Is Jesus really God? Did he actually claim to be God?

[McCulloch]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

[TheJackelantern]

Ad hominem. And since non-theistic scholars are going to have their own bias, we also have the pot calling the kettle black.

Actually it's not because many of them have invested interest. And they can't even come to an agreement since they each have their own bias.. So how about you post some actual sources that would prove your case to which don't rely on blind faith assumption.

I have argued at length that the theistic framework is slightly more rational than the alternative. The theistic framework adopts a genuine explanation, even though that explanation itself cannot be explained.

It doesn't have a genuine explanation of anything.. Nice try though.

By contrast, the non-theists adopt an "explanation" which fails to explain anything, even in principle.

This is a fail.. Please turn your computer off since you think that.. Your own computer is arguing against you.

As rational agents, we are obliged to adopt an epistemically justified explanation whenever one can be had; since the non-theist stops short of their full epistemic duty, they forfeit any claim to the so-called "default" or "neutral" position.

In dealing with reality and fact, there is no neutral position over the fact of reality. Your problem is that you can't deal with that. You can't seem to deal with the fact that existence itself governs everything including your own imaginings of a magic sky daddy. You can't deal with the reality that reality itself can not be designed and created, or the fact that consciousness can't exist without cause. All of which collapse your entire argument, and all of which you clearly need to ignore by intentions so you don't have to deal with the reality that your GOD doesn't exist.

I do not insist on any such thing, and I find your question to be based on a false dichotomy--either one is "rational and unbiased," or else one must be subject to all manner of outlandish speculation.

Do explain how the realization that Consciousness can't exist without cause, or that existence itself and it's rules can not be created, or that anything in or of existence is bound to need existence and its rules in order to exist is magically not rational or unbiased? If you an actually take the time and deal with that issue rather than play biased "i can't hear you" games, you might earn some respect.

In reality, there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we all have our biases. And as biased as we all are, few of us are as completely bone-headed as your question would imply.

Existence has a bias, you need to learn to accept it since it's not going to bend to what you want or what you want to believe in. It's not magically going to make your fallacies come true either. That's the harsh thing about reality..

What I do insist upon, since you asked, is that everything the historian says qua historian must be subject to the implicit qualifier, "barring divine intervention."

Giving how much the bible has been edited, and how many sects of Christianity and Abrahamic religions there are, it's quite obvious that the religion fails the divine intervention argument. Especially when the deity tells people they are dirt people made of dirt. ..That must have been some serious divine intervention there.. "/

I understand the process well enough to know that historians cannot make sweeping judgments on unique occurrences. No educated persons today makes the oxymoronic claim that miracles can be detected with regular frequency.

Let's put it this way.. There is no evidence what-so-ever to even support the argument. You are better off reading a comic book on Zombies.

More cultural parochialism. Ancients had their geniuses and their idiots, same as we have. Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton are probably a bit smarter than the average contemporary bubble-gum chewing, soap-opera viewing, horoscope reading suburbanite, but they are far behind the curve of the best minds of antiquity.

Yet the geniuses back then couldn't make light from a vacuum or land a rover on Mars. Nor did they seem to understand what a Volcano was considering they worshiped one as a GOD.. You know, Yahweh / El Shaddia. This isn't to say they were entirely stupid, it's saying ignorance goes a long way in religion.

The earliest Christians actually experienced the appearances first-hand. They were in a better position than we to know what really happened.

Do you have proof of this? Because the experience I read in the bible deals a hell of a lot with a volcanic eruption and war between religions. It's actually a fact that your religion nearly went extinct... It didn't reemerge until it adapted and changed thanks to the second Isaiah.

Why would anyone want to "escape" such fact? People don't usually bother to record and transmit things they don't believe, especially when they put themselves at great risk in so doing.

What they believe and what is factually real are two different things. Just like today.

I don't need to withdraw the statement unless & until historians provide a plausible explanation that accounts for all of the relevant facts.

Yes, GOd of the Gaps is such a fun game despite you can do neither in terms of filling in gaps within your own religion, or in science with actual tangible and empirical evidence to support your claims.

Yes, and a non-theistic framework entails non-historical, atheological assumptions.

Wrong.. non-theistic deal with empirical evidence and not pure assumption. Theism is pure 100 percent assumption. There is a reason it's called blind faith..

I do not suggest that the resurrection of Jesus can be demonstrated by objective standards today; however, that by no means entails that any plausible non-miraculous explanation has ever been offered to account for the relevant facts.

Carl Sagan Dragon.. And you are trying to suggest the resurrection is a relevant fact from a position lacking any sort of facts. Hence, you are proclaiming blind faith and an appeal to ignorance.

And you appear to insist that we treat your unsupported non-theistic assumptions with the same confidence we grant to the observed regularities of nature.

Yes because you do the same for anything non-Christian.. That includes pixie Fairies, trolls, unicorns, smurfs, or anything else we can replace the name GOD with. I could tell you that Pixie Fairies Created existence itself, and even your believed to be GOD.. Is your logic to say I am right based on faith and the fact you can't prove it? I can even say the Pixies killed your GOD for trying to be a GOD it was not... Yes that game of appeal to ignorance is wonderful tool when you have no argument and need something to hold on to in a debate you clearly lost.

Do we have any record of alien pyramid builders? Did people actually see them and talk with them and eat with them? Do we have any significant number of intelligent, educated scholars who give credence to such records? Do we have any plausible hypothesis for the construction of the pyramids?

Yes we actually do.. Pyramids were built by people, and most pyramids are located near volcanoes and fault lines. And as for the construction of them pyramids, there are several ways it could have been done, but there is no need to assume divine intervention or aliens.

I suspect the answers to those questions would be different from the answers we might give to similar questions about Christianity--and that means that your "same consideration" isn't comparing apples to apples at all, and your plea for "consistency" is actually a plea for inconsistency.

The one thing that is consistent in the bible is the fact it's a volcano / fire cult. It's literally consistent throughout the bible, and well understood that Yahweh was a volcano GOD. Christian inconsistency revolves around the supposed will and persona attached to the Volcano. Much like Pelee in hawaii. Christian's can't seem to agree on what the supposed will of this deity is, or how you should worship and live your lives in accordance to it. Some are so far removed that they don't even reflect what the bible even says anymore. Comparing Christian understanding of their bible / religion is like comparing oranges to apples. That's how off they often are.

That was not my claim at all. Instead, I admitted that starting from non-theistic assumptions, you will end up with non-theistic conclusions. However, I have argued that the non-theistic position is less rational than the theistic position.

And yet you get previous Theists like me that start with theistic assumptions and end with non-theistic position. Your argument is invalid.

Ridiculous. You give no indication of having any knowledge of how scholarship works. All you have are ad hominems and a kitchen full of black pots and black kettles.

And you seem to not address the editing of the bible problem, or why scholars will tell you that Christianity evolved from polytheism.. Hell, it was monolatural for quite some time before it ever really became monotheistic. The creation story alone was taken from an earlier polytheistic creation story. So really, where do you stand with scholars?

I agree, and this is precisely why the epistemically justified explanation offered by theism is ultimately more rational than the non-theistic lack of any epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves.

If you want to go with Pantheism, I might agree with you.. But then again you are making a false assertion. And I find it funny that you seem to try and mimic William Lane Craig's circular arguments. But perhaps you can address your argument from a position of information science and theory. Hence if anything is epistemically justified as an explanation it would be this:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

Let me know when you can deal with this, and actually address information science, and theory without ignoring it. Because if you are going to use a William Lane Craig type of circular argument, you better try and deal with the above before making such arguments. If you can defy every thing on that list, I will give you a cookie and publicly agree with you.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...At minimum, a Christian scholar is going to carry a bias toward finding what he is looking for, and this makes using their verdict suspect...

Ad hominem. And since non-theistic scholars are going to have their own bias, we also have the pot calling the kettle black.

Do you really think these are comparable? With your theistic assumptions and bias, your evaluation of the historical evidence leads to the rather significant tangible benefit of you having discovered the secret to eternal life. What greater reward could there be, and what greater motivation could one have to interpret the evidence to their own benefit? I do not see what biases the nontheists could have when interpreting the evidence surrounding Jesus that could be remotely comparable.

Furthermore, this dichotomy is incorrect - it isn't a matter of theistic versus nontheistic scholars, it's a matter of a handful of Christian scholars versus everyone else. The scholars that disagree with your position aren't just atheists, they are Christians and Jews as well.

Again, it seems you're trying to argue that if we accept your philosophical arguments regarding "ultimate reality" then suddenly the historical evidence somehow becomes much more convincing. There must be some other steps you're neglecting to mention along the way, because it seems like your position requires not only theistic assumptions but also very specifically Christian theistic assumptions.

[fredonly]

...At minimum, a Christian scholar is going to carry a bias toward finding what he is looking for, and this makes using their verdict suspect...

Ad hominem. And since non-theistic scholars are going to have their own bias, we also have the pot calling the kettle black.

Read what I wrote more carefully. I specifically added, "I would be fine with examining their analysis". In questioning their verdict, I was heading off an appeal to authority. An appeal to a biased authority is certainly subject to challenge. A challenge is not a prima facie dismissal of the position, but leads to the necessity of directly examining their argument.

Similarly (since you made the charge) I also wouldn't expect you to accept the verdict of a non-theistic scholar prima facie, but I would expect that you would examine their actual arguments.

...sounds like you think it appropriate to start with some theistic assumptions)...

I have argued at length that the theistic framework is slightly more rational than the alternative. The theistic framework adopts a genuine explanation, even though that explanation itself cannot be explained. By contrast, the non-theists adopt an "explanation" which fails to explain anything, even in principle. As rational agents, we are obliged to adopt an epistemically justified explanation whenever one can be had; since the non-theist stops short of their full epistemic duty, they forfeit any claim to the so-called "default" or "neutral" position.

You're position seems absurd in that it seems to suggest that any explanation (regardless of how implausible it is) is better than no definitive explanation. It also seems nonsensical to suggest "we are obliged to adopt an epistemically justified explanation whenever one can be had." It either means that you think everyone is obligated to choose between any mutually exclusive possibilities irrespective of the strength of the support in either direction, or your statement is meaningless " of COURSE we accept explanations that meet our personal standards of justification (which does not rule out remaining neutral when the justifications in all directions are lacking). This could turn into a lengthy debate in its own right, but for now " could you please list the specific assumptions that you feel everyone should accept regarding the current topic?

...Do you actually insist that the background facts that historians use in evaluating historical hypotheses, should include Yahweh's existence and his periodic intervention in the world?!...

I do not insist on any such thing, and I find your question to be based on a false dichotomy--either one is "rational and unbiased," or else one must be subject to all manner of outlandish speculation. In reality, there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we all have our biases. And as biased as we all are, few of us are as completely bone-headed as your question would imply.

What I do insist upon, since you asked, is that everything the historian says qua historian must be subject to the implicit qualifier, "barring divine intervention."

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not suggesting theists can't be rational and unbiased. I'm simply pointing out that the only practical way to engage in rational discourse and debate is to begin with a set of agreed assumptions. It is not an agreed assumption that divine intervention has ever occurred, or that it can.

Regarding your proposal that historians should add the qualifier, "barring divine intervention," If this were reasonable, then it would also be reasonable to expect historians to add additional qualifiers: "barring assistance from extra-terrestrials," "barring information received telepathically," "barring the activities of his past lives," Historians (qua historians) must base their analyses on agreed truths. This does not preclude a Christian historian from utilizing Christian assumptions if he's writing a history for other Christians. This approach, however, is a surrender to subjectivism " and tacitly admits that history is fiction that is intended to provide a subjective context for interpreting historical data.

