Jeffro - have you read his book? That's exactly what he says. He thinks a guy named Jesus lived and was a leader type, but none if the miraculous stuff happened. It was added by later scribes or embellished in the stories.
Even MORE evidence for "Jesus died on a Cross"?
by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
Comatose:
Jeffro - have you read his book?
I have not.
That's exactly what he says. He thinks a guy named Jesus lived and was a leader type, but none if the miraculous stuff happened.
It's a fairly logical conclusion to arrive at.
-
Comatose
Ah yes... I made an error. I thought you and MP were arguing from the same stand point. My apologies. Yeah, the book is interesting. I liked it myself. Have a nice day, talk to you later.
-
mP
Slimboy:
I thought he made a good point about the multiple sources that make up the gospels.
Agreement on the existence of Jesus seems to be pretty unanimous among actual academics in biblical studies.
mP:
Well lets start at the beginning, and talk about Nazareth. There is no proof for N even existing when jesus was supposedly born. This is not a given, even the gospels get mixed up with this, sometimes its jesus the nazarene and sometimes its from nazareth. Nazarene is a type of monk and something quite different.
nazareth is never mentioned by josephus even though he mentions 60 odd towns in and about gallilee. N is also never mentioned in the OT.
Bart never discusses or attempts to demonstrate N existed. if it existed then it should be easy to prove beoynd doubt in a simple manner.
Search the reviews for the book on amazon for more discussion on scholars with differing views.
-
Comatose
MP - did you read the book? Bart doesn't think the bible is true. He doesn't think all the accounts in the bible the gospels are accurate. He just thinks there is enough evidence to show a man matching Jesus leadership and followers lived. From that stand poi t it wouldn't matter if Nazareth existed or not. His only point is that Jesus did exist contrary to people saying he is a made up fake person completely. You should read the book.
-
mP
Coma:
did you read the book?
mP;
yes.
Coma:
He just thinks there is enough evidence to show a man matching Jesus leadership and followers lived.
mP:
And thats exactly the problem, he tells you he existed, his light on the evidence.
Coma:
From that stand poi t it wouldn't matter if Nazareth existed or not.
MP:
Of course it matters. If j existed, then its not asking too miuch to get his birthplace right ? If the author cant even get that right just how much do they know ? If i wrote a book about George Washington and said he came from china would you bother to read the rest ?
Matthew 2:23 it says "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
Shouldnt the author know the difference ?
-
Jeffro
mP:
Well lets start at the beginning, and talk about Nazareth.
A great deal of the content of the 'gospels' is obviously made up, even if there was some political revolutionary called 'Jesus'. This includes the 'Nazarene' thing, which was an attempt at 'fulfilling' a supposed 'Messianic prophecy'.
The thing is the Jesus of the Bible is essentially fictitious even if loosely based on a particular individual.
-
mP
coma:
His only point is that Jesus did exist contrary to people saying he is a made up fake person completely.
mP:
I read it.
Also look at Pauls writings a so called comtemporary. he should be a super source, but he knows nothing of jesus the man. bart never comments on why paul knows nothing about jesus life, ministry, death, trial, bethlehem, etc.
How can someone write a book about jesus existance and never quote or discuss paul's knowledge or lack thereof ?
-
mP
written by bart
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html
Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
MP:
Do a scan for jesus in pauls writings and right down the facts you find using some online tool. your list will be almost nothing. You wont find the words, mary, bethlehem, pilate, apostles, miracles, gethsemane and so on in any pauline text real or fraudulent.
Why doesnt Bart quote Paul on any of these mundane facts in the book. He cant quote him because theres nothing to quote.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
the Romans crucified people, that is what they did. History confirms that is what they did. Why on earth the Watchtower insists on being contrary is beyond me.
Because the WT sees the Cross only as a religious symbol. It fails to understand that the Romans used a cross as an effective executionary device, not because of any religious significance. The Romans became experts at torture. They learned that crucifixion on a cross, with arms outstretched, would extend the process from many hours to a few days. It was all for effect and to send a strong message that defiance of the Roman government would result in a long, painful death.
Hanging a criminal on a simple stake, with arms overhead (as WT depicts) would cause death death within minutes. Certainly not the effect the Romans were after.
WT from its inception has always viewed itself as superior to all other Christians, and one way to distinguish itself from Christendom is to reject the idea that Jesus died on a cross.
I'm with Phizzy. JW influence aside, I find it rather disturbing that a Christian would wear a symbol that represents a device used to execute their leader.