Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

The truth is that it is illogical to say your HJ is plausible without supporting evidence the very same way it is illogical to say that the God of the Jews is plausible because there is a Jewish religion.

We have enough supporting evidence to suggest that the Jesus tales related by those who wrote the first extant texts on the subject were based on a run-of-the-mill doomsday preacher from the early 1st Century. Just ignoring this evidence doesn't make it go away. Your error stems from your conflation of "evidence" with "proof". Your ignorance of logic causes you to demand that the suggestion that Jesus could have existed be supported with proof that he existed.

It is the very same for Romulus. It is illogical to claim Romulus is plausible because there is a city called Rome.

Again, you are illogically conflating the myth with the man. Rome exists, so there had to be a person, or persons, who decided "This looks like a good place to settle down". That doesn't mean that his name was Romulus (or that he had a twin brother named Remus), but it might have been. Perhaps Romulus was a prominent leader from the early history of Rome, but not necessarily the actual founder. Just because someone suggests that Romulus and Remus might have been actual people prominent in the early history of the settlement that became Rome, it doesn't mean that they are confirming that they were suckled by a wolf. Nor does it even mean that the stories were not synthesized long after the founding of the Roman settlement. But it is very plausible that there is a kernel of truth at the center of the Romulus and Remus legends. There's nothing extraordinary about the suggestion that the legend was primally based on tales about real people who were involved in the founding of Rome, and one does not have to prove that Romulus and Remus existed in order to make that suggestion plausible.

You are complaining because you have no evidence which makes your argument for an HJ logically unsound.

The reasons for thinking that there may have been an historical Jesus have been explained to you myriad times. You are just repeating "Nu uh!"

 

[Foster Zygote]

The HJ argument is shown be a fishing expedition--after hundreds of years the Quest for an Historical Jesus still continues with Multiple versions of HJ based on guessing.

Most of the study of ancient history is a fishing expedition. We are guessing about who an historical Jesus might have been. Don't you get that? We aren't making the claim that Jesus is proved to have existed. Yet you seem incapable of addressing anything but such a claim of proof. So you keep acting like someone who thinks that a juror who votes 'not guilty', because he thinks it is merely plausible that the defendant is innocent, is making a statement of certainty that the defendant is innocent.

HJers have only managed to show that the NT is not a reliable historical source and that their HJ is NOT accounted for in the history of mankind as soon as it was admitted that their HJ was NOT born in Bethlehem and was NOT the Christ.

That is still a stupid argument. You are saying that the only way to postulate that there was an ordinary human named Jesus, who's followers started a cult around his ministry after his death, is to treat the mythical stories told about him as completely accurate recordings of 100% real events.

I'll ask you this question again, so that you can ignore it again:

Do you know of any religions, started by people who's existence you do not doubt, who's mythologies make logical sense?

 

[dejudge]

We have enough supporting evidence to suggest that the Jesus tales related by those who wrote the first extant texts on the subject were based on a run-of-the-mill doomsday preacher from the early 1st Century. Just ignoring this evidence doesn't make it go away. Your error stems from your conflation of "evidence" with "proof". Your ignorance of logic causes you to demand that the suggestion that Jesus could have existed be supported with proof that he existed.

It is no secret that you have no supporting evidence that the Jesus story was based on a known human being. If you had evidence you would have shown it.


In fact, it is absurd and illogical that Christianity started with known lies about an obscure man.

Plus, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jews worshiped men as God.

We have the stories of the Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

It is clear that the authors of the Jesus story were not writing history but writing about the BELIEFS of the Jesus cult sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Scholars have already deduced that the Jesus stories in the NT are not eyewitness accounts and are falsely attributed to fake authors to give the false impression that they were composed before the Fall of the Temple.

When you argue that the Pauline Corpus predates the stories of Jesus then you expose that the biography of the Gospel Jesus was an invention.

If Pauline letters are authentic then HJ is irrelevant.

The Pauline writers did NOT give a hoot about the LIFE of Jesus and the authors of Gospels just invented a Pack of LIES.


Only MYTH Jesus is PLAUSIBLE in the NT.

Only MYTH JESUS CAN RESURRECT.

Paul could not become an APOSTLE unless Jesus resurrected.

Paul could NOT get his gospel unless Jesus resurrected.

There would be NO Christian faith unless Jesus was resurrected.


1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

HJ is irrelevant in the NT.

HJ was NOT Plausible and that is precisely why Paul wrote about the Non-historical resurrection of the Son of God and God Creator.

 

[Brainache]

Buehler?

 

[Belz...]

Again, you are illogically conflating the myth with the man.

Also "plausible" with "proven", apparently.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is no secret that you have no supporting evidence that the Jesus story was based on a known human being. If you had evidence you would have shown it.

