left for his trip.

Sitting in my hotel room, nibbling on my breakfast before I hit the museums

WW, I can see how this book would "help" against the moron atheists who claim Jesus didn't exist at all. But, that seems to me rather a phyrric victory on the side of the apologetics. Unless Bartman did a 180, he will drive the same line as in his other books: It is almost historical certainty that Jesus existed. And certain things, especially in the synoptics, are pretty close to being certain too. But the rest you can almost forget about as it was a result of textural corruption and authors' zeal.
So, if apologetics actually praise this book as vindication for their beliefs, and people actually pick it up as a result, it will be a shot in the foot I think.

Will it change the minds of moron atheists? I certainly hope so. But last time I checked, having a more realistic opinion about a subject is always good.
Will it change the minds of hardcore believers? Hell no, they are beyond reason.
But the ones in the middle will certainly benefit from an injection of facts in the discussion.

rumborak

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

You don't believe Jesus existed?

[hefdaddy42]

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

I didn't see him calling you a name.

[tjanuranus]

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

I didn't see him calling you a name.

He's calling me and others morons.

[millahh]

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

I didn't see him calling you a name.

He's calling me and others morons.

Rumby's also an atheist (or at least an extremely strong agnostic)...he's not saying all athiests are morons...I believe he's referring to a specific subset of atheists (those who are the mirror image of extreme Christian fundamentalists)

[Zook]

Christ definitely existed. He just wasn't the magician everyone thinks he is.

[hefdaddy42]

Hey do you want to stop with the name calling man? Seriously? That's fucking bullshit.

I didn't see him calling you a name.

He's calling me and others morons.

Rumby's also an atheist (or at least an extremely strong agnostic)...he's not saying all athiests are morons...I believe he's referring to a specific subset of atheists (those who are the mirror image of extreme Christian fundamentalists)

That's exactly how I read it as well.

[tjanuranus]

So it's ok to call people who don't believe like you do morons on this board? Glad to know that.

[Zook]

So it's ok to call people who don't believe like you do morons on this board? Glad to know that.

I'll be the first to call on anything religious, but:

You don't believe Jesus existed?

[GuineaPig]

The people who believe Jesus don't exist are trying really hard to be dumb.  I wouldn't say it's as dogmatic as asserting that evolution didn't happen, or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it's in that direction.

[hefdaddy42]

So it's ok to call people who don't believe like you do morons on this board? Glad to know that.

What is your problem?  He didn't call anyone here a name.  He didn't reference all atheists, only moron atheists.  Are you saying there are no moron atheists?  Because that kind of statement seems, on the face of it, moronic.

[Zook]

So it's ok to call people who don't believe like you do morons on this board? Glad to know that.

What is your problem?  He didn't call anyone here a name.  He didn't reference all atheists, only moron atheists.  Are you saying there are no moron atheists?  Because that kind of statement seems, on the face of it, moronic.

He hasn't answered the question yet, but I think he might believe Christ didn't exist which would make that post of Rumby's singling him out, and thus offensive.

[tjanuranus]

So it's ok to call people who don't believe like you do morons on this board? Glad to know that.

What is your problem?  He didn't call anyone here a name.  He didn't reference all atheists, only moron atheists.  Are you saying there are no moron atheists?  Because that kind of statement seems, on the face of it, moronic.

Ok people who believe that believe in Heaven and Hell are big fucking morons.

[William Wallace]

The people who believe Jesus don't exist are trying really hard to be dumb.  I wouldn't say it's as dogmatic as asserting that evolution didn't happen, or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it's in that direction.

In the scholarly world it is, the same standard by which you judge the raisin-cakery of young earth creation.

WW, I can see how this book would "help" against the moron atheists who claim Jesus didn't exist at all. But, that seems to me rather a phyrric victory on the side of the apologetics. Unless Bartman did a 180, he will drive the same line as in his other books: It is almost historical certainty that Jesus existed. And certain things, especially in the synoptics, are pretty close to being certain too.

I agree with you. There's often a lot of to glean from authors whom you or I may otherwise disagree with, and  Ehrman's in this category as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, enjoy your trip, you lucky bastard.

I know Erhman isn't the best scholar...

Though I don't agree with him, he's one of the better ones. His credentials are impressive and he's a good writer; that's never a bad combination.

[bosk1]

TJ, knock it off if you want to stay on these forums.  Your trolling has about pushed the limits of my patience.

[Adami]

Christ definitely existed. He just wasn't the magician everyone thinks he is.

Not trying to nitpick, but if you don't believe he was the messiah, you should just call him Jesus.

[PowerSlave]

Christ definitely existed. He just wasn't the magician everyone thinks he is.

