Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[cloudyday2]

Why, exactly? Atheists are no less biased than Christians or Jews. They're just biased differently. Ehrman's not too bad, but he's still got his hangups.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament suggests that "poor in spirit" actually means humble, so for a very Jewish perspective on a very Jewish Gospel, there's that.

Oh yes, to answer your question, I discount the opinion of Christian historians for the same reason that I would discount the opinion of a beauty pageant judge whose daughter is a contestant.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh yes, to answer your question, I discount the opinion of Christian historians for the same reason that I would discount the opinion of a beauty pageant judge whose daughter is a contestant.

So you'd trust the opinion of a beauty pageant judge who hates one of the contestants instead? If I've learned anything from exploring Christianity, it's to be careful of trusting what skeptics have to say. They're not as neutral and rational as they'd like to claim.

I find the most value in liberal Christian scholarship, since they don't have an antagonistic relationship with the material but aren't afraid to tear it apart.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah, my theory was inspired by one of Bart Ehrman's writings (I can't remember which and it might have been his blog). I trust the interpretation of an atheist who knows Greek and the culture of the period (such as Ehrman). It is easy for later generations to imagine words to mean something entirely different, and that is what I suspect may be the case with your source on "poor in spirit".

Its not as if over time it changed. It was found in the originals....

One can say after seeing a fantastic instrumental solo... "THAT WAS SICK!"

Have fun interpreting what was mean 500 years from now.

Likewise, when said,"poor" it may have held shades of meaning at the time of writing that only honest scholars will interpret correctly. God has left a lot of wiggle room for those so inclined. God desires to expose the true inner man in each one of us. The judgement is going to be unambiguous.

 

[GenemZ]

John the Baptist was almost certainly an Essene and a role model for ascetics. Jesus and his early disciples were connected with John the Baptist. Jesus preached the same message as John the Baptist. James the brother of Jesus was an ascetic. Mary the mother of Jesus was an ascetic according to tradition. The description of early Christianity in Acts is ascetic. ... IDK what else to say.

EDIT: Also, according to Ehrman one of the distinguishing traits of the proto-orthodox Christians was an obsession with martyrs. Gnostics were ascetics too it seems. Of course there are degrees of asceticism. Apparently all Jews and Christians fasted at least two days per week. Of course later monks took it further by wearing chains and living on pillars or inside caves and so forth.

I suppose you also believe Jesus was long haired and skinny according to tradition as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh yes, to answer your question, I discount the opinion of Christian historians for the same reason that I would discount the opinion of a beauty pageant judge whose daughter is a contestant.

I'm not sure what I should say to that. It pretty much discounts me all the way around ...

So, if you're presented with, say, a historian scholar from Oxford, it won't matter that he's an Ivy League don, you'll just discount him anyway if he happens to be Christian? ........wow. Ok.

 

[GenemZ]

Basically just read the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Take the Sermon on the Mount: "blessed are the poor". Jesus was not saying "poor people, I know you had bad luck in this life, but God will make it up to you in the next life." No, Jesus was saying "renounce wealth, renounce social standing, etc." Look at the early Christians. They gave all their money to the commune. They abstained from sex - even if they were married. They were called "the poor".

Essentially the Crucifixion could be imagined to say "this is what will happen to you if you want to be my follower"

In a certain case only Jesus spoke of renouncing wealth. For a wealthy young man was seeking ways to work (buy) his way into heaven by doing good works using his wealth. He was not seeking salvation by faith in Christ.

So.. Jesus put the man's alleged good intentions on the line. "So, you want to find your salvation by doing good works? Well, give your money to the poor AND then follow me. " (following in faith in Christ!)

The wealthy young man walked away sad because he still wanted to do good deeds as his means to be saved. Good deeds that he conveniently could do with his wealth. For a salvation that Jesus needed to die an agonizing death to secure for him. His money to work doing good deeds for salvation, was an insult to Jesus' agonizing work on the Cross.

So? Jesus' attitude .... "OK? A good work? Do this! Give your money to the poor AND follow me."

Jesus was exposing the wealthy young man's true beliefs. For, if salvation were truly real to him? And, not some achievement oriented, merit badge, to earn? He would have given away his money. Just like Abraham offered his son Isaac. Most likely, Jesus would have given his money back, just like Abraham received back his son Isaac. God was testing his heart. He was not trying to get his money.

 

[cloudyday2]

I suppose you also believe Jesus was long haired and skinny according to tradition as well.

