Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

And you are completely wrong. There are many reasons to conclude that an historical Jesus probably existed. Continually repeating the falsehood that there isn't any evidence doesn't make it true.

You keep proving that you have no evidence. Your claim that Jesus probably existed is a fallacy because you have no evidence to support your probability.

You do not know the difference between Faith and Probability.

An ongoing search for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

What a pointless dead end argument!!!

You very well know that an ongoing search does not mean something actually existed.

Some people may be looking for the Lochness Monster or the Second Coming of the Son of God.

You are on a Quest for an HJ so please just go and find him first.

When do you think you will find your HJ--the little known crucified criminal?

Your crucified criminal story does not make sense if Pauline writings are authentic.

There is no history where Jews and Romans worshiped a known crucified Criminal as a God for the Remission of Sins since at least 37-41 CE.

The Jesus story,including all the Pauline letters, and cult was started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE.

It was the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE, NOT a crucified criminal, that was the fundamental impetus for the Jesus story.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You keep proving that you have no evidence. Your claim that Jesus probably existed is a fallacy because you have no evidence to support your probability.

You do not know the difference between Faith and Probability.

Like I said, just repeating your mantra doesn't make it true.

What a pointless dead end argument!!!

You very well know that an ongoing search does not mean something actually existed.

I never said that, dejudge. What I said was that an ongoing search doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Your inability to distinguish between the two is a result of the lack of education that you should be rectifying, instead of clinging to your old religiously dogmatic way of thinking. But I fear it is probably too late for that. Your religious upbringing runs deeper than you realize.

Some people may be looking for the Lochness Monster or the Second Coming of the Son of God.

Neither of which is plausible based on available evidence.

You are on a Quest for an HJ so please just go and find him first.

Scholars will remain open to new evidence, but, "You can't prove who he was therefor he never existed", is still an incredibly bad argument.

When do you think you will find your HJ--the little known crucified criminal?

Probably never. It's just one of those things that will most likely remain a possible explanation, but never be empirically proved.

Your crucified criminal story does not make sense if Pauline writings are authentic.

Why not?

There is no history where Jews and Romans worshiped a known crucified Criminal as a God for the Remission of Sins since at least 37-41 CE.

Well the god thing came much later. You seem to be getting dangerously close to repeating your previous blunder of claiming that no one in the ancient world would worship a dead Jew rather than their Pagan gods.

The Jesus story,including all the Pauline letters, and cult was started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE.

It was the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE, NOT a crucified criminal, that was the fundamental impetus for the Jesus story.

Yet we have references to Nero persecuting Christians prior to the First Jewish-Roman War. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

But please, let's hear more. I've asked you previously for a brief summary of your mythology hypothesis. Please present it.

 

[Belz...]

You keep proving that you have no evidence. Your claim that Jesus probably existed is a fallacy because you have no evidence to support your probability.

You don't even know what "probability" means, or how to establish it.

You very well know that an ongoing search does not mean something actually existed.

Yeah, that's not what he said. Don't try to reverse your own argument against others.

 

[dejudge]

... What I said was that an ongoing search doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

You repeat your mantra as if it is has value as evidence.

You have no idea that an on-going Quest for an HJ does not mean your HJ existed--an assumed obscure crucified criminal.


Your standard HJ [ a crucified criminal] does not make sense as the reason for start of the Jesus story and cult.

 

[DOC]

DOC, have you forgotten that argument the '5000 manuscripts out there' has been utterly cast down and debunked?
Why repeat it?

Where was it debunked?

 

[DOC]

(To Foster Zygote). You keep proving that you have no evidence. Your claim that Jesus probably existed is a fallacy because you have no evidence to support your probability.

You seem not to know the difference between "evidence" and "proof" because there is evidence. And as long as you keep saying there is no evidence that gives me the right to keep presenting some:

The fact that there are about 40 written sources {historical evidence} for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during the life of Christ.

There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts (or parts of manuscripts) in existence compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus. And there would undoubtedly be many more NT manuscripts if they weren't outlawed by a future Roman Emperor with severe penalties for being in possession of one.

Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Many archaeologists {who study the biblical era} believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ's life and the Resurrection and how he considered those topics to have more historical evidence than any other fact in history up to that point.

The Moral Argument

The Cosmological Argument

The Teleological Argument

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.

A Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is "more important" than the Written Torah. This statement is important because oral tradition evidence was also important in early Christianity (in that era of no paper and little public literacy).

