Skeptical response to Bart Ehrman's book in the historical Jesus

[robrecht]

This indicates a religious agenda:

No, it does not. I merely quoted Crossan to show that you were mistaken in saying that "theologian 'believers' do not describe Jesus as a rebel." You are also wrong to say that I have a preference for the perspective of Crossan. What I said was that I give more credence to Crossan's view than Ehrman does. This does not mean that I prefer or give more credence to Crossan than I do to Ehrman. I give credence to both, as I mentioned, in accord with social memory theory. Contrariwise, I disagree with both of their source-critical methodological presuppositions, neither of which has anything whatsoever to do with their religious viewpoints, except for the fact that my source-critical methodology is typically considered less faith-friendly.

[shunyadragon]

No, it does not. I merely quoted Crossan to show that you were mistaken in saying that "theologian 'believers' do not describe Jesus as a rebel."

[robrecht]

Go back and read what I actually said about giving greater credence to Crossan than Ehrman does. And you are the the one who claimed that my supposed preference for the theological perspective of Crossan was problematic. To then claim that Crossan merely has a philosophical, non-miraculous perspective on the historical Jesus invalidates your ad hominem argument against me. You could also benefit from greater familiarity with Crossan's actual views.

[shunyadragon]

Go back and read what I actually said about giving greater credence to Crossan than Ehrman does. And you are the the one who claimed that my supposed preference for the theological perspective of Crossan was problematic. To then claim that Crossan merely has a philosophical, non-miraculous perspective on the historical Jesus invalidates your ad hominem argument against me. You could also benefit from greater familiarity with Crossan's actual views.

he must be radically subversive, socially revolutionary, and politically dangerous.

Interesting, from Crossan's perspective Jesus was indeed a rebel! In fact he must be rebel to be meaningful.

[robrecht]

he must be radically subversive, socially revolutionary, and politically dangerous.

Interesting, from Crossan's perspective Jesus was indeed a rebel! In fact he must be rebel to be meaningful.

D'uh! That was precisely my original point in bringing up Crossan as having more of an emphasis on Jesus as a 'rebel' than Ehrman and why I said above that you could benefit from more familiarity with Crossan's views.

[shunyadragon]

D'uh! That was precisely my original point in bringing up Crossan as having more of an emphasis on Jesus as a 'rebel' than Ehrman and why I said above that you could benefit from more familiarity with Crossan's views.

Both view Jesus as a rebel. Crossan just takes a more humanist view of Jesus. Ehrman also entertained the possibility that Jesus was 'Peasant Revolutionary.'

[shunyadragon]

Both view Jesus as a rebel. Crossan just takes a more humanist view of Jesus. Ehrman also entertained the possibility that Jesus was 'Peasant Revolutionary.'

There are some points that Ehrman emphasizes that you are neglecting concerning his view of Jesus. First, he did not consider Jesus unique. He was one of several apocalyptic Messianic rebel figures that rose up to rebel against Rome in the name of God, and the fulfillment of prophesy. Second, the apocalyptic mood of the time was the belief in the end of the age with arrival or return of the king of the Jews to end the rule of Rome and the reestablishment of the Hebrew Nation. ALL the Messianic rebels preached that the end of the Roman rule, including Jesus, would end at that time. Third, this was believed and preached by Jesus, Paul, and the other Messianic rebels at the time to happen within one generation. Regardless of whether you describe that the 'vanquishing of Rome' was by God or humans, it was to take place within one generation and Rome would be vanquished, based on prophesy from God. Therefore all the Messianic rebels including Jesus believed that it was the will of God that Rome would be vanquished. Regardless of how you nuance this it is rebellion against Rome, and Jesus knew this according to Ehrman.

You are in error describing Crossan as a 'believer' who described Jesus as a rebel. His view of Jesus was decidedly humanist, and not Divinely inspired. The only difference between Ehrman's and Crossan's view is Crossan considered Jesus a secular humanist rebel, and Ehrman considered him an apocalyptic rebel.

I support Ehrman on this, because of the historical context of the time that apocalyptic Messianic beliefs, and the end of Roman rule and the age, are the dominant theme of the time. Jesus being a humanist secular rebel just does not fit.

