Which means either that he had no special beliefs about Jesus' birth, or that believed the magic birth story but didn't bother telling anyone about it. Mmm, which should I choose?
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
David Mo
Philosopher
In History we have to work with the data that we have in hands. We can imagine a lot of possibilities without any supporting facts or convincing indications. But they must be dismissed in favour of a consistent hypothesis. If the “pierced” fragment wasn’t quoted by Christians in this translation before the half of the Second Century we have to conclude (provisionally, of course) that this fragment in this translation wasn’t known by Christians till this date. And this includes Paul. Given that only this fragment in this translation gives some vague and confusing support to the belief in the crucifixion of Jesus, we ought to conclude that Paul doesn’t back up his assertions on the Cross on this biblical verse. We have only an alternative: either the revelation or some alleged witnesses. The second is far more likely by the reasons I have given in previous comments.
ADDED: Do you believe that Paul went to Jerusalem to dispute with Cephas, James and John and nobody tell him that Jesus was crucified? Really?
This case is different. Here we have a sentence in which the first assertion is reinforced by “according to the Scriptures”. This coda strongly suggests that the Paul’s assertion is based on a biblical fragment. The Hosea’s passage is a good candidate.
Last edited:
You don't know what you are talking about.
In gMark, Jesus WALKED on the sea and the disciples taught he was a Spirit.
The author of gMark showed his Jesus was a PHANTOM.
gMark's Jesus APPEARED like a Man but he WALKED like a Ghost.
Mark 6
The author of gMark would also claim his HJ transfigured.
gMark's HJ was a PHANTOM just like Marcion's Phantom Son of God.
HJ is a Hoax, I mean a Ghost.
But was gMark's Jesus' daddy a ghost, and his mummy a virgin?
You have a memory problem?
Augustine's Contra Faustum
There was no need for a birth narrative in gMark.
People believe Jesus could have come down from heaven WITHOUT birth which is evident in gMark.
The birth narratives were LATER additions in gMatthew and gLuke.
Augustine's Contra Faustum
A Phantom does NOT require a birth narrative as is evident in gMark.
gMark's HJ was a HOAX----a Ghost.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
David
So, to recap:
Your claim is that later people who might have been favorably interested in Jesus' story would think less of him for having been crucified. I gave two examples of people who were executed in humiliating ways by which low-status criminals were also executed. One was a leading religious figure of the Twentieth Century, the other, some ancient soldiers who died in service to their cause (which circumstance you feel would be seen as dishonorable by their comrades; OK)
A third example, Wotan, the chief god in his pantheon, affixing himself to Yggdrasil and hanging there for nine days, willingly (as Jesus went willingly to the cross, like a bridegroom to his bride) and as a sacrifice of himself to himself, was set aside because you didn't feel up to verifying it.
Well, fine. We cannot now establish what the Roman soldiers thought, and you can't be bothered checking out what happened to an actually worshipped god. That leaves Bonhoeffer, a famous modern figure, who died about two generations ago, a time span relvant to the spread of the church among Gentiles while the Gospels were being composed. Can you find an example of a writer who expresses contempt of Bonhoeffer for having been hanged naked?
Comments about his execution are easily enough found, although doing so requires skills similar to finding information about Wotan. So, here, let me Google that for you. Let's look at this:
Reading that, you'd almost think that the bishop thought less of German law enforcement for having hanged Bonhoeffer, rather than thinking less of Bonhoeffer for having been hanged.
Nah. Please, help me find examples of people with normal views, more supportive of the lawful authorities. Whatever Bonhoeffer did in life, he must have gotten what was coming to him, right? Who could think otherwise?
No. It was a yes-or-no question, Thank you for answering "yes."
So, to recap:
Your claim is that later people who might have been favorably interested in Jesus' story would think less of him for having been crucified. I gave two examples of people who were executed in humiliating ways by which low-status criminals were also executed. One was a leading religious figure of the Twentieth Century, the other, some ancient soldiers who died in service to their cause (which circumstance you feel would be seen as dishonorable by their comrades; OK)
A third example, Wotan, the chief god in his pantheon, affixing himself to Yggdrasil and hanging there for nine days, willingly (as Jesus went willingly to the cross, like a bridegroom to his bride) and as a sacrifice of himself to himself, was set aside because you didn't feel up to verifying it.
Well, fine. We cannot now establish what the Roman soldiers thought, and you can't be bothered checking out what happened to an actually worshipped god. That leaves Bonhoeffer, a famous modern figure, who died about two generations ago, a time span relvant to the spread of the church among Gentiles while the Gospels were being composed. Can you find an example of a writer who expresses contempt of Bonhoeffer for having been hanged naked?
Comments about his execution are easily enough found, although doing so requires skills similar to finding information about Wotan. So, here, let me Google that for you. Let's look at this:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/133.html
Reading that, you'd almost think that the bishop thought less of German law enforcement for having hanged Bonhoeffer, rather than thinking less of Bonhoeffer for having been hanged.
Nah. Please, help me find examples of people with normal views, more supportive of the lawful authorities. Whatever Bonhoeffer did in life, he must have gotten what was coming to him, right? Who could think otherwise?
Well I have said before (many times) that I think Jesus does require exceptionally clear and reliable evidence relative to other figures in ancient history, because he is of exceptional importance. In fact the importance of Jesus is out of all recognition compared to any other figure named in ancient history ...