...these ancient people were exceedingly more credulous than modern, educated people in terms of their willingness to accept incredible stories...

More cultural parochialism. Ancients had their geniuses and their idiots, same as we have. Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton are probably a bit smarter than the average contemporary bubble-gum chewing, soap-opera viewing, horoscope reading suburbanite, but they are far behind the curve of the best minds of antiquity.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a historian absolutely has to understand the historical-cultural context of any historical data that is available. It is very clear that ancient people were superstitious " they believed many things were possible that we now know are not. They believed supernatural forces were at constant play in the natural world; it was part of everyday life. Gods made the rain, caused floods, and earthquakes; diseases were due to supernatural forces. It is absurd to ignore this context when interpreting the documents written at the time, a practice that is a standard component of source criticism.

...there is no evidence that the early Christians performed any critical evaluation of the stories they were told...

The earliest Christians actually experienced the appearances first-hand. They were in a better position than we to know what really happened.

The only evidence for this is the Gospels, written by unknown authors decades after the event in a language other than that spoken by Jesus and the alleged eyewitnesses.
Sure, they were in a position to where they could have investigated what actually happened. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that they did this. The writings we have show that the authors were believers, not skeptical enquirers.

...What has come down to us is the product of those who believed, and there's no way to escape that fact...

Why would anyone want to "escape" such fact? People don't usually bother to record and transmit things they don't believe, especially when they put themselves at great risk in so doing.

Plenty of Christians I have debated have tried to paint a picture of the evangelists as being objective historians, carefully laying out the facts. The actual fact is that they were believers whose intent was to pass along their beliefs. Are we in agreement on this?

...Are you willing to withdraw your statement below in bold?:

...History cannot provide any plausible explanation for these (perceived) appearances...

I don't need to withdraw the statement unless & until historians provide a plausible explanation that accounts for all of the relevant facts.

The only facts are that there are stories about post mortem appearances by Jesus. Would you like me to propose some possibilities about how these stories came about? I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume that you are treating the Gospels as veridical history and then demanding explanation for some of the plot elements.

...I'm not fine with suggesting that your view is supported by objective analysis...

I do not suggest that the resurrection of Jesus can be demonstrated by objective standards today; however, that by no means entails that any plausible non-miraculous explanation has ever been offered to account for the relevant facts.

What relevant facts do you suggest are problematic?

...You appear to insist that we treat your unsupported theistic assumptions the same as the apparent laws of nature that we all generally accept...

And you appear to insist that we treat your unsupported non-theistic assumptions with the same confidence we grant to the observed regularities of nature.

I am proposing what I think is the only reasonable grounds for discussion: those beliefs and assumptions that we hold in common. Let me know if you can propose a superior framework for discussion.

...To be consistent, you would then need to allow other unsupported assumptions to receive the same consideration...e.g. we should not rule out the alien-pyramid hypothesis...

Do we have any record of alien pyramid builders? Did people actually see them and talk with them and eat with them? Do we have any significant number of intelligent, educated scholars who give credence to such records? Do we have any plausible hypothesis for the construction of the pyramids? I suspect the answers to those questions would be different from the answers we might give to similar questions about Christianity--and that means that your "same consideration" isn't comparing apples to apples at all, and your plea for "consistency" is actually a plea for inconsistency.

There is stronger evidence that extraterrestrials have visited earth, than that Jesus rose from the dead. For example, there is testimony from living eyewitnesses that they have been abducted by aliens and subjected to anal probes. There are unexplained phenomena that are explainable by alien spacecraft (so I wonder if you continue to embrace your principle, "As rational agents, we are obliged to adopt an epistemically justified explanation whenever one can be had"). If we were to accept the presence of aliens among us, then hypotheses about alien interventions demand equal consideration to terrestrial explanations.
No, I don't believe we've been visited by aliens. But I reject the hypothesis because if its implausibility. I use exactly the same standard I use against the Christian hypotheses about miracles.

...I question how critically you evaluated the arguments...

Likewise.

Fair enough! We can assess this of each other as we go along.

...your stated position was that the historical record makes a strong case for the Resurrection...

That was not my claim at all. Instead, I admitted that starting from non-theistic assumptions, you will end up with non-theistic conclusions. However, I have argued that the non-theistic position is less rational than the theistic position.

OK, my mistake. My only complaint about your position is your suggesting that non-theistic assumptions are involved. The objective historical analyst utilizes only the generally accepted beliefs, whereas a theistic historical analyst adds additional assumptions.

...You might as well say that you simply assume the Resurrection actually occurred and stay home the rest of the day since there's nothing left to debate...

Ridiculous. You give no indication of having any knowledge of how scholarship works. All you have are ad hominems and a kitchen full of black pots and black kettles.

The one time above in which you suggested I was committing ad hominem was a misinterpretation you made, which I cleared up above. You are overlooking the fact that I have referred to the historical method, as an example of how scholarship works, and have done no more that propose applying these principles to the matter at hand.

...one should have justification for one's beliefs, although there's no objective arbiter of what constitutes a reasonable justification.

I agree, and this is precisely why the epistemically justified explanation offered by theism is ultimately more rational than the non-theistic lack of any epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves.

I'd be curious as to your justification for this belief. This seems fodder for a separate topic.

[WinePusher]

Thanks! I've been hanging out at William Lane Craig's forum, but recently wrapped up a lengthy exchange over there, so I'm back. Glad you're engaged, it's always a pleasure.

Thanks, I always enjoy discussing these things with you and I've learned alot.

Ehrman is well aware of the conventional wisdom among Christian apologists about the alleged widespread use of Greek, and this is what he was refuting with the information from Chancey that I posted " in which Chancey concluded that the common use of Greek was limited to the two major cities " NOT the rural community of Capernaum.

