Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Craig - I'm sorry but you appear to have absolutely no understanding or conception at all what "evidence” of something actually is, or indeed what could possibly count as "evidence".

I'd argue that you have not defined what that evidence is, and that if you did, it would not fit with other posters' definitions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am doing history.

No you're not. You're cherry picking events to support a baseless assertion that Romans would never worship a Jew who was executed by crucifixion because they "hated the Jews and wanted them dead". The ridiculousness of your argument is made plain by the fact that many Romans did come to worship a Jew who was executed. In fact, a Roman emperor came to do just that, which had the effect of inspiring even more Romans to worship a Jew who was crucified.

You're so desperate to make lists of reasons why you can't be wrong about a position that runs counter to what the great majority of experts say, that you're just making stuff up without thinking it through. If, as you say, Romans would never worship a crucified Jew because they "hated the Jews and wanted them dead", then you have to explain the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Belz...]

Constantine wasn't a Roman ? News to me !

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dunno, Foster Zygote.
Does their existence imply an HJ?
Does the existence of Ebionites imply an historical Ebion?

Degudge's claim is that not only was there no historical Jeshua ben Joseph, but that Christianity was not invented until the 2nd Century. If that is the case, then who was being persecuted by Nero?

 

[zugzwang]

That's indeed what they said and I have quoted them with approval. But if you have read the three threads with attention, as I know you have done, you will find that some of the modern counterparts of these thinkers adopt a more robust view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory In practice this leaves no space for any random wandering preacher.

And I deny that there was an existing myth from Middle Platonism, or that Jesus was an unearthly being who was "crucified" in a supernatural realm, or that Paul never believed Jesus to have been a physical person living on earth.

Where "mythicism" nearly means, "we really don't have a lot of evidence, so the guy most probably didn't exist at all in any recognisable form" - like Robin Hood - then that kind of mythicism is unobjectionable. But people are saying more than that, and to the extent that they are, the burden of proof of a pre existing myth falls on them.

As to dejudge and his Hardouinesque theories, about the forgery of the entire NT hundreds of years after the events it relates, well I've already said more than enough about that. Also I hope I have no further occasion to defend people who accept as probable the existence of HJ, against the charge that they are believers in the truthfulness of the holy scriptures, and in effect Christian adherents. That's crackers.

I think GDon has written some interesting criticisms of the Middle Platonism idea, basically that there is no evidence that there were any groups, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, who advocated ideas and rituals derived from Middle Platonism. So it's an interesting idea in search of an author. The idea of crucifixion in the heavenly realm is certainly quixotic.

If GDon hoves into view, he might give links to his discussions on this. I suppose Doherty might argue that some of Paul's ideas are connected to platonic ideas, but the usual counter to this, as you say, is that Paul sees Jesus as human.

 

[maximara]

That wasn't my question. Do you agree that it's likely that such a preacher man was at the source of Christianity ?

We simply don't know.

Paul goes on about a Jesus he states that he got knowledge about not through any human agency but through visions. Paul also warns of "other Jesuses", "other Spirits" and "other Gospels" so he may have been trying to take what ever Jesus movement existed and take down a path he wanted.

The Gospels are insanely late (130 CE at best based on external reference material) and conflict with what history we can cross check them with.

John From shows that a movement can inspired people to take up the name of the supposed founder and take action and people can hold the movement was much older then people were seeing (1910s vs 1940).

 

[Darat]

Well, let's see now. People don't come back from the dead, and they don't walk on water. I think it's safe to say that those two elements of the Jesus story are false. As many people have tried to explain, that does not mean that all elements of the Jesus story as recorded in the Gospels are false.

There's nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea. It happened to a good many others. It was the dedication of this particular crank's followers that enabled his cult to spread as it did.

Agreed but it does mean that we know that they are unreliable and factually erroneous accounts. What that means is that we need external collaboration to be able to tell if any "non-supernatural" element is factually correct (or not).