... most of those other figures are of zero importance at all to anyone alive today except for a relatively tiny number of academics who happen to be especially interested in various niche areas of ancient history. Whereas the Christian church worldwide, which is based on preaching the existence of Jesus and the inerrancy of the NT bible story, is actually a direct influence on the daily lives of everyone on the planet, even to the point of being an influence over life and death for vast numbers of people in respect of the influence that the Church and it's religious beliefs exercise within many western Governments, not least in the USA as the worlds most active military super-power.
It really is quite disingenuous to suggest that we should accept the existence of Jesus and hence the validity of worldwide Christianity on the same sort of extremely weak to non-existent evidence that historians might provisionally accept for the existence of people such as ancient philosophers and others, where the historical importance is the legacy of ideas, the ideological movements, various battles and expeditions into foreign lands etc. that are important, not whether the named individual was actually the person responsible for all or any of those events, or indeed whether the named philosopher or ruler was ever even a real individual at all ...
... in the case of Jesus what is essential is his actual human existence. Whereas in the case of most other poorly evidenced figures of ancient history, what is important about them are the historical events associated with their names.
But really the bottom line is that there is apparently no good evidence of Jesus existing at all. Nobody ever wrote to say they knew a living Jesus at all. And what was said about him, although at the time believed so wonderful that the miracles etc. were regarded as absolute proof of this legendary person as the messiah, is of course now known to be complete and obvious fiction. That really is not at all the case with any of those other non-religious ancient figures, all of whom are important in history for the very real non-miraculous things done in their names, i.e. wars, philosophical movements etc. …
… what those other figures became famous for in their time and what makes them of importance to historians today, are the very real human deeds associated with their names. But what Jesus was famous for in the 1st century, and what makes his existence of vital importance to bible scholars and theologians and Christians today is the story of the impossible miracles which showed he was the supernatural scion of God … there is nothing else that would have been historically important or worth recording in the life Jesus, except for the fictional miracles and other supernatural “signs and wonders”.
The non-religious figures and their historical events are really not comparable at all.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Read and bookmarked, IanS.
Keep in mind you're quoting a Vridar blog* not me, please!
Why not ask the author himself?
* http://vridar.org/?s=pierced+my+hands
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, and you've already been told that this is nonsense. He is not objectively more important than any other person or historical subject.
Yep, he is arguing from consequences, as if the fact that religious people believe certain things about him, means that he is less probable than say, Pythagoras or any of the Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophers.
They all had miraculous tales attached to them by religious followers, and some of them are household names even today.
Why apply a different standard for Jesus?
Well, if you reject historical method, as IanS does, then of course, you can come up with any criterion that you want. So here we have the criterion, that the more important someone is, the more tightly we apply various arguments. Well, as far as I can see, in academic history, that is not used, but IanS is free to use it, of course, although he is no longer grappling with history as it is usually defined, it seems to me, but with his own philosophical ideas about the past and its recovery. Fair enough.
Your statement is of no use--completely worthless.
Scholars have been using the historical method for hundreds of years and have only managed to produce multiple irreconcilable versions of the Jesus character for which no evidence has ever been recovered pre 70 CE.
Robert Van Voorst, a Scholar, uses the historical method and preaches Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.
William Lane Craig, a Scholar, uses the historical method and argues that Jesus was really a resurrected being.
Richard Carrier, a Scholar, uses the historical method and argues Jesus was a figure of mythology.
Robert Eisenman, a Scholar, uses the historical method and argue that NO-ONE has solved the HJ question.
From since the 18th century there is still an ON-GOING Search for an HJ after multiple failures by those who use the historical method.
No, I have an insuperable problem believing the nonsense you write.
Neither does a person conceived and born by normal means.
A "ghost hoax" because Mark never mentions the ghost nor the virgin.
The author of gMark never mentions the birth narrative for Satan the Devil.
The author of gMark claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea, transfigured and spoke with TWO Ghosts in the presence of the disciples.
Jesus was either a product of a Hoax or a Ghost.
Mark 6
The author of gMark claimed Jesus transfigured and was in conversation with TWO resurrected Ghost in the presence of three disciples.
Jesus of Nazareth knew "Ghost Language".
Did the resurrected Moses and Elijah speak to the Transfigured Jesus in Koine Greek?
Mark 9
What a dreadful omission!
So you've got enough miracle tales! Why add a birth miracle that Mark doesn't have?
Maybe Moses spoke Egyptian.
Maybe not.
Ghosts can talk without tongues?
HJ is either a Hoax or a Ghost.
It is clear that the Jesus story is a product of illiteracy in antiquity.
The Jesus story is a stupid and ridiculous Ghost fable--it is not history--never was.
Justin's First Apology
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,130
And he omitted the birth narrative for Pontius Pilatus as well.
And he omitted the birth narrative for the God of the Jews as well.
dejudge wrote:
Robert Van Voorst, a Scholar, uses the historical method and preaches Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.
William Lane Craig, a Scholar, uses the historical method and argues that Jesus was really a resurrected being.
I don't know how they do that, since history is a naturalistic discipline, so any historian who claims to prove the resurrection, is kidding you, and kidding themselves.
Historians neither accept nor reject supernatural claims, rather like science.
Robert Van Voorst, a Scholar, uses the historical method and preaches Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.
William Lane Craig, a Scholar, uses the historical method and argues that Jesus was really a resurrected being.
I don't know how they do that, since history is a naturalistic discipline, so any historian who claims to prove the resurrection, is kidding you, and kidding themselves.
Historians neither accept nor reject supernatural claims, rather like science.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,130
Well that settles it. Obviously, any time a narrator leaves out a birth narrative regarding a character, it is clear evidence that said character is intended to be taken as a supernatural being. For instance, there's no birth narrative in The Big Lebowski, so The Dude is clearly a supernatural entity.
Attachments
- Status