Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

You are not credible. How many times have I referred to the Gospels where the birth of Jesus is documented as the son of a Ghost?

Many many many times.

 

[dejudge]

Many many many times.

You have confirmed that Belz is not credible.

Now, how many times have Belz presented a non-apologetic source of antiquity which mentions Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Brainache]

Many many many times.

Which is odd, considering they aren't evidence of anything.

 

[dejudge]

Which is odd, considering they aren't evidence of anything.

What is the evidence that Romulus is a myth.

[Plutarch's Romulus

.....whereas Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen. So that some fancied the senators, having fallen upon him in the temple of Vulcan, cut his body into pieces, and took each a part away in his bosom; others think his disappearance was neither in the temple of Vulcan, nor with the senators only by, but that it came to pass that, as he was haranguing the people without the city, near a place called the Goat's Marsh, on a sudden strange and unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air; the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night....

There is far more evidence of mythology for Jesus of Nazareth than probably all the myth characters in Greek/Roman mythology.

 

[Brainache]

What is the evidence that Romulus is a myth.

[Plutarch's Romulus

There is far more evidence of mythology for Jesus of Nazareth than probably all the myth characters in Greek/Roman mythology.

So you say. I think I heard someone say that before...

Who was that?

 

[jobberone]

Three comments from Price come to mind:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." (Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16)

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)


"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

If you're using Price then we can have only a very limited discussion. For every Price there are many mainstream authors. And I thought we were discussing whether Jesus existed which I believe Price does not dispute albeit he believes in multiples thru time. He just muddies the waters; and writes Myth books.

Did you know there's good reason to think that Pliny/Trajan correspondence is fraudulent?

No there is not good reason. I don't know of that but I certainly don't doubt some espouse it as not authentic. Pliny does not reference Jesus but does execute his followers who refuse to recant being 'Christian' which it appears Pliny doesn't really comprehend.

 

[jobberone]

Jobberone, why even bring up the opinion of a medieval Jewish scholar?
Especially if you identify him as a first century source?

ETA
Clement knew the apostles?

If I brought him up as a first century source then I 'misspoke'. I said why he is pertinent. The oral tradition appears to have survived largely intact. He was an expert if not one of 'the experts' on it. There is no grand conspiracy by the Jewish community to deny that Jesus was crucified. If they don't dispute his existence then I find it difficult to understand all this belief in a mythical one. Denying his existence is just as good if not better than saying he does not fulfill messianic prophecy.

It's been fun talking with you people. Have a great evening.

 

[The Norseman]

What?? You appear to be confused or not credible. Did you not claim that you are 60-40? You already have taken into consideration 40% mythology in your Jesus theory.

I'm also going to take the time to ask that you discontinue the constant refrain of confusion and/or credibility. As a fellow forumite, I would appreciate it.

 

[dejudge]

I'm also going to take the time to ask that you discontinue the constant refrain of confusion and/or credibility. As a fellow forumite, I would appreciate it.

I notice in your post that you have not addressed those who constantly present known fallacies.

One poster continues to claim there is a consensus that Jesus existed among Academia when no such thing has ever been done.
Academia are right now debating the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and are writings books for and against an historical Jesus of Nazareth. Some are agnostic on the issue. Plus, those who argue for an historical Jesus cannot come to any consensus about who he was.

It is self evident that there is no consensus.

For example, Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was declared a Failure of Facts and Logic by Richard Carrier who has written or soon to publish his own book to support a non-historical Jesus.

Now, what word should I use for those who continue to present known debunked fallacies day after day?

 

[dejudge]

... Pliny does not reference Jesus but does execute his followers who refuse to recant being 'Christian' which it appears Pliny doesn't really comprehend.

Your presumptions are worthless. You lack knowledge of the fact that there were cults under the name of Christians which did NOT believe the Jesus story.

It is a fallacy that any cult called Christians were followers of Jesus.

This is a fundamental problem with many posters here they have no idea that reference to Christians does not automatically mean followers of Jesus.

Followers of Simon Magus were called Christian since the time of Claudiud c 41-54 CE. Virtually all of Samaria worshiped Simon Magus as a God.


There were many many so-called Christian cults who did not believe the story of Jesus and were not followers of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

I notice in your post that you have not addressed those who constantly present known fallacies.

One poster continues to claim there is a consensus that Jesus existed among Academia when no such thing has ever been done.
Academia are right now debating the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and are writings books for and against an historical Jesus of Nazareth. Some are agnostic on the issue. Plus, those argue for an historical Jesus cannot come to any agreement about who he was.

It is self evident that there is no consensus.

For example, Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was declared a Failure of Facts and Logic by Richard Carrier who has written or soon to publish his own book to support a non-historical Jesus.

Now, what word should I use for those who continue to present known debunked fallacies day after day?

I've found a link which bears a great deal of relevance to your argument:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

con·sen·sus noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

Full Definition of CONSENSUS

1
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2
: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
...

Your continued denials are not convincing anyone.

 

[dejudge]

I've found a link which bears a great deal of relevance to your argument:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Your continued denials are not convincing anyone.

Your post highlights your open disregard for the meaning of "consensus".

Examine the meaning of "consensus"

con·sen·sus noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

All the people in Academia do NOT share the same opinion or idea about the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus.

Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman and Robert Eiseman do Not share the same opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.

Please, stop your blatant propaganda. It won't work anymore.

We know the meaning of consensus.

 

[Brainache]

...
We know the meaning of consensus.

Somebody does, but I doubt it's you, or that mouse in your pocket.

 

[jobberone]

While the Admiral is napping I thought I'd sneak in briefly why I think Clement is indirectly a testament to the existence of Jesus. Clement's role as Pope was from 92 to 99 AD and he was either appointed by Peter to succeed him or was the fourth head of the church probably the former. As one of the Five Apostolic Fathers who had direct communication with some of the Apostles who followed Jesus, most agree that the weight of all five early authors having direct knowledge of some of the Apostles including John and Peter is testament enough for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.

In the case of Clement who almost certainly knew Peter, his epistle to Corinth is almost universally accepted as authentic and is one of the earliest extant Christian documents. The author calls on the name of Jesus 22 times in a very lengthy letter including 'remembering the words of Jesus'. There is some question as to who the author is although it is supposed to be one author. Whomever it is has knowledge of the Old Testament, New Testament, and other works some included in the Catholic canon.

While none of this is eye witness testimony, it is sufficient second hand testimony to attest to the existence of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

While the Admiral is napping I thought I'd sneak in briefly why I think Clement is indirectly a testament to the existence of Jesus. Clement's role as Pope was from 92 to 99 AD and he was either appointed by Peter to succeed him or was the fourth head of the church probably the former. As one of the Five Apostolic Fathers who had direct communication with some of the Apostles who followed Jesus, most agree that the weight of all five early authors having direct knowledge of some of the Apostles including John and Peter is testament enough for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.

In the case of Clement who almost certainly knew Peter, his epistle to Corinth is almost universally accepted as authentic and is one of the earliest extant Christian documents. The author calls on the name of Jesus 22 times in a very lengthy letter including 'remembering the words of Jesus'. There is some question as to who the author is although it is supposed to be one author. Whomever it is has knowledge of the Old Testament, New Testament, and other works some included in the Catholic canon.

While none of this is eye witness testimony, it is sufficient second hand testimony to attest to the existence of Jesus.

Your reasoning is flawed. The mention of Jesus 22 times in a letter does not attest to the existence of an actual human Jesus.

The New Testament books mention characters called God and the Holy Ghost more than a hundred times but still do not attest to the existence of God and the Holy Ghost.

Now, the Clement letter was unknown up to at least the 5th century and could not be authentic if it is claimed to be composed by Clement c 92-99 CE .

Clement was not bishop of Rome c 92-99 CE according to at least FIVE apologetic writers including Tertullian, Optatus, Rufinus, Augustine of Hippo and the Chronograph of 354.

According to those FIVE apologetic sources Clement was bishop of Rome around c 68 CE or was the first or second bishop---NOT the third or fourth at c 92-99 CE.

1. Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics---Clement is bishop immediately after Peter.

2. The Chronograph of 354---Clement is bishop c 68 CE--2nd bishop after Peter

3. Optatus' Against the Donatists--Clement is 2nd bishop after Peter.

4. Augustine's Letter 53--Clement is 2nd bishop after Peter.

5. Rufinus' Recognitions--Clement is bishop immediately after Peter.

It is most interesting to note that in the Chronograph of 354 the time period for Clement is extremely detailed from c 68-76 CE.

Chronograph 354-

-Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days. He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulate of Tracalus and Italicus [68] to that of Vespasian for the 6th time and Titus [76].

The Clement letter to the Corinthians supposedly written between c 92-99 CE is a forgery. The author could not have been a witness to Peter, Paul and Jesus even if they existed.

 

[maximara]

If you're using Price then we can have only a very limited discussion. For every Price there are many mainstream authors. And I thought we were discussing whether Jesus existed which I believe Price does not dispute albeit he believes in multiples thru time. He just muddies the waters; and writes Myth books.

But Price's points dove tail into what Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall states regarding the meaning of "historical Jesus":

1) a man, Jesus, existed, and is the source of the myth but that the myth itself may not be an accurate portrayal of the man;
2) not only did Jesus exist, but the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events.


Even in point 2 we still have a wild variation in just what Jesus supposedly was and point 1 allows you to basically have Jesus be anything you want him to be...even if it is as out there as a spaceman from an advanced civilization.

No there is not good reason. I don't know of that but I certainly don't doubt some espouse it as not authentic. Pliny does not reference Jesus but does execute his followers who refuse to recant being 'Christian' which it appears Pliny doesn't really comprehend.

