Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

You have stated that many times. Others don't accept what you say because what your HJ argument is a failure of logic and facts.

You claim Jesus in the NT is NOT DEPICTED as a Myth but as a real person yet you don't use those very supposed real description for your HJ.

Based on your absurd beliefs, Jesus of the NT was really born of a Ghost, was really God Creator and was really a transfiguring sea water walker.

The authors of the NT believed Jesus to be a real person. Paul believed Jesus to have been a real person recently alive on earth. Very importantly, they did not depict Jesus as a myth. The different authors of the NT books believed different things about Jesus, some of which were supernatural, or otherwise absurd. These beliefs are false. But there is discernible, and therefore possibly in part true, a non-supernatural core. It includes the baptism, preaching, visiting Jerusalem, and execution under Pilate. There are also things common to the Gospels that are supernatural, and can't be true. So elaboration started at an early date. But in this context it is to be noted that the original gMark has no resurrection story.

In general, Jesus becomes more exalted and supernatural with each successive NT account. It is more reasonable to explain the subsequent rise of Christianity by assuming a real Jesus than by assuming a mythical Jesus dwelling in the metaphysical sublunary region of Cloud Cuckoo Land, spiritually crucified by the Archontes of Woo, for the existence of which alleged myth there is even less evidence than for the HJ.

Paul's encounters with James and John and Peter are better explained, taking all things together, as meetings with the associates of the late Jesus, than in any other way.

Dr. Richard Carrier, an historian, admitted the HJ argument is void of logic. I agree with him.

"Void of logic? He might say, not adequately supported by evidence, but "logic"? Where does he say this? I would like to read it. How does it offend logic?

I have no great respect for Carrier, by the way. I think Ehrman's criticism of him in http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ has much merit.

 

[JaysonR]

Carrier does not assert that the texts are the result of 2nd and 4th century forgery created as a hoax.

I cannot recall at the moment, but did you write before that they came out of Egypt?

 

[Craig B]

Carrier does not assert that the texts are the result of 2nd and 4th century forgery created as a hoax.

I cannot recall at the moment, but did you write before that they came out of Egypt?

More papyrus documents are found in Egypt than elsewhere not because more writing was done there, necessarily, but because the climate is dryer there than in the Syria-Palestine region. It rains much less. Thus, old writings are preserved.

I have discussed this before. Egyptians travelling in Syria in ancient times note that the gods has given the Syrians "a Nile in the sky" to provide them with water. Akhenaten's hymn to his divinity includes this image.

For thou hast set a Nile in the sky, That it may descend for them, That it may make waves on the mountains like the sea, To water their fields amongst their towns. How excellent are thy plans, thou lord of eternity!
The Nile in the sky is for the foreign peoples, For the flocks of every foreign land that walk with (their) feet, While the (true) Nile comes forth from the underworld for Egypt.

 

[IanS]

Eight Bits,

I agree that it would most likely be worked, but it would mean a rather critical change in the core belief assertion.

It would be like the Nicene creed; a marking point of before and after and would define an historic shift in their creed and theology.

It would not cause the church any problem whatsoever.

Firstly any such bones could never be positively identified as Jesus. So the church could perfectly easily just say it did not accept what could at the very most be an extremely tentative suggestion that it was Jesus.

Secondly, if the church decided it was their interest to say it was indeed Jesus, then any older church voices who could not change their stated views would be simply overtaken by far more clergy who said that they personally had never adhered to the former explanation, and that the discovery was fully supported in the words of the NT (e.g. as in 1-Corinthians 15).

The church has a history of constantly claiming various different and quite ludicrous things at the same time. As well as a history of living in complete denial almost all of the time. It’s only quite recently that the Vatican made an official statement saying it was wrong to persecute Galileo in the way that it did 450 years ago, for example. And it’s still less than explicitly clear in it’s acceptance of evolution of Man. It’s still Canonising recent Popes as true miracle workers, and still casting out demons in exorcisms, etc.

 

[dejudge]

The authors of the NT believed Jesus to be a real person. Paul believed Jesus to have been a real person recently alive on earth.

Your claim is an established logical fallacy. Jesus is DEPICTED as Myth. People in antiquity and even today believe Myths were figures of history.

HJers believe the Bible is history when it is well known Mythology

Please get familiar with the NT and writers of antiquity who used the NT.

Jesus of the NT was a Water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting and ascending God Creator, God Incarnate, the Son of God born of a Ghost.

1.Ignatius wrote about Jesus and claimed he was born of a Holy Ghost.

2. Aristides claimed Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

3.Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

4.Tertullian claimed Jesus was born of the God in heaven and born of a woman on earth.

5.Hippolytus claimed Jesus was God Creator.

