Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 11th, 2010, 3:23 am #1

For Pam, and anyone else who would like a refresher, or who hasn't see it before.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... e&rclk=pti

I'll be watching again soon.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 11th, 2010, 3:24 am #2

Haven't seen this, didn't know it was on Youtube. Looks interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Quote
Like
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

February 11th, 2010, 3:53 am #3

For Pam, and anyone else who would like a refresher, or who hasn't see it before.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... e&rclk=pti

I'll be watching again soon.
How would that work?
Quote
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

February 11th, 2010, 3:59 am #4

Haven't seen this, didn't know it was on Youtube. Looks interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Doesn't a seriously meant panel debate whether or not someone resurrected equal a seriously meant panel debate whether or not the tooth fairy has wings?
Quote
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 11th, 2010, 8:48 am #5

Haven't seen this, didn't know it was on Youtube. Looks interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Craig wiped the floor with himself on that one. Talk about pathetic arguments! Pure spin of spin of spin with no logical content whatsoever. I was hoping for just a WEE BIT more from him. I think ((I)) could have presented more convincing arguments for the existence of Jesus ... but of course, NOT a God-Jesus.

I find it rather interesting and telling that the Gospel of Matthew offers the suggestion that the body of Jesus had been stolen away. First, the idea is planted in 27:64 and Pilate assigns a watch to make sure it doesn't happen (??) .... and then in 28:12, 13 ... it HAS happened anyway and soldiers are paid to spread the rumor that the disciples stole the body. This story version sounds pretty suspicious from the get-go because if Jesus DID rise from the dead, DESPITE all the precautions ... why would they attempt to cover it up? Wouldn't the "fear of the gods" have been on them to reveal the truth at that point? And of course, if even OUTSIDERS were concerned with Jesus' claims about rising from the dead and were concerned about disciples stealing the body to substantiate the claim .... how can it logically be reconciled with John 20:9 ..."For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." ?? The disciples -in spite of ALL the time they spent with him, intimately ....... knew LESS than the outsiders ... to whom Jesus spoke "only in parables" so that the outsiders WOULDN'T understand?~

Lots of crazy inconsistencies.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

QUITTNER
QUITTNER

February 11th, 2010, 6:48 pm #6

Doesn't a seriously meant panel debate whether or not someone resurrected equal a seriously meant panel debate whether or not the tooth fairy has wings?
According to Ehrman the King James Version of the bible translation was translated from one of the worst sources then available. Too bad the originals, possibly in the Hebrew or the Aramaic language, were lost - or were they destroyed on purpose?
Quote
Share

QUITTNER
QUITTNER

February 11th, 2010, 7:04 pm #7

Craig wiped the floor with himself on that one. Talk about pathetic arguments! Pure spin of spin of spin with no logical content whatsoever. I was hoping for just a WEE BIT more from him. I think ((I)) could have presented more convincing arguments for the existence of Jesus ... but of course, NOT a God-Jesus.

I find it rather interesting and telling that the Gospel of Matthew offers the suggestion that the body of Jesus had been stolen away. First, the idea is planted in 27:64 and Pilate assigns a watch to make sure it doesn't happen (??) .... and then in 28:12, 13 ... it HAS happened anyway and soldiers are paid to spread the rumor that the disciples stole the body. This story version sounds pretty suspicious from the get-go because if Jesus DID rise from the dead, DESPITE all the precautions ... why would they attempt to cover it up? Wouldn't the "fear of the gods" have been on them to reveal the truth at that point? And of course, if even OUTSIDERS were concerned with Jesus' claims about rising from the dead and were concerned about disciples stealing the body to substantiate the claim .... how can it logically be reconciled with John 20:9 ..."For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." ?? The disciples -in spite of ALL the time they spent with him, intimately ....... knew LESS than the outsiders ... to whom Jesus spoke "only in parables" so that the outsiders WOULDN'T understand?~

Lots of crazy inconsistencies.

-Vince
Those who wrote those stories didn't know that their stories would be compared with similar ones by other writers, and, maybe, their sources were handed down verbally/orally, which didn't make for accuracy. In those days books were expensive, and it's unlikely that at that time believers had more than only one of the gospels available to them.
Quote
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 11th, 2010, 7:17 pm #8

Doesn't a seriously meant panel debate whether or not someone resurrected equal a seriously meant panel debate whether or not the tooth fairy has wings?
And simply look for internal consistency.

Perhaps there is a movie that you like, but parts of it don't make sense, or there are anachronisms or the like. I see this as that level of discussion.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 11th, 2010, 7:27 pm #9

Craig wiped the floor with himself on that one. Talk about pathetic arguments! Pure spin of spin of spin with no logical content whatsoever. I was hoping for just a WEE BIT more from him. I think ((I)) could have presented more convincing arguments for the existence of Jesus ... but of course, NOT a God-Jesus.

I find it rather interesting and telling that the Gospel of Matthew offers the suggestion that the body of Jesus had been stolen away. First, the idea is planted in 27:64 and Pilate assigns a watch to make sure it doesn't happen (??) .... and then in 28:12, 13 ... it HAS happened anyway and soldiers are paid to spread the rumor that the disciples stole the body. This story version sounds pretty suspicious from the get-go because if Jesus DID rise from the dead, DESPITE all the precautions ... why would they attempt to cover it up? Wouldn't the "fear of the gods" have been on them to reveal the truth at that point? And of course, if even OUTSIDERS were concerned with Jesus' claims about rising from the dead and were concerned about disciples stealing the body to substantiate the claim .... how can it logically be reconciled with John 20:9 ..."For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." ?? The disciples -in spite of ALL the time they spent with him, intimately ....... knew LESS than the outsiders ... to whom Jesus spoke "only in parables" so that the outsiders WOULDN'T understand?~

Lots of crazy inconsistencies.

-Vince
But part 4 aligns with what you say. The fact that between each "gospel" there are inconsistencies, major ones. As well, I liked him presenting once again the truth, that the "gospels" names -- Mark, Luke, Matthew and John were arbitrarily assigned. i.e. Luke did not write Luke.

Look forward to finishing the series over the next few evenings.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 11th, 2010, 9:28 pm #10

Those who wrote those stories didn't know that their stories would be compared with similar ones by other writers, and, maybe, their sources were handed down verbally/orally, which didn't make for accuracy. In those days books were expensive, and it's unlikely that at that time believers had more than only one of the gospels available to them.
If journalists TODAY thought their words would be worshiped 2000 years from now, don't you imagine they'd try to be a BIT more accurate about what they said?

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share