Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: How would you reply to anti-Christian atheists like Bart Ehrman? So if I understand the four gospels were based on oral traditions that were passed by capable people, but apostate writings like the Ascension of Isaiah passed by jokels? Unless and until you bother to inform yourself on the basics, you cannot be expected to understand what Ehrman or anyone else is saying. A good place to start would be Albright & Mann on Matthew. You seem more interested in outliers like Ehrman, whose books you have not read (he has lots of them). 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Because you told me "false" and quoted Brigham Young. I had to read him twice to realize nothing contradicts what I said. Okay. When did Brigham said the scriptures can come from non-prophets? Do you realize we Mormons don't believe everything in the bible is scripture? If you read carefully Young only said, " the words of good men and the words of bad men". Why did you have to read him twice? He was clear on any reasonable first reading, and you were clearly wrong on your definition of Scripture. When you make errors like that, it is best to fess up immediately. You could learn something, if you were open to factual appraisals. 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I think the Book of Mormon makes it clear the apostles are the authors of the New Testament gospels. How would you interpret 1 Nephi 13:39? Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true............................................ Simon & Garfunkel sing that "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls." Do you believe that? They are Jews after all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4 .
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay teach me. Why would oral traditions be reliable? Can oral traditions tells us many facts (factual history) about the life of Jesus? What went horribly wrong with the Ascension of Isaiah? The Ascension of Isaiah may predate all the four New Testament gospels, and yet we know it teaches false doctrines like Jesus being crucified in outer space by demons. As usual, you put meat before milk. Baby steps begin with the basics, and you only seem interested in feeding baby on meat rather than milk. Do you realize that beginning with the NT apocrypha and pseudepigrapha is backward? Why are you unwilling to begin with Matthew? Why are you so fearful of beginning with the basics? I gave you some hints on oral tradition, and you did not respond to them at all. When factual information is presented to you, you automatically ignore it. However, there are several good courses available for you to take: https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152 (Yale Univ) https://www.biblicaltraining.org/new-testament-survey-1/robert-stein (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- free) https://israelbiblicalstudies.com/bible-jewish-studies/jewish-background-new-testament/ (Israel Institute of Bible Studies, NT course starts Jan 28, 2018, and lasts 9 months, with testing for credit at the Hebrew Univ, using webcam, earphones, and mike for live classes -- costs big bucks, but it is worth it) There are many other online courses, both free and costing money. You choose, but stop making excuses. 1
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: How would you reply to anti-Christian atheists like Bart Ehrman? So if I understand the four gospels were based on oral traditions that were passed by capable people, but apostate writings like the Ascension of Isaiah passed by jokels? Ehrman isn't anti-Christian. He's a respected scholar, and none of his scholarship has anything to do with debunking Christian theology. 1
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As usual, you put meat before milk. Baby steps begin with the basics, and you only seem interested in feeding baby on meat rather than milk. Do you realize that beginning with the NT apocrypha and pseudepigrapha is backward? Why are you unwilling to begin with Matthew? Why are you so fearful of beginning with the basics? I gave you some hints on oral tradition, and you did not respond to them at all. When factual information is presented to you, you automatically ignore it. However, there are several good courses available for you to take: https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152 (Yale Univ) https://www.biblicaltraining.org/new-testament-survey-1/robert-stein (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- free) https://israelbiblicalstudies.com/bible-jewish-studies/jewish-background-new-testament/ (Israel Institute of Bible Studies, NT course starts Jan 28, 2018, and lasts 9 months, with testing for credit at the Hebrew Univ, using webcam, earphones, and mike for live classes -- costs big bucks, but it is worth it) There are many other online courses, both free and costing money. You choose, but stop making excuses. The Yale course is great, recommended. 1
Exiled Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: The Yale course is great, recommended. I enjoyed the course as well and the professor uses Ehrman's text book. 2
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, Exiled said: I enjoyed the course as well and the professor uses Ehrman's text book. There's a Stanford lecture series that also uses Ehrman, along with Crossan. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Ehrman isn't anti-Christian. He's a respected scholar, and none of his scholarship has anything to do with debunking Christian theology. Correct, but he does debate a great many traditional Christian pastors and scholars. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bart+ehrman+debate .
