Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[tsig]

If neither side has any evidence to present, why don't we all agree that we just don't know ?

Giving up on the 60/40?

 

[dejudge]

It's difficult to follow if you're going to mix myth, religion, agenda, and historicity.

You appear to have little understanding of the argument for and against an HJ of Nazareth. You don't even seem to know that Bart Ehrman use the New Testament to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

Ehrman thinks the Bible is a source of history for Jesus of Nazareth even though he discredits the NT which is filled discrepancies and contradictions about Jesus.

If you don't have a problem with the historical fact there was a Pontius Pilatus, how do you reconcile that with the history of the crucifixion of Yeshua or Yeshu. What is the significance of Maimonides statement about Jesus? Is the Testimonium Flavianum's nucleus real or not? What about Tacitus and Philo? What of Judaism's reaction to Jesus and his crucifixion as being real albeit not fulfilling Messianic prophecy?

You are asking questions that you cannot answer. In any event, there is no statement about Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of Tacitus and Philo.

The Jews never reacted to Jesus in the 1st century. We have the writings of Philo and Josephus.

The Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE not in the time of Tiberius.

While there are genuine questions about the Canonical accounts of Jesus, most do not debunk them as pure myth and agree with the basic premise of an historical Jesus. You can raise many questions about the religious aspects of the Canon but its difficult IMO and others to dismiss the historical figure because of the religious claims.

It is difficult to dismiss the mythological Jesus especially when there is no historical corroboration.

Finally, there is the fact that most of the disciples saw something profound enough to move them from being in hiding to proclaiming they saw a resurrected Jesus. Now, I'm not arguing for or against the resurrection but I am pointing out that a number of people went to their deaths for their beliefs in a real person. You can separate that out from their religious beliefs and writings. It is hard to dismiss the historical existence of John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee and convert to follower of Jesus.

Gotta go take a walk with the admiral. Enjoyed the debate.

Your presumptions are really worthless in this debate. There is no known evidence that a character called Jesus of Nazareth actually did exist, and no evidence that he had disciples, no evidence that he died, no evidence the supposed disciples saw a resurrected Jesus.

We have statements about John the Baptist in Josephus but nothing at all of John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus in Josephus.

 

[jobberone]

I would suggest that if you want to argue here you present your argument here and not expect others to look up your materiel for you.

Originally Posted by tsig
What is the evidence that they took place?

Is this not your quote?

I've presented my argument (without bibliography but with names and facts) while others are presenting their opinion and asking me to provide evidence.

Your comment is disingenuous at best and obnoxious at least.

 

[dejudge]

The Apostles died separately from each other and are generally considered to have been martyred with several documented extra-Biblicaly and not via just tradition.

Besides that is just deflection and has nothing to do with the argument.

You can have the last word.

Where do you get you stories from? You seem to believe the Bible is literal history.

I am afraid the Apostles are fictitious characters and without a shred of evidence outside the Bible and apologetics.

 

[eight bits]

jobberone

The Apostles died separately from each other and are generally considered to have been martyred with several documented extra-Biblicaly and not via just tradition.

There are only a baker's dozen Apostles, so perhaps you could list for each:

Name, cause of death, your source for believing they died that way, and why you think the death was related to something the person believed about Jesus.

 

[jobberone]

jobberone


There are only a baker's dozen Apostles, so perhaps you could list for each:

Name, cause of death, your source for believing they died that way, and why you think the death was related to something the person believed about Jesus.

How in the heck does this forum operate? I made some statements that are easily verifiable by anyone interested in the topic esp if they have an internet connection and people expect me to give them a dissertation. I even acknowledged areas for questioning the majority opinion and noted an opposing author.

It appears to me as either people are too lazy to investigate, should already know many of these statements pros and cons, and/or just a way to bust someone's chops and deflect from the argument.

I'll give you one. Peter was crucified in Rome and this is attested by Tertullian and Origen as well as Clement who was a contemporary of Peter. Now are these incontrovertible facts? No not at all. But like most things in history or scientific theory it fits the facts we know to the best of our abilities and appears to be the consensus of the scholarly community.

That's the best I can do for you without writing chapters in a book.

 

[jobberone]

Where do you get you stories from? You seem to believe the Bible is literal history.

I am afraid the Apostles are fictitious characters and without a shred of evidence outside the Bible and apologetics.

Tertullian and Origen mention Peter who is an apostle. Wait I forgot. I told you that you can have the last word which I'm betting is full of vim and vinegar and devoid of anything factual. Have at it. It appears you are either trolling or just unread on the topic. Have a good night.

Edit: Sorry I confused you with another poster although the thoughts stand.

 

[Brainache]

How in the heck does this forum operate? I made some statements that are easily verifiable by anyone interested in the topic esp if they have an internet connection and people expect me to give them a dissertation. I even acknowledged areas for questioning the majority opinion and noted an opposing author.

It appears to me as either people are too lazy to investigate, should already know many of these statements pros and cons, and/or just a way to bust someone's chops and deflect from the argument.

I'll give you one. Peter was crucified in Rome and this is attested by Tertullian and Origen as well as Clement who was a contemporary of Peter. Now are these incontrovertible facts? No not at all. But like most things in history or scientific theory it fits the facts we know to the best of our abilities and appears to be the consensus of the scholarly community.

That's the best I can do for you without writing chapters in a book.

I'm not criticising anything in your post. I agree with you whole heartedly. But I thought you might be interested to read this little snippet about Wells:
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]

 

[dejudge]

Tertullian and Origen mention Peter who is an apostle. Wait I forgot. I told you that you can have the last word which I'm betting is full of vim and vinegar and devoid of anything factual. Have at it. It appears you are either trolling or just unread on the topic. Have a good night.

You are the one whose claims about the disciples and Jesus are without corroboration from non-apologetic sources.

You display a lack of knowledge of the writings of Tertullian and Origen.

Tertullian and Origen mention that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and was God's son.

Origen's De Prinicipiis

...Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

 

[jobberone]

I'm not criticising anything in your post. I agree with you whole heartedly. But I thought you might be interested to read this little snippet about Wells:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

Yes. It's only fair to give some credit to Wells who is at least trained. However, and you're right, Wells has changed his stance in at least for me a significant direction towards Jesus being an historical figure.

I was trying to be fair to those who believe he is mythical. Thanks.

 

[Brainache]

Yes. It's only fair to give some credit to Wells who is at least trained. However, and you're right, Wells has changed his stance in at least for me a significant direction towards Jesus being an historical figure.

I was trying to be fair to those who believe he is mythical. Thanks.

Yes, I think they've got Carrier and Doherty left. Even those guys aren't half as sure of themselves as some of the "Mythers" we meet around here.

 

[jobberone]

You are the one whose claims about the disciples and Jesus are without corroboration from non-apologetic sources.

You display a lack of knowledge of the writings of Tertullian and Origen.

Tertullian and Origen mention that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and was God's son.

Origen's De Prinicipiis

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Just like the Bible has parts that aren't either factual or require an allegorical interpretation in the least, both Origen and Tertullian had beliefs central to the core beliefs of Christianity or enough off the beaten path to be considered anathema to the early Church like Origen. Just because someone is a liar, embellisher, or otherwise doesn't mean they can't give us some facts and insight into what was going on in those early years without being mythical or mystical or even magical. As a historian no matter your religious beliefs, you can pick apart what appears to be history. In fact there are Islamic and Jewish authors and scholars as well as those who are atheists working in this field.

If you dismiss all the early historians then you may and you can do so reasonably well in isolation. It's the entire body of evidence that one weighs.

If those authors don't suit you then look at the Talmud and oral tradition for Judaic thoughts on the actual existence of the Nazerene.

I'm outta here.

 

[dejudge]

Just like the Bible has parts that aren't either factual or require an allegorical interpretation in the least, both Origen and Tertullian had beliefs central to the core beliefs of Christianity or enough off the beaten path to be considered anathema to the early Church like Origen. Just because someone is a liar, embellisher, or otherwise doesn't mean they can't give us some facts and insight into what was going on in those early years without being mythical or mystical or even magical. As a historian no matter your religious beliefs, you can pick apart what appears to be history. In fact there are Islamic and Jewish authors and scholars as well as those who are atheists working in this field.

Why are you using the Bible and embellishers or liars for the history of Jesus of Nazareth?

It is completely unacceptable for you to imagine the history of Jesus of Nazareth without any evidence from non-apologetic writings.

If you dismiss all the early historians then you may and you can do so reasonably well in isolation. It's the entire body of evidence that one weighs.

It is you who dimiss all the evidence and assume that there was an historical Jesus.

All the evidence from the Bible and Apologetic sources show Jesus was a figure of mythology.

This is a partial list of the evidence you dismiss for Myth Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, The General Epistles, Revelation, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Poycarp, Aristides, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Optatus, Lactantius, Ephraem, Jerome, Rufinus, Julian and others.

 

[Brainache]

Why are you using the Bible and embellishers or liars for the history of Jesus of Nazareth?

It is completely unacceptable for you to imagine the history of Jesus of Nazareth without any evidence from non-apologetic writings.




It is you who dimiss all the evidence and assume that there was an historical Jesus.

All the evidence from the Bible and Apologetic sources show Jesus was a figure of mythology.

This is a partial list of the evidence you dismiss for Myth Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, The General Epistles, Revelation, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Poycarp, Aristides, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Optatus, Lactantius, Ephraem, Jerome, Rufinus, Julian and others.

In what way is any of this evidence against a 1st century Jewish Rabbi?

Because I can't see anything there that makes an HJ less probable than a non-HJ.

Is there a point?

 

[dejudge]

In what way is any of this evidence against a 1st century Jewish Rabbi?

Because I can't see anything there that makes an HJ less probable than a non-HJ.

Is there a point?

You cannot see anything for HJ of Nazareth. Bart Ehrman saw nothing and he is supposed to be an historian.

Jesus the Zealot was never seen in the writings of antiquity in or out the Bible.

Where did you see the evidence for Jesus the Zealot?

I can see that there is evidence of mythology in writings of and attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, the General Epistles, Revelation, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Barnabas, Aristides, Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Optatus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine of Hippo, Sulpitius Severus, the Muratorian Canon and others.

There is nothing for HJ of Nazareth and that is precisely why Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a failure of facts and logic.

 

[Brainache]

You cannot see anything for HJ of Nazareth. Bart Ehrman saw nothing and he is supposed to be an historian.

Jesus the Zealot was never seen in the writings of antiquity in or out the Bible.

Where did you see the evidence for Jesus the Zealot?

I can see that there is evidence of mythology in writings of and attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, the General Epistles, Revelation, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Barnabas, Aristides, Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Optatus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine of Hippo, Sulpitius Severus, the Muratorian Canon and others.

There is nothing for HJ of Nazareth and that is precisely why Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a failure of facts and logic.

The only failure here appears to be that you have absolutely no clue as to how the study of history is conducted. If you did, you wouldn't be saying these things.

Apart from that, I don't know what to tell you. An education is a precious thing.

 

[dejudge]

The only failure here appears to be that you have absolutely no clue as to how the study of history is conducted. If you did, you wouldn't be saying these things.

Apart from that, I don't know what to tell you. An education is a precious thing.

You don't know how the study of history is done or else you would not promote Jesus the Zealot.

You do not know history requires DATA.

Where is the DATA for Jesus the Zealot?

Which source of antiquity identify a character called Jesus the Zealot?

What artifacts, what archaeological findings are there for Jesus the Zealot?

Jesus the Zealot is a product of pseudo history--history without DATA--History from imagination.

Jesus the Zealot is fiction--a modern myth.

 

[Brainache]

You don't know how the study of history is done or else you would not promote Jesus the Zealot.

You do not know history requires DATA.

Where is the DATA for Jesus the Zealot?

Which source of antiquity identify a character called Jesus the Zealot?

What artifacts, what archaeological findings are there for Jesus the Zealot?

Jesus the Zealot is a product of pseudo history--history without DATA--History from imagination.

Jesus the Zealot is fiction--a modern myth.

Look up Qumran. Dead Sea Scrolls. Get back to me in a couple of years. OK? Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

Look up Qumran. Dead Sea Scrolls. Get back to me in a couple of years. OK? Thanks.

Please don't try that. Jesus the Zealot is supposed to be Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth the Zealot is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The guy who wrote about Jesus the Zealot is not even an historian.

Jesus the Zealot of Nazareth was fundamentally a theory derived from the Bible.

Why are you constantly presenting information that is not valid and never was?

Now, tell me which manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions Jesus of Nazareth the Zealot?

You won't get back to me!!!

 

[Brainache]

Please don't try that. Jesus the Zealot is supposed to be Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth the Zealot is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The guy who wrote about Jesus the Zealot is not even an historian.

Jesus the Zealot of Nazareth was fundamentally a theory derived from the Bible.

Why are you constantly presenting information that is not valid and never was?

Now, tell me which manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions Jesus of Nazareth the Zealot?

You won't get back to me!!!

Habakkuk Pesher.

ETA: But he is using an assumed name, so it might take a while to spot him.