Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

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 .

I think the key here is the word "must", which no one here has uttered in relation to that argument except you.

 

[The Norseman]

I think the key here is the word "must", which no one here has uttered in relation to that argument except you.

None of us here are professionals in the field; the subject of this thread and other authors have actually used that phrase to write whole books on how it is evidence that the historical Jesus existed. So, in essence, it doesn't matter if no one in this thread has said "must".

 

[The Norseman]

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?

Wow, you've discovered that an analogy isn't a perfect 1:1 match. Congrats!

You speak so confidently of this brother. Is this brother your incontrovertible evidence that there was a corporeal Jesus?

 

[The Norseman]

I am not analogizing Mormonism and Christianity generically. My intent is to point out that dejudge's simplistic objection that mythical elements in a religious narrative cannot be fabricated around real individuals.

Dejudge's argument boils down to this:

"The Christian narratives about Jesus contain supernatural claims, therefor Jesus never actually existed."

My counter argument is this:

"The Mormon narrative about Joseph Smith also contains supernatural claims, but we are certain that Joseph Smith actually existed. Therefor dejudge's argument is invalid.

I am not arguing that Joseph Smith existed, therefor Jesus existed. It's possible that Jesus was mythical, but even if he was, dejudge's above argument is a fallacious way of attempting to establish this mythical nature as fact.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, that's why I say that whatever the origin of Christianity was is open to debate. There simply isn't enough evidence to be able to say exactly what happened. The most I will say is that, based on the available evidence, it seems quite likely to me that there was a delusional religious figure known as Jeshua who was put to death by the Romans and mythologized by at least some of his followers so as to avoid admitting that their religious movement was false, and the mythologization snowballed from there.

Can't argue with this.

I would ask, "How do you know that?", or I might ask to see his time machine, because there is just no way of knowing that right now, and probably never.

Yes, I tend to think that we'll never know with any degree of certainty but, having said that, I also think that there can be a reasonable argument made that Jesus was a mythical character around whom the originators of Christianity built.

Some proof that an apocalyptic rabbi could not have been executed by the Romans and then mythologized and reinvented by subsequent generations of superstitious people.

If you mean the educated rhetoricians who could compose manuscripts in Koine Greek, then it was almost certainly years later. Maybe Jesus had associates within the broader religious movement who were scribes, and could have written down some of his teachings and/or sayings, such as the Q hypothesis. But Q is still only speculative. It seems almost certain that the author of Mark was adapting stories that had been handed down through decades of oral tradition. One thought that's occurred to me is that Paul, as an educated writer, may well have written about the Jesus movement prior to his conversion, and that any such writings would make for fascinating reading.

Fascinating indeed.

I thank you for your polite response.

 

[dejudge]

I am not analogizing Mormonism and Christianity generically. My intent is to point out that dejudge's simplistic objection that mythical elements in a religious narrative cannot be fabricated around real individuals.

Dejudge's argument boils down to this:

"The Christian narratives about Jesus contain supernatural claims, therefor Jesus never actually existed."

My counter argument is this:

"The Mormon narrative about Joseph Smith also contains supernatural claims, but we are certain that Joseph Smith actually existed. Therefor dejudge's argument is invalid.

I am not arguing that Joseph Smith existed, therefor Jesus existed. It's possible that Jesus was mythical, but even if he was, dejudge's above argument is a fallacious way of attempting to establish this mythical nature as fact.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.

Why have you not corrected Foster Zygote's blatant mis-representation of my position? It is extremely disturbing to me when a poster constantly and consistently distorts my position and then proceeds to argue against his OWN distortion.

Please let me clarify my position.

Jesus is ALL MYTH--ALL FICTION and NO HISTORY.

Jesus is ALL MAGIC and NO HISTORY,

Jesus is ALL WOO--WOO and NO HISTORY.

Foster Zygote ALWAYS forget to mention that Jesus has NO HISTORY just like the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve.


I consider that Jesus is a MYTH until new evidence is found.

Foster Zygote is countering his own distortion.

 

[Brainache]

I am not analogizing Mormonism and Christianity generically. My intent is to point out that dejudge's simplistic objection that mythical elements in a religious narrative cannot be fabricated around real individuals.

Dejudge's argument boils down to this:

"The Christian narratives about Jesus contain supernatural claims, therefor Jesus never actually existed."

My counter argument is this:

"The Mormon narrative about Joseph Smith also contains supernatural claims, but we are certain that Joseph Smith actually existed. Therefor dejudge's argument is invalid.

I am not arguing that Joseph Smith existed, therefor Jesus existed. It's possible that Jesus was mythical, but even if he was, dejudge's above argument is a fallacious way of attempting to establish this mythical nature as fact.

Why have you not corrected Foster Zygote's blatant mis-representation of my position? It is extremely disturbing to me when a poster constantly and consistently distorts my position and then proceeds to argue against his OWN distortion.

Please let me clarify my position.

Jesus is ALL MYTH--ALL FICTION and NO HISTORY.

Jesus is ALL MAGIC and NO HISTORY,

Jesus is ALL WOO--WOO and NO HISTORY.

Foster Zygote ALWAYS forget to mention that Jesus has NO HISTORY just like the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve.


I consider that Jesus is a MYTH until new evidence is found.

Foster Zygote is countering his own distortion.

What do you mean by the word "History"?

Do you expect an encyclopedia from Ancient Judea or something?

 

[dejudge]

What do you mean by the word "History"?

Do you expect an encyclopedia from Ancient Judea or something?

Do you understand that the God of the Jews has NO History?

Do you understand that Adam and Eve in the Bible have No History?

Do you understand that Satan the Devil has NO History?

