@Thagomizer Exactly a waste of time. If infidel first did his research than he would not have to troll for minutes about you know what. unbelievable. I read about 10 books about bible fraud and all and its perfectly clear to me how it is. The bible is a fraud.
Ehrman makes a rather bold assertion then merely claims that everyone "knows that jesus actually existed " ..Ehrman would be better served by trotting out some of this indisputable "historical evidence " ...ie, we know or have good reason to believe jesus really existed BECAUSE ...item A, item B ,etc ..I like Ehrman but I found this "historicity" exchange a bit overwrought and presumptive on his part ..we know because we just know ?
No, he's not arrogant, just failed to do his homework, which is clear from earlier exchanges where Ehrman, pretty much, has to explain what his true position is. My guess is that Ehrman has a higher academic standing than Price which explains why he is dismissive, bordering on arrogant, himself! As proudfootz indicates its disingenuous of Ehrman to deny Price's academic credentials altogether! I like Ehrman, but I think he exaggerates and makes spurious comparisons with other historical figures.
Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), and Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009).
Perhaps the reason IG says that Hector Avalos doubts that Jesus existed is because Hector Avalos himself said that he doubts that Jesus existed! To quote Avalos, "No trace of Jesus after centuries of searching in his supposed lifetime."
Hey Infidel Guy, you are a freegin dumb ass, and out-gunned by one of the most brilliant minds in biblical studies. Shut your your f-----ing uninformed mouth. You are vacuous, dumber than a bag of hammers. Admit it, you're an ass! rrrrrrrrrriiiight?
@changingmyself No one is denying that he is a skeptic with regard to claims of Christ's divinity. The question is whether or not he denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I can't seem to find him making such a denial.
You can't post a link to something he's published? I don't seem to see his e-mail anywhere, and have found nothing in my search that supports your statement.
Lacking anything more than your word against Dr. Ehrman, I'm definitely inclined to believe the latter.
@changingmyself I can't seem to find his website; perhaps you could provide the URL? A link to the page containing the statement of doubt that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed would be even better.
I've read a few articles on him in my search, and have yet to find any source for this claim about him.
This is supremely embarrassing. Why not pack it in and admit you don't know what you're talking about? There's nothing wrong with that. Ehrman is FAR more interesting than Reginald Finley, aka The Infidel Guy. Ehrman has precision of thought...he repeatedly asks for evidence...Infidel Guy squirms like most of the religious apologists he derides. Interesting listen.
The Infidel Guy should actually learn historiography and actually read Ehrman's books BEFORE questioning him. If the reasoning used by the Infidel Guy are valid, then we would doubt every single document in ancient history. That's why historiography and scholars have tools to distinguish what is genuine history from what is interested information from the authors. The Infidel Guy just didn't do his homework. Shame!
the bart guy is nothing but a blind, ignorant, pseudo-intellectual. any historian's research is based on ancient writings that could've been written by anyone, and could also be complete lies and fantasy. there's no solid proof in a historian's line of work when it comes to the existence of God. period.
Remember atheists have the greater intelligence, they are more rational and are balanced in their views, they rely ONLY on the best evidence and scholarship, they don't rely on here say. They rely on the scientific logical and rational methods, they don't create beliefs, they follow truth as it is revealed. Infidel guy we salute you!! lol :-)
@stephjh2006 Lol, hey, you're here too! See what I mean about how some idiots become atheists? Doctor Bart Ehrman is an atheist too, just one for the right reasons. Unfortunately, many people feel that just because they have the right conclusion means that they are smart people. It doesn't.
@stephjh2006 Agnostics are generally people who don't know what agnosticism means. It is a separate issue from belief. Ehrman is an agnostic atheist, like me and most other atheists. Atheist because he does not have a belief in a deity, and agnostic because he doesn't think we know / can know for sure. To only mention you are agnostic implies that you think the likelihood of God existing is about 50/50. It is not, and "agnostics" don't think so either.
@SpeakOut4Reason well you might know more about him than I, I am not sure if he lost his faith completely in God but certainly in Christianity. So if he's now an agnostic atheist as you cry it, or whatever he's certainly not so cut and dry "there is no God" kind of guy. My hope is that one day he will see the light and come to Christ :-)
@stephjh2006 As far as my label of agnostic atheist, I just meant to clarify what he means (or should mean, in order to be accurate) by agnostic. I'm not actually that familiar with him, but if he calls himself agnostic he's probably not a very outspoken atheist like Dawkins and friends.
He actually dislikes Dawkins and the rest of the new atheists. He thinks that they are "sophomoric and silly" because they don't know jack about religion and only make claims about religion that are untrue.
@aloh86 Well I can imagine he'd dislike the "new atheist" movement and Dawkins etc, but I think he's not giving them enough credit. Yeah, they're not perfect, but they are pretty intelligent. I personally don't like Hitchens much because his arguments are usually just emotional and he seems more focused on pissing people off then being fair. However, it is a huge overstatement to say that they "only make claims about religion that are untrue."
I don't think it's that huge of an overstatement. Ehrman rightfully says that if you want to do a bona fide attack on religion you should have studied it in depth, meaning, do you have degree in new or old testament theology? Have you studied literary and source criticism? Etc. I think Ehrman has a problem with Dawkins et. al because they often make sweeping statements about what religious people believe. Their statements assume all religious people have the same views.
@aloh86 And I suppose you've read all of their works? Look, it's pretentious to require a degree in a field before being able to think logically about an idea, and you've shown in your past few comments that you also make great sweeping statements for the sake of impact. There is of course a tendency to split people into in and out groups, but I think it is apparent that they address the people who fit their complaints, while usually being aware that theists are still a diverse group. Usually.
Apologists on both sides love to appeal to emotion. Let's leave it at that. It can be pretentious to say that thinking requires a degree, but it's unfair to simply dismiss in-depth study on things that need it. I've heard TN Atheists quote passages here and there, but their interpretations of some passages are flat out wrong. Dawkins' interview with Coyne is just one example of NA basing their beliefs on almost always literal, modern readings of American English scripture.
@aloh86 True, but then we may disagree on the things that actually need in-depth study. I think theology is crap as far as anything beyond historical value, but I would agree that there is more depth in the bible than many assume. However, that doesn't mean that it is true, and I think there are a good number of people who read it literally besides, who also happen to be demographic the NA usually concern themselves with. They are addressing others' claims, rarely making their own.
@stephjh2006 Again, though, let me remind you that on average the atheist is more intelligent, more scientific and more rational, and more educated, so don't go mocking the whole group like that.
@SpeakOut4Reason I think it is easier to find an intelligent atheist, although I would say atheism would be a negative mark on their record, but I am very biased. The smartest man I know is theist, but again I am very biased and I'm sure really, I'm not that smart ;-)
@stephjh2006 Give yourself some credit man. I just had the lamest PM debate ever with a guy named ImLDSRU2, and you look like Einstein now, lol. At least you try to reason with guys like me instead of just shutting down your mind. I like people who are up for discussing things openly and honestly :) The smartest guy I know is an atheist, lol. But yeah, it has to do with who you know + personal bias besides.
@ebauchman Indeed I dont think Infidel did a lot of research in Ehrmans book or other books of bible skeptics. some are Bushby the bible fraud and Gardner Bloodline of the holy grail which explains a lot about the bible and how you explain the topics. I recommend these books.
The Infidel Guy gets owned over and over in this interview... he sounds extremely immature and amateur.... he needs to get his facts together before he makes claims and attempts to debate people...
When Dr. Ehrman got off the phone, what did he say to his wife??
"Do you believe that guy!.... Who hired him anyways? Just another badly informed radio host who tries to make a mountain out of a molehill, and sounds rediculous, illogical, and wishy-washy in doing so. Change the station,please."
Reginald Finley, you blew it. You had one of the most respected and recognized biblical scholars on the phone and you were disrespectful to him by not accepting his expert opinion.
