Dr. Bart Ehrman Live Webinar Did Jesus Call himself God?

by Diogenesister 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  Disillusioned JW, I am somewhat surprised that you give such credence to the Cista Mystica website. The link you provide on the origins of Christianity says the following :

  There is no evidence of Jesus, Christ, Christianity or Christians until after the end of the Western Roman Empire. The whole, claimed history for Christianity is late, first appearing - according to the accepted dates - in the 6th century, though the actual date may be as late as the 8th century (in response to the Arab Conquests).

  The original New Testament (codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is not Christian - it makes no mention of Jesus or Christ, and one of its books - The Shepherd of Hermas - was later removed.

  There is nothing true in the above statements. How can you possibly take it seriously?

  The whole premise seems to be based on a correction made to the spelling of one word in one manuscript at Acts 26:28, ignoring the readings in Vaticanus and the papyri predating Sinaiticus which do not misspell Christian.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Let me clarify, I am not giving credence to the Cista Mystica website, except for the portion that is the Mirror of John Bartram's disappeared site on Chrestianity.

  I am aware that the Mirror of John Bartram's disappeared site on Chrestianity says what you quoted it to say. I encourage you to read more of that mirrored site, since it explains the reasons for the shocking claims he made in the words which you quoted.

  The Roman writer named Suetonius (in a document which many Christians say is about Christ actually says Chrestus instead of Christus. The Roman historian Tacitus (in a document which many Christians say is about Christ and Christians) which says Christianos has been forensically shown be a change of an original wording oof Chrestianos. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christ_Myth and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory .

  In one of the gospels Jesus is credited as saying "Why do you say I am good. No one is good but the father." In that passage the word translated as "good" is "chrestus".

  Paul's letter to the Philippians at 1:21 in the way it is translated in most English translations is perplexing: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Regarding that verse, the famous Jewish scholar and historian named Hugh J. Schonfield, in his translation of the NT called The Original New Testament says the following on the back dust jacket. "Here in the Greek word Christos (Christ) has carelessly been set down by a scribe in place of chrestos (useful), which is called for by the context." In the footnote for the verse Schonfield says the following. "By a scribal error Christos was substituted for chrestos. The mistake was easy since Chrestos, meaning useful, was a well-known proper name. The Roman historian Suetonius once referred to Christus as Chrestus."
  

  Regarding The Shepherd of Hermas it was indeed included in some ancient New Testament Bibles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas which says the following. "The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.[2] It is found in the Codex Sinaiticus,[3][4] and it is listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus." The Shepherd of Hermas is not included in modern Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Bibles.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  The word translated “good” in Mark 10:18 and Matt 19:17 is agathos.

  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g18/kjv/tr/0-1/
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Oh. Thanks slimboyfat. I should have looked up those verses in a Greek interlinear NT before saying they said chrestos.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding the Christ myth theory I was strongly influenced by a book called "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?" by Earl Doherty. I checked out that book from the library and read much of it. I was also strongly influenced by the book called Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, by Frank R. Zindler and Robert M. Price and published by American Atheist Press. I borrowed the latter book by Interlibrary Loan (ILL) and read much of it.

  Prior to reading the above mentioned books I was greatly influenced by a website promoting the Christ myth theory. I was also influenced by watching the "Zeitgeist: The Movie - Part 1 - Religion [The Greatest Story Ever Told]" and greatly influenced by watching the video called the "The God Who Wasn't There" (regarding the latter see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There ). I think it was the latter three sources which first caused me to believe in (or at least began to consider highly plausible) the idea that Christ was a myth.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I read The Jesus Puzzle too by Karl Doherty.

  Robert Price is great . I’ve read his book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man too.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Don't you mean Earl Doherty instead of Karl Doherty?
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes I meant Earl. I think I typed Earl too, but this iPad keeps correcting me into mistakes.

  Jesus From Outer Space by Richard Carrier is good too, but other books not so much, especially with the Bayesian claptrap.
• 

  Earnest

  Disillusioned JW, in his commentary on the Book of Acts, 1988, F.F. Bruce writes (p.368) :

  Chrestus (Gk. xrestos,"useful") was a common name in the Graeco-Roman world, especially among slaves, and appears as a variant spelling for the unfamiliar Christus (xristos). (In Greek the two words were pronounced alike.)

  This gives some credence to the suggestion of Hugh J. Schonfield to an alternative reading of Philippians 1:21 but it is unlikely. One of the principles of textual criticism is that the more difficult reading is the stronger, and the perplexing text "to live is Christ, and to die is gain" has no variants in the manuscript tradition.

  However, the fact that the two words were pronounced alike may explain why sometimes non-Christians used the term chrestus. So, Tertullian writes "Concerning the Odious Title of Christian" :

  But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you “Chrestianus” (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity.
• 

  Earnest

  Disillusioned JW, the link you provided to the Cista Mystica website is no longer accessible, but I was able to access the same material here. It maintains that the term 'christian' does not occur until codex Alexandrinus, which it suggests may be later than the 5th century C.E., and that prior to this the term 'chrestian' was invariably used.

  However, P72 (also known as P.Bodmer.VIII) is a manuscript dated to the third or fourth century which contains the two letters of Peter. At 1 Peter 4:16 he writes "But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame ..." and P72 renders this as "ei de xristianos me eschunestho", so it is not true that the term 'christian' only occurred much later. You can actually see the manuscript on the Vatican Library website here, with 1 Peter 4:16 at the top of p.19.
  

  Why then, is there early use of the term xrestianos? In the book Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus, 2012, by Lincoln H. Blumell he explains (p.37):

  While the epithet "Christian" certainly appears to have been derived from the word "Christ", to an outsider who might not have been necessarily familiar with the association [of Christians] it sometimes appears that it was taken to have an association with the adjective xrestos (good) ... it is not always clear if such a distinction is being made consciously or whether it is simply a mispronunciation.