Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Believe it or not Colbert and The Daily Show reach more people than the MSM. Maybe that`s why Erhman was on there.Plus look at South Park.It`s laden with crude sophomoric humor but usually at the end of the program they`ll make a pretty reasonable point.


That's because you'll find more truth on Colbert & The Daily Show than on MSM, comedy or no comedy. Smiler

I don't always agree with them, but they make clever use of comedy. If you've (general you, not geddon) never seen them reveal hypocrisy and inaccuracy, you don't watch "The Daily Show" for sure. That's the one I see most often.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Your statement about Isis contradicts itself. Also, if Isis was married to Osiris, how can she be still considered a virgin?


Isis was worshiped as a VIRGIN goddess of fertility. The dude was evidently her brother before he was chopped up then reincarnated. THEN they were married.

I agree that it makes almost as much sense as a 13 year old woman being told by an angel that the creator of the universe has sex with her while she slept.

I agree none of this makes any sort of rational sense but I didn't make this stuff up.

quote:
Give me another example of a deity born to a virgin.


Do you really assert that the virgin birth story of Jesus is the only one? Most major religions have a virgin birth story. Buddha, for example, was born through a slit in his virgin mother's side (vaginal birth is unholy for some reason). This is common knowledge.

But if you would like to educate yourself, this seems to be as good a start as any: Link


To stay on subject, I'm still waiting on you to look up those verses for me.

Please see the following links.

Link)

Link

Link

I could link plenty more, but they would all say the same. Goddess of fertility, yes. Was she a virgin? Not part of the story.
Sorry, Nash, but using bible verses to prove the integrity of the bible is circular reasoning.

And since we know the NT was written long after Jesus was supposed to live, we can't put much trust in its veracity.

This is why I humiliate myself so, in pointing out the obvious, where others have not been so willing to be humbled. Taking one for the team, as it were.


DF
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Ehrman claimed that only the book of John claimed Jesus was divine. What does Matthew 3:16-17 and Mark 2: 5-9 say?


I really don't feel like watching the whole video again to glean the quote I'm looking for, but one of his claims was that there were earlier books that don't include this stuff that were evidently revised to include this stuff hundreds of years after the fact.

I have no idea if its true or not but it stands to reason that many things were added or "improved upon" by scribes. After all, the oldest existing manuscripts date back to 300 years after the depicted events.
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Sorry, Nash, but using bible verses to prove the integrity of the bible is circular reasoning.

And since we know the NT was written long after Jesus was supposed to live, we can't put much trust in its veracity.

This is why I humiliate myself so, in pointing out the obvious, where others have not been so willing to be humbled. Taking one for the team, as it were.


DF


You've missed the point.

Ehrman made a statement that Matthew and Mark never claimed Jesus was the Son of God or divine. All I asked was for someone to check his statement to see if it is accurate.

I find it interesting that someone who demands proof is willing to accept Ehrman's statement as fact without checking his source. Why accept his statement without question?
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Ehrman claimed that only the book of John claimed Jesus was divine. What does Matthew 3:16-17 and Mark 2: 5-9 say?


I really don't feel like watching the whole video again to glean the quote I'm looking for, but one of his claims was that there were earlier books that don't include this stuff that were evidently revised to include this stuff hundreds of years after the fact.

I have no idea if its true or not but it stands to reason that many things were added or "improved upon" by scribes. After all, the oldest existing manuscripts date back to 300 years after the depicted events.


If you have no idea if Ehrman's statement is true or not, then why don't you find out? It takes about 5 minutes and I did the research for you. Why give Ehrman a pass?

You provided an excellent link that lists scholars' estimates of when the Gospels were written. The average was about 30 years after the crucifixion. To put that in perspective, this August is the 30th anniversary of Woodstock.

On a different thread, you said that the oldest manuscripts are 400 years old, now you say they are 300. Which is it?

Link

"The earliest specimens we have date back to about 400 years after the events. "

100 years makes a big difference when dealing with historical evidence. Then on the same thread you stated,

"But the FACT, Nash, is that the gospels have been dated to about 50 to 70 years after the events happened "

So you've gone from 400 years, to 50, then to 300. Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
No one has attempted to quote the verses I listed. I'll try one last time.