I imagine he was skinny by modern American standards. There is a fairly early church with frescos (Dura Europos ~240 CE) that might give some ideas about what people imagined Jesus looked like 200 years after his death.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I imagine he was skinny by modern American standards. There is a fairly early church with frescos (Dura Europos ~240 CE) that might give some ideas about what people imagined Jesus looked like 200 years after his death.

How in the world would a fresco from 200 plus years after Jesus lived give us much, if any, idea as to how Jesus actually looked? To assert this is to imply a bit more than just that a sprinkling of cultural inferences existed by which some 3rd century fresco painter created a supposed semblance of Jesus. To assert this would instead imply that there was some actual, ongoing transmission of historical data by which to imagine the painting of the fresco. But, don't you essentially deny that we have much, if anything, in the way of actual historical data regarding the person of Jesus?

 

[cloudyday2]

So you'd trust the opinion of a beauty pageant judge who hates one of the contestants instead? If I've learned anything from exploring Christianity, it's to be careful of trusting what skeptics have to say. They're not as neutral and rational as they'd like to claim.

I find the most value in liberal Christian scholarship, since they don't have an antagonistic relationship with the material but aren't afraid to tear it apart.

Not all atheists hate Christianity - especially now that Christianity is withering away in many cultures. An atheist in Europe is probably not going to have any hatred of Christianity, because Christianity mostly died in Europe in the 1960s. You might have a point on many American atheists though.

So how about restricting your reading to the thoughts of European atheist historians? That should be pretty unbiased

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not all atheists hate Christianity - especially now that Christianity is withering away in many cultures. An atheist in Europe is probably not going to have any hatred of Christianity, because Christianity mostly died in Europe in the 1960s. You might have a point on many American atheists though.

So how about restricting your reading to the thoughts of European atheist historians? That should be pretty unbiased

It's not withering away, Cloudy. Rather, the sloughing off of the presence of Christianity is to be expected according to biblical prophecy. I'd assert that it's just the gaining of further momentum of the Mark of the Beast ...which essentially equates to a state of liberal, non-Christian assumptions involving a greedy, over-sexualized, pluralistic and empowerment crazed world. And the New Atheism is just one of the latest installments of this ongoing displacement of Christian belief in the world.

No, seriously.

 

[cloudyday2]

How in the world would a fresco from 200 plus years after Jesus lived give us much, if any, idea as to how Jesus actually looked? To assert this is to imply a bit more than just that a sprinkling of cultural inferences existed by which some 3rd century fresco painter created a supposed semblance of Jesus. To assert this would instead imply that there was some actual, ongoing transmission of historical data by which to imagine the painting of the fresco. But, don't you essentially deny that we have much, if anything, in the way of actual historical data regarding the person of Jesus?

I agree that 200 years is a long time, but it's possible that certain traits might have been passed along if they were noteworthy. For example if Jesus had a wooden leg, then I would assume it might be remembered for 200 years.

I imagine Jesus looked like an Essene holy man. Probably Jesus was middle-aged, because most Essene sects would not allow young people to join. I imagine Jesus was a short emaciated middle-aged guy. I don't know if he had a beard or if he cut his hair. Maybe Jesus was balding I suppose.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure what I should say to that. It pretty much discounts me all the way around ...

So, if you're presented with, say, a historian scholar from Oxford, it won't matter that he's an Ivy League don, you'll just discount him anyway if he happens to be Christian? ........wow. Ok.

I'm not impressed with Kallistos Ware (one example of an Oxford don I suppose). Honestly it's hard to respect any Christian historian. They are intimately acquainted with the historical data, but as Jesus might have said "they have no ears to hear the truth". They continue to cling to Christianity. There is no excuse for that stubborn attitude. Atheists aren't discriminated against anymore (except in Muslim countries), so Kallistos Ware needs to be honest with himself and become an atheist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that 200 years is a long time, but it's possible that certain traits might have been passed along if they were noteworthy. For example if Jesus had a wooden leg, then I would assume it might be remembered for 200 years.

I imagine Jesus looked like an Essene holy man. Probably Jesus was middle-aged, because most Essene sects would not allow young people to join. I imagine Jesus was a short emaciated middle-aged guy. I don't know if he had a beard or if he cut his hair. Maybe Jesus was balding I suppose.

And based on what specific sources do you compose your "imaging" of Jesus, Cloudy?

 

[cloudyday2]

And based on what specific sources do you compose your "imaging" of Jesus, Cloudy?