[robrecht]

There are some points that Ehrman emphasizes that you are neglecting concerning his view of Jesus. First, he did not consider Jesus unique.

We have not been discussing whether or not Ehrman considered Jesus unique or not, so it is silly for you to say that I have neglected this. Ehrman does indeed consider Jesus to be 'the most important figure in the history of Western civilization' and he himself tries to model his life on Jesus' ethical teachings.

He was one of several apocalyptic Messianic rebel figures that rose up to rebel against Rome in the name of God, and the fulfillment of prophesy. Second, the apocalyptic mood of the time was the belief in the end of the age with arrival or return of the king of the Jews to end the rule of Rome and the reestablishment of the Hebrew Nation. ALL the Messianic rebels preached that the end of the Roman rule, including Jesus, would end at that time.

I was the one who brought up Ehrman's view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet so you are mistaken that I have neglected this aspect of Ehrman's view. It is because of the nature of Ehrman's view of Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man and God bringing about the Kingdom of God that he does not see him as advocating that his followers participate in any rebellion against Rome nor did he proclaim that he as king would be the one to vanquish Rome.

Third, this was believed and preached by Jesus, Paul, and the other Messianic rebels at the time to happen within one generation. Regardless of whether you describe that the 'vanquishing of Rome' was by God or humans, it was to take place within one generation and Rome would be vanquished, based on prophesy from God. Therefore all the Messianic rebels including Jesus believed that it was the will of God that Rome would be vanquished. Regardless of how you nuance this it is rebellion against Rome, and Jesus knew this according to Ehrman.

My disagreement with you was about your mistaken interpretation of Ehrman that Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome by publicly proclaiming himself king and that therefore people should follow him as their king who would soon vanquish Rome.

You are in error describing Crossan as a 'believer' who described Jesus as a rebel. His view of Jesus was decidedly humanist, and not Divinely inspired. The only difference between Ehrman's and Crossan's view is Crossan considered Jesus a secular humanist rebel, and Ehrman considered him an apocalyptic rebel.

Crossan definitely considers himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic, that is what I mean by referring to him as a believer. As you know, I do not see any necessary conflict in Christian humanism.

http://www.readthespirit.com/explore...enge-of-jesus/

But, since you are the one that tried to bring an ad hominem argument against me, because you thought, mistakenly, that I had a preference for the the theological perspective of 'Crossman', you should now admit that this ad hominem was invalid and mistaken. My point was that Crossan's theological perspective has no difficulty in viewing Jesus actions as "radically subversive, socially revolutionary, and politically dangerous."

I support Ehrman on this, because of the historical context of the time that apocalyptic Messianic beliefs, and the end of Roman rule and the age, are the dominant theme of the time. Jesus being a humanist secular rebel just does not fit.

Do you imagine that Crossan is somehow unaware of the apocalyptic milieu in which Jesus and the early Christians operated? I think the question is to what extent one should characterize the thought of Jesus or the historical context of his life as exclusively apocalyptic. For example, some already see in the writings of the Qumran sect signs of a cooling off of apocalyptic fervor.

[shunyadragon]

My disagreement with you was about your mistaken interpretation of Ehrman that Jesus was advocating rebellion against Rome by publicly proclaiming himself king and that therefore people should follow him as their king who would soon vanquish Rome.

The disagreement is I believe that Jesus publically preached he was the Messiah and provided evidence for that claim, therefore he claimed to be the 'king of the Jews. Ehrman believes he only preached this privately. This has nothing to do with the fact that we both believe that Jesus was in rebellion against Rome and knew what the consequences of his claims were. It is indifferent as to whether Jesus proclaimed that he was the Messiah and the king of the Jews publically nor privately. He taught his disciples, family and followers who he claimed to be, and that amounted to rebellion against Rome and Rome would be vanquished within one generation, and the end of the age.

Crossan definitely considers himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic, that is what I mean by referring to him as a believer. As you know, I do not see any necessary conflict in Christian humanism.

I disagree with what you that Crossan still believes in the Roman Church. Your view of Christian humanism is not the humanist view I was referring to that Crossan claims that the nature of Jesus was non-miraculous, and not Divine in nature,

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/27/Jesus.scholar/

Crossan still identifies as a Christian, but no longer belongs or wishes to belong to an organized Christian denomination.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, same reference "Crossan says Jesus was an exploited "peasant with an attitude" who didn't perform many miracles, physically rise from the dead or die as punishment for humanity's sins."

