The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

There is no logic in your post.

I don't claim that HJ is true because there is a consensus of Scholars. I'm just saying that there is a consensus and the fact that one or two fringe theories exist, isn't proof that there is no consensus.

Your post appears to be void of veracity.

You claim there is a Consensus when there is none. Why are you just saying there is consensus without evidence?

We know the history of the Quest for an historical Jesus and at no time did Scholars concede that there was an historical Jesus.

In fact, the Quest for HJ failed MULTIPLE times because NO evidence could be found.

We are now at the THIRD Quest to find HJ.

There was NEVER EVER any concession.

I acknowledge that Paul as a member of the Herodian family is not a widely held opinion, but it is an idea which fits the evidence as I understand it.

Well, well, well!!! All of a sudden your fringe of fringe of fringe of ...............fringe idea fits "the evidence".

Your posts lacks veracity. How come Plenty people don't say Paul was an Herodian since there is supposed to be evidence?

In the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline writer claimed he was a Jew.

You have NO contemporary evidence at all from antiquity that Paul was an Herodian.



The earliest manuscripts with stories of Paul are from the 2nd century or later and are loaded with fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution.

You can disagree all you like, but the arguments you use to do so are idiotic and totally unconvincing. Please keep using them...

Your post is DIRECTLY applicable to you.

Your "PLENTY People" argument is BASELESS, IDIOTIC, TOTALLY UNCONVINCING and LACK VERACITY.

 

[Brainache]

Your post appears to be void of veracity.

You claim there is a Consensus when there is none. Why are you just saying there is consensus without evidence?

We know the history of the Quest for an historical Jesus and at no time did Scholars concede that there was an historical Jesus.

In fact, the Quest for HJ failed MULTIPLE times because NO evidence could be found.

We are now at the THIRD Quest to find HJ.

There was NEVER EVER any concession.





Well, well, well!!! All of a sudden your fringe of fringe of fringe of ...............fringe idea fits "the evidence".

Your posts lacks veracity. How come Plenty people don't say Paul was an Herodian since there is supposed to be evidence?

In the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline writer claimed he was a Jew.

You have NO contemporary evidence at all from antiquity that Paul was an Herodian.



The earliest manuscripts with stories of Paul are from the 2nd century or later and are loaded with fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution.




Your post is DIRECTLY applicable to you.

Your "PLENTY People" argument is BASELESS, IDIOTIC, TOTALLY UNCONVINCING and LACK VERACITY.

Do you really imagine that this kind of thing wins debates?

Tell us again about how terrible fringe ideas are, then tell us how Paul was invented in the 2nd to 4th century by hoax forgers...

 

[dejudge]

Your post is DIRECTLY applicable to you.

Your "PLENTY People" argument is BASELESS, IDIOTIC, TOTALLY UNCONVINCING and LACK VERACITY.

Do you really imagine that this kind of thing wins debates?

Tell us again about how terrible fringe ideas are, then tell us how Paul was invented in the 2nd to 4th century by hoax forgers...

You have been talking so much nonsense that you don't even remember that you are presently arguing that Paul was a Liar and a Hoax Jew.

Tell us about your 50-60 CE Pauline letters?? Show us the Papyri ?

You forget that are arguing right now that Paul was NOT a Jew and that letters in the Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

Your arguments are void of veracity and logic.

You argue for an historical Jesus using the words of the Hoax Jew in compilation of forgeries and Lies.

 

[Brainache]

You have been talking so much nonsense that you don't even remember that you are presently arguing that Paul was a Liar and a Hoax Jew.

Tell us about your 50-60 CE Pauline letters?? Show us the Papyri ?

You forget that are arguing right now that Paul was NOT a Jew and that letters in the Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

Your arguments are void of veracity and logic.

You argue for an historical Jesus using the words of the Hoax Jew in compilation of forgeries and Lies.

Look, Herod was Idumean. He converted to Judaism and so his family, while technically Jewish, ethnically they were Idumean (Edomite). The "Tribe of Benjamin" was a title used for people newly converted to Judaism from the nearby nations like Idumea. But all of the people of those countries were considered "Hebrew", whether or not they were Jewish. Same with being "Descendants of Abraham".

The usual reply to your nonsense demand for autographed Pauline epistles applies here. We don't have the originals, the dating relies on the internal data, not the age of the papyrus they were copied onto. But you can keep using this stupidly useless argument as much as you like...

 

[maximara]

We already found out "why", because he (Ehrman) just wrote a complete book about it in 2013.

And what we found out from that book is - the evidence which Ehrman thinks is so fantastic as to make Jesus what he called a "certainty", is that in the bible it says that Paul met Jesus' brother ... and in his various interviews since writing that book (all on YouTube) he has said of that "you would think his own brother would have known if Jesus wasn't real" ... hence he says that proves he must have "certainly" "definitely" been real!