Ehrman claimed that only the book of John claimed Jesus was divine. What does Matthew 3:16-17 and Mark 2: 5-9 say?


If we had the time we could sift through Ehrman's video on youtube and probably find out why he says that.

I glanced at these verses, do they say Jesus was divine? Maybe I missed it, but I thought I didn't see the word divine in there.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Before you answer those questions though, I would like to see someone attempt to check Ehrman's statements. Several were willing to stand up for him and his credibility, so who is willing to look up those verses and see if he is right?


I took another look, Nash. The quote form Ehrman begins at 3:25 and it is as you describe. Yes, I agree your passages do indicate that the opposite is true and that he is wrong. Fair 'nuff?

That said, even if he is wrong about that, it doesn't encessairily nullify all the other claims.

But to his defense, Colbert gives him no chance to elaborate. I have actually sent an email to Ehrman to see if he will clarify his statement because, on the surface, it certainly seem inaccurate.

We shall see what happens.

for those that are keeping score, this is the second time in as many days that I have conceded a point. That is how good debate works. You ought to try it sometime, Nash.
Last edited by Cookey
My email to Professor Ehrman:

quote:
Hello Professor,

I was wondering if you may be able to help me out here. I go by the moniker “Skeptik” on a debate forum of local newspaper here in the Belt Buckle of Florence, Alabama. I have been valiantly defending your honor on this forum in this thread:

Link

One of the local fundamentalists, “Nashbama” make this claim:

“Ehrman said that three of the four Gospels did not refer to Jesus as divine. Look up Matthew 3:16. Then look up Mark 2: 5-9. I don't disagree with Ehrman because I'm a Christian, I disagree with him because his facts are wrong as I've just illustrated.”

I reviewed the interview and you did state that neither Matthew, Mark or Luke mention the divinity of Jesus. Then I looked and these passages and find that they do, in fact, make reference to Jesus being the son of God or something similar. You were no allowed to elaborate on the Colbert show so I was wondering if you would care to explain the discrepancy either to me personally or my creating an account on the forum?"


And his response (received just a few minutes later - very impressive!)

quote:
"I think Nashbama meant Matthew 3:17. This verse does call Jesus the Son of God. But one has to understand that term *in context.* In ancient Judaism, the Son of God was NOT God. cf. 2 Sam. 7:14 -- King Solomon was the Son of God (did anyone think he was God)? Or Hosea 11:1 -- the nation of Israel is the Son of God (are they Gods?). In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is certainly the Son of God -- that is, he is the human being through whom God has chosen to work to accomplish his will on earth. But he is not, decidedly not, God. Mark 2:5-9 also does not portray Jesus as God. Quite the contrary. It is Jesus *enemies* who claim that only God can forgive sins. Jesus responds by saying that he himself can declare that God has forgiven sins -- just as the priests in the Jewish temple could declare that a person's sins were forgiven by God once they performed a sacrifice. Jesus is claiming that a person can declare the forgiveness of sins apart from the Jewish sacrifices, and he proves that he has that God-given authority by healing the man. The miracle doesn't prove Jesus is God any more than Elijah's miracles in the OT proved *he* was God.

So I stick very firmly to my guns. The first three Gospels nowhere identify Jesus as God. Quite the contrary. If he had gone around saying he's God, this would have been a very strange thing for them to leave out!

-- Bart Ehrman
Dr. Ehrman is mistaken, the verse in 2nd Samuel is not speaking about Solomon. It's speaking about Jesus. Jesus was descended from David, that verse is a prophecy.

"" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son.

Mark 2:10 "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

If the Jews believe that only God has the authority to forgive sins, and Jesus performs a miracle in front of them and says He has God's authority, isn't He proving His divinity?

Mark 2: 27-28 "Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

So if Jesus says that He is Lord, is that not claiming divinity? It looks pretty clear that He did to me. From what I've read, Dr. Ehrman is clearly wrong when he claims that Jesus never said He was the Son of God in Matthew or Mark.
Skep, I'm not sure of Ehrman's intention here or what he intends to prove. The verses are a telling of what happened that day. Why does he think that within them, the phrase "oh & btw, Jesus is divine" should be included?