I think it's interesting how when someone like Ehrman cites a scholar to support his argument skeptics like you don't complain, but when someone like William Lane Craig cites a scholar like A.N Sherwin White to support his argument, skeptics like you accuse him of dishonest quote mining. Other than that, Chancey's conclusion is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. Only Peter, Matthew and John would have resided in Capernaum. Luke was a Greek speaker. But the reasoning you've employed here doesn't work; it's basically a composition fallacy because what you conclude is that the disciples wouldn't know Greek because they inhabit a community where Greek was not commonly used. Exceptions exist.

Regarding the literacy of merchants, traders, etc Ehrman discusses this as well. Such tradesmen learned what they needed to learn, and no more. A tax collector would need to be capable of recording names and numbers, but would require no skill at composing sentences much less composing complete narratives.

And when you say this you're ignoring the birth of Christianity and the Early Church. In their capacity as traders, fishermen and merchants, the disciples would have only needed to learn a limited amount of Greek. You're right. In their capacity as missionaries and evangelists, that they took up after the event known as Pentecost, they would have needed to learn much more Greek because their occupation required it. Besides, when you and Ehrman appeal to the complex Greek used by the authors of the Gospels, you are not referring to the actual autographs because they don't exist. What you are referring to are the existing manuscripts we have, those manuscripts would not have been written by the disciples. It's irresponsible to assume that the language found in these manuscripts reflects the langauge found in the actual autographs.

And when writing this passage, Ehrman, either intentionally or unintentionally, ommitted the fact that scribes were a fundamental part of written communication in the ancient world.

Ehrman discusses this as well, referring to 1 Peter:

Peter could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. That would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can oen easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testmanet, so the person who composed the letter (whether orally or in writing) must have known the Scriptures in Greek.

The same comments can be applied to the Gospels.

These are baseless assertions. There are no reasons to believe that an educated, literate scribe would not bilinguial. Tell me, when Ehrman says the letter doesn't read like a Greek translation, what 'letter' or 'manuscript' is Ehrman referring to. The original one?

Cicero was arguably an 'upper class' Roman citizen yet many of his literary texts were produced by scribes.

Yes, by someone taking dictation " writing what Cicero spoke, as opposed to translating from another language.

So it would have been impossible for Cicero to orally dictate a letter to a scribe intended for a non latin speaking audience?

Darrell Bock suggests that if scribes were employed to write these texts, the disciples who were dictating the content would have employed every single talent and ability the scribe possessed, which would account for the complex linguistic structure. Even if the followers of Jesus were illierate (and evidence suggests they weren't) the usage of scribes was a common practice in the ancient world and eliminates the problem people like you and Ehrman continually bring up.

Again, it is absurd to think that the Aramaic speaking disciples would have hired people to produce Greek texts. The idea that the scribes talents would be used in such a way is really self-defeating, because at best this turns the Gospels into the original work of an educated Greek scribe rather than someone who is carefully recording the precious words of an eyewitness. There's just no evidence for any of this "it's an ad hoc excuse to try to show that it is just barely possible that the Gospels could still be direct eyewitness accounts (sort of).

Only one of the four canonical Gospels was intended for a non greek speaking audience, and that was the Gospel of Matthew. The other three: Mark, Luke and John, were intended for audiences comprised of Gentiles. That is a sufficient enough reason to believe that Greek scribes were employed to write these texts.

Well let's be very clear that the explanation put forth by skeptics is equally implausible, if not moreso. In my many engagements with you, I've noticed that one aspect of the historical method you tend to ignore is the idea that an explanation must successfully explain the historical question without generating additional problems. The potency of any historical theory is judged by it's explanatory power, and the visionary hypothesis skeptics like you posit does the exact opposite.

Which explanation are you saying is "equally implausible" to the resurrection?

You said the record shows that there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead. The explanation that John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and you appeal to is the visionary hypothesis. That does adeqautely answer the question, but it also creates a new set of questions that need to be answered. It's not a valid explanation.

No, you just have a false understanding of what a circular argument actually is. What I'm doing is positing two entirely different premises to prove to entirely different conclusions. It would be circular if I had said, 'the Christian God exists because Jesus rose from the dead. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead prove this.' What I said was that if the premise that Jesus rose from the dead can be proven, it logically follows that the Christian God exists. Likewise, if the premise that the Christian God exists can be proven, it logically follows that Jesus rose from the dead. It's essentially the converse of the same argument. My original statement is valid.

OK " I'll take it as two independent arguments, but this does mean they don't support one another. I certainly agree that if you can prove Jesus rose from the dead, then you will have proven God exists. However you will be handicapped in proving the resurrection if you do not assume there is a God who performs miracles in this world (if you were to do this, you'd be circular). Without a God performing miracles, there's no reason to think a miraculous resurrection is possible.

Alright fredonly, I think you've pinpointed the area of our disagreement. The resurrection would be impossible without God, that much is clear. What is your issue with this?

To demonstrate the dead-end you're on with this, here's a passage of William Lane Craig, from his debate with Ehrman:

Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, hes confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? Its the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You see, they weren't debating the existence of God or whether or not miracles occur " so Craig thought it fine to toss in those assumptions. In the framework of our discussion, those assumptions are invalid since you're suggesting the alleged resurrection can used to prove God's existence, and that you can somehow prove the resurrection without assuming it is a divine miracle. Good luck.

I understand what you're saying fredonly but Craig is saying nothing wrong. The actual claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead making the event a miracle. A miracle by definition is a deviation from the natural order, and if such an event were to occur it would by definition require intervention from a 'supra' natural agent. What Craig is saying is that the resurrection is only possible if God exist. The resurrection is contigent upon God's existence. Using that as background information, the argument concerning the improbability of miracles (which Ehrman employed) becomes irrelevant. I want to be clear here, Craig's assumption is that the resurrection could have only occured if God exists, why do you think that's an invalid assumption?