Pliny executes the followers of Christ not Jesus and since Christ was a title we have no idea who they really followed. More over given the issues with Christus and Chrestus and the evidence that some followers of Osiris may have been called Chrestians ("Chrestus was not only a familiar personal name, it was also a name of the Egyptian Serapis, or Osiris, who had a large following at Rome" (McKinsey, Claud Dennis (2000) Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide pg 309))

So in addition to confusing Chrestus with Christus you have the possibility of confusing Christians with Chrestians who were totally different.

Besides as evidenced by John Frum this doesn't mean the John From described by the cult actually existed.

The fact that c180 in Demonstration (74) Irenaeus wrote "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." shows that Church Fathers were not cross checking anything that they got as this is totally anachronistic and nonhistorial.

 

[pakeha]

...

Did you know there's good reason to think that Pliny/Trajan correspondence is fraudulent?

No there is not good reason. I don't know of that but I certainly don't doubt some espouse it as not authentic. Pliny does not reference Jesus but does execute his followers who refuse to recant being 'Christian' which it appears Pliny doesn't really comprehend.

If you're interesting in knowing why that correspondence is of dubious value, you might try reading the article linked here
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306...es.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Plinynot.html

Do you think that because the letters were known to Tertullian they're authentic?

And since the OP of this thread mentions Ehrman, here's a post from the infamous monster thread at RatSkep which raises another problem with those Plinian letters.

Again, I go back to Ehrman's list of the god-beliefs of early Christians:

"In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed that there was only one God, the Creator of all there is. Other people who called themselves Christian, however, insisted that there were two different gods – one of the Old Testament (a God of wrath) and one of the New Testament (a God of love and mercy). These were not simply two different facets of the same God: they were actually two different gods. Strikingly, the groups that made these claims – including the followers of Marcion, whom we have already met – insisted that their views were the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Other groups, for example, of Gnostic Christians, insisted that there were not just two gods, but twelve. Others said thirty. Others still said 365. All these groups claimed to be Christian, insisting that their views were true and had been taught by Jesus and his followers."

It strikes me that if you have a group of people who think there are twelve gods, or thirty, or three-hundred and sixty five, you are dealing with astronomical and calendrical mythical beings. Pliny is, in my mind, a good source for this when he talks of them singing hims before dawn -- this seems to be an obvious vocation to the sun. In addition, Pliny, according to his letter, tortured people, yet he does not note them ascribing the start of their religion to a Palestinian peripatetic. Is this not evidence that there was no extant story of such a thing at that time?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-18080.html#p1070885

 

[Brainache]

But Price's points dove tail into what Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall states regarding the meaning of "historical Jesus":

1) a man, Jesus, existed, and is the source of the myth but that the myth itself may not be an accurate portrayal of the man;
2) not only did Jesus exist, but the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events.


Even in point 2 we still have a wild variation in just what Jesus supposedly was and point 1 allows you to basically have Jesus be anything you want him to be...even if it is as out there as a spaceman from an advanced civilization.

First you would have to demonstrate that these Aliens exist, then you would have to prove that one of them was Jesus.

You don't really think that is as plausible as a 1st century Jewish Rabbi, do you?

Pliny executes the followers of Christ not Jesus and since Christ was a title we have no idea who they really followed. More over given the issues with Christus and Chrestus and the evidence that some followers of Osiris may have been called Chrestians ("Chrestus was not only a familiar personal name, it was also a name of the Egyptian Serapis, or Osiris, who had a large following at Rome" (McKinsey, Claud Dennis (2000) Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide pg 309))

So in addition to confusing Chrestus with Christus you have the possibility of confusing Christians with Chrestians who were totally different.

Besides as evidenced by John Frum this doesn't mean the John From described by the cult actually existed.

The fact that c180 in Demonstration (74) Irenaeus wrote "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." shows that Church Fathers were not cross checking anything that they got as this is totally anachronistic and nonhistorial.

Well it certainly is not evidence that Jesus was a tap-dancing midget from the moon.

 

[pakeha]

If I brought him up as a first century source then I 'misspoke'.

There's no "if" about it, jobberone
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9646807&postcount=1028

...I said why he is pertinent. The oral tradition appears to have survived largely intact. He was an expert if not one of 'the experts' on it. There is no grand conspiracy by the Jewish community to deny that Jesus was crucified. If they don't dispute his existence then I find it difficult to understand all this belief in a mythical one. Denying his existence is just as good if not better than saying he does not fulfill messianic prophecy. ...

Are you saying the recorded beliefs of Maimonides on the subject, based on oral traditions, are evidence of Jesus' existence?
Isn't that an argument from authority^WP?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on Clement and his acquaintance with the apostles.

ETA
Sorry, I missed your post about Clement.

 

[pakeha]

... Followers of Simon Magus were called Christian since the time of Claudiud c 41-54 CE. Virtually all of Samaria worshiped Simon Magus as a God.


There were many many so-called Christian cults who did not believe the story of Jesus and were not followers of Jesus.

Interesting.
No wonder Simon Magus^WP gets such good press from the author(s) of Luke/Acts.
And the early church father, too.