Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Eh? Document B can't be a forgery, because there already exists different Document A which was forged by another person. If you're ever in front of a court charged with forgery, don't use that argument in your case for the defence!

Your strawman argument does not make much sense. You do not understand that accusing Eusebius of forgery is like accusing Saul/Paul of lying or making stuff up about HJ the itinerant preacher since 37-41 CE.

How could Paul lie about you HJ when HJ the preacher is a modern invention?

And how could Paul lie about HJ when it is a LIE from Apologetics that Paul lived before c 70 CE?

Late Paul is the real Paul. Early Paul must be fake.

The real Paul MUST COME after the Gospels was preached.

The Resurrected Hallucination Jesus told Paul the story of his "life".

1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. 24 And when he had given thanks , he brake it, and said , Take , eat : this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped , saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye , as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

 

[Craig B]

You do not understand that accusing Eusebius of forgery is like accusing Saul/Paul of lying or making stuff up about HJ the itinerant preacher since 37-41 CE.

That's right. I don't understand that. Whether or not Eusebius committed forgeries has nothing to do with whether or not Paul committed different forgeries centuries earlier.

 

[dejudge]

That's right. I don't understand that. Whether or not Eusebius committed forgeries has nothing to do with whether or not Paul committed different forgeries centuries earlier.

You have admitted that you don't understand.

 

[Brainache]

But this is the inverse of the argument given against the Testimonium Flavianum being genuine; no one before the 4th century mentions it (not even Origen). So your position is that if Origen mentions something being in Josephus it had to be there (and was later removed) but if he doesn't mention something even when logic indicated he should have (Testimonium Flavianum) it much have been then and he didn't have a reason to mention it.

HOW THE FREAKING HECK IN THE NAME OF SANITY DOES THAT WORK?!?

Move over why would the later Christians remove such a passage? Why are there no variants of Josephus with this passage when we know that there was a variant without the Testimonium Flavianum as late as 1600? The logic here is nonexistent.

Why do you think Origen should have cited the TF? If it existed in his time, it probably wasn't favourable towards Jesus. Josephus probably called him a false Prophet and a deceiver etc, like he does with all of those Messianic types.

The Christians didn't want to think that James was the inspiration behind the Jewish uprising, they thought that the death of Jesus (what with Him being God and all) should have been the event that inspired a nation to revolt.

They didn't want to acknowledge James as the successor to Jesus as the leader of Christianity, because they assigned that role to Peter.

James was written out and rewritten as other people like James the Son Of Zebedee, and James The Brother of John etc. These are all the same character disguised. Paul only knows of one James, and he is the man in charge and Brother of Jesus.

The Roman branch of the Church that survived the war, also wanted to distance their Jesus from those nasty trouble-making Zealots: James, Simon and Judas.

 

[dejudge]

Why do you think Origen should have cited the TF? If it existed in his time, it probably wasn't favourable towards Jesus. Josephus probably called him a false Prophet and a deceiver etc, like he does with all of those Messianic types.

The Christians didn't want to think that James was the inspiration behind the Jewish uprising, they thought that the death of Jesus (what with Him being God and all) should have been the event that inspired a nation to revolt.They didn't want to acknowledge James as the successor to Jesus as the leader of Christianity, because they assigned that role to Peter

Your assumptions have already been debunked. You have nothing at all to support your invention.

Telling us what you speculate is completely unproductive.

James was written out and rewritten as other people like James the Son Of Zebedee, and James The Brother of John etc. These are all the same character disguised. Paul only knows of one James, and he is the man in charge and Brother of Jesus.

If you are arguing that the NT provides historical accounts of Jesus and the disciples and that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and the disciples then Paul most likely knew of the TWO apostles called James .

In Acts, Paul met the apostles in Jerusalem and was with them on multiple occasions.

It has already been DEBUNKED by Apologetics. James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You are deliberately presenting bogus information.

1. Chrysostom specifically addressed Galatians 1.19 and stated that James in Galatians 1.19 was an Apostle and was NOT the brother Jesus by birth.

2. Jerome also stated in De Viris Illustribus that the parents of James in Galatians was NOT the parents of Jesus.

3. Rufinus in the Preface to the Recognitions claimed James was ALIVE up to 67-68 CE. James in Josephus was stoned c 62 CE

4. In the Papias Fragment, James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

5. In Eusebius, Church History, James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

It is time you realize that I will expose you erroneous claims about James for which you have no evidence

 

[Brainache]

Your assumptions have already been debunked. You have nothing at all to support your invention.

Telling us what you speculate is completely unproductive.



If you are arguing that the NT provides historical accounts of Jesus and the disciples and that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and the disciples then Paul most likely knew of the TWO apostles called James .

In Acts, Paul met the apostles in Jerusalem and was with them on multiple occasions.

It has already been DEBUNKED by Apologetics. James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You are deliberately presenting bogus information.

1. Chrysostom specifically addressed Galatians 1.19 and stated that James in Galatians 1.19 was an Apostle and was NOT the brother Jesus by birth.