[McCulloch]

It is impossible to know exactly what elements of the stories were historically factual. When the historical method is applied, the implausible elements (such as his divinity) fall out - there's just not sufficient credible support to consider the information reliable.

History tells us that an extraordinary man named Jesus lived and died, and that many people believed he appeared to them alive again after his execution. History cannot provide any plausible explanation for these (perceived) appearances, though of course various attempts have been made.

History tells us no such thing. History tells us that late first century writers made extraordinary claims about this Jesus, his influence over huge crowds of people, his miracles, and his resurrection and that large numbers of largely anonymous people witnessed these events. History also tells us that the movement started by his followers, was largely unnoticed and made little or no impact on its society for the first five or more decades of its existence.

At any rate, there is no good reason why people cannot examine the evidence and reach the conclusion that the appearances were real, and therefore divine agency was involved. Obviously someone who is commited to a non-theistic worldview will not reach this conclusion, but there is nothing intrinsically unreasonable about the idea that the God who created the world can at times act within the world, provided that God has good reason to do so.

And what would this good reason be? That the creator God had declared that any humans who did not perfectly obey all of his laws should face the punishment of death. And that because he loves humans, he would become a human so that he could die in their place? This sounds like a good reason?

[Confused]

From Post 104:

My apologies. In hindsight I should have employed the language of AquinasD's Scientific Inquisition.

I would think that for an apology to be sincere, you wouldn't equate me with yet another bunch of oppressive religious zealots.

Notice dear observer, we go from being "Nazis" to "Inquisitioners" merely because we challenge this theist's claims.

Is there no slander, no amount of insult the theist is unwilling to engage in, in order to discredit and besmirch those who have the audacity to challenge this theist's claims?

I think what is at least a small bit amusing here is the rather tone-deaf manner in which the accusations are laid. The challenger to theistic claims is abused with terms essentially reserved for theists who've abused others in order to advance a religious agenda.

I contend what we are witnessing is a great example of what psychanalizers'd call 'reaction formation', where the very traits one holds are projected onto others. Evidence here would be repeated use of this religiously affiliated terminology to "thwart" a mere challenge to the theist's claims.

Why? I contend that religious belief is more a matter of emotion than any real, empirically derived evidential stance. Why is that?

Because the god concept is where we keep that which we do not know.

While this 'knowledge' may be claimed by the theist, upon challenge, just make a little tick mark on your notepads there when the claimant does anything but offer a straight-up response (as determined by the 'tickee'). Then, at the end of the year, see if all the trees on the planet ain't been cut down in order to provide enough paper for all them ticks.

Moderator Intervention
Okay Joey, tone it down. You are currently on probation for this exact type of post. Debate the topic, not the debater. Perhaps you two need to go to separate corners of this site for a little while to cool off. The next time, it won't simply be an intervention, but a warning and we are getting a bit testy right now so you may not want to try to blur the lines at this time.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[WinePusher]

Thanks! I've been hanging out at William Lane Craig's forum, but recently wrapped up a lengthy exchange over there, so I'm back. Glad you're engaged, it's always a pleasure.

Thanks, I always enjoy discussing these things with you and I've learned alot.

Ehrman is well aware of the conventional wisdom among Christian apologists about the alleged widespread use of Greek, and this is what he was refuting with the information from Chancey that I posted " in which Chancey concluded that the common use of Greek was limited to the two major cities " NOT the rural community of Capernaum.

I think it's interesting how when someone like Ehrman cites a scholar to support his argument skeptics like you don't complain, but when someone like William Lane Craig cites a scholar like A.N Sherwin White to support his argument, skeptics like you accuse him of dishonest quote mining. Other than that, Chancey's conclusion is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. Only Peter, Matthew and John would have resided in Capernaum. Luke was a Greek speaker. But the reasoning you've employed here doesn't work; it's basically a composition fallacy because what you conclude is that the disciples wouldn't know Greek because they inhabit a community where Greek was not commonly used. Exceptions exist.

Regarding the literacy of merchants, traders, etc Ehrman discusses this as well. Such tradesmen learned what they needed to learn, and no more. A tax collector would need to be capable of recording names and numbers, but would require no skill at composing sentences much less composing complete narratives.

And when you say this you're ignoring the birth of Christianity and the Early Church. In their capacity as traders, fishermen and merchants, the disciples would have only needed to learn a limited amount of Greek. You're right. In their capacity as missionaries and evangelists, that they took up after the event known as Pentecost, they would have needed to learn much more Greek because their occupation required it. Besides, when you and Ehrman appeal to the complex Greek used by the authors of the Gospels, you are not referring to the actual autographs because they don't exist. What you are referring to are the existing manuscripts we have, those manuscripts would not have been written by the disciples. It's irresponsible to assume that the language found in these manuscripts reflects the langauge found in the actual autographs.

And when writing this passage, Ehrman, either intentionally or unintentionally, ommitted the fact that scribes were a fundamental part of written communication in the ancient world.

Ehrman discusses this as well, referring to 1 Peter:

Peter could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. That would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can oen easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testmanet, so the person who composed the letter (whether orally or in writing) must have known the Scriptures in Greek.

The same comments can be applied to the Gospels.

These are baseless assertions. There are no reasons to believe that an educated, literate scribe would not bilinguial. Tell me, when Ehrman says the letter doesn't read like a Greek translation, what 'letter' or 'manuscript' is Ehrman referring to. The original one?

Cicero was arguably an 'upper class' Roman citizen yet many of his literary texts were produced by scribes.

Yes, by someone taking dictation " writing what Cicero spoke, as opposed to translating from another language.

So it would have been impossible for Cicero to orally dictate a letter to a scribe intended for a non latin speaking audience?