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

PhD. in astrophysics Dr. Hugh Ross claims there are about 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-pro...iability-bible

Here’s some more:

The following which is from Norman Geisler's and Frank Turek’s book “I Don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist” (pg. 223). All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

_______

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

---------------

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

For more evidence (historical, philosophical, logical, and scientific) this is a very good book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FP...New+Testament+writers+told+<br+/>the+truth&q=

 

[Craig B]

You seem not to know the difference between evidence and proof because there is evidence. As long as you keep saying there is no evidence that gives me the right to keep presenting some: <"evidence" snipped> Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

Most of your alleged facts are not clear from non NT sources. I'm going to have to ask you for specific references.

There was no "eclipse". Passover is celebrated at Full Moon. At that time, the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, so that the Moon is on the opposite side from the Sun. That must be obvious. Eclipses, equally obviously, can occur only when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth, an event which takes place just before New Moon.

 

[Belz...]

Where was it debunked?

In those threads you keep ignoring after posting there.

 

[dejudge]

....Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

For more evidence (historical, philosophical, logical, and scientific) this is a very good book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FP...New+Testament+writers+told+<br+/>the+truth&q=

You are really wasting your time.

The evidence you presented is for a Son of a Ghost--not a human Jesus.

You have a "stolen" identity problem.

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.

The Jesus story is probably the world's greatest Ghost story ever told--even atheists believe the Ghost was really a human being.

What else could the authors have written to demonstrate they were writing Ghost myth fables?

They wrote that Jesus walked on the sea, that he transfigured, that he resurrected, that he ate Fish after he was dead, that he went on a "picnic" with his disciples and cooked Fish after he was dead, that he commissioned his disciples AFTER he was dead and then ascended in a cloud!!

Please, we have enough evidence of the Ghost stories--there are hundreds of manuscripts and Codices with the Ghost stories.

If a Ghost was not crucified and resurrected there would be no CHRISTIANS today.

Mankind deserve better.

Christians argued that their Jesus was a Son of a Ghost why are people looking for a human Jesus?

Why?

The QUESTERS wont find their HJ because they are using Ghost stories as historical accounts.

 

[pakeha]

Does ANY version of MJ have evidence going for it ? If so, let's make that distinction, then.

The idea that the literary trappings of the NT were draped on a possible preacher of the 1st century has precisely the same evidence as for the weak HJ, don't you think?
At the end of the day, I think the weak HJ is actually a variant of an MJ.

A rather important difference is that in the miracle of Fatima, people thought they had seen the sun make strange impossible movements in the sky.

But the Sun is 150-million kilometres away from Earth. Whereas in the miracle of Jesus walking on the water, Jesus was not only close enough to the disciples in the boat to tell them not to be afraid because he is not a ghost, but he actually climbs into the same small boat with them!

You might just mistake things about a light in the sky 150-million kilometres away. But you would not have numerous disciples all mistaken about Jesus climbing into the same small boat with them after just telling them face-to-face that they should not be afraid to see him walking on the water because he was not a ghost but their holy messiah instead.

Very true, Craig B.
So, literary artefact it is, then?

Where was it debunked?

In this thread?
Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9816566#post9816566

 

[abaddon]

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

So did millions of others. So what?

2) He lived a virtuous life.

He did? All you have are an account of his birth, which is demonstrably untrue, an account of his preteen adventure into the temple, which is unevidenced, and an account of his final couple of years of activity. That leaves some thirtyish years unaccounted for. How do you know what he was up to in that unrecorded time? According to the apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy, he was the uber spoilt child.

3) He was a wonder worker.

Unevidenced claim.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

How many people do you suppose have had a brother or cousin named james?

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

Not by his contemporaries, only by those desperate to retro fit the label.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

As were many others.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

Unevidenced claim. Even if true, so what?

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

Unevidenced claim which omits the further claim of a zombie invasion of Jerusalem. All of which events provoked no comment from anyone.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

Sure. They can believe whatever they like. Doesn't make it true.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

So was David Koresh.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

Buddhism is equally global. Did you have a point?

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

And they were butchered for it until Constantine used it for political advantage.

 

[Belz...]

The idea that the literary trappings of the NT were draped on a possible preacher of the 1st century has precisely the same evidence as for the weak HJ, don't you think?
At the end of the day, I think the weak HJ is actually a variant of an MJ.

