Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bart Ehrman on the existence of Christ
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 63 (430789)
10-27-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
10-26-2007 2:05 PM


Before Christ, there was not a single Jew who thought that the Messiah would be crucified; so when Christians tried to convert Jews, they initially, right out of the gate, faced an uphill theological battle.
Well, no one is claiming that the early Christians consciously made up Christianity with an eye on deliberately fooling people into believing it. Traditions and myths probably accreted to it in the same way traditions and myths accrete to any developing system of faith. I mean, look at the WTO conspiracy theories. It would be pretty easy to make that at least some what plausible -- for example, make the hijackers secret agents of the Bush administration. Instead, the WTO conspiracy theorists ended up making up a lot of junk about people secretly planting explosives in the buildings, and then having planes coincidentally crash into them. If myths and legends were concocted so as to be believable and plausible, then we skeptics wouldn't have any material to laugh at, would we?
Anyway, although Christianity probably started out as a Jewish cult, the first Christians were probably exemplified by Paul: a throroughly Hellenized Jewish community in Syria with rather tenuous links to the orthodoxy centered at the temple in Jerusalem. It isn't as much of a stretch to imagine these people incorporating pagan customs into the heterdox Jewish beliefs to construct what we now know as Christianity.
In fact, if Christianity was constructed with a mind to attract converts, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that it was the Gentiles at whom the new faith was aimed, anyway. Look at Paul's emphasis on converting Gentiles.
Edited to add:
As another example, look at Mormonism, especially comparing the prophet Mormon with Jesus and Joseph Smith to Paul. Now there is a religion that seems designed to be unappealing to early 19th century Christians among whom it developed. Yet, it managed to get made up and eventually becoming a world-wide religion.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typos

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 10-26-2007 2:05 PM taylor_31 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 10-27-2007 4:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (430821)
10-27-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jon
10-27-2007 7:10 PM


Re: the real Jesus
The earliest Christian writings make no mention of Jesus being executed for the sake of all mankind. The theology only crops up as Paul tries, tirelessly, to explain away the questions and problems of the various Christian communities to which he is writing.
I believe that the Pauline epistles are the earliest known Christian writings -- predating the Gospels by a few years, or even decades.
Unless you count the hypothetical Q as Christian and as a writing.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 10-27-2007 7:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 10-27-2007 8:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 63 (430925)
10-28-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Legend
10-28-2007 11:04 AM


Re: the real Jesus
Ehrman's contention that a crucified Jesus would be unpalatable to potential converts is ludicrous.
And my point is that Ehrman's contention really isn't relevant to whether or not Jesus was an actual historical figure.
His contention would be relevant to a discussion whether Christianity was consciously invented by hoaxters in an attempt to attract Jewish converts, but I don't think anyone is making this claim.
Edited by Chiroptera, : oops

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Legend, posted 10-28-2007 11:04 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Legend, posted 10-28-2007 4:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 63 (430967)
10-28-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by taylor_31
10-28-2007 3:36 PM


What is the problem here?
I was under the impression that Christianity started as a Jewish cult.
First, the original Jewish cult didn't necessarily have the crucifixion as a part of it. Second, no one claims that this cult ever attracted a lot of Jews. Third, the crucifixion part of the cult may have originated in Syria, quite far from the center of orthodox Judaism, and found its greatest following among the Gentiles.
I really don't see a conceptual problem here. Do you think that the success of Mormonism implies that the prophet Mormon was a real person? People make up cults all the time, even in the face of great hostility of the surrounding population. People hated Mormons -- people killed Mormons -- Joseph Smith himself was martyred -- that's why the Mormons had to move to Utah.
People are acting like it's unthinkable that a sect could be founded on principles that are anathema to the greater populaion, even though we have actual historical examples of this sort of thing occurring.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added third and subtitle.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo in the addition

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by taylor_31, posted 10-28-2007 3:36 PM taylor_31 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 6:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 63 (430969)
10-28-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Legend
10-28-2007 4:14 PM


Re: the real Jesus
I think Ehrman's using a false dichotomy in that he's trying to show that if the birth of the Jesus myth is demonstrably unsound the opposite must be true, i.e. Jesus's historicity is confirmed.
I admit that I don't know much detail about Erman's position. Right now I have the impression that, like me, Ehrman believes that there is a historical Jesus, but, like me, he doesn't really have good reasons for that belief -- it's just a bit easier to believe that than the opposite. I assume he understands that his conclusions are on shaky ground, and that he will be open to evidence (and further analaysis) if and when it becomes available.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Legend, posted 10-28-2007 4:14 PM Legend has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 63 (430977)
10-28-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Legend
10-28-2007 4:54 PM


Re: the real Jesus
And, to add an additional point to yours, there is the undisputed fact that the early Christian cult did have Jewish converts. It isn't necessary for a new cult to have immediate mass appeal -- it merely needs to attract enough followers to stay alive.
And, in fact, if Christianity were a deliberate invention, then I would suspect that these televangelist equivalents would be going after a small number of especially gullible people, not necessarily a mass audience.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Legend, posted 10-28-2007 4:54 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Legend, posted 10-29-2007 2:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 63 (430978)
10-28-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
10-28-2007 5:04 PM


Re: the real Jesus
So without any sort of "inspiration" what would make Paul change from a slayer to a Salesman?
Are you seriously saying that you are unaware of examples where individuals hostile to some religious movement or another end up converting to that religion?
Me, I suspect that Luke made up Paul's conversion story. Or it began as your typical "urban legend" begins, however that is.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added last sentence.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 10-28-2007 5:04 PM Phat has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 63 (430990)
10-28-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
10-28-2007 6:44 PM


Re: What is the problem here?
"Hey, let's say he was crucied" isn't a conclusion anyone would come to if they were trying to get converts....
Maybe. But no one is saying that the story was made up with the purpose of attracting converts. That is where Ehrman's argument fails.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 6:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 8:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 63 (431018)
10-28-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
10-28-2007 8:25 PM


Re: What is the problem here?
Christianity has always been a missionary-based religion.
Nobody is denying that, either. What people are denying is that the early Christians deliberately made up their religion. It was probably not a conscious effort to cobble together a convincing story for the purpose of attracting lots of converts.
The story of the resurrection and, perhaps, of the crucifixion itself, maybe even the very existence of the Messiah Jesus, probably formed without the conscious will of the people involved.
In this case, arguments about whether the story would attract or repel potential converts are irrelevant. They are irrelevant because no one was consciously thinking about how to "fix" the story so as to wow the masses.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 8:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-28-2007 8:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 10:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 63 (431041)
10-28-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jon
10-28-2007 10:09 PM


Re: What is the problem here?
Something happened to cause these folks to change their denition of messiah.
What makes you think that it had to be a specific, identifiable "something"?
If a radical change in beliefs and perceptions is so hard to do, what makes you think that the execution of a heterodox rabbi as a political dissident would have been enough to do it?
What made the early 19th century American Mormons suddenly go against their religious teachings and suddenly believe that people die and become gods, and as gods they will marry lots of wives and have lots of children? Does the fact that they did so count as evidence that the prophet Mormon really existed, and that Mormonism wasn't just all made up?

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 10:09 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 10-28-2007 10:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024