Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[tsig]

I don't happen to know any personally, but I'm sure you could find one online somewhere and ask them.

If you are unconvinced by me, go talk to someone else. You seem to really want to pursue this, I'm not stopping you.

I'm already convinced and it doesn't particularly bother me that I can't convince you.

You are welcome to your opinions, but don't pretend that I should give as much weight to you as I would to a Professional Historian on questions of History.

So this consensus of Professional Historians that you were touting earlier doesn't actually exist to your knowledge.

That Professional Historian's opinion would be the opinion of one of those Professional Historians I'm supposed to find to back up your claim?

Being convinced by experts whose name you cannot cite really isn't too impressive.

 

[IanS]

There is evidence. It's circumstantial, fragmentary, biased, hearsay evidence, but it is evidence.

Well what is it actually evidence "OF"? It's not evidence of a living Jesus who anyone knew!

It's all evidence of something else entirely.

It's evidence of peoples 2000 year old religious beliefs in the supernatural.

Those sort of religious supernatural beliefs had been in existence for thousands of years before anyone wrote any letters or gospels talking about someone called Yehoshua (Jesus).

The people trying to argue against it have even less.

What are we supposed to have evidence of? You mean you want us to provide evidence that 2000 years ago someone did not exist?

If you want evidence that the gospel stories of Jesus were invented from what had been written many centuries before in the OT, then as I just said above, Randel Helms wrote an entire book filled with precisely that evidence. So check that out.

If you want evidence that long before Jesus, and in fact long after Jesus right up to the present day, religious fanatics have always claimed that they themselves, or others who can no longer be traced, definitely saw visions of gods, miraculous messiahs, angels, demons, spirits etc., then I expect there is enough evidence of that to fill the Encyclopaedia Britannica!

There is no shortage of completely fictitious stories of miraculous gods just like Jesus. There’s plenty of evidence for that!

Jesus just might be an exception to that rule. A unique exception in fact (since all the others are almost certainly obvious mythical nonsense). But the problem is there is no actual evidence of his existence … only evidence that religious fanatics believed he had once existed … something they believed at a time of appalling ignorance in a world where all of them were obsessed with fanatical religious belief in the supernatural.

 

[Belz...]

Christ Myth Theory, Richard Carrier. Look it up.

ETA: Oops, I meant: Mythical Jesus.

You're making the mistake of lumping all MJ supporters together, I think.

 

[Brainache]

So this consensus of Professional Historians that you were touting earlier doesn't actually exist to your knowledge.

That Professional Historian's opinion would be the opinion of one of those Professional Historians I'm supposed to find to back up your claim?

Being convinced by experts whose name you cannot cite really isn't too impressive.

Here you go:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/why-history-isnt-scientific-and-why-it.html

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

Happy now?

 

[Brainache]

Well what is it actually evidence "OF"? It's not evidence of a living Jesus who anyone knew!

It's all evidence of something else entirely.

It's evidence of peoples 2000 year old religious beliefs in the supernatural.

Those sort of religious supernatural beliefs had been in existence for thousands of years before anyone wrote any letters or gospels talking about someone called Yehoshua (Jesus).

No it's evidence of a cult who followed the teachings of a man we now call "Jesus".

What are we supposed to have evidence of? You mean you want us to provide evidence that 2000 years ago someone did not exist?

If you want evidence that the gospel stories of Jesus were invented from what had been written many centuries before in the OT, then as I just said above, Randel Helms wrote an entire book filled with precisely that evidence. So check that out.

If you want evidence that long before Jesus, and in fact long after Jesus right up to the present day, religious fanatics have always claimed that they themselves, or others who can no longer be traced, definitely saw visions of gods, miraculous messiahs, angels, demons, spirits etc., then I expect there is enough evidence of that to fill the Encyclopaedia Britannica!

There is no shortage of completely fictitious stories of miraculous gods just like Jesus. There’s plenty of evidence for that!

I want evidence of a cult in that specific time and place that revered a Jesus who was an incorporeal spirit. So far all the evidence we have points toward a cult in that specific time and place following a human teacher called "Jesus".

Jesus just might be an exception to that rule. A unique exception in fact (since all the others are almost certainly obvious mythical nonsense). But the problem is there is no actual evidence of his existence … only evidence that religious fanatics believed he had once existed … something they believed at a time of appalling ignorance in a world where all of them were obsessed with fanatical religious belief in the supernatural.

