I don't expect that any believers will have their minds changed. Which isn't the point for me, but simply to research and learn. I've seen this "argument from silence" comment a number of times now. Which suggests that the Bible is incomplete. I'd agree .. and more.
Article Excerpt
A review of Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. Harper San Francisco, 2005. 256 pp. $24.95. ISBN: 0060738170.
BART EHRMAN'S LATEST BOOK throws into high relief the problems faced by those trying to establish just what Jesus actually said. Assuming that the tradition that he was put to death ca. CE 30 is reasonably correct, the earliest account of his life and teachings was not written until nearly 40 years later. This is the Gospel of Mark. We can figure this out by our understanding of the relationships between the gospels and by clues within Mark, Matthew and Luke.
By common agreement among Bible scholars of all stripes, John is the fourth Gospel not only in biblical, but chronological order. Of the other three--the Synoptic Gospels--Mark is dearly the oldest, most primitive and least elaborate. It lacks the Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, many of the sayings of Jesus, and gives only a terse, unsatisfying account of the Resurrection. The term "Synoptic" means "seen together," and the Synoptic Gospels are "seen together" because Matthew and Luke each incorporate Mark whole, virtually word for word, along with sayings of Jesus from a hypothetical source referred to as "Q" (from Quelle, the German word for "source") and their own material, called respectively "M" and "L".
We can establish that Mark had to have been written after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the end of the Jewish revolt in CE 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13:2. This could only be either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact. The reason we know it is the latter is that Mark 8:38-9:1 predicts the return of Jesus, coming in "the glory of his Father with the holy angels," which can only refer to the Second Coming in the lifetime of his own generation. This obviously didn't happen, ergo, the prophecy is false, and taints the validity of any other prophecy in Mark.
Bart Ehrman brings an evangelical background to his work, which he details in the introduction. Raised in Lawrence, Kansas, Ehrman was an Episcopalian and thus not exposed to the rigors of (exclusively) Bible-based religion until he was a sophomore in high school. When he joined a Campus Life Youth for Christ club, he was convinced by its leader that the void he felt in his heart was from not having Christ in his heart (although Ehrman humorously interjects: "We were teenagers! All of us felt a void!"). Ehrman had a born-again experience, and the club leader convinced him to study scripture full-time at the Moody Bible Institute. Moody was so conservative that when he moved from there to Wheaton College, the home of Billy Graham, Ehrman was warned by his mentors at Moody that he might have trouble finding "real Christians" at Wheaton. Ehrman went from Wheaton to Princeton Theological Seminary. There, though still under the tutelage of committed Christians, he met professors willing to ask question about the Gospel texts.
Once he was open to the idea that the gospels could contain mistakes, even small ones, Ehrman found that heavily defended positions of biblical inerrancy fell one after another. When Mark said that Jesus was crucified the day after Passover, and John said he was crucified the day before Passover, Ehrman could see that they simply disagreed, where before intricate, indeed tortured, reasoning had been required to explain why they really were saying the same thing. Of course, if they could disagree and get things wrong, the divine authorship,...
Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar. A real scholar. There are scholars and experts on both sides of most any debate. So these appeals to real scholarship and real experts and really practices showing a lack of intellectual integrity, imv.
Fresh Air from WHYY, December 14, 2005 · Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes -- through both omission and intention -- changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.
Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.
Ehrman is also the author of Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which chronicles the period before Christianity as we know it, when conflicting ideas about the religion were fighting for prominence in the second and third centuries.
The chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Ehrman also edited a collection of the early non-canonical texts from the first centuries after Christ, called Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament.
Read an excerpt from Misquoting Jesus:
Chapter One
The Beginnings of Christian Scripture
To discuss the copies of the New Testament that we have, we need to start at the very beginning with one of the unusual features of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world: its bookish character. In fact, to make sense of this feature of Christianity, we need to start before the beginnings of Christianity with the religion from which Christianity sprang, Judaism. For the bookishness of Christianity was in some sense anticipated and foreshadowed by Judaism, which was the first "religion of the book" in Western civilization.