I assume that Essenes wore identifying clothing and might have had identifying hair styles - just like certain Jewish sects today. Also the Essenes were usually middle-aged or elderly men.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not impressed with Kallistos Ware (one example of an Oxford don I suppose). Honestly it's hard to respect any Christian historian. They are intimately acquainted with the historical data, but as Jesus might have said "they have no ears to hear the truth". They continue to cling to Christianity. There is no excuse for that stubborn attitude. Atheists aren't discriminated against anymore (except in Muslim countries), so Kallistos Ware needs to be honest with himself and become an atheist.

I didn't mention Kallistos Ware. Why would I be thinking of him as a sole example? I wasn't. If I said I have 40 to 50 books sitting on my shelves, then I'm referring to 40 to 50 OTHER scholars who are either Christian, or directly treat with, the history of Christianity and the Church. I'm not sure from where you're pulling Ware. I didn't mention Him (although I do have 1 or 2 tidbits from him sitting on my shelf as well). I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Brian Moynahan or someone similar.

You really need to get off of this merry-go-round you're on in over asserting your position at the exclusion of anything else that anyone else could say or would offer up as information to consider. You come across as if you, and you alone, have the final, most valued insights that settle the matter. I personally think the matter isn't settled one way or the other; it's an open case, and one that we each need to recursively be investigating, as best as we each can, in this short little life that we each have.

 

[Silmarien]

So how about restricting your reading to the thoughts of European atheist historians? That should be pretty unbiased

Because there's still a cultural disdain for Christianity that will poison even a European atheist against it. It's not academically acceptable to take it seriously, so that's a bias.

I'm not impressed with Kallistos Ware. Honestly it's hard to respect any Christian historian. They are intimately acquainted with the historical data, but as Jesus might have said "they have no ears to hear the truth". They continue to cling to Christianity. There is no excuse for that stubborn attitude. Atheists aren't discriminated against anymore (except in Muslim countries), so Kallistos Ware needs to be honest with himself and become an atheist.

I think actually believing that the historical data points to Christianity would be a good reason to remain Christian. Perhaps you think the evidence is bad because you only listen to people who already agree with that conclusion?

As for Kallistos Ware needing to become an atheist, he's practically a mystic. Why on earth would it be more honest for him to be an atheist? Some of us do not find atheism at all convincing, you know. He's also a theologian, not a historian, so I don't see the relevance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I assume that Essenes wore identifying clothing and might have had identifying hair styles - just like certain Jewish sects today. Also the Essenes were usually middle-aged or elderly men.

That's not an answer to my question. Let me ask it again. By which specific books and/or articles are you basing your assumptions here about Jesus' and the Early Church's association with the Essenes? I'm leaving the possibility open that you are correct, but as in any class in college, you have to "show your work." I would assume that you have more than just two or three books by scholars to support your point of view, right?

 

[cloudyday2]

That's not an answer to my question. Let me ask it again. By which specific books and/or articles are you basing your assumptions here about Jesus' and the Early Church's association with the Essenes? I'm leaving the possibility open that you are correct, but as in any class in college, you have to "show your work." I would assume that you have more than just two or three books by scholars to support your point of view, right?

LOL, @genez asked me whether I thought Jesus was long-haired and skinny in post #264. I was trying to respond with my opinion. I'm not sure how this has become something where I need to give you references now. Don't hold your breath.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL, @genez asked me whether I thought Jesus was long-haired and skinny in post #264. I was trying to respond with my opinion. I'm not sure how this has become something where I need to give you references now. Don't hold your breath.

...well, as far as the subject of "what Jesus' appearance" may have been is concerned, do you include evidence from the New Testament? And if from some other sources, what are those sources? You can't just make appeals out of thin-air and say, "I think this or that ... because I think this or that!" That's great if you want to hypothesize, although I try to keep from it, but to do so means you should usually have more than just 1 or 2 of the tiniest shreds of evidence...from some fresco that came 200 years after Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not impressed with Kallistos Ware (one example of an Oxford don I suppose). Honestly it's hard to respect any Christian historian. They are intimately acquainted with the historical data, but as Jesus might have said "they have no ears to hear the truth". They continue to cling to Christianity. There is no excuse for that stubborn attitude. Atheists aren't discriminated against anymore (except in Muslim countries), so Kallistos Ware needs to be honest with himself and become an atheist.

So, if I have some scholars like Robert Price and Bart Ehrman also sitting on my shelf, then and only then, when I read just them and refer to ONLY them for a discussion of the veracity of Jesus' person, I am actually "being" objective?

If that is the case, why would you recommend that I get the Christ Files by John Dickson? It seems to me you would discount him too.