Your ignorant rhetoric only mirrored the ignorant rhetoric of the blind, xtian, sheeple that you criticize so harshly. Dumbass.
It baffles me how someone would work so hard to promote mythicism in opposition to the vast majority of the experts and then admit that they themselves are not an expert. This view is not born out of any rational skepticism but simply contempt for Christianity.
This is how atheism sounds when it has been indoctrinated like religion. If we all turned into atheists there would be more people that sound like this guy. It would no longer be freethinking like it is today. I'm glad atheism is mostly made up of intelligent people and most of the idiots are still part of a major religion.
Why invite an expert onto the show, and then interupt him just to disagree with him and when he asks you to explain why you just say "I wouldn't know, I'm not a biblical scholar". Why not instead ask Bart "How do you know?" and let him explain? And if you still disagree, explain why and let him reply. Maybe if he had prepared some questions before hand, it wouldn't have been such a mess.
bart ehrman is usually a great guy, he has written some fantastic books which i have actually taken the time to read, but... he is kinda being a douche bag in this interview because the infidel guy is being honest and bart is wanting to assert facts where there are none, which is weird since he has made a living pointing out the bible does the same thing LOL..
@lolbutsrsly Infidel guy is acting this way due to Robert Price, PhD, Richard Carrier, PhD doubting that Jesus existed coupled with people such as Earl Doherty, Acharya S. etc who have NO PhD rejecting the existence of Jesus having such a great influence on him. Infidel Guy wants Ehrman to admit that it is likely that Jesus didn't exist and Ehrman says Jesus did and that ALL in the field agree with Ehrman. Infidel Guy is shocked that is the case and is stunned that Paul wrote Galatains.
@lolbutsrsly Wow that was a dumb thing to say. You buy this guys book and trust his expertise and yet are disagreeing cause he is saying something you don't like and cause he is being honest?
Ehrman is agnostic still so there is still hope him.
@Kclaybond Well Bart Ehrman has challenged the resurrection of Jesus too. The debate between Dr. Ehrman and William Lane Craig, PhD (a devoted Christian) is on YouTube the last time I looked.
Nothing frustrates me more than the pretension of rationality or science on the part of atheists today because nothing could be further from the truth. Case in point: listen to both parts of this video - the host is a dweeb. So, so, dumb.
I agree, the host isn't very charitable when it comes to Dr Ehrman's level of expertise in New Testament scholarship & seems to think that mincing words equals rational debate. Hell, he spent 5mins debating the word "nobody"..... it's unfortunate because he had Bart Ehrman on the phone for 10mins and wasted most of it with his "Riiiiiiiight" crap. Talk about delusions of grandeur....
@gtg309v I know.. The host drives me crazy.. It sounds like he has no understanding of the material. he should take an intro course in New Testament.. i remember in another one of his shows where he referred to the Gospel of John as one of the synoptic gospels... I couldn't believe it!
there is some source of information in the Talmud that mentions Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. now i doubt this is made up, since the Jews would not make up things about Jesus since they hated Him, every ancient historical evidence you look at almost mentions something about Jesus and compares it to the Bible and agrees to it, some even mention Jesus died on the cross, and some others say that Jesus claimed to be God and the Son of God.
@sulljoh1 For some reason you last comment is not appearing on the comments section, but I'll adress it anyway. Biologists have lots of evidence for evolution and present it when asked. I don't see HJers doing the same thing for evidence for Jesus.
"Jesus" is a STOLEN character based upon the SUN and catholics originally started to worship him on SUN-day, when that day was created in 321 AD. REAL scholars like DM Murdock, and a host of others will school this systematic PUNK for saying bullshit like "no serious scholar says Jesus never existed." There is NOT one shred of REAL evidence he ever did, except maybe some forgeries. The Egyptians already had the ENTIRE Mary & Jesus story with Isis & Horus. If Ehrman disagrees, he is a SHILL.
@EducatedRebellion101 REAL SCHOLARS SUCH AS DM MURDOCK (Achraya S)!!! HA HA HA HA. What a JOKE!!! Lets see, Bart Ehrman, PhD, James Tabor, PhD, John Dominic Crosson, PhD, Marques Borg, PhD ALL find evidence that Jesus lived and was executed by Pilate about 30 AD. D. M. Murdock, PhD..Oh wait she doesn't have a PhD...Well she has a masters...OH NO she doesn't have a masters either. Oh shit. D. M. Murdock in ONLY an AMATURE with NO credentials. No wonder your handle is Educated Rebellion.
So once again, your attempt to conflated a defense of Julius's historicity as though it's an attack on Jesus's historicity has been exposed and has once again failed.
By the way, I know exactly what is going through Ehrman's mind, because I was in the same boat once. Like Ehrman I was a Christian. A very religious one. When I eventually became an atheist I thought the Jesus Mythers were nuts. It was one thing to stop beliving in God, but quite another to deny history. It was only when I went looking for that evidence to prove the JM crowd that I realized that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.I had to drag myself kicking and screaming into that view
@voiceofreason467 Voiceofreason467. Where do you get the notion that Paul is a liar? That is what the Muslims tell me at work. Clearly Paul did NOT hold a position that Jesus was not flesh and blood. Have you not read any of the historians and scholars such as Dr. Ehrman who have worked this up over the years? What skeptics have you been reading and what are their credentials? Paul says Jesus was born under the law, born of a woman, met his brother James, met his follower Peter. Prove it is lie
Does the Infidel Guy have a single consistent thought? He was popping around like a ping pong ball and couldn't decide what he did or didn't want to argue.
Guess this is why Ehrman is published and respected and the I.G. is pretty unknown.
@BaldexSoldier I think IG didn't want to get into a big argument with Ehrman, but he did sound a bit passive-aggressive. However, he could have, and should have, challenged Ehrman on a lot of his claims (like the supposed lack of evidence for Julius Caesar).
@PissedFechtmeister Well the IG only had ONE PhD level NT scholar and Christianity historian who had a PhD and that was Robert Price. I know that many of the PhD level NT scholars and historians think Price is a "loose canon" and odd. And I know that they laugh at writers such as Freke and Grandy (Jesus Mytheries), Earl Doherty (Jesus Puzzle), Acharya S. (The Horus/Jesus Connection) as writing sensational books about Jesus being a made up character to make money& notice they have no PhD/Masters.
@PissedFechtmeister I didn't say Ehrman is one of the scholars who laughs at Earl Doherty, Freke and Grandy etc. But he is aware that they have NO formal education in his field and I'm sure he sees them as "hacks". But other scholars have laughed at Doherty, Freke and Grandy as a PhD astronomer would laugh at a man without a PhD who has written a book challenging his position on how the moon was formed for example. As a layperson, I would take the PhD until many PhDs begin to side w/the writer.
@boblackey1 But laughing does not constitute a refutation of a thesis. Even a ridiculous thesis. Why can't the JH crowd refute the arguments of Freke, Gandy, Price, Doherty, etc.? Better yet, why can't they provide any evidence for a historical Jesus?
@PissedFechtmeister Well I know from private Email that Ehrman, Tabor, Borg, Mack etc DO think their evidence for a HJ refutes Freke, Gandy, Price, Doherty etc. Price is the ONLY one with their education (PhD) in their field. They think he is a "loose canon" of sorts and Freke, Gandy, Doherty etc are writers to be laughed at as they are challenging the main body of academic study of Christian origins without the proper credentials!!
@boblackey1 That's funny. You've written dozens of message here, but offered no evidence for the existence for Jesus aside from three letters after Ehrman's name.
@PissedFechtmeister Well lets wait for Ehrman's next book. No doubt he will present why the evidence supports that it is very likely Jesus did exist and the evidence that it is very unlikely that Jesus did all the gospels claim. Actually on the latter Ehrman has already done in most of his books. That is why he is not liked by believing Christians such as Lee Stroble and William Lane Craig, PhD. No doubt the JM crowd with not like the book, neither will the believers, so that leaves the middle.
