Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

How did the myth form about Satan

Excellent question. Do you know the answer ? Was he ever supposed to have lived ? Do we have a clear lineage of texts mythicising him over time ?

 

[dejudge]

We know how the Myth Jesus was formed. It is documented.

After the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE a story was INVENTED that the Jews Killed the Son of their own God as the reason for the desolation of the Jews.

People who BELIEVED the story were called Christians.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, the author of Acts, the Pauline writers all claimed the Jews KILLED the Son of the God of the Jews.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,

How are you determining your conclusion about why these texts were created and who they were created by, Dejudge?

Again, I don't follow how you are drawing a conclusion that they were created by Egyptians, that they were created as mythology (a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes), created as a hoax (an act intended to deceive or trick), and created to justify or rationalize the desolation of the Jews.

Can you walk me through how you arrived at these conclusions in finite detail, step-by-step so I can perhaps understand your reasoning?

 

[proudfootz]

It doesn't AT ALL explain how the Jesus myth got started prior to Paul's co-opting of it, which is the entire point: if there is no Jesus-like founder, then how did this began ?

Goal-posts in motion!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10029367&postcount=7702

To which I responded:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10029708&postcount=7713

Now, if you want to argue only Paul is capable of reading scriptures and having visions, go for it.

Otherwise, it is a perfectly sensible answer.

And most likely one you knew before you asked your question.

 

[maximara]

It doesn't AT ALL explain how the Jesus myth got started prior to Paul's co-opting of it, which is the entire point: if there is no Jesus-like founder, then how did this began ?

Goal-posts in motion!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10029367&postcount=7702

To which I responded:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10029708&postcount=7713

Now, if you want to argue only Paul is capable of reading scriptures and having visions, go for it.

Otherwise, it is a perfectly sensible answer.

And most likely one you knew before you asked your question.

Belz is playing dumb:

Alright but, in the specific case of Jeebus, how can you be sure it's myth if you don't even know how the myth formed, as opposed to knowing it's not historical because you don't know how the history formed ?

The answer to this has been posted more then enough times:

"Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events" (Oxford online dictionary)

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination." - (Remsburg The Christ)

 

[eight bits]

pakeha, maybe Jason, ...

Anyway, a few more words about Alexandria and the Christian school there. I think there are interesting developments in Christianity going on, but I have more questions than answers.

Part of the trouble with a hard date for the founding is that the school may have been organized and sponsored dfferently over time. I like a Second Century date, but there could easily have been "open" Christian teaching in the late First Century - Alexandria was a happenin' kind of place - and hey, why not Mark? Somebody wrote that book, it is suitable for use as a textbook, and Alexandria might have been a good destination for somebody with a textbook to sell.

I am unsure when Christian practice became at all "closed." There could have been widespread open teaching during the First Century. There's nothing in Paul, or retrospectivelty in Acts, that suggests anything early on except a thorough willingness to speak up, to whatever audience. 1 Cornthians 14: 22-25 seems to indicate a public, exoteric church "service"

Thus, tongues are a sign not for those who believe but for unbelievers, whereas prophecy is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone, and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, “God is really in your midst.”

But the Didache (hard to date, likely composite, but much of it "early") has (at chapter 9)

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Which suggests at least a partially closed service (the eucharistic portion) had developed, and that there is a formal ritual qualification to attend that part, baptism. Paul did practice baptism, so maybe there is no real change here. Anyway, we know from Pliny that by the early Second Century, some of the church is a fully "secret society," so that for a non-believer even to know what goes on at a closed performance requires aggressive inquiry.

And then later in the Second Century, we have open teaching again at Alexandria. That remains available in the face of persecution. It is interesting that law enforcement strategy by then focuses on converts, rather than dragnetting all adherents (compare Pliny's letter). Maybe that policy influences the instructional market - you can teach secular subjects and even "Christianity as Philosophy" but cannot openly evangelize non-adherents. So, while the academy is an overt Christian propaganda factory, what it cranks out openly is legal stuff, not "recruiting."

