Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The difference of course is that the people you cited were all from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century, unlike Paul who was 1st century.

Your statement is a well established fallacy. The earliest manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

The Pauline Corpus is a complation of forgeries, false attribution, fiction, and implausibility. The Pauline writings were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

You don't know who really wrote any Epistle under the name of Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Your arguments are stupid and insulting to anyone who has actually studied the subject.

Brainache, your own words are applicable to you, "Your arguments are stupid and insulting to anyone who has actually studied the subject".
.
Your HJ argument is baseless, and unevidenced. Every single story of Jesus and Paul are NO earlier than the 2nd century or later and NO contemporary non-Apologetic writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus of the tribe of Benjamin.

I wish you could see how stupid your posts look to everyone else. It might make you stop and think.

Again, Brainache, you refer to yourself, "I wish you could see how stupid your posts look to everyone else. It might make you stop and think.

It is a failure of logic to assume that the Pauline Corpus is credible while you simultaneously admit Paul was a Liar and when the Pauline writers were known liars for hundreds of years.

 

[dejudge]

Your statement is a well established fallacy. The earliest manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

The Pauline Corpus is a complation of forgeries, false attribution, fiction, and implausibility. The Pauline writings were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

You don't know who really wrote any Epistle under the name of Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Your HJ argument is baseless, and unevidenced. Every single story of Jesus and Paul are NO earlier than the 2nd century or later and NO contemporary non-Apologetic writer of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus of the tribe of Benjamin.

It is a failure of logic to assume that the Pauline Corpus is credible while you simultaneously admit Paul was a Liar and when the Pauline writers were known liars for hundreds of years.

Please stop making these stupid posts, you're not going to convince anyone with this ridiculous posturing. It is truly pathetic and embarrassing.

Braianache, your own words apply to you, "Please stop making these stupid posts, you're not going to convince anyone with this ridiculous posturing. It is truly pathetic and embarrassing".

You don't even know the name of your assumed HJ. Your invented Rabbi was NOT the Lord Jesus in the Bible.

The Lord Jesus was NOT a man. See Galatians 1.1.

Your invented Rabbi has NO known history.

Your invented Rabbi is a Hoax because you knew in advance that you NEVER EVER had any actual contemporary evidence.

Jesus called Rabbi in gJohn and gMatthew was the Son of God Born of a Ghost and God Creator.

John 1:49 KJV

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

 

[Brainache]

Braianache, your own words apply to you, "Please stop making these stupid posts, you're not going to convince anyone with this ridiculous posturing. It is truly pathetic and embarrassing".

You don't even know the name of your assumed HJ. Your invented Rabbi was NOT the Lord Jesus in the Bible.

The Lord Jesus was NOT a man. See Galatians 1.1.

Your invented Rabbi has NO known history.

Your invented Rabbi is a Hoax because you knew in advance that you NEVER EVER had any actual contemporary evidence.

Jesus called Rabbi in gJohn and gMatthew was the Son of God Born of a Ghost and God Creator.

John 1:49 KJV

This argument is not getting any smarter by repeating it.

The idea Historians just repeat what ancient texts say and call it "History" is just too stupid to bother arguing about with you.

 

[proudfootz]

Not fad, proudfootz, not fad.
Mainstream scholarship's consensual opinion is the technical expression, IIRC.

Exactly.

 

[proudfootz]

Are you saying that the human brain is somehow special and that we need religion to explain that specialness?

Just as there is a God-shaped hole in our souls when we dismiss theistic claims, there will be a Jesus-shaped hole in history if it turns out there never was a Jesus in real life.

 

[proudfootz]

We don’t need to "interpret" those expressions. They are perfectly clear as written. Paul says in very direct and explicit terms that his gospel of “Christ died and risen” is known to him “from no man”, but instead by “revelation of the lord” “according to scripture”. There is no interpretation required there.

I am not averse to reading what is said in the NT. Indeed we have discussed every relevant NT passage in these various HJ threads, literally thousands of times!

But what I say about the gospels (as distinct from Paul’s letters), is that they are filled with too many untrue claims to be taken as credible reliable evidence, from unknown late copyist authors, none of who ever claimed to have known Jesus or any of the other characters involved.

Clearly the texts in question need quite a bit of massaging in order to make them fit the historical Jesus hypothesis.

 

[Craig B]

What you have to believe accept is those sentences in Paul letter very clearly and quite insistently say that "Paul" obtained his gospel of "Christ risen on the third day", not from anyone telling him about it, and not from any human origin, but as he specifically says "by revelation from the lord" and "according to scripture".

There really can be no argument about that. And you cannot go around inventing otherwise by claiming to have "interpreted" it.

What sentences do I have to believe?

 

[dejudge]

This argument is not getting any smarter by repeating it.

The idea Historians just repeat what ancient texts say and call it "History" is just too stupid to bother arguing about with you.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have confirmed you have LITTLE knowledge of Scholarship.

You have conveniently forgotten that there may be hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian Scholars who worship Jesus as a God or argue that he was raised from the dead.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

Dr Dale Martin a professor at Yale admits he believes the Real Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and prays to Jesus while repeating the Nicene Creed.
In the Nicene Creed Jesus is GOD.