Exiled Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 21 minutes ago, Gray said: There's a Stanford lecture series that also uses Ehrman, along with Crossan. I will have to look that one up. Thanks. 1
Exiled Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Correct, but he does debate a great many traditional Christian pastors and scholars. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bart+ehrman+debate . I don't know if I would call him anti-christian either. I think he self-identifies as agnostic, believing that Jesus existed but wasn't as advertised. He also debated against the mythicists https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGzjYmpwbHEA&ved=0ahUKEwiH8-S0qLzYAhVE-2MKHVcZC9YQwqsBCDswCQ&usg=AOvVaw0TZwS9dYbJmE0bQEuAQPc7
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: That is a very sincere and honest answer, thanks again Clark. So it seems you agree we can't learn much factual history from oral traditions. Hod do you interpret 1 Nephi 13:39? Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true. I think there's a difference between oral traditions with just a few decades separating their recording versus centuries. I also think the nature of the replication of the oral traditions matters. So there's reasonable evidence that say Mark prior to being recorded likely was performed live - maybe with certain variations. In a community where so many were illiterate and paper was so expensive that's to be expected. Given that it was likely repeatedly performed, does that mean that it as an oral tradition is therefore more open to distortions than say late memories? Certainly there will be evolution, but I think we have to be careful simply dismissing oral traditions as non-factual. There's reasons to be skeptical but that seems a different matter. Relative to the death of the apostles, I think an account like Peter is perhaps more trustworthy partially due to it appearing as prophecy in John 21:18 (perhaps thus representing a tradition of his death) Clement writing in 90 AD seems to imply an execution although doesn't give a date or method. But most of the other traditions come much later and aren't particularly trustworthy. Clement also refers to Paul's death. Ignatius writing a few decades later also mentions it. The tradition that Paul was beheaded seems to have less evidence. The earliest account is the Acts of Paul written around 160 AD but which isn't exactly trustworthy. Beyond those, there's not much I'd trust outside of the account of James simply due to how late the accounts are. I'd guess that the next most trustworthy account would be Irenaeus' dating John's death to the ‘till the times of Trajan.’ That's given some credibility mainly due to Polycarp being his mentor who was mentored by John directly apparently. I'm not sure if I trust Irenaeus on that, but it's probably stronger than most such accounts. As to 1 Nephi 13, I don't think that implies the prophets wrote the records directly. It's clearly implying the Bible is true, but there's also the caveat in verse 23 that emphasizes the difference between the mouth and the writing. That can easily imply a distinction between the prophet speaking God's word and it being recorded by scribes presumably with an oral intermediary. Verse 24 clearly indicates the problem this creates. "...when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord." That implies things were lost and distorted from the original speech. So to me 1 Nephi 13 is actually a key text for understanding the problem of scriptural texts. I regularly use is when teaching about the nature of the Biblical text. (Moroni says something similar in Ether 12 as well) Edited January 3, 2018 by clarkgoble
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 37 minutes ago, Exiled said: I don't know if I would call him anti-christian either. I think he self-identifies as agnostic, believing that Jesus existed but wasn't as advertised. He also debated against the mythicists https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGzjYmpwbHEA&ved=0ahUKEwiH8-S0qLzYAhVE-2MKHVcZC9YQwqsBCDswCQ&usg=AOvVaw0TZwS9dYbJmE0bQEuAQPc7 Yeh, that was a great debate, and Ehrman is a good, solid debater, and he tends to side with the consensus in historical understanding.
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: umm? See page two of this thread, there is no joke Why would you describe it as demons in outer space? It's pretty clearly he's crucified on a tree in Jerusalem. The demons in outer space bit seems to be missing from my translation. Also isn't it usually dated to the 2cd half of the 2cd century although some of the main strata might be earlier. I know Ehrman in a few debates talks about a "reconstructed" Ascension of Isaiah by way of Ignatius. But that seems different from the text we do have and is pretty speculative. I think the bit about Christ being crucified by demons is typically taken as a later Docetic addition. It's not in outer space though as that really misunderstands ancient cosmology. Other passages in the text have the traditional crucifixion. "...his descent, and the form into which he must be transformed, (namely) the form of a man, and the persecution with which he would be persecuted, and the torments with which the children of Israel must torment im, and the coming of the twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that before the sabbath he must be crucified on a tree, and be crucified with wicked men and that he would be buried in a grave." (3:13) Edited January 3, 2018 by clarkgoble
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct, but he does debate a great many traditional Christian pastors and scholars. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bart+ehrman+debate . Yes, although he debates on historical issues, separate from theological questions. Typically he's debating Christian scholars who treat theology and history as if they were the same subject. He also debated Robert Price, the (imo, crackpot) mythicist. 1
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 55 minutes ago, Exiled said: I will have to look that one up. Thanks. Here it is: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=10
Exiled Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, Gray said: Here it is: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=10 Thanks! I'll start listening tonight. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Just to add to my comments above regarding the Ascension of Isaiah I think the cosmology might be intended to be taken as higher realms rather than a more naive spatial progression. This is typically of many more platonic conceptions of the seven heavens at that time. Certainly by that time many of the Merkabah ascents/descents were seen in Platonic terms. (And this is a classic Merkabah like text albeit one with a much more Christian form) There are those who argue for this more Platonic like reading and against the common Docetic take. i.e. The Ascension of Isaiah and Docetic Christology This in turn, I might add, is significant for how to read Mosiah 15 as well as D&C 93. While most Mormons are more apt to read such ascents spatially/literally or at least as other planes of existence there are complexities in the history of Mormon thought here. My real point is just that interpreting these as space demons crucifying Christ is kind of a silly misreading of the text that ignores its context. 1
Exiled Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, that was a great debate, and Ehrman is a good, solid debater, and he tends to side with the consensus in historical understanding. I liked it too. I like pretty much all of Ehrman's speeches and have read three of his books, but he really ought to tell a different story than the one he usually does at the first of his presentations. Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary Christ is kind of funny at first ..... Anyway, I don't think the mythicists have that persuasive of an argument. They lose me where they claim Jesus only resided in outer-space. Dr. Price doesn't do this much but Dr. Carrier may want to use different language when making his claims. Edited January 3, 2018 by Exiled
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 5 hours ago, clarkgoble said: My real point is just that interpreting these as space demons crucifying Christ is kind of a silly misreading of the text that ignores its context. You agree Jesus was crucified by demons in the ascension of Isaiah. My real point is that there are many stories (outside the four testimonies) about Jesus that are simply false. 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Unless and until you bother to inform yourself on the basics, you cannot be expected to understand what Ehrman or anyone else is saying. A good place to start would be Albright & Mann on Matthew. You seem more interested in outliers like Ehrman, whose books you have not read (he has lots of them). What makes you think I am not informed of the basics? But even if I am completely ignorant about Christianity that wouldn't mean you can't tell me why you believe oral traditions are reliable? So following your own attitude I invite you to read John F Kihlstrom http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/oralhistory.htm
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ...................................................................................... What makes you think I am not informed of the basics? Everything you have said on this and other issues indicate that you are a newby in every respect. Worse, you are incapable of taking good advice, and you are unwilling to learn. Indeed, you tend to be quarrelsome over issues about which you know nothing. However, we all have to start somewhere, and you could learn the basics, if you were willing. Based on past performance, I'd say that is unlikely. 2 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: But even if I am completely ignorant about Christianity that wouldn't mean you can't tell me why you believe oral traditions are reliable? So following your own attitude I invite you to read ...................................... I actually gave you several reasons why oral tradition can be dependable and important (just the opposite of your ignorant claims), but you completely ignored those comments -- which is your usual pattern of fake conversation. Your lack of sincerity is key. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: You agree Jesus was crucified by demons in the ascension of Isaiah. My real point is that there are many stories (outside the four testimonies) about Jesus that are simply false. Oh, I agree with that point. The Ascension of Isaiah simply not the text I'd have picked as an example because I think it's meaning is a bit tricky due to that quasi-platonic component. Space demons just seemed an odd interpretation. So you'll have to excuse the tangent. But one need only turn to the nativity accounts that get particularly silly to find apocryphal texts that are nonsense. Edited January 4, 2018 by clarkgoble
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: I actually gave you several reasons why oral tradition can be dependable and important (just the opposite of your ignorant claims), but you completely ignored those comments -- which is your usual pattern of fake conversation. Your lack of sincerity is key. Did you read the link I gave you Robert? Did you watch the Ehrman video? It is not a fake conversation Robert, I am really trying to have a conversation with you. As for the reasons you told me "Other oral materials are passed on systematically by careful and capable people who use oral structure (including rhyming , meter, and parallelistic poetry, as in chiasmus) and who have students who likewise systematically learn the epic poems and sagas" Robert, please give me a reference. I need the evidence that oral materials were passed by careful and capable Christians using poetry and chiamus? 59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Oh, I agree with that point. The Ascension of Isaiah simply not the text I'd have picked as an example because I think it's meaning is a bit tricky due to that quasi-platonic component. Space demons just seemed an odd interpretation. So you'll have to excuse the tangent. But one need only turn to the nativity accounts that get particularly silly to find apocryphal texts that are nonsense. In other words we can't trust oral traditions, right? Or do you feel we can trust them?
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Exiled said: Thanks! I'll start listening tonight. I watched Ehrman - Price debate, it was good and I couldn't believe I was cheering for atheist Ehrman. There is another debate (it's is better) between the great Christian scholar Craig Evans and socialist communist Richard Carrier. New Testament scholar Craig Evans won the debate and did well to demonstrate how ridiculous anti-Christians arguments are. If you read the description of the video it says "As usual, Craig Evans does a wonderful job." 11 hours ago, Gray said: Here it is: It was a good debate, it was clear atheist socialist Price didn't know what he was talking about. There is another debate I like too, it is Carrier vs Evans. New testament scholar Craig Evans did a wonderful job, read the video description. Edited January 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: tends to side with the consensus in historical understanding. What is the consensus on oral traditions?
Exiled Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I watched Ehrman - Price debate, it was good and I couldn't believe I was cheering for atheist Ehrman. There is another debate (it's is better) between the great Christian scholar Craig Evans and socialist communist Richard Carrier. New Testament scholar Craig Evans won the debate and did well to demonstrate how ridiculous anti-Christians arguments are. If you read the description of the video it says "As usual, Craig Evans does a wonderful job." It was a good debate, it was clear atheist socialist Price didn't know what he was talking about. There is another debate I like too, it is Carrier vs Evans. New testament scholar Craig Evans did a wonderful job, read the video description. I've been meaning to watch/listen to evans v. carrier, too. I've heard it was better than ehrman v. price from many people.
clarkgoble Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: In other words we can't trust oral traditions, right? Or do you feel we can trust them? I guess I'd say it's not a black or white issue. The question is more how far we can trust them and that depends upon the particularities. I don't think oral is inherently less trustworthy than written. However clearly there's more opportunity for transmission errors, as we all know from playing that game "telephone" as kids. Edited January 4, 2018 by clarkgoble
Recommended Posts