Looking for a charismatic Apocalyptic Jewish Teacher in 1st century Palestine is like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. It's no great stretch to suppose that Jesus was one such person.

 

[Brainache]

You're making the mistake of lumping all MJ supporters together, I think.

I don't have a problem with people saying that the Gospels are made up nonsense from decades later and miles away.

I'm just disputing this specific idea of Carrier's which people seem to be pushing these days of a "Mythical Jesus".

So if that isn't what you mean by Jesus Myth, I don't have a problem with that.

I know the evidence is scarce and the conclusion is tentative, but so far I can't see any evidence for Carrier's position at all. Maybe that will change in the future. I don't know.

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim


There's nothing about possession in the passage you cited. If we include the few preceding and the next following verses (14-19; your verse italicized):

If I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive.

So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind.

Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing [with] the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up.

I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you,

but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


None of that seems psychologically extraordinary, nor havng anything to do with being possessed by any spirit, nor being a way Paul found out what Jesus is reputed to have said about divorce and remarriage.

Sounds like a way to pray, and Paul seems to prefer using it for private prayer rather in church. I've heard of that in modern times, too, praying aloud but not in actual words. John Belushi used to do his Samurai skits that way - which is psychologically interesting, that mimicry of language production can accomplish communication, but neither extraordinary nor a symptom of disease.

The breath control involved can also get you high. I sense that a good deal of what Paul sold was getting high while waiting for your flight lesson with Jesus. So, daffyd may be closer to the truth than he intended.

Concerning the hilited area, perhaps you and I have a different view what speaking in tongues means. I've always heard it meant divinely inspired glossolalia, which would certainly require a different from normal psychological state. If speaking in tongues wasn't viewed as divinely inspired, it would have to be nothing more than unintelligible babbling. Such a form of divine inspiration certainly requires an altered mental state.

So, Paul claims in Galatians to have gotten his gospel from a revelation of the risen Christ and says in 1 Corinthians that he has spoken in tongues more than anyone else. And you're saying he wasn't psychologically different from normal people?

 

[pakeha]

I couldn't get that to load, but it's close to this one:
www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Yes, that's the link I meant.
Thanks, Tim!

...[snipped]...And then we come to claims about Pilate. Hmm. Well where does that claim actually come from? In fact afaik it comes from 1-Timothy, which is one of the universally agreed “fake” letters not actually written by Paul at all. And that’s apart from the aforementioned fact that we are talking only about Christian copies written 150 years and more after Paul had died (nearly 200 years or more after Jesus was supposed to have died), where the copyists were by that time known to be making all sorts of alterations to the biblical writing wherever they thought something needed to added according to their evolving religious beliefs. ...

Thanks for reminding us just how much Christianity owes to Paul's and Pseudo-Paul's letters.
And Marcion, of course.

 

[eight bits]

Tim

Concerning the hilited area, perhaps you and I have a different view what speaking in tongues means.

Probably we do, but the reasom why we're even talking about such a thing turns our attention to what Paul thinks it means. Evidently, for Paul it is a form of prayer, which he prefers not to do in church. If other people do want to do it in his church, then Paul wamts them to take steps to ensure that a coherent message is presented during the performance.

Apparently Paul can do it or not as he prefers, and he expects that others can comply with his directives, so he expects that they can control thoir behavior, too. That's an odd sort of "spirit possession," to me at least.

Bigger picture, religion often involves performance. Whatever you think of "speaking in tongues," it's very theatrical, and theater fills the house. That's Paul's job, to fill the house. Apparently, these folks also pretend to eat a man's flesh and drink his blood. Color me unimpressed that some of them pray aloud by making emotional, but undiscursive sounds.

So, Paul claims in Galatians to have gotten his gospel from a revelation of the risen Christ...

In other words, he saw a ghost, and thought about what it meant in the context of his religion...

...and says in 1 Corinthians that he has spoken in tongues more than anyone else ...

Well, more than anybody in Corinth. Personally, I don't know how much that is, and it seems necessary that Paul's been involved in Christian theatricals longer than the people he converted.

... And you're saying he wasn't psychologically different from normal people?

I said something like that. You're probably thinking of "There is nothing, then, in Paul's letters that singles him out as psychologically extraordinary or unduly reliant on hallucinations compared with your neighbors." So far, nothing very troubling has come up.

 

[IanS]

No it's evidence of a cult who followed the teachings of a man we now call "Jesus".

Exactly, as you say yourself it’s just evidence of a cult who believed things. A group of religious fanatics who believed in an earlier messiah that none of them had ever seen.

It's evidence of a cult, and evidence of religious belief. But it’s clearly not evidence that Jesus was a real person.

I want evidence of a cult in that specific time and place that revered a Jesus who was an incorporeal spirit. So far all the evidence we have points toward a cult in that specific time and place following a human teacher called "Jesus".

You are just repeating your attempt to shift the burden of evidence away from your claim that Jesus exists, and insisting instead that sceptics must provide evidence of non-existence.

That’s a completely bogus tactic as I’m sure you are well aware. If you make the positive claim that Jesus was real, then you have to show some evidence to support that claim. Otherwise it’s simply a claim without evidence.

However, if you want actual material evidence to show why the Jesus story is likely to be mythical, then there is plenty of evidence like that.

For a start, as I said to you earlier - the book by Randel Helms explains how many of the gospel stories of Jesus were simply copied from the OT. So that explains where the Jesus stories came from. If you did not know that, then get a copy of Helms and check that out.

But beyond that - as I'm sure you know, there is overwhelming evidence of religious people believing in all manner of fictitious mythical gods, devils, angels, spirits, demons etc., since thousands of years before Jesus, and since thousands of years after Jesus right up to the present day. And many of those ancient pre-Jesus religious mythical figures have quite obviously similar stories to the story of Jesus.

So there is plenty of evidence to show where the Jesus stories came from, and why like all the thousands of other god-miracle stories, that Jesus story is likely to be fictional.

In addition to that, if you watch that short YouTube clip of US bible scholar John Huddleston in discussion with Richard Dawkins, Huddleston explains that in fact most of what had been written as the history of the Jewish people in the OT has no supporting evidence of any kind, eg no evidence for the existence of major figures like king David, or Abraham, no evidence of any exile in Babylon, and no evidence that anyone called Moses ever came down from any mountain with any commandments.

The point I’m making there is simply that if Huddleston is correct to say there is really no supporting evidence for much of what was written in the OT, and instead it’s as he described it more of a theological work than a record of any factual historical figures or events, then the OT is evidence of how the Jewish people of that region created fictional stories to support their theology from long before the time of Jesus, and where the gospel writers and Paul were apparently relying on that fictional OT writing for their belief that a messiah named Yehoshua had once been present preaching God’s true message on earth.

Looking for a charismatic Apocalyptic Jewish Teacher in 1st century Palestine is like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. It's no great stretch to suppose that Jesus was one such person.

Of course it's not a great stretch to suppose that Jesus was real. And for 2000 years hardly anyone ever questioned it when the church insisted his existence was beyond all doubt.

That it's believable is not the problem.

The problem is - the more you look at what is claimed to be the evidence of Jesus, the more the evidence disappears and is exposed only as evidence of people beliefs.

And those are, as far as we now know, beliefs held by people none of whom had actually ever met, seen, heard or knew Jesus in any way at all.

But as far as evidence is concerned, as I pointed out above, authors like Randel Helms have shown very clearly where many of the gospel stories of Jesus came from, and they did not come from anyone’s genuine remembrance of a living Jesus ... they came from what was written, and what people thought was written, in the ancient Jewish OT.

That's definite evidence which can be checked, showing that the gospel stories of Jesus were taken from earlier religious Jewish beliefs that were written centuries before in the OT. So there's some very clear evidence for you.

 

[Brainache]

Exactly, as you say yourself it’s just evidence of a cult who believed things. A group of religious fanatics who believed in an earlier messiah that none of them had ever seen.

It's evidence of a cult, and evidence of religious belief. But it’s clearly not evidence that Jesus was a real person.

It is clear enough to me that Paul was talking about a flesh and blood Jesus, when he wasn't specifically talking about that revelation in Galatians.

You choose to see it differently. Good luck to you. As I said, it isn't me you have to convince, it's the Historians.