Well, that's debatable. As to your question, I still think that weak > none.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well, I just stopped in to have a look at this pointless thread. Aside from DOC, the reality is that people on the thread are debating whether Jesus was a (barely) historical figure, an amalgamation of a few (barely) historical figures or if he was entirely made up. So, what are we really arguing about? I think there was a guy named Jesus, a messianic pretender, done in, rather routinely, by Pilate, around whom legends gathered. If, however, it turns out he was totally rather than mostly mythical, I can't say it will rock my world.

So, why don't all just agree to disagree on the fine points, and let dejudge and DOC have it out dressed in the undershorts and armed with inflated pig bladders? In other words, end this pointless thread.

 

[maximara]

The idea that the literary trappings of the NT were draped on a possible preacher of the 1st century has precisely the same evidence as for the weak HJ, don't you think?
At the end of the day, I think the weak HJ is actually a variant of an MJ.

Considering that I have repeatedly showed the weak HJ is variant of an MJ with an actual source that should be a given:

John Robertson in 1900 was "prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story."

One of his possible candidates was an "historical Jesus that "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts."
Remsburg n 1903 said odds were there was a historical Jesus but the Gospels said nothing about him other then then he existed and likely preached something that got him executed by the Romans.

Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40)

It can be proven that today's weak HJ theories are yesterdays MJ theories! Can the current branch of HJers say 'uh, oops'? I knew they could.

Well, that's debatable. As to your question, I still think that weak > none.

Of course that all depends on how you define MJ...there are variants of it that accept Marshall's Jesus is NOT a fictional person like Dr WHo or King Lear while rejecting the Gospels tell a mythologized historical tale part. As pointed out above you have Wood's 1934 MJ of "historical but insignificant figure" which is basically where the modern HJ view seems to be going.

As I pointed out before you make the HJ too weak and he might as well not have existed.

Also if Paul via his vision and a silver tongue took yet another let's rebel against the oppressive Romans cult and turned it into Christianity then that fails John Robertson's 1900 HJ criteria of "who taught as reported in the Gospels"...giving you a MJ theory.

IMHO the reason the HJ crowd incorrectly depicts the MJ position as this huge monolith of 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all' is the more moderate MJ theories in the Robertson, Remsburg, and Wood vein scare them witless because that agreement is basically 'Jesus did exist but he didn't teach what is recorded in the Gospels'. This would give you Jesus but still make it Paul as the true founder of Christianity.

I'm not exactly sure why the MJ side seems equally scared of the more moderate MJ theories in the Robertson, Remsburg, and Wood vein. The position that Jesus existed but didn't teaching anything the Gospels claim he did is no less speculative the the more extreme throw Jesus out with Christ MJ mentality that people write about these days. It's certainly harder to challenge then most of the extreme MJ literature these days. If I had to throw out a reason I would say that people like things black and white ie either Jesus existed as a human being or he didn't.

 

[maximara]

Most of your alleged facts are not clear from non NT sources. I'm going to have to ask you for specific references.

There was no "eclipse". Passover is celebrated at Full Moon. At that time, the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, so that the Moon is on the opposite side from the Sun. That must be obvious. Eclipses, equally obviously, can occur only when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth, an event which takes place just before New Moon.

At least the volcanic ash theory I have read about makes sense in the context of how things operate...doesn't address the no record problem for a three hour darkness by everybody else (including John) but it is light years ahead of the eclipse theory.

 

[maximara]

Well, I just stopped in to have a look at this pointless thread. Aside from DOC, the reality is that people on the thread are debating whether Jesus was a (barely) historical figure, an amalgamation of a few (barely) historical figures or if he was entirely made up. So, what are we really arguing about? I think there was a guy named Jesus, a messianic pretender, done in, rather routinely, by Pilate, around whom legends gathered. If, however, it turns out he was totally rather than mostly mythical, I can't say it will rock my world.

So, why don't all just agree to disagree on the fine points, and let dejudge and DOC have it out dressed in the undershorts and armed with inflated pig bladders? In other words, end this pointless thread.

You do know that the post that started this thread was in June 2008, right? It's been going for longer then the current President of the United States has been in office and from what I am seeing will likely keep going, and going, and going just like a certain bunny long after he leaves office.

 

[TimCallahan]

You do know that the post that started this thread was in June 2008, right? It's been going for longer then the current President of the United States has been in office and from what I am seeing will likely keep going, and going, and going just like a certain bunny long after he leaves office.

