Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bart Ehrman had a degree from the Moody Bible Institute and a MDiv (Master of Divinity). I asked you to provide the names of historians, not ministers. It appears you don't have any, just as I suspected.
You said "The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true." What any reasonable discuss would have to include is: What historical scholars agree with you? We need names and credentials. Otherwise, just say it is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up.
So, that leaves us still waiting for you to provide some sources for what you call "Historical Jesus."
You said :What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? " That raises this question: What makes you think he gave up his family? His mother was there when he was crucified.
You seem to be throwing out opinions with nothing to back them up.
In fairness, historicism IS the majority viewpoint in academia, and mythicism the minority position. But the context is that most of the folks in ancient history, biblical archaeology, and related fields are beholden to church-connected funding. Also historians have a pretty low bar to what constitutes a consensus. Rather than "what can proven or likely to be true" it is more "what is least likely to be untrue based on whatever sparse evidence there is". As such ... who is the majority opinion here doesn't carry much weight.
Erhman is no longer a Biblical literalist / inerrantist (in fact he's an agnostic) and while IIRC he leans toward a historic Jesus, at the same time, he does not believe in Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man(tm). Many historicists are like that. Just because they think Jesus was a historic discrete person and not a composite or invention, does not mean that they believe Jesus is the son of god and risen from the dead. That is an infinitely larger lift. Yet many Christians seem to equate the two, like it is some kind of "gotcha".
All that said, I agree, without citations (or personal credentials and research in a relevant field), anyone is just spouting speculation and opinion.
Bart Ehrman had a degree from the Moody Bible Institute and a MDiv (Master of Divinity). I asked you to provide the names of historians, not ministers. It appears you don't have any, just as I suspected.
You said "The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true." What any reasonable discuss would have to include is: What historical scholars agree with you? We need names and credentials. Otherwise, just say it is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up.
So, that leaves us still waiting for you to provide some sources for what you call "Historical Jesus."
You said :What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? " That raises this question: What makes you think he gave up his family? His mother was there when he was crucified.
You seem to be throwing out opinions with nothing to back them up.
What do you have against the Moody Bible Institute? After a quick search, it seems most scholars speaking to this subject, in one way or form are associated with theology. I don't think you'd be comfortable with any of their conclusions or opinions. Yet concerning Ehrman, he's not a Christian anymore. He should hold no bias. Yet like I said, almost all the scholars I've search are associated with some form of theology. Even if they got their degrees from respected schools, those degrees are in NT studies, theology, etc. etc.
There are lots of well respected institutions that offer divinity studies. That includes such places as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. Those places are going to insist that degree offerings meet the same standards, regardless of the subject matter.
That's why it matters where you go to school. You can get a degree in a number of secular disciplines from religious affiliated schools, but they won't be regarded very highly in comparison. Do you think a degree in archeology or music education from Liberty University will result in similar job offers as degrees in those subjects obtained at, say, the University Of Michigan?
Perhaps it is YOU who has the wrong perspective;
Jesus wasn't 'disrespecting' His own mother (which would be a violation of 7th commandment!),
BUT RATHER was telling the crowd that even they could be ELEVATED to the lofty level of 'being HIS mother/brother/sister' by doing the Fathers will! (Mat 12)
It seems to be fairly clear that Jesus' mother had lost faith that her son was from God.
Quote:
... where Mary and some of Jesus' brothers came to take Him back home, because there were those in His family who believed He wasn't in His right mind. Someone told Jesus His family was seeking Him,
By the time Jesus had reached 30 years old, Mary was an unbeliever.
Bart Ehrman had a degree from the Moody Bible Institute and a MDiv (Master of Divinity). I asked you to provide the names of historians, not ministers. It appears you don't have any, just as I suspected.
You said "The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true." What any reasonable discuss would have to include is: What historical scholars agree with you? We need names and credentials. Otherwise, just say it is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up.
