Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

It is all over for the HJ argument

I'll be sure to tell the historians. When can we expect your publication overturning the current view on this ?

 

[Craig B]

You can do better than that, you can cite them.

Since having done so, I have come across a sceptic web site (the author describes himself not as a closet believer but as "a convinced atheist") Rejection of Pascal's Wager which has a good page on Jesus, with sub pages covering various points of detail. On the whole I think it's reasonable. In the matter of historicity it concludes

Jesus hailed from Nazareth, a small town in Galilee. We know nothing of his life before he started his public ministry. He preached initially in the small towns and villages of Galilee. He had some followers, thought [sic] the exact number is uncertain. His teachings, while radical, did not seem to involve a repudiation of Jewish laws. He came to Jerusalem with his disciples, was arrested and crucified. His disciples fled after he was arrested.

That seems the most plausible to me. The site calls the above "certain" but that's more than can be shown. "Most probable" would be better. See http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html.

 

[The Norseman]

Really? From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I'll concede the point that there is a great deal of disagreement about just what the hell this minor first-century religious figure was talking about, but whether or not he existed is simply not debated. He did exist.

In academic circles (as opposed to other venues) there is still quite a bit of debate.

As I said, I cannot post my evidence as of yet.

And as far as my behavior vis-a-vis that of the Trvthers, something about motes and beams comes to mind.

Oh? And what term do I use to refer to 'your side' that is disparaging?

 

[jhunter1163]

Oh? And what term do I use to refer to 'your side' that is disparaging?

Not you personally, but I seem to recall things like "closet theist" and "Jesus freak" being tossed my way.

And I'm interested to see your evidence. That's not sarcastic, by the way; I am certainly willing to review current developments. I know the "Q hypothesis" has been kicked around, but I am not well enough informed on that to give an opinion.

 

[dejudge]

I'll be sure to tell the historians. When can we expect your publication overturning the current view on this ?

You are not familiar with the current view of Richard Carrier and not familiar with the abundance of evidence for myth Jesus born of a Ghost and God Creator.

You are not familiar with the views of all historians on the existence and non-existence of Jesus.

In fact, you have already SCREAMED out boldly that you never claimed you have evidence for HJ even though you claimed the evidence is TERRIBLE and very weak.

You cannot overturn the evidence for Myth Jesus.

HJ is a Myth.

 

[dejudge]

Usual awful stuff from you, dejudge. So the scholars are not scholars, but apologists. You and others keep stating this, but most non-Christian commentators appear to accept an HJ too. Your statement is snide innuendo, such as you often produce. That is absurd. The HJ has no birth narrative because he didn't have a miraculous birth. It may be assumed he was born in a normal way. Nobody bothered to record it. To say, a figure from the past has no birth narrative so he must have come down from Heaven is not very sensible; it means his birth was nothing special.

What about the other characters who have no birth narrative in the NT? Your HJ is the product of assumption.

Satan the Devil has no birth narrative.

The angel Gabriel has no birth narrative.

God has no birth narrative.

The Holy Ghost has no birth narrative.

Paul has no birth narrative because his Jesus acquired his powers at the resurrection. Which Paul stresses because the sky dwelling post resurrection Jesus is the only one he knew.

You have exposed that you are just a Bible believer.

Paul's Jesus was a myth as soon as he admitted his Jesus became a powerful god when he was already dead. Paul could not have known anything from the dead.

Why are you promoting these Ghost stories from Paul as if they have historical value.

Now the HJ, if one can be discerned in this material (which I think it can) is the one with no birth narrative. Why do I think that? Guess! Is it because I think he came down from Heaven, as you hilariously suggest? Or is it because I think his birth was nothing special? You decide.

1. There is no birth narrative for Jesus of Nazareth in gMark.

2. Jesus of Nazareth walked on the sea in gMark.

3. Jesus of Nazareth transfigured in gMark.

I cannot assume Jesus was born naturally.

The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark and declared that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The very Christian writers who used gMark admitted Jesus must have been the product of a Ghost.

Why are you using admitted Ghost stories as history?

The entire NT is not historical accounts of Jesus but accounts of what people BELIEVED in antiquity.

 

[The Norseman]

Not you personally, but I seem to recall things like "closet theist" and "Jesus freak" being tossed my way.

Ah, okay. I guess I see 'Trvther' as a general term that could include many people at once, while 'Jesus freak' is, to me, aimed more at an individual. The former wouldn't necessarily be actionable while the latter could be.

Anyway, I think I'll leave it at that so as to not continue to be off-topic.

And I'm interested to see your evidence. That's not sarcastic, by the way; I am certainly willing to review current developments. I know the "Q hypothesis" has been kicked around, but I am not well enough informed on that to give an opinion.

More specifically I was referring to some information regarding the lack of consensus by quoting more from Carrier's Proving History.

So far, I have found this book to be quite fascinating as he lays out specific rules, guidelines and axioms that he feels should apply to every figure in history that we wish to have some sort of objective idea of whether or not they existed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Christians also typically affirm the religious beliefs of Christianity. For example, they believe that Jesus was sent by God to act as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity and that all who claim this redemption will be admitted into paradise for eternity.

For the vast majority of Christians, saying that Jesus was just another religiously deluded preacher who had virtually nothing in common with the equally deluded beliefs of those who worship him is considered downright blasphemous.

I don't know if you realize that your continued insistence that those who disagree with you are "closet Christians" makes you appear either ignorant or infantile.

 

[dejudge]

Christians also typically affirm the religious beliefs of Christianity. For example, they believe that Jesus was sent by God to act as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity and that all who claim this redemption will be admitted into paradise for eternity.

For the vast majority of Christians, saying that Jesus was just another religiously deluded preacher who had virtually nothing in common with the equally deluded beliefs of those who worship him is considered downright blasphemous.

I don't know if you realize that your continued insistence that those who disagree with you are "closet Christians" makes you appear either ignorant or infantile.

The vast majority of Christians typically use the Bible to argue that Jesus existed and do so without external corroborative evidence.

There are billions of Christians.

It is most logical that it is a very very high probability that those who use the Bible to argue that Jesus existed without external corroboration are indeed Christians or in the closet especially when they believe Paul's delusions or lies.

Why would a non-Christian believe Paul's delusions or lies?

 

[TimCallahan]

You could not say Paul. I asked for Jews outside the Bible.

And I gave you the Ebionites, and you ignored that.

Now, now, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate the governor of Claudius.

The Ebionites are first mentioned c 180 CE by Irenaeus. There is no evidence that the Jesus cult started with the Ebionites.

Once again, this goes to the question I have asked, which you have failed to address: How is it that a non-Jewish cult went out of its way to get involved with the Jewish scriptures? How do you explain the existence of this cult of Jewish Christians? Their existence only makes sense if there's a Jewish connection.

In gMark, Jesus spoke the parables to the Jews in Galilee so it must be logical that it was the very Jews whom he did not want to understand him and those whom he wanted to remain in sin.

The Jewish establihment in Galilee, the elders, chief priests and scribes are Jews. It should be obvious that they were not Romans.

But why would you say such a thing when you are aguing that the Jesus cult started with Hellenized Jews. You have nothing to show a single Hellenized Jew argued that your messianic pretender did actually exist.

Do you see the phrase "shall deliver him to the Gentiles"?

Well, if you do then you now understand that the chief priests and scribes were Jews--Not Gentiles.

Finally, you get the picture. The Jews delivered Jesus to the Gentiles and he was Killed.

Well, you have utterly failed to show that the Jesus story and religion was a product of Hellenzed Jews.

All the Gospels show antagonism towards the Jews.[/QUOTE]

I've refuted you point by point regarding the Gospel of Mark. You have ignored everything I've said. I've also pointed out to you that any HJ I would see as existing is quite minimal. We really don't have that great a quarrel. However, it seems important to you to be one-up on everyone else. That's what this quarrel is really all about. I realized late last night that I had wasted an extensive portion of the day arguing with you. I will not waste any further time with you.

As a way of avoiding the trap of being sucked into endless, pointless arguments with you, I am now putting you on "ignore."

 

[Stone]

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

Actually, Dejudge's post is very likely actionable. It effectively calls every single HJ-er on this board a deceiver and a liar.

Stone

 

[Stone]

This is insulting.

Completely, and very likely actionable. I decided to report it.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

What about the other characters who have no birth narrative in the NT? Your HJ is the product of assumption.

Satan the Devil has no birth narrative.
The angel Gabriel has no birth narrative.
God has no birth narrative.
The Holy Ghost has no birth narrative.
You have exposed that you are just a Bible believer.

Paul's Jesus was a myth as soon as he admitted his Jesus became a powerful god when he was already dead. Paul could not have known anything from the dead.

Why are you promoting these Ghost stories from Paul as if they have historical value.


1. There is no birth narrative for Jesus of Nazareth in gMark.

2. Jesus of Nazareth walked on the sea in gMark.

3. Jesus of Nazareth transfigured in gMark.

I cannot assume Jesus was born naturally.

The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark and declared that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
The very Christian writers who used gMark admitted Jesus must have been the product of a Ghost.

Why are you using admitted Ghost stories as history?

The entire NT is not historical accounts of Jesus but accounts of what people BELIEVED in antiquity.

I can't make any sense of most of this, especially the idea that I have "just exposed that I am a bible believer". That's naughty dejudge, and we've been through this before. I know what I believe better than you do. Anyway, your post is most unfortunately quite incomprehensible to me. Sorry.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The vast majority of Christians typically use the Bible to argue that Jesus existed and do so without external corroborative evidence.

Which is a far cry from suggesting that Jesus' existence as a run-of-the-mill human is plausible based on the only evidence available to us.

There are billions of Christians.

And?

It is most logical that it is a very very high probability that those who use the Bible to argue that Jesus existed without external corroboration are indeed Christians or in the closet especially when they believe Paul's delusions or lies.

Only to someone who is cognitively challenged.

Why would a non-Christian believe Paul's delusions or lies?

Who said anything about believing Paul's delusions or lies? You would make a terrible police detective. If you caught one witness in a lie, you would immediately leap to the conclusion that everything that person had said about anything was completely false.

 

[IanS]

Really? From Wiki:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I'll concede the point that there is a great deal of disagreement about just what the hell this minor first-century religious figure was talking about, but whether or not he existed is simply not debated. He did exist.
.

Do you think these bible scholars, like Bart Ehrman and JD Crossan and the rest, who say Jesus "certainly existed", are citing any credible evidence for that conclusion?

Have you read, for example, Ehrman’s latest book on the existence of Jesus, where he claims to give all his evidence?

Do you know what these bibles scholars give as their evidence of such “certainty”?

Do you know what the evidence is supposed to be?

Have you any idea what you are endorsing when you cite such bible scholars and say yourself “He did exist”, as if you are announcing what you believe is a to be a certain fact?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I can't make any sense of most of this, especially the idea that I have "just exposed that I am a bible believer". That's naughty dejudge, and we've been through this before. I know what I believe better than you do. Anyway, your post is most unfortunately quite incomprehensible to me. Sorry.

I think he expects such accusations to cause us some measure of emotional injury. It's funny, really.

 

[Craig B]

... Why would a non-Christian believe Paul's delusions or lies?

This non-Christian doesn't. Some of the things Paul said might be true, that he went to Jerusalem and met James, or that the Governor of Damascus tried to arrest him, in the years when Aretas was King. These things are possible.

 

[Craig B]

... Do you know what these bibles scholars give as their evidence of such “certainty”?

Do you know what the evidence is supposed to be?

Go and read their books for yourself if you want to know that.

Have you any idea what you are endorsing when you cite such bible scholars and say yourself “He did exist”, as if you are announcing what you believe is a to be a certain fact?

That reads very oddly, as if I was committing some kind of crime in even citing these perfectly mainstream authors, but I had no idea how reprehensible it was. It's very strange.

 

[Brainache]

Go and read their books for yourself if you want to know that. That reads very oddly, as if I was committing some kind of crime in even citing these perfectly mainstream authors, but I had no idea how reprehensible it was. It's very strange.

Because they aren't Free-Thinking Mavericks like Richard Carrier.

Every Bible Scholar in the world is a slave to Christian Dogma, didn't you know that?

 

[Stone]

That reads very oddly, as if I was committing some kind of crime in even citing these perfectly mainstream authors, but I had no idea how reprehensible it was. It's very strange.

It's a book-burning mentality, and it's not the first time I've encountered that kind of attitude in these "discussions".

Stone