All the more reason to just let it die.

 

[dejudge]

Well, I just stopped in to have a look at this pointless thread. Aside from DOC, the reality is that people on the thread are debating whether Jesus was a (barely) historical figure, an amalgamation of a few (barely) historical figures or if he was entirely made up. So, what are we really arguing about? I think there was a guy named Jesus, a messianic pretender, done in, rather routinely, by Pilate, around whom legends gathered. If, however, it turns out he was totally rather than mostly mythical, I can't say it will rock my world.

So, why don't all just agree to disagree on the fine points, and let dejudge and DOC have it out dressed in the undershorts and armed with inflated pig bladders? In other words, end this pointless thread.

Of course when you were posting in this thread it was not pointless.

After it was exposed that you never had any evidence for your assumed crucified criminal HJ all of a sudden the thread becomes pointless.

Other posters believe they can make a better argument for their HJ and can do better than you.

Your HJ, the crucified criminal, as the reason for the Jesus cult of Christians makes no sense and is highly illogical.

There is no history of Jews and Romans where they worshiped crucified criminals as Gods.

It makes no sense whatsoever that Paul, a Pharisee, would preach and teach that a crucified criminal was in the image of God and was the Universal Savior of mankind because he resurrected.

 

[maximara]

Your HJ, the crucified criminal, as the reason for the Jesus cult of Christians makes no sense and is highly illogical.

There is no history of Jews and Romans where they worshiped crucified criminals as Gods.
It makes no sense whatsoever that Paul, a Pharisee, would preach and teach that a crucified criminal was in the image of God and was the Universal Savior of mankind because he resurrected.

This does raise an interesting question for both HJer and MJer alike; how do you get to a crucified criminal being worshiped as god in the 1st century?

Better yet wouldn't something so odd be noted by others if as per Acts Christianity was so wide spread by 37 CE?

Why doesn't Josephus note this particularity of the cult in the TF? Only 20 years later Pliny states Christ is worshiped as a god and Paul indicates that Jesus is God so why doesn't this show up in the earliest non Christian reference?

Put this way it does raise a lot of question regarding Christianity that neither the MJ or HJ theories really answer: how did such a belief form in the first place?

 

[dejudge]

This does raise an interesting question for both HJer and MJer alike; how do you get to a crucified criminal being worshiped as god in the 1st century?



Better yet wouldn't something so odd be noted by others if as per Acts Christianity was so wide spread by 37 CE?

Why doesn't Josephus note this particularity of the cult in the TF? Only 20 years later Pliny states Christ is worshiped as a god and Paul indicates that Jesus is God so why doesn't this show up in the earliest non Christian reference?

Put this way it does raise a lot of question regarding Christianity that neither the MJ or HJ theories really answer: how did such a belief form in the first place?

The questions have all been answered.

The Jesus story and cult did not start in the 1st century as the evidence shows.

Not a single manuscript or Codex of the Jesus story has been recovered in Judea and none in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

If there was no story of Jesus and no cult in the 1st century then this is exactly what would be the case--no recovered evidence.

The story of Jesus in the NT, INCLUDING the Pauline letters, are all AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

It is the Fall of the Temple of God that is the fundamental crisis that caused stories to be fabricated that the Jews killed the Son of God.

Virtually all Apoklogetic writers of antiquity that mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Temple claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

1. The TEMPLE fell first.

2. An "explanation" was needed.

3. An "explanation" was invented.

4. The "explanation" was Believed.

5. People who believe the "explanation" are called Christians.

6. The Jews KILLED or caused the crucifixion of the Son of God was the explanation for the Fall of the Temple of God.

7. The Romans carried out the WILL of God.

8. The Romans are the Good Guys.

9. The Jews were viciously Evil.

10. A disciple of the Son of God BETRAYED him.

We wont find any stories of Jesus in the 1st century and pre 70 CE.

Aristides writing c 117-138 CE explains what Christians believed.

Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

The STORY of Jesus could not have started until the Temple Fell c 70 CE.

The Fall of the Temple of God was believed to be the sign the Messiah had ALREADY come based on the book of Daniel.

Examine Tertullian's Answer to the Jews.

Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His...

It was Non-Jews who fabricated the story that the Jews KILLED the Son of God in order to explain why the Jewish Temple of God was destroyed.

Non-Jews believed the story was true sometime in the 2nd century.