• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus gay?

waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
Did you ever have a friend tell you about an event you weren't present at? A parent or grandparent tell you a story of their life? Or anyone close to you tell you something about their experience at one time or another? That's also hearsay. So what?
Click to expand...

exactly, so what?
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
waitasec said:
i'm sorry...what term...hearsay?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a legal term. The idea is to prevent witnesses from being able to present evidence which is nothing other than their report of another's report, rather than what they heard/saw themselves. But the purpose of the legal system isn't about finding out what likely happen. Judges will throw out evidence because it was illegally obtained. The purpose is to ensure (in theory) the innocense of the accused unless it can be established beyond reasonable doubt the the defendant is guilty. History doesn't exclude evidence. The purpose is simply what most likely happend.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
Yes. It's a legal term. The idea is to prevent witnesses from being able to present evidence which is nothing other than their report of another's report, rather than what they heard/saw themselves. But the purpose of the legal system isn't about finding out what likely happen. Judges will throw out evidence because it was illegally obtained. The purpose is to ensure (in theory) the innocense of the accused unless it can be established beyond reasonable doubt the the defendant is guilty. History doesn't exclude evidence. The purpose is simply what most likely happend.
Click to expand...

i see what you mean...
did you happen to see this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2797646-post10.html

it's from earlier on...
the opening credits are lame, but the conversation between bart ehrman and the "stupid atheist" is worth a listen...at least to me it was.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
waitasec said:
i see what you mean...
did you happen to see this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2797646-post10.html

it's from earlier on...
the opening credits are lame, but the conversation between bart ehrman and the "stupid atheist" is worth a listen...at least to me it was.
Click to expand...
I've read bart ehrman's book on the historical jesus. It was a bad rehash of Schweitzer. His work on textual criticism is great, but historical Jesus studies? Not so much. However, one has to give him credit for being pretty fair and balanced in most of his works. I just think he (like many others) is too stuck in an older mindset of historical Jesus research inspired by Dibelius and Bultmann among others. The application of sociological methods, oral tradition research, and genre and register allow for a much more nuanced approach to the sources. I don't see many of the recent advances in historical Jesus studies in Ehrman's work. However, his knowledge of textual criticism comes from the greatest of the 20th century, and on that subject he appears to me (one who knows far less) to be quite the expert.

But I did love the clip.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
I've read bart ehrman's book on the historical jesus. It was a bad rehash of Schweitzer. His work on textual criticism is great, but historical Jesus studies? Not so much. However, one has to give him credit for being pretty fair and balanced in most of his works. I just think he (like many others) is too stuck in an older mindset of historical Jesus research inspired by Dibelius and Bultmann among others. The application of sociological methods, oral tradition research, and genre and register allow for a much more nuanced approach to the sources. I don't see many of the recent advances in historical Jesus studies in Ehrman's work. However, his knowledge of textual criticism comes from the greatest of the 20th century, and on that subject he appears to me (one who knows far less) to be quite the expert.

But I did love the clip.
Click to expand...

hmmmm....
;)
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
LegionOnomaMoi said:
I've read bart ehrman's book on the historical jesus. It was a bad rehash of Schweitzer. His work on textual criticism is great, but historical Jesus studies? Not so much. However, one has to give him credit for being pretty fair and balanced in most of his works. I just think he (like many others) is too stuck in an older mindset of historical Jesus research inspired by Dibelius and Bultmann among others. The application of sociological methods, oral tradition research, and genre and register allow for a much more nuanced approach to the sources. I don't see many of the recent advances in historical Jesus studies in Ehrman's work. However, his knowledge of textual criticism comes from the greatest of the 20th century, and on that subject he appears to me (one who knows far less) to be quite the expert.

But I did love the clip.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you here. When I read Ehrman's work on the historical Jesus, I get the impression that he thinks that it is a waste of time. He just doesn't seem to be his preferred topic at all.

I do like his other work though. Most of his books though seem to just rehash information. Not that it is a bad thing, as it gets to the general public. His more scholarly pursuits though are very interesting.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
fallingblood said:
I completely agree with you here. When I read Ehrman's work on the historical Jesus, I get the impression that he thinks that it is a waste of time. He just doesn't seem to be his preferred topic at all.

I do like his other work though. Most of his books though seem to just rehash information. Not that it is a bad thing, as it gets to the general public. His more scholarly pursuits though are very interesting.
Click to expand...

really? i don't see that.
but then again i don't see a lot of things...
:eek:
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
waitasec said:
really? i don't see that.
but then again i don't see a lot of things...
:eek:
Click to expand...

I could be remembering this wrong; but I think he agreed with Schweitzer that the quest for the historical Jesus was basically fruitless, and that there are better areas to concentrate one's time. At the moment though, I am having a hard time finding a quote or anything, so I could be remembering wrong. For some reason though, this notion that Ehrman doesn't care for the search for a historical Jesus is sticking in my mind. I'm going to have to recheck though.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
UltraViolet said:
There is no real evidence he was straight.
So I see no reason to entertain the idea.
Click to expand...

There is actually evidence that he was straight. The biggest evidence is that no one mentions it. No one ever attacks him for it, no one tries to discredit him for it. So it seems that if he was gay, no one knew. It would have been a nonissue as no one knew about it.

Personally though, I see no reason to dwell on his sexuality. I don't think it is important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top