2. Jerome also stated in De Viris Illustribus that the parents of James in Galatians was NOT the parents of Jesus.

3. Rufinus in the Preface to the Recognitions claimed James was ALIVE up to 67-68 CE. James in Josephus was stoned c 62 CE

4. In the Papias Fragment, James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

5. In Eusebius, Church History, James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

It is time you realize that I will expose you erroneous claims about James for which you have no evidence

It isn't my speculation. I read it in a book written by a Professor of History at a Secular University.

Stop believing those old Apologists, it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Craig B]

You have admitted that you don't understand.

Yes. I admit I often don't understand your posts.

 

[maximara]

Why do you think Origen should have cited the TF? If it existed in his time, it probably wasn't favourable towards Jesus. Josephus probably called him a false Prophet and a deceiver etc, like he does with all of those Messianic types.

Which given the positive slant of even the watered down TFs suggested the one we have is a total fake.

The Christians didn't want to think that James was the inspiration behind the Jewish uprising, they thought that the death of Jesus (what with Him being God and all) should have been the event that inspired a nation to revolt.

Again this is illogical because if this was the case then the TF or James passage would indicate this relationship between Jesus and the Jewish uprising...but they don't.

They didn't want to acknowledge James as the successor to Jesus as the leader of Christianity, because they assigned that role to Peter.

James was written out and rewritten as other people like James the Son Of Zebedee, and James The Brother of John etc. These are all the same character disguised. Paul only knows of one James, and he is the man in charge and Brother of Jesus.

The Roman branch of the Church that survived the war, also wanted to distance their Jesus from those nasty trouble-making Zealots: James, Simon and Judas.

But this raises the question of how much of the Gospels is actual history.

 

[Brainache]

Which given the positive slant of even the watered down TFs suggested the one we have is a total fake.



Again this is illogical because if this was the case then the TF or James passage would indicate this relationship between Jesus and the Jewish uprising...but they don't.

But we know from the early Church Fathers like Clement and Hegesippus, that Josephus did originally contain those things.

That was what we were talking about in the first place, how did we end up back here again?

But this raises the question of how much of the Gospels is actual history.

Bugger all. Maybe some sayings and names of associates, the general timeframe and the crucifixion (not the trial or speeches or any of that, just the fact of being nailed up). Possible incidental details like the types of healings etc he was famous for. Things like that.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you think Origen should have cited the TF? If it existed in his time, it probably wasn't favourable towards Jesus. Josephus probably called him a false Prophet and a deceiver etc, like he does with all of those Messianic types.

I must've missed it, but how do you conclude that some bits of Josephus were _removed_ since Origen's time ?

 

[pakeha]

...
You should know Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2.22 claimed Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE, when Jesus himself was an old man and the apostles including John preached the very same thing.

Irenaeus writings are evidence that the Pauline Corpus are historically and theologically bogus.

Paul could NOT have preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected since 37-41 CE if he was crucified c 50 CE.
...

Around c 180 CE, it was taught in the Churches that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE--NOT 33 CE.

Irenaeus has single handedly destroyed Clement, Hegesippus and Origen. The Elders, John and the other Apostles preached throughout Asia that Jesus OBTAINED his 50th year and was an OLD MAN when he was crucified
...

Hmm.
Time to reread Irenaeus.
dejudge, where does John say Jesus was 50 when he died?
I know you have a lot of information at your fingertips, could you shout me citations and links to these early writers who claimed that, too?
Thanks!

 

[Brainache]

I have seen a lot of claims regarding what these Church fathers wrote...enough that without a reference to what they exactly said I don't take any claim regarding their works as being worth a plug nickel.

For example, I have seen sources claim that Origen complained about Josephus giving more regarding James then Jesus and nothing about there being a "negative assessment" regarding Jesus.

Early Christian Writings has translations of all these Church fathers so presenting references backing up your claim of "Josephus gave a negative assessment of Jesus" shouldn't be hard.

For example, in Against Celsus 1.47 Origen states

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice."

However there are there are seven years and four High Priests between the death of the James in Josephus and the "the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". More over, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..."

Eusebius expressly puts the death of James the Just near 69 CE and Origen implies that the time between death of James the Just and "the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" is short; certainly neither jives with the seven years and four High Priests between the events that is related in Josephus as it exists now. Moreover, Origen implies these events are related in the "18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews" (why else lead off with that sentence?) but the closest thing we have is in the 20th book.

I think that we have some other James in Josephus that some copier using Origen's reference glossed as being the brother of Jesus and this gloss found itself into the main text.

So what was Origen talking about all those years before Christian Scribes had a chance to tamper with Josephus?

..the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html

I must've missed it, but how do you conclude that some bits of Josephus were _removed_ since Origen's time ?

See, Origen in bold there is describing a passage which no longer exists in that form (if it is there at all) in Josephus.

Origen was writing at a time long before Xtianity became the state Religion of Rome. In his day, Xtian Apologists hadn't had a chance to get their hands on Josephus. That happened later.

And Eusebius was all about muddying the water about James, because not only was James a famous Zealot, but he also threw a spanner into the whole "Blessed Virgin Mary" works...

 

[IanS]

Yes of course I do! I thought you had found the earlier post, but unfortunately you didn't. Thanks anyway.

