Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

...Of course, according to the Pauline epistles, Paul underwent a conversion experience. These aren't exactly uncommon in history.

Paul's supposed conversion experience is irrelevant to history. If Jesus was a known dead messianic pretender as you imagine then the Pauline Epistles are the products of an IDIOT, LUNACY or LYING.

If the Romans executed your pretender why would a Pharisee called Paul go to Rome to tell the Roman Emperor that your dead pretender was God's own Son.

Examine what Paul the Pharisee supposedly claimed about your dead pretender.

Romans 1

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your dead messianic pretender got power to be the Son of God when he resurrected?

What power? What resurrection? What fiction!!!

If your messianic pretender was dead how did Paul prove he was the Son of God after the resurrection on the THIRD day.

How did Paul manage to fool the Romans that executed your dead messianic ruler?

Your dead messianic pretender is just a massive conspiracy theory based on nothing but imagination.

Now, my question remains: Why would a non-Jewish cult, originating outside Judea, go out of its way to identify its Christ with a Jewish guy named Jesus and also go out of its way to claim that this Christ Jesus fulfilled all kinds of Jewish prophecies? Also, why would this cult buy into Jewish apocalyptic belief?

Who were the Jewish Christians of your supposed Jewish cult?

Justin was not a Jew.

Marcion was not a Jew.

Theophilus was not a Jew.

Athenagors was not a Jew.

Tertullian was not a Jew.

Origen was NOT a Jew.

Eusebius was not a Jew.

Irenaeus was not a Jew.

Ignatius was not a Jew.

Clement of Rome was not a Jew.

Arnobius was not a Jew.

Basilides was not a Jew.

Carpocrates was not a Jew.

Chrysotom was not a Jew.

Clement of Alexandria was not a Jew.

Jerome was not a Jew.

Optatus was not a Jew.

 

[Brainache]

Oops, sorry dejudge I was wrong. You did reply:

Your links have nothing at all about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul. In terms of misrepresentation your post is probably the worst that I have seen.

Please identify the names of Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul in any of your links and that those event happened in the time of Pilate.

I was not satisfied by your curt dismissal, given that I had supported my assertion with sources and links.

So I posted this:

You didn't say anything about "names".

Why are the people I cited not Jesus, The Disciples and Paul and his followers?

I need sources!

How can you dismiss this without citing any evidence?

I don't accept your baseless speculations, I want evidence. I've provided mine, where's yours?

ETA: I'll even support my contention that the official dating of the DSS is wrong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html

And:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

So now tell me Why Jesus couldn't be the "Teacher of Righteousness" and Paul isn't "The Spouter of Lies"...

If you can make confident assertions, so can I.

In case you were thinking of the usual carbon dating issue which is often brought up regarding this topic.

Are you going to address these points, or ignore them, because I think it is a better idea about the origins of Christianity than yours. Can you convince me otherwise?

Go on, give it a try. Look at my evidence and tell me what is wrong with it.

Debunk away!

 

[dejudge]

However, I think it is entirely plausible, in fact likely, that an itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, and that this preacher got himself crucified for sedition. He wouldn't have been the first, or the last for that matter. What separated him from the others was his loyal little band of followers who took it on themselves to preach in his name.

It is not plausible that an itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus existed. There is no actual known evidence to support such a plausibility at all.

Plausibility is not the product of imagination but of evidence or data. Your intinerant preacher called Jesus is neither in or out the Bible.

Your intinerant preacher is a very plausible myth.

On the other hand, It is entirely plausible that Jeus was a figure of mythology because there is an abundance of evidence--hundreds of writings from antiquity where Christian writers themselves argued thet there was NO HJ and that Jesus was actually born of a Ghost and God Creator.

 

[TimCallahan]

You have merely invented your own Jesus based on your imagination as predicted by Albert Schweitzer. See Albert Schweitzer's "Quest for an Historical Jesus".

The Pauline Corpus does not support your minor messianic pretender.

The Pauline Corpus neither supports nor opposes any historic Jesus. This is particularly the case since Paul's Christ Jesus largely dispensed with the Jesus of any Jesus cult of the sort the Ebionites would have followed.

If Jesus was an actual known messianic pretender in the time of Pilate and was executed by the Romans then the Pauline Corpus would be known a pack of lies since 37-41 CE.

It would have made no sense at all--completely idiotic and suicidal--to tell the Romans and people of the Roman Empire that a dead minor messianic pretender was God Creator and that every one should bow to the name of Jesus.

And you're saying that those Christians who went to their deaths rather than renouncing Christ and burning incense to the emperor weren't suicidal? People believe irrational crap and are willing to die for it over and over again. Consider all those at Jonestown who willingly drank the cool-aid.

The Pauline Corpus utterly destroys any claim that Jesus was a known man who was dead for years.

Philippians 2

The Pauline writers would be regarded as criminals or criminally DUMB if Jesus was known to be a dead minor messianic pretender.

Have you heard of the Nero Redivivus legend? A lot of Romans believed that a dead Nero would return to life. How about Elvis sightings. How about those people who still believe that Obama is Muslim communist born in Kenya or that 9/11 was an inside job planned by the CIA. You underestimate the willingness of people to believe all sorts of crazy things.

When did God exalt your dead messianic pretender?

Since I don't believe in God, I can't answer that question.

And how did Paul prove the dead messianic pretender abolished the Laws of the Jews?

Galatians 5:2 NIV

He didn't prove it to the Jews, any more than did the author of Acts.

Now, tell me, how and why did this non-Jewish cult you claim arose in Egypt in the second century come to identify its Christ with a Jewish personage and why would the members of this non-Jewish cult have gone out of their way to have their Christ fulfill Jewish messianic prophecies, such as Micah 5:2?

 

[Brainache]

...
On the other hand, It is entirely plausible that Jeus was a figure of mythology because there is an abundance of evidence--hundreds of writings from antiquity where Christian writers themselves argued thet there was NO HJ and that Jesus was actually born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Is this obtuse argument the product of ignorance, or dishonesty?

 

[tsig]

My posts in this thread are entirely "not as mod". In fact, I am not permitted by forum policy to moderate a thread in which I am participating as a member.

I use the name "Trvthers" because their style of argumentation reminds me so much of 9/11 Truthers; they simply handwave away any evidence presented that conflicts with their predetermined conclusion.

So if I call you a Jesus Freak because you freak out whenever someone suggests he didn't exist, that's OK?

This inventing names to call the opponent could be real fun.

 

[Brainache]

So if I call you a Jesus Freak because you freak out whenever someone suggests he didn't exist, that's OK?

This inventing names to call the opponent could be real fun.

I find it difficult to believe that the pastime would be new to you.

 

[Stone]

Maybe he is sick of being accused of being a "Closet Fundie"...

As am I, and every single other HJ-er on this -- and many another -- board.

In fact, I like Trvthers. I'll adopt that. Thank you!

Stone

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus neither supports nor opposes any historic Jesus. This is particularly the case since Paul's Christ Jesus largely dispensed with the Jesus of any Jesus cult of the sort the Ebionites would have followed.

The Pauline Corpus supports forgery, mythology and fiction.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was a Spirit and must resurrect for Remission of Sins.

There may be at least 7 authors using the name Paul and the Pauline writers claimed over 500 persons at once was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

What fiction!!! What mythology!!

And you're saying that those Christians who went to their deaths rather than renouncing Christ and burning incense to the emperor weren't suicidal? People believe irrational crap and are willing to die for it over and over again. Consider all those at Jonestown who willingly drank the cool-aid.

I am happy you mention the people at Jonestown.

Those people drank cool-aid because they BELIEVED a story that happened hundreds of years earlier.

They did not personally see Jesus alive.

Well, it was people in the 2nd century who BELIEVED a story that supposedly happened during the time of Pilate
.
They did not ever see Jesus alive--they believed Jesus came since the time of Pilate.

Have you heard of the Nero Redivivus legend? A lot of Romans believed that a dead Nero would return to life. How about Elvis sightings. How about those people who still believe that Obama is Muslim communist born in Kenya or that 9/11 was an inside job planned by the CIA. You underestimate the willingness of people to believe all sorts of crazy things.

Since you knew in advance of posting that people are willing to believe all sorts of crazy things you should tell us why people believe the crazy stories in the Bible about Jesus is history.

There are many many crazy stories in the Bible including the Baptism and the Crucifixion of the Son of a Ghost.

How do you baptize a Spirit and Crucify a Ghost?

What a crazy story!!!

People believe those crazy stories contain history and do so without evidence??

 

[Stone]

Is this obtuse argument the product of ignorance, or dishonesty?

That is the question that I've pondered ever since extensive surfing made it dawn on me that mytherism is sheer wishful woo.

Stone

 

[zugzwang]

Is this obtuse argument the product of ignorance, or dishonesty?

Wishful thinking?

 

[TimCallahan]

As am I, and every single other HJ-er on this -- and many another -- board.

In fact, I like Trvthers. I'll adopt that. Thank you!

Stone

For the sake of reasonable - and civil - discourse, it should be understood there is a continuum of views on the HJ v. MJ issue. On the HJ side there are believers, who accept the gospels as true, including the miracles; those who, while they dismiss the miracles, accept the rest of the narrative as true; and those who, like myself, consider any HJ as barely historical. On the MJ side there are those who might well see Jesus as a composite of different messianic pretenders plus cynic philosophers, as well as those who see Jesus as totally made up, but with some ties to Jewish roots. Finally, there are those who consider Jesus as a fabrication by non-Jewish creators of a new cult.

I suspect we do not have any believers on this thread, i.e. Christians. As such, I wonder, somewhat, at the vehemence and rancor of those holding various positions on the HJ - MJ spectrum. I wonder: Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed, but was only the nucleus of a mythic system or if he didn't exist at all? I still have to wonder why, if Jesus was entirely (rather than mostly) mythic, any cult celebrating a Christos would go out of its way to saddle itself with the baggage of Judaism and Jewish apocalyptic belief. So far, nobody has given me a satisfactory explanation of why this would be the case.

Should it turn out that I am wrong, that Jesus is, indeed, completely mythical, as opposed to almost completely mythical, I can't say I'd find it devastating to my worldview. I wonder if those on the MJ spectrum feel the same way.

 

[zugzwang]

TimCallahan wrote:

I still have to wonder why, if Jesus was entirely (rather than mostly) mythic, any cult celebrating a Christos would go out of its way to saddle itself with the baggage of Judaism and Jewish apocalyptic belief. So far, nobody has given me a satisfactory explanation of why this would be the case.

It's also intriguing that the cult pretty quickly emerges from its Jewish baggage, and turns to the Gentile world. So it not only saddles itself with quite an amount of Jewish baggage, it also pretty quickly gets rid of a lot of it.

Well, there could be an explanation, for example, that a Jewish foundation might be prestigious - but would that be true in a Gentile culture?

Or the myth began amongst Jews, who developed the idea of a celestial messiah, crucified in the heavens, or the air, or somewhere non-physical. This then appealed to non-Jews, who gave it an even more Hellenistic 'logos' orientation.

Trouble is, this is all speculative, and piles supposition upon supposition.

 

[dejudge]

I suspect we do not have any believers on this thread, i.e. Christians.

Why would you suspect that there are no believers on this thread? It is extremely easy to detect closet believers.

They typically always say Jesus existed but never present any actual evidence.

Belief without evidence is blind faith.

 

[TimCallahan]

The Pauline Corpus supports forgery, mythology and fiction.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was a Spirit and must resurrect for Remission of Sins.

There may be at least 7 authors using the name Paul and the Pauline writers claimed over 500 persons at once was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

What fiction!!! What mythology!!




I am happy you mention the people at Jonestown.

Those people drank cool-aid because they BELIEVED a story that happened hundreds of years earlier.

They did not personally see Jesus alive.

Well, it was people in the 2nd century who BELIEVED a story that supposedly happened during the time of Pilate
.
They did not ever see Jesus alive--they believed Jesus came since the time of Pilate.




Since you knew in advance of posting that people are willing to believe all sorts of crazy things you should tell us why people believe the crazy stories in the Bible about Jesus is history.

There are many many crazy stories in the Bible including the Baptism and the Crucifixion of the Son of a Ghost.

How do you baptize a Spirit and Crucify a Ghost?

What a crazy story!!!

People believe those crazy stories contain history and do so without evidence??

And your point is . . . ?

 

[TimCallahan]

Why would you suspect that there are no believers on this thread? It is extremely easy to detect closet believers.

They typically always say Jesus existed but never present any actual evidence.

Belief without evidence is blind faith.

And this is all you got out of my post? How sad.

 

[Brainache]

Why would you suspect that there are no believers on this thread? It is extremely easy to detect closet believers.

They typically always say Jesus existed but never present any actual evidence.

Belief without evidence is blind faith.

This is insulting.

 

[dejudge]

There are at least three apologetic sources where the authors argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin when their opponent claimed Jesus was a man or could only be a man.

1. Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho".

2. Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

3. Origen's "Against Celsus"

So even before the Roman Empire became Christianised non-Christians could prove not Jesus was a man.

The story that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God Creator could not be challenged.

Jesus of Nazareth had no known human father and mother or it was never established who they were or else non-Christians could easily expose the supposed Christian writers as LIARS.

If Jesus was registered as the son of a man and a woman in the census of Cyrenius then how was it possible for Paul to FOOL the Romans claiming Jesus was God Creator from at least 37-62 CE based on Acts and the Pauline Corpus??

The same Romans who executed Jesus believed the LIES of Paul??

An already Dead HJ and early Pauline writings cannot be reconciled.

What could Paul a Pharisee expect to accomplish by publicly Lying about a known dead itinerant preacher?

Can anyone explain how Paul could show the actual benefits of worshiping a dead itinerant preacher as a God instead of a living Roman Emperor?

The Pauline Corpus is just not historically or theologically sound.

A DEAD and EXECUTED ITINERANT preacher is a God, Lord, Savior, Messiah and Creator??

Who would believe such a story?

 

[dejudge]

And your point is . . . ?

You have forgotten what you wrote already.

 

[dejudge]

It's also intriguing that the cult pretty quickly emerges from its Jewish baggage, and turns to the Gentile world. So it not only saddles itself with quite an amount of Jewish baggage, it also pretty quickly gets rid of a lot of it.

There is no evidence that the cult "pretty quickly emerges". Your assumptions are counter-productive.

It is pointless using debunked information to re-construct the past.

Let us deal with the evidence.

The Gospels are forgeries and the accounts of Jesus are not eyewitness reports and the Pauline Corpus is a massive compilation of forgeries with perhaps as much as 7 different authors writing at different times.

There is zero corroboration for Paul, the 12 apostles and Jesus outside apologetics.

The surviving evidence do not support any Jesus cult in Judea and in the 1st century.