Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

That was an old book, something he acknowledged and said it was partially due to staff who wrote much of the book from his notes. I've committed plagiarism before and apologized as well. If that is your litmus test for refusing to engage, then should we immediately stop with this dialogue also for the same reason? Let me know.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Akragon

I could add what some people here seems to be unaware of. The two books (or epistles) by Jude and by James in question here, are ver much included in the Bible. These are not some apocrypha or uncanonised material.

I apologize... I thought wthose were part of the Dead Sea scrolls.

No problem. Since you mention the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) -- contrary to popular belief, there is actually nothing related to Christianity or Jesus in the DDS material. They were a separate cult.

Huh?!? The Dead Sea scrolls were from a group of gnostic Christians... With books in the early life of Jesus... As well as most of the rest of the NT. A Christian in modern times wouldn't recognize them because of how changed they are, but they definately have info on Jesus.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

Yea they keep saying "Even erhman agrees Jesus was real". Implying erhman is some anti Christian historian who is completely unbiased... Kinda like "even Richard Dawkins agrees Jesus existed"... Lol. Like if erhman agrees then it's got to be true.... Then I google him and he's a professor at a bible college LMAO!!!

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Grimpachi

Certainly not a scholarly consensus..

As I've said for years, it would be pretty hard for Mr. Erhman to get his Doctorate if his dissertation were titled "Why Historical Scholarship Is Correct", by Bart Erhman

The guy, William Lane Craig, is so intellectually dishonest, listening to him makes my ears bleed! I could only listen til around 7 minutes before I had to shut him off. He pretends to employ logic while he's twisting the brains the his listeners to believe that he has stated facts, when he's only expressed his opinion, and then leads then like hypnotized sheep to HIS conclusions, which are NOT based on logic or fact.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

Yea they keep saying "Even erhman agrees Jesus was real". Implying erhman is some anti Christian historian who is completely unbiased... Kinda like "even Richard Dawkins agrees Jesus existed"... Lol. Like if erhman agrees then it's got to be true.... Then I google him and he's a professor at a bible college LMAO!!!

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is an agnostic. He left Christianity a while ago and now isn't certain that God even exists at all.

a reply to: Entreri06

You know I was referring to Missler as an evangelical plagiarist right?


I wish you had watched the video on his lecture I posted.

BTW Erhman is a professor at University of North Carolina.

UNC isn't a bible college. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

a reply to: windword

I agree with that... watch the debate between him and Dr.Ehrman...

Bart ruined him... Craig had nothing to add but his own personal beliefs... He stumbled around like a drunk trying to explain away what Dr.Ehrman presented... and basically ended up with "well that might be true but I don't believe it"

it was pretty sad

Nvmd

So after 20 pages of the forum. The real answer seems to be "No"... There are no reliable accounts. Every case mentioned here is at least questionable and most are thought to be forgeries and later additions.


Makes you wonder how the majority of scholars came to accept his existence? Unless it's just that they grew up in a time before the "Big Bang theory" and truely easy access to information. So they just assume he's real because everyone else does.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

Yea they keep saying "Even erhman agrees Jesus was real". Implying erhman is some anti Christian historian who is completely unbiased... Kinda like "even Richard Dawkins agrees Jesus existed"... Lol. Like if erhman agrees then it's got to be true.... Then I google him and he's a professor at a bible college LMAO!!!

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is an agnostic. He left Christianity a while ago and now isn't certain that God even exists at all.

Yet he still allowed and willing to have a day job as a professor at a bible college....

IMHO no one who is specifically paid by the church can be considered unbiased.

a reply to: Entreri06

Yet he still allowed and willing to have a day job as a professor at a bible college....

What bible college????


UNC isn't a bible college.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

Yea they keep saying "Even erhman agrees Jesus was real". Implying erhman is some anti Christian historian who is completely unbiased... Kinda like "even Richard Dawkins agrees Jesus existed"... Lol. Like if erhman agrees then it's got to be true.... Then I google him and he's a professor at a bible college LMAO!!!

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is an agnostic. He left Christianity a while ago and now isn't certain that God even exists at all.

