Pete Enns on Challenging Old Assumptions

In this video "Conversation," Pete Enns addresses some assumptions about ancient readers and writers that are relevant to the way we should read Genesis in the 21st century.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• scripture
• authors
• Old Testament
• God
• message
• language
• understanding

[jshjamaarify]

@disrxt You are very uneducated then.



[disrxt]

@Coveredingrace777 I don't know if Jesus existed or not, I do know the historical record contains no evidence. What is claimed about him and the miraculous events surrounding his birth and death can be discounted as ravings of partisans with a stake in promoting the story. No contemporary neutral party mentions anything about him.

[disrxt]

@Coveredingrace777 Where is the historical record of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or Ceasar's census? Show me where the worldwide darkness reported in the New Testament at the time of Christ's death is recorded, from anywhere on the planet. Is the opening of the graves of the saints and their wandering around Jerusalem recordred anywhere? How about a Jewish record of the rending of the Temlpe veil? Not one mention of any of these events out side the Bible. Not one!

[disrxt]

@Coveredingrace777 Where is this evidence for a historic Jesus? Why was none of it ever mentioned by 1st or 2nd Century church fathers? The specious evidence started to show up in the 3rd century as the Christian Church was adopted and absorbed by the Roman Empire and political needs led pious liars to fabricate the referances to Jesus in the historical record. Show me the historical analysis, not from apologists, that proves Jesus was a historical personage.

[Coveredingrace777]

@disrxt

There is a debate over the historical Jesus but to act like it is a known that he didn't exist is simply not true. There are many historians that agree he did exist and in fact many populer atheist are not using that he didn't exist as a core argument.

[Coveredingrace777]

@disrxt

Actually I have heard the complete opposite. In fact I have seen more atheist reject scholarly study about the historical Jesus. In fact one of the most famous that I have seen is Richard Dawkins in his book the god delusion. He quotes and professor saying there is no concrete proof of Jesus. The funny thing about it is, the professor he quoted from is a math professor not in the right field to be saying anything about that.

[disrxt]

@berettaNZ I study ancient books and its the apologists who fabricate and ignore facts in the support their predetermined views. They reject scholorly study into the subject preferring the lies that support their prejudice. The Testimonium Flavianum being a famous example, debunked 500 years ago but routinely cited as proof of a historical Jesus.

[berettaNZ]

@disrxt Oh no, there's no misrepresentation. It's very simple. If someone says "But there's an explanation that flies in the face of modern practice" or "but in ancient literature they..." your eyes glaze over. Your fun quick knock down has been stolen. Not fair! Why do people who actually study ancient literature have to be such killjoys?

[disrxt]

@berettaNZ You misrepresent my view to make your specious point. A concrete example, two geneologies for Jesus. From Joseph back to David they do not agree on a single ancestor. A skeptic looks at this self evident fact and determines that their is an error that precludes divine authorship (nevermind the fact that Joseph contributed no genetic information to the virgin birth). The apologist will jump through any number of hoops to maintain there is no contradiction, becoming a pious liars.

[berettaNZ]

@disrxt No, I don't misunderstand. I think you just don't see the implications of your previous comment. You've said that because of the complexities that Ens talks about, this makes it impossible to skeptically analyse Scripture. I'm not surprised to hear it. I constantly find that skeptics want quick, easy, scoffing dismissals that they can throw out, and get impatient when they are told that things just aren't that simple.