Right, so that was, as I said, the second time you have made that exact same untrue fallacious allegation about what you said I regarded as evidence against Jesus.

So you did know perfectly well that was untrue. But it did not stop you untruthfully continuing to say that your opponents were making an argument which you yourself described as an “absurd fallacy”.

And all of that as yet another obfuscation and diversion avoiding for what must be literally the 200th time now in these HJ threads, providing any semblance of credible reliable evidence of Jesus, except for the utterly laughable claim that the bible is evidence of it’s own religious preaching beliefs, and where you admit that you are using that bible as your only actual source of “evidence” for which you have not shown and cannot show any sign whatsoever of you checking and confirming whether any of those gospel writers were trustworthy or reliable in a single thing they ever said.

All these many thousands of pro-HJ posts and their claims of evidence in all of these HJ threads, both here and on RationalSkepticism and elsewhere, and despite all the bluff and bluster and hot air, still not a single shred of any reliable of credible evidence in the whole lot of it! In fact, not even a single microscopic spec of the slightest evidence to show that any of the biblical authors who wrote about Jesus with entirely untrue claims of the fantastic & impossible, were ever trustworthy or reliable themselves in a single thing they ever said about Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Right, so that was, as I said, the second time you have made that exact same untrue fallacious allegation about what you said I regarded as evidence against Jesus.

So you did know perfectly well that was untrue. But it did not stop you untruthfully continuing to say that your opponents were making an argument which you yourself described as an “absurd fallacy”.

And all of that as yet another obfuscation and diversion avoiding for what must be literally the 200th time now in these HJ threads, providing any semblance of credible reliable evidence of Jesus, except for the utterly laughable claim that the bible is evidence of it’s own religious preaching beliefs, and where you admit that you are using that bible as your only actual source of “evidence” for which you have not shown and cannot show any sign whatsoever of you checking and confirming whether any of those gospel writers were trustworthy or reliable in a single thing they ever said.

All these many thousands of pro-HJ posts and their claims of evidence in all of these HJ threads, both here and on RationalSkepticism and elsewhere, and despite all the bluff and bluster and hot air, still not a single shred of any reliable of credible evidence in the whole lot of it! In fact, not even a single microscopic spec of the slightest evidence to show that any of the biblical authors who wrote about Jesus with entirely untrue claims of the fantastic & impossible, were ever trustworthy or reliable themselves in a single thing they ever said about Jesus.

Insane gibberish!

 

[Craig B]

... All these many thousands of pro-HJ posts and their claims of evidence in all of these HJ threads, both here and on RationalSkepticism and elsewhere, and despite all the bluff and bluster and hot air, still not a single shred of any reliable of credible evidence in the whole lot of it! In fact, not even a single microscopic spec of the slightest evidence to show that any of the biblical authors who wrote about Jesus with entirely untrue claims of the fantastic & impossible, were ever trustworthy or reliable themselves in a single thing they ever said about Jesus.

Why the hostile and dismissive tone? This is a discussion about evidence. What is there that so exercises the MJ side about the question of the evidential value of the gospels? It really is strange. Can you explain that?

 

[Belz...]

See, Origen in bold there is describing a passage which no longer exists in that form (if it is there at all) in Josephus.

Or was it his intepretation of what is already there, minus the interpolations ?

I'm not sure we can take that passage as a particularily good case for the assumption that there was another passage in there that has been since removed.

 

[Belz...]

still not a single shred of any reliable of credible evidence in the whole lot of it!

Especially any reliable of credible of awesome evidence.

 

[Craig B]

Or was it his intepretation of what is already there, minus the interpolations ?

I'm not sure we can take that passage as a particularily good case for the assumption that there was another passage in there that has been since removed.

It is sometimes argued that the TF was altered because it once had different wording unacceptable to later Christians. But that isn't likely. The TF breaks the flow of the narrative. No matter what the wording, it would still stand out as an intrusion.

 

[Belz...]

It is sometimes argued that the TF was altered because it once had different wording unacceptable to later Christians. But that isn't likely. The TF breaks the flow of the narrative. No matter what the wording, it would still stand out as an intrusion.

Yeah but that wasn'T what I was talking about. Brainache seems to claim that some other passage, now removed, existed in Josephus.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument has unraveled. There was never any actual evidence in the first place. It is clearly seen that those on this forum who argue for an historical Jesus have nothing to offer but to either accuse those who do not support them as being dishonest or idiots.

In order to develop a theory one must first have credible data in place.

It was the opposite for the HJ argument.

The HJ argument was developed from imagination using the "Cloud Talking--Ass Talking" Bible, riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, implausibility and known forgeries or questionable passages in Josephus and Tacitus.

Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" has exposed the Fatality of the HJ argument.

But, Belz said it best:

1. "Everyone has agreed that the evidence for HJ is TERRIBLE."

2. The evidence is very weak.

3. "I Never claimed to have had evidence for HJ".

Who really are the dishonest idiots? The one who first claimed "the evidence is terrible and very weak" and then said he never claimed to have had evidence??

The HJ argument has suffered a Terrible death--There was never any evidence from the start.