So, that leaves us still waiting for you to provide some sources for what you call "Historical Jesus."
You said :What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? " That raises this question: What makes you think he gave up his family? His mother was there when he was crucified.
You seem to be throwing out opinions with nothing to back them up.
When Christians have no evidence to support their claims about Jesus they resort to artful phrases like, "The general consensus among scholars is...." and "It's generally accepted by historians and scholars that..." and "A large number of scholars believe that...." and other similar nebulous trickery to give their unsupported claims gravity. Looking at Heavenese's OP we see:
"First I'll outline the things scholars have a general consensus on given what is mentioned from the Gospels, and historical sources outside that context...
- It is generally accepted Jesus was from Nazareth.
- accepted Jesus had a large family.
- accepted Jesus was baptized by John. (May have been a disciple)
- accepted Jesus had His own disciples and taught
- accepted Jesus was crucified
- accepted Jesus' disciples preached He rose again"
It is NOT generally accepted that Jesus was from Nazareth
It is NOT generally accepted that Jesus had a large family
It IS generally accepted that John the Baptist baptized Jesus
It IS generally accepted that Jesus was crucified
It is NOT generally accepted that Jesus' disciples preached Jesus rose from the dead
The power of the Internet is to pull off the blanket of lies, deceptions, dishonesty deceit that Christians have engaged in for centuries in trying to cover up the awful truth about there being absolutely no genuine historical evidence for Jesus, which is ironic given that Christians are always trumpeting how much they and Jesus loved the truth and then resort to all sorts of shady under-dealings to try to support their flagging faith. I find the hypocrisy stomach-churning, frankly but such is what happens when a tool as powerful as the Internet puts Christianity under the microscope and all sorts of theological pathogens are revealed.
There are lots of well respected institutions that offer divinity studies. That includes such places as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. Those places are going to insist that degree offerings meet the same standards, regardless of the subject matter.
That's why it matters where you go to school. You can get a degree in a number of secular disciplines from religious affiliated schools, but they won't be regarded very highly in comparison. Do you think a degree in archeology or music education from Liberty University will result in similar job offers as degrees in those subjects obtained at, say, the University Of Michigan?
I agree with you there. On a side note as long as a school is not a diploma mill, then I don't have too much problem with what school someone went to.
There are scholars who have degrees at the schools you mentioned, and agree to the general historicity of Jesus. Paula Fredriksen has degrees from Oxford and Princeton. She would be those among the more respectable schools.
In terms of Jesus' existence, NT documents are valid evidences for that. Scholars reject the claims written about Him in the NT, but they are certainly valid for evidence of His existence. Jesus' own brother was the head of the church in Jerusalem. You could say the claims of Jesus in the NT are bias, but certainly not statements of His existence. As for historians outside of Jesus' flock (Roman historians, Greek historians, Jewish historians), why would they write extensively on Jesus Himself? No, they would write about the following once it grew.
Why should anyone presume that claims of existence are any more authoritative or reasonable than claims of actions? Where does one draw the line? Maybe the authors created an amalgamation of people into a single character? Maybe they were writing in parables, or with wishful thinking? It seems weird to discount the gospels except about certain things -- there is no clear line one can draw which would distinguish between what is an isn't useful.
Why should anyone presume that claims of existence are any more authoritative or reasonable than claims of actions? Where does one draw the line? Maybe the authors created an amalgamation of people into a single character? Maybe they were writing in parables, or with wishful thinking? It seems weird to discount the gospels except about certain things -- there is no clear line one can draw which would distinguish between what is an isn't useful.
The creation of a separate RELIGION using interpretations and embellishments about the people and events in that era is what raised questions about what were otherwise just ancient recordings of ancient people and events, IMO. Drawing lines would not be necessary otherwise.
"There was one instance where Mary and some of Jesus' brothers came to take Him back home, because there were those in His family who believed He wasn't in His right mind."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