Not trying to nitpick, but if you don't believe he was the messiah, you should just call him Jesus.

I dunno. Christ is an ok title if you want to use it as it's original meaning. There's nothing wrong with calling someone "King" if you believe that he was in fact a decendant of David and in line for the throne.

[Adami]

Indeed, but it doesn't mean king.

[GuineaPig]

And I don't believe why one would think Jesus was a descendant of David, either.

[Zook]

Christ definitely existed. He just wasn't the magician everyone thinks he is.

Not trying to nitpick, but if you don't believe he was the messiah, you should just call him Jesus.

Eh, Jesus, Christ, Christ, Jesus. It's all the same to me.

I see what you're saying though.

[Adami]

Christ definitely existed. He just wasn't the magician everyone thinks he is.

Not trying to nitpick, but if you don't believe he was the messiah, you should just call him Jesus.

Eh, Jesus, Christ, Christ, Jesus. It's all the same to me.

I see what you're saying though.

It would be like an atheist referring to god as "The one true god".

[PowerSlave]

Yeah, it means annointed one just like the word messiah. Neither one of the words have anything to do with divinity.

Also, it's fairly obvious even from a minimalists' reading that Jesus was a decendant of David.

[Adami]

Yeah, it means annointed one just like the word messiah. Neither one of the words have anything to do with divinity.

Also, it's fairly obvious even from a minimalists' reading that Jesus was a decendant of David.

I doubt Zook thinks jesus is the messiah. Thus he shouldn't be referring to him as one, unless of course he does believe Jesus is the messiah, in which case nevermind.

[contest_sanity]

This book sounds interesting and I will be picking it up. I know Erhman isn't the best scholar I could be reading, but he boils things down simply enough for me to understand them without having to give it a graduate school reading. Since I have to spend all my other time reading academics who write like academics (cringe) I'll be happy to read something like this. Even if the scholarship isn't the most rigorous out there, I know it'll be up-to-date, accessible, and, despite a couple of short-comings for the specialist, completely sound.

You should also try out N.T. Wright.  I'd recommend The Challenge Of Jesus.  It's also accessible but based on great scholarship.  Wright comes to some more "traditional" conclusions but in an academically rigorous way.  I think he'd be a good counterpoint to Erhman.

[Zook]

Yeah, it means annointed one just like the word messiah. Neither one of the words have anything to do with divinity.

Also, it's fairly obvious even from a minimalists' reading that Jesus was a decendant of David.

I doubt Zook thinks jesus is the messiah. Thus he shouldn't be referring to him as one, unless of course he does believe Jesus is the messiah, in which case nevermind.

I don't. Christ is pretty much a last name to me. Does he even have a last name then?

[Adami]

Yeah, it means annointed one just like the word messiah. Neither one of the words have anything to do with divinity.

Also, it's fairly obvious even from a minimalists' reading that Jesus was a decendant of David.

I doubt Zook thinks jesus is the messiah. Thus he shouldn't be referring to him as one, unless of course he does believe Jesus is the messiah, in which case nevermind.

I don't. Christ is pretty much a last name to me. Does he even have a last name then?

I know his middle name is Herman, but I think his last name might be McMillian.

[Zook]

Yeah, it means annointed one just like the word messiah. Neither one of the words have anything to do with divinity.

Also, it's fairly obvious even from a minimalists' reading that Jesus was a decendant of David.

I doubt Zook thinks jesus is the messiah. Thus he shouldn't be referring to him as one, unless of course he does believe Jesus is the messiah, in which case nevermind.

I don't. Christ is pretty much a last name to me. Does he even have a last name then?

I know his middle name is Herman, but I think his last name might be McMillian.

No wonder he changed his name.

[slycordinator]

I don't. Christ is pretty much a last name to me. Does he even have a last name then?

If "Christ" was his "last name" then there would definitely not be passages referring to him as Christ Jesus.

In fact, he originally referred to as "Jesus the Christ" and over time, the bolded part disappeared from how people referred to him. Regardless, this doesn't change that Christ is a title an not a name.

[Zook]

I don't. Christ is pretty much a last name to me. Does he even have a last name then?

If "Christ" was his "last name" then there would definitely not be passages referring to him as Christ Jesus.

In fact, he originally referred to as "Jesus the Christ" and over time, the bolded part disappeared from how people referred to him. Regardless, this doesn't change that Christ is a title an not a name.

[tjanuranus]

TJ, knock it off if you want to stay on these forums.  Your trolling has about pushed the limits of my patience.

Excuse me? Trolling? Where did I troll? Where?  I don't troll anywhere on this board. I intentionally stay out of conversations that lead to that behavior until someone calls me a moron. I knew if I I defended myself I would be the one to get in trouble.