@PissedFechtmeister Oh I doubt Ehrman will PROVE a HJ. I've listened to his lectures and as a historian working with ancient figures of history, he has often said he can only do "what is very likely,likely, not likely and very un-likely". Just speaking in a netural, material way, it is possible that many figures from 2,000 years ago didn't actually exist, or didn't do most of what the historians think they did. Go to Wikipedia and look up John Henry. That one is not 200 years old yet.
@boblackey1 I should have written "Oh I doubt Ehrman will PROVE the HJ to many who doubt Jesus did exist". In other words, I would imagine Earl Doherty will read Ehrman's book and I doubt it will change his mind. I go back to work tomorrow, but I'll check in from time to time. I've enjoyed meeting all here and good luck.
@PissedFechtmeister What about Josephus, Tacitus or Pontius Pilate. Nobody as far as I've been able to gather wrote about any of them during their lifetime that survived (and who knows if Jesus had a contemporary writer and it's now lost), nobody knows exactly when they died (real mystery of Pilate) or where they are buried. No written works of Pilate exist. Oldest extant copy of Josephus is 10th century (oldest fragment of John's gospel is 125 CE) oldest extant Tacitus is 11th century. ???
@boblackey1 Josephus and Tacitus existed because we have books written by them. At the very least they are convenient names to give to whoever wrote the books. I extend the same courtesy to the author of the genuine epistle of Paul. I just call him Paul.
@PissedFechtmeister As best as I can tell, nobody wrote about or mentioned Josephus and Tacitus while they were living. Their extant writings are far removed from the supposed originals. 10th century and 11 century. And copied and preserved mostly by Christian scribes. Nobody knows where their are buried and exactly when they died. Same with Paul except the oldest copies of Paul are much closer to the original. And basicly the same with Jesus. But some people say Jesus didn't exist!?!
@boblackey1 And there is next to nothing about Pontius Pilate. He is mentioned several times in all the gospels. The writer of 1 Timothy mentions Pilate. Non canonical Christian writings back to the second century menton Pilate. Josephus does as well as Tacitus, but Tacitus calls him "procurator" rather than "perfect". Now I've found out that Tacitus was both. And years before Tacitus, that office became ONLY "procurator" and some scholars take is that Tacitus only used the title his reader knew
@boblackey1 Also it is interesting that according to several places I found on the internet looking for more details about Pontius Pilate, a good number of skeptical historians, mostly in Europe and the old Soviet Union, had serious doubts that Pilate existed. But they found an arch in the early 60's that was dedicated to him and most changed their position. But Horus, Isis and others have coins, relics etc dedicated to them with their images and they never lived.
@boblackey1 Finally for today (I've got to get to bed. Working third this week) their is a character who is not that far removed from our time and the historians ARE divided about if he existed. See as best as I can tell, with the exception of Robert Price, PhD and possible Richard Carrier, PhD, their are only two, three OUT OF THOUSANDS who doubt Jesus existed. (Not taking about Doherty, Freke etc as they don't have a PhD or masters in this field) It is the character John Henry.
@boblackey1 Origen lived in the late 2nd century to early 3rd century. He discusses the works of Josephus. So despite the late attestation we know that his writings must have existed at that time. Josephus had to exist because the book attributed to him did not write themselves. I don't know if his name was really Josephus. At worst it's a convenient name to use. I don't know if anything in his biography is true either. The author of those books did exist however.
@PissedFechtmeister Well yes I could say it is very likely Josephus did exist even though no one knows when he died, where he is buried and the oldest extant copies of his works date to just the 10 century. Origen has no original works either, just copies of copies. There is time for someone to have invented Josephus, but it is very doubtful to me. And it seems clear that Pagan ideas and myths did find a place in Christianty but it is very doubtful that a HJ didn't exist. I agree w/Erhman.
@boblackey1 Origen discussed the works of Josephus which demonstrates that they were extant at that time. I don't know when Josephus lived, died, or if a single word of his biography is accurate. At worse it's a convenient name to give to the author of the works of Josephus. The first written gosepl, GMark is a blatant allegory. A historical Jesus is not necessary to explain GMark or the rise of Christianity.
Saying Jesus was a historical character is not the same as saying he is a god-man. David Icke once claimed to be the messiah, should we doubt his very existence. How I wish we could.
This really couldn't be more entertaining. It ishilarious how far desperate skeptics will go, even with established scholars; a few irrational arguments and we'll have them believing that they themselves never existed a la inception or the like. The biases and bogus presuppositions need to be put away in this topic, Jesus mythicism is to history as creationism is to biology.
@PissedFechtmeister And IG was afraid to challenge Dr. Ehrman. I could here it in his voice. Indeed IG probably has only read Price and several of the authors of Jesus myth books who are without a PhD or Masters such as Earl Doherty, knew Dr. Ehrman has a masters and PhD in New Testament and Christian origins and was afraid of Ehrman. Either that Ehrman would expose a mistake and make him look silly on his own show or Ehrman's 30 years experience in the field and his PhD did the job or both.
@PissedFechtmeister As with Josephus, people wrote about Jesus in the second century. And if the sholars and historians have the dates write, they wrote about Jesus and quoted his saying IN THE FIRST CENTURY. There is a problem with skeptical scholars such as Dr. Ehrman who doubt Jesus actually said about 70 percent of what the gospels say. But Peter, James and John say the saw and heard Jesus speak and Paul says James was the Lord's brother. Josephus says James"bro. of Jesus called Christ".
@boblackey1 We don't have anything definitely written by James or Peter. The Epistle of James may have been written by someone named James (it was a common name) but he doesn't claim to be the Jesus' brother. 1&2 Peter were definitely not written by the the Apostle Peter. Maybe the Gospel of Peter was written by him. But in that work the cross speaks which suggests the whole thing could be allegory.
@boblackey1 ...The only thing by John is Revelation (and we have no idea if this is John the Apostle). The Epsitles of John were written by at least 2 different people, neither of whom wrote GJohn or Revelation. At least as far back as Origen there were Christians who doubted the authenticity of the Epistles. As far as we know most everything attrbuted to Jesus may have been the words of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (and they are complete unknowns).
@PissedFechtmeister Well I know some very capable scholars who would challenge you on that. Indeed, three of them are convinced John wrote 1, 2, and 3 John AFTER Revelation. The Gospel to the Hebrews is said by certain Church Fathers to have been written by Matthew and it may be the origin of the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
@PissedFechtmeister I use to doubt Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe, PhD, ScD position that Darwin's idea that life began on earth in some little warm pond of water was wrong and that the first life came from outerspace via comets. But I would be nervous as hell debating that with them on the radio. Me with no PhD and them as well known scientists with PhDs and a ScD from Cambridge in England. Hoyle often challenged other PhDs in physics, biology and astronomy, so I would be a wreck!
@PissedFechtmeister Like the ahistorical Julius Caesar? I think he was born of a virgin too.
How about this simple argument? Why would the early Christians bother to invent a new person named Jesus to be the messiah when there were dozens of eccentric preachers running around at the time claiming to be the messiah? Much easier to take one of those people and twist his story into something useful. The best lies contain a grain of truth.
@sulljoh1 They didn't invent a person to be the Messiah. If you compare Jesus to what the Messiah was supposed to be they have pretty much nothing in common. The Jesus character was a metaphor for Israel. Not the corrupt Israel of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but a pure Israel, probably along the lines of an Essene Israel.
@PissedFechtmeister I know a Jewish minister at a local Temple and he tells me that Jesus did not match the OT prophecy for the Messiah and that is why Jews even today, with exception of Jews for Jesus, don't accept the New Testament. For example, the gosple writer's invention of a cencus as a vehicle to have Jesus born in Bethlehem while all Jewish scholars, critical scholars and many liberal Christian scholars reject the story as myth and Jesus' actual birth was elsewhere about fall 4 to 7 BC.