I don't know whether or not there is that cause-and-effect relationship. It would be ironic, though, if one of the prominent features of modern Christianity, the general education academy, was orignally an adaptation to some persecutors' eradication plans.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge,

How are you determining your conclusion about why these texts were created and who they were created by, Dejudge?

Again, I don't follow how you are drawing a conclusion that they were created by Egyptians, that they were created as mythology (a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes), created as a hoax (an act intended to deceive or trick), and created to justify or rationalize the desolation of the Jews.

Can you walk me through how you arrived at these conclusions in finite detail, step-by-step so I can perhaps understand your reasoning?

Please, get familiar with the writings of antiquity about the Jesus story.

These are the fundamental facts.

1. In writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius up to c 115 CE it is admitted that the Jews BELIEVED their Prophesied Jewish Messiah was ALIVE c 66-70 CE and was fighting AGAINST the Romans and would become RULER of the habitable earth.

2. From the 2nd century or later in writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Eusebius, the author of Acts, Pauline writers, Chrysostom and others it is claimed that the JEWS KILLED the Son of their OWN God and that was the reason for the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.

3. The claim that the JEWS KILLED the Son of God MUST be a known LIE to the inventor. Humans beings cannot kill Gods--they never existed.

4. Apologetic writers like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian and Irenaeus mentioned by NAME Egyptian CULTS with stories of Jesus like the Basilidians, Cerinthians and Valentinians.

5. The authors of the Canonised Gospels are all Fakes.

6. The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of up to seven FAKE authors.

7. No recovered manuscripts of the story of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus have been found and dated to the 1st century.

8. No recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus have been found in the Hebrew language.

9. Multiple 2nd century or later Apologetic authors do not show any influence by the Pauline Corpus, and the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection].

10. It is from the 2nd century or later that non-Apologetic mentioned Christians who worshiped a crucified man as a God.

11. Non-Apologetics in the 2nd century do NOT mention Paul but know stories of Jesus.

12. Non-Apologetics mention Jesus and Paul starting around the 4th century.

13. Virtually all Apologetics mention Jesus and Paul starting around the 4th century.

The Jesus story, the Gospel, was developed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

The Jesus story was NOT written by Jews--they are all Fake.

It was the Egyptians WHO TAUGHT the early stories of Jesus.


Hippolytus "Refutation of All Heresies"

These, then, are the legends which likewise Basilides details after his sojourn in Egypt; and being instructed by the (sages of this country) in so great a system of wisdom, (the heretic) produced fruits of this description.

Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies

But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians.......supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race).

 

[Belz...]

We know how the Myth Jesus was formed. It is documented.

After the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE a story was INVENTED that the Jews Killed the Son of their own God as the reason for the desolation of the Jews.

That's deliberately vague. Who's the son of their god ? Of course you'll say a ghost, but you have no solid reason to conclude this.

 

[Belz...]

Belz is playing dumb:

Et tu, brute ?

Of course, if you can't convince someone, he is either dumb, or playing dumb.

Speaking of things answered before, you know full well what is meant by "myth" in this context, and a human Jesus preaching and living and being killed but without any magical element isn't part of that.

 

[Craig B]

HJers today believe Jesus was really real even though it is claimed he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Early Christians believed the very same thing.

HAers today believe Alexander was really real even though it is claimed that his Mum was bonked by a God in the form of a snake. Early polytheists believed the very same thing.

 

[maximara]

You are wrong. I am not playing dumb.

Yes you are by ignoring posts that addressed these points ages ago. (such as post 6338 in this very thread

The problem is we've already been through this: we know Paul didn't invent this cult. So who did ? That was my question: who did, and how, when, etc. ? That was my question months ago, so there is no goal posts moving. You're simply not following the conversation.

The same question could be said about Manehivi and the John Frum cargo cult and we don't know the answers there either.

As I have repeatedly said John Frum give us a real world baseline to work from and we know that there were would be Messiah's (ie Christs) before, during, and after the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Again the MJ is NOT just the "no man behind the myth" strawman people think it is. The Gospel Jesus could be a composite character ala Robin Hood with many people behind the myth. It would be more accurate to say the MJ is the idea that the stories regarding Jesus cannot be traced back to a single individual c30 CE who preached the message presented in the Gospels and was executed in the manner described within.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 and 1995 defined the MJ as the story of Jesus not being true NOT there is no man beyond the myth.

Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth both of which accept a HJ behind the Gospels are called MJ books by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd mainly because those books say Paul's Jesus was a mythical (in the legendary sense) being from a much earlier time.

Besides the "no man behind the myth" song and dance fails with the one of the most famous known fictional characters in the Western world: Sherlock Holmes. That is because Holmes was based on at least two and perhaps three flesh and blood men: Joseph Bell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Jerome Caminada. So even a fictional character may have a person behind them.

For all we know Paul latched on the name of some preacher he heard about while going after believers in a messiah that would come and literate them from Roman rule.

Paul's conversion is said to have occurred between 33–36 CE but based on the what can be gleamed from Josephus John the Baptist was beheaded in 36 CE and Jesus by the Gospels was still preaching...so Paul could have seen his crucified Jesus before the Gospel one got himself crucified. In fact this would be a variant of MJer John Robertson's 1900 idea that "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles."

In fact, this is where George Walsh's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." idea slams headlong into a brick wall. Say Paul converted in 33 CE and inspired a person to take up the name Jesus and preach ending with the guy being crucified by 36 CE and it is that person as well as several others the Gospels are based on. Here you have BOTH MJ and HJ in one little package...exactly is the case with Wells' Jesus Myth and later books (only his HJ doesn't get himself crucified)...which are called Christ Myth books.

As I said what we have for the mainline HJ is the equivalent of Robin Hood - a vague shadow composite character assigned a particular time that in fact may not be the time the source people actually lived in.

 

[proudfootz]

You are wrong. I am not playing dumb.

That's too bad.

The problem is we've already been through this: we know Paul didn't invent this cult. So who did ? That was my question: who did, and how, when, etc. ? That was my question months ago, so there is no goal posts moving. You're simply not following the conversation.

As I have explained already, I am aware that Paul did not invent messianism.

Nobody knows who did. We may never know.

The thing that has been pointed out time and time again that IF Paul is the earliest named writer of Jesus stories we can search for clues in what he writes.

What has also been pointed out for years and years is Paul's naming his sources of information: scripture and visions.

If Paul's version of messianism is like the cult he's supposed to have joined, then it could easily follow his predecessors used the same techniques.

Which elegantly explains why there is no mention of or interest in the supposed 'earthly ministry' of this Jesus.

Now, if you want to argue only Paul is capable of reading scriptures and having visions, go for it.

I have no idea why I'd argue anything like that.

Perhaps now that it has been explained to you again, perhaps you can appreciate why this is an obvious question to ask - if Paul can conjure up 'facts' about his savior using these methods, what prevents others from doing the same?

There are several possibilities:

1) they can

• 1a) they can and they did
• 1b) they can but they didn't

2) they can't

If others can't do what Paul did, my question is why not?

 

[proudfootz]

Yes you are by ignoring posts that addressed these points ages ago. (such as post 6338 in this very thread




The same question could be said about Manehivi and the John Frum cargo cult and we don't know the answers there either.

As I have repeatedly said John Frum give us a real world baseline to work from and we know that there were would be Messiah's (ie Christs) before, during, and after the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Again the MJ is NOT just the "no man behind the myth" strawman people think it is. The Gospel Jesus could be a composite character ala Robin Hood with many people behind the myth. It would be more accurate to say the MJ is the idea that the stories regarding Jesus cannot be traced back to a single individual c30 CE who preached the message presented in the Gospels and was executed in the manner described within.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 and 1995 defined the MJ as the story of Jesus not being true NOT there is no man beyond the myth.

Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth both of which accept a HJ behind the Gospels are called MJ books by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd mainly because those books say Paul's Jesus was a mythical (in the legendary sense) being from a much earlier time.