6. Origen claimed Jesus was Born of a Ghost.

7. Eusebius claimed Jesus was GOD Incarnate.

8. Augustine of Hippo claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

9. Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was born of Ghost.

10. Chrysostom claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Please, stop the fallacies and read Galatians 1.1, John 1.1-2, Matthew 1, Luke 1, Acts 1, Mark 6, Mark 9, Mark 16, 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 4.4.

Very importantly, they did not depict Jesus as a myth.

What nonsense!! People of antiquity believed Myths were figures of history.

It is just absurd to suggest that Belief in the Bible can alter the actual depiction of Jesus.

If Jesus was NOT depicted as a Myth why don't you argue that the Historical Jesus was really born of a Holy Ghost, that he really walked on the sea of Galilee, that he really transfigured, resurrected, ascended and God Creator?

The different authors of the NT books believed different things about Jesus, some of which were supernatural, or otherwise absurd.

Now, you admit that Jesus was depicted as Supernatural.
You have destroyed your argument. You have openly contradicted yourself.

Jesus in the NT was Depicted as a Myth.

It is true. Your HJ argument is a failure of logic, MEMORY and facts.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

According the majority of clergy I conferred with, it would be a problem.

 

[dejudge]

More papyrus documents are found in Egypt than elsewhere not because more writing was done there, necessarily, but because the climate is dryer there than in the Syria-Palestine region. It rains much less. Thus, old writings are preserved.

Your statement cannot be shown to be true. You are making an argument from silence.

If there were no 1st century manuscripts of the Jesus story in Syria-Palestine region then none could be found whether or not it is dryer.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found even though you claim the Syria-Palestine region is not as dry as Egypt.

None have been found because the Jesus story, the character of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus and the disciples were invented in the 2nd century or later.

 

[Craig B]

Ian,

According the majority of clergy I conferred with, it would be a problem.

Thank you for your research into this. I am sure what you say is true and important. The resurrection of Jesus is, as I have cited some Christians saying, the defining characteristic of their faith. If it didn't happen, their "faith is in vain". Moreover, they define it as a physical resurrection. The Jesus who entered the tomb is the one who came out. The one who died is the one who came back to life.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement cannot be shown to be true. You are making an argument from silence.

If there were no 1st century manuscripts of the Jesus story in Syria-Palestine region then none could be found whether or not it is dryer.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found even though you claim the Syria-Palestine region is not as dry as Egypt.

I claim that, do I? I suppose you claim Syria is dryer than Egypt. Wouldn't surprise me if you did.

None have been found because the Jesus story, the character of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus and the disciples were invented in the 2nd century or later.

This is all total abject nonsensical balderdash. Not only were the NT texts a hoax invention, you say, but the people mentioned in these texts were also invented out of nothing in the late second century!

Then the apologists you love to cite must be imaginary people invented by hoaxers too. This reasoning ends only where Jean Hardouin carried it, and he was rightly dismissed as a fruitcake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hardouin

 

[dejudge]

I claim that, do I? I suppose you claim Syria is dryer than Egypt. Wouldn't surprise me if you did.

I am merely exposing your fallacies that the reason manuscripts were found in Egypt was because it was dryer when you really don't know if there were manuscripts about Jesus and Paul.

None have been found because the Jesus story, the character of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus and the disciples were invented in the 2nd century or later.

This is all total abject nonsensical balderdash. Not only were the NT texts a hoax invention, you say, but the people mentioned in these texts were also invented out of nothing in the late second century!

You are merely confirming that your arguments are a failure of logic or "total abject nonsensical balderdash"

It is a basic logical deduction.

If there were no pre 70 CE manuscripts about Jesus and Paul in the Syria-Palestine region then none would be found regardless of the climate.


The DSS Scrolls were found and there is NOT one mention of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus of the Tribe of Benjamin.

Then the apologists you love to cite must be imaginary people invented by hoaxers too. This reasoning ends only where Jean Hardouin carried it, and he was rightly dismissed as a fruitcake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hardouin

I am extremely delighted that you mention he was dismissed as a "fruitcake". Your statements are "total abject nonsensical balderdash".

You seem to have forgotten that you have claimed that NT does NOT depict Jesus as a Myth when it stated he was Born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

You say someone was dismissed as a fruitcake!! Did you not?

Are you saying that NT depicts Jesus as figure of history when it states he was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator?

 

[IanS]

Ian,

According the majority of clergy I conferred with, it would be a problem.

How many of the million or so clergy have you discussed this with in detail?

And what exactly do those millions really mean by terms like "bodily resurrected"?

How many of them could never change their claims in the way that the entire history of religious claims has always done, or be superseded by other clergy who just claim they had always leaned towards the new interpretation?

 

[Craig B]

How many of the million or so clergy have you discussed this with in detail?