@boblackey1 But the 4 to 7 BC dates come from GMatthew which is just as unreliable as GLuke. Matthew misquotes and misrepresents scripture all over the place (Isaiah 7:14 is a great example) so why should his sole testimony be believed? He invents a trip to Egypt just so Jesus can fulfill a non-prophecy. Of course, if Jesus is just an allegory it makes perfect sense why he takes OT passages out of context and invents stories around them.
@PissedFechtmeister Yes they did a messy job. I agree. But the early Christians were obviously trying to fulfill Jewish prophecies. As I am sure you know, it is obvious that they messed them up and many of them could not properly read Hebrew. The Jesus character is sometimes a metaphor for Israel, other times he fills other roles. It looks very much like there was an eccentric Jew named Jesus at the time, and later authors tried to make him fit into their particular theological niches.
@sulljoh1 If they were trying to get Jesus to fulfill Jewish prophecies then why didn't they look at the messianic ones? For example Matthew has Jesus go to Egypt and then come out so that the "prophecy" could be fulfilled that said "Out of Egypt I have called my son." But when that whole passage is read it's not a prophecy but a statement about the past concerning Israel. I think this is Matthew hitting us with a big clue stick: Jesus is a metaphore he tells us.
@PissedFechtmeister Hmm. That could be. I guess listening to Infidel Guy shoot down the vast majority of biblical scholars (Including Jewish and secular scholars) who think Jesus did exist leaves me feeling uneasy as a rationalist. It even bugs me as an atheist. He is too much like the creationists who shoot down the majority of biologists, or holocaust deniers who shoot down the majority of historians for their fringe beliefs.
@sulljoh1 The main difference between Jesus, evolution, and the holocaust is that there's evidence for evolution and the holocaust. When it comes to Jesus the best that Ehrman is able to do is say "I have a PhD".
@PissedFechtmeister Now c'mon. He is a serious biblical scholar and a non-believer. (Not to mention demonized by most religious apologists) He has nothing to gain by making up historical evidence.
I don't care if Jesus existed. I don't even believe in God. Nothing hangs on it. If 99% of the historic community says Jesus probably existed I am prepared to believe them. (Including Ivy league scholars who I asked personally) Their evidence is sound. He was just an eccentric Rabbi.
@sulljoh1 How can their evidence be sound if they don't have any? All you've done is replace one priestly class that's not to be questioned with another priestly class that's not to be questioned.
@PissedFechtmeister Like the priestly class of biologists who just assert that evolution is true by fiat and expel anybody who disagrees from academia? Where are the missing links? :-P Seriously, I don't really understand what kind of evidence historians use. It is necessarily a pretty soft science. Comparing documents and looking for assertions against interest or remarks made in passing. Agnostics like Ehrman are certainly not covering for an unchallengeable a priestly class of scholars.
@sulljoh1 Open a book retard. Missing links are everywhere. Why would you bring evolution into this discussion? Because you dont know shit about this topic and youd rather just throw around your bullshit anti-science rhetoric?
@SupremeChimp hahaha nice. :-P I slightly know Dan Dennet and evolutionary algorithms inspired my masters thesis. Read the whole conversation. I was being ironic; trying to make the point that Infidel Guy sounds like a creationist in this exchange. He is going against the evidence and the majority of historical scholars.
@SupremeChimp lol. No problem. I love that even joking about creationism gets sneers online. I guess that 40% of Americans who take Genisis literally don't have computers yet.
@bestvalue If Jesus was God and/or the son of God, then everything hangs on our acceptance of him. I don't believe that he was. There is not enough evidence that he was anything but an eccentric Rabbi. You need faith to believe that he was God, and in my opinion, faith is not a valid way to find the truth
That being said, it bothers me when my fellow unbelievers say Jesus did not even exist. Look at our best and earliest manuscripts as an objective, secular historian.
This interview goes about nothing !
TheRelihunter 3 weeks ago
interesting conversation
qarohc 4 weeks ago
Infidel Guy is an idiot. I have no idea why Ehrman is wasting his time with him.
Thagomizer 1 month ago
@Thagomizer Exactly a waste of time. If infidel first did his research than he would not have to troll for minutes about you know what. unbelievable. I read about 10 books about bible fraud and all and its perfectly clear to me how it is. The bible is a fraud.
TheRelihunter 3 weeks ago
Ehrman makes a rather bold assertion then merely claims that everyone "knows that jesus actually existed " ..Ehrman would be better served by trotting out some of this indisputable "historical evidence " ...ie, we know or have good reason to believe jesus really existed BECAUSE ...item A, item B ,etc ..I like Ehrman but I found this "historicity" exchange a bit overwrought and presumptive on his part ..we know because we just know ?
woodenmajor 1 month ago
No, he's not arrogant, just failed to do his homework, which is clear from earlier exchanges where Ehrman, pretty much, has to explain what his true position is. My guess is that Ehrman has a higher academic standing than Price which explains why he is dismissive, bordering on arrogant, himself! As proudfootz indicates its disingenuous of Ehrman to deny Price's academic credentials altogether! I like Ehrman, but I think he exaggerates and makes spurious comparisons with other historical figures.
NUAGESA 1 month ago
This host is HORRIBLE and is frig'n disgrace to all atheist's everywhere.
DidacticEno 1 month ago
Infidel Guy is so so desperate!!!
tancheeken 2 months ago
"Common sensical"
billabong5747 2 months ago
Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), and Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009).
proudfootz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol this guy is a fool. I love to listen to Ehrman though.
CadaverSplatter 3 months ago
Lol this guy is a fool. I love to listen to Ehrman.
CadaverSplatter 3 months ago
Perhaps the reason IG says that Hector Avalos doubts that Jesus existed is because Hector Avalos himself said that he doubts that Jesus existed! To quote Avalos, "No trace of Jesus after centuries of searching in his supposed lifetime."
bindatype 4 months ago
@bindatype I've run a few searches for this quotation, but the only thing they return is a link back to this comment. Could you reference a source?
Without such a reference, I'd definitely be inclined to trust Ehrman over a comment on the video.
changeinjoy 3 months ago
Infidel Guy is in damage control mode trying desperately to save face in this conversation. It's painful to listen to.
philochristos 5 months ago 2
Hey Infidel Guy, you are a freegin dumb ass, and out-gunned by one of the most brilliant minds in biblical studies. Shut your your f-----ing uninformed mouth. You are vacuous, dumber than a bag of hammers. Admit it, you're an ass! rrrrrrrrrriiiight?
sickofyou60 5 months ago
2:30 Nope, everybody knows who Bart Ehrman is. Everyone in Biblical Studies does. Everyone.
marshallfantiv 5 months ago
Yes, Hector Avalos does, I wrote to him personally and he is a skeptic.
changingmyself 5 months ago
@changingmyself No one is denying that he is a skeptic with regard to claims of Christ's divinity. The question is whether or not he denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I can't seem to find him making such a denial.
changeinjoy 3 months ago
@changeinjoy He sure is, I personally wrote to him. Find his email address and do the same, find out for yourself.
changingmyself 3 months ago
@changingmyself
You can't post a link to something he's published? I don't seem to see his e-mail anywhere, and have found nothing in my search that supports your statement.
Lacking anything more than your word against Dr. Ehrman, I'm definitely inclined to believe the latter.
changeinjoy 3 months ago
@changeinjoy Look it up on his website.
changingmyself 3 months ago
@changingmyself I can't seem to find his website; perhaps you could provide the URL? A link to the page containing the statement of doubt that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed would be even better.