Judaism as a Religion of the Book
The Judaism from which Christianity sprang was an unusual religion in the Roman world, although by no means unique. Like adherents of any of the other (hundreds of ) religions in the Mediterranean area, Jews acknowledged the existence of a divine realm populated by superhuman beings (angels, archangels, principalities, powers); they subscribed to the worship of a deity through sacrifices of animals and other food products; they maintained that there was a special holy place where this divine being dwelt here on earth (the Temple in Jerusalem), and it was there that these sacrifices were to be made. They prayed to this God for communal and personal needs. They told stories about how this God had interacted with human beings in the past, and they anticipated his help for human beings in the present. In all these ways, Judaism was "familiar" to the worshipers of other gods in the empire.
In some ways, though, Judaism was distinctive. All other religions in the empire were polytheistic -- acknowledging and worshiping many gods of all sorts and functions: great gods of the state, lesser gods of various locales, gods who oversaw different aspects of human birth, life, and death. Judaism, on the other hand, was monotheistic; Jews insisted on worshiping only the one God of their ancestors, the God who, they maintained, had created this world, controlled this world, and alone provided what was needed for his people. According to Jewish tradition, this one all-powerful God had called Israel to be his special people and had promised to protect and defend them in exchange for their absolute devotion to him and him alone. The Jewish people, it was believed, had a "covenant" with this God, an agreement that they would be uniquely his as he was uniquely theirs. Only this one God was to be worshiped and obeyed; so, too, there was only one Temple, unlike in the polytheistic religions of the day in which, for example, there could be any number of temples to a god like Zeus. To be sure, Jews could worship God anywhere they lived, but they could perform their religious obligations of sacrifice to God only at the Temple in Jerusalem. In other places, though, they could gather together in "synagogues" for prayer and to discuss the ancestral traditions at the heart of their religion.
These traditions involved both stories about God's interaction with the ancestors of the people of Israel -- the patriarchs and matriarchs of the faith, as it were: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rachel, Jacob, Rebecca, Joseph, Moses, David, and so on -- and detailed instructions concerning how this people was to worship and live. One of the things that made Judaism unique among the religions of the Roman Empire was that these instructions, along with the other ancestral traditions, were written down in sacred books.
For modern people intimately familiar with any of the major contemporary Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), it may be hard to imagine, but books played virtually no role in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world. These religions were almost exclusively concerned with honoring the gods through ritual acts of sacrifice. There were no doctrines to be learned, as explained in books, and almost no ethical principles to be followed, as laid out in books. This is not to say that adherents of the various polytheistic religions had no beliefs about their gods or that they had no ethics, but beliefs and ethics -- strange as this sounds to modern ears -- played almost no role in religion per se. These were instead matters of personal philosophy, and philosophies, of course, could be bookish. Since ancient religions themselves did not require any particular sets of "right doctrines" or, for the most part, "ethical codes," books played almost no role in them.
Judaism was unique in that it stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status, therefore, of "scripture" for the Jewish people. During the period of our concern -- the first century of the common era, when the books of the New Testament were being written -- Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire understood in particular that God had given direction to his people in the writings of Moses, referred to collectively as the Torah, which literally means something like "law" or "guidance." The Torah consists of five books, sometimes called the Pentateuch (the "five scrolls"), the beginning of the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Here one finds accounts of the creation of the world, the calling of Israel to be God's people, the stories of Israel's patriarchs and matriarchs and God's involvement with them, and most important (and most extensive), the laws that God gave Moses indicating how his people were to worship him and behave toward one another in community together. These were sacred laws, to be learned, discussed, and followed -- and they were written in a set of books.
Jews had other books that were important for their religious lives together as well, for example, books of prophets (such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos), and poems (Psalms), and history (such as Joshua and Samuel). Eventually, some time after Christianity began, a group of these Hebrew books -- twenty-two of them altogether -- came to be regarded as a sacred canon of scripture, the Jewish Bible of today, accepted by Christians as the first part of the Christian canon, the "Old Testament."
If only some of the christians we're dealing with here on the net...
Would pay attention to HALF of the stuff Ehrman has to say about...
-- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Oh... but then, they might learn something!
Can't have that now, can we...?