Besides the "no man behind the myth" song and dance fails with the one of the most famous known fictional characters in the Western world: Sherlock Holmes. That is because Holmes was based on at least two and perhaps three flesh and blood men: Joseph Bell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Jerome Caminada. So even a fictional character may have a person behind them.

For all we know Paul latched on the name of some preacher he heard about while going after believers in a messiah that would come and literate them from Roman rule.

Paul's conversion is said to have occurred between 33–36 CE but based on the what can be gleamed from Josephus John the Baptist was beheaded in 36 CE and Jesus by the Gospels was still preaching...so Paul could have seen his crucified Jesus before the Gospel one got himself crucified. In fact this would be a variant of MJer John Robertson's 1900 idea that "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles."

In fact, this is where George Walsh's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." idea slams headlong into a brick wall. Say Paul converted in 33 CE and inspired a person to take up the name Jesus and preach ending with the guy being crucified by 36 CE and it is that person as well as several others the Gospels are based on. Here you have BOTH MJ and HJ in one little package...exactly is the case with Wells' Jesus Myth and later books (only his HJ doesn't get himself crucified)...which are called Christ Myth books.

As I said what we have for the mainline HJ is the equivalent of Robin Hood - a vague shadow composite character assigned a particular time that in fact may not be the time the source people actually lived in.

The notion that unless we have the name of the first person to come up with a story like Job or Moses or Jesus and the date on which this occurred is one of the silliest ploys trotted out in defense of the historicity of such figures.

There's no end to such inane and absurd demands. I suppose if we don't know the time of day the idea first popped into the heads of the authors we'll be told the story of Noah's Ark must most likely be based on true events...

ETA: It's a pity this guy isn't around to set these fellows straight...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9234991&postcount=1752

 

[IanS]

That's too bad.



As I have explained already, I am aware that Paul did not invent messianism.

Nobody knows who did. We may never know.

The thing that has been pointed out time and time again that IF Paul is the earliest named writer of Jesus stories we can search for clues in what he writes.

What has also been pointed out for years and years is Paul's naming his sources of information: scripture and visions.

If Paul's version of messianism is like the cult he's supposed to have joined, then it could easily follow his predecessors used the same techniques.

Which elegantly explains why there is no mention of or interest in the supposed 'earthly ministry' of this Jesus.





Perhaps now that it has been explained to you again, perhaps you can appreciate why this is an obvious question to ask - if Paul can conjure up 'facts' about his savior using these methods, what prevents others from doing the same?

There are several possibilities:

1) they can

• 1a) they can and they did
• 1b) they can but they didn't

2) they can't

If others can't do what Paul did, my question is why not?

Obviously you know the following, but apparently some HJ people here do not -

- although there are very few actual facts in this entire subject, the following actually do appear to be facts -

Fact 1. Paul’s letters specifically say that he did not get his gospel of Jesus from any human men. He says he got his belief through a revelation from God, and that it was according to scripture.

Fact 2. If Paul’s writing pre-dates the gospels, as all bible scholars seem to agree, and as all pro HJ people in this thread agree, then Paul is first person ever known to have said that the messiah was called “Jesus”.

Fact 3. No members of any so-called Church of God, such as Peter, James, John or anyone else, ever claimed that they had preached about Jesus before Paul did. And none of them ever claimed to have been the ones who told Paul about Jesus.


Therefore, as far as the actual facts are concerned, there is no evidence that any Church of God or anyone else was preaching Jesus as the messiah before Paul did. They may have been preaching something different from the traditional Judaism that Paul had preached before his conversion, and that was obviously, as Paul clearly indicates, the reason he said he was persecuting them as his “way of life”. But that does not mean they were preaching that the long awaited messiah was Jesus …

… they may for example have been doing no more than the Essenes had done since at least 200 years before Paul in that same small region, and simply been preaching that the messiah would be an apocalyptic religious preacher and not the traditional royal or military leader prophesised in traditional OT Jewish belief.

 

[Belz...]

Yes you are

Oh, so now you know my mind better than I know myself ? Don't kid yourself, you're not a mind reader.