I've read a few articles on him in my search, and have yet to find any source for this claim about him.
changeinjoy 3 months ago
@changeinjoy Email:havalos AT iastate dot edu
changingmyself 3 months ago
@changingmyself
Thanks, I'll send him an email.
changeinjoy 3 months ago
@changeinjoy His book is called The End of Biblical Studies. You can find it on Amazon. He said he has a whole Chapter on Jesus.
changingmyself 3 months ago
Does anyone take this guy seriously now? lol
calciumkid4eva 5 months ago
This is supremely embarrassing. Why not pack it in and admit you don't know what you're talking about? There's nothing wrong with that. Ehrman is FAR more interesting than Reginald Finley, aka The Infidel Guy. Ehrman has precision of thought...he repeatedly asks for evidence...Infidel Guy squirms like most of the religious apologists he derides. Interesting listen.
sleepcity 6 months ago 2
"I'm not trying to argue for any particular position"
Yeah, right.
synal 6 months ago
this infantel guy forgots ta do his homiework or sumtin =O
swansonjohnsonjr 6 months ago
Infidel guy: well... there is this guy... don't remember who it is but... whatever... he doubts it... er...
BloodOfRayne 6 months ago
Infidel guy has investment in his assertions being correct. This is dishonest.
jacksawild 6 months ago
this shit is hilarious.this dude is doing everything his power to just not except the fact that historical facts point to Christ being real.
EstacadoConstantine 6 months ago
Infidel dude is a fucking idiot. I am embarassed for him.
SuperSeaweedSoup 6 months ago
The Infidel Guy should actually learn historiography and actually read Ehrman's books BEFORE questioning him. If the reasoning used by the Infidel Guy are valid, then we would doubt every single document in ancient history. That's why historiography and scholars have tools to distinguish what is genuine history from what is interested information from the authors. The Infidel Guy just didn't do his homework. Shame!
prosario2008 7 months ago
the bart guy is nothing but a blind, ignorant, pseudo-intellectual. any historian's research is based on ancient writings that could've been written by anyone, and could also be complete lies and fantasy. there's no solid proof in a historian's line of work when it comes to the existence of God. period.
7digitss 8 months ago
@7digitss the guy isn't trying to prove God exists, he's agnostic
stephjh2006 7 months ago
infidel guy is way out of his league
broadcastdeez 8 months ago
@broadcastdeez He's usually out of his league when he deals with any knowledgeable person in the Bible.
CRoadwarrior 8 months ago
What a shit show.
maxpainfu1 8 months ago
"Look at the historical evidence."
"Riiiiight."
LOL
Grasping at straws--- atheism in a nutshell.
salmagnum 9 months ago 9
@salmagnum Dr. Ehrman is an atheist too, man. Find a different quote.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
@salmagnum Not quite
ludogogo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@salmagnum Ehrman better change his ways and quick, or this is his eternal future - attempting to have serious conversations with dumb atheists!
That will be his hell, locked onto the grounds of a junior college, surrounded by morons like the host blurting half sentences dripping with dumb.
Do you think the host is smart enough to realize how not smart he is?
mollkatless 1 month ago
Remember atheists have the greater intelligence, they are more rational and are balanced in their views, they rely ONLY on the best evidence and scholarship, they don't rely on here say. They rely on the scientific logical and rational methods, they don't create beliefs, they follow truth as it is revealed. Infidel guy we salute you!! lol :-)
stephjh2006 9 months ago
@stephjh2006 Lol, hey, you're here too! See what I mean about how some idiots become atheists? Doctor Bart Ehrman is an atheist too, just one for the right reasons. Unfortunately, many people feel that just because they have the right conclusion means that they are smart people. It doesn't.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason Ehrman is agnostic, but I know some say agnostic is just an atheist afraid to commit
stephjh2006 9 months ago
@stephjh2006 Agnostics are generally people who don't know what agnosticism means. It is a separate issue from belief. Ehrman is an agnostic atheist, like me and most other atheists. Atheist because he does not have a belief in a deity, and agnostic because he doesn't think we know / can know for sure. To only mention you are agnostic implies that you think the likelihood of God existing is about 50/50. It is not, and "agnostics" don't think so either.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason well you might know more about him than I, I am not sure if he lost his faith completely in God but certainly in Christianity. So if he's now an agnostic atheist as you cry it, or whatever he's certainly not so cut and dry "there is no God" kind of guy. My hope is that one day he will see the light and come to Christ :-)
stephjh2006 9 months ago
@stephjh2006 As far as my label of agnostic atheist, I just meant to clarify what he means (or should mean, in order to be accurate) by agnostic. I'm not actually that familiar with him, but if he calls himself agnostic he's probably not a very outspoken atheist like Dawkins and friends.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason
He actually dislikes Dawkins and the rest of the new atheists. He thinks that they are "sophomoric and silly" because they don't know jack about religion and only make claims about religion that are untrue.
aloh86 7 months ago
@aloh86 Well I can imagine he'd dislike the "new atheist" movement and Dawkins etc, but I think he's not giving them enough credit. Yeah, they're not perfect, but they are pretty intelligent. I personally don't like Hitchens much because his arguments are usually just emotional and he seems more focused on pissing people off then being fair. However, it is a huge overstatement to say that they "only make claims about religion that are untrue."
SpeakOut4Reason 7 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason
I don't think it's that huge of an overstatement. Ehrman rightfully says that if you want to do a bona fide attack on religion you should have studied it in depth, meaning, do you have degree in new or old testament theology? Have you studied literary and source criticism? Etc. I think Ehrman has a problem with Dawkins et. al because they often make sweeping statements about what religious people believe. Their statements assume all religious people have the same views.
aloh86 7 months ago
@aloh86 And I suppose you've read all of their works? Look, it's pretentious to require a degree in a field before being able to think logically about an idea, and you've shown in your past few comments that you also make great sweeping statements for the sake of impact. There is of course a tendency to split people into in and out groups, but I think it is apparent that they address the people who fit their complaints, while usually being aware that theists are still a diverse group. Usually.
SpeakOut4Reason 6 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason
Apologists on both sides love to appeal to emotion. Let's leave it at that. It can be pretentious to say that thinking requires a degree, but it's unfair to simply dismiss in-depth study on things that need it. I've heard TN Atheists quote passages here and there, but their interpretations of some passages are flat out wrong. Dawkins' interview with Coyne is just one example of NA basing their beliefs on almost always literal, modern readings of American English scripture.
aloh86 6 months ago
@aloh86 True, but then we may disagree on the things that actually need in-depth study. I think theology is crap as far as anything beyond historical value, but I would agree that there is more depth in the bible than many assume. However, that doesn't mean that it is true, and I think there are a good number of people who read it literally besides, who also happen to be demographic the NA usually concern themselves with. They are addressing others' claims, rarely making their own.
SpeakOut4Reason 6 months ago
@stephjh2006 Again, though, let me remind you that on average the atheist is more intelligent, more scientific and more rational, and more educated, so don't go mocking the whole group like that.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
@SpeakOut4Reason I think it is easier to find an intelligent atheist, although I would say atheism would be a negative mark on their record, but I am very biased. The smartest man I know is theist, but again I am very biased and I'm sure really, I'm not that smart ;-)
stephjh2006 9 months ago
@stephjh2006 Give yourself some credit man. I just had the lamest PM debate ever with a guy named ImLDSRU2, and you look like Einstein now, lol. At least you try to reason with guys like me instead of just shutting down your mind. I like people who are up for discussing things openly and honestly :) The smartest guy I know is an atheist, lol. But yeah, it has to do with who you know + personal bias besides.
SpeakOut4Reason 9 months ago
someone should appologize to Bart on behalf of this moron's radio show
lunoskzo 9 months ago
Jesus, what an idiot this infidel moron is!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rgs11 10 months ago
Riiiiiiight
Mulholland107 10 months ago
I think the host is afraid that Jesus really existed. LOL. HE DOESN'T WANT JESUS TO EXIST.
Mrhawklanz 10 months ago
The host is terrible, very arrogant and clearly not knowledgeable on the subject.
Why did Ehrman even put up with him?
ebauchman 10 months ago 20
@ebauchman Indeed I dont think Infidel did a lot of research in Ehrmans book or other books of bible skeptics. some are Bushby the bible fraud and Gardner Bloodline of the holy grail which explains a lot about the bible and how you explain the topics. I recommend these books.
