Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Nope. My reply above quoted your exact words and explained in detail why it is not a defence for your subsequent sentence to say “What that historical core was is open to debate”, because you had already specifically said you were talking about a “historical core” in the stories of Jesus as the reason why quote “ Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot”.

That's odd because I understood his post very well.

 

[Belz...]

The ones the apologists generally keep pointing to?

What's with the labeling, on both sides ? Mythers, deniers, apologists, closet Christians... you'd think that people have stooped to labeling their opponents in a vain attempt to shift the attention away from weak arguments.

No, not just Socrates and Pythagores. Any simple priest or accountant or advisor named in those times.

 

[Elagabalus]

We talk about Joe Smith getting the good word through the angel Moroni which is directly analogous to Paul getting the good word through the risen Christ. Why do people insist that because Joe Smith was a real person then Jesus was a real person too?

Did the angel Moroni have a real life flesh and blood brother who was considered head of the church before Joe Smith arrived and did Joe later reveal that not only had he met this brother on several occasions but he also had some large disagreements with the brother over which direction the church was headed?

Or was it Joe just talking about Joe?

 

[IanS]

Please think very carefully before answering this next question.

Did I say that the historical core of the Jesus stories has to have been an historical Jesus?

Here is what you actually did say -

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.

See the highlighted part of your own words (above) - what that actually says is that everyone does believe that the JESUS STORIES do have a historical core. And if that statement means anything at all, then it means you are saying that everyone believes the Jesus stories themselves, that is the stuff about Jesus, does have some basis in historical fact.

Then you say “What that historical core was is open to debate,..” , that leaves entirely open what particular parts of those "Jesus Stories" you are referring to when you say everyone believes they have a "historical core", but that is a statement from you saying there are indeed parts of those Jesus Stories which everyone believes (i.e. “agrees”) to have been “historical core”, i.e. factual in respect of Jesus.

As I say, I’m entirely prepared to believe you may not have meant to write that. But that is what your own sentence actually says … it very specifically is talking about the Jesus stories themselves, and saying that everyone does believe that those stories of Jesus do contain a core of historical truth or fact.

And your objection that the second part of my statement is no "defence" [sic] for my previous sentence is absurd. It's like the character assassin in my illustration protesting that the text he omitted from the quotation is no defense for the part he quoted out of context. You are just confirming that you are being deliberately dishonest.

No I am not being dishonest, either deliberately or otherwise. And I am absolutely never dishonest, thank you very much. So you can stop saying entirely untrue things like that.

I am simply pointing out to you that, whether you realised it or not, the way you worded your original post, does say that everyone believes there is some historical core ie actual truth or fact of some kind, specifically in the biblical stories of Jesus. And that is certainly untrue, because not everyone does believe that there is any "historical core" in any of the biblical stories of Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Did the angel Moroni have a real life flesh and blood brother who was considered head of the church before Joe Smith arrived and did Joe later reveal that not only had he met this brother on several occasions but he also had some large disagreements with the brother over which direction the church was headed?

Or was it Joe just talking about Joe?

Oh, good grief ... not the same old claim that Paul's three words in a c.200AD Christian copy (P46) must have meant that someone called James was certainly the family brother of a miraculous Jesus .

The absolute giveaway in all of this is that the HJ argument here can never get past the biblical writing. All the claimed evidence always comes down to believing the hopelessly unreliable and not credible writing of the holy bible.

 

[Brainache]

...
No I am not being dishonest, either deliberately or otherwise. And I am absolutely never dishonest, thank you very much. So you can stop saying entirely untrue things like that.

I am simply pointing out to you that, whether you realised it or not, the way you worded your original post, does say that everyone believes there is some historical core ie actual truth or fact of some kind, specifically in the biblical stories of Jesus. And that is certainly untrue, because not everyone does believe that there is any "historical core" in any of the biblical stories of Jesus.

If that was true you wouldn't be quote mining his posts in order to misrepresent his arguments for your strawmen.