With these views there would not be much of a chance Crossan belong to any traditional Christian church.

[robrecht]

The disagreement is I believe that Jesus publically preached he was the Messiah and provided evidence for that claim, therefore he claimed to be the 'king of the Jews. Ehrman believes he only preached this privately. This has nothing to do with the fact that we both believe that Jesus was in rebellion against Rome and knew what the consequences of his claims were. It is indifferent as to whether Jesus proclaimed that he was the Messiah and the king of the Jews publically nor privately. He taught his disciples, family and followers who he claimed to be, and that amounted to rebellion against Rome and Rome would be vanquished within one generation, and the end of the age.

No. The question is how Ehrman's Jesus supposedly advocated rebellion against Rome. You previously misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepreseted Ehrman as thinking that the manner in which Jesus supposedly advocated rebellion against Rome was through publicly proclaiming himself king and calling disciples to follow him as king while he vanquished Rome.

I disagree with what you that Crossan still believes in the Roman Church.

I have no idea what you think I've said Crossan believes about the Roman Catholic church or how he believes in the Roman Catholic church. I merely quoted Crossan himself as saying that he is a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic and he gives the sense in which he means that, ie, "which means that I love the community and the tradition" and he is completely honest in admitting that he is somewhat distanced from the Catholic church, that he is "in something like an exile." I have claimed nothing more than cite Crossan's own words. The real point is that he unabashedly describes himself as a Christian.

Your view of Christian humanism is not the humanist view I was referring to that Crossan claims that the nature of Jesus was non-miraculous, and not Divine in nature,

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/27/Jesus.scholar/

Crossan still identifies as a Christian, but no longer belongs or wishes to belong to an organized Christian denomination.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, same reference "Crossan says Jesus was an exploited "peasant with an attitude" who didn't perform many miracles, physically rise from the dead or die as punishment for humanity's sins."

With these views there would not be much of a chance Crossan belong to any traditional Christian church.

You can take that up with Crossan and his description of himself as irrevocably Roman Catholic and what that means to him. You should be more careful in quoting Wikipedia and giving a different source. The text you cited about Crossan "no longer belongs or wishes to belong to an organized Christian denomination" is from Wikipedia and not from the CNN article, but still supports the fact that Crossan considers himself to be a Christian. From the CNN article:

When asked if he is a Christian, Crossan doesn't hesitate.

"Absolutely."

[shunyadragon]

You can take that up with Crossan and his description of himself as irrevocably Roman Catholic and what that means to him. You should be more careful in quoting Wikipedia and giving a different source. The text you cited about Crossan "no longer belongs or wishes to belong to an organized Christian denomination" is from Wikipedia and not from the CNN article, but still supports the fact that Crossan considers himself to be a Christian. From the CNN article:
[indent]When asked if he is a Christian, Crossan doesn't hesitate.

I acknowledged he is a Christian, but he is no longer a member of the Roman Church.

[robrecht]

I acknowledged he is a Christian, but he is no longer a member of the Roman Church.

I guess that depends on how you define membership. According to him he is irrevocably Roman Catholic.

[shunyadragon]

I guess that depends on how you define membership. According to him he is irrevocably Roman Catholic.

False, please cite where he claims this.

His belief in the who Jesus Christ was is in absolute and total contradiction with the beliefs of the Roman Church and all the traditional Christian churches. His view is distinctly that of the Unitarian Universalist secular humanist view of Christ, which is nothing new among secular historians.

To believe in this and in the Roman Church would be hypocricy in the absurd.

[robrecht]

False, please cite where he claims this.

His belief in the who Jesus Christ was is in absolute and total contradiction with the beliefs of the Roman Church and all the traditional Christian churches. His view is distinctly that of the Unitarian Universalist secular humanist view of Christ, which is nothing new among secular historians.

To believe in this and in the Roman Church would be hypocricy in the absurd.

I already did.

http://www.readthespirit.com/explore...enge-of-jesus/

[shunyadragon]

I already did.

http://www.readthespirit.com/explore...enge-of-jesus/

Than hypocrisy rules the house Crossan.