
gmatthews said
What’s the point? Will anyone’s mind be changed? Will anything new come up?Answers: none, no, no
Sure, it’s rare that one-off debates change people’s minds, but they can be part of the longer-term process. Like I said, the fact it’s going to be more of a conversation than a formal debate is encouraging.
The *point*, at least from Ehrman’s perspective, should be to communicate why the historicist view makes so much more sense, and to point out that atheists are not immune to historical biases. As he said at the FFRF talk, too many atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the mythicist bandwagon. His goal should simply be to broaden their perspective.
As for Price, although I disagree with his conclusion, I still think he has something to offer. Much of the criteria and evidence for a historical Jesus isn’t as strong as some think. And Price can expose that. It’s not so much Ehrman’s / historicist’s conclusion that Price should be aiming to change, but the level of their conviction (I grind my teeth when Ehrman makes statements saying we can “know” some things about Jesus. Even though I think Ehrman’s proposal makes the best sense, I wouldn’t say any of it can be “known” to be true). Price is like that nagging little voice in the back of one’s head offering alternatives to seemingly obvious conclusions – “but what if it went down a different way?”. Even if we end up disagreeing, he’s a necessary voice.
If you want a debate there are plenty of Ehrman debates on youtube.
But none related to this question. Ehrman has yet to debate anyone on this topic. The only debate on youtube that I’m aware of between two atheist/agnostics on the historicity of Jesus is the Richard Carrier v Zeba Crook one, which I found fascinating.

I disagree with the mythicists. I tend to think there was an historical Jesus. The gospels teach that Jesus’s ethical message was one of loving your enemy, and loving your neighbor as yourself. But in practice, Jesus had a scathing approach to the Pharisees and the money changers, and often had a hurtful approach to his disciples, accusing them of lack of faith. I don’t think the writers of the gospels would have written about Jesus as having his ethical message in conflict with his everyday behavior if He was just a myth. Probably the historical Jesus had lofty ideals, but fell somewhat short of them in practice. God incarnate had a bit of a temper. lol

john76 said
I disagree with the mythicists. I tend to think there was an historical Jesus. The gospels teach that Jesus’s ethical message was one of loving your enemy, and loving your neighbor as yourself. But in practice, Jesus had a scathing approach to the Pharisees and the money changers, and often had a hurtful approach to his disciples, accusing them of lack of faith. I don’t think the writers of the gospels would have written about Jesus as having his ethical message in conflict with his everyday behavior if He was just a myth. Probably the historical Jesus had lofty ideals, but fell somewhat short of them in practice. God incarnate had a bit of a temper. lol
1. Jesus taught, but didn’t practice, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).” Instead, Jesus saw what he believed to be the sin of the money changers and self-righteously threw over their tables. 2. Jesus taught but didn’t practice “Love Your Enemy (Romans 12:14, Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-31),” because he repeatedly name-called and insulted the Pharisees: (Matthew 12:34), “blind guides” (Matthew 23:16, 24), “blind fools” (Matthew 23:17, 19, 26) and “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). Numerous times he called them “hypocrites” to their faces (Matthew 15:7;23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). 3. Jesus taught but didn’t practice “Love Thy Neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40; Luke 6:31),” when he repeatedly degraded and demeaned his disciples for not having enough faith: “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26); “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?” (Matthew 16:8); “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?” (Matthew 17:17).
I think Jesus was partially to be understood in the light of the fiery prophets of the Old Testament. I think Jesus often conveyed a “holier than thou” attitude, just like the old prophets did. But equally a part of the character of Jesus was a philosophy of loving your enemy and loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus had these two sides to his person. And because of this duality, Jesus had two fates: (1) Jesus’ fiery, “holier than thou” side insulted the Pharisees, money changers, etc., and got Jesus arrested and crucified. It was well known to the gospel writers that a “holier than thou” attitude could land a prophet in a lot of trouble. For example, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Herod, who was tetrarch, or sub-king, of Galilee under the Roman Empire, had imprisoned John the Baptist because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis) and unlawfully taking Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip I. (2) On the other hand, Jesus’ selfless, sanctity of the “Other” side taught people to love their neighbors and enemies, and got him resurrected. The moral the gospel writers seemed to be presenting with Jesus having this duality is that you can’t change the world by finding fault and chastising people, but rather by loving the sinner you encounter so they can begin to see their change and growth must come from inside. I can’t change you, but I can be a positive influence to assist you in becoming strong enough to begin to change yourself.
The gospel of Matthew foreshadows that in that gospel there is going to be something very wrong about Jesus (his fiery, holier than thou side). The Davidic Genealogy or royal bloodline of Jesus given in Matthew has two shocking peculiarities about it. First, Jesus’ reported Davidic bloodline itself, unlike that in Luke, was cursed by the prophet Jeremiah. Second, there are four women included in the genealogy, each having well known scandalous sexual histories in the Old Testament. The women’s presence in the bloodline in itself deserves further thought, since, as Tabor says, even the inclusion of women is not proper to a royal Jewish bloodline.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)