Darrell Bock suggests that if scribes were employed to write these texts, the disciples who were dictating the content would have employed every single talent and ability the scribe possessed, which would account for the complex linguistic structure. Even if the followers of Jesus were illierate (and evidence suggests they weren't) the usage of scribes was a common practice in the ancient world and eliminates the problem people like you and Ehrman continually bring up.

Again, it is absurd to think that the Aramaic speaking disciples would have hired people to produce Greek texts. The idea that the scribes talents would be used in such a way is really self-defeating, because at best this turns the Gospels into the original work of an educated Greek scribe rather than someone who is carefully recording the precious words of an eyewitness. There's just no evidence for any of this "it's an ad hoc excuse to try to show that it is just barely possible that the Gospels could still be direct eyewitness accounts (sort of).

Only one of the four canonical Gospels was intended for a non greek speaking audience, and that was the Gospel of Matthew. The other three: Mark, Luke and John, were intended for audiences comprised of Gentiles. That is a sufficient enough reason to believe that Greek scribes were employed to write these texts.

Well let's be very clear that the explanation put forth by skeptics is equally implausible, if not moreso. In my many engagements with you, I've noticed that one aspect of the historical method you tend to ignore is the idea that an explanation must successfully explain the historical question without generating additional problems. The potency of any historical theory is judged by it's explanatory power, and the visionary hypothesis skeptics like you posit does the exact opposite.

Which explanation are you saying is "equally implausible" to the resurrection?

You said the record shows that there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead. The explanation that John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and you appeal to is the visionary hypothesis. That does adeqautely answer the question, but it also creates a new set of questions that need to be answered. It's not a valid explanation.

No, you just have a false understanding of what a circular argument actually is. What I'm doing is positing two entirely different premises to prove to entirely different conclusions. It would be circular if I had said, 'the Christian God exists because Jesus rose from the dead. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead prove this.' What I said was that if the premise that Jesus rose from the dead can be proven, it logically follows that the Christian God exists. Likewise, if the premise that the Christian God exists can be proven, it logically follows that Jesus rose from the dead. It's essentially the converse of the same argument. My original statement is valid.

OK " I'll take it as two independent arguments, but this does mean they don't support one another. I certainly agree that if you can prove Jesus rose from the dead, then you will have proven God exists. However you will be handicapped in proving the resurrection if you do not assume there is a God who performs miracles in this world (if you were to do this, you'd be circular). Without a God performing miracles, there's no reason to think a miraculous resurrection is possible.

Alright fredonly, I think you've pinpointed the area of our disagreement. The resurrection would be impossible without God, that much is clear. What is your issue with this?

To demonstrate the dead-end you're on with this, here's a passage of William Lane Craig, from his debate with Ehrman:

Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, hes confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? Its the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You see, they weren't debating the existence of God or whether or not miracles occur " so Craig thought it fine to toss in those assumptions. In the framework of our discussion, those assumptions are invalid since you're suggesting the alleged resurrection can used to prove God's existence, and that you can somehow prove the resurrection without assuming it is a divine miracle. Good luck.

I understand what you're saying fredonly but Craig is saying nothing wrong. The actual claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead making the event a miracle. A miracle by definition is a deviation from the natural order, and if such an event were to occur it would by definition require intervention from a 'supra' natural agent. What Craig is saying is that the resurrection is only possible if God exist. The resurrection is contigent upon God's existence. Using that as background information, the argument concerning the improbability of miracles (which Ehrman employed) becomes irrelevant. I want to be clear here, Craig's assumption is that the resurrection could have only occured if God exists, why do you think that's an invalid assumption?

[fredonly]

Ehrman is well aware of the conventional wisdom among Christian apologists about the alleged widespread use of Greek, and this is what he was refuting with the information from Chancey that I posted " in which Chancey concluded that the common use of Greek was limited to the two major cities " NOT the rural community of Capernaum.

I think it's interesting how when someone like Ehrman cites a scholar to support his argument skeptics like you don't complain, but when someone like William Lane Craig cites a scholar like A.N Sherwin White to support his argument, skeptics like you accuse him of dishonest quote mining.

I never make a blind charge that someone is quote mining. What I have done at times, is to find the source and provide a fuller context " demonstrating that quotes are being used out of context. It does not appear to me that Ehrman is quote mining at all " he's relaying some research, providing relevant details " not simply quoting the authority. Consider your charge:

The scholars whom he cites (Mark Chancey and Catherine Hezser) must be dumbfounded to see their work being misapplied by Ehrman like this.

Have you actually read that Chancey and Hezser feel this way? I suspect not, and that you are being dismissive. I perused Chancey's book though the preview feature on Amazon.com, it from what I can see, it appears to me perfectly consistent what Ehrman's summary. For example:

(page 163)Some scholars have claimed that Galileans of all classes would have needed to know Greek for various reasons " to trade with or travel in other regions; to converse with neighbors in the border areas; to sell fish, pottery, and other wares; to import and export various products. Such statements reflect the assumptions that the epigraphic data from surrounding regions conveys the whole linguistic picture for them. It is true that Greek inscriptions were more common, even in the first century CE, in some nearby cities and areas, but it is also likely that local languages " dialects of Aramaic " continued to be spoken, even if they are not represented in the epigraphic record. So, while Greek may have been used on some of the surrounding communities, especially those with longer established identities as Greek cities, it is lilely that Galileans who needed to communicate with people from those areas could get by without an advanced, or perhaps even basic, knolwlege of Greek. While some Galilean commoners " again, how many is impossible to determine " probably knew some Greek, to generalize that many had considerable competence in it is to go far beyond the evidence.

P 224 we must base our historical reconstructions on what we have, not on what we do not have. We cannot let our understanding of antiquity be based on speculation about what has been.

These are from Chancey's conclusions. In earlier pages, Chancey describes the actual hard evidence, so you neednt simply take his conclusion at face value " you can examine his research and analysis.

