Jesus is not a legend

[Publisher]

John, the author of the fourth gospel, was one of the twelve apostles, isn’t it? So, why do you say that there was not one eyewitness account about Christ?

Also, Paul (originally named Saul) actually met the risen Christ on his way to Damascus, is it not? So, why do you say that Paul never met Christ?

Some of the evangelists were not one of the twelve apostles, but they were companions of at least one of the twelve. St. Luke, for example, was the constant companion of St. Peter. And, he probably was in close association with Mary, the mother of Christ, for he wrote certain details about Christ’s birth and infancy that he would not have known had they not been disclosed to him by Mary herself.

No. The author of “John” was not the son of Zebedee…the “authors” of the gospes as “companions” is tradition…not fact…a tradition stemming from the second century not cooberated by any of the twelve at all…it’s tradition…not historical fact.

No one of the authors of the NT was an eyewitness of Jesus except in tradition. Paul never claimed to know him 'in the flesh"…nor claimed to meet him. He met “Jesus” in religous vison. It wasn’t until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE that “Christianity” began it’s journey as a separate religion distinct from Judaism…and it was Gentile tradition…nor Jewish believers which ascribed the “authors” of the gospels with their current names they bear.

All the “suppostiions” are not based in fact…but tradition…myth…romantic beliefs with no basis in historical fact.

If we are seeking some historical confirmation…it does not exist…if we are seeking religous visions and religous traditions to “confirm” there’s plenty to go on…but not one historical fact outside of religious visions and belief…NOT ONE HISTORICAL REFERENCE of a contemporary source.

 

[rom422]

No. The author of “John” was not the son of Zebedee…the “authors” of the gospes as “companions” is tradition…not fact…a tradition stemming from the second century not cooberated by any of the twelve at all…it’s tradition…not historical fact.

No one of the authors of the NT was an eyewitness of Jesus except in tradition. Paul never claimed to know him 'in the flesh"…nor claimed to meet him. He met “Jesus” in religous vison. It wasn’t until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE that “Christianity” began it’s journey as a separate religion distinct from Judaism…and it was Gentile tradition…nor Jewish believers which ascribed the “authors” of the gospels with their current names they bear.

All the “suppostiions” are not based in fact…but tradition…myth…romantic beliefs with no basis in historical fact.

If we are seeking some historical confirmation…it does not exist…if we are seeking religous visions and religous traditions to “confirm” there’s plenty to go on…but not one historical fact outside of religious visions and belief…NOT ONE HISTORICAL REFERENCE of a contemporary source.

What proof do you have that the fourth gospel was not written by the apostle John?

And how do you define a historical fact? If there is no written record, and all you have is tradition, then why could tradition not be a source of historical fact?

 

[Aloysium]

You may or may not convince your friend.
What you can do, however is to grow ever closer to Jesus.
In doing so, he will get to know the living Christ through you, your actions, your faith, your love.

 

[Publisher]

What proof do you have that the fourth gospel was not written by the apostle John?

And how do you define a historical fact? If there is no written record, and all you have is tradition, then why could tradition not be a source of historical fact?

Friend, if you believe it was written by John because your church tells you so…you won’t convince your friend by the same arguement…you’ll need to do some research on your own…if you want to learn the “why’s” most biblical scholars don’t believe it written by the son of Zebedee, it might be a good time to look since the only affirmations of the Johanine authrorship is by “believers”…not historians or most scholars…those scholars that do hold religious beliefs that confirm it so…not historical facts.

 

[rom422]

Friend, if you believe it was written by John because your church tells you so…you won’t convince your friend by the same arguement…you’ll need to do some research on your own…if you want to learn the “why’s” most biblical scholars don’t believe it written by the son of Zebedee, it might be a good time to look since the only affirmations of the Johanine authrorship is by “believers”…not historians or most scholars…those scholars that do hold religious beliefs that confirm it so…not historical facts.

