The Historical Jesus II

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be nice to see a list of these universities that have a history department that has full time biblical scholars who champion the HJ rather than this lame argument from anonymous authorities.

Is your google broken? Try every University with an Ancient History department, but you may be disappointed to find all the Historians teaching it as well...

Find me one Historian not named Richard Carrier who teaches the Myth Jesus idea.

I'll just wait...
 
This is not true. I've already posted a small list of secular University History departments that teach about the HJ which you are apparently ignoring. Do your own Google search for "Historical Jesus University Course", there are lots out there and not all of them are Theological Schools. Any University that teaches Ancient History will have a unit on Roman Palestine (or similar). Some of them might be taught by Bible Scholars, but not all of them. You could try asking your nearest University, but I doubt you will.

Your statement is of no real value. Name the Universities that teach Paul was an Herodian??

ALL arguments for an HJ is directly based on the DISCREDITED Christian Bible.

The HJ is argument is the very worst kind.

The discredited Christian Bible was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

The Christian Bible has no evidence that Jesus was a man with a human father.

The historical Jesus was a known lie since at least the writing of "Against Heresies".
 
Your statement is of no real value. Name the Universities that teach Paul was an Herodian??

That is irrelevant to this thread, but I first heard about it while watching a lecture online from California State University Long Beach.

ALL arguments for an HJ is directly based on the DISCREDITED Christian Bible.

The HJ is argument is the very worst kind.

The discredited Christian Bible was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

The Christian Bible has no evidence that Jesus was a man with a human father.

The historical Jesus was a known lie since at least the writing of "Against Heresies".

Is that really how you think History is studied at University?

It's a bit sad really.
 
That is irrelevant to this thread, but I first heard about it while watching a lecture online from California State University Long Beach.

You are just wasting time.

There is no historical data to support the claim that Paul was an Herodian so telling me about one University in California has no historical value.

Does California State University have a Chapel where it is taught that Jesus was the resurrected Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin?

We already know the history of the Quest for an HJ.

We already know that you must use the discredited Christian Bible as an historical source in the HJ argument.


Brainache said:
Is that really how you think History is studied at University?

It's a bit sad really.

More sad stories but no evidence for an historical Jesus.

At Universities Scholars use the discredited Christian Bible for the history of HJ.

Tell us the name of the father of HJ according to Universities??

You can't remember!!!
 
Last edited:
Is your google broken? Try every University with an Ancient History department, but you may be disappointed to find all the Historians teaching it as well...

Find me one Historian not named Richard Carrier who teaches the Myth Jesus idea.

I'll just wait...

Your claim, your burden.
 
Brainache talks about Universities but he does not appear to know that they use the admitted discredited Christian Bible to argue for an HJ.

Bart Ehrman is a professor at a University in America and he argues for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Anyone who has a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman will see that at page 179 it is admitted that the authors of the Gospels were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that the Gospels are FULL of discrepancies and contradictions and the Gospels report historical events that can be shown not to have happened.

In effect, as PROFESSOR of a University, Bart Ehrman has shown that the Gospels are NOT historically credible.

But, examine the very next page of "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

Examine the very first sentence of page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?".

Bart Ehrman declared ....."the Gospels are among the best attested books in the ancient world"......

In University, MAGICALLY, by MIRACLE, the very same Gospels that are forgeries, false attribution, FULL of discrepancies, contradictions and events that did NOT happen are among the best attested books in the ancient world.

However it is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

NOT one single event about Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is attested by any independent historical source in the ancient world.

Not even one!!!

The HJ argument is the very worst ridiculous argument known to mankind in or out of Universities.
 
Your claim, your burden.

Well there's this very short list that I supplied earlier after about ten seconds of googling. It wouldn't take much effort to find more:


ETA: Or were you expecting me to list literally every University in the world that has an Ancient History department and offers a unit on the HJ?

Now show me any Uni that teaches Carrier's Myth Jesus idea...

Shouldn't be too hard if the idea has Academic merit...
 
Last edited:
...Now show me any Uni that teaches Carrier's Myth Jesus idea...

Shouldn't be too hard if the idea has Academic merit...

We can show the fiction that is taught at Universities.

Which University teaches that the Gospel were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are FILLED with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which most likely did not happen?
 
