30 verses of Bible say " Jesus did not die on the Cross".

[badger]

Yes. I disagree with him. You asked me before. Why do you not just address and respond to the rebuttals made in this thread against the theory that the NT supports the argument Jesus did not die on the cross?

I think I answered all the questions and points that you made to me, didn't I?

 

[RJM]

I think I answered all the questions and points that you made to me, didn't I?

The way I see it you brushed them aside , if you acknowledged them at all, and then repeated your original contention -- as did @Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi and others waiting to selectively use the NT writings as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross

Never mind ...
I don't want to go on repeating my arguments in this thread

 

[Thomas]

Yes. I disagree with him.

To be fair ... doesn't everybody?

 

[badger]

To be fair ... doesn't everybody?

Ha ha! Carrier? Well I do..... disagree with him
And he gets called an 'expert'....... so much for that title.
But the mythers love him......

 

[Thomas]

I have grown disheartened with the US scene, I can no longer take someone with PhD credentials without checking them.

I only did a BA (Div) – Catholic Theology – but sheesh, the rigour we had to meet in essays! Looking at the crits on the wiki page, we'd be in trouble for such methodology.

Richard Dawkins wrote his books on why God cannot be. The counter argument, outlining the fundamental flaw in Dawkins' reasoning, was a much slimmer volume, but got none of the acclaim or exposure.

Likewise the Jesus Seminar ...

On my course we had one guy who was really good on lots of stuff, (a Patristics geek like me) but for some reason insisted Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Fr John, the Course Director, reasoned with him for ages as to why that's most unlikely ... all to no avail.

 

[Ella S.]

I have grown disheartened with the US scene, I can no longer take someone with PhD credentials without checking them.

I only did a BA (Div) – Catholic Theology – but sheesh, the rigour we had to meet in essays! Looking at the crits on the wiki page, we'd be in trouble for such methodology.

Richard Dawkins wrote his books on why God cannot be. The counter argument, outlining the fundamental flaw in Dawkins' reasoning, was a much slimmer volume, but got none of the acclaim or exposure.

Likewise the Jesus Seminar ...

On my course we had one guy who was really good on lots of stuff, (a Patristics geek like me) but for some reason insisted Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Fr John, the Course Director, reasoned with him for ages as to why that's most unlikely ... all to no avail.

I've taken a brief break from my PhD program (in Data Science/Statistics) to focus on my health, it might be a few years before I go back to school and finish it, although I'm hoping to get a lot of my medical bills paid and my doctor visits over and done with a bit sooner than that.

I will say that there are a few people that I regularly speak with who hold PhDs, including one who has a PhD in theology. We talk a lot about philosophy of science, mostly, and I read their papers because they don't have many other people to geek out about them with.

Without fail, every single one of them has mentioned that they do a great deal of learning outside of the doctorate programs because the doctorate programs themselves are sort of bare bones. To be honest, though, this makes sense to me. PhDs mostly show that you're qualified to conduct research in a given field; they aren't necessarily a kind of award for knowing the material well but they're more of a way to show that you know how to get published.

Many people with PhDs, just like any other job, are doing the bare minimum and don't have a passion for the topics they're pursuing. Some of them sort of stop after getting a PhD and only use the doctorate as a sort of trophy without ever actually going into research.

PhDs aren't supposed to lend authority to someone's claims to expertise on a field of study, technically. They're just supposed to show that someone is competent enough to get a job in it and maybe even a successful career if they applied themselves. If anything, a PhD is only the beginning of someone's journey to becoming an expert in a given field.

 

[Ella S.]

Dawkins wrote his books on why God cannot be. The counter argument, outlining the fundamental flaw in Dawkins' reasoning, was a much slimmer volume, but got none of the acclaim or exposure.

Also, yeah, I don't like Dawkins and I don't think he really knows what he's talking about most of the time. I know a lot of atheists who think they don't need to read any sort of theology to wrestle with theological questions and it kind of confuses me. They just have blatant disrespect for the whole field and yet they still feel qualified to refute theological assertions? What?

Could you imagine doing that with any other field of study or school of philosophy? That way of thinking just reminds me of how Creationists think they can refute evolution without ever studying the topic. It's so bizarre to me.

 

[RJM]

There are people like Ehrman with college tenures spanning decades who read Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and other languages in order to study and compare thousands of documents and fragments in the original, in consultation with many other academics and experts, to try to form an unbiased picture of history -- ongoing with new fragments and new evidence?

I believe such opinions should at least be heard, especially as it is so easy nowadays to access lectures and presentations via the internet -- on almost any subject. After that a person is entitled to form his own view. I don't believe an 'expert' needs to post on this thread before his opinions can be considered useful about the crucifixion of Jesus?

 

[badger]

I have grown disheartened with the US scene, I can no longer take someone with PhD credentials without checking them.

I started to study the gospels in 1994, just an amateur reader, but as I have continued on, I stopped being impressed by so called 'experts' because they all disagreed with each other! Ha ha! I now read what people propose...that's my gauge.

Another qualification which does not excite me (on its own) is the term 'peer-reviewed'. The questions begs, 'reviewed by who?' If the reviewing person had previously been the lecturer then the qualification not impressive to me.

I only did a BA (Div) – Catholic Theology – but sheesh, the rigour we had to meet in essays! Looking at the crits on the wiki page, we'd be in trouble for such methodology.

Your background shows itself imo, not just through any statements which you might make but through your questions. It's those questions......