The Historians have made their case, I accept it. It's up to you to account for all of the Historians evidence as well as how it fits into the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. So far no one has done that.

You are just repeating your attempt to shift the burden of evidence away from your claim that Jesus exists, and insisting instead that sceptics must provide evidence of non-existence.

That’s a completely bogus tactic as I’m sure you are well aware. If you make the positive claim that Jesus was real, then you have to show some evidence to support that claim. Otherwise it’s simply a claim without evidence.

It's not my claim. I'm not a professional Historian, and neither are you. The Historians have made their case, take it up with them. I don't have a hotline to the President of Historians, but maybe you could start with the people in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

...
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][9][10][11] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[28][29] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[5] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[9] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time - more so than any of his contemporaries - with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[30] Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[5][24] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[24] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[11]

There are footnotes attached to those numbers. Go for it.

However, if you want actual material evidence to show why the Jesus story is likely to be mythical, then there is plenty of evidence like that.

For a start, as I said to you earlier - the book by Randel Helms explains how many of the gospel stories of Jesus were simply copied from the OT. So that explains where the Jesus stories came from. If you did not know that, then get a copy of Helms and check that out.

I know that the Gospels were written by people a long way away with an agenda and all that. I respect Randel Helms as a Scholar. But there is more than just OT quotes in the Christian Bible.

But beyond that - as I'm sure you know, there is overwhelming evidence of religious people believing in all manner of fictitious mythical gods, devils, angels, spirits, demons etc., since thousands of years before Jesus, and since thousands of years after Jesus right up to the present day. And many of those ancient pre-Jesus religious mythical figures have quite obviously similar stories to the story of Jesus.

So there is plenty of evidence to show where the Jesus stories came from, and why like all the thousands of other god-miracle stories, that Jesus story is likely to be fictional.

Haven't we just had this exact conversation? Did you pay attention to anything I said? What makes you think I'll say something different this time?

In addition to that, if you watch that short YouTube clip of US bible scholar John Huddleston in discussion with Richard Dawkins, Huddleston explains that in fact most of what had been written as the history of the Jewish people in the OT has no supporting evidence of any kind, eg no evidence for the existence of major figures like king David, or Abraham, no evidence of any exile in Babylon, and no evidence that anyone called Moses ever came down from any mountain with any commandments.

This is irrelevant to how Jews saw it in the 1st century though, isn't it. I've watched the clip, I liked it, so what? It isn't a course in Ancient History.

The point I’m making there is simply that if Huddleston is correct to say there is really no supporting evidence for much of what was written in the OT, and instead it’s as he described it more of a theological work than a record of any factual historical figures or events, then the OT is evidence of how the Jewish people of that region created fictional stories to support their theology from long before the time of Jesus, and where the gospel writers and Paul were apparently relying on that fictional OT writing for their belief that a messiah named Yehoshua had once been present preaching God’s true message on earth.

I eagerly await your Peer Reviewed Paper on the subject...

Of course it's not a great stretch to suppose that Jesus was real. And for 2000 years hardly anyone ever questioned it when the church insisted his existence was beyond all doubt.

That it's believable is not the problem.

The problem is - the more you look at what is claimed to be the evidence of Jesus, the more the evidence disappears and is exposed only as evidence of people beliefs.

And those are, as far as we now know, beliefs held by people none of whom had actually ever met, seen, heard or knew Jesus in any way at all.

But as far as evidence is concerned, as I pointed out above, authors like Randel Helms have shown very clearly where many of the gospel stories of Jesus came from, and they did not come from anyone’s genuine remembrance of a living Jesus ... they came from what was written, and what people thought was written, in the ancient Jewish OT.

That's definite evidence which can be checked, showing that the gospel stories of Jesus were taken from earlier religious Jewish beliefs that were written centuries before in the OT. So there's some very clear evidence for you.

What is Randel Helms' position on the historicity of Jesus?

Is he like G. A. Wells has been since the late 90's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

...
Since the late 1990s, Wells has said that the hypothetical Q document, which is proposed as a source used in some of the gospels, may "contain a core of reminiscences" of an itinerant Galilean miracle-worker/Cynic-sage type preacher.[2] This new stance has been interpreted as Wells changing his position to accept the existence of a historical Jesus.[3] In 2003 Wells stated that he now disagrees with Robert M. Price on the information about Jesus being "all mythical".[4] Wells believes that the Jesus of the gospels is obtained by attributing the supernatural traits of the Pauline epistles to the human preacher of Q.[5]

Maybe he'll change his mind if you show him your fictional Jesus idea...

