It's here again and I've just been watching Bart Ehrman discussing the various accounts of the birth of Jesus in the New Testament and trying to get to the historicity of it.
Bart is one of the world's top biblical scholars, an ex-evangelical Christian but now I think he calls himself an atheist, sometimes an agnostic atheist.
I don't think that many Christians read the bible critically, Bart does it in a kind but analytical way simply pointing out contradictions and explaining why they're there.
He concludes that sure, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, Herod didn't kill babies and kings didn't follow a star (and there weren't three of them) etc etc but it doesn't matter - it's the underlying message that counts.
This isn't opinion or extrapolation, it's a straight reading of the biblical stories compared.
I always find it interesting
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Well I wont watch it. I hate falsification. It is a virus within the human condition. Meanwhile, y'all dream about a Star Trek future where humans get along with weird-looking aliens and loudly proclaim that they have moved beyond God. You guys say that our old stories are delusions. I say that this new optimism in human potential is a poor substitute.
quote:
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
Voltaire
If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
You don’t need to watch it. Pretty much everything in it has been said here. You can work out most of it just by reading the Bible. But I guess that - like Faith - you hate the idea of anyone reading The Bible.
Now that is seriously weird. What's wrong with falsification? You'd rather believe in something that's very obviously wrong based on it's own terms? I thought you guys believe in THE TRUTH.
All Bart does is compare the different stories of Jesus' birth in the New Testament side by side. It's your bible why are you afraid of what's in it?
He just points othat the two story tellers - Luke and Mathew's - tell quite different stories and the story of the birth that most people believe these days is an amalgam of the two. (The other two, Mark and John don't have birth stories, he tells you why.)
I fail to see why a real understanding of your bible can possibly do any harm.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Well I wont watch it. I hate falsification. It is a virus within the human condition.
This is the root of all your problems, Phat.
You are only willing to accept information you personally like.
Truth doesnt matter. You've decided what is "true" ahead of time. You place the onus on the information to comport with your pre-established story.
You are an ostrich hiding his head in the sand because your poor avian eyes cannot bear to have a cherished belief falsified.
The root of wisdom is not a deity. The root of wisdom is the acknowledgement that you are wrong, and you don't yet know what you're wrong about.
If a god exists, I want to believe that a god exists. If a god does not exist, I want to not believe that a god exists. May I not become too attached to any belief to reject beliefs that are falsified. May I not become so eager to believe that I accept beliefs as true before I have sufficient evidence to justify that confidence.
And so on for not just god-beliefs, but every belief.
Meanwhile, y'all dream about a Star Trek future where humans get along with weird-looking aliens and loudly proclaim that they have moved beyond God. You guys say that our old stories are delusions. I say that this new optimism in human potential is a poor substitute.
Stories can be meaningful even if they aren't true. We've all watched movies and read books that have touched us, even if they were works of fiction. Myths and legends matter even when they're not true. They can be inspiring, or emotionally helpful, or convey information in a more easily-digestible form. We actually do have several things in reality that appeared first in Star Trek - cell phones, voice-controlled computers, personal computer tablets, etc.
But Phat, this is another (of so frustratingly many) example where you pick something random and irrelevant and put words in the mouths of others.
Nobody believes that Star Trek is reality. At best it's inspirational, a bright future to work toward, And "substitute?" Who here (or anywhere) is talking about "substituting" a mythical future to replace a mythical past? How does that concept even make sense, in or out of context?
Nobody needs to "falsify" Star Trek. Everyone knows it's fiction. Everybody knows it's false.
I think you're just trying to sound profound.
-->“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:26King James Version (KJV)
It's here again and I've just been watching Bart Ehrman discussing the various accounts of the birth of Jesus in the New Testament and trying to get to the historicity of it. Bart is one of the world's top biblical scholars, an ex-evangelical Christian but now I think he calls himself an atheist, sometimes an agnostic atheist.
It is an oxymoron to have a top Biblical scholar who is an atheist. That is like a Muslim becoming Pope! I have read other Biblical scholars who challenge Ehrmans conclusions. Here is one. (Yes, Percy I *have* actually read the book! )
Misquoting Truth The top scholars are usually Christians themselves. Not political Christian Nationalist scholars. Not Sunday School *The ONLY Book I need is my Bible*Fundementalists. Lets not lose perspective here! Few of you remember when my old EvC friend Jonnicus brought up Bart Ehrman. (He is doing well, by the way. )
You'd rather believe in something that's very obviously wrong based on it's own terms?
Im am taking a stand that the intellect of an agnostic/atheist who doesnt even know the character in the book has the audacity to critically challenge the book. Bah Humbug, Scrooge. The Scholarly A.I. Grinch wont steal this Christmas nor taint the topic that you started.
It's your bible why are you afraid of what's in it?
The book is about God....and Ehrmans own skeptical ego challenges the authors of the book. One can have more degrees than a thermometer and be a critical thinker and yet never know God through Jesus because they are too busy bashing the book.
Edited by Phat, .
If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
You are only willing to accept information you personally like.
Truth doesnt matter. You've decided what is "true" ahead of time. You place the onus on the information to comport with your pre-established story.
You are an ostrich hiding his head in the sand because your poor avian eyes cannot bear to have a cherished belief falsified.
The root of wisdom is not a deity. The root of wisdom is the acknowledgement that you are wrong, and you don't yet know what you're wrong about.
There is so much to unpack here, but to start with, Merry Christmas, Rahvin. I have and do believe what is true. I met Jesus. I know God. (Humbly, to be sure) It is *you and the peanut gallery* who don't have a clue about this Holy Book.
If a god exists, I want to believe that a god exists. If a god does not exist, I want to not believe that a god exists.
