Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

The same story claimed Pilate found no fault with Jesus and that those who gave evidence were FALSE witnesses.

You are inventing your own story in the 21st century. Why can't you even repeat the story as it is written?


Luke 23:4 KJV


John 18:38 KJV


Please, you are not doing history. You have no interest in what is found in the NT. You are just making stuff up.

Please, try and understand what is written in the NT--not what you imagine.

And there he goes again, thinking that for one thing in the Bible to be true, then everything in the Bible must be accepted as true. He either cannot comprehend the process of evaluating ancient accounts element by element, or he's just too obstinate to acknowledge it.

 

[dejudge]

Should we also try to understand what is written in The Lord Of The Rings and The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe?

If I asked what is found in the Lord of the Rings you would show me exactly what is written.

Why don't you do the same for the NT?

Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and God Creator in the NT.

Please, tell me about "The Lord of the Rings".

You can't make stuff up--just tell me the story.

 

[dafydd]

If I asked what is found in the Lord of the Rings you would show me exactly what is written.

Why don't you do the same for the NT?

Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and God Creator in the NT.

Please, tell me about "The Lord of the Rings".

You can't make stuff up--just tell me the story.

The LOTR is a much more entertaining story. I have read the NT, but it failed to grip. If you have a few hours I could tell you the story of the LOTR. The short version is hobbit from the Shire makes good. Thank you for imparting the information that in the NT Jesus is describes as the son of a spook and a maid. I must have missed that bit when I read it. I still have no idea what your point is. The NT is fiction. That is not exactly earth shattering news to me.

 

[dejudge]

The LOTR is a much more entertaining story. I have read the NT, but it failed to grip. If you have a few hours I could tell you the story of the LOTR. The short version is hobbit from the Shire makes good. Thank you for imparting the information that in the NT Jesus is describes as the son of a spook and a maid. I must have missed that bit when I read it. I still have no idea what your point is. The NT is fiction. That is not exactly earth shattering news to me.

If you know the NT is fiction why don't you argue against those who argue that it is history for their HJ?

You are wasting time arguing with me because I am actively exposing the fiction in the NT.

Christians and HJers are arguing right now on this thread that the NT contains history for their Jesus.

Do you have any idea what is the history of Jesus in the NT?

 

[dafydd]

If you know the NT is fiction why don't you argue against those who argue that it is history for their HJ?

I can't be bothered to argue with believers in any religion.

You are wasting time arguing with me because I am actively exposing the fiction in the NT.

It was exposed a long time ago

Christians and HJers are arguing right now on this thread that the NT contains history for their Jesus.

That is their prerogative

Do you have any idea what is the history of Jesus in the NT?

Yes, I had six years of religious instruction during my high school days. So your point is that the NT is fiction? Is that all?

 

[Belz...]

It is your obligation to make sure that you had actual data to support your claim. After all you are the one who is posting here.

You should bear some responsibility for learning what others tell you, as well.

The Quest for HJ is still on-going and no HJ has ever been found after hundreds of years.

You will notice that the Quest for HJ was initiated because the Jesus in the NT was a figure of Faith--a Myth--an eschatological concept.

No HJ will ever be found.

Certainty is not skepticism.

Obscure HJ is not even plausible.

Of course it is. You just don't like the idea because it reminds you of your previous faith.

 

[dafydd]

This is the first time that I have been berated by somebody for agreeing with them.

 

[TimCallahan]

This is the first time that I have been berated by somebody for agreeing with them.

If you're referring to dejudge, join the club. I put him (her? it?) on ignore because of his (her, it's) consummate rudeness. Read over dejudge's posts on this thread and you will find nothing but contempt poured out on anyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything dejudge thinks. I suggest you join me in putting dejudge on ignore.

 

[dafydd]

If you're referring to dejudge, join the club. I put him (her? it?) on ignore because of his (her, it's) consummate rudeness. Read over dejudge's posts on this thread and you will find nothing but contempt poured out on anyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything dejudge thinks. I suggest you join me in putting dejudge on ignore.