Richard Dawkins wrote his books on why God cannot be. The counter argument, outlining the fundamental flaw in Dawkins' reasoning, was a much slimmer volume, but got none of the acclaim or exposure.

Dawky? I don't follow him but when I see him on telly his antics make me smile. Rolling up to a Question-time in a dog-collar and so forth. He doesn't cut it for me.

Likewise the Jesus Seminar ...

I'm not acquainted with the above.

On my course we had one guy who was really good on lots of stuff, (a Patristics geek like me) but for some reason insisted Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Fr John, the Course Director, reasoned with him for ages as to why that's most unlikely ... all to no avail.

I do not know how 'they' dated Hebrews, but their findings surely show that Paul didn't manage to live so long to touch pen to paper. I have never studied Paul but I understand that he probably fell in Nero's Christian culling.

Question: Can you tell me what 'Patristics' is?

 

[Thomas]

Quick dive in to answer a question:

Patristics is an era in the history of the church, generally from the end of the Apostolic era (c100AD) to, I would say, the first millennium.

Generally it's the study of the Church Fathers (hence the name) – the theological heavy hitters of the early church. Generally the sources are split to before or after the Council of Nicaea (325). Also, the distinction between Latin and Greek. I favour the Greek. My pin-ups are Irenaeus of Lyon, Athanasius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor. And Origen. Of the Latins, I suppose Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo.

BTW, the Letter to the Hebrews is generally dated early to mid 60s. Paul's execution is supposed around 64. Right from the get-go there were Fathers said Paul was unlikely to be the author, but when I was a kid it was in the Sunday Missal as 'St Paul's Letter to the Hebrews'.

 

[RJM]

The seven authentic Pauline writings by today standards seem to be?

1Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Philemon
Phillipians
Romans

 

[badger]

Quick dive in to answer a question:

Patristics is an era in the history of the church, generally from the end of the Apostolic era (c100AD) to, I would say, the first millennium.

Generally it's the study of the Church Fathers (hence the name) – the theological heavy hitters of the early church. Generally the sources are split to before or after the Council of Nicaea (325). Also, the distinction between Latin and Greek. I favour the Greek. My pin-ups are Irenaeus of Lyon, Athanasius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor. And Origen. Of the Latins, I suppose Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo.

BTW, the Letter to the Hebrews is generally dated early to mid 60s. Paul's execution is supposed around 64. Right from the get-go there were Fathers said Paul was unlikely to be the author, but when I was a kid it was in the Sunday Missal as 'St Paul's Letter to the Hebrews'.

Thank you for that..... I have never studied any of the above, only Origen's inclusions of Celcus's comments.

I have the same list of Paul's letters as shown above.
The other letters are from a different character imo. I don't think that Paul would have supported slavery in any way, but then I don't know about Paul. My studies end soon after the gospels.

 

[RJM]

Thank you for that..... I have never studied any of the above, only Origen's inclusions of Celcus's comments.

I have the same list of Paul's letters as shown above.
The other letters are from a different character imo. I don't think that Paul would have supported slavery in any way, but then I don't know about Paul. My studies end soon after the gospels.

But the gospels didn't exist yet, in their set form, when Paul was writing, you know @badger although there were bits of them around. Everything had to be hand copied, and most people couldn't read.

Paul is the earliest Christian writer. 1 Thessalonians is the first Christian writing.

 

[RJM]

Astounding to consider the amount of words generated and the influence on world history of Jesus since Paul wrote that first letter

 

[badger]

But the gospels didn't exist yet, in their set form, when Paul was writing, you know @badger although there were bits of them around. Everything had to be hand copied, and most people couldn't read.

Paul is the earliest Christian writer. Galatians is the first Christian writing.

So it's a pity that Paul never wrote about Jesus, the Baptist or their mission.

That tells it all.

 

[RJM]

That tells it all.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but the gospel stories were still being collected, from Peter and James and John and others. The stories were obviously in circulation.

Paul knew the other apostles and says they confirmed him as an apostle. His companion wrote Luke and Acts. Paul and early Christians were obviously aware of Jesus's life and death and healing acts. Paul wasn't trying to write a gospel. That wasn't his objective, imo. He left that to others. His work was different.

The dating and authenticity of the Paul's own letters as before the gospels is not in dispute

 

[badger]

I'm not sure what you are saying, but the gospel stories were still being collected, from Peter and James and John and others. The stories were obviously in circulation.

Paul knew the other apostles and says they confirmed him as an apostle. His companion wrote Luke and Acts. Paul and early Christians were obviously aware of Jesus's life and death and healing acts. Paul wasn't trying to write a gospel. That wasn't his objective, imo. He left that to others. His work was different.

The dating and authenticity of the Paul's own letters as before the gospels is not in dispute

So it's a pity that Paul never wrote about Jesus, the Baptist or their mission.

Which part of that don't you get?

 

[RJM]

So it's a pity that Paul never wrote about Jesus, the Baptist or their mission.

Which part of that don't you get?

No he didn't. But what's the point? He wasn't trying to write a gospel.

 

[RJM]

The main facts of Jesus's life and death (and resurrection) were so well known amongst the early churches there was no need for Paul to tell them. He was concerned with their significance.

 

[Thomas]

So it's a pity that Paul never wrote about Jesus, the Baptist or their mission.

Not the baptist, no, the baptist is not central to the mission.

But otherwise, I'd say Jesus and His mission is all Paul wrote about. Everything he says and does is related to that.