It's like saying that you have read all about me and my family. However, in the telling of a family story, since my husband doesn't say within it "oh & btw, Joy is my wife", you are led to believe I'm not his wife.

I'm not getting Ehrman's logic on this one. It sounds like he's picking and choosing verses to sell his book, not make a valid point. You know I hate that. Wink

Oh, and what Nash said. Big Grin
Mark 14:60-64

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus.
"And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

If Jesus did not claim He was divine, why was He crucified for blasphemy? What was the blasphemous claim that led to His execution if it was not that He was the Son of God?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Jesus was descended from David, that verse is a prophecy.


Umm, Luke certainly does claim that Jesus is a descendant of David on JOESPH'S side. Think about that, Nash; What does that tell you about the likelihood of a virgin birth?

To me, is supports Ehrman's stance that the whole "virgin birth" thing is a convention used to portray importance on the character and not meant to be taken literally - which is a good thing for your faith because A VIRGIN BIRTH IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY in human biology.
Last edited by Cookey
quote:
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"


Ehrman stated, "In ancient Judaism, the Son of God was NOT God. cf. 2 Sam. 7:14 -- King Solomon was the Son of God (did anyone think he was God)? Or Hosea 11:1 -- the nation of Israel is the Son of God (are they Gods?). In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is certainly the Son of God -- that is, he is the human being through whom God has chosen to work to accomplish his will on earth."

Talking point: Christ is often referred to as the "Son of David" or "seed" of David in the bible. Was the he son of David or not?

Impossible virgin birth or not?

It would seem to be very easy to hang your faith on the substantiated premise that perhaps the "Son of God" was a mistranslation or a way to impart great importance on a character. But noooooo, fundies can't stop there. You must also adjust the laws of physics to have your faith.

Joy? Nash? Virgin births are impossible. God doesn't rape teenagers. Just thought I'd repeat that in case one of you decide to join us in reality.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If Jesus did not claim He was divine, why was He crucified for blasphemy? What was the blasphemous claim that led to His execution if it was not that He was the Son of God?


Agreed. The whole thing starts to unravel when you apply reason to it, doesn't it?

Reminder: That's why it's called "faith" and not "science" or "history."
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"


Ehrman stated, "In ancient Judaism, the Son of God was NOT God. cf. 2 Sam. 7:14 -- King Solomon was the Son of God (did anyone think he was God)? Or Hosea 11:1 -- the nation of Israel is the Son of God (are they Gods?). In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is certainly the Son of God -- that is, he is the human being through whom God has chosen to work to accomplish his will on earth."

Talking point: Christ is often referred to as the "Son of David" or "seed" of David in the bible. Was the he son of David or not?

Impossible virgin birth or not?

It would seem to be very easy to hang your faith on the substantiated premise that perhaps the "Son of God" was a mistranslation or a way to impart great importance on a character. But noooooo, fundies can't stop there. You must also adjust the laws of physics to have your faith.

Joy? Nash? Virgin births are impossible. God doesn't rape teenagers. Just thought I'd repeat that in case one of you decide to join us in reality.


You're mixing two different subjects. I'll discuss the virgin birth on the other thread. On this one, I'm going to stick to the current subject of Ehrman's claim that the Gospels do not mention Jesus' divinity.

So here is a question for you, Deep, 8I, and anyone else who has defended Ehrman on this thread.

Dr. Ehrman said "The first three Gospels nowhere identify Jesus as God." In Mark 14:62, Jesus said "I am", then was executed for blasphemy.

So what was Jesus admitting to that angered the Jews so much that they had him crucified for blasphemy?
Nash,

I think you are making Mr. Ehrman's point.

The passage above is Jesus' answer to the question: Are you the son of [god]?

Ehrman's point is that at the time, the son of god was not considered a god. A son of god (and the bible has a few) is not endowed with divinity for that reason.

There used to be a ditty on the radio for selling Buster Brown shoes:

I got shoes/
You got shoes/
All god's chillun got shoes.
Yeah, but I got Buster Brown shoes!

I repeat that to show just one example of how lots of people consider themselves god's children. It's not unusual, and we are not claiming divinity when we say we are god's children.

Have you read Mr. Ehrman's book? It's probably at the library by now.


DF
quote:
No one is going to give it a shot?


Ooh! I will! I will! I told you I'd always answer a questions so here goes. Ready?

I don't know.

That's my honest answer. I didn't post the thing to begin with. You did. You wanna ask him? His email addy is behrman@email.unc.edu. He obviously does answer emails.

My theory? He Ehrman will say something along the lines of "If you read my book, you'd know that pre-King James versions to not even mention that phrase so it was probably added by one of the multitude of scribes who copied the copies of the copies."

You want more than that, you'll need to read the book or ask him yourself. I never claimed to be an Ehrman expert. Your constant insistence that we answer for him is ludicrous.

My own theory? It's all made up. Not a single bit of it is true. Virgin births? Miracles? Bunch of hooey. The gospels were all written sometime between 70-ish AD and 3 to 4 hundred years later. All we know for sure is that the "setting" of the bible itself is 70 AD or so.

The FACT is that even the most "fundamental" bible scholars don't eve know who wrote the gospels.

Believing them is a matter of FAITH.
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Nash,

I think you are making Mr. Ehrman's point.

The passage above is Jesus' answer to the question: Are you the son of [god]?

Ehrman's point is that at the time, the son of god was not considered a god. A son of god (and the bible has a few) is not endowed with divinity for that reason.

There used to be a ditty on the radio for selling Buster Brown shoes:

I got shoes/
You got shoes/
All god's chillun got shoes.
Yeah, but I got Buster Brown shoes!

I repeat that to show just one example of how lots of people consider themselves god's children. It's not unusual, and we are not claiming divinity when we say we are god's children.

Have you read Mr. Ehrman's book? It's probably at the library by now.


DF


Jesus wasn't asked if He was the Son of God. The question was "Are you the Christ?" The Christ they are referring to is the foretold Messiah as part of Hebrew tradition. Jews believe that God will send a savior for the world. Jesus was asked if He was claiming to be that savior, the Christ.

Jews also refer to themselves as children of God. That isn't considered blasphemy. However, Jesus admitting to being "the Son of the Blessed One". That is admitting divinity and he was executed for that.

What Ehrman does not address is why Jesus was executed if He never claimed to be divine. Why do you choose to believe Ehrman?
quote:
What Ehrman does not address is why Jesus was executed if He never claimed to be divine. Why do you choose to believe Ehrman?


I've not seen Deep or me or anyone else state that they believe everything (or anything) Ehrman says is true. For all I know, he wrong about everything and you are 100% right.

What I "know" (as much as anything can be known) is that no one knows. You darn sure don't despite your claims to the contrary.

Ehrman is calling BS on some of that by showing EVIDENCE (not proof) that suggests that the story is make believe. He may be wrong.

Well duh.

If you and I want to know more about his opinions, we will have to read his book.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you're not sure that Ehrman is right why defend his claims and try to defeat my arguments?


Umm, er, if I recall correctly, you started the thread and solicited opinions. I shared mine, you shared yours. I even shared Ehrdman's. That's what we do here, bud.

. . .That plus your arguments are simply wrong. Wink
quote:
Umm, er, if I recall correctly, you started the thread and solicited opinions. I shared mine, you shared yours. I even shared Ehrdman's. That's what we do here, bud.

. . .That plus your arguments are simply wrong.


I provided facts to support my claim that Ehrman is wrong.

So is Ehrman correct when he says the Gospels never mention Jesus' divinity or not?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I provided facts to support my claim that Ehrman is wrong.

So is Ehrman correct when he says the Gospels never mention Jesus' divinity or not?
'

I'm gonna pull a Nash and tell you that I already answered this.

Hint: I don't know. You have certainly made your case well. Ehrdman is not here to answer your questions and I haven't read the book so I DO NOT KNOW. You have no idea either despite your posturing and claims to the contrary.

Only one of us is being honest.
quote:
I'm gonna pull a Nash and tell you that I already answered this.