It is not just because the Church said so, but the truth is, that I am not aware of any historical record, or any other tradition that points to the authorship of the fourth gospel other than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. If you have any ancient source, or tradition, that points to a different author, then please show me and let me hear your side.

You say that most biblical scholars don’t believe it was written by the apostle John. That is not what I have learned. What I know is that most biblical scholars believe that the evidence pointing to the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel is based on tradition. But, on the other hand, they have no tradition that points to a different author. So, if you think that there is an ancient tradition pointing to a different author of the fourth gospel, please tell us.

 

[manualman]

I doubt you’ll get your agnostic friend to change his mind if he or she is knowledgable of modern biblical scholarship.

LOL, this is true, if rather incomplete!

“Modern biblical scholarship” (especially of the Jesus Seminar sort and the Teubingen School) starts with the presumption that natural forces rule the universe and that there are no exceptions. Thus, miracles can only be moral in nature, not physical.

This is the foundation for the late dating of the gospels. Said scholars saw Jesus predict the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, noted that future telling is impossible and concluded that the gospels had to be written after the Romans sacked Jerusalem so that pious believers could place that prediction in the mouth of Jesus in the gospel records. This is only ONE example of the absurdities foisted on us by this modern school of scholarship.

This isn’t scholarship, it’s arrogant prejudice. I’ll stick with the idea that God is real, CAN make exceptions to the physical laws of the universe that He created and often HAS done so. Especially when it is reliably attested to in history.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-intellectual. I just insist on honesty in scholarship, not prejudice posing as reasoning.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There is not one eyewitness account we have. Paul never met Jesus that we know of…he never claimed to. The writers of the gospels and Acts were not apostles. Josephes was not a contemporary. In fact we have not one contemporary writing about Jesus of Nazareth.

The gospels were written some 40-80 years after the fact…we have no writings of any of the original 12…not withstanding Catholic teaching to the contrary based on tradition.

While I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was a “legend” I do believe the gospels were based on the liturgical cycles of the Jewish year…and the stories surrounding him were based on the retelling of OT stories. I believe some of the teachings used in the gospels were said and taught by Jesus of Nazareth…or loosly based on his teachings…and some are downright fabrications not necessarily based on Jesus actual words but what the faith community had come to believe about him…the gospels speak more of the writers beliefs decades and decades later than what Jesus actually said about himself.

I doubt you’ll get your agnostic friend to change his mind if he or she is knowledgable of modern biblical scholarship.

Publisher, I have a hard time seeing you as a Christian, just someone who reads antiChristianity literature, and likes to debunk Christ.

Beginning a few days after Jesus’s death, people (some believers, some not) began reporting having seen him alive. This has continued to the present time. The resurrection is obviously an extremely early claim. Nobody produced a dead body to counter the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Unless the body of Jesus was placed in a common grave, somebody would have tried, and tried hard. And it seems unlikely to me that people who had stolen a dead body (or could find out about such a theft) would face persecution and death knowing it to be a lie. Especially, Paul’s staking everything on the fact of Christ’s resurrection (I Cor. 15) does not read as it if were written by a man who is kidding himself.

Historians disagree about exactly what the “kingdom” preaching meant. It seems most reasonable to me to see Jesus’s public preaching as a call to Israel – community and individuals – to be the holy community of God, and that God was making this possible. Israel would be a light to the world, and non-Jews would be invited to be part of the kingdom, just as prophesied by Isaiah. Jesus announced the forgiveness of sins to all those who were contrite and intended to live better, without going through the “usual channels” of animal sacrifice in the temple.

