OK, give me an hour or two!
Yes, including the human Davidic kings, the Anointed Ones, Christs. And originally that's what Jesus was supposed to be. you keep forgetting Matthew 1:1 NIV
Last edited:
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
You mean the guy who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin in Matthew 1?
You forget that the author of Matthew specifically stated how Jesus was conceived.
You must have forgotten--let me remind of Matthew 1.
Matthew 1:18 CEB [Common English Bible]
Matthew 1 shows that even one born of the Holy Ghost had the title of Son of God.
This is corroborated by the author of gLuke.
The one born of a Holy Ghost had a title of the Son of God.
Luke 1.35.
Step back for a moment and ask why doesn't the anthropological community even consider the idea of a deluded Navy Serviceman preaching some wonky idea that God would bring the natives he is preaching to heaven on Earth in the form of cargo in the 1910s and his native followers taking the idea and ran with it.
The answer is much the same one given for the idea the Sphinx was made 3 to 4 thousand years - there is no supporting evidence for such a theory.
With John Frum we have the advantage of detailed anthropological studies from 1952 forward allowing one to piece together an evolution of the concept.
1940-1952: John Frum is a vague idea and his cargo paradise will only come about once all the whites have left. (This implies that originally John Frum wasn't seen as white otherwise he would have to leave as well)
c1957: we start seeing the idea that John Frum himself is a white man and picks up a flesh and blood brother Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh even though the man has only sisters. This seems to be when the idea of John Frum being a serviceman also comes into vouge.
c1960 natives start carrying around pictures of men they believe to be John Frum
If we take the tack that Manehivi (the first native to use the name John Frum) was the founder of the cult then the oral tradition in about 17 years (1940 to 1957) totally wiped him from memory to replace him with the white Navy Serviceman regarded as John Frum to the present day.
However there is evidence of John Frum before 1940 and these reports are a muddle with John Frum being an Black American GI, a white man, or Melanesian. At least one version put John Frum's supposed appearance in 1931 but before that there is nothing...at least under the name John Frum.
Not the sort of thing you would expect with a flesh and blood founder but exactly what you would expect from an imagined vision inspired person who picked up various attributes as time moved on.
Paul's writing on Jesus is vague...almost like a cold reading by a palm reader. We continue to get this vagueness until c140 when the Marcion Bible shows up with Paul's writings and the Evangelikon (supposedly an altered version of Luke) which Marcion believed was written by Paul as dictated by Christ himself (ie via vision).
Marcion's position on the Evangelikon is strange as it appears to curb stomp the idea of Jesus being an actual person by throwing out the idea of any actual witnesses to events and having Paul basically vision quest the whole shebang. And this was the first attempt (that we know of) of making a Christian bible. Anyone else see a little problem with this?
Last edited:
I don't believe he was. That was added in to fulfil a so-called prophecy.
King Solomon "son of god" was born of the Holy Ghost? His physical father wasn't a ghost, he was David. His mother wasn't a virgin; she was the widow of Uriah the Hittite whom David had killed ... But no, I won't go on. You'll just repeat stuff about virgins and ghosts for hours and hours. Have a nice day, if it's day where you are. Dark here.
Last edited:
You believe David was a figure of history?--You believe he killed Goliath with a slingshot? You believe you know the truth without corroborative evidence?
Don't you know that David and Solomon could be Mythological Kings?
That's it. You believe you know the truth in the Bible.
That's it--whatever you believe is the truth.
You don't need evidence just faith.
May I remind that Christians in antiquity also argued vehemently that Jesus was the Son of God who walked on the water, transfigured and resurrected.
May I remind that God, Satan, Adam and Eve were figures of history in the same Bible which mentions David and Solomon.
Why are you using a known source of mythology for history?
Well we do have the Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele regarding David.
Josephus in Against Apion and citing other sources gives an actual year that material was sent to Solomon for the First Temple. However, archeological evidence suggests that these kings may have ruled a city state rather then a nation as stated in the OT.
The Bible also mentions the following people whose existence is corroborated in non-Biblical sources.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
So there you go again, cherry picking. As you observe, one passage in Matthew 1 states that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost, and yet another passage in the same chapter states that he was a Son of David through the lineage of Joseph. And the supposedly synoptic Luke says he's a son of David through Mary. Not even the same chapter of Matthew agrees with itself, yet you confidently and arrogantly choose one of the possible interpretations as the "truth" of the mythical Jesus.
Obviously both things cannot be true in the real world, but this is a myth. Even in a myth, it's likely one of the two contradictory statements is a lie relative to the big lie that is the myth, but so what? In the real world, nobody is fathered by the holy spirit and born of a virgin. It seems like pedantry of the silliest sort to spend any time deciding which statement is truer than the other when you have positively and unequivocally declared the whole story a lie.
I forgot to put coffee in my thermos this morning. Let's spend the rest of the day arguing about whether my thermos is empty of Kenyan or Sumatran coffee. And while we're at it, are we sure it's empty of tea?
Belz...
Fiend God
And EVERYONE on this thread disagrees with Ehrman, so can we end the thread, now, or can we go on discussing whatever thread drift brought upon us ?
