Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

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


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

No. Foreskins are cut from Jewish boys on the eighth day of their lives. That is the point of this discussion. Jesus necessarily had to leave his foreskin behind when he ascended. The same applies to his umbilical cord, which has been claimed as a relic by several churches; in particular and at present, S John Lateran in Rome.

In around 1950 Pope Pius XII reinforced an existing ban on all and any discussion of the Holy Foreskin, which had started to expose the church to ridicule. Quite recently the last known example disappeared from the church in Calcata, Lazio, where it was an object of local veneration. The local parish priest, who is suspect no. 1, refused to investigate the theft, citing the pontifical prohibition on discussion of the matter. Thus the church deals with thorny problems. But I don't think it would get off as easily if the body of Jesus (even sans foreskin) were to turn up!

I am twenty minutes or so from that cathedral in Antwerp as a write this, and I may go there, but they charge a steep entry fee to get into the cathedral at all, which I object to in the case of an active church, atheist that I am.

ETA I have just found a reasonable discussion of these matters at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcata, which expands on, and corrects, what I have written above.

 

[IanS]

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.

Then you have spent far too much of your life listening to the superstitious imaginary nonsense of religious belief.

But the very priests and others who are persuading you of their belief, do not actually know themselves what they mean when they talk of Jesus being resurrected and ascending to heaven!

They do not know what they mean, because they are invoking miracles which they cannot explain. When or if they say that Jesus is resurrected in a human body which is the same body he had when living on earth, they actually do not know what they themselves mean by saying that! Ask them how that can happen and how that same body ascends to heaven. After a lot of pompous and utterly vacuous huffing and puffing in obscurantist language, they will eventually have to tell you it’s a miracle which nobody can explain. They do not have any explanation!

They do not have any explanation of what it means to say a human body rises from the dead, speaks to people from the skies, and ascends to heaven. They don’t know what sort of “human body” could do that, or how it could ever happen. They are telling you they believe it was the same human body, but they don’t actually know what they mean by saying that, because they are simultaneously telling you that the same body is now supernatural, and they have absolutely no explanation for the supernatural!

They just have no idea what they mean by their own words when they make these claims which you apparently believe. They just end up saying “God moves in mysterious ways, it’s all a miracle, and nobody can understand it”.

What they say is complete garbage, and so is the entire subject. And if I were you I’d cut my losses now and spend my valuable time studying something a bit more honest and rather more important.

 

[Brainache]

Then you have spent far too much of your life listening to the superstitious imaginary nonsense of religious belief.

But the very priests and others who are persuading you of their belief, do not actually know themselves what they mean when they talk of Jesus being resurrected and ascending to heaven!

They do not know what they mean, because they are invoking miracles which they cannot explain. When or if they say that Jesus is resurrected in a human body which is the same body he had when living on earth, they actually do not know what they themselves mean by saying that! Ask them how that can happen and how that same body ascends to heaven. After a lot of pompous and utterly vacuous huffing and puffing in obscurantist language, they will eventually have to tell you it’s a miracle which nobody can explain. They do not have any explanation!

They do not have any explanation of what it means to say a human body rises from the dead, speaks to people from the skies, and ascends to heaven. They don’t know what sort of “human body” could do that, or how it could ever happen. They are telling you they believe it was the same human body, but they don’t actually know what they mean by saying that, because they are simultaneously telling you that the same body is now supernatural, and they have absolutely no explanation for the supernatural!

They just have no idea what they mean by their own words when they make these claims which you apparently believe. They just end up saying “God moves in mysterious ways, it’s all a miracle, and nobody can understand it”.

What they say is complete garbage, and so is the entire subject. And if I were you I’d cut my losses now and spend my valuable time studying something a bit more honest and rather more important.

Jayson can speak for himself, but this type of argument really annoys me. Just because Jayson understands and can explain Christian beliefs, does not mean that he shares those beliefs. He has stated in this thread that he is Atheist, so that means he doesn't believe it.

He was trying to explain to you why the mainstream Christian denominations would have a problem if anyone found the bones of Jesus.

Just as they all have a problem with the idea that Jesus was just a rebel Rabbi who got nailed up by the Romans and stayed dead (ie: The HJ).

 

[Craig B]

Then you have spent far too much of your life listening to the superstitious imaginary nonsense of religious belief.

But the very priests and others who are persuading you of their belief, do not actually know themselves what they mean when they talk of Jesus being resurrected and ascending to heaven!

Can you not appreciate how such verbiage, and other expressions in the same tone, incline others, or at least myself, to believe that your refusal to read the NT is inspired by hostility to religion? And that you may have permitted this aversion unwarrantedly to influence your views on the historicity of Jesus?