 

[tsig]

Clearly the texts in question need quite a bit of massaging in order to make them fit the historical Jesus hypothesis.

Other wise known as Historical Analysis, textual criticism and multiple attestations.

 

[IanS]

So we must believe these things that Paul said because they are too plain to need even to be interpreted; but every other statement from early sources is to be rejected in its entirety because it's by "late copyist authors".

What you have to believe accept is those sentences in Paul's letter very clearly and quite insistently say that "Paul" obtained his gospel of "Christ risen on the third day", not from anyone telling him about it, and not from any human origin, but as he specifically says "by revelation from the lord" and "according to scripture".

There really can be no argument about that. And you cannot go around inventing otherwise by claiming to have "interpreted" it.

What sentences do I have to believe?

Who said anything about “belief” ?

It was you who used the word “belief” , wasn’t it! (highlighted above for all to see).

 

[Craig B]

Who said anything about “belief” ?

It was you who used the word “belief” , wasn’t it! (highlighted above for all to see).

No, I used the word "believe". You used the expression believeaccept, but don't trouble to explain that. Just inform me what sentences I have to accept.

 

[IanS]

No, I used the word "believe". You used the expression believeaccept, ….

What is your complaint about that? What injustice do you think has been done to your words?

… but don't trouble to explain that. Just inform me what sentences I have to accept.

What you “have to should accept is that Paul’s letters unarguably say what I just quoted to you from 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16. What do you claim Paul says in those passages about the origin of his own belief in Christ?

 

[Brainache]

What is your complaint about that? What injustice do you think has been done to your words?






What you “have to should accept is that Paul’s letters unarguably say what I just quoted to you from 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16. What do you claim Paul says in those passages about the origin of his own belief in Christ?

But Paul isn't talking about his belief in Jesus' existence in those passages, he is talking about the message that he is passing along.

You really should learn the context before you continue with these ignorant musings of yours.

 

[pakeha]

Clearly the texts in question need quite a bit of massaging in order to make them fit the historical Jesus hypothesis.

Other wise known as Historical Analysis, textual criticism and multiple attestations.

Alas, even the best of carbon based life-forms is capable of forgetting the best criteria of all: the criteria of embarrassment.

 

[tsig]

Alas, even the best of carbon based life-forms is capable of forgetting the best criteria of all: the criteria of embarrassment.

True. "We know it must be true because it's embarrassing to them"

Problem is one generations' holy stories are the next generations' embarrassing anecdotes.

 

[pakeha]

Indeed.
The CoE seems to form part of the 'creating Jesus in my image' meme, doesn't it?

 

[jobberone]

Historicity in this context means an actual person not one that is a compilation of persons etc or an actual myth. Historical person is an assumed individual who actually lived with the history of their life a compilation based on historical methodology.

Looking beyond written or otherwise documented records is very commonplace including the study of cultures as well as an historical person important or not.

 

[Brainache]

Alas, even the best of carbon based life-forms is capable of forgetting the best criteria of all: the criteria of embarrassment.

True. "We know it must be true because it's embarrassing to them"

Problem is one generations' holy stories are the next generations' embarrassing anecdotes.

Indeed.
The CoE seems to form part of the 'creating Jesus in my image' meme, doesn't it?

Yes that's right guys, all those thousands of closely argued papers and years of Historical scholarship is all about this one minor part of the Historical Method. Nothing else goes into figuring out the past.

Historians just take one look then pour themselves a nice big brandy and put their feet up, secure in the knowledge that no one will check their work.

This is just insulting to a whole profession.

 

[pakeha]

Yes that's right guys, all those thousands of closely argued papers and years of Historical scholarship is all about this one minor part of the Historical Method. Nothing else goes into figuring out the past.

Historians just take one look then pour themselves a nice big brandy and put their feet up, secure in the knowledge that no one will check their work.

This is just insulting to a whole profession.

I'd go for the nice big brandy, but after I've returned from work.
Of course the CoE is a (deservedly) minor aspect of the historical method.

The carbon based life-form and I are simply reacting to having read far, far too many posts by apologists applying the CoE as though it provided evidence of an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

Yes that's right guys, all those thousands of closely argued papers and years of Historical scholarship is all about this one minor part of the Historical Method. Nothing else goes into figuring out the past.

Historians just take one look then pour themselves a nice big brandy and put their feet up, secure in the knowledge that no one will check their work.

This is just insulting to a whole profession.

Historians and Scholars also argue that Jesus was figure of mythology. Dr Richard Carrier, an historian, admits that Jesus was a Myth and Robert Eisenman admitted No-one has EVER solved the HJ question.

The fact that there is an On-going Quest is proof that NO-ONE has ever solved the HJ question after 250 years of multiple failures.

Jesus the Rabbi is un-evidenced in or out the NT.

Jesus the Rabbi is one of the worse explanation for Jesus story and cult.

What source of antiquity mentioned your HJ the Rabbi?

You can't remember?