Article to discuss or argue over: Buddha, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed: Larger-than-life historic figures or largely legends?

by AndersonsInfo 18 Replies latest jw friends

  • pistolpete
    pistolpete

    Listening to him speak and having read nearly every one of his books I think it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion Bart Erhman is an atheist.

    He's disingenuous and knows which side his bread is buttered on.

    I've read all his books and I never came to the conclusion that he was an Atheist.

    Is it possible that bias (a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are "What YOU believe to be so)------, rather than accepting what A person straight out says his persona belief is)-- In Barth's case he says he is Agnostic, why should anyone believe otherwise?

    As far as his bread and butter, Bart had all the needed credentials of a certified New Testament Ph D Scholar and had all the opportunities to teach at any University of his choice with a nice salary and Tenure. He was Never in need of any monies.

    His choice to openly become agnostic is no different than many JW who chose to renounce the Watchtower faith at the cost of losing all family, friends and any networks.

    He did not go PIMO for fear of losing his family like most jws. He had the courage to Openly renounce Christianity regardless. That is braver than any Jw PIMOs who is afraid to come clean for fear of the repercussions.

    The books he started writing was even braver considering they would prick at his former friends and cause a division.

    The fact that his books have inspired hundreds of millions is just an added bonus to his courage on bucking the system.

  • pistolpete
    pistolpete

    As a side note: the world's most famous atheist characterizes himself as an agnostic when pressed - Richard Dawkins.

    I'm not a Richard Dawkins fan and only read two of his books which I think are just opinions. So I know very little of him. And I don't plan on reading any more of his books

    Pete Zahut

    “Lovers of truth will agree that…


    PH, I always hated how the WT used that phrase. Making it seem like if you didn't agree with them. then you were not a lover of Truth, and by implication a lover of the lie.
  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    I watched some of Dr. Habermas lecture. It was interesting. I found it intriguing that this body of scholars told him he could not use the New Testament to prove the resurrection of Christ and his response was "I will find a way around your system so as I may use the New Testament to prove the resurrection of Christ."

    It seemed the good doctor does what most apologetics do - use philosophical argument based logical conclusion in the place of evidence. I get it. Good argument. Makes sense. Not evidence.

    I realize a problem is that what we view as evidence today was not available in time of antiquity. It makes it difficult to prove anything. What could we possibly have?

    Well, I found Apostolic Succession interesting. Every ordained Catholic priest can trace their lineage of ordination back to the original 11 Apostles. There is a similar practice in Buddhism. Ordination or Dharma Transmission for a Buddhist traces the line of teachers all the way back to Siddhartha Gautama in the sixth century BCE.

    The problem for most Christians, especially Evangelicals, is that would mean accepting the Catholic Church as the one true church.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    "I will find a way around your system so as I may use the New Testament to prove the resurrection of Christ."

    TBK, I don't recall this quote. Do you have a time stamp for it?

    Scholars, both skeptic and believer use the bible all the time, they just use it critically in scholarly circles. They usually don't outright reject it or believe it, but use it critically according to historical criteria and apparatus. The bottom line is that Dr. Habermas claims 90 -95% of all scholars (who publish in this area) believe 6 of the below points and about 75% believe the other 6 points. So these 12 points make up the minimum facts that most scholars (skeptic, atheist, agnostic and otherwise) believe about the Resurrection.

    1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
    2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
    3. Soon afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
    4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
    5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
    6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.
    7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place very early, at the beginning of church history.
    8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
    9. The Gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
    10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
    11. James, the brother of Jesus and former skeptic, was converted when, he believed, he saw the risen Jesus.
    12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.”

      It is very difficult to come up with alternative plausible explanations for these minimal facts. Take for instance just one: # 10

      What would it take for tens of thousands of orthodox Jews to stop making Saturday their Holy Day, and change it to Sunday? Keep in mind that they would be shunned by family and friends every bit as harshly as we have been at the behest of the WT.

      Orthodox Jews don't change, history has taught us that. Only they did - right in the heart of Jerusalem!

      A real resurrection is a plausible explanation for this fact that skeptic scholars agree on. The other 11 are hard to explain away as well. Got ahead, try.... its no so easy.

      As for the other people on Barbara's list..... well they are all dead. Why would I want to listen to or follow a dead guy? But a guy who is still alive after being put to death, well that's someone worth listening to. Not as easy to dismiss.
  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    No takers in trying to explain away the minimum facts surrounding the resurrection?

    C'mon Barbara, this is your thread. Care to take a stab at it?

    The Resurrection is the most documented event in the ancient world. It changed the world more than any other event. The entire world counts time from the birth of this man. Without the Resurrection, there is no reason why all (but one) of his disciples (as eyewitnesses, not just believers) chose to suffer a brutal death rather than deny Jesus. No one dies for a lie. There is no other explanation for the growth of the Christian church.

    I believe that even Caesar confirmed the Resurrection. Tomb robbers take valuables from tombs... not stinking rotten bodies, or bones. But Ceasar issued an unusual type of edit (The Nazareth Inscription) reserved for special problems to make it illegal to steal bodies from tombs shortly after the Resurrection. Wow!