Hint: I don't know. You have certainly made your case well. Ehrdman is not here to answer your questions and I haven't read the book so I DO NOT KNOW. You have no idea either despite your posturing and claims to the contrary.

Only one of us is being honest.


Yes, I understand you said you don't know. However, there is no reason why you shouldn't know.

It's the same as saying the right to bear arms is not in the Bill of Rights. If someone said that, you wouldn't just take them at their word. You would look up the 2nd amendment, read it, and understand their statement is false.

It's the exact same thing. You don't need to read the book, you have Dr. Ehrman's e-mail. He made the claim, I looked it up and shared what I found. It's not subjective or matter of opinion, he is simply wrong. Yet, several here were willing to believe his claim without question. That is something that should really be considered.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
Joy? Nash? Virgin births are impossible. God doesn't rape teenagers. Just thought I'd repeat that in case one of you decide to join us in reality.


Are you really freakin' serious? Please never completely gross me out like that again. It was a 'virgin' birth, remember?

BTW, Jewish women wanted to be the one to carry the Messiah. It was an honor. I'm not sure they'd have felt the same had they understood that he would suffer and die, but from what I've read, they did see it as an honor. I think Mary, being Mary, saw much deeper and understood the responsibility given her, but I digress. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
The Spirit of God descended like a dove & a voice from heaven declared Jesus His Son, but you need the word divinity thrown in there? Come on now, 8I, who are you trying to kid? Smiler


Oh, so you know Matthew now better than Matthew? Wink


Hey, I was just repeating what Matthew said. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Yet, several here were willing to believe his claim without question. That is something that should really be considered.


Nash,

"Several here" made no such claims. I have not see one soul claim that Ehrdman was correct. I have personally stated my opinion of him which is stated "inconclusive" at best.

I stated that you made your case well.

Ehrdman is not here to defend his stance and you are insisting that we defend his stance for him. That's just silly.

You have his email addy, Nash. You know he responds to those emails. Why not ask him to explain himself?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Umm, er, if I recall correctly, you started the thread and solicited opinions. I shared mine, you shared yours. I even shared Ehrdman's. That's what we do here, bud.

. . .That plus your arguments are simply wrong.


I provided facts to support my claim that Ehrman is wrong.

So is Ehrman correct when he says the Gospels never mention Jesus' divinity or not?


Nash, I missed most of the party, I apologize for being late here, but is not the question (or one of them) whether or not that they(Matt and Mark) say he is divine, or not?

Was the word divine invented then?

If the word divine is not in there, then technically Ehrman is correct. They did not say it. Could someone construe this part of the story and make an argument? Obviously.

John (according to Ehrman) says that Jesus is divine. Is this correct?

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
The Spirit of God descended like a dove & a voice from heaven declared Jesus His Son, but you need the word divinity thrown in there? Come on now, 8I, who are you trying to kid? Smiler


Oh, so you know Matthew now better than Matthew? Wink


Hey, I was just repeating what Matthew said. Smiler


(You know I was joking around there right?)

Ok, and he didn't say "divine." Or did I miss it?

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Yet, several here were willing to believe his claim without question. That is something that should really be considered.


Nash,

"Several here" made no such claims. I have not see one soul claim that Ehrdman was correct. I have personally stated my opinion of him which is stated "inconclusive" at best.

I stated that you made your case well.

Ehrdman is not here to defend his stance and you are insisting that we defend his stance for him. That's just silly.

You have his email addy, Nash. You know he responds to those emails. Why not ask him to explain himself?


Skep, Nash is right. This following was your defense and Deep's defense of Ehrman before Nash showed you Ehrman's blunder.

quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
Because I don't think the author looked like a nut. The reason he looks like a nut to you because he states something you disagree with. My take is that he stated his case quite succinctly and Colbert smartly fed the guy with talking points.


quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Ehrman has written over 20 books on Christianity. I think he understands it well.


Upon looking deeper, you conceded & kudos for being mature about that.

Now that we've come full circle though, how about that Colbert? What a funny guy. Wasn't that a really funny clip? Big Grin

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×