TheRelihunter 3 weeks ago
I have been debating this wacko with a channel name TheScienceFoundation who sounds just like this infidel wack job.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 11 months ago
Are you serious this Infidel guy is an idiot, Fail... Epic one...
samuellis 11 months ago
What a joke, the host is a piece of garbage.
Knucklehead281 1 year ago
The Infidel Guy gets owned over and over in this interview... he sounds extremely immature and amateur.... he needs to get his facts together before he makes claims and attempts to debate people...
ShamanicVoices 1 year ago 3
Infidel Guy has a TERRIBLE radio voice!
harpo103 1 year ago
Infidel Dude has a terrible radio voice!
harpo103 1 year ago
When Dr. Ehrman got off the phone, what did he say to his wife??
"Do you believe that guy!.... Who hired him anyways? Just another badly informed radio host who tries to make a mountain out of a molehill, and sounds rediculous, illogical, and wishy-washy in doing so. Change the station,please."
gordie338 1 year ago
Reginald Finley, you blew it. You had one of the most respected and recognized biblical scholars on the phone and you were disrespectful to him by not accepting his expert opinion.
Your ignorant rhetoric only mirrored the ignorant rhetoric of the blind, xtian, sheeple that you criticize so harshly. Dumbass.
wlbarbo 1 year ago 4
It baffles me how someone would work so hard to promote mythicism in opposition to the vast majority of the experts and then admit that they themselves are not an expert. This view is not born out of any rational skepticism but simply contempt for Christianity.
MattGoBragh 1 year ago
This is how atheism sounds when it has been indoctrinated like religion. If we all turned into atheists there would be more people that sound like this guy. It would no longer be freethinking like it is today. I'm glad atheism is mostly made up of intelligent people and most of the idiots are still part of a major religion.
wadejared5 1 year ago
Wow, this host actually managed to sound even dumber than in part one, which is quite the feat.
How did he manage to get an honest to goodness, real, published New Testament scholar to show up on his show?
JasonJackson12 1 year ago 2
WOW!! Awkward.
TheDakota671 1 year ago
Why invite an expert onto the show, and then interupt him just to disagree with him and when he asks you to explain why you just say "I wouldn't know, I'm not a biblical scholar". Why not instead ask Bart "How do you know?" and let him explain? And if you still disagree, explain why and let him reply. Maybe if he had prepared some questions before hand, it wouldn't have been such a mess.
kevinscales 1 year ago 3
this is one dumb atheist.
skepticnyc 1 year ago 3
bart ehrman is usually a great guy, he has written some fantastic books which i have actually taken the time to read, but... he is kinda being a douche bag in this interview because the infidel guy is being honest and bart is wanting to assert facts where there are none, which is weird since he has made a living pointing out the bible does the same thing LOL..
lolbutsrsly 1 year ago
@lolbutsrsly Infidel guy is acting this way due to Robert Price, PhD, Richard Carrier, PhD doubting that Jesus existed coupled with people such as Earl Doherty, Acharya S. etc who have NO PhD rejecting the existence of Jesus having such a great influence on him. Infidel Guy wants Ehrman to admit that it is likely that Jesus didn't exist and Ehrman says Jesus did and that ALL in the field agree with Ehrman. Infidel Guy is shocked that is the case and is stunned that Paul wrote Galatains.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1
As if you need a PhD to know that Christianity is a Jewish hoax.
ZOGcorp 10 months ago
@lolbutsrsly
wtf?
the infidel dude is a complete moron..
skepticnyc 1 year ago 34
@lolbutsrsly Wow that was a dumb thing to say. You buy this guys book and trust his expertise and yet are disagreeing cause he is saying something you don't like and cause he is being honest?
Ehrman is agnostic still so there is still hope him.
Onetruthrgv 1 year ago
This is tough to listen to. The host is a joke and Ehrman is obviously frustrated. how did this guy get a show?
bull864 1 year ago 2
'riiiiiight' 'riiiiiight' if you are just gonna stick to your pre-established notions then why ask bart ehrman questions. you are pathetic
dqoy 1 year ago 2
the host of this radio is just extremely annoying!
dqoy 1 year ago
Hector Avelos has discussed (challenged) the resurrection of Jesus. Google it.
Kclaybond 1 year ago
@Kclaybond Well Bart Ehrman has challenged the resurrection of Jesus too. The debate between Dr. Ehrman and William Lane Craig, PhD (a devoted Christian) is on YouTube the last time I looked.
boblackey1 1 year ago
"I consider myself a pretty rational guy."
Nothing frustrates me more than the pretension of rationality or science on the part of atheists today because nothing could be further from the truth. Case in point: listen to both parts of this video - the host is a dweeb. So, so, dumb.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago 4
@BalladoftheWindfish
I agree, the host isn't very charitable when it comes to Dr Ehrman's level of expertise in New Testament scholarship & seems to think that mincing words equals rational debate. Hell, he spent 5mins debating the word "nobody"..... it's unfortunate because he had Bart Ehrman on the phone for 10mins and wasted most of it with his "Riiiiiiiight" crap. Talk about delusions of grandeur....
jamesejudy3 1 year ago 2
@BalladoftheWindfish He sounds like an idiot.
surshot56 1 year ago
radio host needs to stfu, dude is stupid as fuuck
gtg309v 1 year ago 32
@gtg309v I know.. The host drives me crazy.. It sounds like he has no understanding of the material. he should take an intro course in New Testament.. i remember in another one of his shows where he referred to the Gospel of John as one of the synoptic gospels... I couldn't believe it!
wfenio 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
there is some source of information in the Talmud that mentions Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. now i doubt this is made up, since the Jews would not make up things about Jesus since they hated Him, every ancient historical evidence you look at almost mentions something about Jesus and compares it to the Bible and agrees to it, some even mention Jesus died on the cross, and some others say that Jesus claimed to be God and the Son of God.
danwazhere7 1 year ago
Comment removed
danwazhere7 1 year ago
Ehrman is a moran.
ThotherBrother 1 year ago
"I'm pretty rational".... my ass.... just listen to ehrman, he knows what he is talking about! UGHH.
Limbsy 1 year ago 2
@sulljoh1 For some reason you last comment is not appearing on the comments section, but I'll adress it anyway. Biologists have lots of evidence for evolution and present it when asked. I don't see HJers doing the same thing for evidence for Jesus.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
"Jesus" is a STOLEN character based upon the SUN and catholics originally started to worship him on SUN-day, when that day was created in 321 AD. REAL scholars like DM Murdock, and a host of others will school this systematic PUNK for saying bullshit like "no serious scholar says Jesus never existed." There is NOT one shred of REAL evidence he ever did, except maybe some forgeries. The Egyptians already had the ENTIRE Mary & Jesus story with Isis & Horus. If Ehrman disagrees, he is a SHILL.
EducatedRebellion101 1 year ago
@EducatedRebellion101 REAL SCHOLARS SUCH AS DM MURDOCK (Achraya S)!!! HA HA HA HA. What a JOKE!!! Lets see, Bart Ehrman, PhD, James Tabor, PhD, John Dominic Crosson, PhD, Marques Borg, PhD ALL find evidence that Jesus lived and was executed by Pilate about 30 AD. D. M. Murdock, PhD..Oh wait she doesn't have a PhD...Well she has a masters...OH NO she doesn't have a masters either. Oh shit. D. M. Murdock in ONLY an AMATURE with NO credentials. No wonder your handle is Educated Rebellion.
boblackey1 1 year ago 5
the interviewer is the dumbest fuck on the planet
thEBURNINGLEGION 1 year ago
So once again, your attempt to conflated a defense of Julius's historicity as though it's an attack on Jesus's historicity has been exposed and has once again failed.