The same question could be said about Manehivi and the John Frum cargo cult and we don't know the answers there either.

I am asking a specific question about this specific instance. Stop dodging my going to John Frum as if just saying his name somehow invalidates all arguments.

I don't want a baseline or comparison, but a scenario that applies to this specific tale.

Again the MJ is NOT just the "no man behind the myth" strawman people think it is.

You are free to operate under the definitions you wish, but don't be surprised when all this does is make the discussion more confusing for everyone, including you. For the purposes of this debate, we have people claiming that there was a man behind the legend, and others saying that there was not. How would YOU label these two camps ?

 

[Belz...]

That's too bad.

Sorry to dissapoint you.

The thing that has been pointed out time and time again that IF Paul is the earliest named writer of Jesus stories we can search for clues in what he writes.

Indeed, and I'm glad you agree. Many people have claimed in this thread and the other that gleaming truth from legend is impossible.

What has also been pointed out for years and years is Paul's naming his sources of information: scripture and visions.

And yet he seems to co-opt an existing cult as related to his vision. What was this cult, and whence did it come ? Are the Gospels based on Paul's writings, on parallel traditions, or on earlier writings or sayings ?

If Paul's version of messianism is like the cult he's supposed to have joined, then it could easily follow his predecessors used the same techniques.

You mean it's turtles myths all the way down ?

Which elegantly explains why there is no mention of or interest in the supposed 'earthly ministry' of this Jesus.

Another elegant hypothesis is that Paul didn't like what the disciples told him and decided to ignore them entirely.

Perhaps now that it has been explained to you again, perhaps you can appreciate why this is an obvious question to ask - if Paul can conjure up 'facts' about his savior using these methods, what prevents others from doing the same?

I never said it wasn't possible. I'm trying to get a specific scenario that outlines this, not just "they made it up" and throwing our collective arms in the air.

 

[Belz...]

Paul’s letters specifically say that he did not get his gospel of Jesus from any human men.

Indeed. It's likely he did so to bypass the existing cult's leaders' authority.

If Paul’s writing pre-dates the gospels, as all bible scholars seem to agree, and as all pro HJ people in this thread agree, then Paul is first person ever known to have said that the messiah was called “Jesus”.

No members of any so-called Church of God, such as Peter, James, John or anyone else, ever claimed that they had preached about Jesus before Paul did. And none of them ever claimed to have been the ones who told Paul about Jesus.

And yet Paul tells us that the cult precedes him. What's the likeliest explanation for that ?

Therefore, as far as the actual facts are concerned, there is no evidence that any Church of God or anyone else was preaching Jesus as the messiah before Paul did.

Ok... but what does this say about Jesus as a living person ?

 

[proudfootz]

I never said it wasn't possible. I'm trying to get a specific scenario that outlines this, not just "they made it up" and throwing our collective arms in the air.

Well, as soon as we come up with texts that pre-date Paul this can be settled.

As it is you're asking the impossible.

 

[proudfootz]

Indeed. It's likely he did so to bypass the existing cult's leaders' authority.

We don't have a scintilla of evidence that the authority of the others is any different than Paul's.

Therefore no need to invent this 'motive' for Paul.

And yet Paul tells us that the cult precedes him. What's the likeliest explanation for that ?

Messianism was invented before Paul, and before the people Paul knew were even born.

There's no evidence that the cult he joined used any methods other than what Paul uses - he even lists a bunch of folks who experienced visions before he did.

Ok... but what does this say about Jesus as a living person ?

There's no evidence that Paul or his predecessors had any interest in or believed in a Jesus as a living person.

 

[dejudge]

Well, as soon as we come up with texts that pre-date Paul this can be settled.

As it is you're asking the impossible.

The earliest Pauline manuscripts are from the 2nd century or later.

There is no claim in the NT itself that the Pauline Corpus was written pre 70 CE.

It is virtually impossible to argue that the Pauline writings were early when multiple Apologetics up to the 3rd century show ZERO awareness and influence by the supposed Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection].