Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

You are exposing that you have massive problems.

Seriously folks, we should start saving dejudge's opening sentences. The over-the-top Bond-villain monologue melodramatics are hysterical.

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.

And Josephus' works, which you've cited in support of your arguments, have no extant texts prior to the Medieval Period. But please feel free to ignore this fact as you repeat your "argument" that the lack of any 1st Century Christian manuscripts indicates that Christianity did not exist during the 1st Century.

 

[dejudge]

"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.

It is most fascinating that you talk about the history of Christianity WITHOUT presenting the history of your little known dead man who was NOT Christ and was NOT born in Bethlehem.

Your little known man is undocumented--a product of imagination.

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.

You have been using the same lame excuse. When asked for the evidence for your little known dead man you say the evidence has been given already.

Why don't you want to tell us at least one more time?

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ.

Jesus called the Christ was WELL KNOWN in Galilee and Jerusalem in the NT.

Something is wrong!! Somebody is NOT telling the truth!!

Where is the evidence for your little known preacher man who was NOT the Christ and Not born in Bethlehem?

Can you recall the source??

 

[IanS]

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 mean the bible? The bible does not contain any evidence of any living human Jesus.

It is not evidence of the existence of Jesus just because the bible says that Jesus did various things (mostly impossible) and met various people (none of whom ever confirmed a single word of it).

What is the evidence that anything said about Jesus in the bible was ever actually true?

 

[Craig B]

You mean the bible? The bible does not contain any evidence of any living human Jesus.

It is not evidence of the existence of Jesus just because the bible says that Jesus did various things (mostly impossible) and met various people (none of whom ever confirmed a single word of it).

What is the evidence that anything said about Jesus in the bible was ever actually true?

You are playing with words. The evidence has been given. If you don't like it, address the detail. The gospels contain evidence of a human Jesus. But even if you reject this, please stop going on and on and on endlessly. Either address the issue of gospel sources, or discuss some other issue to which you feel you can contribute reasoned argument.

 

[Belz...]

There is absolutely no challenge to my theory

You have no theory.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have no theory.

Shhhh! You're not supposed to mention that!

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

There is absolutely no challenge to my theory

Your "theory?" No, you're right. I have no interest in discussing that. Belz made a good point.

However, I did comment upon a specific statement of yours,

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

This can be refuted from Paul's letters. Regardless of which century the letters were written in, they describe a man who has died, who is now alive and fit for duty as the Chirst, if that's whom the supposed messiah-appointing poly-omni-god wants for team captain. If we throw in Mark, then Jesus beat out two other dead men also mentioned for the appointment, Elijah (actually, he's missing in action... but for a very long time) and Dunker John. It's almost as if being dead is a bona fide job requirement for the messiah-christ portfolio.

The rest of your post is brave talk, unrelated to anything I posted.

 

[IanS]

You are playing with words. The evidence has been given. If you don't like it, address the detail. The gospels contain evidence of a human Jesus. But even if you reject this, please stop going on and on and on endlessly. Either address the issue of gospel sources, or discuss some other issue to which you feel you can contribute reasoned argument.

You have absolutely no evidence of Jesus.

If you use the gospels, then what is the evidence that anything said about Jesus in any gospels is actually true?

 

[maximara]

You are playing with words. The evidence has been given. If you don't like it, address the detail.

The "evidence" as I have said before is a joke.

Paul is babbling about the Jesus in his head who, forgive the pun, heaven knows if he is even based on a resent person as he give no details regarding the man's life.

Then you have the Gospel which at best we know were written before 180 CE and fail miserably on every point of history we can check them against.

Then you have the infamous Testimonium Flavianum which we know is in part if not entirely (as no one mentions it until the 4th century) an insertion and a badly worded passage that could for all we know refer to some other Jesus who because he became high priest got the nick name 'christ' as per the priests of the OT.

Past that point nothing is of any use per the John Frum example.

You can produce better "proof" that Sherlck Holmes, a known fictional character, lived then exists for Jesus.

Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fit Watson's often refereed to war wound.

Fact 2: Baker Street existed: Maps of 1881-1914 London show that Baker Street really existed.

Fact 3: Preserving confidentiality: Since Holmes depended on confidentiality in many of his cases one would expect Watson to disguise the names of the people involved and even dates to preserve this confidentiality which he does to the point of having Holmes visit public places on Sunday (impossible for the time period)

Fact 4: Every "genuine case" has a date: William S. Baring-Gould's 1968 Annotated Sherlock Holmes shows that if you do enough research a real date for every "genuine" (there are a few that are said to be fiction) case can be found.

Fact 5: The correspondence: In 1932 the Abbey National Building Society moved to 219–229 Baker Street... and had to employ a full time secretary whose only job was to answer letters addressed to Sherlock Holmes.

People wouldn't send letters to a fictional character, we have proof John H. Watson and Baker Street existed, and we can explain any discrepancies in the cases...therefore Sherlock Holmes must have really existed.

That in a nutshell is the argument the HJ are giving us.

The gospels contain evidence of a human Jesus

Sir Arthur Conon Doyle's creation Professor Challenger is more human then the Gospel Jesus. Heck, the Gospel Jesus is nearly on par with a Mary Sue character.

 

[Craig B]

You can produce better "proof" that Sherlck Holmes, a known fictional character, lived then exists for Jesus.

Stuff and nonsense.

Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fit Watson's often refereed to war wound.

Not often enough, evidently:

... the Jezail bullet I had brought back in one of my limbs as a relic of my Afghan campaign ...

 

[pakeha]

...rant snipped...

...rant snipped...

I'm confused here, Stone.
How is questioning the degree of historicity of Jesus a threat to the academic world?

 

[tsig]

I'm confused here, Stone.
How is questioning the degree of historicity of Jesus a threat to the academic world?

Apparently history is like tinkerbell and if you don't believe in Jesus it disappears.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for reminding me to reread Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


Your "theory?" No, you're right. I have no interest in discussing that. Belz made a good point.

You have no evidence from the 1st century for your HJ theory.

Now, Belz made SEVERAL good points indeed.

1. Belz claimed "everyone has agreed the evidence for HJ is TERRIBLE."

2. Belz claimed "the evidence for HJ is very weak"

3. Belz SCREAMED that "he NEVER claimed to have had evidence for HJ"

Belz has laid the HJ argument at its grave.

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

This can be refuted from Paul's letters. Regardless of which century the letters were written in, they describe a man who has died, who is now alive and fit for duty as the Chirst, if that's whom the supposed messiah-appointing poly-omni-god wants for team captain.

Actually your claim is wholly absurd.

The Pauline letters specifically IDENTIFIED the Parents of his Jesus.

It was GOD and a Woman.


Galatians 4:4 NAS

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law..

All over the Pauline Corpus the Pauline writer IDENTIFIED his Jesus as GOD'S SON and even God Creator.

If we throw in Mark, then Jesus beat out two other dead men also mentioned for the appointment, Elijah (actually, he's missing in action... but for a very long time) and Dunker John. It's almost as if being dead is a bona fide job requirement for the messiah-christ portfolio..

Again, you post another absurdity.

gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM.


Mark 6:48 NAS

Seeing them straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea ; and He intended to pass by them.

You fail to understand that the NT is NOT history it is a compilation of forgeries and the Myth Fables that the Jesus cult BELIEVED.

NT is a compilation of Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology.

Like Jesus , Romulus the Myth founder of Rome was the Son of God, born of a Virgin, had a human brother and when he died DAY was turned into NIGHT.

Like Jesus, Romulus appeared to people AFTER his resurrection and then Ascended.

Romulus the Myth Founder of Rome may be the core for your "historical" Jesus--the unknown dead itinerant preacher man.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline letters specifically IDENTIFIED the Parents of his Jesus.
It was GOD and a Woman.

Romans 1

3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

So God was a descendant of David? Or did God appoint Jesus as Son through his resurrection, just as he appointed David as Son when he became King? (Physical human father: Jesse.) Anyway, don't trouble yourself about these complexities, unless you really want to, because they can do your nut in.

 

[Stone]

.....rant snipped.............

When you treat my remarks with respect, I'll reciprocate. Until then, you're no better than a myther in my book, and your "agnosticism" is meaningless.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

When you treat my remarks with respect, I'll reciprocate. Until then, you're no better than a myther in my book, and your pretense to being an agnostic is pure sham.

Stone

Stone, I'm sorry if I offended you; I should have spoilered your posts.
Agnostic?
Perhaps.
Definitely skeptic, Stone. I've been ploughing through Acts and it's souring my outlook on life.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline letters specifically IDENTIFIED the Parents of his Jesus.
It was GOD and a Woman.

Galatians 4:4 NAS

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law..

Romans 1 So God was a descendant of David? Or did God appoint Jesus as Son through his resurrection, just as he appointed David as Son when he became King? (Physical human father: Jesse.) Anyway, don't trouble yourself about these complexities, unless you really want to, because they can do your nut in.

Making references to Romans does not make Galatians magically disappear.

There are more details about Jesus the Son of God in all the Pauline Corpus.


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.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me

Now, look at the same Epistle to the Romans--Jesus is IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.


Romans 5:10 KJV

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 8:3 KJV

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh..

Look at the Epistle to the Corinthians--Jesus is IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.


1 Corinthians 1:9 KJV

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord

The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God and a Woman and is compatible with the Gospels.

Now, do not ever forget that you still have NO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed in the 1st century so your argument is always worthless.

The earliest recovered Pauline Epistles have been dated to the 2nd-3rd century.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

You have no evidence from the 1st century for your HJ theory.

That works out nicely, since I wasn't presenting a theory of a First Century historical Jesus. I was discussing a teaching you had given,

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

Apparently one can, if the premise that one can ever become the Christ is granted. If not, then the period-full stop in your statement can be moved two words to the left. Either way, whether there was a real Jesus in the First Century has nothing to do with it.

Now, Belz made SEVERAL good points indeed.

Then we're in agreement about that.

Actually your claim is wholly absurd.

The Pauline letters specifically IDENTIFIED the Parents of his Jesus.

Putting aside that Paul does not identify Jesus' father (that the idiomatic expression "son of God" is uninformative about paternity has been explained to you several times), the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with the false teaching of yours upon which I commented, which was,

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

Apparently one can, if the premise that one can ever become the Christ is granted.

 

[Craig B]

Making references to Romans does not make Galatians magically disappear.

Ha! I seem to have caught you there!

Now, do not ever forget that you still have NO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed in the 1st century so your argument is always worthless.

Rubbish. I have shown ample internal evidence. Your evidence boils down to "date of earliest extant manuscript". As stated before, Jean Hardouin used that principle in his forgery theories, and was rightly dismissed as a nutcase.

The earliest recovered Pauline Epistles have been dated to the 2nd-3rd century.

And the earliest Caesar to the Middle Ages, etc etc as discussed here umpteen times.