Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible

basilmarket.com forums : Chat | 14 posts archived

thread starter Caspian May 15 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

This is an extremely interesting article on CNN; I suggest reading it before replying so that this thread doesn't debase itself to a flame war. I did want to share it with you all though, which is why I'm writing this. link

yPOS1 05/15/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

For a fundamentalist, he's pretty open minded.

putiiii 05/15/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

rogueofmv said: " "Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God," Ehrman says. "Christianity is about the belief in Christ." Truer words have never been spoken." Christianity is about the belief in Christ.

Mindstormer May 16 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Here's a few points from a study on the topic which I typed out for the sake of using as a reference, don't read it if you aren't interested or are bothered by this topic and are looking for a debate. I'm not looking for a debate, I just think the reasoning is quite fascinating and thought it worth sharing since this thread is on the same general topic. Is there any good historical reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? "The resurrection of Jesus acquires such decisive meaning, not merely because someone or anyone has been raised from the dead, but because it is Jesus of Nazareth, whose execution was instigated by the Jews because he had blasphemed against God. If this man was raised from the dead, then that plainly means that the God whom he had supposedly blasphemed had committed Himself to him. The resurrection can only be understood ad the divine vindication of the man whom the Jews had rejected as a blasphemer." - Wolfhart Pannenburg, NT Scholar It's not just that someone was resurrected from the dead, but Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the messiah. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Six lines of evidences for its authenticity: 1. Tomb location was known. (We know of the owner of the tomb, more at #3). 2. Rooted in early church (40AD). There are documents as early as 40AD, it is not something that was later legendary development. When legends get started, it takes time. The reason legends take time to get started are because people are still around to disprove the legends. So if the legend was that you flew a hundred feat unaided by any device for flight, a legend could develop around that, but not in your neighborhood. There was no time for a legend to be invented. 3. Joseph of Arimithea (the owner of the tomb used for Jesus) not invented. When asked, you try to be vague if you don't want someone to know something. The more details you add to a lie, you are more likely to get caught. Joseph of Arimithea was a member of the Sanhedrin council, the Sanhedrin council was the most powerful council in Jerusalem, consisted of 70 members, there were well-documents of who was on the council. You would say: This person owned the tomb. You wouldn't invent that type of a detail because it would have been so easily checked in the first century. Joseph of WHO? You would have known it were wrong if it really was. You would not invent those kinds of specific details, anyone could have checked and seen it was a lie. 4. Discovered empty by women. In all gospel accounts. In Jesus day, women occupied a low place on the social ladder. In a court, women could not be included with the witnesses. That's the climate of first century culture, and yet all the Gospel accounts have women finding the tomb empty! Now if you were going to invent this story, you would not have ladies here. You would have Peter finding the tomb empty, or James or John because it would

Caspian 05/16/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Good read, Eric. Thanks

Bodysnatchers May 16 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Just kidding reading atm

angramainyu May 16 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Some scholarly critics say Ehrman is saying nothing new.

xIridesc3nce 05/16/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Eh... Bart Ehrman. His "new stuff" was so last year, if not two or three years ago. He, Pagels, Crossan... yeah, all stuff that resonates with the public that isn't well-versed into looking into the matters well enough. Debunked? His stuff has been debunked by the likes of Craig Evans and other better qualified New Testament and Biblical scholars already.

Caspian 05/16/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

xIridesc3nce said: "His stuff has been debunked by the likes of Craig Evans and other better qualified New Testament and Biblical scholars already." Suggested reading?

BakChoi 05/16/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Bookmarked for later tonight

MaikuX3 05/16/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

*Warning, Wall of Text Ahead* Mindstormer, I would debate some points you have made in your post but I won't go into detail because it would me going into this like an attorney. But there is one point that I feel is most important that I will debate. "The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and a martyrs' deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce the lie." - J.P. Moreland

Mindstormer May 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

MaikuX3 said: " *Warning, Wall of Text Ahead* Mindstormer, I would debate some points you have made in your post but I won't go into detail because it would me going into this like an attorney. But there is one point that I feel is most important that I will debate. [quote]"The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and a martyrs' deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce the lie." - J.P. Moreland This is one of the things I probably disagree with the most, not as an agnostic perspective, but as a prosecutor's perspective. Moreland quoted that there was nothing to gain from starting a new religion, but I highly doubt that and I believe they had one thing to gain and that they achieved.....Revenge. Not revenge in terms of going after the ones that crucified Jesus, but revenge in terms of going after the religion of the people that wanted Jesus dead. In my opinion, the disciples are not some higher beings of life, they are human beings like anyone else during that time and even us. The only thing that distinguished the 12 from the others in Jerusalem is that they were chosen by Jesus.....hence in the way, lottery winners. But anyways, if I were a disciple of Jesus right after his execution, I would be pissed at all the ones involved with the execution, he killed my leader. In my opinion, any logical person would think of revenge. But doing anything against the government would also resolve in death, and probably by being crucified upsidedown. So the best way....and really only way to get revenge is to say Jesus rose from the dead and to have all the diciples preach the word and the story, and thus a religion forms around this. This would have just turned out to be the revenge towards the religion of the ones that wanted Jesus being dead by pretty much going "ha ha, Jesus was powerful, I told you so", except in a much more professional way. Whether the disciples were telling truth, confused of what they really saw, or flat out lied about the resurrection......they achieved their revenge, AND MORE, especially by being the dominant religion of the world for a pretty darn long time. Now you might say, "the disciples would never do that", especially Moreland. But at the same time, the disciples are human, just like you and me, they are not demi-gods. The nature of it is, humans tell the truth and humans lie, some more than others. There are people that lie about their whole lives so much that even themselves think it is the true story. I am sorry to use a video game for this debate but Cloud from Final Fantasy 7.......everything about his present personality came from the fallen warrior Zach, Could

AbrohamLincoln 05/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

That's cool I guess. To each his own.

VirgilDiablo 05/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

angramainyu said: "[quote]Some scholarly critics say Ehrman is saying nothing new. I agree with this, to a degree; it doesn't take a scholar to realize all Ehrman is doing is publicizing the obvious. That, and twisting logic into unreasonably moronic attempts to 'debunk' the bible." Exactly. You can't "debunk" the Bible if every follower with half a brain knows that it isn't irrefutable script.