Although Christians disagree on the questions of Jesus’s “messianic consciousness” (i.e., how much he knew during his natural life), I find myself agreeing with secular scholars who conclude that Jesus regarded his own ministry as the sign of the coming of the kingdom. I also believe that he told his closest friends in private that he was the messiah, and that his self-sacrifice would defeat Satan and save the world. Along with Albert Schweitzer, I wonder whether Judas first betrayed Jesus by informing Caiaphas – perhaps under harsh questioning – about this claim. The Twelve who governed the community after Jesus’s death may have been intended to represent the twelve tribes; the Seventy who were sent out as preachers may have been intended to represent the Sanhedrin.

Jesus was an intelligent man, and he knew that he was asking for trouble, up to being tortured to death, by going to Jerusalem and preaching in public. Why did he do it? It seems most reasonable to believe that he thought this course of action would advance the coming Kingdom of God. Why did he think this? A historian can’t be sure. But whether or not we believe in the theology of the Cross, or Jesus’s knowledge of the meaning of the Cross, even an unbeliever can easily conclude that Jesus deliberately went to his awful death for our sakes.
pathguy.com/jesus/index.htm

 

[Aloysium]

the uncertainty about the historical facts can spur one on to find the living Christ
the trouble with thinking of Him as a legend is that one stops searching, remaining in the realm of stories and ideas

 

[Publisher]

It is not just because the Church said so, but the truth is, that I am not aware of any historical record, or any other tradition that points to the authorship of the fourth gospel other than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. If you have any ancient source, or tradition, that points to a different author, then please show me and let me hear your side.

You say that most biblical scholars don’t believe it was written by the apostle John. That is not what I have learned. What I know is that most biblical scholars believe that the evidence pointing to the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel is based on tradition. But, on the other hand, they have no tradition that points to a different author. So, if you think that there is an ancient tradition pointing to a different author of the fourth gospel, please tell us.

Since none of the gospels were signed and were written anonymously…I’d think that is a good indication. The authorship of the gospels is tradition…nothing else…a tradition from the second century far removed in time and local from where the gospel was written.

One will find very few scholars who actually claim the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel that tradition has placed upon it…chances are very very high it will be those “true believers” to begin with that claim this.

Just because ancient tradition pointed to the son of Zebedee as it’s author is not proof of anything…just a pious tradition no where confirmed in the gospel record itself.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, I have a hard time seeing you as a Christian, just someone who reads antiChristianity literature, and likes to debunk Christ.

Beginning a few days after Jesus’s death, people (some believers, some not) began reporting having seen him alive. This has continued to the present time. The resurrection is obviously an extremely early claim. Nobody produced a dead body to counter the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Unless the body of Jesus was placed in a common grave, somebody would have tried, and tried hard. And it seems unlikely to me that people who had stolen a dead body (or could find out about such a theft) would face persecution and death knowing it to be a lie. Especially, Paul’s staking everything on the fact of Christ’s resurrection (I Cor. 15) does not read as it if were written by a man who is kidding himself.

Historians disagree about exactly what the “kingdom” preaching meant. It seems most reasonable to me to see Jesus’s public preaching as a call to Israel – community and individuals – to be the holy community of God, and that God was making this possible. Israel would be a light to the world, and non-Jews would be invited to be part of the kingdom, just as prophesied by Isaiah. Jesus announced the forgiveness of sins to all those who were contrite and intended to live better, without going through the “usual channels” of animal sacrifice in the temple.

Although Christians disagree on the questions of Jesus’s “messianic consciousness” (i.e., how much he knew during his natural life), I find myself agreeing with secular scholars who conclude that Jesus regarded his own ministry as the sign of the coming of the kingdom. I also believe that he told his closest friends in private that he was the messiah, and that his self-sacrifice would defeat Satan and save the world. Along with Albert Schweitzer, I wonder whether Judas first betrayed Jesus by informing Caiaphas – perhaps under harsh questioning – about this claim. The Twelve who governed the community after Jesus’s death may have been intended to represent the twelve tribes; the Seventy who were sent out as preachers may have been intended to represent the Sanhedrin.