I should probably point out that everyone can see exactly what you are doing here IanS.

Deny it if you want, but we can all see your tactics in action.

 

[Brainache]

Oh, good grief ... not the same old claim that Paul's three words in a c.200AD Christian copy (P46) must have meant that someone called James was certainly the family brother of a miraculous Jesus .

The absolute giveaway in all of this is that the HJ argument here can never get past the biblical writing. All the claimed evidence always comes down to believing the hopelessly unreliable and not credible writing of the holy bible.

Can you give us an example of "reliable", "credible" writing from the Ancient world?

Any text at all that doesn't include supernatural BS?

 

[tsig]

Excuse me: At --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9740768&postcount=2881

-- you make the large assertion that --

"Tacitus can be seen as a transmitter of second or fifth hand information, since there were no records from the 30s available to a writer in the second century"

-- and you have no evidence to back up that ridiculously categorical assertion about available data from the '30s in the early second century. All you have cited, when challenged, is fringe speculation on this at RatSkep with no ancient source to back it all up, either in connection with Tacitus in particular or with early second-century chroniclers in general.

As it stands, this is a categorical assertion of yours with nothing other than pure speculation by amateurs at RatSkep behind it. There is no ancient cite shewing just what Tacitus and other second-century chroniclers had at hand from the '30s of the first century, c.e. It is past time that you either concede that your ludicrous assertion is based on fringe speculation only, or that you withdraw the assertion altogether.

There is extant evidence relating to Tacitus's chronicling methods, BTW. Tacitus himself specifies that he bends over backwards always to make a distinction between hearsay and personal accounts -- and he does not reference hearsay in his account of the fate of the despised founder of Christianity during the Tiberius years.

Stone

Since there were lots of itinerant Jewish preachers around how can we know that the one Tacitus refers to is the Christ, the founder of Christianity? Maybe some other preacher got crossways to the Romans and his followers where rioting in Rome.

 

[tsig]

Yes, mythicists often rightly refer to the modern John Frum cargo cult as a religion whose alleged founder never existed, and they are right. But something did indeed start that cult - the appearance of US troops in the area during the Pacific War.

What then was the comparable event that started Christianity?

The Great Revolt 66 to 73 AD.

 

[Brainache]

Since there were lots of itinerant Jewish preachers around how can we know that the one Tacitus refers to is the Christ, the founder of Christianity? Maybe some other preacher got crossways to the Romans and his followers where rioting in Rome.

Now you are speculating about another religion and its followers called "Christian" who were causing factional trouble in Rome in the first century between themselves and the Jews, but are not related to the Christians that we know about.

Apparently this entirely separate group of semi-Jewish people left no record of their existence apart from this notice in Tacitus.

Not only that, but the later Christians that we do know about, claimed that these other "Christians" who were totally unrelated to them, were martyrs for Jesus.

Got any evidence for this scenario?

 

[Brainache]

The Great Revolt 66 to 73 AD.

But it was up and running before then. Nero was burning them in Rome before the war started.

I'd say rather the Census of Quirinius when the Romans started taxing the **** out of the place.

 

[Craig B]

Oh, good grief ... not the same old claim that Paul's three words in a c.200AD Christian copy (P46) must have meant that someone called James was certainly the family brother of a miraculous Jesus .

The absolute giveaway in all of this is that the HJ argument here can never get past the biblical writing. All the claimed evidence always comes down to believing the hopelessly unreliable and not credible writing of the holy bible.

Then in the name of Heaven if you think "the Bible" is a uniform source from which no information can be derived even on the basis of probability, fair enough. But others take a different view, and it have tried to explain why. If you won't read that or don't accept it, fine. There is nothing more to be said. Absolutely nothing more to be said. OK.

 

[dejudge]

Now you are speculating about another religion and its followers called "Christian" who were causing factional trouble in Rome in the first century between themselves and the Jews, but are not related to the Christians that we know about.

Apparently this entirely separate group of semi-Jewish people left no record of their existence apart from this notice in Tacitus.

