«

»

Mar 22

Bart Ehrman speaking in St. Louis

Bart Ehrman will be in St. Louis April 23-24. I will be attending on the 24th. The subjects of all three sound interesting and I’m really looking forward to it. See details below:

Friday, April 23 @ 7 PM

Lecture 1: A world of contradictions? An historical approach to the new testament.

Saturday, April 24 @ 9 AM

Lecture 2: Liar, lunatic, or lord? Searching for the historical Jesus.

Lecture 3: Is the new testament forged? Literary forgery in the early Christian tradition.

Lectures will be held at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church. 1200 North Warson Rd, Saint Louis.

For more info and directions, visit St. Peter’s Episcopal Church

Similar Posts:

2 comments

  1. Anders Branderud

    “Historical Jesus“!?!

    The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

    While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
    Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and (“spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

    There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: http://www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with “30-99 C.E.”).
    Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.

    Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

    What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period… in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

    To all Christians: The question is, now that you’ve been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

  2. Mike

    I would tend to agree with your comment on the changed nature of the Christian church. I would argue this happened, or began to happen, with Paul/Saul. The church today is built more on Paul than Jesus, in my opinion. However, you are in a difficult position trying to ascertain details of what Jesus’ life and teachings were like because, as you said, we have nowhere near the NT autographs. Who’s to say what has changed in the texts? No one honestly knows. Let alone trying to sort out all of the other texts from all of the other early Christian sects that didn’t make the canon.

    The present state was inevitable, though. The early church operated under the assumption that Jesus was the actual Messiah and the world was about to end. Take the fact that it never happened and combine it with barely any Jews of the time believing what they did and you have a fortress mentality and a church that has to evolve to remain relevant. They had to become different because a) they were not accepted by Jews, and b) their messiah didn’t do what everyone thought the messiah would do.

    I’m going to cut myself off now for fear of rambling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.