What they say is complete garbage, and so is the entire subject. And if I were you I’d cut my losses now and spend my valuable time studying something a bit more honest and rather more important.

Should you not follow your own advice, and apply to yourself what you recommend to others?

 

[pakeha]

No. Foreskins are cut from Jewish boys on the eighth day of their lives. That is the point of this discussion. Jesus necessarily had to leave his foreskin behind when he ascended. The same applies to his umbilical cord, which has been claimed as a relic by several churches; in particular and at present, S John Lateran in Rome.

In around 1950 Pope Pius XII reinforced an existing ban on all and any discussion of the Holy Foreskin, which had started to expose the church to ridicule. Quite recently the last known example disappeared from the church in Calcata, Lazio, where it was an object of local veneration. The local parish priest, who is suspect no. 1, refused to investigate the theft, citing the pontifical prohibition on discussion of the matter. Thus the church deals with thorny problems. But I don't think it would get off as easily if the body of Jesus (even sans foreskin) were to turn up!

I am twenty minutes or so from that cathedral in Antwerp as a write this, and I may go there, but they charge a steep entry fee to get into the cathedral at all, which I object to in the case of an active church, atheist that I am.

ETA I have just found a reasonable discussion of these matters at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcata, which expands on, and corrects, what I have written above.

Gottit.
I'd have thought the empty tomb and bodily resurrection beliefs sufficient to inhibite an inevitable relick trade, but Constantine's Mum found an enterprising local willing to jump-start the cash-flow from the gullible.
Nothing, but nothing was too outlandish for the pilgrim trade, was it?
Except, as you say dibs and dabs purporting to be from Jesus' body, other than the Sudarium in Oviedo and the bloody cloth in Bruges. And the veronicas.

How steep is steep?
I'd reckon those stained glass windows Henry VII actually paid for would be worth seeing, if they're intact and original. I find the idea Henry VII ever paid for something without obtaining a substantial benefit fascinating. I wonder what the story was behind that donation, other than getting bragging rights in Antwerp.

ETA And why would he need bragging rights there or anywhere else? He'd conquered the English crown, married a York princess and had two bonny princes to follow him. A strange little incident in European history.
Meh.

 

[Craig B]

I'd reckon those stained glass windows Henry VII actually paid for would be worth seeing, if they're intact and original. I find the idea Henry VII ever paid for something without obtaining a substantial benefit fascinating. I wonder what the story was behind that donation, other than getting bragging rights in Antwerp.

ETA And why would he need bragging rights there or anywhere else? He'd conquered the English crown, married a York princess and had two bonny princes to follow him. A strange little incident in European history.
Meh.

Not mere "bragging"; more likely something to do with this.

After the silting up of the Zwin and the consequent decline of Bruges, the city of Antwerp, then part of the Duchy of Brabant, gained in importance. At the end of the 15th century the foreign trading houses were transferred from Bruges to Antwerp, and the building assigned to the English nation is specifically mentioned in 1510.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp
The windows were donated in 1503.

 

[dejudge]

Jayson can speak for himself, but this type of argument really annoys me. Just because Jayson understands and can explain Christian beliefs, does not mean that he shares those beliefs. He has stated in this thread that he is Atheist, so that means he doesn't believe it.

He was trying to explain to you why the mainstream Christian denominations would have a problem if anyone found the bones of Jesus.

Just as they all have a problem with the idea that Jesus was just a rebel Rabbi who got nailed up by the Romans and stayed dead (ie: The HJ).

Of course mainstream Christian denominations would have no problem if it is found out their Jesus in the NT never existed.

And HJers will have no problem if they never find any pre 70 CE evidence for their assumed Rabbi and cult.

As the evidence stands only the HJ argument is in trouble.

1. Christians who believe the Bible claim their Jesus bodily resurrected and ascended hence no remains will ever be found.

2. MJers argue that the Christian Jesus had NO body [Never existed] so no remains will ever be found.

HJers continue to look for the remains of their HJ for over 250 years without success. The Quest for an HJ is still on-going.

How are they going to find the remains of their HJ when they don't even know his real name, his real father, his mother, when he died, where he died, and how he died?

According to Celsus, in Origen's Against Celsus, it was claimed that Jesus was a Magician whose father was a Soldier called Panthera--NOT Joseph.

Why are HJers looking for the remains of a Rebel Rabbi when it was claimed Jesus was a Magician who preformed Magic tricks?