That may well be WHAT happens in Chapels of Universities. But in the lecture THEATRES of the same universities atheist scholars explain why they consider it probable that THERE was a historical Jesus.

You also get things like Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict in university lecture theaters; I still remember the one we had at the University of Utah.
 
Is your google broken? Try every University with an Ancient History department, but you may be disappointed to find all the Historians teaching it as well...

Do Asian and Russian Universities Ancient History department where the MJ is king count? :D

Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.

Now show me any Uni that teaches Carrier's Myth Jesus idea..

Googling in English doesn't tend to get many (if any) Russian or Asian university hits even for the mundane stuff. You did say ANY Uni. :D
 
Last edited:
Do Asian and Russian Universities Ancient History department where the MJ is king count? :D

Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.



Googling in English doesn't tend to get many (if any) Russian or Asian university hits even for the mundane stuff. You did say ANY Uni. :D

In Soviet Russia... They would teach anything that aligned with Party ideology. Even then, I doubt they were teaching about Carrier's heavenly Davidic sperm bank...
 
We can show the fiction that is taught at Universities.

Which University teaches that the Gospel were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are FILLED with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which most likely did not happen?

Just about any course on the HJ would probably teach something like that. It doesn't mean we can't get any information from those texts, just that they shouldn't be accepted at face value. You would know this if you studied History. All ancient texts are full of "discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which most likely did not happen", it comes with the territory.

Anyway, I'm taking a break for a while now.

Try not to miss me too much...
 



The above list was posted here by the same person before. Though iirc, it previously included a "course" offered on a downloadable "app" for the Apple iphone!

The list is absolutely pathetic. Only one of the 5 links appears to be to a course which is really some sort of degree course involving lectures about Jesus and the bible at the Univ. of Minnesota in the USA. More about that particular course below, but as far as the other 4 links are concerned -

- the first link appears to be just a "Short Course" of some weeks. It's not a degree course or anything remotely like that. Most universities and their colleges offer additional "short courses" in topical subjects or controversial subjects, mainly as a way of raising extra income.

- the second link appears to be some sort of evening classes.

- third link to Univ. of Sydney is actually offered by "Dept of Hebrew, biblical and Jewish studies.

- 4th link to Univ. of Minnesota; see below.

- 5th and last link is a course of only 2 hours per week offered in a dept called "The School of Critical studies".


Only the 4th link to the Univ. of Minnesota appears to be a genuine university degree-level course given in it's "College of Liberal Arts" within a dept called Classical & Near Eastern Studies. It contains two course modules about Jesus, both of which seem to be taught only in the "Fall of each year". , and one course about the bible which is taught only in the spring and the fall of each year.

What that course at Minnesota actually teaches about the existence of Jesus, I have no idea. But it does not appear to be taught from a conventional university history dept as we would know it in UK and European universities. In the UK, afaik, university courses taught about Jesus and the bible, are typically taught in a "Faculty of Divinity" or a “Faculty of Theology”, and not as part of mainstream secular history in the history dept. What goes on in the USA might be very different of course, because as we all know America is an unusually religious Christian nation. And of course there are hundreds of thousands of universities around the world teaching literally millions of course subjects ... so it would not be surprising if amongst that lot you could find some that taught religious issues from a history dept ... but afaik, that is not usually the case for well-known mainstream universities in the UK and Europe

However, the point was not to find some proper universities that do teach religious studies as part of their mainstream history curriculum. The point is that the people who have been continuously touted & named here as "historians" who believe in Jesus, e.g. Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan and thousands of their colleagues (inc. people like William Lane Craig), have in fact all been shown to be "bible studies" scholars with academic backgrounds drowning in religious studies and religious belief, who work in specifically biblical studies departments ... they are not “historians” working in the mainstream history departments of their respective institutes.

Those are the people who we are talking about. The people named and touted here by HJ posters as "expert historians", who write books and give lectures saying Jesus is a "certainty" ... and by-&-large they are certainly NOT "historians" teaching and researching from mainstream secular university history departments. And that has been shown here from their academic backgrounds many times.
 
dejudge said:
We can show the fiction that is taught at Universities.

Which University teaches that the Gospel were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are FILLED with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which most likely did not happen?


Just about any course on the HJ would probably teach something like that. It doesn't mean we can't get any information from those texts, just that they shouldn't be accepted at face value. You would know this if you studied History. All ancient texts are full of "discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which most likely did not happen", it comes with the territory.


You don't know how history is done.

The reconstruction of the past [history] REQUIRES CREDIBLE historical Data.

To teach HJ at Universities they are using known ADMITTED sources of fiction, falsehood, implausibility, forgeries and false attribution as credible historical sources WITHOUT corroboration.

The HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument in or out UNIVERSITIES.

We have the HJ arguments used in UNIVERSITIES and they are logically fallacious, void of credibility and directly dependent of the discredited uncorroborated Christian Bible.

We have Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" the very worst ridiculous HJ argument known to mankind.

Bart Ehrman, a UNIVERSITY Professor, declares that the NT accounts of Jesus are FILLED with discrepancies and contradictions and that the Gospels are forgeries or false attribution.

We know that ADMITTED sources of Fiction are used as credible historical sources in UNIVERSITIES in the HJ argument.

Brainache said:
Anyway, I'm taking a break for a while now.

Try not to miss me too much...

You will not be able to take a break.

I will be EXPOSING that UNIVERSITIES use the same discredited Christian Bible to argue for an HJ.

The Christian Bible says Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning and it was used by Christians of antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [ a man with a human father]

The historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a KNOWN lie since at least the writing of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

UNIVERSITIES are teaching the very same known FICTION that Jesus was a man with a human father.

Who was the real human father of HJ according to UNIVERSITIES??

You can't remember!!!!

In the NT Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, the Lord God from heaven, a transfiguring water walker but at UNIVERSITIES it is believed and taught Jesus was really real.
 
Last edited:
Bart Ehrman teaches at UNIVERSITY that “the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world”.
It will be discovered that Jesus of Nazareth is the BEST ATTESTED figure of mythology in the ANCIENT world and even today.

Let us examine the Gospels to see what is attested.

1. In the short gMark, it is claimed Jesus WALKED on water.

Mark 6.48
About the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them walking upon the sea..


Who in the ancient world ATTESTED that Jesus was a WATER walker?

The authors of gJohn and gMatthew do indeed ATTEST that Jesus of Nazareth was a WATER Walker.

Matthew 14:25
And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,walking on the sea.

John 6:19
So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

Jesus of Nazareth is a well ATTESTED Water WALKER in the ANCIENT world.

Jesus of Nazareth is among the BEST ATTESTED figures of mythology in the Gospels.
 
Last edited:
However, the point was not to find some proper universities that do teach religious studies as part of their mainstream history curriculum. The point is that the people who have been continuously touted & named here as "historians" who believe in Jesus, e.g. Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan and thousands of their colleagues (inc. people like William Lane Craig), have in fact all been shown to be "bible studies" scholars with academic backgrounds drowning in religious studies and religious belief, who work in specifically biblical studies departments ... they are not “historians” working in the mainstream history departments of their respective institutes.

Those are the people who we are talking about. The people named and touted here by HJ posters as "expert historians", who write books and give lectures saying Jesus is a "certainty" ... and by-&-large they are certainly NOT "historians" teaching and researching from mainstream secular university history departments. And that has been shown here from their academic backgrounds many times.

We also need to remember that the whole issue of a historical Jesus also involves anthropological history and its relation historical anthropology which "offers the method of scale reduction to overcome, á la Lloyd, social science polarities of structure and action. The questions asked are not limited to the group or locality understudy, but pertain to larger issues such as the nature of power, the direction of historical change, typical patterns of social relationship and dependency, household formation, the function of religion et cetera." - Don Kalb, Hans Marks, Herman Tak "Historical anthropology and anthropological history: two distinct programs" Focaal no. 26/27, 1996: pp. 5-13

I have previously pointed to Carrier's 1997 "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels" article as an example of historical anthropology - an effort to reconstruct the mind set of the cultures that existed in the time in question and how those culture would view, record, and preserve what was going on around them.

Carrier's book OHJ is far better in its historical anthropology but we are still dealing with a relatively new field going back to when Dunnell and Binford were hammering out what what would become the system theory approach in the early 1970s.