Jesus was an intelligent man, and he knew that he was asking for trouble, up to being tortured to death, by going to Jerusalem and preaching in public. Why did he do it? It seems most reasonable to believe that he thought this course of action would advance the coming Kingdom of God. Why did he think this? A historian can’t be sure. But whether or not we believe in the theology of the Cross, or Jesus’s knowledge of the meaning of the Cross, even an unbeliever can easily conclude that Jesus deliberately went to his awful death for our sakes.
pathguy.com/jesus/index.htm

That’s fine with me friend Christine…you don’t “have” to see me as a Christian…yet I am, not because of your confirmation of that fact, but my own experience with the Risen Christ confirms it to me…all that is required of me, is that I treat you as a Christian and embrace you as a sister in Christ.

The gospel stories are not history, they contain some very historical referenes but for the most part are “interpretive” works of the life of Jesus, not biographies.

To me, my view makes the most sense. I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth declared himself “messiah” in private or in public…those are “interpretive” beliefs those early followers of Jesus used to “make sense” of his death and provided meaning to an event no one forsaw occuring.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That’s fine with me friend Christine…you don’t “have” to see me as a Christian…yet I am, not because of your confirmation of that fact, but my own experience with the Risen Christ confirms it to me…all that is required of me, is that I treat you as a Christian and embrace you as a sister in Christ.

The gospel stories are not history, they contain some very historical referenes but for the most part are “interpretive” works of the life of Jesus, not biographies.

To me, my view makes the most sense. I do not believe Jesus of Nazareth declared himself “messiah” in private or in public…those are “interpretive” beliefs those early followers of Jesus used to “make sense” of his death and provided meaning to an event no one forsaw occuring.

Well you certainly seem to be infatuated by Bart Ehrman. He’s an atheist, for crying out loud.

 

[Publisher]

Well you certainly seem to be infatuated by Bart Ehrman. He’s an atheist, for crying out loud.

Bart Erhman’s athiesm in no way has any impact on his credentials of being a good historian and scholar. How could his lack of belief in a “God” impact his historical findings and credentials?

Do you honestly believe only people who believe in God can undestand the historical and cultural developments that surrounded the formation of Christianity?

His explanations are for me the most simple and the most credible when weighted against the amazing claims by the “faithful” that rely on "miracles’ to ‘prove’ historical developments of Christianity.

“Infatuated”??? Come now friend, I’ve never met the man…I have sat thru some of his on line classes…read most of his books…own several of his DVD collections of university classes…“infatuated”…interesting choice of word I think. And not the most flattering of terms one could have chosen. One would think you almost are trying to claim becasue of my “infatuation” of the man, I have no 'mind" to think for myself…surely…that isn’t what you’re trying to say?

I also have great respect for John Shelby Spong, Elaine Pagels, Joan O’Grady, Burton Mack…even John Dommic Crossan a Catholic…OH MY…

Have you read any of their works?

 

[rom422]

Since none of the gospels were signed and were written anonymously…I’d think that is a good indication. The authorship of the gospels is tradition…nothing else…a tradition from the second century far removed in time and local from where the gospel was written.

I never disputed the fact that the authorship of the gospels is known from tradition. I dispute the fact that what is known from tradition is not historical.

I think that there is a misunderstanding that what we know from tradition is nothing but oral tales, legends, myths or pious beliefs, without any supporting historical evidence. This is not true. Things we learn from tradition, although transmitted largely and originally by word of mouth, had also been embodied in the arts, music and prayers of the faithful, the liturgy, the writings of the early Christians (particularly the Church Fathers), and many more tangible evidences of what the early Christians held and practiced since apostolic times. The fourth gospel, for example, might not have been signed by St. John the apostle, but I don’t think it was just a pious belief that it was St. John who wrote it. We have the writings of the Early Church Fathers to confirm this, and while these are theological rather than historical treatises, they do contain a lot of factual information that are historically valuable. In this connection, let me cite an excerpt from St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph1 :

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm ].

Clearly, there was no doubt in St. Irenaeus’ mind that St. John the apostle wrote the fourth gospel. If you consider the fact the St. Irenaeus was a pupil of St. Polycarp, who in turn was taught by St. John the Apostle, then you can see that this piece of evidence is not really that “far removed in time and local” from the time of the Apostles, now is it? In fact, it is more reliable than the writings of many present-day theologians and “scholars” who could do no better than make speculations and hypotheses about authorship, but with no real access to actual historical data.

One will find very few scholars who actually claim the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel that tradition has placed upon it…chances are very very high it will be those “true believers” to begin with that claim this.

That is not fair. So, you say that those who hold the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel do so only because they are “believers” in tradition to begin with? Well, I can equally say that those who deny John’s authorship of the fourth gospel do so only because they were deniers of tradition to begin with, right?

Just because ancient tradition pointed to the son of Zebedee as it’s author is not proof of anything…just a pious tradition no where confirmed in the gospel record itself.

There is a confirmation that you can find from the gospel records, but it is not always explicitly stated. You do need to exercise logical analysis and a respect for historical data to put the pieces together – which is what responsible historians should be doing. Here in brief are some “clues” from the gospel record that point to the authorship of the fourth gospel by the Apostle John.

1. In the fourth gospel there was a “disciple” who was not identified by name, but who was always spoken of as the one “whom Jesus loved,” and whom Christ allowed to lean on His bosom (John 13:23).
2. This unnamed disciple – “whom Jesus loved,” -was mentioned again in John 20:2, John 21:7 and John 21:20. Later on, however, in John 21:24 the gospel stated that this disciple was the same person who was writing the gospel: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Therefore, the author of the fourth gospel was the disciple whom Christ loved. But who might this “beloved disciple” be?
3. Here we need to read the Synoptic gospels to find out who were in Christ’s “inner circle” of friends. We notice three apostles in particular: Peter, James and John. They were the only ones whom Christ allowed to witness the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1). They were also the only ones who were allowed by our Lord to follow Him to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter had been dead (Mark 5:35-43). And at the garden of Gethsemani they were also the only ones whom He chose to take with Him to pray (Mark 14:32-33). Therefore, the “beloved disciple,” who was also the author of the fourth gospel, would be one of these three apostles: Peter, James or John.
4. Now, in John 21:7 the gospel said: “That disciple, therefore, whom Jesus loved, said to Peter…” If the beloved disciple was talking to Peter, then he could not be Peter.
5. The only remaining candidates, then, are James and John, who were both sons of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Now the author of the fourth gospel could not be James because he was martyred too early (Acts 12:1-2), which was about 25 years before the fourth gospel was written. So, by a process of elimination we arrive at the Apostle John as the author of the fourth gospel.

 

[Publisher]

I never disputed the fact that the authorship of the gospels is known from tradition. I dispute the fact that what is known from tradition is not historical.

We all know “word of mouth” passed down over and over and over takes on a life of it’s own. That’s why it’s called “tradition”…it is the pious belief of the body of people who hold it…not historical fact.

I think that there is a misunderstanding that what we know from tradition is nothing but oral tales, legends, myths or pious beliefs, without any supporting historical evidence. This is not true. Things we learn from tradition, although transmitted largely and originally by word of mouth, had also been embodied in the arts, music and prayers of the faithful, the liturgy, the writings of the early Christians (particularly the Church Fathers), and many more tangible evidences of what the early Christians held and practiced since apostolic times. The fourth gospel, for example, might not have been signed by St. John the apostle, but I don’t think it was just a pious belief that it was St. John who wrote it. We have the writings of the Early Church Fathers to confirm this, and while these are theological rather than historical treatises, they do contain a lot of factual information that are historically valuable. In this connection, let me cite an excerpt from St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph1 :

The thing is, the ECF’s were also products of their times. One of the most interesting things I found about the ECF’s in reading “Lost Christianities” was they…“lied” about the moral character of those they sought to vilify. All the “heretics” seem to have been reprobates in one way or another according to the ECF’s. Many of the same accusation against Christians leveled by their pagan neighbors against them, the ECF’s used against the “heretics”. From the historical record we know that many of the Gnostic sects held a strict sexual ethic…not at all “reprobate” as the ECF’s would have us believe.