That's the quality of evidential analysis that you are relying upon with even the most celebrated and respected of academic bible scholars (Ehrman is actually is one of the most respected in the world in this HJ field).

His only other piece of supposedly "convincing" evidence, is something he himself described as "too complicated to be explained to the audience" when he gave a 20 min. talk at a book signing for the launch of that book (from memory that evidence was to say something along the lines of "certain parts of biblical texts made better sense if translated from Hebrew rather than from the Greek which appears in the extant copies" ... that's supposed to indicate knowledge of Jesus).

Carrier's Ehrman on Historicity Recap goves over the errors.

“not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” This piece of FALSE nonsense is repeated in Ehrman's own Did Jesus Exist? article for the Huffington post.

Carrier also points out

"The only explanation for why Philo never mentions Christianity is that it was not as important to Jews as Acts depicts, but was a tiny fringe cult of no significant interest to the Jewish elite. And that is an important conclusion. Mythicists will say he doesn’t mention Jesus because there was no Jesus, but that does not explain why he doesn’t mention Christianity. Certainly, if Jesus was as famous and controversial as the Gospels and Acts depict, then Philo’s lack of interest in either the man or the threatening and grandiose claims made about him becomes improbable, but if we accept that the Gospels and Acts hugely exaggerate his fame and importance, then Philo’s disinterest goes back to being probable again. The consequence of this is that you must accept that Philo’s silence argues against the existence of Jesus as as depicted in the Gospels. " (sic)

Here is a knowledgable person reading Ehrman:

 

[Craig B]

Carrier's Ehrman on Historicity Recap goves over the errors.

“not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” This piece of FALSE nonsense is repeated in Ehrman's own Did Jesus Exist? article for the Huffington post.

Carrier also points out

"The only explanation for why Philo never mentions Christianity is that it was not as important to Jews as Acts depicts, but was a tiny fringe cult of no significant interest to the Jewish elite. And that is an important conclusion. Mythicists will say he doesn’t mention Jesus because there was no Jesus, but that does not explain why he doesn’t mention Christianity. Certainly, if Jesus was as famous and controversial as the Gospels and Acts depict, then Philo’s lack of interest in either the man or the threatening and grandiose claims made about him becomes improbable, but if we accept that the Gospels and Acts hugely exaggerate his fame and importance, then Philo’s disinterest goes back to being probable again. The consequence of this is that you must accept that Philo’s silence argues against the existence of Jesus as as depicted in the Gospels. " (sic)

Here is a knowledgable person reading Ehrman:

Yes, Carrier takes a very negative view of Ehrman. Remarkably negative, as Ehrman himself explains.

Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes

look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.”

Nevertheless most scholars agree with Ehrman and not Carrier.

 

[Brainache]

Carrier's Ehrman on Historicity Recap goves over the errors.

“not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” This piece of FALSE nonsense is repeated in Ehrman's own Did Jesus Exist? article for the Huffington post.

Carrier also points out

"The only explanation for why Philo never mentions Christianity is that it was not as important to Jews as Acts depicts, but was a tiny fringe cult of no significant interest to the Jewish elite. And that is an important conclusion. Mythicists will say he doesn’t mention Jesus because there was no Jesus, but that does not explain why he doesn’t mention Christianity. Certainly, if Jesus was as famous and controversial as the Gospels and Acts depict, then Philo’s lack of interest in either the man or the threatening and grandiose claims made about him becomes improbable, but if we accept that the Gospels and Acts hugely exaggerate his fame and importance, then Philo’s disinterest goes back to being probable again. The consequence of this is that you must accept that Philo’s silence argues against the existence of Jesus as as depicted in the Gospels. " (sic)

Here is a knowledgable person reading Ehrman:

Are you frustrated by Ehrman saying that the HJ is not very much like the Jesus depicted in the gospels? Are you confusing HJ with the gospel Jesus again? Mixing up the minimalist and triumphalist?

 

[maximara]

Are you frustrated by Ehrman saying that the HJ is not very much like the Jesus depicted in the gospels? Are you confusing HJ with the gospel Jesus again? Mixing up the minimalist and triumphalist?

More frustrated that Ehrman compares doubting Jesus as a historical person to doubting the Holocaust happened or that Obama is a native born US citizen even when he knows the evidence is nowhere comparative.

As I have stated the truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) record evidence alone for the Holocaust is some 3,000 tons.

The 1958 finding aids (a sort of the index to the Holocaust evidence) were 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.

The total insanity of such a position should be obvious to any knowledgeable person. Which is why they are going this

Ehrma basically pulled a Peter Molyneux regarding the quality and quantity of the evidence for a historical Jeuss and not only Carrier but several other have called him out on it.