We have shown it. You simply can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof. When someone says, "These fragments of information suggest that X is a possible explanation", you respond, "You can't prove that X is the explanation, therefor it is not possible that it is the explanation". It's a pristine illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your misapprehension of logic occurs at such a fundamental level that you can't even comprehend how fallacious your arguments are.

In fact, it is absurd and illogical that Christianity started with known lies about an obscure man.

Why? Mormonism started with false statements regarding an obscure man, did it not?

Plus, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jews worshiped men as God.

Again you are only succeeding in demonstrating your ignorance of the subject of Christian history. Ironically, you seem to have no better understanding of this subject that the Christian fundamentalists whom you revile. If you would take the time to actually read some of the New Testament scholars whom you otherwise simply quote in fragments after Google searches, you'd know that Jesus was not regarded as an object of worship by early Christians. He was regarded with reverence, like David or Moses, but he wasn't worshipped as divine until much later. In the beginning he was simply seen as a righteous man chosen by God to deliver his message. In fact, the reason Jesus seems to have evolved into a god in the eyes of many Christians seems to be a result of the split with Judaism proper and the spread of the Jesus cult among Pagan converts.

We have the stories of the Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

And we have stories about the sea prostrating itself before Alexander in Cilicia.

It is clear that the authors of the Jesus story were not writing history but writing about the BELIEFS of the Jesus cult...

No kidding. That's why scholars aren't claiming that Jesus really worked miracles, or that his trial was personally overseen by Pontius Pilatus, or that he rose from the dead. The Mormons have their version of Joseph Smith's history, but that doesn't mean that he never actually existed.

...sometime in the 2nd century or later.

You have yet to support this with any argument other than "the oldest extant texts...". If your argument is valid, then Josephus was a Medieval invention.

Scholars have already deduced that the Jesus stories in the NT are not eyewitness accounts and are falsely attributed to fake authors to give the false impression that they were composed before the Fall of the Temple.

And the vast majority of those same scholars think that an historical Jesus is highly likely. Are they stupid, dejudge? Should they come to you for some education?

When you argue that the Pauline Corpus predates the stories of Jesus...

Who has argued that?

...then you expose that the biography of the Gospel Jesus was an invention.

You mean the gospel Jesuses, right? Do you, unlike a Christian fundamentalist, realize that the Bible is not a single inified work, yes? Again, it is a well know fact that much about Jesus was simply made up. Do you remember that part about the historical Jesus being proposed as an ordinary human who was mythologized by his followers?

If Pauline letters are authentic then HJ is irrelevant.

How so?

The Pauline writers did NOT give a hoot about the LIFE of Jesus and the authors of Gospels just invented a Pack of LIES.


Only MYTH Jesus is PLAUSIBLE in the NT.

Only MYTH JESUS CAN RESURRECT.

Paul could not become an APOSTLE unless Jesus resurrected.

Paul could NOT get his gospel unless Jesus resurrected.

There would be NO Christian faith unless Jesus was resurrected.


1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV


Romans 10:9 KJV


Galatians 1:1 KJV


Galatians 1


HJ is irrelevant in the NT.

HJ was NOT Plausible and that is precisely why Paul wrote about the Non-historical resurrection of the Son of God and God Creator.

Can't you write in cogent paragraphs? Your style of argumentation is very fragmented.

 

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, dejudge, do you know of any religions, started by people who's existence you do not doubt, who's mythologies make logical sense?

 

[dejudge]

By the way, dejudge, do you know of any religions, started by people who's existence you do not doubt, who's mythologies make logical sense?

Did the God of the Jews start the Jewish religion?

Did Allah start the Muslim religion?

Did the Buddha start Buddhism?

Did the Hindu Gods start Hinduism?

Did Zeus start the ancient Greek religion?

Did Jupiter start the ancient Roman religion?

Did Mithra start Mithraism?

Did Jesus Christ and the Angel Moroni start Mormonism?

Please, just go and do some research on how religions are started.

It is unheard of that an unknown dead obscure man founded a religion in the time of Pontius Pilate. Even the Church in the time of Irenaeus admit the WELL KNOWN Jesus the Christ, the Son of God was crucified in the time of Claudius.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Did the God of the Jews start the Jewish religion?

Did Allah start the Muslim religion?

Did the Buddha start Buddhism?

Did Zeus start the ancient Greek religion?

Did Jupiter start the ancient Roman religion?

Did Mithra start Mithraism?

Did Jesus Christ and the Angel Moroni start Mormonism?

Please, just go and do some research on how religions are started.

It is unheard of that an unknown dead obscure man founded a religion in the time of Pontius Pilate. Even the Church in the time of Irenaeus admit the WELL KNOWN Jesus the Christ, the Son of God was crucified in the time of Claudius.

That's a transparently obvious evasion. I asked you about religions started by people who's existence you do not doubt. Mormonism falls into that category, as it was started not by Jesus or Moroni, but by Joseph Smith.

Do you know of any religions, started by people who's existence you do not doubt, who's mythologies make logical sense?

Did Joseph Smith exist? Does Mormon mythology make logical sense?

Did L. Ron Hubbard exist? Does Scientology's mythology make logical sense?

Does Claude Vorilhon exist? Does Raelian mythology make logical sense?

Your argument that the illogical nature of Christian mythology somehow disproves any possibility of there having been an historical Jesus is not itself logically sound. Your evasiveness makes it clear that you are aware of this fact and simply too obstinate to acknowledge your error.

 

[IanS]

We've got two different authors, clearly writing independently because they tell contradictory stories about Jesus life, going out of their way to explain how someone was born in Bethlehem, but came to grow up in Nazareth.

Just because two or more different authors (all of them anonymous in the case of the gospels!) give contradictory or different accounts of any claimed event, does not mean they must have been writing "independently" of one-another.

Any such author, and certainly at that date (eg 1st-2nd century), writing about their beliefs in a Jesus figure that none of them ever knew, and where those authors were known to be taking their Jesus stories from the OT, might perfectly well write similar interpretations for some of their OT beliefs, and different interpretations for other beliefs drawn from the OT.

If for example you have an earlier author called Mark and a later one called Mathew, then it’s perfectly obvious that the later author may think he knows what the earlier one had written, and may describe many things in similar fashion, but may easily believe that certain things had to have a different interpretation and would write a different explanation for those parts. In Mathews case afaik, all bible-scholars agree that what Mathew was doing was largely repeating what Mark had previously written, but looking more closely at what he (Mathew) thought was written in the OT about various passages that he thought should be interpreted as referring to the messiah, and either adding those as new passages in his gospel (ie extra to Mark), or else writing a different interpretation from Mark, wherever Mathew thought he had found a better explanation or different explanation that "corrected" what he found in the earlier writing of g-Mark.

None of which makes two sets of writing like that remotely independent of one-another.

On the contrary, it is afaik perfectly obvious and undisputed by anyone that g-Mathew is largely a repeat of g-Mark, but with extra items gleaned from the OT, and with any differences due to the fact that Mathew thought he could find a better "corrected" explanation in the OT than the ones given by Mark.

These are not remotely “independent” sources on Jesus. Unless you count Paul as the very first writer on Jesus, from whom all the later gospel writers obtained their Jesus beliefs.

But the actual source, upon which they all depended (inc. Paul, as he makes very clear), was their OT.

 

[dejudge]

That's a transparently obvious evasion. I asked you about religions started by people who's existence you do not doubt. Mormonism falls into that category, as it was started not by Jesus or Moroni, but by Joseph Smith.

Do you know of any religions, started by people who's existence you do not doubt, who's mythologies make logical sense?

Did Joseph Smith exist? Does Mormon mythology make logical sense?

Did L. Ron Hubbard exist? Does Scientology's mythology make logical sense?

Does Claude Vorilhon exist? Does Raelian mythology make logical sense?

Your argument that the illogical nature of Christian mythology somehow disproves any possibility of there having been an historical Jesus is not itself logically sound. Your evasiveness makes it clear that you are aware of this fact and simply too obstinate to acknowledge your error.

I am merely exposing your illogical analogies!!

You ought to know that it was the AUTHORS of the Christian Mythologies who most likely started the Jesus cult--NOT the Myth himself.

Gods do NOT start religions.

Jesus is GOD in the Jesus cult religion and could NOT have been known as a dead man who did nothing as described in the NT.

Jesus as GOD is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and the Jesus cult of Christians as is evident in the hundreds of Apologetic writings of antiquity.

Ignatius' Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Belz...]

Did the God of the Jews start the Jewish religion?

Did Allah start the Muslim religion?

Did the Buddha start Buddhism?

Did the Hindu Gods start Hinduism?

Did Zeus start the ancient Greek religion?

Did Jupiter start the ancient Roman religion?

Did Mithra start Mithraism?

Did Jesus Christ and the Angel Moroni start Mormonism?

Was the God of the Jews ever presented as a man ?

Was Allah ever presented as a man ?

Was the ever presented as a man ?

Was the Hindu Gods ever presented as a man ?

Was Zeus ever presented as a man ?

Was Jupiter ever presented as a man ?

Was Mithra ever presented as a man ?

Was the Angel Moroni ever presented as a man ?

 

[Belz...]

Just because two or more different authors (all of them anonymous in the case of the gospels!) give contradictory or different accounts of any claimed event, does not mean they must have been writing "independently" of one-another.

Just because two posts are written by a poster named IanS doesn't mean that they were in fact written by the same man. Just because I go to bed in a place that looks precisely the same each evening doesn't mean that it's in fact the same place. Etc.

 

[dejudge]

Was the God of the Jews ever presented as a man ?

Was Allah ever presented as a man ?

Was the ever presented as a man ?

Was the Hindu Gods ever presented as a man ?

Was Zeus ever presented as a man ?

Was Jupiter ever presented as a man ?

Was Mithra ever presented as a man ?

Was the Angel Moroni ever presented as a man ?

Please, just go and read the NT. Jesus was GOD Incarnate. You want to give HALF of the story!!!

Was Jesus in the NT presented as the Son of God who was God Creator, the Logos who walked on water and transfigured in the presence of the disciples??


Mark 14

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.

Mark 15:39 NAS

When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God !"

Mark 5

6 Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; 7 and shouting with a loud voice, he said, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God ? I implore You by God, do not torment me!"

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...

Jesus as GOD is The ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and cult.

HJ as a known obscure dead man who was actually known to have done virtually nothing in the NT is NOT plausible at all.

Remember it is agreed the evidence for an HJ is TERRIBLE.

I am NOT convinced there was an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

This is Robert Eiseman, an historian, who admits that the question of the Historical Jesus has NOT been solved by anyone who has been involved in the matter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am merely exposing your illogical analogies!!

Actually, you are demonstrating that you are unable to understand them.

You ought to know that it was the AUTHORS of the Christian Mythologies who most likely started the Jesus cult--NOT the Myth himself.

Those who spread the oral traditions about Jesus started the Jesus cult. What is your point?

Gods do NOT start religions.

Seeing as gods are mythical constructs, that's rather obvious, yes? Are you by any chance simply continuing arguments that you began on Christian forums?

Jesus is GOD in the Jesus cult religion and could NOT have been known as a dead man who did nothing as described in the NT.

Jesus is a god in Christianity today, but he was not a god during the early years of the Jesus movement. Why do you seem to believe that for Jesus to have been a run-of-the-mill religious fundamentalist who got himself killed because of his delusions, then he must have been known as such to those who spread the Jesus movement?

Jesus as GOD is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and the Jesus cult of Christians as is evident in the hundreds of Apologetic writings of antiquity.

No, it isn't. You'd be laughed out of any university's New Testament studies program for making that assertion.

Ignatius' Ephesians

And? Did I claim that the idea of Jesus as divine never evolved in Christianity? Do you know that there were a number of Christianities, each with very different ideas as to who and what Jesus was? Finding an example of an early proponent of the divine Jesus does not support your assertion that Jesus was claimed to be God by his Jewish followers from the very start.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is Robert Eiseman, an historian, who admits that the question of the Historical Jesus has NOT been solved by anyone who has been involved in the matter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayU8uKFtxgU

No one here has claimed that it has. We've only said that there is reason to think that an historical Jesus is plausible, yet you refuse to address this argument, preferring your strawman of someone claiming to have proved the existence of Jesus.

By the way, Eiseman thought that early Christian writers, like Paul, went out of their way to separate Jesus from his brother James, because they wanted to eliminate the Jewish religious insurrectionist elements of the story for gentile consumption. Eiseman thought that there was likely an historical Jesus who was mythologized after his death.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus as GOD is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and the Jesus cult of Christians as is evident in the hundreds of Apologetic writings of antiquity.

No, it isn't. You'd be laughed out of any university's New Testament studies program for making that assertion.

I personally LAUGH at those who claim their God is PLAUSIBLE without evidence and LAUGH even more at those who claim their obscure UNKNOWN dead HJ is plausible without a shred of corroborative evidence from antiquity using the same discredited Ass Talking Cloud Talking Bible as history.

Over 1800 years Christians were LAUGHING at each other and calling each other LIARS and claiming that Christians had NO evidence for what they said about the stories of Jesus.

Why can't I LAUGH at people who have NO evidence for what they say??

The Jesus story was a known BIG JOKE since the time of Marcion.

The Son of God was a PHANTOM.

Marcion EXPOSED the JOKERS.

Justin's First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say...

I can't stop LAUGHING.

Even, today people, even atheists, believe Jesus was real and use the Ass Talking--Cloud Talking Bible as history "though they have no proof of what they say".

 

[Craig B]

Why can't I LAUGH at people who have NO evidence for what they say??

Laugh as much as you want!

Even, today people, even atheists, believe Jesus was real and use the Ass Talking Cloud Talking Bible as history.

They do. No wonder you laugh.

 

[Belz...]

Please, just go and read the NT. Jesus was GOD Incarnate. You want to give HALF of the story!!!

I'll take that as a dodge.