Jesus was NOT really crucified--it was a trick.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

Thus the matter was contrived as a mockery; the earnestness shown was mere play-acting.
He who had had no passion was solemnly parading within the Praetorium as if He had had it and conquered it; some criminal had been delivered over to the cross in His stead ; a trick had taken place in a court of law. He whom they had seized had got His freedom by a cunning device, and a form of jugglery.

HJers have massive problems.

They don't know anything about their Jesus and have failed to find any actual credible evidence or remains of their imagined HJ.

Why do HJers believe the Jesus of Faith was really real when they don't have any evidence?

 

[Brainache]

Of course mainstream Christian denominations would have no problem if it is found out their Jesus in the NT never existed.

And HJers will have no problem if they never find any pre 70 CE evidence for their assumed Rabbi and cult.

As the evidence stands only the HJ argument is in trouble.

1. Christians who believe the Bible claim their Jesus bodily resurrected and ascended hence no remains will ever be found.

2. MJers argue that the Christian Jesus had NO body [Never existed] so no remains will ever be found.

HJers continue to look for the remains of their HJ for over 250 years without success. The Quest for an HJ is still on-going.

How are they going to find the remains of their HJ when they don't even know his real name, his real father, his mother, when he died, where he died, and how he died?

According to Celsus, in Origen's Against Celsus, it was claimed that Jesus was a Magician whose father was a Soldier called Panthera--NOT Joseph.

Why are HJers looking for the remains of a Rebel Rabbi when it was claimed Jesus was a Magician who preformed Magic tricks?

Jesus was NOT really crucified--it was a trick.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

HJers have massive problems.

They don't know anything about their Jesus and have failed to find any actual credible evidence or remains of their imagined HJ.

Why do HJers believe the Jesus of Faith was really real when they don't have any evidence?

How does any of that moronic gibberish address what I said?

Your argument is imbecilic, please get a better one.

 

[Craig B]

HJers continue to look for the remains of their HJ for over 250 years without success. The Quest for an HJ is still on-going.

How are they going to find the remains of their HJ when they don't even know his real name, his real father, his mother, when he died, where he died, and how he died?

According to Celsus, in Origen's Against Celsus, it was claimed that Jesus was a Magician whose father was a Soldier called Panthera--NOT Joseph.

Why are HJers looking for the remains of a Rebel Rabbi when it was claimed Jesus was a Magician who preformed Magic tricks?

Jesus was NOT really crucified--it was a trick.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

HJers have massive problems.

They don't know anything about their Jesus and have failed to find any actual credible evidence or remains of their imagined HJ.

Why do HJers believe the Jesus of Faith was really real when they don't have any evidence?

If you don't believe the earliest sources contain any information whatsoever, how can you possibly treat people like Celsus as dependable? This is a bit crazy, dejudge.

 

[maximara]

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.

This ignores the Euhemeristic mind set of the time period in question:

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, First Apology [21:30]

Clement of Alexandria's triumphant cry in Cohortatio ad gentes of "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves" is another example.

In the fourth century Eusebius accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos. (Preparation of the Gospel (10.12))

This Euhemeristic mind set can be found in the early 20st century as well: "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods."



Most of the followers of John Frum from 1957 to today believe him to be literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision in the 1930. The best history can come up with is three natives in the 1940-1947 period using that name and several other calling themselves the 'sons of John Frum' NONE of whom match the oral picture of the mainstream cult. So you have a total disconnect between possible founder history records and the cult's image of their founder in a roughly the same amount of time between Jesus and Paul.

Belief that someone existed is not proof they existed. There are a lot of people that still believe in the Pope Joan myth; doesn't mean there really was a Pope Joan.

 

[pakeha]

Not mere "bragging"; more likely something to do with this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp
The windows were donated in 1503.

Sounds liking bragging rights to me. But in any any case, the windows are there.

I had no idea Antwerp was the sugar capital of Europe. Vaya.

 

[IanS]

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. .

You are again stating that as if it were a known fact. But it is by no means clear that Paul thought Jesus was a normal human preacher.

Earl Doherty, and now also Richard Carrier, have both written several books explaining at great length and in great detail why they think Paul actually thought of Jesus as some sort of spiritual messenger of Yahweh, who had never actually been on the earth.

Before that, Ellegard had also reached an essentially similar conclusion when simply pointing out that everything that Paul’s says about “the Christ” is really theological, and not actually a description of what Paul knew to be a human preacher on earth.

I don’t know to what extent Carrier and Doherty are right in their very detailed explanation of Paul believing that Jesus was a spiritual form, crucified in a lower level of the heavens etc. But the point is that they have made a very extensive case for that, complete with a lot of academic references to support it. So, at the very least, it’s not correct to simply state that Paul believed Jesus was a real person, as if that were an incontestable fact.