Yet he still allowed and willing to have a day job as a professor at a bible college....

IMHO no one who is specifically paid by the church can be considered unbiased.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill isn't a Bible College. You have never heard of the Tar Heels?

UNC Chapel Hill

Michael Jordan played college basketball there.

IMHO no one who is specifically paid by the church can be considered unbiased.

Nobody on the planet is unbiased. Everyone has a worldview and presuppositions. And robots don't write books.

a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL, dude I'm lost too.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: windword

I agree with that... watch the debate between him and Dr.Ehrman...

Bart ruined him... Craig had nothing to add but his own personal beliefs... He stumbled around like a drunk trying to explain away what Dr.Ehrman presented... and basically ended up with "well that might be true but I don't believe it"

it was pretty sad

My bad, I just did a search again and that came up. I swear the first search I did a couple days ago, popped up as professor at a presperterian seminary.

The point is still the same. The reason he accepts the historicity of Jesus is he needs it to make his pet theory work. If Jesus didn't exist then his theory of "the disiples hallucinated Jesus and added all the divine stuff" only works if he is real. If Jesus was a "king author " type compilation of a few preachers from that era, then his theory is discredited.

Also is it any suprise someone who's whole education was done at bible schools has an ingrained belief in the basic foundation that he did exist.

That is kind of a weak reasoning bro.

He is a bible historian and sort of an authority on it. Even if Jesus wasn't real the religion is and there is plenty to study and learn about how it came into being and changed over the centuries. If sources led to their not being a historical figure named Jesus and it was evidence based it would be big news.

As far as I can tell he says there probably was a historical jesus that was crucified but the fables, miracles, and divinity attributed to him were products of the church.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Bart Ehrman was mentored by Bruce Metzger of Princeton University who was the greatest manuscript scholar of the last century. (LOL)

In 2005, Ehrman helped Metzger update and revise the classic work on the topic– Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.
www.google.com...# q=bart+ehrman%27s+mentor&spell=1

Ehrman was being "mentored" by Bruce Metzger in 2005. Since he got his PHd in 1985, I don't understand why he would need a "mentor." I guess "they" had to have someone to call the final shots on "editing" how the New Testament should read. So, yeah, I think he's a sell out, to the extent that he CAN'T ruffle the feathers of the PTB within the department of Religious Studies in the University system, beyond an already acceptably defined line, and has to maintain that "biblical Jesus was Real", or else!

Bart Ehrman was mentored by Bruce Metzger of Princeton University who was the greatest manuscript scholar of the last century. (LOL)

In 2005, Ehrman helped Metzger update and revise the classic work on the topic– Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.
www.google.com...# q=bart+ehrman%27s+mentor&spell=1

a reply to: windword

I don't understand why he would need a "mentor."

Because Dr. Metzger was the greatest textual critic of the 20th century. Bart still considered him a wealth of information.

a reply to: windword

I don't know whether he is hiding something or not but I remember either reading something from him or hearing in one of his lecture where he describes one of the earlier known versions of Jesus's birth.

In it Joseph and Mary are traveling and Joseph is pissed because Mary is pregnant and he plans on divorcing her. At some point he has a revelation that the birth is divine and this is the son of god. She doesn't give birth at nazareth there are no three kings but later after the birth they do travel to a place called Nazareth.

The three kings stuff was probably added later as well as some other things that mimic older religions.

The main thing I interpret from that is Mary probably got pregnant by cheating or being raped then stayed quiet and Joseph had a mental breakdown rationalized it for that era from that point on they lived a lie which probably kept Mary from being stoned to death for adultery and here is this kid being raised and told he is the son of God. Talk about pressure and a religion was born.

That seems plausible and it is no wonder the church set out to destroy documentation like that.

a reply to: windword

my favorite lol is when christians assert that even the most ardent atheist scholars believe jesus existed

no

honestly im surprised this christianity stuff is still allowed on this website and not thrown into the hoax bin

times are changing

a reply to: reformedtro11nowgenious


Dream on. Almost nothing on this site that passes as christian criticism is worth a hoot, amounting to ignorance and taking itself way to seriously.