Do you understand that the angel Gabriel has No History?

Jesus, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve are all Myth characters without any historical evidence.

 

[Brainache]

Do you understand that the God of the Jews has NO History?

Do you understand that Adam and Eve in the Bible have No History?

Do you understand that Satan the Devil has NO History?

Do you understand that the angel Gabriel has No History?

Jesus, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve are all Myth characters without any historical evidence.

You didn't answer the question.

I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say "History". What does it mean to say someone has "No History"?

Do you expect everyone to be referenced in a big library somewhere?

What?

 

[dejudge]

You didn't answer the question.

I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say "History". What does it mean to say someone has "No History"?

Do you expect everyone to be referenced in a big library somewhere?

What?

Well, you tell me what you understand by History.

Do you expect to find artifacts, human remains, archaeological findings, and eyewitness accounts of the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve?

I can't find artifacts, human remains, archaeological findings, and eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

I can't find any historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth except the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of TURIN is a fake artifact.

 

[Brainache]

Well, you tell me what you understand by History.

Do you expect to find artifacts, human remains, archaeological findings, and eyewitness accounts of the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve?

I can't find artifacts, human remains, archaeological findings, and eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

I can't find any historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth except the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of TURIN is a fake artifact.

Is it your opinion then, that if such evidence doesn't exist for someone in the ancient world, they didn't exist?

 

[dejudge]

Is it your opinion then, that if such evidence doesn't exist for someone in the ancient world, they didn't exist?

Tell me of an unknown person who you know exist wthout evidence?

 

[Brainache]

Tell me of an unknown person who you know exist wthout evidence?

What the hell are you talking about?

Most people that we know of from those days have even less evidence than Jesus.

How could you not know this very basic fact?

 

[dejudge]

What the hell are you talking about?

Most people that we know of from those days have even less evidence than Jesus.

How could you not know this very basic fact?

Didn't I tell you that Romulus the Myth founder of Rome, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve have less evidence of mythology than Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator?


There are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings that described Jesus of Nazareth as a Myth.

How could you not know that basic fact?

 

[Brainache]

Didn't I tell you that Romulus the Myth founder of Rome, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve have less evidence of mythology than Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator?


There are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings that described Jesus of Nazareth as a Myth.

How could you not know that basic fact?

Still a stupid argument, no matter how you arrange the words.

 

[dejudge]

Still a stupid argument, no matter how you arrange the words.

You obviously have nothing to contribute now that the fallacies of the HJ argument has been exposed.

You have nothing to support your unknown dead.

James was NOT the brother of Jesus Christ and your HJ was NOT Jesus the Christ.

Your HJ is an unknown dead.

Paul didn't know your HJ.

 

[Brainache]

You obviously have nothing to contribute now that the fallacies of the HJ argument has been exposed.

You have nothing to support your unknown dead.

James was NOT the brother of Jesus Christ and your HJ was NOT Jesus the Christ.

Your HJ is an unknown dead.

Paul didn't know your HJ.

You have no way of knowing any of that.

So, I guess that means that what you are saying are deliberate lies. Please don't do that.

There are enough lies in the world already, you don't need to add to the pile.

 

[dejudge]

You have no way of knowing any of that.

So, I guess that means that what you are saying are deliberate lies. Please don't do that.

There are enough lies in the world already, you don't need to add to the pile.

1. I have already exposed that Chrysostom claimed James was NOT the brother of Jesus. See Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians.

2. I have already shown that in the Recognitions Rufinus claimed that James the LORDS brother was Alive c 67-68 CE which is 5-6 years after James in Joosephus was stoned.

3. I have already shown that Jerome in De Viris Illustribus claimed that James the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus but his COUSIN.

4. I have already shown that in the PAPIAS FRAGMENTS that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

5. I have already show that Eusebius in Church History showed that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

6. I have already shown that there is NO brother of Jesus listed as an Apostle James in the Gospels and Acts.

7. Your HJ was NOT THE CHRIST.

8. Your HJ was an Itinerant preacher.

9. YOUR HJ was NOT the brother of James in Josephus.

10. Your HJ is an UNKNOWN DEAD.

 

[Brainache]

1. I have already exposed that Chrysostom claimed James was NOT the brother of Jesus. See Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians.

2. I have already shown that in the Recognitions Rufinus claimed that James the LORDS brother was Alive c 67-68 CE which is 5-6 years after James in Joosephus was stoned.

3. I have already shown that Jerome in De Viris Illustribus claimed that James the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus but his COUSIN.

4. I have already shown that in the PAPIAS FRAGMENTS that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

5. I have already show that Eusebius in Church History showed that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

6. I have already shown that there is NO brother of Jesus listed as an Apostle James in the Gospels and Acts.

7. Your HJ was NOT THE CHRIST.

8. Your HJ was an Itinerant preacher.

9. YOUR HJ was NOT the brother of James in Josephus.

10. Your HJ is an UNKNOWN DEAD.

You have shown that you don't understand what these people were talking about and why they said those things.

That is all you have shown.

You have also shown a depressing inability to grasp basic facts.

 

[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?

How about because Tacitus himself writes "Christians ... from whom the name had its origin"?

.<snip>

Stone

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited, Rules 0/12

 

[dejudge]

How about because Tacitus himself writes "Christians ... from whom the name had its origin"?
.

If you want to talk history you better get Tacitus Annals from the 2nd century because NO Apologetics mentioned Tacitus Annals with Christus for HUNDREDS of years.

Even Eusebius c 325 CE when writing Church History knew NOTHING about Tacitus Annals with Christus.

Tacitus Annals with Christus was manipulated AFTER Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History" c 400 CE.