I notice you have failed to address any of the things I said in the post you quoted, so I'll repeat them, here:
The standard of evidence is different for historical events simply because the certainty of conclusion is very, very low. Or, actually, the certainty is low because of the quality and quantity of the evidence, but when one asks for a demonstration to show why one arrives at the conclusion, you have to work backwards and mention the evidence; so the lower the certainty, the poorer the evidence.
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm still a bit murky on this: the only thing that the Frum thing tells us is that such a scenario is possible with Jesus. But how does it make MJ more likely than HJ or any other alternative (save Divine Jesus, of course) ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Where ? Luke's genealogy leads from Joseph to David.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Wait.
Doesn't Mark have priority over Marcion's Luke?
I'm currently rereading and reading up on gMark and its composition and need the succor only Rioja can give.
Even so, apparently most historians(according to wiki) say Mark can be dated to 70-75 CE, for reasons I don't quite understand yet.
Please tell me more, maximara.
Isn't that terrible? Everyone disagrees with Bart Ehrman a leading New Testament Scholar!!
By the way who do you agree with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
Here you go again accusing me of cherry picking and forget that Craig B cherry-picked a single verse from Matthew 1.
Read Matthew 1.1 what does it say?
Jesus Christ is the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matthew 1:1 KJV
When did David live according to the very Bible?
When did Abraham live according to the very Bible?
When Craig B cherry-picked Matthew 1.1 he forgot to tell us when David and Abraham lived.
Jesus Christ is a literary figure, an eschatological concept. He had no literal historical father.
Jesus Christ is the son and grandson of Jewish myth characters found in the Septuagint.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Like everything else, there seems to be some ambiguity here, with various scholars finding various fudges and workarounds.
My point, anyway, is not so much what the lineage of Jesus might have been, but that DeJudge is fine tuning the characteristics of someone who, if he did not exist, has no characteristics.
There are the Jerusalem or Lukan Priority and No Priority schools of thought regarding the synoptic Gospels.
In the Jerusalem-Lukan Priority Schools of thought, Luke is regarded as the first synoptic Gospel (being based on a now lost Gospel) with Mark coming next and finally Matthew.
The No Priority school of thought has many variations (Multi-source hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and Independence hypothesis) but all of them boil down to the idea of a common source (either a now lost proto gospel or oral traditions) This eliminates the need for any Gospel to be based on another making the dates of their creation far more fluid.
As for the dating of Mark being in the 70-85 range that is based on a "prophesy" regarding the fall of the second temple (Mark 13:1-2). I have found the Religious Tolerance site a lot better in getting date ranges then wikipedia.
"The gospel [Mark] was apparently written during a time of great tension between the conservative Jewish Christians, centered in Jerusalem and the more liberal Gentile Christians, spread throughout the Roman Empire." (The Gospel of Q -- the source gospel. The Gospel of Mark)
The problem with these early dates as I have made mention before is no Church Father before c130 makes any reference to the events in any known Gospel. Rather what you do get is Paul and OT references. So basically we are asked to believe that the Christians had the presence of mind to copy the Gospels from the date of their first writing but not the writings of any Church Father referencing them until about c130.
At best we get one liners that cold have easily been woven into the Gospels if they were later documents.Also note one curious thing. John would seem to fit Marcion's line of thought of the god of the Jews being an evil jealous inferior being to the god of the Christians (certainly such a being would use his followers to undermind any challenge to his divinity) to a T and yet he appears to not have used it suggesting it didn't exist when Marcion put together his bible c140 CE.
Last edited:
Very good!!Just as I expected.
Your little known HJ is not on the list.
Your obscurity is in a far worse condition than a myth--your obscurity is unknown.
I fine tune nothing about Jesus. I do not make stuff up. Whatever I post about the Jesus character is easily found word for word in the Bible or writings of antiquity.
I cannot assume Jesus was a human being when the very cult preached publicly and documented their teaching for hundreds of years that Jesus was born after his Virgin mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost and that he was God Creator.
Eh? The traditional chronology, from memory, is David c 1,000 BCE; Abraham c 1,800 BCE. So what?
Aha! You think "son of David" must mean literal son, and not simply "descendant", so he can't have been "son" of somebody living so long ago? What an odd argument!
"Grandson"? Oh, I see. Abraham. He, by the same understanding of the passage, must have been David's literal father, thus Jesus' grandfather. But again he couldn't have been. What a weird argument! But why "the Septuagint"? Are you saying that Abraham and David are not in the early Hebrew text? No, you've put in a reference to the derivative Greek text simply to make the source look less robust. Oh, naughty!
dejudge said:
So what you ask? You will soon find out!!
dejudge said:
Craig B said:
You were the one who cherry-picked Matthew 1.1 as evidence that Jesus had a human father now you expose your own weird argument.
Tell us now who was the father of Jesus in Matthew 1 now that you admit that neither David or Abraham was his real father?
The answer is right there in the 18th verse of Matthew 1.
The "real" father of Jesus was the Holy Ghost in Matthew 1.
Jesus in Matthew 1 was a PHANTOM.
In effect, Jesus was a "descendant" of Jewish Myth characters.
Last edited:
- Status