Certainly, Paul never knew Jesus. Or rather, the writers of the late copied mss that we have as "Paul", did not know Jesus. And that Pauline writer did not ever mention anyone else ever knowing or seeing a human Jesus either. In fact, Paul’s entire message about Jesus was really just to say that “Christ died and rose on the third” day, and he says he knew that by divine “revelation from the lord himself” and “according to scripture”, not because he or anyone else had ever told him about meeting any earthly messiah called Jesus.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

I sympathize with the frustration that can be caused from working with religious logic, indeed, their belief is as it stands in spite of any logic to you, myself, or anyone who may not agree with the logic of their articles, creeds, and their collective understanding of those.

In that spite, indeed, rests their faith regardless of our admiration of its rationality in comparison to any text; they remain set as they are, and capable of impact consequently.


As to myself; don't worry about me. I don't consider myself to be waisting time.

Most of my studies are in Ancient Middle East anthropology, and not specifically Christian theology itself (for instance, I'm not quite as versed in Christian apologetics of the Medieval period in great detail, and especially not very well in the Renaissance period).

I study for the enjoyment of fascination and inquiry, but I don't really study Christianity.

I did, for a number of years, spend a considerable amount of time studying Christianity due to being raised in it and finding no real satisfaction in the belief I was raised in really ever.
I wanted to be certain that there was not some variation within reasonably thorough search which would offer meditative respite without ethical or logical conflict. I found none capable of enduring such test, so after trying several variations I changed religions entirely to satisfy the curiosity that I had missed some other form which would work.
After Hinduism, Buddhism, and neo-druidism, I found nothing remarkable in satisfaction; only lots of overly complicated personifications of ontological existence with constructs of propositions for how to leverage best one's relationship to the personified ontology.

However, even having gone through this for a large part of my early life, I do not consider that it was ever a wate of my life.
It was an incredible array of experiences and education culturally.

Further, being so diversely immersed eventually offered me a perspective of critiquing religion as a behavioral function and to begin to examine the neuroscience of the human and reflect upon the systemic functions of the varied ritualized actions (what I have labeled, "proanisotropic" - that is, 'that which is immaterially for the provocation of an ontological experience').

Without going greatly into length further; my end result could be said to be like Bruce Lee's end result of formed and rigid martial arts surveying.
Where he walked away from those and decided that a sampling of that whichever works best for the efficiency of the individual body is the best martial art (meaning; no such thing as a singular form), I likewise find the same is applicable to ontological pursuits.

To my view, religions and their various beliefs are like tendons; leverage for movement.
The difference, as I see it, is that such movement is emotionally and psychologically centered around an ontological dance.

I consider, as a result, religions to be ontological art forms, and I find no real drawback to studying art.


These days, however, I do spend more time studying the ancient anthropology instead of the general function of ontological reverence in human behavior.

Either way, I am assured to not be wasting my time.
If I did not spend it on such topics as these, I would spend it on something someone else would consider a waste of time (like, the entropic relationship of the universe and pressure tension models, plasma bombs and their odd relationship to light sabers, cinematography, the foundation of Western music in Grecian scientific proofs, and several other like valued concepts).

 

[dejudge]

As the evidence stands only the HJ argument is in trouble.

1. Christians who believe the Bible claim their Jesus bodily resurrected and ascended hence no remains will ever be found.

2. MJers argue that the Christian Jesus had NO body [Never existed] so no remains will ever be found.

HJers continue to look for the remains of their HJ for over 250 years without success. The Quest for an HJ is still on-going.

How are they going to find the remains of their HJ when they don't even know his real name, his real father, his mother, when he died, where he died, and how he died?

According to Celsus, in Origen's Against Celsus, it was claimed that Jesus was a Magician whose father was a Soldier called Panthera--NOT Joseph.

Why are HJers looking for the remains of a Rebel Rabbi when it was claimed Jesus was a Magician who preformed Magic tricks?

Jesus was NOT really crucified--it was a trick.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

Thus ]the matter was contrived as a mockery; the earnestness shown was mere play-acting.

He who had had no passion was solemnly parading within the Praetorium as if He had had it and conquered it; some criminal had been delivered over to the cross in His stead ; a trick had taken place in a court of law. He whom they had seized had got His freedom by a cunning device, and a form of jugglery.

HJers have massive problems.

They don't know anything about their Jesus and have failed to find any actual credible evidence or remains of their imagined HJ.

Why do HJers believe the Jesus of Faith was really real when they don't have any evidence?

How does any of that moronic gibberish address what I said?

Your argument is imbecilic, please get a better one.