Bring the smartest person in the world would give one an air of arrogance. No point in any further discussion.

 

[IanS]

Bring the smartest person in the world would give one an air of arrogance. No point in any further discussion.

Well one reason there is no point in any further discussion in any of these HJ threads, is because the entire argument of the HJ side boils down to saying that they do believe the bible is reliable in some of what is says about Jesus.

Though why they think that (other than an appeal to "authority" in the form of bible studies scholars, none of who whom can apparently cite any such credible evidence of Jesus from the bible), has remained a complete mystery throughout all these HJ threads inc. all the numerous and completely identical massive HJ threads on forums such as RatSkep and RDF ...

... the only "evidence" that is ever offered, always boils down to what is essentially a faith position of saying they do believe that certain parts of the bible are probably true in what they say about Jesus.

Whereas, the sceptics here are presenting an argument which always essentially boils down to the precise opposite of listing all the numerous reason why the bible is very clearly not remotely reliable in what it's anonymous writers said about a Jesus figure that none of them ever knew (not least the fact that we now know that almost everything they said about Jesus is manifest untrue supernatural fiction).

So that is, in the end, the whole difference - either people do think the bible is trustworthy in something it says about Jesus. Or else people do not think the bible should ever be trusted without some independent external confirmation (none of which we have).

Does it matter? Well it matters to current day Christianity! Because without Jesus its’ worldwide preaching has no honest basis. And if people doubt that then they should try asking the head of their local Christian church if they would mind telling their congregation that Jesus was actually mythical and that everything they had sworn unto god and heaven was actually all just 2000 years of a whopping great lie … see how many heads of the Christian church (not to mention their devout congregations) would be comfortable with that outcome.

 

[jhunter1163]

Does it matter? Well it matters to current day Christianity! Because without Jesus its’ worldwide preaching has no honest basis. And if people doubt that then they should try asking the head of their local Christian church if they would mind telling their congregation that Jesus was actually mythical and that everything they had sworn unto god and heaven was actually all just 2000 years of a whopping great lie … see how many heads of the Christian church (not to mention their devout congregations) would be comfortable with that outcome.

I would remind you that these are the same people who believe that the earth is 6,000 or so years old and that God created the universe in six days. I think you are grossly underestimating the capacity of these people to rationalize things if you think, even for one moment, that showing Jesus to be a fictional construct would in any way affect mainstream Christianity.

 

[dafydd]

I would remind you that these are the same people who believe that the earth is 6,000 or so years old and that God created the universe in six days. I think you are grossly underestimating the capacity of these people to rationalize things if you think, even for one moment, that showing Jesus to be a fictional construct would in any way affect mainstream Christianity.

Well said. Fundamentalist Christians are too far down the rabbit hole to be swayed by facts and logic

 

[Craig B]

Well one reason there is no point in any further discussion in any of these HJ threads, is because the entire argument of the HJ side boils down to saying that they do believe the bible is reliable in some of what is says about Jesus.

No. they say that plausible information may be derived from it. You have been told this numerous times, and your continued refusal to accept this is astounding, if you're making points in good faith.

Though why they think that (other than an appeal to "authority" in the form of bible studies scholars, none of who whom can apparently cite any such credible evidence of Jesus from the bible), has remained a complete mystery throughout all these HJ threads inc. all the numerous and completely identical massive HJ threads on forums such as RatSkep and RDF ...

Tosh.

... the only "evidence" that is ever offered, always boils down to what is essentially a faith position of saying they do believe that certain parts of the bible are probably true in what they say about Jesus.

It is not a faith position. You have been told it and you must know it ....

Does it matter? Well it matters to current day Christianity! Because without Jesus its’ worldwide preaching has no honest basis. And if people doubt that then they should try asking the head of their local Christian church if they would mind telling their congregation that Jesus was actually mythical and that everything they had sworn unto god and heaven was actually all just 2000 years of a whopping great lie … see how many heads of the Christian church (not to mention their devout congregations) would be comfortable with that outcome.

