Not everyone considers the Gospels to be historically accurate. There is a belief among a group of people called the Jesus Seminar that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke next and John last and that Mark comes the closest to being historically accurate. From there, they claim, the gospels get further removed from history until John when, they claim, none of it is actually historical.
Many Jews believe that Jesus was just a renegade rabbi and that the stories about him are exaggerated. The Talmud records an account of Jesus given by somebody that was assuming he was not divine.
Belief in the historical existence of Jesus does not necessitate belief in God.
Well, I feel like something big happened back then. Why else would Christianity have taken off as it did and still be here today? Jesus's followers were waiting on what he said would happen (His Resurrection) I would think that if nothing at all were to have happened that he would have lost many, many of his followers and if a few stuck through they would have eventually died and Christianity with them. It can all be very overwhelming, especially since I am new to all this.
Lol not sure if it IS the same guy after looking. Tonyj (dot) net is the site. Please send me the guy you are talking about site if u do not mind :-)
There are two different interviews. A longer version of the interview with Ehrman by Reginald v. Finley, The Infidel Guy, is on youtube Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube
The second one is the one in which he describes why he became agnostic. In Jones final question, Ehrman gets very excited when Jones mentions Ehrman's appearance on Steve Colbert. Ehrman suggests he write on controversial issues.
Jones is pretty liberal. There are many other authors that I would recommend. I just mentioned this interview because he demonstrates how he likes the celebrity he gets from his lack of belief.
Well, I feel like something big happened back then. Why else would Christianity have taken off as it did and still be here today?
I didn't ever say that was my belief. Actually it was at one time but I no longer hold that view. I'm a member of the Church today.
Jesus's followers were waiting on what he said would happen (His Resurrection) I would think that if nothing at all were to have happened that he would have lost many, many of his followers and if a few stuck through they would have eventually died and Christianity with them. It can all be very overwhelming, especially since I am new to all this.
Actually Jesus' followers were quite surprised to have found that he had risen.
[quote=okiemom79;60607423]What belief was that? Sorry I am a little lost, I did not mean to imply u held a certain belief, sorry for the misunderstanding.
It was once my believe that Jesus existed by was not the son of God.
I, at one time, believed that Jesus was just a renegade rabbi and possibly failed messiah cultist. At the time, I was studying the history of 1st century Judaism and the first few centuries of Christianity and looking at it from the Jewish POV. I eventually came to change my mind and join the Christians.
Do you think that ALL of them were surprised or perhaps just a few? I know I would have been surprised being one of them.
All of them. Reading the text, I strongly get the impression that no one really fully understand the plan until after the resurrection.
Also, it goes entirely against every one of our natural inclinations to believe that someone can rise from the dead. Every single one of his followers could have understood and believed fully that Jesus would rise from the dead and each and every single one of them would still have been fully surprised that it actually happened. It can't be helped.
Do you think that ALL of them were surprised or perhaps just a few? I know I would have been surprised being one of them.
I think the reactions of Peter and John, who were the only disciples the Bible relates were actually at the tomb, speaks to that. The others were so thoroughly into hiding, thinking they were being hunted down for execution, that they wouldn't venture out of the house. Had they been convinced of the truth of the Resurrection beforehand, they would have been without fear in confronting the Temple officials, the Romans and the people with that truth, and would have encamped around the tomb awaiting the event.
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)
Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.
While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.
It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.
Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.
William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)
Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.
While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.
It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.
Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.
William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.
Very interesting! I can see why someone would be agnostic (been there) It can be very confusing when we delve deep into it. One person can see or interpret things totally different from another. I will check into N T Wright's defense that you mentioned above. Thank you
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)
Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.
While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.
It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.
Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.
William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.
Hedric, I don't know where your role-play ends, so I need to ask, where's the close quote?
I'm pretty sure you don't believe that the Gospels and Epistles weren't completely accurate, because they are completely accurate in the context of what the writers wanted them to portray. Are they historical documents? Not as we understand historical documents. They, the Gospels, are an afterthought-after 30 years or so of teaching the teachings of Jesus, someone decided it was time to write them down.
What we have to prove who wrote the Gospels is the Early Church Fathers, who say definitively that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels, and that they wrote them in that order. The furthest removed the authors could have been is that they taught their disciples, who wrote down what they taught. Since there were no distractions, like internet, phones, television and radio, the disciples paid attention and got it right, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Regarding "some kind of subjective experience" we know that Jesus appeared to over 500 men at once. Group hypnosis, maybe? I don't think so...
Regarding how Paul got his information, it was not from Peter, it was from Jesus, on the road to Damascus, who gave Paul his information. And if you read Galatians, it was a long time between the time Paul was struck down on that road, and when Paul met Peter.
Regarding miracles and how God speaks to us, if we only want to believe that faith-healing or something extraordinary is a miracle, you're limiting God severely. Every breath we take is a miracle of God, every child conceived, the fact that the sun comes over the horizon. Regarding God speaking to us, he speaks to everyone, day in, day out, regardless whether you believe in Him or not. That's all about attitude, though.
Again, I'm probably speaking to that unknown, hypothetical agnostic, but even so, it's nice to be able to show said agnostic how weak his arguments really are. In a Christian way, of course.
__________________ See my profile to visit my blogs:
The God who made you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation.--St. Augustine
Wise men STILL find Him with His mother...
God uses Mary as bait to capture the hearts of men. -St. Theresa of Avila
Linear Mode