They were apologists trying to bolster their claims…I have no doubt many of them were sincere in their beliefs…restating what they had heard thru gossip, not at all reflecting the truth of the opposing sects morality and ethics.

Clearly, there was no doubt in St. Irenaeus’ mind that St. John the apostle wrote the fourth gospel. If you consider the fact the St. Irenaeus was a pupil of St. Polycarp, who in turn was taught by St. John the Apostle, then you can see that this piece of evidence is not really that “far removed in time and local” from the time of the Apostles, now is it? In fact, it is more reliable than the writings of many present-day theologians and “scholars” who could do no better than make speculations and hypotheses about authorship, but with no real access to actual historical data.

Irenaeus may have been a pupil of Polycarp there is no historical proof that Polycarp was a disciple of John…many of the Gnostic groups also claimed to be taught by John, Paul, Peter…yet their claims are dismissed completely…why is that? Fact, “John’s gospel” was anonymous…as were the synoptics…but pious believers put names to them. Just as some of the pastoral letters hold the name of “Paul” and “Peter”…yet most scholars now agree linguistically and content point to these documents being written long after the ascribed author’s death.

cont.

 

[Publisher]

cont.

That is not fair. So, you say that those who hold the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel do so only because they are “believers” in tradition to begin with? Well, I can equally say that those who deny John’s authorship of the fourth gospel do so only because they were deniers of tradition to begin with, right?

You could, but that simply is not so…many believers do not hold to Johanine authorship and realize there are problems with doing so…

There is a confirmation that you can find from the gospel records, but it is not always explicitly stated. You do need to exercise logical analysis and a respect for historical data to put the pieces together – which is what responsible historians should be doing. Here in brief are some “clues” from the gospel record that point to the authorship of the fourth gospel by the Apostle John.

1. In the fourth gospel there was a “disciple” who was not identified by name, but who was always spoken of as the one “whom Jesus loved,” and whom Christ allowed to lean on His bosom (John 13:23).
2. This unnamed disciple – “whom Jesus loved,” -was mentioned again in John 20:2, John 21:7 and John 21:20. Later on, however, in John 21:24 the gospel stated that this disciple was the same person who was writing the gospel: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Therefore, the author of the fourth gospel was the disciple whom Christ loved. But who might this “beloved disciple” be?
3. Here we need to read the Synoptic gospels to find out who were in Christ’s “inner circle” of friends. We notice three apostles in particular: Peter, James and John. They were the only ones whom Christ allowed to witness the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1). They were also the only ones who were allowed by our Lord to follow Him to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter had been dead (Mark 5:35-43). And at the garden of Gethsemani they were also the only ones whom He chose to take with Him to pray (Mark 14:32-33). Therefore, the “beloved disciple,” who was also the author of the fourth gospel, would be one of these three apostles: Peter, James or John.
4. Now, in John 21:7 the gospel said: “That disciple, therefore, whom Jesus loved, said to Peter…” If the beloved disciple was talking to Peter, then he could not be Peter.
5. The only remaining candidates, then, are James and John, who were both sons of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Now the author of the fourth gospel could not be James because he was martyred too early (Acts 12:1-2), which was about 25 years before the fourth gospel was written. So, by a process of elimination we arrive at the Apostle John as the author of the fourth gospel.

John was not written some 25 years after the death of James…but more like 50-80 years later.

