I can't imagine why. The counter arguments were always very strong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
I just took it home from the library one day and started reading.
People here soon sorted me out.
Might have even been you. I don't recall.
Thank you. That is most kind. But I don't remember either. Are you sure you're not following the same path with Eisenman as with Thiede?
Last edited:
I'm trying to be a lot more careful by checking things as I go.
So far I've found points that are debatable but nothing definitely fatal yet.
You might disagree, but either way it isn't the defining point of my life or anything, just a bit of a hobby.
No doubt JaysonR will stump me with something soon.
dejudge said:
Craig B said:
Your response is absolutely bizarre. The passage does not mention the Romans at all.
Why did you assume that the passage in 1 Cor. 2 refers to Romans?
It is most strange you have ignored or have forgotten the passage in 1 Thessalonians that specifically identified Jews as the Killers of the Lord Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 2
Please, do not ever forget 1 Thessalonians again.
The Pauline writers preached "all over" the Roman Empire and documented that the Jews Killed Jesus.
Last edited:
They also proclaimed that he was killed by the rulers or princes of the world, which can hardly mean the Jews, particularly if they only forged all this stuff in 180 AD as you absurdly state, at which time the Jews had been banned from Jerusalem which had been renamed and turned into a pagan Roman city. Also, where do you get this authoritarian tone from? It really is very strange.
Don't you forget 1 Thessalonians again either, by the way. This is supposed to be a post 180 AD forgery? Come off it!
My bold.
Strange enough Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho XVI and Tertullian also claimed the Jews killed Jesus and the Prophets.
In any event there are multiple apologetic writers, at least seven of them, who claimed the Jews Killed Jesus.
1. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew XVI
2. Aristides' Apology
3. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews
4. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews
5. Origen's Against Celsus 1
6. Lactantius "The Manner the Persecutors Died"
7. 1 Thessalonians 2
In any event there are multiple apologetic writers, at least seven of them, who claimed the Jews Killed Jesus.
1. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew XVI
2. Aristides' Apology
3. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews
4. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews
5. Origen's Against Celsus 1
6. Lactantius "The Manner the Persecutors Died"
7. 1 Thessalonians 2
Thank you for citing your sources. None of this is in dispute. I merely noted that Paul also attributes the execution to the princes of the world, and indicated internal evidence suggesting that 1 Thess is clearly not as late as 180 AD. Don't ever forget that.
I've seen this reading things into passage that aren't really there before.
Luke is a prime example where people try to argue that ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΗΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ (Herod king/ruler of Judea) in Luke 1:5 must refer Herod the Great despite internal evidence to the contrary.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ is used in Mark 6:14 to refer to Herod Antipas who was Tetrarch (not King) of Galilee. Ego it must be used as "ruler" and not just king
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (King of the Jews) a title supposedly only used by Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, and Herod Agrippa II is given to Herod Archelaus in Matthew 2:2.
So from the Gosple's themselves we see the writers were fast and loose with the titles of the various Herod and only when they give us other markers (such as a successor or a related event) can we really tell what Herod is being talked about.
For a sampling of the apologist efforts to ignore these points simply see the comments on John Armstrong's The New Jesus Timeline Part IV: Apologist Responses. Despite evidence of Herod Archelaus being called "king of Judea" one person keeps insisting that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great.
Last edited:
There is no indicated internal evidence to date 1 Thessalonians before 180 CE or else you would have shown me.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
For the most part, I think we will have to agree to disagree, since further argument will be futile for both of us. However, what you assert in your post above is simply too bizarre to let pass. Are you actually asserting that the entirety of the Annals is a fourth century forgery? Or are you only asserting that the passage on the burning of Rome is a forgery? Please support whatever assertion you make with some solid evidence.
That is absurd. I will not respond to any further observation from you, as I really can't believe you're bring serious.
Referring to the use of historical method in ancient history - that sources are often much more fragmentary and uncertain than in modern history. Thus, you often can't find contemporaneous stuff; there may not be 'hard' stuff such as archaeology; historians may use indirect material such as hearsay, and so on. Thus you may get just one mention of somebody in a document - see Josephus' mention of various preachers and messianic claimants such as Theudas.
An interesting and more modern example is Jane Austen's mention of baseball in a novel - although it might not be referring to the same game.
In fact, I suppose upon this hinges some of the divisions over HJ, since the critics of historical method seem to argue that such weak evidence as above is not actually evidence.
You are incapable of supporting what you assert and cannot ever present any supporting evidence from antiquity for an HJ of Nazareth during the time of Pilate by non-apologetics--NEVER EVER--IMPOSSIBLE.
Now, I am arguing that the passage with Christus was inserted by a later editor and that Tacitus Annals 15.44 was interpolated no earlier than the end of the 4th or early 5th century based on SEVERAL factors.
1. For hundreds of years No apologetic writer used Tacitus Annals 15.44 to argue Jesus existed.
2. Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho"did not use Tacitus Annals 15.44 when arguing with Trypho the Jew to prove or show that Jesus Christ had already come.
3. Tertullian in "Answer to the Jews" did not use Tacitus Annals 15.44 to prove or show that Jesus the Christ had already come when arguing against the Jews.
4. Hippolytus in "Treatise Against the Jews" did not use Tacitus Annals 15.44 to prove or show Jesus Christ had already come when arguing against the Jews.
5. c 325 CE or later, Eusebius in "Church History" did not use Tacitus Annals 15.44 but used ONLY the forgeries in Josephus to show non-apologetics wrote about Jesus.
6. Sulpitius Severus in "Sacred History" fundamentally confirmed that Tacitus Annals 15.44 did not contain the passage with Christus.
7. The 11th century Medician manuscript the earliest copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44 show that the word "Chrestianos" was altered.
Now, examine Severus' Sacred History 2.29--the passage with Christus is missing.
Sulpitius' Sacred History 2.29
That is your only option. You must run away when I expose that you have very little knowledge of the Pauline Corpus and apologetic writings of antiquity.
You have no internal evidence that 1 Thessalonians was composed before c 180 C E.
It is clearly stated in and out the NT by multiple writers that the Jews KILLED Jesus.
1. Acts 2---36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified , both Lord and Christ.
2. . Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew XVI .... you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him.
3. Aristides' Apology .....But he himself was pierced by the Jews...
4. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews ...let the Jews recognise their own fate..... they despised and slew Him..
5. Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews -----they killed the Son of their Benefactor
6. Origen's Against Celsus 1 ...... they put to death Christ, who was a prophet...
7. Lactantius "The Manner the Persecutors Died" ..........I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.
8. 1 Thessalonians 2 ......the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets
Last edited:
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
And why do you believe that New Testament apologists when they say that the Jews killed Jesus when you won't believe them when they say that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
When all is said and done, you aren't asserting that the entirety of the Annals is a forgery, which is you seemed to be asserting in an earlier post. You're merely asserting that 15.44 was altered. That's all I was asking you about. As to the group being referred to as "Chrestians" rather than "Christians," Tertullian, IIRC, complained that critics of Christianity couldn't even get the name right, calling them "Chrestians," rather than "Christians."
Now, for my further edification, can you lay out the timeline for the development of Christianity that you espouse? I'm also curious as to your take on how the religion developed.
Again, you must be specific because I am dealing with the timeline of a cult of Christians who believed the story that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.
There were multiple cults called Christians and some were not at all related to the story of Jesus.
The cult of Christians who believed the story that the Jews KILLED the Son of God called Jesus of Nazareth originated sometime in the 2nd century or after the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger or after c 115 CE.
So, tell me about the Christians that Pliny knew of.
If they didn't believe Jesus the Nazarene was the Messiah, what did they believe?
You are exposing your complete lack of knowledge of Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology.
You seem to have no idea the figures of Mythology are described with human characteristics.
Please, first read Plutarch's Romulus because your post is rather embarrassing.
Romulus the Myth founder of Rome was described as a flesh and blood human being with a human brother and born of a woman.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html
You seem to have no idea that the authors of NT claimed Jesus, God Creator, was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, that he walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.
Why don't you accept that Jesus as described in the NT is NOT a human being??
- Status