Other than that, Chancey's conclusion is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. Only Peter, Matthew and John would have resided in Capernaum. Luke was a Greek speaker. But the reasoning you've employed here doesn't work; it's basically a composition fallacy because what you conclude is that the disciples wouldn't know Greek because they inhabit a community where Greek was not commonly used. Exceptions exist.

Sure, there are exceptions and anything is possible " so you can believe whatever you want to believe, but your belief is not supported by the evidence " and I refer you to the quotes above from Chancey that I highlighted in bold.

Let's step back and consider how our discussion got here. We went down this path because I suggested the disciples (his actual disciples, mind you - and this does not include Luke) were illiterate. You challenged this, and I gave you my basis " which began with Ehrman, but not merely saying "because Ehrman said so." I provided his argument, and now have even provided a bit of the info directly from one of Ehrman's sources. After all this back and forth, I can't imagine how you could possibly say that I don't have a pretty good basis, even if you don't choose to accept it. Now you respond that "exceptions exist." Absolutely. Of course they do. And if you're looking for an excuse to believe Matthew and John were direct disciples of Jesus, then you can cling to this thread of possibility. But I'm trying to look at the facts as a historian would look at them, which is to consider what is most probable.

Regarding the literacy of merchants, traders, etc Ehrman discusses this as well. Such tradesmen learned what they needed to learn, and no more. A tax collector would need to be capable of recording names and numbers, but would require no skill at composing sentences much less composing complete narratives.

And when you say this you're ignoring the birth of Christianity and the Early Church. In their capacity as traders, fishermen and merchants, the disciples would have only needed to learn a limited amount of Greek. You're right. In their capacity as missionaries and evangelists, that they took up after the event known as Pentecost, they would have needed to learn much more Greek because their occupation required it. Besides, when you and Ehrman appeal to the complex Greek used by the authors of the Gospels, you are not referring to the actual autographs because they don't exist. What you are referring to are the existing manuscripts we have, those manuscripts would not have been written by the disciples. It's irresponsible to assume that the language found in these manuscripts reflects the langauge found in the actual autographs.

Irresponsible?! Greek scholars have examined the Gospels and conclude that their style and content imply they are original Greek compositions. Your position is based on pure speculation. It is extremely absurd to dismiss scholarly analysis on the basis of speculation and the fact that your guess cannot be proved impossible.

And when writing this passage, Ehrman, either intentionally or unintentionally, ommitted the fact that scribes were a fundamental part of written communication in the ancient world.

Ehrman discusses this as well, referring to 1 Peter:

Peter could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. That would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can one easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testmanet, so the person who composed the letter (whether orally or in writing) must have known the Scriptures in Greek.

The same comments can be applied to the Gospels.

These are baseless assertions. There are no reasons to believe that an educated, literate scribe would not [be] bilinguial. Tell me, when Ehrman says the letter doesn't read like a Greek translation, what 'letter' or 'manuscript' is Ehrman referring to. The original one?

My point in quoting Ehrman was to demonstrate the implausibility of a person dictating in one language, and the scribe recording in a different language. Imagine yourself in the same position, dictating to an Arabic speaker and somehow expecting that your words would be faithfully represented in Arabic. You can't proofread it. There's no evidence of such a thing every occurring, so the hypothesis " while possible, is purely speculative.
To answer your question, this section is directed at 1 Peter, and obviously not the original since no originals of any of the books of the Bible are in existence. The letter actually indicates that it had been written with the help of Silas (Sylvanus). It's not implausible to think it might be a collaboration, but if so: how much of it is Peter's work? But there is more to the story of determining authorship. There is reference to Babylon, a pejorative reference to Rome. At least, it became a pejorative reference after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 70. This would imply it was written after the year 70however, various traditions (Eusebius, Jerome, Duchesne) indicate that Peter died no later than the year 68, and possibly as early as 55 (this is from a quick look at the Catholic encyclopedia). Scholarly views are mixed as to whether Peter was truly involved, but it is uncontroversial to suggest that he is, at best, a co-author, since he references Silas.

Cicero was arguably an 'upper class' Roman citizen yet many of his literary texts were produced by scribes.

Yes, by someone taking dictation " writing what Cicero spoke, as opposed to translating from another language.

So it would have been impossible for Cicero to orally dictate a letter to a scribe intended for a non latin speaking audience?

Of course it's not impossible, but are you basing your case on a speculative hypotheses unsupported by any evidence on the sole basis that is "possible?!"

Darrell Bock suggests that if scribes were employed to write these texts, the disciples who were dictating the content would have employed every single talent and ability the scribe possessed, which would account for the complex linguistic structure. Even if the followers of Jesus were illierate (and evidence suggests they weren't) the usage of scribes was a common practice in the ancient world and eliminates the problem people like you and Ehrman continually bring up.

Again, it is absurd to think that the Aramaic speaking disciples would have hired people to produce Greek texts. The idea that the scribes talents would be used in such a way is really self-defeating, because at best this turns the Gospels into the original work of an educated Greek scribe rather than someone who is carefully recording the precious words of an eyewitness. There's just no evidence for any of this "it's an ad hoc excuse to try to show that it is just barely possible that the Gospels could still be direct eyewitness accounts (sort of).

Only one of the four canonical Gospels was intended for a non greek speaking audience, and that was the Gospel of Matthew. The other three: Mark, Luke and John, were intended for audiences comprised of Gentiles. That is a sufficient enough reason to believe that Greek scribes were employed to write these texts.

So you are agreeing that Mark, Luke, and John were written writers educated in Greek, which is fine so far " this agrees with the scholarly analysis I've seen. But it is ad hoc to suggest that these writers were "scribes" recording the words of a disciple. This is another one of those "possible" assumptions that has zero evidentiary support, and seems prima facie implausible.