MisterBosweII 1 year ago
By the way, I know exactly what is going through Ehrman's mind, because I was in the same boat once. Like Ehrman I was a Christian. A very religious one. When I eventually became an atheist I thought the Jesus Mythers were nuts. It was one thing to stop beliving in God, but quite another to deny history. It was only when I went looking for that evidence to prove the JM crowd that I realized that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.I had to drag myself kicking and screaming into that view
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
pity the infidel guy......but I like the conversation.
kelubi99 1 year ago
What a waste
Forkroute 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Voiceofreason467. Where do you get the notion that Paul is a liar? That is what the Muslims tell me at work. Clearly Paul did NOT hold a position that Jesus was not flesh and blood. Have you not read any of the historians and scholars such as Dr. Ehrman who have worked this up over the years? What skeptics have you been reading and what are their credentials? Paul says Jesus was born under the law, born of a woman, met his brother James, met his follower Peter. Prove it is lie
boblackey1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL... Ehrman is correct. This guy is grasping at straws.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
Does the Infidel Guy have a single consistent thought? He was popping around like a ping pong ball and couldn't decide what he did or didn't want to argue.
Guess this is why Ehrman is published and respected and the I.G. is pretty unknown.
BaldexSoldier 1 year ago 2
@BaldexSoldier I think IG didn't want to get into a big argument with Ehrman, but he did sound a bit passive-aggressive. However, he could have, and should have, challenged Ehrman on a lot of his claims (like the supposed lack of evidence for Julius Caesar).
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well the IG only had ONE PhD level NT scholar and Christianity historian who had a PhD and that was Robert Price. I know that many of the PhD level NT scholars and historians think Price is a "loose canon" and odd. And I know that they laugh at writers such as Freke and Grandy (Jesus Mytheries), Earl Doherty (Jesus Puzzle), Acharya S. (The Horus/Jesus Connection) as writing sensational books about Jesus being a made up character to make money& notice they have no PhD/Masters.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Laughing is not a substitute for evidence. If Ehrman is laughing it's a nervous laugh.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister I didn't say Ehrman is one of the scholars who laughs at Earl Doherty, Freke and Grandy etc. But he is aware that they have NO formal education in his field and I'm sure he sees them as "hacks". But other scholars have laughed at Doherty, Freke and Grandy as a PhD astronomer would laugh at a man without a PhD who has written a book challenging his position on how the moon was formed for example. As a layperson, I would take the PhD until many PhDs begin to side w/the writer.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 But laughing does not constitute a refutation of a thesis. Even a ridiculous thesis. Why can't the JH crowd refute the arguments of Freke, Gandy, Price, Doherty, etc.? Better yet, why can't they provide any evidence for a historical Jesus?
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well I know from private Email that Ehrman, Tabor, Borg, Mack etc DO think their evidence for a HJ refutes Freke, Gandy, Price, Doherty etc. Price is the ONLY one with their education (PhD) in their field. They think he is a "loose canon" of sorts and Freke, Gandy, Doherty etc are writers to be laughed at as they are challenging the main body of academic study of Christian origins without the proper credentials!!
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 That's funny. You've written dozens of message here, but offered no evidence for the existence for Jesus aside from three letters after Ehrman's name.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well lets wait for Ehrman's next book. No doubt he will present why the evidence supports that it is very likely Jesus did exist and the evidence that it is very unlikely that Jesus did all the gospels claim. Actually on the latter Ehrman has already done in most of his books. That is why he is not liked by believing Christians such as Lee Stroble and William Lane Craig, PhD. No doubt the JM crowd with not like the book, neither will the believers, so that leaves the middle.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 I'll get it when it comes out. Until then, he has not proved his case.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Oh I doubt Ehrman will PROVE a HJ. I've listened to his lectures and as a historian working with ancient figures of history, he has often said he can only do "what is very likely,likely, not likely and very un-likely". Just speaking in a netural, material way, it is possible that many figures from 2,000 years ago didn't actually exist, or didn't do most of what the historians think they did. Go to Wikipedia and look up John Henry. That one is not 200 years old yet.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 I should have written "Oh I doubt Ehrman will PROVE the HJ to many who doubt Jesus did exist". In other words, I would imagine Earl Doherty will read Ehrman's book and I doubt it will change his mind. I go back to work tomorrow, but I'll check in from time to time. I've enjoyed meeting all here and good luck.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1
You don't need "proper credentials" to see that Christ-insanity is an obvious Jewish hoax.
ZOGcorp 10 months ago
@boblackey1
Having a PhD in "New Testament" studies is like having a PhD in "Holocaust" studies.
ZOGcorp 10 months ago
@boblackey1
They may laugh at them, but they do they refute their arguments?
ZOGcorp 10 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister What about Josephus, Tacitus or Pontius Pilate. Nobody as far as I've been able to gather wrote about any of them during their lifetime that survived (and who knows if Jesus had a contemporary writer and it's now lost), nobody knows exactly when they died (real mystery of Pilate) or where they are buried. No written works of Pilate exist. Oldest extant copy of Josephus is 10th century (oldest fragment of John's gospel is 125 CE) oldest extant Tacitus is 11th century. ???
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Josephus and Tacitus existed because we have books written by them. At the very least they are convenient names to give to whoever wrote the books. I extend the same courtesy to the author of the genuine epistle of Paul. I just call him Paul.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister As best as I can tell, nobody wrote about or mentioned Josephus and Tacitus while they were living. Their extant writings are far removed from the supposed originals. 10th century and 11 century. And copied and preserved mostly by Christian scribes. Nobody knows where their are buried and exactly when they died. Same with Paul except the oldest copies of Paul are much closer to the original. And basicly the same with Jesus. But some people say Jesus didn't exist!?!
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 And there is next to nothing about Pontius Pilate. He is mentioned several times in all the gospels. The writer of 1 Timothy mentions Pilate. Non canonical Christian writings back to the second century menton Pilate. Josephus does as well as Tacitus, but Tacitus calls him "procurator" rather than "perfect". Now I've found out that Tacitus was both. And years before Tacitus, that office became ONLY "procurator" and some scholars take is that Tacitus only used the title his reader knew
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Also it is interesting that according to several places I found on the internet looking for more details about Pontius Pilate, a good number of skeptical historians, mostly in Europe and the old Soviet Union, had serious doubts that Pilate existed. But they found an arch in the early 60's that was dedicated to him and most changed their position. But Horus, Isis and others have coins, relics etc dedicated to them with their images and they never lived.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1
How do you know that Horus and Isis never lived? Their stories are just as believable as the story of Jeboo.
ZOGcorp 10 months ago
@boblackey1 Finally for today (I've got to get to bed. Working third this week) their is a character who is not that far removed from our time and the historians ARE divided about if he existed. See as best as I can tell, with the exception of Robert Price, PhD and possible Richard Carrier, PhD, their are only two, three OUT OF THOUSANDS who doubt Jesus existed. (Not taking about Doherty, Freke etc as they don't have a PhD or masters in this field) It is the character John Henry.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Origen lived in the late 2nd century to early 3rd century. He discusses the works of Josephus. So despite the late attestation we know that his writings must have existed at that time. Josephus had to exist because the book attributed to him did not write themselves. I don't know if his name was really Josephus. At worst it's a convenient name to use. I don't know if anything in his biography is true either. The author of those books did exist however.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well yes I could say it is very likely Josephus did exist even though no one knows when he died, where he is buried and the oldest extant copies of his works date to just the 10 century. Origen has no original works either, just copies of copies. There is time for someone to have invented Josephus, but it is very doubtful to me. And it seems clear that Pagan ideas and myths did find a place in Christianty but it is very doubtful that a HJ didn't exist. I agree w/Erhman.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Origen discussed the works of Josephus which demonstrates that they were extant at that time. I don't know when Josephus lived, died, or if a single word of his biography is accurate. At worse it's a convenient name to give to the author of the works of Josephus. The first written gosepl, GMark is a blatant allegory. A historical Jesus is not necessary to explain GMark or the rise of Christianity.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
"commonsensical" is not a word infidel guy
emekonen 1 year ago
Saying Jesus was a historical character is not the same as saying he is a god-man. David Icke once claimed to be the messiah, should we doubt his very existence. How I wish we could.
jacksawild 1 year ago
Price is a fringe scholar.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
This really couldn't be more entertaining. It ishilarious how far desperate skeptics will go, even with established scholars; a few irrational arguments and we'll have them believing that they themselves never existed a la inception or the like. The biases and bogus presuppositions need to be put away in this topic, Jesus mythicism is to history as creationism is to biology.