And it has been clear to us old HJ people, that's what your motive is. A "logical" pseudo-syllogism:
Christianity should not exist.
Without a historical Jesus, Christianity would not exist
Ergo, there is no historical Jesus.

 

[IanS]

I would remind you that these are the same people who believe that the earth is 6,000 or so years old and that God created the universe in six days. I think you are grossly underestimating the capacity of these people to rationalize things if you think, even for one moment, that showing Jesus to be a fictional construct would in any way affect mainstream Christianity.

Well then we just have to disagree about that.

I think it's perfectly obvious that the leaders of the Christian church and most practicing Christians would have huge difficulty accepting that their belief in Jesus had all been just a fiction in which they had been so monumentally deceived for all these centuries, such that the church had only a fictional untrue basis for it’s entire teaching of devout belief in the bible.

 

[dafydd]

Well then we just have to disagree about that.

I think it's perfectly obvious that the leaders of the Christian church and most practicing Christians would have huge difficulty accepting that their belief in Jesus had all been just a fiction in which they had been so monumentally deceived for all these centuries, such that the church had only a fictional untrue basis for it’s entire teaching of devout belief in the bible.

I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I would remind you that these are the same people who believe that the earth is 6,000 or so years old and that God created the universe in six days. I think you are grossly underestimating the capacity of these people to rationalize things if you think, even for one moment, that showing Jesus to be a fictional construct would in any way affect mainstream Christianity.

And I don't see how showing that Jesus was just a delusional man who was put to death and then greatly mythologized is any less damaging to Christian belief, or that it somehow lends legitimacy to the Christian concept of Jesus. The mythologized version of Jesus, the one that Christians believe in, is still just as nonexistent as any other mythical character, even if the core of that myth was constructed around a real person.

 

[Brainache]

Well then we just have to disagree about that.

I think it's perfectly obvious that the leaders of the Christian church and most practicing Christians would have huge difficulty accepting that their belief in Jesus had all been just a fiction in which they had been so monumentally deceived for all these centuries, such that the church had only a fictional untrue basis for it’s entire teaching of devout belief in the bible.

That is one of the stupidest things I've read. Let me paraphrase: Christians will stop believing in Jesus if I tell them he didn't exist. They have no choice.

They have great difficulty in accepting your premise because they are Christians. If they accepted your premise, they wouldn't be Christians. They have to reject the religion first, in order to accept the premise. Your strategy is backwards.

And I don't see how showing that Jesus was just a delusional man who was put to death and then greatly mythologized is any less damaging to Christian belief, or that it somehow lends legitimacy to the Christian concept of Jesus. The mythologized version of Jesus, the one that Christians believe in, is still just as nonexistent as any other mythical character, even if the core of that myth was constructed around a real person.

He must realise this by now. Maybe he is just trying to make Atheists look stupid.

 

[Belz...]

I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

I think IanS himself has trouble understanding his own position at this time.

Given the incredible mental acrobatics that theists do to deny reality and accept fantasy even now, it's hard to believe that conclusive proof that Jesus is total fiction would even faze them.

 

[Belz...]

And I don't see how showing that Jesus was just a delusional man who was put to death and then greatly mythologized is any less damaging to Christian belief, or that it somehow lends legitimacy to the Christian concept of Jesus.

The discovery of the CMB should have laid all that to rest, but it obviously didn't. There are literally thousands of scientific discoveries that prove very conclusively that religion is absolute nonsense, and yet there are still billions of believers.

Clearly the problem is not the data.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I think IanS himself has trouble understanding his own position at this time.

Given the incredible mental acrobatics that theists do to deny reality and accept fantasy even now, it's hard to believe that conclusive proof that Jesus is total fiction would even faze them.

Indeed. The fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith is made perfectly clear by the fact that there is no anthropological, paleontological, archaeological, linguistic or genomic evidence for the great civilizations described in the Book Of Mormon. And the "translation" of the Book Of Abraham is a laughably obvious lie because Egyptologists can readily read what the hypocephali actually say. Yet we don't see Mormons decamping from the LDS in droves, do we?