It makes no difference to me if you wish to believe John, son of Zebedee wrote “John”…I am simply offering another…and in my opinion…option to the “faith affirming” traditions which developed over the decades to answer questions no one had answers for…“nature hates a vacuum”…and so does religious people, especially those who want to make sure they can trace their origins to a certain historical figure…however…as much “tradition” exists among the “heretics” that they too were able to trace their origins to the apostles…but THEY aren’t given any credibility becasue they’re…“heretics”.

 

[manualman]

Bart Erhman’s athiesm in no way has any impact on his credentials of being a good historian and scholar. How could his lack of belief in a “God” impact his historical findings and credentials?

Question already answered in my above response. Scholars of this sort bring at least as much baggage into interpreting the historical record as believers do. Guys like this automatically discount reports of supernatural occurrences in Scripture and Tradition, then reinterpret meanings once reports of the supernatural have been explained away. That’s not scholarship, it’s prejudice.

Think about it. If God were to send an angel to you with a message right now, Erhman et al would simply dismiss your reporting out of hand. Is that actually rational? Not remotely. It’s invincible ignorance.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Question already answered in my above response. Scholars of this sort bring at least as much baggage into interpreting the historical record as believers do. Guys like this automatically discount reports of supernatural occurrences in Scripture and Tradition, then reinterpret meanings once reports of the supernatural have been explained away. That’s not scholarship, it’s prejudice.

Think about it. If God were to send an angel to you with a message right now, Erhman et al would simply dismiss your reporting out of hand. Is that actually rational? Not remotely. It’s invincible ignorance.

Not only that, but Erhman was once a very enthusiastic born-again Christian. Somehow he soured on that, and has spent his life trying to disprove the divinity of Christ. Talk about an obsessive driven man. I’m sure Satan is happy to have him on his side.

 

[Publisher]

Question already answered in my above response. Scholars of this sort bring at least as much baggage into interpreting the historical record as believers do. Guys like this automatically discount reports of supernatural occurrences in Scripture and Tradition, then reinterpret meanings once reports of the supernatural have been explained away. That’s not scholarship, it’s prejudice.

Think about it. If God were to send an angel to you with a message right now, Erhman et al would simply dismiss your reporting out of hand. Is that actually rational? Not remotely. It’s invincible ignorance.

You’re presupposing angel visits occur…“actually rational”??? Angels visiting humans…yet Joseph Smith also claimed angel visitations…but those are clearly dismissed…is that “actually rational” if one believes in angel visitations?

 

[Publisher]

Not only that, but Erhman was once a very enthusiastic born-again Christian. Somehow he soured on that, and has spent his life trying to disprove the divinity of Christ. Talk about an obsessive driven man. I’m sure Satan is happy to have him on his side.

He went to college…and university…he looked at the “historical evidence” against the “faith stories” he had been told all his life…the two didn’t match up.

Have you ever read any of his books…or watched his lectures? Have you looked at the historical evidence weighed against what we actually know instead of what’s been filtered thru the respective “faith story”?

Your accusation that his whole rationale is to disprove the divinity of Christ is totally incorrect. He’s passionate…but hardly “obsessive”.

Not all of us believe in a satan…nor do all of us ascribe “satan” as the source for those that disagree with our understanding of history, culture and religious writings.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

He went to college…and university…he looked at the “historical evidence” against the “faith stories” he had been told all his life…the two didn’t match up.

Have you ever read any of his books…or watched his lectures? Have you looked at the historical evidence weighed against what we actually know instead of what’s been filtered thru the respective “faith story”?

Your accusation that his whole rationale is to disprove the divinity of Christ is totally incorrect. He’s passionate…but hardly “obsessive”.

Not all of us believe in a satan…nor do all of us ascribe “satan” as the source for those that disagree with our understanding of history, culture and religious writings.

Yes I have read many of his books. They were okay, but obviously he is going after Christianity. The real turn-off for me was when he decided not to believe in God because of the problem of suffering and evil. I think it’s calledGod’s Problem