And what exactly do those millions really mean by terms like "bodily resurrected"?

How about we look at Church doctrine, and assume that the clerics of the relevant denominations adhere to it. This may help: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body. It explains what the RCC understands by Paul's words (you still haven't helped me to find the exact words you claimed to be citing) about the "spiritual" body. It's the same body people go to the tomb in, but it lasts eternally, and doesn't go off.

How many of them could never change their claims in the way that the entire history of religious claims has always done, or be superseded by other clergy who just claim they had always leaned towards the new interpretation?

That would of course happen, or be attempted. But the (hypothetical and improbable) discovery of physical remains of Jesus would initially, at the very least, cause immense problems.

May I point out to you that it is in matters of physical reality that ideologies may be refuted? The Church makes claims that are unfalsifiable, because they relate to no physical reality that can be observed or rebutted. But in recent times Pius XII asserted the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. That means her body is in Heaven. If it was ever discovered on earth, all hell would break loose in the Catholic Church!

 

[zugzwang]

Presumably, then, the Assumption of Mary is meant to be a foretaste of our future? However, I think many Protestants do not accept this doctrine. But it seems to show that heaven is both spiritual and physical, doesn't it? And I suppose that Paul would agree with that.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

Thank you for your research into this. I am sure what you say is true and important.

I join you in thanking Jayson for the vigor of his participation.

The resurrection of Jesus is, as I have cited some Christians saying, the defining characteristic of their faith. If it didn't happen, their "faith is in vain".

Which has not been disputed here. No passably alert person doubts that that is what Nicene Christians profess to believe, and the phrase you pointed to is easily recognized as Paul's. We may conjecture that having once relied on Paul, some people might turn to him again, should the need to do so ever arise.

Moreover, they define it as a physical resurrection. The Jesus who entered the tomb is the one who came out. The one who died is the one who came back to life.

Nor has that been disputed here either. The question has concerned what other body parts, besides a foreskin and dried bodily fluids (the sudarium of Oviedo), could a devout Nicene Christian believe continue to exist on Earth, while also believing that Jesus ascended into heaven, physically, in the same body as the body from which those parts of it were removed.

As we have repeatedly shown, a good deal of the problem is to clarify what the phrase "the same body" means when the phrase compares two different bodies, differently situated in place and time, with different physical and biological properties. This is not peculiarly a religious problem, but a matter of defining terms.

The grave of President Kennedy includes a feature that is called "a perpetual flame," singular. That is, since late 1963, a small flow of fuel has been continuously supplied to his gravesite. Each bolus of fuel, upon arrival, encounters a fire combining an earlier bolus with the then-surrounding air. If I go visit his grave, is that flame before me the same flame as was lit over 50 years ago, or is it the latest in a succession of flames, uncounted many of which have come and gone, each igniting its successor as its own fuel and air are exhausted, over and over?

There is no unique "objectively correct" answer to the question, excepting that the answer comport with any definition offered for the terms that are used. Absent a definition, either view is possible, because each is an objectively correct description of an aspect of the thing as it actually is.

ETA

It's the same body people go to the tomb in, but it lasts eternally, and doesn't go off.

Emphasis added.

And that's not a complete accounting of the differences, for example, the body most people go to the tomb in is dead, the later body isn't.

 

[pakeha]

The authors of the NT believed Jesus to be a real person. Paul believed Jesus to have been a real person recently alive on earth. Very importantly, they did not depict Jesus as a myth. The different authors of the NT books believed different things about Jesus, some of which were supernatural, or otherwise absurd. These beliefs are false. But there is discernible, and therefore possibly in part true, a non-supernatural core. It includes the baptism, preaching, visiting Jerusalem, and execution under Pilate. There are also things common to the Gospels that are supernatural, and can't be true. So elaboration started at an early date. But in this context it is to be noted that the original gMark has no resurrection story.

In general, Jesus becomes more exalted and supernatural with each successive NT account. It is more reasonable to explain the subsequent rise of Christianity by assuming a real Jesus than by assuming a mythical Jesus dwelling in the metaphysical sublunary region of Cloud Cuckoo Land, spiritually crucified by the Archontes of Woo, for the existence of which alleged myth there is even less evidence than for the HJ. [ . . . ]

"In general, Jesus becomes more exalted and supernatural with each successive NT account."
You're dating Paul's Christ the Redemptor after the short version of gMark?

 

[Craig B]

Craig Nor has that been disputed here either. The question has concerned what other body parts, besides a foreskin and dried bodily fluids (the sudarium of Oviedo), could a devout Nicene Christian believe continue to exist on Earth, while also believing that Jesus ascended into heaven, physically, in the same body as the body from which those parts of it were removed.