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Exactly, as you say yourself it’s just evidence of a cult who believed things. A group of religious fanatics who believed in an earlier messiah that none of them had ever seen.

No, if Paul's letters are an indication of what others in this cult believed, then they believed in a current-time Messaiah who is living at the time they practice their religion. The things in their past are the portion of his career when he wasn't yet discharging the office of Messaiah, and the time that had elapsed since he was first revealed as the Messaiah, and acted as such.

One might just as well speak of Obama as an earlier President of the United States, because he lived for decades before becoming President, and has already completed one entire term as President. "Earlier President" connotes somebody like Abraham Lincoln - nobody today who believes there was such a man was alive when he was supposed to lead. That isn't the situation of Paul or (apparently) Mark. Theoretically, it isn't the situation today, even, but I am unsure how much practical importance the median Christian gives to that portion of their creed.

But it’s clearly not evidence that Jesus was a real person.

It does bear on the question, and the price of nondemonstration is that you must either accept that other people will reasonably reach different conclusions from yours, or else accept that it doesn't especially matter to anybody else whether you accept that or not.

Whining about who has the burden of proof (apparently an indoor sport more popular than sex on some skeptic sites) is unavailing. The point of bop is who can change somebody else's opinion, and the answer is: neither "side," except for occasional nibbling at the margins. Bart Ehrman. for instance, moved away from Christianity in some areas, but remains an HJ flack - a margin soundly nibbled at. That's as much movement as you usually get.

 

[IanS]

It is clear enough to me that Paul was talking about a flesh and blood Jesus, when he wasn't specifically talking about that revelation in Galatians.

Paul's letters may have been talking about someone that the author thought was once a flesh and blood Jesus. But that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is only whether or not that belief was actually true.

So what is the actual evidence to show Jesus was a living person?

You choose to see it differently. Good luck to you. As I said, it isn't me you have to convince, it's the Historians.

The Historians have made their case, I accept it. It's up to you to account for all of the Historians evidence as well as how it fits into the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. So far no one has done that.

These people are not “historians” in the usual sense of being university lecturers in normal univ. history departments. Afaik the vast majority of academic historians do not study Jesus and ancient religious issues. The people you are describing as historians are a mixture of Christian religious writers, theologians in religious institutes, bible scholars in certain university departments and other educational institutes, and what is probably a rather smaller number of writers who are genuinely employed in univ. history departments, albeit mostly it seems in specifically religious-studies wings of those departments.

So it's highly misleading simply to lable all these people “historians” as if all lecturers in univ. history dept’s were writing about Jesus and Judeo-Christian bible issues. They are not afaik doing that at all. Most of them probably would not touch this subject with a 10ft barge pole. The people you are talking about are bible scholars of various persuasions.

It's not my claim. I'm not a professional Historian, and neither are you. The Historians have made their case, take it up with them. I don't have a hotline to the President of Historians, but maybe you could start with the people in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

There are footnotes attached to those numbers. Go for it.

The people you are relying upon are not mainstream academic historians either. Why should I or anyone here write to bible scholars and theologians arguing about their beliefs in Jesus. This is a public forum for exchange of opinion here. If everyone here was told they had to stop posting and write to bible scholars instead, then this would no longer be a forum for anything.

I know that the Gospels were written by people a long way away with an agenda and all that. I respect Randel Helms as a Scholar. But there is more than just OT quotes in the Christian Bible..

What there is not in the Bible, is any evidence of a living Jesus. That’s the problem.

Haven't we just had this exact conversation? Did you pay attention to anything I said? What makes you think I'll say something different this time?.

We have had all these conversation hundreds of times. But the bottom line is -

- where is your evidence that Jesus actually lived as a real person?

This is irrelevant to how Jews saw it in the 1st century though, isn't it. I've watched the clip, I liked it, so what? It isn't a course in Ancient History. ?.

No it’s not irrelevant, and I just explained to you why it’s not irrelevant. To repeat - if Huddleston’s description of the OT is correct, and most of the OT is invented theology rather than historical fact, then (a) it shows that Jewish believers in that region had a history of inventing their religious beliefs and inventing the main characters such as David and Abraham etc., and (b) since Helms and others have clearly shown that the NT gospel writers were taking their Jesus stories from that same OT, it shows that the 1st century NT gospel writers were relying on stories from a book of ancient fictional OT theology.

I eagerly await your Peer Reviewed Paper on the subject...:

As it happens I have published lots or peer reviewed papers. But not on a subject so silly and lightweight as religious studies.

The sort of people you are relying on, who as “academic scholars” publish books and papers on this subject, are probably the last people you should be relying on if you truly want an objective impartial examination of what evidence really exists for Jesus.

For example, we have discussed Bart Ehrman, who is almost always the first name that believers offer as an expert on HJ, but if you read his latest book on the HJ, you will find that one of two main pieces of what he calls evidence that convinces him to say “Jesus definitely existed” (that’s quoting him, he is stating it as absolute certainty), is that he believes what it says in the bible when in Paul’s letter it says that he met “the lords brother” ….

… that is the standard of academic objectivity (ie lack of objectivity) that we are dealing with here. This is not by any means a typical area of impartial objective academic study.

What is Randel Helms' position on the historicity of Jesus?

Is he like G. A. Wells has been since the late 90's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

Maybe he'll change his mind if you show him your fictional Jesus idea...

I don’t know what Helms says about the reality or otherwise of a HJ. The book I referred to explains what I said it explained. Namely it explains how the gospel authors took their Jesus stories from the OT.

Nor do I know what Wells really thinks of the Jesus historicity, though of course I’m familiar with the claims that he simply changed his mind about thinking Jesus was mythical.

But all of that is beside the point, because like most of these authors, I am not saying Jesus was definitely mythical either. What I am pointing out is that authors like Wells, Helms and Ellegard, have all written in detail to point out why the claimed evidence for Jesus is not actually evidence that he was a real living person ….

… he might have been, but what has been produced so far as evidence, is only evidence of peoples 2000 year old highly suspect beliefs … in fact, mostly beliefs in the supernatural and miracle workings.


The bottom line in all of the above exchanges is only this - can you provide any evidence to actually show that Jesus was probably a living person?

Because no such evidence has so far been produced anywhere in any of these HJ threads.

You complain about repetition of the same arguments over and over again. Fine, so lets stop it right here - just produce any reliable and credible evidence of a real Jesus … where is the evidence?

And finally on that point - you are repeatedly appealing to the authority of "academic expert Historians" saying they must surely know what they are talking about when they say Jesus was certainly a real figure, and they must know the evidence far better than any of us here, well then fine, so just tell us please what evidence is it that those historians produce to show that the person known in the bible as Jesus was "definitely" a real person? ...

... please produce the evidence you say comes from these expert "historians".

 

[IanS]

I don't have a problem with people saying that the Gospels are made up nonsense from decades later and miles away.

I'm just disputing this specific idea of Carrier's which people seem to be pushing these days of a "Mythical Jesus".

So if that isn't what you mean by Jesus Myth, I don't have a problem with that.

I know the evidence is scarce and the conclusion is tentative, but so far I can't see any evidence for Carrier's position at all. Maybe that will change in the future. I don't know.

Just on the highlighted bit - I don’t think Carrier, or anyone else, is saying what you seem to think they/we/I are actually saying.

Afaik Carrier is not claiming to know that Jesus certainly never existed. Generally speaking it's not possible for any of us to show evidence of the non-existent, or to prove that things don't actually exist. What Carrier and all the other sceptics are saying is simply that what has been claimed as “evidence” by the bible scholars that you refer to as “historians”, is not actually reliable evidence to show Jesus existed. It may be evidence that all sorts of people believed he existed. But it’s not reliable evidence that their beliefs were ever true.

Instead of us going over & over the same ground countless times in all these threads, there is a basic unavoidable bottom-line question here, and it’s simply this -

- what is the evidence to show that Jesus actually existed as a real living person?

If you think “historians” have given that evidence, then what is that evidence that they have given? What is this evidence of Jesus which these “experts” have provided, which convinces you to believe Jesus was a real person?

 

[DOC]

So what is the actual evidence to show Jesus was a living person?

Since there is no body available as is the case with Julius Caesar (who conquered much of the known world) and Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the known world) you have to look at the "historical evidence" of which there is a lot.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

 

[Brainache]

Paul's letters may have been talking about someone that the author thought was once a flesh and blood Jesus. But that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is only whether or not that belief was actually true.

So what is the actual evidence to show Jesus was a living person?

That Paul thought he was. That Paul taught that he was. That everybody in that time and place thought he was. That a charismatic teacher with a following is nothing at all unusual....etc etc etc You know, all the stuff that has been pointed out to you about ten gazillion times.

These people are not “historians” in the usual sense of being university lecturers in normal univ. history departments. Afaik the vast majority of academic historians do not study Jesus and ancient religious issues. The people you are describing as historians are a mixture of Christian religious writers, theologians in religious institutes, bible scholars in certain university departments and other educational institutes, and what is probably a rather smaller number of writers who are genuinely employed in univ. history departments, albeit mostly it seems in specifically religious-studies wings of those departments.

So it's highly misleading simply to lable all these people “historians” as if all lecturers in univ. history dept’s were writing about Jesus and Judeo-Christian bible issues. They are not afaik doing that at all. Most of them probably would not touch this subject with a 10ft barge pole. The people you are talking about are bible scholars of various persuasions.

It's also highly misleading of you to imply that you and a couple of other internet "experts" know more about it than these Professionals do.

It's also highly misleading to say that not one single one of them is competent at their job. Which is basically what you are doing.

I don't know what you do for a living, but people from other fields telling you you are doing it wrong, because you don't produce the results they want? I'm guessing you ignore morons like that. Same with Historians.

The people you are relying upon are not mainstream academic historians either. Why should I or anyone here write to bible scholars and theologians arguing about their beliefs in Jesus. This is a public forum for exchange of opinion here. If everyone here was told they had to stop posting and write to bible scholars instead, then this would no longer be a forum for anything.

I didn't say you had to stop, only that you won't convince me. I've read the Professional's stuff and I accept it. They have to accept your work before I can, because they are the ones qualified to judge, not me.

And really, why you think anyone should take your ideas on this subject seriously is a mystery to me.

What there is not in the Bible, is any evidence of a living Jesus. That’s the problem.

That is just not true. Sorry, someone has lied to you.

We have had all these conversation hundreds of times. But the bottom line is -

- where is your evidence that Jesus actually lived as a real person?

In the learned papers of experts. Look it up, you might learn something.

No it’s not irrelevant, and I just explained to you why it’s not irrelevant. To repeat - if Huddleston’s description of the OT is correct, and most of the OT is invented theology rather than historical fact, then (a) it shows that Jewish believers in that region had a history of inventing their religious beliefs and inventing the main characters such as David and Abraham etc., and (b) since Helms and others have clearly shown that the NT gospel writers were taking their Jesus stories from that same OT, it shows that the 1st century NT gospel writers were relying on stories from a book of ancient fictional OT theology.

Well then you obviously know all about it because you saw David Huddleston having a chat with Richard Dawkins. That's all we need really to understand. It's clearly all we need to know about religious traditions in the time of the Second Temple...

Are you serious?

As it happens I have published lots or peer reviewed papers. But not on a subject so silly and lightweight as religious studies.

Or Ancient History, apparently.

The sort of people you are relying on, who as “academic scholars” publish books and papers on this subject, are probably the last people you should be relying on if you truly want an objective impartial examination of what evidence really exists for Jesus.

Really, every single one of them?

Just like all those evil Engineers who know all about the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

For example, we have discussed Bart Ehrman, who is almost always the first name that believers offer as an expert on HJ, but if you read his latest book on the HJ, you will find that one of two main pieces of what he calls evidence that convinces him to say “Jesus definitely existed” (that’s quoting him, he is stating it as absolute certainty), is that he believes what it says in the bible when in Paul’s letter it says that he met “the lords brother” ….

… that is the standard of academic objectivity (ie lack of objectivity) that we are dealing with here. This is not by any means a typical area of impartial objective academic study.

No. It is typical of Ancient History though. Things aren't as black and white as your school teachers may have led you to believe.

I don’t know what Helms says about the reality or otherwise of a HJ. The book I referred to explains what I said it explained. Namely it explains how the gospel authors took their Jesus stories from the OT.

Yes, but does Helms use that to suggest that Jesus didn't exist? If not, why do you know more about it than he does?

Nor do I know what Wells really thinks of the Jesus historicity, though of course I’m familiar with the claims that he simply changed his mind about thinking Jesus was mythical.

But all of that is beside the point, because like most of these authors, I am not saying Jesus was definitely mythical either. What I am pointing out is that authors like Wells, Helms and Ellegard, have all written in detail to point out why the claimed evidence for Jesus is not actually evidence that he was a real living person ….

Wells did, but he changed his mind. Are these other two really in the Jesus Myth camp? Or are you maybe telling a bit of a fib here?

… he might have been, but what has been produced so far as evidence, is only evidence of peoples 2000 year old highly suspect beliefs … in fact, mostly beliefs in the supernatural and miracle workings.

Wrong. Sorry. Try again.

The bottom line in all of the above exchanges is only this - can you provide any evidence to actually show that Jesus was probably a living person?

Because no such evidence has so far been produced anywhere in any of these HJ threads.

Wrong again. It's there, you just don't recognise it as such. I can't help you.

You complain about repetition of the same arguments over and over again. Fine, so lets stop it right here - just produce any reliable and credible evidence of a real Jesus … where is the evidence?

And finally on that point - you are repeatedly appealing to the authority of "academic expert Historians" saying they must surely know what they are talking about when they say Jesus was certainly a real figure, and they must know the evidence far better than any of us here, well then fine, so just tell us please what evidence is it that those historians produce to show that the person known in the bible as Jesus was "definitely" a real person? ...

... please produce the evidence you say comes from these expert "historians".

Why should anyone bother trying to overcome your invincible ignorance? You've made up your mind, almost no one agrees with you outside of the internet, so what are you going to do now?

What's your next move? Academia will go on doing what they do, how are you going to change that?

Or are you happy to just be the smart guy on the internet who knows a big secret that the sheep are all too stupid to understand?

 

[pgwenthold]

But The Mythical Jesus is a positive claim. It claims that the first followers of Jesus worshipped an incorporeal being they called "Jesus". Now all we need to find is evidence of anyone ever anywhere worshipping such a Jesus. So far no evidence of any such group has been found..

Huh?

How about every christian living today? Aren't they worshipping an incorporeal being called Jesus?

Because as far as I am aware, the Jesus they are worshipping is not a living being.

 

[Brainache]

Huh?

How about every christian living today? Aren't they worshipping an incorporeal being called Jesus?

Because as far as I am aware, the Jesus they are worshipping is not a living being.

Yes, but like the people 2000 years ago they believe that Jesus was flesh and blood and walked amongst us. That is kind of the point. That a flesh and blood human had to go to God to represent the faithful so God will send the heavenly host to destroy the enemy. It won't work if the Messiah isn't a human being.

So if you have any evidence of a cult who believed that the Messiah didn't have to be a flesh and blood human, now is the time to produce it.

 

[IanS]

Paul's letters may have been talking about someone that the author thought was once a flesh and blood Jesus. But that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is only whether or not that belief was actually true.

So what is the actual evidence to show Jesus was a living person?.

That Paul thought he was. That Paul taught that he was. That everybody in that time and place thought he was. That a charismatic teacher with a following is nothing at all unusual....etc etc etc You know, all the stuff that has been pointed out to you about ten gazillion times.

So that’s it? That’s your evidence which shows Jesus was a real figure? "Because Paul thought he was real" ? That’s your evidence which convinces you?

Good grief.

OK, well in that case you are clearly arguing from a position of religious faith, not from any grounds of properly impartial objective evidence. At least it does explain the stance of your recent posts.

 

[Brainache]

So that’s it? That’s your evidence which shows Jesus was a real figure? "Because Paul thought he was real" ? That’s your evidence which convinces you?

Good grief.

OK, well in that case you are clearly arguing from a position of religious faith, not from any grounds of properly impartial objective evidence. At least it does explain the stance of your recent posts.

Yes, that's right. Out of the tens of thousands of pages I've read on this subject, that was all I got out of it.

I'm an Atheist. Wake up to yourself and admit that there are people who know a little bit more than you do about this subject and that those people all disagree with you.

It's not me you have to convince, it's them. Get cracking.