Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Your contention is that there could not possibly be any first century wandering apocalyptic jewish preacher.

No, No, No!!! Do not put words in my mouth.

My argument is that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology. I can present hundreds of myth fairy tales about Jesus in the existing manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic sources where Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

If you want to argue that Jesus was a figure of history then present the evidence. Of course you will never do so.

The only evidence you present is quotations from the Bumper Book of Godly Fairy Tales. Your reasoning is no different than a fundamentalist Christian citing the bible as proof of the bible. The only observable difference is that you claim a different conclusion from the very same risible "evidence".

Actually it is those who argue for an historical Jesus use a very similar reasoning to fundamentalist Christian citing the bible as proof for Jesus of Nazareth claiming he was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

Essentially, HJers need the Bible just as much as the fundamentalist Christian. Without the Bible, HJers would not have known who their Jesus was .

Plus, HJers must believe the Bible is true without external non-apologetic sources.

In the Bible it states that Jesus was baptized by John but in Antiquities of the Jews 18 John is not associated with Jesus of Nazareth and there is no baptism.

HJers must exercise faith like the fundamentalist Christian to believe the baptism story.


]

 

[abaddon]

No, No, No!!! Do not put words in my mouth.

My argument is that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology. I can present hundreds of myth fairy tales about Jesus in the existing manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic sources where Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

If you want to argue that Jesus was a figure of history then present the evidence. Of course you will never do so.

I don't care.

Actually it is those who argue for an historical Jesus use a very similar reasoning to fundamentalist Christian citing the bible as proof for Jesus of Nazareth claiming he was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

I still don't care.

Essentially, HJers need the Bible just as much as the fundamentalist Christian. Without the Bible, HJers would not have known who their Jesus was .

Urge to care still not rising.

Plus, HJers must believe the Bible is true without external non-apologetic sources.

Nope, still don't care.

In the Bible it states that Jesus was baptized by John but in Antiquities of the Jews 18 John is not associated with Jesus of Nazareth and there is no baptism.

Nope, the return to bible thumping leaves me unmoved.

HJers must exercise faith like the fundamentalist Christian to believe the baptism story.

There is nothing extraordinary in the premise that apocalyptic Jewish preachers existed in that time and place.

There is nothing extraordinary in the premise that one or more such had some invented mythology tacked on afterwards.

It is all very banal and mundane.


BTW, why is it that you compose all of your responses in wordpad/notepad?

 

[dejudge]

There is nothing extraordinary in the premise that apocalyptic Jewish preachers existed in that time and place.

You are stuck in the premise stage. Now is the time to present evidence to support the premise.

You should know that there is nothing extraordinary in the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology

There is nothing extraordinary in the premise that one or more such had some invented mythology tacked on afterwards.

It is all very banal and mundane.

Where is the evidence for your banal and mundane premise?

Why do you assume you know what was tacked on. It is not logical at all to assume only the supernatural and implausible can be tacked on.

 

[abaddon]

You are stuck in the premise stage. Now is the time to present evidence to support the premise.

You presented it already by citing instances of radical jewish preachers of the time.

You should know that there is nothing extraordinary in the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology

Correct. And so what?

Where is the evidence for your banal and mundane premise?

As above, you already cited it yourself. Or do you wish to recant your previous posts about the various crackpot religious loons which abounded in that time and place?

Why do you assume you know what was tacked on. It is not logical at all to assume only the supernatural and implausible can be tacked on.

I made no such assumption nor claim. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. In any event, explain Troy.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Where is the evidence for your banal and mundane premise?

In the same place as the evidence for your claims.
Several people long ago wrote about a (purported) demigod called Jesus existing in the real world. These people generally wrote about him as though they sincerely believed he existed in the real world, as a demigod or a person or otherwise.
This alone is evidence for the existence of Jesus. Of course, the quality of this evidence is low.
The next question is: If these stories about an existing Jesus did not come about by a Jesus existing, how did they come about?
As far as I have seen, the answers to this question are about as speculative as the properties of the existing Jesus. Most knowledgeable people seem to think they're more speculative.

Me, I can't tell. I just find this discussion fascinating and very instructive, on many levels.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is hopelessly wrong.

This is typical of your arguments, here: argument by fiat.

Again, you have merely assumed that there are authentic Pauline Epistles.

Considering that you have not shown otherwise, I'd say you're doing quite a bit of assumption, yourself.

Of course I fully expect you to say that I am totally wrong, or misrepresenting you, because somehow no poster in this forum is able to do anything else. It's almost indistinguishable from a situation in which you were the one who was totally wrong, but was utterly unable to admit it, so you belittle other posters. Mind you, it's possible that you're right, and everybody else is wrong, but somehow I don't think the probability of that is very high, so I'll go with the former.

 

[Belz...]

Given that Justin Martyr lived c. 100 CE – c. 165 CE, a paleographic analysis of Romans demonstrating that Justin Martyr copied a passage from Romans (it was most likely an allusion or quotation, but that's beside the point) would place the terminus ante quem of Romans c. 165 CE, much earlier than your terminus post quem of c. 180 CE for the oldest pseudo-Pauline forgeries.

I'm shocked. Shocked that dejudge has "missed" this post.

 

[Belz...]

Your admittance that you were wrong is your own problem. It is not logical at all that because you admit you were wrong that I am wrong.

Now you're just flailing your arms about.

 

[dejudge]

In the same place as the evidence for your claims.
Several people long ago wrote about a (purported) demigod called Jesus existing in the real world. These people generally wrote about him as though they sincerely believed he existed in the real world, as a demigod or a person or otherwise.

This alone is evidence for the existence of Jesus. Of course, the quality of this evidence is low.

I am sorry. It is hopelessly illogical that there is evidence for a human Jesus because there are writings about a character who was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

We have writings about Romulus, Achilles, Jupiter, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the God of Moses and they are all considered figures of myth.


We have evidence of a figure of mythology called Jesus of Nazareth in hundreds of recovered manuscripts, Codices and apologetic writings.

Jesus was a figure of mythology until new evidence is found to contradict the hundreds of writings of myth activity.

The next question is: If these stories about an existing Jesus did not come about by a Jesus existing, how did they come about?
As far as I have seen, the answers to this question are about as speculative as the properties of the existing Jesus. Most knowledgeable people seem to think they're more speculative.

Your question is extremely easy to answer. A piece of cake.

If Jesus did not exist then it must be obvious that the stories of Jesus were made up.

There is an abundance of evidence which show the story was made up.

Jesus of Nazareth was said to be born of a Holy Ghost and God Creator who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended into clouds.

It is clear that Jesus of Nazareth was an invention which was never a figure of history.

 

[bruto]

It is your grammatical analysis that has been repeatedly shown to be wholly flawed.

You are using copies of copies of copies to do what you call a paleographic exam when you cannot even provide a date of authorship for the very copy that you employ.

repeatedly stated, not shown.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I am sorry. It is hopelessly illogical that there is evidence for a human Jesus because there are writings about a character who was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

Yes, that, but also a character who interacted with several people who are far more reliably documented. There are several ways these writings can come about. One of those is that there was a man, of whom people later believed increasingly weird things.

Your question is extremely easy to answer. A piece of cake.

Yes, obviously.

It is possible to assert any number of hypothetical scenarios that produce that outcome. That's not the point.

If Jesus did not exist then it must be obvious that the stories of Jesus were made up.

That would be one hypothesis, yes.
It could also have been the result of a very high stakes alphabet-based lottery, or of a game where each successive person adds the next word.
I can go on speculating, if you like.

Which one of all of the ones we can think of is most likely is the next question.

 

[dejudge]

repeatedly stated, not shown.

What I have repeated is shown in the NT if you would only read it.

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.26-35, John 1.1-3, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Luke 24, Acts 1, Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Jesus is documented as a figure of mythology.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, that, but also a character who interacted with several people who are far more reliably documented. There are several ways these writings can come about. One of those is that there was a man, of whom people later believed increasingly weird things.

It is well documented that Jesus was a figure of mythology with hundreds of manuscripts. There is virtually no corroboration that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being with a human father.

Even if it is speculated that there was a Jesus of Nazareth there would be no corroborative evidence at all except the shroud of Turin.

Jesus of Nazareth and Nazareth are not found in any non-apologetic writings of the 1st century.

 

[dejudge]

It could also have been the result of a very high stakes alphabet-based lottery, or of a game where each successive person adds the next word.
I can go on speculating, if you like.

What are you prepared to argue? And what supporting evidence will you present?

It seems to me that you think that your speculation without a shred of evidence has weight when it is of no real value.

 

[Craig B]

It is well documented that Jesus was a figure of mythology with hundreds of manuscripts. There is virtually no corroboration that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being with a human father.

Oh yes there is.

Mark 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 6:42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

How, indeed, can he say that, dejudge?

 

[Belz...]

I am sorry. It is hopelessly illogical that there is evidence for a human Jesus because there are writings about a character who was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

Wasn't Caesar given those attributes after his death ?

 

[Belz...]

What I have repeated is shown in the NT if you would only read it.

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.26-35, John 1.1-3, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Luke 24, Acts 1, Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Jesus is documented as a figure of mythology.

You are making absolute statements and ignoring that they go both ways: what about the mundane, human stuff that Jesus does in the gospels ? Do they mean he was a historical person ?

It seems to me like you're starting from your conclusion.

 

[dejudge]

You are making absolute statements and ignoring that they go both ways: what about the mundane, human stuff that Jesus does in the gospels ? Do they mean he was a historical person ?

It seems to me like you're starting from your conclusion.

Why are you assuming without a shred of evidence that they go both ways??

We have statements in hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost, God Creator, that walked on the sea for miles, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The evidence for mythological Jesus is pristine as far back as the 2nd century.

You have been repeating the same old mantra without ever supplying a shred of evidence for HJ and have admitted everyone has agreed the evidence is terrible and very weak and that you are not convinced there was an HJ.

You are not helping the HJ argument.

Plus the fact that there are so many versions of HJ it means that it is certain that all of them except perhaps one are Myths and that HJ is a product of guessing and imagination--not evidence.

If Jesus was a Zealot then those who claim he was Cynic must have invented their own story.

It is certain that most of those who argue for an HJ have invented their own story without a shred of evidence.

Either all HJers or most HJers have invented their own Jesus.

Jesus the Zealot--an invention?

Jesus the Cynic--an invention?

Jesus the Apocalyptic--an invention?

Jesus the Christ--an invention?

Jesus the Magician--an invention?

Jesus the Prophet?--an invention

Which Jesus was NOT an invention if NOT all are? At least 5 of the 6 versions must be invented

It is absolutely certain the majority of HJers or all of them are inventors of their own historical Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you assuming without a shred of evidence that they go both ways??

I'm following your own logic, Dejudge. It's not my fault or my problem if you can't do the same.

 

[TimCallahan]

dejudge: I've asked you these before. You have not responded. I'll ask once again. Surprise me by actually responding:

1) You seem to be asserting that the Christian religion was begun rather late in the second century, outside Judea. If this is true, why did its founders go out of their way to add onto it all the baggage of a Jewish connection?

2) When I pointed out to you that the letter Pliny the younger sent to Trajan concerning his prosecution of Christians, a letter probably dating from ca. 115, you asserted that the term "Christian" was applied, from the time of Claudius onward, to magicians in general. What specific evidence do you have that this was the case?