Not only that, but the later Christians that we do know about, claimed that these other "Christians" who were totally unrelated to them, were martyrs for Jesus.

Got any evidence for this scenario?

No, No, No!!! It is your IMAGINARY followers of the little unknown itinerant preacher that left no trace at all.

It is illogical to assume that all people called Christians believed the Jesus story.

All of a sudden your little unknown preacher man is the WELL KNOWN Christus who had followers created a stir in Judea.

Please, you cannot just change your Jesus in mid-stream.

You have already admitted your Jesus was a preacher NOT the Christ.

Remember you said Christ does NOT EXIST.

 

[dejudge]

Then in the name of Heaven if you think "the Bible" is a uniform source from which no information can be derived even on the basis of probability, fair enough. But others take a different view, and it have tried to explain why. If you won't read that or don't accept it, fine. There is nothing more to be said. Absolutely nothing more to be said. OK.

You are pleading to use the Bible as a source of history without corroboration!!!

This is most remarkable.

 

[dejudge]

Did the angel Moroni have a real life flesh and blood brother who was considered head of the church before Joe Smith arrived and did Joe later reveal that not only had he met this brother on several occasions but he also had some large disagreements with the brother over which direction the church was headed?

Or was it Joe just talking about Joe?

Christian WRITERS of antiquity themselves stated that Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle. See Chrysostom's Commentary of Galatians 1.19

Christian WRITERS themselves claimed Jesus was the Son of God and a Woman. See Galatians 4.4

It has already been shown that the Emperor Gaius claimed he was the brother of Jupiter.

The mythology of the God Jupiter is not altered at all because the Emperor claimed he was God's brother.

See Antiquities of the Jews 19

 

[Brainache]

No, No, No!!! It is your IMAGINARY followers of the little unknown itinerant preacher that left no trace at all.

It is illogical to assume that all people called Christians believed the Jesus story.

All of a sudden your little unknown preacher man is the WELL KNOWN Christus who had followers created a stir in Judea.

Please, you cannot just change your Jesus in mid-stream.

You have already admitted your Jesus was a preacher NOT the Christ.

Remember you said Christ does NOT EXIST.

That was nonsensical post number 1,123 from you.

When are you going to come up with an argument that works?

 

[Craig B]

... The mythology of the God Jupiter is not altered at all because the Emperor [Caligula] claimed he was God's brother.

That's true. Very true. It would be a useful observation too, if anyone had ever claimed that this mythology was altered. But, on the contrary, everyone claimed instead that Caligula was nuts.

 

[dejudge]

That was nonsensical post number 1,123 from you.

When are you going to come up with an argument that works?

I am merely exposing your logical fallacies.

HJers DENY that their Jesus was the Christ yet conveniently argue that Christians in Tactius Annals followed their little known HJ.

Why would people who followed a little known man called themselves Christians when he was NOT known as the Christ?

The HJ argument is dead because it is void of logic and without supporting evidence.

There are MULTIPLE VERSIONS of HJ but HJers still want to claim their Jesus was the same Christus in Tacitus Annals.

The HJ argument is evidently void of logic.

 

[Craig B]

I am merely exposing your logical fallacies.

HJers DENY that their Jesus was the Christ yet conveniently argue that Christians in Tactius Annals followed their little known HJ.

No. Jesus claimed to be a christ, according to Mark, even. But the HJ proponents deny that "Christ" is a divine title.

The HJ argument is evidently void of logic.

After you've messed about with it, yes.

 

[Brainache]

I am merely exposing your logical fallacies.

HJers DENY that their Jesus was the Christ yet conveniently argue that Christians in Tactius Annals followed their little known HJ.

Why would people who followed a little known man called themselves Christians when he was NOT known as the Christ?

The HJ argument is dead because it is void of logic and without supporting evidence.

There are MULTIPLE VERSIONS of HJ but HJers still want to claim their Jesus was the same Christus in Tacitus Annals.

The HJ argument is evidently void of logic.

Speaking of logical voids...