Theologica37 1 year ago
This really bothers me. Infidel Guy sounds just like a creationist here. What happened to honestly following the evidence where it leads?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 The evidence leads to the ahistorical Jesus.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister And IG was afraid to challenge Dr. Ehrman. I could here it in his voice. Indeed IG probably has only read Price and several of the authors of Jesus myth books who are without a PhD or Masters such as Earl Doherty, knew Dr. Ehrman has a masters and PhD in New Testament and Christian origins and was afraid of Ehrman. Either that Ehrman would expose a mistake and make him look silly on his own show or Ehrman's 30 years experience in the field and his PhD did the job or both.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 I agree here. IG didn't really sound up for the challenge.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister As with Josephus, people wrote about Jesus in the second century. And if the sholars and historians have the dates write, they wrote about Jesus and quoted his saying IN THE FIRST CENTURY. There is a problem with skeptical scholars such as Dr. Ehrman who doubt Jesus actually said about 70 percent of what the gospels say. But Peter, James and John say the saw and heard Jesus speak and Paul says James was the Lord's brother. Josephus says James"bro. of Jesus called Christ".
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 We don't have anything definitely written by James or Peter. The Epistle of James may have been written by someone named James (it was a common name) but he doesn't claim to be the Jesus' brother. 1&2 Peter were definitely not written by the the Apostle Peter. Maybe the Gospel of Peter was written by him. But in that work the cross speaks which suggests the whole thing could be allegory.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@boblackey1 ...The only thing by John is Revelation (and we have no idea if this is John the Apostle). The Epsitles of John were written by at least 2 different people, neither of whom wrote GJohn or Revelation. At least as far back as Origen there were Christians who doubted the authenticity of the Epistles. As far as we know most everything attrbuted to Jesus may have been the words of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (and they are complete unknowns).
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well I know some very capable scholars who would challenge you on that. Indeed, three of them are convinced John wrote 1, 2, and 3 John AFTER Revelation. The Gospel to the Hebrews is said by certain Church Fathers to have been written by Matthew and it may be the origin of the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister I use to doubt Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe, PhD, ScD position that Darwin's idea that life began on earth in some little warm pond of water was wrong and that the first life came from outerspace via comets. But I would be nervous as hell debating that with them on the radio. Me with no PhD and them as well known scientists with PhDs and a ScD from Cambridge in England. Hoyle often challenged other PhDs in physics, biology and astronomy, so I would be a wreck!
boblackey1 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Like the ahistorical Julius Caesar? I think he was born of a virgin too.
How about this simple argument? Why would the early Christians bother to invent a new person named Jesus to be the messiah when there were dozens of eccentric preachers running around at the time claiming to be the messiah? Much easier to take one of those people and twist his story into something useful. The best lies contain a grain of truth.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 They didn't invent a person to be the Messiah. If you compare Jesus to what the Messiah was supposed to be they have pretty much nothing in common. The Jesus character was a metaphor for Israel. Not the corrupt Israel of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but a pure Israel, probably along the lines of an Essene Israel.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister I know a Jewish minister at a local Temple and he tells me that Jesus did not match the OT prophecy for the Messiah and that is why Jews even today, with exception of Jews for Jesus, don't accept the New Testament. For example, the gosple writer's invention of a cencus as a vehicle to have Jesus born in Bethlehem while all Jewish scholars, critical scholars and many liberal Christian scholars reject the story as myth and Jesus' actual birth was elsewhere about fall 4 to 7 BC.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 But the 4 to 7 BC dates come from GMatthew which is just as unreliable as GLuke. Matthew misquotes and misrepresents scripture all over the place (Isaiah 7:14 is a great example) so why should his sole testimony be believed? He invents a trip to Egypt just so Jesus can fulfill a non-prophecy. Of course, if Jesus is just an allegory it makes perfect sense why he takes OT passages out of context and invents stories around them.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Yes they did a messy job. I agree. But the early Christians were obviously trying to fulfill Jewish prophecies. As I am sure you know, it is obvious that they messed them up and many of them could not properly read Hebrew. The Jesus character is sometimes a metaphor for Israel, other times he fills other roles. It looks very much like there was an eccentric Jew named Jesus at the time, and later authors tried to make him fit into their particular theological niches.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 If they were trying to get Jesus to fulfill Jewish prophecies then why didn't they look at the messianic ones? For example Matthew has Jesus go to Egypt and then come out so that the "prophecy" could be fulfilled that said "Out of Egypt I have called my son." But when that whole passage is read it's not a prophecy but a statement about the past concerning Israel. I think this is Matthew hitting us with a big clue stick: Jesus is a metaphore he tells us.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Hmm. That could be. I guess listening to Infidel Guy shoot down the vast majority of biblical scholars (Including Jewish and secular scholars) who think Jesus did exist leaves me feeling uneasy as a rationalist. It even bugs me as an atheist. He is too much like the creationists who shoot down the majority of biologists, or holocaust deniers who shoot down the majority of historians for their fringe beliefs.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 The main difference between Jesus, evolution, and the holocaust is that there's evidence for evolution and the holocaust. When it comes to Jesus the best that Ehrman is able to do is say "I have a PhD".
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Now c'mon. He is a serious biblical scholar and a non-believer. (Not to mention demonized by most religious apologists) He has nothing to gain by making up historical evidence.
I don't care if Jesus existed. I don't even believe in God. Nothing hangs on it. If 99% of the historic community says Jesus probably existed I am prepared to believe them. (Including Ivy league scholars who I asked personally) Their evidence is sound. He was just an eccentric Rabbi.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 How can their evidence be sound if they don't have any? All you've done is replace one priestly class that's not to be questioned with another priestly class that's not to be questioned.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Like the priestly class of biologists who just assert that evolution is true by fiat and expel anybody who disagrees from academia? Where are the missing links? :-P Seriously, I don't really understand what kind of evidence historians use. It is necessarily a pretty soft science. Comparing documents and looking for assertions against interest or remarks made in passing. Agnostics like Ehrman are certainly not covering for an unchallengeable a priestly class of scholars.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 Open a book retard. Missing links are everywhere. Why would you bring evolution into this discussion? Because you dont know shit about this topic and youd rather just throw around your bullshit anti-science rhetoric?
SupremeChimp 1 year ago
@SupremeChimp hahaha nice. :-P I slightly know Dan Dennet and evolutionary algorithms inspired my masters thesis. Read the whole conversation. I was being ironic; trying to make the point that Infidel Guy sounds like a creationist in this exchange. He is going against the evidence and the majority of historical scholars.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 oops. Once again my haste to comment owns me. Yes, the host is very ignorant on the topic.
SupremeChimp 1 year ago
@SupremeChimp lol. No problem. I love that even joking about creationism gets sneers online. I guess that 40% of Americans who take Genisis literally don't have computers yet.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 "I don't care if Jesus existed. I don't even believe in God. Nothing hangs on it."
If Jesus existed and God exists, your destiny hangs on it.
bestvalue 1 year ago 2
@bestvalue If Jesus was God and/or the son of God, then everything hangs on our acceptance of him. I don't believe that he was. There is not enough evidence that he was anything but an eccentric Rabbi. You need faith to believe that he was God, and in my opinion, faith is not a valid way to find the truth
That being said, it bothers me when my fellow unbelievers say Jesus did not even exist. Look at our best and earliest manuscripts as an objective, secular historian.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
the interviewer is not up to the job. he mu
st be sackt now.
AdamSeeb 1 year ago 2