James Burke brought the system theory approach of looking at history to the masses with his 1978 TV series-book Connections regarding inventions and later on how we view the world itself in his 1985 The Day the Universe Changed TV series-book.

System theory was the framework through which Herbert Spencer's 1860 Great moment hypothesis could operate. It is also the framework through which the Christ Myth could move beyond a conglomeration of various ideas that more or less sat there into an actual framework.

System theory is one of the keys to understanding how Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus is operating. It is why he spends nearly half the book on 48 elements. These elements form a framework, a weave of events by which a Christ Myth theory can be shown to have some validity.

It is perfect? With a field that at best is perhaps 50 years old? Far from it. Obviously not all of the 48 elements are needed and some have tighter interaction with each other but this means we not only have to look at each of the individual elements but the proposed interactions between them.
 
Last edited:
Brainache claims Universities teach that Jesus was a human being with a human father and that they use the NT although it is an admitted discredited source of fiction, falsehood, false attribution and forgeries.

Bart Ehrman a UNIVERSITY professor also admits the authors of the Gospels accounts of Jesus contain discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not happen but state that the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world.

We will expose that the Gospels are among the best books which ATTEST that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

It was already shown that the Gospels of the Ancient world do indeed attest that Jesus was a WATER WALKER.

Now the Gospels of the Ancient world will attest that Jesus TRANSFIGURED in the presence of the disciples.

Examine gMark of the ancient world [the Sinaiticus Codex]

Mark 9.22
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter, and James, and John, and led them up into a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them

Who in the Ancient world will ATTEST that Jesus transfigured?

The Ancient authors of gMatthew and gLuke ATTESTED that the Jesus character did TRANSFIGURE .

Matthew 17.2
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light...

Luke 9:29
And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.


The Gospels are among the best books of the Ancient world which ATTEST that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth.

The Gospels have been used by Christians for over 1800 years to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father]

The Gospels are among the best ATTESTED books in the Ancient world for mythology.
 
Last edited:
Now show me any Uni that teaches Carrier's Myth Jesus idea...
Shouldn't be too hard if the idea has Academic merit...

Googling in English doesn't tend to get many (if any) Russian or Asian university hits even for the mundane stuff. You did say ANY Uni. :D



Bart Ehrman, says that almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with his views about the historicity of Jesus. And whilst Ehrman concludes that Jesus "certainly existed", he openly admits that neither the biblical writing nor the non-biblical writing is anywhere near being a reliable credible source of evidence for nearly every mention that anyone at the time made about the Jesus stories.

That is 99% in agreement with what Carrier also says. Carrier, and all well known academic sceptic authors, agree with Ehrman and his biblical colleagues when they admit that almost everything said about Jesus in both the biblical writing and in the non-biblical writing, is either demonstrably untrue fiction, or else highly unlikely religious speculation from authors who produced no evidence at all for their beliefs about Jesus.

So what is taught in bible studies dept's about Jesus, the gospels, letters, and work like Josephus and Tacitus, Clement, Pliny, Philo, Irenaeus etc., is 99% the same as Carrier and all other sceptics say about how hopelessly unreliable those sources are.

And further, when Carrier and Doherty explain that from about 300BC Greek influence in Jewish society had introduced to that region, all manner of changed religious beliefs, inc. the belief that the gods operated through layers of the heavens just above the earth, I expect that "fact" is indeed taught in university courses that deal with that period of ancient history, albeit not necessarily taught by those dept's as anything to do with a biblical description of Jesus. But it is, afaik, a "fact" of history that such descriptions of heaven were at that time commonplace in that region.

So, IOW, afaik what those university history dept's teach, is almost all exactly the same as Carrier and other sceptic authors have always said about the nature, content, meaning, and unreliably of the biblical and non-biblical writing about Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Bart Ehrman, says that almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with his views about the historicity of Jesus.

Ehrman's claim is completely worthless since there is no historical data to support such a conclusion.

In fact, virtually all Scholars on the planet who argue that Jesus existed are Christians who MUST preach the Gospel in the Christian Bible.

In addition, the discredited Christian Bible is not even a contemporary historical source.
 
And your historical data, seemingly above question and just what the world has been waiting for would be . . . . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom