Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Again, you present an illogical emotional post ... Your HJ could NEVER be called the CHRIST after he was dead.

If your HJ was NOT the CHRIST before he was dead then he could never ever be called the Christ.

One cannot become an Emperor AFTER death.
One cannot become the CHRIST after death.
One cannot be the KING of the Jews after death.

The one called CHRIST must be alive when he comes.

Even by your standards, dejudge, these are weird statements. True, one cannot become an emperor after death. But an emperor can be deified after death, and become a god. During the very lifetime of Jesus that was done to the Emperor Augustus. See http://virtualreligion.net/iho/augustus.html

The Roman Senate declared him a god less than a month after his death.

He died in 14 AD.

The same goes for Christ. Please bear in mind that Jesus was never deified by his fellow Jews. Even his followers and "brothers" (by blood or association) in describing him as a "christ" had in mind nothing more than a human liberator, who would "restore Israel" in some sense or another. Personally, I think literally, as a political entity. Bar Kosiba, who tried exactly that a century later, was also widely regarded as a messiah, and even took the name Bar Kochba - son of a star - to stress his claim.

The people who, later, came to make Jesus into God were not Jews but Romans and Hellenistic Greeks who were already accustomed to the idea of deified kings and emperors, and simply deified their new "Lord" as a matter of course. Jesus couldn't become a messiah after death. Being alive is one of the qualifications for acceptance as such, as Gamaliel is made to point out in Chapter 5 of Acts; but Jesus being a "Christ" in the new Christian terminology was something different. The word had simply come to be a title of the "man-god" and had lost the meaning it had among the Jews of the first centuries BCE and CE. This is all obvious anyway, but I can't sleep, so I might as well write it down as read a book.

 

[dejudge]

It's quite eerie to read that, with exactly the same arguments being produced by some of the same personnel, in 2010! But you have the bonus appearance of Earl Doherty who has a brief contretemps with Tim O'Neill.

Tim O'Neill's arguments for an HJ is just as illogical as those made by Brianache.

HJers have two pieces of non-apologetic forgeries [Josephus and Tacitus] and the NT [ a compilation of forgeries and fiction] which they consistently use to argue for their HJ.

The use of those forgeries and fiction will always end in disaster for the HJ argument.

HJers keep forgeting that the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts.

HJers keep forgetting that the Gospels are forgeries or falsely attributed.

The Gospels are CHINESE WHISPERS accounts.

Why are HJers using known compilation of Chinese Whispers for history??

 

[Brainache]

Your response shows that you do not comprehend people here are discussing the claims made by Bart Ehrman about the historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman claimed he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" to demonstrate that Jesus CERTAINLY existed.

All of sudden, HJers are conveniently dis-associating themselves from Ehrman which indicates that Ehrman's argument for Jesus of Nazareth was a total failure.

"All of a sudden"?

The OP was made by: Nick227 (30th June 2008). That's five and a half years ago.

People stopped talking about Ehrman's book after about three pages.

You are the only one who keeps bringing him up.

It's almost as if it is the only book you've seen on the subject.

 

[dejudge]

Even by your standards, dejudge, these are weird statements. True, one cannot become an emperor after death. But an emperor can be deified after death, and become a god. During the very lifetime of Jesus that was done to the Emperor Augustus. See http://virtualreligion.net/iho/augustus.html He died in 14 AD.

An itinerant obscure CRUCIFIED man is not known to have been deified after death in history of the Roman Empire.

The Christ of Jews must arrive ALIVE.

A posthumous CHRIST is total unknown to the Jews.

In Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Jews expected LIVING Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE--not dead itinerant preachers.

The same goes for Christ. Please bear in mind that Jesus was never deified by his fellow Jews. Even his followers and "brothers" (by blood or association) in describing him as a "christ" had in mind nothing more than a human liberator, who would "restore Israel" in some sense or another. Personally, I think literally, as a political entity. Bar Kosiba, who tried exactly that a century later, was also widely regarded as a messiah, and even took the name Bar Kochba - son of a star - to stress his claim.

You very well know that the same NT which claims Jesus was the Christ also claims he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and GOD Creator.

In the NT, Peter claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

Matthew 16:16 KJV

And Simon Peter answered and said , Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the Pauline Epistles, Paul, a Pharisee and Hebrew of Hebrews claimed the parents of Jesus was God and a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

Virtually every book of the NT refers to Jesus either as the Son of God or God Creator.

 

[Brainache]

An itinerant obscure CRUCIFIED man is not known to have been deified after death in history of the Roman Empire.

The Christ of Jews must arrive ALIVE.

A posthumous CHRIST is total unknown to the Jews.

In Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Jews expected LIVING Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE--not dead itinerant preachers.



You very well know that the same NT which claims Jesus was the Christ also claims he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and GOD Creator.

In the NT, Peter claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

Matthew 16:16 KJV

In the Pauline Epistles, Paul, a Pharisee and Hebrew of Hebrews claimed the parents of Jesus was God and a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV


Virtually every book of the NT refers to Jesus either as the Son of God or God Creator.

*snort*

 

[IanS]

Not that you haven't seen this or anything...but here it is one more time. Stone has even put it in red ink for you and, it must be said, matches your own shrillness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9711351#post9711351

And please no more epistles. Your message hasn't changed since you first appeared on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-2220.html

None of Stone's biblical writing is any kind of evidence to show a living human Jesus.

The biblical writing is known only as anonymous copyist hearsay writing which told of ignorant superstitious 1st century religious belief in untrue fictional stories about a miraculous messiah believed as gods divine prophecy from 500 years before in the OT.

That is not remotely any kind of reliable credible evidence of Jesus.

You have zero evidence of any living Jesus.

Where is the reliable credible relevant evidence of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus?

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

Of course one can, if the auditor grants the premise of a Jewish poly-omni-god, which is a necessary condition for there to be any messiah-christ. And that's what Paul taught happened to Jesus, who died, but now is no longer dead, and so remains elgibile for messianic duty.

I appreciate that you think Paul is a Second Century forgery, but that doesn't matter for this point. The Second Century church taught that this was its ancestral teaching to Gentiles, whether "the Second Century church" was a pack of forgers, or a gaggle of clerks passing on what they had received from their predecessors while adding their own novel elements.

The matter does present some challenges for your theory, because the Second Century church was already teaching a substanially divine Jesus. It would require some explanation, then, why they would invent Paul or Mark, where an unambiguous human being receives the unambiguously human office of prophesized messiah-christ, when they already have John, in which the creator of the universe puts on a meat suit and has many excellent adventures earthside.

I don't think that forging an inconsistent teaching history is fatal to your position, because "deepening understanding" is one of the core products that an organized church sells. The Mormons, now approaching the end of their second century, show that this strategy can sell on an industrial scale worldwide, even if the sense of it offends some people, but mainly folks who aren't likely prospects for buying any of the product anyway.

 

[Belz...]

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

Why not ?

 

[Craig B]

... The Christ of Jews must arrive ALIVE.

Correct. Jesus is not "the Christ of Jews" in case you haven't noticed. But I'll ask again at the local synagogue, just in case things have changed.

A posthumous CHRIST is total unknown to the Jews.

Correct.

In Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Jews expected LIVING Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE--not dead itinerant preachers.

Correct again. That's why the Jews didn't recognise Jesus as the Christ. The messianic acknowledgement in the TF is universally rejected as interpolated, whatever about the rest of the passage.

You very well know that the same NT which claims Jesus was the Christ also claims he was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and GOD Creator.

I know two other things too. 1. Jews don't accept these details. 2. The Synoptics don't say he was god Creator, and Acts 2:22 contradicts this statement. The NT is not a single source. But you know that, and are just pasting regurgitated nonsense. Have fun!

 

[dejudge]

dejudge

So your list of Christian writers agree that Jesus was God. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

Please tell that to Foster Zygote. He does not know that manuscripts and Codices have actually been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later which clearly state what people of antiquity believed about Jesus.

In antiquity, Jesus was the Son of God and GOD Creator born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and was NEVER included in the list of genealogies of Jews.

 

[dejudge]

Correct. Jesus is not "the Christ of Jews" in case you haven't noticed. But I'll ask again at the local synagogue, just in case things have changed. Correct. Correct again. That's why the Jews didn't recognise Jesus as the Christ. The messianic acknowledgement in the TF is universally rejected as interpolated, whatever about the rest of the passage. I know two other things too. 1. Jews don't accept these details. 2. The Synoptics don't say he was god Creator, and Acts 2:22 contradicts this statement. The NT is not a single source. But you know that, and are just pasting regurgitated nonsense. Have fun!

Since you are arguing that the NT is NOT a single source then your HJ argument is really worthless.

Name any single source or any book in the NT that state Jesus was NOT the Christ, was NOT the Son of God, or was NOT born in Bethlehem, did NOT walk on the sea, transfigure, resurrect or ascended in a cloud.

Now, Paul claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and preached that the parents of Jesus was GOD and a Woman.

The Pauline Corpus has DESTROYED your claim that Jews did NOT accept Jesus as the Son of God.


Galatians 4:4 KJV

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please tell that to Foster Zygote. He does not know that manuscripts and Codices have actually been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later which clearly state what people of antiquity believed about Jesus.

You seem to have the impression that Christianity, even in antiquity, was just one big homogenous group who all believed the same thing from the start. The idea that Jesus was divine developed gradually, and not among the Jewish followers of the Jesus cult.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you read gMark then you would have seen that Jesus WALKED on the SEA and Transfigured in the presence of his disciple so it is completely irrelevant whether or not you think Jesus was a Divine character.

And Moses parted the sea. And Samson killed a lion with his bare hands, defeated an army with nothing but a donkey's jawbone, and tore down a temple with his bare hands. Were Moses and Samson worshipped as gods by the Hebrews?

 

[dejudge]

The matter does present some challenges for your theory, because the Second Century church was already teaching a substanially divine Jesus. It would require some explanation, then, why they would invent Paul or Mark, where an unambiguous human being receives the unambiguously human office of prophesized messiah-christ, when they already have John, in which the creator of the universe puts on a meat suit and has many excellent adventures earthside.

There is absolutely no challenge to my theory because there is NO manuscript or story of Jesus ever recovered and dated to the time of Paul.

You are the one who has been challenged and fall short of presenting evidence of a 1st century Jesus cult with Pauline letters composed since c 50 CE.

You cannot do so now and was never able.

Your pre 70 CE Jesus cult is a figment of your imagination.

Scholars have already deduced the NT is riddled with forgeries, fiction, implausibility and have NO eyewitness accounts of Jesus so immediately you have a very, very, difficult task to demonstrate that any story of Jesus or the cult in the NT is actual history and was known pre-70 CE.

The forgeries were composed specifically to deceive--2nd century and later writings were attributed to FAKE pre 70 CE authors.

 

[dejudge]

You seem to have the impression that Christianity, even in antiquity, was just one big homogenous group who all believed the same thing from the start. The idea that Jesus was divine developed gradually, and not among the Jewish followers of the Jesus cult.

I am extremely delighted that you admit there were Multiple versions of Jesus.

Now, please present the evidence from antiquity for YOUR Version.

You REJECT the versions in the NT so now you must show the corroborative evidence for your Itinerant preacher.

The Jesus in the NT was the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection, commissioned his dead after he was DEAD and ascended to heaven.

Tell us about your version and the evidence from antiquity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is absolutely no challenge to my theory because there is NO manuscript or story of Jesus ever recovered and dated to the time of Paul.

And no manuscript of Josephus' work exists prior to the Middle Ages.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Corpus has DESTROYED your claim that Jews did NOT accept Jesus as the Son of God. Galatians 4:4 KJV

Yes indeedy. That's what I'm saying. Insofar as it is meant as a supernatural "Godman" phenomenon, Jews don't accept that. But I'll ask the local Rabbi if there have been any changes in this doctrine. I'm warning you now, that I don't think there have been.

 

[dejudge]

And no manuscript of Josephus' work exists prior to the Middle Ages.

You are exposing that you have massive problems. Your HJ argument is without a real 1st century pre 70 CE source that has been recovered and dated to the time of Jesus and Paul.

My position is directly corroborated. There are 2nd century and later manuscripts with Jesus and Paul.

My position is that Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are 2nd century or later fabrications and were unknown in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

The recovered and dated manuscripts are my evidence from antiquity.

You have nothing at all--NO actual recovered dated manuscripts in the time of Jesus and Paul.

Your HJ argument is dead.

You want to use forgeries in copies of copies of copies from perhaps the 10th century and later for Jesus the Christ while actively DENYING that your HJ was the Christ.

The HJ argument is probably the very worst argument known to mankind--it is not only baseless [ without evidence] but also highly illogical.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am extremely delighted that you admit there were Multiple versions of Jesus.

"Admit"? You've had to be reminded of that fact repeatedly because you don't seem to know much more about the history of Christianity that the typical Christian for whom you show such disdain.

Now, please present the evidence from antiquity for YOUR Version.

It's been done. For pages and pages it's been done. And all you ever do is demand to see it again and again and again. You're strategy is to pretend that your opponents in this debate are claiming to have proof of Jesus' corporeal existence. Then, no matter how much they point out that they are simply speculating about the probability that a real Jesus existed, you will demand proof of this existence. You then declare victory over an opponent who never actually existed. It's like you're arguing with someone who says that he thinks extraterrestrial life is unproved, but likely, and you respond, "You can't prove it exists, therefor it doesn't exist. I am right and you are wrong!". Well, actually you'd probably respond with something containing far more extraneous capitalization, hyperbole and repetition, but still fundamentally the same.

 

[Craig B]

My position is directly corroborated. There are 2nd century and later manuscripts with Jesus and Paul.

My position is that Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are 2nd century or later fabrications and were unknown in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

I think the point Foster Zygote may be making

And no manuscript of Josephus' work exists prior to the Middle Ages.

is this. If Jesus and Paul must be second century inventions because there are no earlier extant manuscripts, then by that same reasoning Josephus must be a medieval invention, as there are no manuscripts of his work dating from the first or second centuries either. I know you simply can't seem to follow this argument, but there it is.