Bart Ehrman's new book, "How Jesus Became God." Read it. 5 stars. Wish church had taught us this instead of the theological warm bosom feeling pap and pablum. No wonder history destroys faith. No wonder scholarship destroys faith. Faith is based on wishful thinking, not actual knowledge. Ehrman does a significant job here in showing how this weird state of affairs about a Jewish peasant actually occurred. HINT, it is *nothing* like what church has taught you, and I don't care which church either......

His book "Misquoting Jesus" was a big part of me intellectually moving away from TSCC, and it doesn't even mention Mormonism.

Good to see you posting here, Kerry!

I liked it.

When I read "Misquoting Jesus" I then went to his book "Jesus Interrupted," and then to "God's Problem." It's been pretty much down hill from there....... I mean for believing what theologians of ANY stripe say now about either Jesus or the Bible. His book "Forged" is utterly astonishing! I am now reading his scholarly cversion "Forgery and Counter-forgery in the Ancient World," and it is a whallop packed book of information!

Thanks for the nice word RPackham!

Hey Kerry, have you read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier yet?

Ehrman's works are what caused me to rethink the "Divine Jesus" and are great.

Carrier's book is epic and effectively puts the crucifixtion nail in the coffin of Christianity.

Your presence here is a delight, and we get to demonstrate our "superior forgiveness abilities"--as opposed to the still-faithful--because we know we all have a lot of absurdity in our past lives.

I'm a "token technical Nevermo here" (although you'd never know it from my issues in therapy), and my own brand of Christianity--whatever it was; I attended some New Age meditation groups years ago when I was going through some rough times, but those folks were even battier than I was, and I knew I wasn't that well-wrapped myself--suffered a fatal hit when I innocently took a grad class in Egyptology to renew a teaching credential.

The resurrection story of Osiris and the "eating the blood and flesh of a god to gain immortality" kind of put paid to the old beliefs...

I'm doubtless a bit too chicken to admit the atheists are probably right, but I think we're all operating on a plane of "authentic humility" more or less.

You do know that Ehrman could not disagree more with Carrier on this subject. He wrote his own book on the subject called "Did Jesus Exist?". Carrier went on a chilish rampage when reviewing it. The two have been sparring every since. Ehrman' s view represents the mainstream while Carrier's view does not. BTW,Susan put a temporary ban on this subject. Judt saying.To clarify, the historicty of Jesus is what is banned. I think the rest is okay



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 12:49AM by bona dea.

Thanks for the reply, bona dea. I have read "Did Jesus Exist" as well as several of Ehrman's other works. I'm also a paid member of his "Christianity in Antiquity" website. He has been instrumental in my discovery of the myth of Jesus' divinity which I'm sure you know Ehrman promotes.

To me, this isn't an Ehrman vs. Carrier battle. It is a study of the evidence and where it leads one in his/her quest to become enlightened to the historical record. I have read "On the Historicity of Jesus" and I find the evidence compelling to Carrier's ultimate conclusion about the Jesus question.

If you've read "On the Historicity of Jesus" and have formulated a different opinion than I have then good on you, I respect that. But if you haven't read it yet, do you think you are being fair in your criticism? Just saying.

As far as "resurrecting" a banned topic, if I have done something contrary to a board rule, I apologize to the board but would hope that any castigation would come from the moderators and not from some other board nanny.

Ignore. Double post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 02:21AM by bona dea.

I'll apologize for the thread hijack before I start, but since there are numerous posters here well read on the subject I have to ask.

What are people's assessment on the "Caesar's Messiah?" I really feel this is a great explanation for the Jesus myth, even if it is not true in every fact. I feel it explains a process that seems more likely than other explanations.

Again sorry for the highjack, but I would love feedback from the literate.

I find the theory pretty far fetched. I think it is believable enough that a power hungry pseudo-intellectual (Paul) latched on to some ideas from an obscure Jewish sect (the Jewish Christians), put his own spin on it, and sold it to the Gentiles. Many gentiles at the time were "God-fearers", meaning that they attended synoguag, believed in the Jewish god, but did not actaully want to convert to Judiasm. Paul eventually got enough traction converting the God-fearers to his faith the people who had actually met Jesus or were related to Jesus had to share some of the leadership power with him.

Because of his Roman citizenship, Paul's writings, and the cannoncal Gospels written by his followers, have a vaugly pro-Roman bent. Later, when Constantine publically converted, he cherry-picked the Christian literature for the more pro-Roman texts, which were mostly Pauline. As a result, the bulk of extant Christianity is largely an invention of Paul.

I don't see the need to invent an early Roman conspiracy to explain most sects of Christianity. Constantine chaired the council of Nicea and commissioned the compilation of the Bible. As such, Catholics, Orthodix, and Protestants have all inherited their beliefs from the Roman state religion. The only evident I see of a conspiracy is that Pope Sylvester I, who was pope during the time of the conversion of Christianity into the state religion of Rome has largely been erased from history. His immediate predecessors and successors have a much more extensive historical record, which I belive suggest that Constantine effectively ran the church at that time, perhaps with resistance from Sylvester I.