It's been a very busy weekend and continues to be so. But I did do a bit of reading here and there. It is evident that there is a big difference in terms of "stakes". There is a huge emotional investment in faith for the "believer" and given that, well, the exercise is a little exercise in futility. However there are lurkers, and those that don't have an emotional investment -- that are just looking for truth or Truth, and for that reason it isn't pointless.
For me too, reading, I learn aspects that I didn't know before.
To be honest I can't really follow the Nazareth/Bath House argument, I'm not sure what it is about or what is being asserted. This does often happen though in these debates.
Got lots of yard work done, got the flower pots planted. It was hot and sunny yesterday, good timing. Getting some showers today and some flowers are opening up already. And the beautiful smell of fresh rain.
to give a little explanation. Not sure which parts you're not sure of.
The "contention" is whether Nazareth even existed at the time of Jesus' alleged existence. The bath house remains (supposedly) found under the shop-keeper's place are rather significant because if they are proven to date back to 33 AD or before, it might lend credence to there being a town on that location at the time of Jesus.
If they date to a later period, it proves nothing about the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus but ........ is still pretty significant in how it might have affected later Gospel redactors' perception of that place. Why did Matthew and Luke state that it was a polis (a "city") when it appears that NOTHING existed there for several centuries AD?
It's highly unlikely they dated back to the time of Gospel Jesus because Rome hadn't conquered that region all that long before the time of G-Jesus. I believe it was Pompey who finally defeated the Macedonians in the region and Pompey was Julius Caesar's predecessor .............. so .......... figure about 60 BC when that region came under Roman control.
The region was farmed out to Herod the Great and he Romanized almost nothing in the Galilee area. Only under Antipas (his son) did the Romanizing begin. Rome basically left the region of Galilee to Antipas but HAD installed their own Prefect (Cyrenius/Pilate) into the southern area of Judea, starting 6AD with the expulsion of the other Herod brother, Archelus.
So it would be a near-miracle for the remains of this bath house to date back prior to the 67AD uprising in Japha (only a mile away from the site of Nazareth).
It does strike me as strange that Nazareth would be "insignificant", if in fact the prophecies of Jesus coming from Nazareth are accurate. It would suggest to me that the Jews would have been looking to Nazareth constantly, for their Messiah.
myopic, not to "see" ......... that there are SO MANY problems with the Gospel Jesus stories. I mean, it's just one thing after another after another.....
I was doing some more research today on Japha for example. It's essentially a no-name place too, as far as the Bible is concerned. It's mentioned in Judges 19:12 ...... so that, at least, establishes the place Biblically but otherwise it wasn't part of the bigger picture.
Yet, Josephus described the town extensively and how it was destroyed in 67 AD. He said it was the most significant town (or city) in the Galilee region!
Since it's tied in with the region of Zebulun -[ (Josh 19:10-12) And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun .....and their border went up ...and then goeth out to Daberath, and goeth up to Japhia,]- and Zebulun ties in with "prophecy" -according to Matt. 4:13-15 ............... it SHOULD CERTAINLY have been part of Jesus' ministry and visitations! Yet, the Gospel writers missed Japha completely.
Japha was only about 1 or 2 miles from Nazareth.
Nazareth was an unknown and Japha was prominent during the time described in the Gospels and yet they got it backwards!~ How could that possibly happen? Only IF ....... the Gospels were written much later.
We both used to have similar beliefs to the mainstream Christian beliefs, so both probably can understand the reactions. I remember getting angry when my beliefs were exposed, just as we see the anger on these forums. We both know that anything can be explained away, dismissed, interpreted in order to defend the faith. Square pegs and round holes. No problem! Words can mean whatever we wish them to mean, in order to justify our beliefs.
The difference of opinions are understandable, and there can be some exchange of ideas at times. Although the current situation is now so polarized that there is not much exchanging taking place.
I see Jack saying incredibly stupid things like ... 'All SCHOLARS agree that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus', or words to that effect. And that is what annoys me. It is a lie. All scholars do not agree. All scholars do not agree on much of anything, ever. It's sheer stupidity to assert stuff like that. Many, some, most, with few exceptions, a minority --- but not ALL. If it was ALL, there would be no debate.