Note Carrier does recommend what he considers (despite them having many flaws) the best pro-HJ books out there: Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus

As Carrier correctly argues that any theory of a historical Jesus must be comparative to a theory of historicity of men like Apollonius of Tyana, Musonius Rufus, or Judas the Galilean. Yet even compared to these people Jesus is woefully found wanting.

As I said if Jesus did exist he is on par with Robin Hood and King Arthur now - the actually man and his life has been effectively been obliterated and replaced with a well crafted myth of questionable historical basis.

 

[Craig B]

The total insanity of such a position should be obvious to any knowledgeable person. Which is why they are going this

They are doing nothing of the sort. Carrier devotees, like followers of other gurus, can deceive themselves, but they can't bamboozle the rest of us. Here is what knowledgeable people think.

The Christ myth theory thus goes beyond the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, which accepts that many of the events described in the gospels are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.

And knowledgeable people categorise the theories as follows

Christ Myth theory (Philosophical myth) (Fringe) "Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." ...
Moderate Historical (mainstream)
"Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life."
"Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story." A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus.

Now maybe that's right or wrong, but it's what most scholars think, and it's the Carrierites who are out of step. Pretending otherwise is pointless because it can be refuted in a second.

 

[dejudge]

Look, Herod was Idumean. He converted to Judaism and so his family, while technically Jewish, ethnically they were Idumean (Edomite). The "Tribe of Benjamin" was a title used for people newly converted to Judaism from the nearby nations like Idumea. But all of the people of those countries were considered "Hebrew", whether or not they were Jewish. Same with being "Descendants of Abraham".

You just made up that "technical" story recently. Every time you run into difficulty you INVENT a story.

Technically, your invented stories do not add up.

Where do you get your "technical" stories friom?

The usual reply to your nonsense demand for autographed Pauline epistles applies here. We don't have the originals, the dating relies on the internal data, not the age of the papyrus they were copied onto. But you can keep using this stupidly useless argument as much as you like...

Your argument is USELESS, STUPID, void of logic and evidence from antiquity.

What internal data are you talking about? You don't know what an original of a Pauline letter would look like.

You don't know if any of the existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are original.

You don't know that it does not take 100 years to copy a manuscript.

Please identify which of the VARIANT manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are you referring to?

ALL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have ALREADY been dated to the 2nd century or later USING INTERNAL DATA.


It is extremely stupid to argue WITHOUT evidence.

It is extremely stupid to argue that manuscripts ALREADY dated by INTERNAL DATA to c 175-225 CE were written 50-60 CE WITHOUT evidence.

Apologetic sources have ALREADY ADMITTED that Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written and that the Pauline Corpus was written AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

See the Muratorian Canon, "Church History" and Commentary on Matthew.

In addition, writings attributed to 2nd century apologetic and non-apologetic sources show NO awareness of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

See Aristides' Apology, the writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Origen's "Against Celsus."

Can someone please take Brainache aside and tell him his arguments are stupid and UNEVIDENCED.

The INTERNAL DATA of existing manuscripts SHOW that the Pauline Corpus was written NO earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER Celsus' "True Discourse.

 

[maximara]

They are doing nothing of the sort. Carrier devotees, like followers of other gurus, can deceive themselves, but they can't bamboozle the rest of us. Here is what knowledgeable people think.

That page has been a known train wreck for years (hense the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag that has never really gone away) as a slog though the talk page archives will show.

You can try to sugar coat it all you want but the fact of the matter the comparison of Christ Mythers to those who deny the Holocaust has to be one of the most mortally bankrupt intellectually dishonest claims to ever come from the pro-HJ side. It implies a level of evidence of Jesus that does not exist and as far as we can tell NEVER existed.

Why resort to such a comparison? Unless at some level you know your evidence is poor and weak.

 

[Brainache]

You just made up that "technical" story recently. Every time you run into difficulty you INVENT a story.

Technically, your invented stories do not add up.

Where do you get your "technical" stories friom?
...

This isn't where I got it from, I learned it from books, but this might be a place for you to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Herod was of Arab (Nabatean) and Edomite descent, whose ancestors converted to Judaism. Herod was ashamed of his origins and he attempted to invent Jewish genealogy for himself.[12][13][14][15] Herod was born around 74 BCE in Idumea, south of Judea.[16][17] He was the second son of Antipater the Idumaean, a high-ranked official under ethnarch Hyrcanus II, and Cypros, a Nabatean. He was raised as a Jew[18][19] A loyal supporter of Hyrcanus II, Antipater appointed Herod governor of Galilee at 25, and his elder brother, Phasael, governor of Jerusalem. He enjoyed the backing of Rome but his brutality was condemned by the Sanhedrin.[20]
...
As Herod's family were converts to Judaism, his religious commitment was questioned by some elements of Jewish society.[23] When John Hyrcanus conquered the region of Idumaea (the Edom of the Hebrew Bible) in 140–130 BCE, he required all Idumaeans to obey Jewish law or to leave; most Idumaeans thus converted to Judaism, which meant that they had to be circumcised,[24] and many had intermarried with the Jews and adopted their customs.[25] While Herod publicly identified himself as a Jew and was considered as such by some,[26] this religious identification was undermined by the decadent lifestyle of the Herodians, which would have earned them the antipathy of observant Jews.[27]
...