There is a good test for this. As relics, foreskins, umbilical cords and other separable objects, or fluids, as you say, have been venerated in many Roman and other churches, with the encouragement in many cases of the Pope, who, at least in principle, never objected to such cults save in particular cases of suspicions (very well founded, I must say) of inauthenticity of particular objects. There is a hilarious chapter on this in Roger Peyrefitte's novel Les clés de saint Pierre, written in a satirical tone, but containing accurate historical material.

But at no time that I can see has there been a single relic cult centred upon a bone, piece of skin or any internal organ of Jesus' body. And it is even ruled out, it appears.

Christian teaching generally states that Christ was assumed into heaven corporeally. Therefore the only parts of his body available for veneration are parts he had lost prior to the Ascension.

Wiki. It is of course this consideration that leads me to suppose that serious problems would be caused by the (improbable) discovery of his whole body. By extension, what is deemed to be true of Jesus' Ascension must apply to the doctrine of bodily resurrection in general.

The grave of President Kennedy includes a feature that is called "a perpetual flame," singular. That is, since late 1963, a small flow of fuel has been continuously supplied to his gravesite. Each bolus of fuel, upon arrival, encounters a fire combining an earlier bolus with the then-surrounding air. If I go visit his grave, is that flame before me the same flame as was lit over 50 years ago, or is it the latest in a succession of flames, uncounted many of which have come and gone, each igniting its successor as its own fuel and air are exhausted, over and over?

That is, a "living" flame. A living body is indeed like that. But a dead body is not, and it incorporates the latest state of the living body. I am reminded of the story about the tourist guide, telling a party of visitors: this is the skull of Oliver Cromwell. A tourist objects, but it is too small. It is a child's skull. To which the guide replies: It's Oliver Cromwell's skull when he was a child.

A flame is all fluid and gas and leaves no solid remnant on being extinguished, but a body has features that may last, in propitious conditions, for millennia; or may in other circumstances disappear in a short time, like the remains of Cardinal Newman.

 

[Craig B]

"In general, Jesus becomes more exalted and supernatural with each successive NT account."
You're dating Paul's Christ the Redemptor after the short version of gMark?

Give me the text from Paul you have in mind, please.

 

[pakeha]

There is a good test for this. As relics, foreskins, umbilical cords and other separable objects, or fluids, as you say, have been venerated in many Roman and other churches, with the encouragement in many cases of the Pope, who, at least in principle, never objected to such cults save in particular cases of suspicions (very well founded, I must say) of inauthenticity of particular objects. There is a hilarious chapter on this in Roger Peyrefitte's novel Les clés de saint Pierre, written in a satirical tone, but containing accurate historical material.

But at no time that I can see has there been a single relic cult centred upon a bone, piece of skin or any internal organ of Jesus' body. And it is even ruled out, it appears. Wiki. It is of course this consideration that leads me to suppose that serious problems would be caused by the (improbable) discovery of his whole body. By extension, what is deemed to be true of Jesus' Ascension must apply to the doctrine of bodily resurrection in general. That is, a "living" flame. A living body is indeed like that. But a dead body is not, and it incorporates the latest state of the living body. I am reminded of the story about the tourist guide, telling a party of visitors: this is the skull of Oliver Cromwell. A tourist objects, but it is too small. It is a child's skull. To which the guide replies: It's Oliver Cromwell's skull when he was a child.

A flame is all fluid and gas and leaves no solid remnant on being extinguished, but a body has features that may last, in propitious conditions, for millennia; or may in other circumstances disappear in a short time, like the remains of Cardinal Newman.

Thanks for the heads-up about the novel.

Actually, I know that in Antwerp, the cathedral has a chapel with stained glass commissioned and paid for eek by Henry VII to house the (or a) Holy Prepuce brought back from the Crusades.
Wiki tells us

In 1426 a brotherhood was founded in the cathedral "van der heiliger Besnidenissen ons liefs Heeren Jhesu Cristi in onser liever Vrouwen Kercke t' Antwerpen"; its 24 members were all abbots and prominent laymen. The relic disappeared in 1566, but the chapel still exists

Would this count as a cult "[ . . . ]centred upon a bone, piece of skin or any internal organ of Jesus' body"?

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

There's no discussion of persistence philosophy found in the creeds or articles of the major branches of Christianity, and those whom I discussed reflected no acceptance of the notion, but did indicate perceiving the event has troubling.

Ian,

No, I did not talk to millions.
I have been around several hundred through my life who did follow the same perspective as what I found in my recent inquiries, and their various articles align with these rigid views.

Further, I cannot convey how many sermons and lessons I have had to endure regarding 'our faith' restingupon this matter, and that no one has ever found Jesus' remains is proof of his ascension.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight bits and Craig,

Thank you for the compliments; I hope to be helpful.