Before the fourth century, Christianity was just one of many competing "eastern" religions within the Roman empire. I don't see why the aristocracy would have invented it specifically. Mithraism and Manicheanism also seemed to be competitive with Christianity. There is no reason to think that Chrisianity was in any way special in the first or second centuries.

That's a very well-reasoned conclusion.

I have read other things by Carrier and disagree with his conclusions. I have a degree in ancient history myself and have read a number of other books on the subject and do not agree with Carrier or particularly like his style. He is on Amazon arguing and name calling those who disagree with him. One guy who wrote a very good review was called a fundamentalist even though I could find no evidence that he is such.I find these tactics unprofessional. I haven't read this book yet for several reasons. One is that I think the price is ridiculous and would rather spend my limited book funds on an author I have more respect for. I will probably read it when the price comes down or when it comes out on Kindle,but I doubt it will change my mind.So far, Carrier leaves me very unimpressed with both his conclusions and his manners.Unless this book offers something very new and exciting, I don't expect it to change my mind.I think I am pretty
familiar with his arguments from his other writings.Since this subject is off limits,I'll drop it without specifics. I am not the board nanny but just giving you a heads up that this discussion got pretty heated about a week ago and we were told to drop it.

Caesar's Messiah is nonsense. There is no evidence that Josephus made up Jesus for the Flavians to start with.
Jesus certainly did not pacify the Jews, so if Atwill's theory is right, it was a big failure.He really didnt catch on with the Jews. Besides the Flavians had already conquered the Jews,destroyed the temple and started the Diaspora. It makes no sense and I doubt any historians take it seriously.Hope this doesnt get deleted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 02:18AM by bona dea.

I also have read "Caesar's Messiah" and although it has an interesting premise, I've gotta agree with bona dea's critical review.

Gracias bd and flanders!

Any other opinions?

It's a silly theory without any real grounding in fact. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense. The author and the theory have been attacked by Carrier in his typical long-winded diatribes.

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

It's funny how some things just make sense when you clean up the static that comes from limiting beliefs and cognitive distortion.

Ehrman's books. Fascinating reading!

I especially liked his discussion of how the whole concept of the trinity came about. I don't mean any disrespect to those who believe in Christianity. But early Christianity had a problem - God sent his son, as witnessed by the Holy Spirit. But Christianity sprang from monotheistic Judaism, which held that their is only one God. How to solve the problem? There is only one God, but there are three manifestations of God.

It reminded me of how the mormons try to explain dinosaur bones. The earth is only 6000 years old, but dinosaur bones are millions of years old. The explanation that works within the construct of their theology is that God created our earth out of used parts of former planets.

bezoar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ehrman's books. Fascinating reading!
>
> I especially liked his discussion of how the whole
> concept of the trinity came about. I don't mean
> any disrespect to those who believe in
> Christianity. But early Christianity had a
> problem - God sent his son, as witnessed by the
> Holy Spirit. But Christianity sprang from
> monotheistic Judaism, which held that their is
> only one God. How to solve the problem? There is
> only one God, but there are three manifestations
> of God.


"Three manifestations of God" doesn't describe Trinitarianism, but Modalism.

bezoar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It reminded me of how the mormons try to explain
> dinosaur bones. The earth is only 6000 years old,
> but dinosaur bones are millions of years old. The
> explanation that works within the construct of
> their theology is that God created our earth out
> of used parts of former planets.

Mormons seem to use the opposite of Occam's Razor - "whatever is the most ludicrous, laughable and impossible explanation must be the right one."

Because reality is scarey.

That movie has a lot of misinformation in it.Check out their claims and sources. A good mythology book would be helpful.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2014 05:56PM by bona dea.

Caesar's Messiah is fraught with errant reasoning, but I don't think it's impossible that someone like Josephus was at least complicit in promulgating the Jesus hoax.

And indeed it was an effective way of dividing and conquering the Jews of Judea - the original Christians were a Jewish sect, which ultimately renounced its Hebrew origins.

If Josephus had anything to do with it, there is absolutely no proof or even motive and if the premise of the book is true,the plan was a huge failure as Christianity really didnt become a force to be dealt with for years and never really caught on with the Jews.Besides the Jews remained rebellious right up till they were driven from Palestine by Titus and he accomplished the destruction through military force,not by the invention of a peaceful messiah.

It is also Ehrman's contention that the catholic church doctored Josphus' writings to give a good light to Jesus. Otherwise there is little, if amy, evidence of Jesus' divinity.

The difference between Ehrman and Richard Carrier is that Carrier leans toward the idea that there was never even a guy. Ehrman seems adamant on insisting that Jesus was an actual man. Right now I'm with Carrier, thinking that Jesus was probably total myth. It's really a moot point though. Even if there was some guy it's all based upon, he wasn't divine.

As I've noted before, saying the Biblical Jesus was based on an actual man is akin to saying the Minotaur was based on an actual bull. It's meaningless.

I will received Carrier's new book on Jesus next Tuesday. I believe it is important for me to at least read the materials on as many sides as I have time so I can see what others are saying.