Fair enough. I think a bit differently, and in fact was taught this by our old friend jar. His statement was: (and I may be paraphrasing)
quote:If God exists, God exists despite any human effort to prove or disprove Him.(He would say "her" or "It" ) If god does not exist, no amount of proof or argument or data can create "Him".
Your "Faith" is in data and evidence. My "Faith is in God through Jesus.
May I not become too attached to any belief to reject beliefs that are falsified. May I not become so eager to believe that I accept beliefs as true before I have sufficient evidence to justify that confidence
Note my quote from Ignatius:
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
People...Scholars, skeptics, and even critical thinking agnostics share one problem. It is mentioned in the Bible.
It basically boils down to what you are hungry for. Is it Truth or is it data and information?
And why do you reject the truth? Because some author who is himself an atheist/agnostic writes a book exposing his own doubts?
If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
It is an oxymoron to have a top Biblical scholar who is an atheist.
Only someone who believes in God can study the bible huh? I suppose only those who believe in Greek mythology can study that too. How about male gynaecologists?
Regardless of what you think, Ehrman is one of the world's leading biblical scholars which you'd know if you just read his Wiki entry.
That is like a Muslim becoming Pope! I have read other Biblical scholars who challenge Ehrmans conclusions.
Because you haven't watched the video or listened to what I said, you don't know what his 'conclusions' are.
In this case he just puts the two birth stories side by side and compares them factually. Nothing else. Just the words as written. It's something you could do yourself right now. Just open your bible - you do actually have one don't you? - and read Mathew and Luke's words side by side one sentence at a time noting the similarities and differences.
It's what's actually written in your bible, nothing else. Try it. Or just listen to what he says, then explain to me why he's wrong. Are you afraid of reading your bible? That's all I'm asking.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
There's no point to a point-by-point here with you.
You're a deluded imbecile, Phat.
You continue after all these years to commit the tu quo que fallacy and accuse others of also using faith. I have no faith, Phat. Faith is not a reliable path to truth. I dont have "faith" in data and evidence. Data and evidence allow me to reason in the absence of faith. I can test my beliefs, reject the ones that are inaccurate, and be more confident in the beliefs that pass those tests.
You conflate the idea of whating to believe what is actually true with the independence of truth from belief.
If a god exists, it does exist whether I believe that it exists or not.
And as I said - if a god exists, I want to believe that it exists.
But I need a justifiable reason to believe. So should you. Faith is not it.Faith is a path to delusion. Faith is confidence without justification. Faith allows you to believe absurdities. Faith will never allow the map of your beliefs to accurately match the territory of reality.
And then you use Ignatius to put words in moths again.After what I told you directly contradicts that quote.
If a god actually exists, I want to believe a god actually exists. I just need sufficient justification to believe that the existence of a god is more likely than not. I just need some evidence. Granted, the existence of am omnipotent omniscient benevolent omnipresent nonphysical immortal sentient entity with the ability to ignore the laws of physics (as most Christians define god) would take a lot of strong evidence, since "I am hallucinating" or "this is a trick" or "something else I believed was wrong" would always be more likely explanations. But "for those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient" is false on its face. There is no proof. None. Zero. Zilch. The quote makes sense only out of exasperation/frustration.
Which ironically is precisely what you have given me for Christmas with yet another demonstration that you value your delusion more than being correct, and that you continue to seek perverse validation of your delusion by asserting that your philosophical opponents partake in the same irrational behavior that you do, and call that irrationality a virtue.
-->“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:26King James Version (KJV)
So, given that this is simply comparing words written in the two books about the same event, I figured that there must be eminent Christian biblical scholars that have noticed this.
Raymond E. Brown (Catholic priest, biblical scholar)
Brown was a devout Catholic and a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Key work • The Birth of the Messiah (1977; rev. ed. 1993)
What he does • Lays Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 side-by-side • Analyses: Contradictions and differences (genealogies, chronology, geography)
• Literary dependence on Old Testament motifs • Historical plausibility • Explicitly states the two accounts cannot be harmonised historically
Brown’s own conclusion
The infancy narratives are theological constructions, not modern historical reportage.
You don't have to accept the conclusions - though it's hard not to given the simple facts - but you can at least accept the discrepancies.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
So, given that this is simply comparing words written in the two books about the same event, I figured that there must be eminent Christian biblical scholars who have noticed this.
Certainly there are. Moreover, there are laypeople like me who dig a bit deeper when challenged.
Copilot writes:
What “Theological Construction” Means
A story or text crafted to communicate beliefs about God, identity, purpose, or salvation.
Not written with the goal of journalistic accuracy or chronological precision.
Uses symbolism, scriptural echoes, and narrative design to convey theological truths rather than historical details.
I feared that since Ehrman was an agnostic at best he was attempting to discredit the Bible.
Copilot writes:
In Biblical Studies
When scholars say a passage is a theological construction, they mean:
The author shaped the narrative to highlight who Jesus is, how God acts, or how prophecy is fulfilled.
The story may blend:
Scriptural motifs
Symbolic numbers
Literary patterns
Idealized or stylized scenes
The purpose is religious meaning, not historical reporting.
Thus, the Book can be said to be more philosophical rather than historical.
Copilot writes:
Calling something a theological construction does not mean:
“It’s false”
“It’s made up in a deceptive way”
It means:
The author’s primary aim was theological insight, not historical documentation.
I can accept all of that. My question, however, is why Ehrman himself is more of an agnostic atheist.
If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
I have read other Biblical scholars who challenge Ehrmans conclusions. Here is one. (Yes, Percy I *have* actually read the book! 
)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)