The HJ argument is tantamount to moronic gibberish.

The HJ argument is IMBECILIC and cannot get better because of lack of evidence from antiquity.

HJers seem to have forgotten that in writings of antiquity there were Multiple versions of the supposed Jesus character.

HJers have NO idea who they are looking for.

Are they looking for Jesus the son of Panthera, the son of Joseph, Jesus the son of Ananus, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the son of Pandera, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the Rabbi, Jesus the high Priest, Jesus the Criminal, Jesus of Bethlehem.....

The HJ argument is in complete confusion.

 

[Craig B]

Sounds liking bragging rights to me. But in any any case, the windows are there.

I had no idea Antwerp was the sugar capital of Europe. Vaya.

Belgium is big in sugar beet.

 

[pakeha]

Belgium is big in sugar beet.

True, but Antwerp became the sugar capital of Europe because of the Spanish and Portuguese importations, if wiki is to be trusted.

 

[dejudge]

If you don't believe the earliest sources contain any information whatsoever, how can you possibly treat people like Celsus as dependable? This is a bit crazy, dejudge.

I am extremely happy that you talk about 'crazy'.

If you call Paul a Liar and discredit the NT how can you possibly use the NT as a source of history for your Jesus?

You talk about 'crazy'?

You claim that the depiction of Jesus is NOT mythical in the NT when it states he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Keep talking!!!

 

[Craig B]

You are again stating that as if it were a known fact. But it is by no means clear that Paul thought Jesus was a normal human preacher.

Earl Doherty, and now also Richard Carrier, have both written several books explaining at great length and in great detail why they think Paul actually thought of Jesus as some sort of spiritual messenger of Yahweh, who had never actually been on the earth.

An enumeration of such things I read recently lists Paul's statements about Jesus:

Jesus died for our sins by crucifixion and was then raised from the dead three days later, according to prophecy. He was seen by many after the resurrection. He was a descendant of David, he was betrayed, he defined a bread and wine ritual for his followers, and the Jews killed him.

We may add Galatians 4

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

These are all (and they aren't much, I agree) statements appropriate to describe a human being living on earth. If God wants to send his son to be born under the law and to redeem people born under the law, where does he send him? The mystical sublunary domain? No, to earth of course, where these unredeemed people dwell. If Jesus was resurrected, as the "first fruit" of resurrection, it must have happened where the "later fruit" are to be found: humans on earth. Nothing else makes any sense. 1 Cor 15:23

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

His coming where? Where the men in the later "order" of resurrection are now present. Here on earth.

 

[Craig B]

True, but Antwerp became the sugar capital of Europe because of the Spanish and Portuguese importations, if wiki is to be trusted.

In the 1560s the Low Countries rebelled against Spain and this trade was intercepted. Also the Holy Foreskin disappeared during rioting in the city in 1566. Then Dutch control of the mouth of the River Scheldt cut Antwerp off from the sea until 1863. Things are better now.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

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.

Yes, I think we could make a textual argument that the "transformation" occurs on Earth, before any flight, it certainly seems that way in Paul, for example. Jesus tells the Magdalene he hasn't even visited Dad yet, much less flown The Ascension. Also, although it wasn't explicitly part of the hypothetical, I think the idea was that these bones would be found on Earth, which would be at least suggestive that they were last in service here.

Jesus necessarily had to leave his foreskin behind when he ascended.

Says who? "Same body" had a foreskin as oriignal issue. He'd rather be cut, perhaps as a public health measure? Cool. But there is no "necessarily" about it. There's a new covenant now anyway. And if he chose to leave some parts behind, then he can choose to leave others behind as well. He is freakin' God, for Christ's sake. Or he will be within a generation or two. RHIP.

The same applies to his umbilical cord, ...

That's a harder call. His Mom may have dibs on that. As you'll recall, and zugzwang reminded the board, Catholics and EO's think she's been resurrected on the same terms as her son. So, I'd want to see the paperwork on the cord, and on the placenta if you've got it.

Also, the point is not whether the relics are genuine, the point is that belief in their genuineness coincided with devout Nicene profession. This experiment has already been done. The Pope's reluctance was because the idea of exhibiting Jesus' foreskin exposed the church to ridicule, unsurprisingly, not because its existence conflicted with what is possible with God.

... it incorporates the latest state of the living body ...

Say what? Doesn't John tell us that Jesus' body has surgical mutilation inflicted after death? Yes, he does. The latest state of the living body had no chest wound. Nevertheless, Thomas found one (I'm thinking what he actually found was a scar, BTW, if Jesus is still an air-breather, holes in the chest suck... if you see what I mean.)