    He affirmed the most important event in history. He just didn’t mean to do it - Article

    Even Caesar Confirmed the Resurrection

  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    Sea Breeze:

    The time stamp is 4:49 on the first video you posted in regards to the doctorate panel's instruction to the then future doctor. He was told that he could not use the New Testament as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

    A book a read make a statement that really struck home with me -

    First, you must have faith that your religion has truth. Second, you must have doubt in your religion. Third, you must have dedication to find the truth, whatever it may be.

    Referring to doubt, the writer stated to have doubt, but not be skeptical. There is a difference. A skeptic is looking for anything to disprove something. A doubter simply seeks the truth. It also means not clinging to an idea and seeking to only prove it to be true. There is a balance. A middle way.

    I am open to there being a historical Jesus. It would even be reasonable that such a man was executed for his teachings. It would be reasonable that a religion would be born from that man's teachings.

    I also know that the Jesus story is built on the foundation of a belief in a future Messiah who would liberate the Jews from their never ceasing line of foreign conquerors. The Old Testament was written by a people who were constantly having their religious beliefs influenced by the conqueror of the day. Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians/Greeks, and then the Romans. Persian Zoroastrian religion gave the Jews a monotheist religion. The Greeks gave the Jews an afterlife.

    That is why the sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees came to be. It was their job to keep the Jewish religion pure from outside influence. That is why they attacked Jesus because his teachings did not align with theirs. That is also why there are those who theorize that when Jesus spoke about his father, God, that it was not YHWH Jesus was speaking of. That the Jews had left the worship of their true god for the worship of another, YHWH.

    I am off track here. My point being that Dr. Haberman provides sound arguments, but not evidence. That is what apologetics is - it is reason based argument, only. Reason based argument can show things are possible. That doesn't mean they are.

    It is like the Scooby Do argument - you can use reason based argument to show that there is most likely some sort of consciousness that fits the description of what some call "god". However, to make the statement that the consciousness spoken of is god "X" requires evidence. That the one true religion of "X" is "Y" takes a tremendous amount of evidence. This is where the honest believer has to admit that they substitute evidence with belief.

    I commend you, Sea Breeze. You obviously are actively seeking truth. Belief is holding on to an idea regardless of the evidence presented. Faith is letting go of all idea and accepting the truth as you experience it. Have a little faith. The Apostles did.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Sea Breeze : But Ceasar issued an unusual type of edit (The Nazareth Inscription) reserved for special problems to make it illegal to steal bodies from tombs shortly after the Resurrection.

    It is unclear which Caesar issued this "edict" and when it was issued. In an article in the Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 30, April 2020, scientists established that the marble came from the Greek island of Kos. They propose that "the edict was issued by Caesar Augustus in response to the desecration of the grave of a famous tyrant from Kos named Nikias [who died c.20 B.C.E.], a theory which more logically fits with the provenance of the marble and the events of that time."

    Palaeographically, it is dated between 50 B.C.E. AND 50 C.E. and so could have been a result of the disappearance of Christ's body, but it seems unlikely to me that Pilate would have informed Caesar of his incompetence in guarding the tomb.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    The Nazareth Inscription is almost certainly authentic, and it is a rump version of an imperial rescript. It was also almost certainly issued by the Emperor Claudius and most likely in 41 AD when the Jews were in turmoil and right after he had given Judah and Samaria to King Herod Agrippa I. The text of the Nazareth Inscription fits both the vocabulary, style and structure of other known rescripts of Claudius.

    As was seen above, Agrippa I was a governmental official in the city of Tiberias in the Galilee when both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were ministering in Israel. Agrippa’s uncle Herod Antipas certainly knew that Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth, [Luke 23:5-7] and King Agrippa I also must have known this.

    The close connection between the name of Jesus and the city of Nazareth is important for determining the place where the Nazareth Edict was posted. A careful look at the New Testament reveals that the followers of Jesus were at first not called Christians but rather “Nazarenes.” The Apostle Paul when he appeared before the Roman Governor Felix was accused by his Jewish enemies of being: “…a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” [Acts 24:5 NASV]

    It is also very clear in the New Testament that Jesus during his ministry was primarily called “Jesus of Nazareth.” There are many references in the New Testament to “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarene.” These references are made by both His followers and His enemies. Everyone who had heard of Jesus knew that he was from Nazareth. The titulus, which Pilate placed over the head of Jesus on the cross, read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” [John 19:19] When Peter appeared before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:10, he spoke of: “Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.”

    Unquestionably, King Herod Agrippa I, who was related to the family of the high priests, would have known that Jesus was from the city of Nazareth in Galilee, and that his Disciples were claiming that he had been resurrected. That King Agrippa I was well acquainted with Christianity can also be seen in his behavior after Claudius added Judea to his kingdom in 41 AD. As soon as he returned from Rome in 41 AD to claim Judea, one of the first things that King Agrippa I did was to persecute Christians in the city of Jerusalem, his new capital.

    It is nearly certain that it was King Herod Agrippa I who wrote the letter of inquiry to the Emperor Claudius about how to deal with the new “sect” of Jesus the Nazarene. It is also nearly certain that it was in response to Agrippa’s letter of inquiry that Claudius wrote an imperial rescript forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs in order to counter the Christian doctrine that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead.

    It is also nearly certain that it was King Herod Agrippa I who, through his influence on Claudius, had the Nazareth Inscription posted in Nazareth, the home city of the “sect of the Nazarenes.” As was noted above, King Herod Agrippa I may have even used the Nazareth Inscription as imperial authorization for the persecution of Christians and the execution of James the brother of John, see Acts.12:1-3.

    The best date for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription is 41 AD. In 41 AD Claudius became emperor and immediately had to deal with a developing revolt among the Jews, both those who were living in Israel and also those living in the city of Alexandria. As was related above, just before his assassination, Caligula had driven the Jews to the brink of revolt by ordering Roman officials to set up his image in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. To deal with this explosive situation in 41 AD, Claudius almost certainly turned to his friend Agrippa I for advice and information.

    Since Agrippa I is known to have hated Nazarene Christians and since he also knew, as the Book of Acts records, that Christians were causing an uproar in Jerusalem at the very time when he became king of Judea in 41 AD, it seems nearly certain that it was at this same time that Agrippa I wrote his letter of inquiry to Claudius, and Claudius consequently wrote his rescript letter threatening Christians with death for the removal of bodies from tombs. With Agrippa I’s intimate knowledge of Christ and Christianity, it was almost certainly he who selected Nazareth as the site for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription.

    The question that now needs to be answered is: Does the Nazareth Inscription prove the resurrection of Christ. The answer to that question is no. But what it does prove is that the story of the resurrection of Christ was already well known very early, even to the Emperor Claudius in ca. 41 A.D. This fact clearly proves that the story of the resurrection of Christ was widely known almost immediately after His crucifixion. In other words, the story of the resurrection of Christ must have been a story that was circulated by his Apostles themselves, and it was not a later invention by gentile Christians of the post-apostolic period, as a few modern scholars in the past have argued.

    The Nazareth Inscription does force modern scholars into making a choice of either believing in the resurrection of Christ or of believing that His disciples stole His body from His tomb in order to perpetrate a great religious fraud. As is true for philosophy, science, and religion; belief is always the key issue.

    View Dr. Billington's entire article via PDF here: The Nazareth Inscription

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Sea Breeze, you wrote:

    The Nazareth Inscription is almost certainly authentic ... It was also almost certainly issued by the Emperor Claudius and most likely in 41 AD ... It is nearly certain that it was King Herod Agrippa I who wrote the letter of inquiry to the Emperor Claudius ... It is also nearly certain that it was in response to Agrippa’s letter of inquiry that Claudius wrote an imperial rescript ... It is also nearly certain that it was King Herod Agrippa I who...had the Nazareth Inscription posted in Nazareth ... Claudius almost certainly turned to his friend Agrippa I for advice and information ... it seems nearly certain that it was at this same time that Agrippa I wrote his letter of inquiry to Claudius, and Claudius consequently wrote his rescript letter ... it was almost certainly [Agrippa] who selected Nazareth as the site for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription.

    That's almost certain then. Except other scholars have concluded otherwise. It was dated to :

    30 – 28 B.C.E.

    Hieronymus Markowski, «De Caesaris graeco titulopalaestino», Posnan 1936,128-137.

    Augustus

    • · Franz Cumont, Un rescript impérial sur la violation de sépulture, Revue Historique 163 (1930) 241-266.
    • · Giuseppe Corradi, Un nuovo documento Augusteo Mondo Classico 1 (1931) 56-65.
    • · Raphael Tonneau, L ' inscription de Nazareth sur la violation de sépultures, Revue Biblique 40 (1931) 544-563.
    • · Jacques Zeiller, L'inscription dite de Nazareth, RecSR 21 (1931) 570-576.
    • · Salvatore Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani. Pars prima: Leges, Florence 1941, 414-416.
    • · B. Agouridis, Τυμβωρυχία έν Παλαιστίνη επί Αυγούστου, Θεολογία 23 (1953) 122-131.

    Tiberius

    • · Edouard Cuq, Le rescrit d' Auguste sur les violations de sépulture, Revue Historique de Droit Francais et Etranger IVe sér., 11 (1932) 109-125
    • · Leon Herrmann, Chrestos; témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Collection Latomus CIX), Brussels 1970, 12-15.

    Caligula

    Claudius

    Margherita Guarducci, L' inscrizione di Nazareth sulla violazione dei sepolcri, RPAA, 17 (1941/42) 85-88.

    Nero

    Marta Sordi, L'Edit de Nazareth et la politique de Néron a l'égard des chrétiens, ZPE 120 (1998) 279-291

    Vespasian or Titus

    V. Capocci, Per la data del rescritto imperiale sulla violazione di sepolcro recentemente publicato, BIDR 38 (1930) 215-223.

    Hadrian

    Frank E. Brown, Violation of Sepulture in Palestine, American Journal of Philology 52 (1931) 1-29.

    Septimius Severus

    John Sylvester Creaghan, Violatio sepulchri. An Epigraphical Study, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Princeton Univ. 1951.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit