Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The main problem I see is that while ever they are Christian, they won't buy MJ. Even if you had cast iron-clad evidence that Paul invented the whole thing (or whatever), it would not be accepted.

It is Christian themselves who argued that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God Creator.

Christians REJECTED the Historical Jesus--the only human Jesus

Christians themselves argued that Jesus was always DIVINE and later became Flesh--Jesus was God Incarnate.

God Incarnate is a Myth character unheard of in the history of mankind until the myth fables of the Bible.

Don't you even understand what cause the Quest for an HJ?

1. Ignatius' Ephesians---Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. Aristides' Apology--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

3. Justin's First Apology--Jesus was the Logos and born WITHOUT sexual union.

4. Irenaeus' Against Heresies--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

5. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

6. Origen's Against Celsus---Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

7. Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies--Jesus the Logos, God Creator.

8. Eusebius' Church History--Jesus was DIVINE and born of a Ghost.

9. Jerome's Perpetual Virginity of Mary---Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

10. Chrysostom's Commentary on Matthew--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[dejudge]

Can you please in the name of pity (I know the risk I'm taking asking this, but anyway) explain what any of the above irrelevant nonsense has to do with the OT references to the "anointed" or "christ" being to a mortal human, and not to a god. And even later in 135 AD Exactly so. In no way a god.

What does "To Autholycus" contain about YOUR HJ?

Absolutely Nothing but Theophilus called himself a Christian who BELIEVED ONLY in God and that he was Anointed.

Belief in GOD predates the Jesus story by hundreds of years.

David in the Bible was Christ--your HJ was NOT Christ--a little known preacher.

What source from 135 CE mentions YOUR HJ--the little known preacher?

Absolutely none!!!

Your little known preacher is a modern whole cloth invention after it was realized there was no evidence for an HJ.

 

[Brainache]

It is Christian themselves who argued that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God Creator.

Christians REJECTED the Historical Jesus--the only human Jesus

Christians themselves argued that Jesus was always DIVINE and later became Flesh--Jesus was God Incarnate.

God Incarnate is a Myth character unheard of in the history of mankind until the myth fables of the Bible.

Don't you even understand what cause the Quest for an HJ?

1. Ignatius' Ephesians---Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. Aristides' Apology--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

3. Justin's First Apology--Jesus was the Logos and born WITHOUT sexual union.

4. Irenaeus' Against Heresies--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

5. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

6. Origen's Against Celsus---Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

7. Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies--Jesus the Logos, God Creator.

8. Eusebius' Church History--Jesus was DIVINE and born of a Ghost.

9. Jerome's Perpetual Virginity of Mary---Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

10. Chrysostom's Commentary on Matthew--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Then what are those silly Catholics eating and drinking in Church every weekend? Chopped liver?

 

[pakeha]

I'm surprised you think anything like that is relevant. It's not what we are talking about at all. ...

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

 

[IanS]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

Ok, well first of all - I know you have been the model of polite reason and sense throughout all these HJ threads. So huge thanks for that.

All I am really saying about that proposed scenario where even the church gets to the stage of having to admit Jesus was likely to have only ever been mythical (not very realistic I know), is -

- that would hardly be a situation that the Christian church would be comfortable with, and would obviously put it's preaching of the bible and the Jesus stories in a very difficult position indeed.

 

[Craig B]

- that would hardly be a situation that the Christian church would be comfortable with, and would obviously put it's preaching of the bible and the Jesus stories in a very difficult position indeed.

I think that's true. But in itself that is not an argument for or against the authenticity of any part of the Jesus story.

 

[pakeha]

Very true, Craig B.
I'm finding myself increasing taken up with the question "Why was Jesus crucified rather than beheaded?", even to neglecting other subjects and avenues of investigation.
Pace, Stone.

Before I plunge head-long into crankdom, if any poster can point me to reputable scholars and/or sources to puzzle this one through, I'd appreciate it.

 

[IanS]

I think that's true. But in itself that is not an argument for or against the authenticity of any part of the Jesus story.

It was never presented as an argument against the existence of Jesus. It was an explanation of my earlier remarks (which one pro HJ poster here disputed), on why a mythical Jesus would be a big problem for the credibility of the Christian Church.

Others here were saying it would be no problem at all and that the church could just hand-wave it away. I think that's a manifestly absurd suggestion.

 

[Craig B]

... Others here were saying it would be no problem at all and that the church could just hand-wave it away. I think that's a manifestly absurd suggestion.

Agreed, but many Christians would simply ignore the evidence, or reinterpret it in weird figurative ways.

 

[zugzwang]

Very true, Craig B.
I'm finding myself increasing taken up with the question "Why was Jesus crucified rather than beheaded?", even to neglecting other subjects and avenues of investigation.
Pace, Stone.

Before I plunge head-long into crankdom, if any poster can point me to reputable scholars and/or sources to puzzle this one through, I'd appreciate it.

The only thing I remember is that archaeologists found the remains of an apparently crucified man, and they tried to analyze how the crucifixion had actually operated. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, all the detailed reports on it are behind pay walls. Also it may not help to understand why people were crucified.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...d-man-from-give28099at-ha-mivtar.aspx#Article

 

[jhunter1163]

Agreed, but many Christians would simply ignore the evidence, or reinterpret it in weird figurative ways.

If you can get yourself into the headspace to believe this stuff in the first place, you can handwave, rationalize or deny pretty much anything IMO.

 

[Craig B]

The only thing I remember is that archaeologists found the remains of an apparently crucified man, and they tried to analyze how the crucifixion had actually operated. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, all the detailed reports on it are behind pay walls. Also it may not help to understand why people were crucified.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...d-man-from-give28099at-ha-mivtar.aspx#Article

Have you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehohanan? It's not much, but a start.

 

[tsig]

Ok, well first of all - I know you have been the model of polite reason and sense throughout all these HJ threads. So huge thanks for that.

All I am really saying about that proposed scenario where even the church gets to the stage of having to admit Jesus was likely to have only ever been mythical (not very realistic I know), is -

- that would hardly be a situation that the Christian church would be comfortable with, and would obviously put it's preaching of the bible and the Jesus stories in a very difficult position indeed.

While I don't see the church ever admitting there was no Jesus given their ability to ignore other facts, I'm sure the apologist could come up with something:

"The fact that there is Christianity without Jesus is even more miraculous, proving god's love"

"The Jesus stories were never meant to be taken factually but are god's examples to us"

"God so loved the world that he allowed stories of his death to be told"

Give me a few years an I'm sure I could improve on these.

 

[IanS]

Agreed, but many Christians would simply ignore the evidence, or reinterpret it in weird figurative ways.

Well the proposition was that the church was in the position of telling it's congregation that it accepted that Jesus may well have been mythical and hence that the bible stories were untrue. In that situation I don't see how you can credibly argue that "many Christians would simply ignore it ...", and notice that I have already said that of course existing devout Christians may indeed refuse to believe it or ignore it no matter what, but we are talking about the longer term effects for the continued support of the church from newer generations of believers, and where I have already made clear that what I have repeatedly said, is that it would surely be a difficult if not impossible situation for a church trying to maintain future support from new believers with a message which said we are preaching the truth of a bible which you must believe, although we agree it's probably untrue!

We were not ever talking about (or claiming) the instant demise of the church through current devout Christians instantly accepting that Jesus was mythical after all.

We were talking about whether the church could continue undamaged & unaffected into the future if it ever had to accept that the Jesus stories and the bible were untrue fiction. Or if it comes to that, what damage would be done to the credibility of the church and it's message of absolute belief in Jesus and the bible, if it merely becomes widely accepted by the general public that Jesus was probably only mythical and the bible therefore untrue (regardless of whether, in that situation, the church continued to defy public opinion and claim it's all true regardless of what most people thought).

 

[IanS]

While I don't see the church ever admitting there was no Jesus given their ability to ignore other facts, I'm sure the apologist could come up with something:

"The fact that there is Christianity without Jesus is even more miraculous, proving god's love"

"The Jesus stories were never meant to be taken factually but are god's examples to us"

"God so loved the world that he allowed stories of his death to be told"

Give me a few years an I'm sure I could improve on these.

Oh yes, indeed, I think the church could not possibly admit that Jesus was fictional. Because that would leave them in an untenable and absurd position (which is what I have been saying about it). So for that reason alone, they would probably never admit it, no matter what. It took them 400 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo, and 150 years to admit evolution (despite literally hundreds of thousands of irrefutable research papers "proving" evolution is true).

So the real point here is, how much of this sort of discussion eventually influences the public at large, so that people in general become aware of just how horribly weak the evidence for Jesus actually is (and how that stands in stark contrast to the impression of absolute certainty which the Christian church has tried to maintain for 2000 years).

There does eventually come a point when even the church can no longer credibly keep claiming that black is white … eg as with it’s eventual capitulation on evolution and on Galileo.

I doubt if this Jesus debate will go away. And I think the facts here can only become more and more widely known amongst the general pubic (theist or otherwise). Though at the moment I doubt if much of this is widely known to the majority of the public (certainly amongst non-theists who do not read forums like this or read books on this sort of subject, and who probably have no idea that the evidence for Jesus is so weak … I certainly had no such idea before I started reading the old Richard Dawkins forum about 6 years ago … until then I had simply assumed that Jesus must be a known undisputed fact, because that was the way the church always presented it, and I had never heard that anyone ever disagreed with them).

 

[dejudge]

Oh yes, indeed, I think the church could not possibly admit that Jesus was fictional.

The Church DOCUMENTED their Jesus was Fictional but people BELIEVE the story is true or based on history.

Is it not clearly stated that Jesus was born of a Ghost by the Church?

Is that NOT a public declaration of Fiction?

Matthew 1.18

The birth of Jesus Christ came about this way: After His mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, it was discovered before they came together that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

Why do people believe this OPEN BLATANT FICTION from the Church as a source of history?

The Church PUBLICLY DECLARED that Jesus of Nazareth was GOD CREATOR.

Why do people accept OPEN BLATANT FICTION as a source of history?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .......... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth....

It is plain to see that the Church have documented their Jesus was FICTION. Why do people believed KNOWN FICTION is a source of history and do so WITHOUT external non-apologetic corroboration?

More and more People will reject the documented fiction stories of the Church. It is inevitable.

The NT does NOT make any sense at all. It has no historical or theological value except that is a record of the massive amount of forgeries and fiction produced by the Church or Apologetics.

 

[Craig B]

Why do people accept OPEN BLATANT FICTION as a source of history?

I don't think there are many people who do that. Most worshippers believe that the things they read in the holy books are true - not fiction, far less "open blatant" fiction. The atheists who believe that Jesus may have existed don't believe in these supernatural things .... But we've been through all that. Alas, grasping it appears to be beyond your wishes, if not your powers.

 

[dejudge]

I don't think there are many people who do that. Most worshippers believe that the things they read in the holy books are true - not fiction, far less "open blatant" fiction. The atheists who believe that Jesus may have existed don't believe in these supernatural things .... But we've been through all that. Alas, grasping it appears to be beyond your wishes, if not your powers.

You do not even realize that I have already stated that People BELIEVE the story is true or a source of history.

That is precisely what HJers do. Hjers BELIEVE that the Jesus story has an historical core although they don't have any evidence for the supposed historical core.

HJers do not appear to understand that the story of Jesus is OPEN BLATANT Fiction but was BELIEVED to be true and spread by ILLITERATES.

Belief in and spread of the Jesus story is a direct product of the gullible superstitious ILLITERATES in antiquity.

 

[IanS]

The Church DOCUMENTED their Jesus was Fictional but people BELIEVE the story is true or based on history.

Is it not clearly stated that Jesus was born of a Ghost by the Church?

.

Oh, indeed. Clearly, as you say, the early biblical writing does indeed describe Jesus in terms that we would now recognise as fictional.

What I meant is that the Christian church now, today, could hardly admit that Jesus was fictional (and hence the bible all untrue in what it says about Jesus), otherwise it would be in an impossible position trying at the same time to implore people to keep believing in Jesus and the holy bible. Now, in 2014, the church really has no choice except to keep telling the faithful to believe in Jesus and the bible, otherwise it's position becomes patently absurd.

 

[Brainache]

Oh, indeed. Clearly, as you say, the early biblical writing does indeed describe Jesus in terms that we would now recognise as fictional.

What I meant is that the Christian church now, today, could hardly admit that Jesus was fictional (and hence the bible all untrue in what it says about Jesus), otherwise it would be in an impossible position trying at the same time to implore people to keep believing in Jesus and the holy bible. Now, in 2014, the church really has no choice except to keep telling the faithful to believe in Jesus and the bible, otherwise it's position becomes patently absurd.

So, just like the Mormons when they had to admit that the Native Americans were not the lost tribe of Israel?

How many Mormon churches have disbanded due to archeology?