I ever "noticed" you leaving your old beliefs behind, Mondo. As long as I can remember, you were on the "un-christian" side ... but I may be mistaken.
When did you go through your deconversion experience? (What year or years?) Or was it a very gradual thing with vacillation back and forth for quite awhile?
Until it disagreed with him. If Jack ever finds a problem with the Bible, look out, he'll drop it like a hot potato. The Koran will become the Word of God for Reverend Blue Curtains.
Rational thinking seems the rare mode of thinking because in this mode of reasoning, the individual, in the process of forming an opinion, examines carefully all of the facts of the matter, forms a hypothesis, and then attempts to disprove its own hypothesis. After a certain amount of rigorous examination and refutation of its own hypothesis, the individual may or may not conclude that the hypothesis is sound.
If the hypothesis does not survive close examination and refutation, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is formed. If the hypothesis is sound, the indidvidual incorporates it into its world view. In the process of incorporating the hypothesis or idea into its world view, certain sentiments are attached to the idea and the idea becomes a "belief".
Sentiment is the foundation of all thought, it is the motive force behind thought. So, even before the hypothesis is formed, there is sentiment. However, there are competing sentiments and it is the hallmark of the rational mind to allow reason to be the justification for sentiment. Once a rational/reasoned hypothesis is decided upon among competing hypotheses, a sentiment is chosen from competing sentiments. Reason precedes sentiment.
Emotional thinking seems, by far, the most common form of thinking. In this mode of reasoning, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" the sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justify the sentiment. Sentiment precedes reason.
This is an inferior and primitive form of thinking because the individual "rationalizes" emotions. Why does the individual choose one sentiment over another? What is the justification for choosing one sentiment over another up front? There is no justification, it is irrational. To a large extent it depends on the imagery of childhood experience, an imagery which can be influenced and controlled by early exposure to propaganda and indoctrination.
People who use emotional thinking are easily susceptible to imagery and pandering, and the efficacy of propaganda is directly proportional to the percentage of people that engage, wittingly or not, in emotional thinking.
So, what happens when emotional thinking is confronted with unassailable facts and logic? What happens when the "flimsy" logic, rationalizing and justifying the pre-existing sentiments, is challenged by incontrovertible evidence?
the Bible is the TRUTH but not historical relevance: The truth is true in all generations and therefore the BIBLE is not about SOMEBODY in history, but about "GOD IN YOU" or not in you:
the BIBLE speaks of HOW GOD WORKS IN EACH and EVERY MAN, not how he did things a long time ago and we have to believe to be saved:
it is about BELIEVING IN THE TRUTH NOW, and therefore, understanding the MEANING OF THE BIBLE NOW, in your own life, how GOD WORKS in your soul, thats important:
If you understand JESUS, you will know he isn't dead and he's not history either: HE IS ALIVE and he is EITHER IN YOU or he is NOT IN YOU:
if he is NOT in you, then you don't KNOW HIM and have nothing to say about him that makes any difference:
the GOSPELS are from four different PERSPECTIVES of JESUS IN experience:
its not what happened in history, but how Mathew, Mark, Luke and John experienced THE SAVIOR within
same with the OT: Moses isn't a historical figure, but the ONE WHO BRINGS the law to the heart and delivers ISRAEL out of EGYPT every single time a heart is delivered from their mind, or cognitive understanding of God:
it is written, THE LAW COMES BY MOSES and his name means' DRAWN OUT OF THE WATER:
Moses is how the LAW is drawn out of the WORD in you:
truth and GRACE come by JESUS CHRIST: and that means the way truth and GRACE COME IN YOU and TO YOU
not in history, but in each and every HEART that has been given the LAW within it:
this time in history people will become smarter but also something else will happen: THE GOOD WILL GET BETTER and BETTER
and the wicked will get worse and worse
the good will SEEK FOR THE TRUTH and FIND IT
the wicked will look for excuses why they don't need to believe in GOD
both sides are in us all
it is important to make sure you don't let the evil part of you throw out the BABY (man-child) with the "bathwater" (baptism)
just let go of the wicked stuff and hold on to the GOOD,