Regarding Matthew " it was also written in Greek, although it does appear to be directed more at Jewish Christians.

Well let's be very clear that the explanation put forth by skeptics is equally implausible, if not moreso. In my many engagements with you, I've noticed that one aspect of the historical method you tend to ignore is the idea that an explanation must successfully explain the historical question without generating additional problems. The potency of any historical theory is judged by it's explanatory power, and the visionary hypothesis skeptics like you posit does the exact opposite.

Which explanation are you saying is "equally implausible" to the resurrection?

You said the record shows that there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead. The explanation that John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and you appeal to is the visionary hypothesis. That does adeqautely answer the question, but it also creates a new set of questions that need to be answered. It's not a valid explanation.

First of all, I subscribe to no specific hypothesis " there are a number of possibilities. The idea may have originated with an empty tomb (empty for several possible reasons); or it could have been a vision in a dream (because these ancients treated dream experiences as real " I can give you a source on this if you like), or it could have been a waking experience " feeling the presence of the departed Jesus (a relatively common phenomenon that many experience today when a loved one dies). You could collapse all of these (except the empty tomb idea) into a general "visionary" explanation if you like. With that, please describe the questions that this leaves unanswered and why you consider it invalid.

No, you just have a false understanding of what a circular argument actually is. What I'm doing is positing two entirely different premises to prove to entirely different conclusions. It would be circular if I had said, 'the Christian God exists because Jesus rose from the dead. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead prove this.' What I said was that if the premise that Jesus rose from the dead can be proven, it logically follows that the Christian God exists. Likewise, if the premise that the Christian God exists can be proven, it logically follows that Jesus rose from the dead. It's essentially the converse of the same argument. My original statement is valid.

OK " I'll take it as two independent arguments, but this does mean they don't support one another. I certainly agree that if you can prove Jesus rose from the dead, then you will have proven God exists. However you will be handicapped in proving the resurrection if you do not assume there is a God who performs miracles in this world (if you were to do this, you'd be circular). Without a God performing miracles, there's no reason to think a miraculous resurrection is possible.

Alright fredonly, I think you've pinpointed the area of our disagreement. The resurrection would be impossible without God, that much is clear. What is your issue with this?

What are you trying to prove, who are you trying to convince? What assumptions do you start with? Whomever you're targeting your argument toward, you need to start with common ground, common assumptions. I don't believe I make any assumptions that you would disagree with, but clearly " you make some that I consider questionable. I'm just not sure what they all are. It should be obvious that the more assumptions you make, the easier your task, but the narrower your audience.

To demonstrate the dead-end you're on with this, here's a passage of William Lane Craig, from his debate with Ehrman:

Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, hes confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? Its the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You see, they weren't debating the existence of God or whether or not miracles occur " so Craig thought it fine to toss in those assumptions. In the framework of our discussion, those assumptions are invalid since you're suggesting the alleged resurrection can used to prove God's existence, and that you can somehow prove the resurrection without assuming it is a divine miracle. Good luck.

I understand what you're saying fredonly but Craig is saying nothing wrong. The actual claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead making the event a miracle. A miracle by definition is a deviation from the natural order, and if such an event were to occur it would by definition require intervention from a 'supra' natural agent. What Craig is saying is that the resurrection is only possible if God exist. The resurrection is contingent upon God's existence. Using that as background information, the argument concerning the improbability of miracles (which Ehrman employed) becomes irrelevant. I want to be clear here, Craig's assumption is that the resurrection could have only occured if God exists, why do you think that's an invalid assumption?

I think it an invalid assumption, because I don't accept that it's true. It's not part of our common ground. I could set that objection aside, and accept it as a tentative assumption to see where we could take it, but then we should really cover all the assumptions. It's not just that "God exists," it includes the the specific definition of God (do we stop with "Creator?") and I expect there are more assumptions about the characteristics of this God. Do you depend on an assumption of a God that actively participates in the world? Must we start with the assumption that Yahweh of the Old Testament is real? Where's your starting point for this discussion? If you assume Yahweh is real, and that the Gospel narratives are true, then you're done. Of course, these assumptions are faith-based, not rationally derived.

On the other hand, if you're starting with common ground, then you have the burden of justifying (at least): 1) existence of a God; 2) God has the power and inclination to interact with the natural world (other than through the natural order) - i.e. miracles occur; 3) that the specific miracle of the Resurrection actually occurred. In his debate with Craig, Ehrman didn't contest the first two items, and instead focused specifically on #3.

What are your starting assumptions for your case, and what specifically do you think you can rationally support based on these assumptions?

[showme]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

The Aramaic bible, written in the language of the original apostles, has a different testimony from Yeshua than the Western version. Either one of the bibles had deletions, or one of them had additions. The evidence leads me to believe that the Catholic Church added words, which indeed bolsters one of their positions. You will find people constantly referring to the statement that those without sin are to throw the first stone, although in the Eastern text, this statement doesn't exist. In addition, in some of the older versions, the number of the beast is 616, which corresponds with Constantine, whereas in the Catholic version it is 666, which is was more in line with their teaching concerning their version of the beast being Nero. (New American Standard/Reference Edition)

[Goat]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

The Aramaic bible, written in the language of the original apostles, has a different testimony from Yeshua than the Western version. Either one of the bibles had deletions, or one of them had additions. The evidence leads me to believe that the Catholic Church added words, which indeed bolsters one of their positions. You will find people constantly referring to the statement that those without sin are to throw the first stone, although in the Eastern text, this statement doesn't exist. In addition, in some of the older versions, the number of the beast is 616, which corresponds with Constantine, whereas in the Catholic version it is 666, which is was more in line with their teaching concerning their version of the beast being Nero. (New American Standard/Reference Edition)

From the information I have seen, either 616 or 666 could refer to Nero, depending on which form of his name you used.