There are lots of footnotes if you want to check the Scholarship...

 

[dejudge]

They are doing nothing of the sort. Carrier devotees, like followers of other gurus, can deceive themselves, but they can't bamboozle the rest of us. Here is what knowledgeable people think.

Craig B has exposed that the HJ argument is based on ASSUMPTIONS not evidence

The Christ myth theory thus goes beyond the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, which accepts that many of the events described in the gospels are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.

The HJ argument was DEAD from the beginning. It was ALWAYS and is STILL based on ASSUMPTIONS.

It has been finally ADMITTED that those who argue for an HJ KNOW that stories of Jesus are NOT Historical.

Jesus of Nazareth was NEVER a figure of history.

Craig B will NEVER be able to bamboozle us.

Craig B knew all along that he ASSUMED Jesus existed WITHOUT historical data from antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

This isn't where I got it from, I learned it from books, but this might be a place for you to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

No, No, No!!! You can't bamboozle us!!! Your source does not claim Paul was an Herodian.

 

[Craig B]

That page has been a known train wreck for years (hense the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag that has never really gone away) as a slog though the talk page archives will show.

Your link doesn't work, so try another. I cited two pages, and I'll go for more if you want.

 

[dejudge]

The bamboozlers have been exposed.

Craig B knew all along that the HJ argument is STILL based on Assumptions by knowledgeable people and Brainache knew that his "Plenty People" argument was useless as evidence for an HJ.

The HJ argument was ALWAYS and STILL is based on Assumptions.

 

[dejudge]

duplicated

 

[Craig B]

No, No, No!!! You can't bamboozle us!!! Your source does not claim Paul was an Herodian.

How did I guess you would pick up that word?

They are doing nothing of the sort. Carrier devotees, like followers of other gurus, can deceive themselves, but they can't bamboozle the rest of us.

 

[dejudge]

Craig B, The HJ argument was ALWAYS dead.

The Christ myth theory thus goes beyond the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, which accepts that many of the events described in the gospels are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.

 

[IanS]

Yes, Carrier takes a very negative view of Ehrman. Remarkably negative, as Ehrman himself explains.

Nevertheless most scholars agree with Ehrman and not Carrier.

Most scholars agree with Ehrman for the simple reason that almost all of them (if not literally every last one of them) entered that profession of Bible Studies as devout Christians (plus a smaller number of religiously devout Jews). The field, historically, and still even today is populated almost completely by people who when they entered that field, entered it precisely because of their extreme religious devotion to God, Jesus and the Christian bible.

Even for the very few exceptions such as Bart Ehrman, who now describes himself as "agnostic", it's extremely difficult to completely shake off a lifetime of such devoted religious belief in which you have publicly nailed your colours to the proverbial mast saying that God certainly exists as the creator of the universe and that Jesus certainly existed as the originator of Christianity as described in the bible.

And by the way, it's actually untrue for you to say that "Carrier takes a very negative view of Ehrman". Because whilst savagely criticising that particular book, Carrier has also often said that Ehrmans earlier books were usually extremely good.

And another thing - when your fellow HJ poster said above that I am nevertheless happy to accept what Carrier writes as his theory (Doherty's theory actually) of Paul's letters really describing Jesus only as a spiritual figure acting in the heavens - it's not that I am "happy to endorse that" or any other specific myth theory.

All I have said about that particular theory, is that Carrier has explained why that idea is not as daft as it may first appear to people today who do not know that in biblical times such ideas of the gods acting through the layers of heaven in that way, were quite commonplace. And Paul himself clearly believed in that, because he describes himself transported to the 3rd heaven and hearing unspeakable things etc. The Ascent of Isaiah is supposed to be a "Christian text" (according to Carrier), written perhaps around the end of the 1st century to mid 2nd century, but describing what happened to Isaiah who was supposed to be a prophet in the 8th cent. BC, who rises through all the layers of the heavens describing in detail everything that went on there. So those ideas were certainly current at the time of the early NT biblical writing. In fact, iirc, they were being borrowed from the influence of Greek religious beliefs which had very heavily influenced Jewish life in that region from about 300BC onwards.