 

[dejudge]

No you're not. You're cherry picking events to support a baseless assertion that Romans would never worship a Jew who was executed by crucifixion because they "hated the Jews and wanted them dead". The ridiculousness of your argument is made plain by the fact that many Romans did come to worship a Jew who was executed. In fact, a Roman emperor came to do just that, which had the effect of inspiring even more Romans to worship a Jew who was crucified.

What utter fallacies you post. You need to read the NT and stop repeating Chinese Whispers.

Jesus in the NT was not a Jew.

Jesus was excluded in both genealogies of the Jews in gMatthew and gLuke.

Jesus of the NT was the Son of God, born of the Holy Ghost, the Logos and God Creator.

Matthew 1:18 CEB

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

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.

It is HJers who must cherry pick events from the NT and writings of antiquity.

Did you not cherry-pick the baptism and the crucifixion from the NT?

Did you not cherry-pick forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus Annals even though you vehemently argue that your HJ was not the Christ but an obscure preacher?

You're so desperate to make lists of reasons why you can't be wrong about a position that runs counter to what the great majority of experts say, that you're just making stuff up without thinking it through. If, as you say, Romans would never worship a crucified Jew because they "hated the Jews and wanted them dead", then you have to explain the Roman Catholic Church.

I have merely exposed your fallacies by using writings of antiquity. You are not doing history.

You had no idea that Suetonius wrote that Tiberius suppressed all religions including the Jewish rites c 14-37 CE.

You have no idea that it is corroborated by Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1.

AJ 18.5.1

BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws.

If you had known that the Romans were attempting to eradicate the Jewish Laws then you would have not argued for an HJ.

An HJ is not plausible at all in the time of Tiberius.

Now, let me continue to expose your fallacies. Even the NT and Roman Church expressed hatred of Jews for hundreds of years.

John 8:44 KJV

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The Papal Bull of Eugene IV

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot have a share in eternal happiness; but that they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his Angels (Matt 25: 41), unless they unite themselves to the Church before their death...

 

[maximara]

Degudge's claim is that not only was there no historical Jeshua ben Joseph, but that Christianity was not invented until the 2nd Century. If that is the case, then who was being persecuted by Nero?

Perhaps it was not Christians but Chrestians ie the supposed followers of Osiris reported in the Hadrian to Servianus letter.

Seriously, if there was a totally different group called Chrestians as some have suggested (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85) then both Nero references go out the window. Given the similarity in names it is possible that the two groups were confused by those in the second century.

More telling is outside of Paul and a few believers no writer (Roman or Jewish) of the 1st century says anything about Christianity and yet were are told that there was a large enough group in Rome itself for Nero to fasten blame to.

 

[Brainache]

You must not have realised that the main reason why HJers seem like Christian Believers is because they use the Bible for the history of their Jesus without a shred of corroborating evidence.

You keep repeating the Creed of HJers--not the evidence.

"We believe Jesus existed and that he was a preacher" is only a Creed it is not evidence.

People nowadays are less and less unwilling to believe what you say if you fail to provide the supporting evidence.

When will you actually present some evidence for HJ?

 

[Belz...]

We simply don't know.

You don't know if it's likely ? Come on, Max. You can tell me if you agree that it's likely or not. I'm not asking you if you think that's the way it happened.

 

[Darat]

You don't know if it's likely ? Come on, Max. You can tell me if you agree that it's likely or not. I'm not asking you if you think that's the way it happened.

It's not really a fair question to ask if someone takes an "I don't know" position since that is in itself is as valid position as saying "more/less likely than a purple kangaroo". Some people can just leave it at a "I don't know".

 

[dejudge]

[qimg]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1604656_10151993862757909_1636528414_n.jpg[/qimg]

Great evidence for the little known dead itinerant preacher.

 

[Belz...]

It's not really a fair question to ask if someone takes an "I don't know" position since that is in itself is as valid position as saying "more/less likely than a purple kangaroo". Some people can just leave it at a "I don't know".

He said "WE" don't know. I'm not asking for evidence, just his honest opinion on whether it's likely. I'm not even asking if it's more likely than an alternative scenario. Why do MJ posters always avoid that one ?

 

[Darat]

He said "WE" don't know. I'm not asking for evidence, just his honest opinion on whether it's likely. I'm not even asking if it's more likely than an alternative scenario. Why do MJ posters always avoid that one ?

That folk won't give you the answers you want does not mean anything about the person.

 

[dejudge]

He said "WE" don't know. I'm not asking for evidence, just his honest opinion on whether it's likely. I'm not even asking if it's more likely than an alternative scenario. Why do MJ posters always avoid that one ?

Your statement is quite contradictory and illogical. How can one give an honest opinion without knowing the evidence?

You are really asking for a dishonest opinion or baseless speculation.

Based on the existing evidence an HJ is not a plausible alternative to the Jesus of Faith.

The Jesus of Faith is supported by the hundreds of recovered manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

 

[maximara]

He said "WE" don't know. I'm not asking for evidence, just his honest opinion on whether it's likely. I'm not even asking if it's more likely than an alternative scenario. Why do MJ posters always avoid that one ?

That folk won't give you the answers you want does not mean anything about the person.

Right, and as I have pointed out before we should NOT point all MJers with the same brush.

Remsburg felt there was just enough to show that there was a flesh and blood Jesus but he also felt the evidence showed that man was NOT the founder of Christianity and what message Jesus really gave was Jewish and what became Christianity came later via his followers.

As spelled out some 46 years later John Robertson in 1900 held that "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that a flesh and blood Jesus existed or that he somehow contributed to the Gospel account). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

In short what many of the classic Christ Myther were arguing was not so much Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all but that the Gospels don't lead back to such a person any more than the stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur lead us directly back to the people that inspired those stories.

John Frum adds in a new wrinkle. In addition to the idea that John Frum was simply a vision and there was no founder of the cult you have the option that the illiterate native Manehivi was the "true" founder of the John Frum cult with the oral tradition replacing him with a literate white US serviceman (possibly from the Navy) who appeared to the Elders as early as 1931 within 20 years...which is roughly the time between Jesus supposed death and Paul's writings.

 

[dejudge]

I want to remind HJers that the Quest for an Historical Jesus is still on-going after hundreds of years.

Notice that it is a QUEST for HJ--NOT MJ.

Myth Jesus, the Jesus of Faith, is found in the NT.

There is NO quest for Myth Jesus. [the Jesus of Faith] The Divinity of NT Jesus is secure.

It is established that Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith and that is precisely why a massive search was initiated hoping to find Jesus a man from Nazareth in ancient history.

It would appear that virtually every "stone" has been turned and HJers have come up empty-handed and have now gone back to the Bible using the "biography" for the Jesus of Faith.

Only forgeries or questionable sources were found outside Apologetics.

Since at least the time of Tertullian, it was argued that the Divinity of Jesus was without question.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection.

The Jesus of Faith, the Spiritual Jesus is without question in the NT.

Now, Tertullian argues that if Jesus had Flesh then it can be shown Jesus did resurrect.

What total nonsense!!

Jesus could NOT have real Flesh.

People with real Flesh do NOT resurrect.

The resurrection of Jesus could ONLY be an article of faith.

The Jesus of Faith is the only plausible explanation for the resurrection story and the preaching of the Gospel that Jesus resurrected and without the resurrection there would be no remission of sins.

The Quest for HJ will never ever produce any evidence.

HJ could never resurrect.

So too the HJ argument can never resurrect--it has been dead too long.

NT Jesus was dead for three days--the HJ argument has been dead since at least 1800 years ago.

 

[Belz...]

That folk won't give you the answers you want does not mean anything about the person.

"In your opinion, does this dress make me look fat ?"

"We don't know that."

See my problem ?

 

[Darat]

"In your opinion, does this dress make me look fat ?"

"We don't know that."

See my problem ?

No - I can't see how that had any relevance to being told the answer to "Was Jesus more likely a historical person or not?" is "I don't know".

The "I don't know" completely answers your question, and personally I think it is one of the more honest answers in this thread.