Belz...
Fiend God
Well at least you didn't say it was junk based on ignorance.
Should've seen that coming.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Well at least you didn't say it was junk based on ignorance.
Should've seen that coming.
The Pauline writers agreed they would be automatic Liars if the dead rise not.
In fact, the Pauline writers claimed they were Witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Pauline writers are automatically False Witnesses--the dead rise not.
1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV
And it gets worse. The date of the writing of the Pauline Corpus is without any actual supporting external evidence pre 70 CE and is known to be riddled with forgeries or false attribution.
Effectively, the Pauline Corpus is the very worse kind of evidence that can be employed for the HJ argument
We are going around now in the same utterly pointless circles that we have all been around 50-100 times and more throughout these various HJ threads. There is no longer any new information here, and all the gospels and letters have been quote to death.
There is nothing else left to say in any of these HJ discussions unless and until someone on the HJ ever posts any reliable 1st century writing from any author making a credible claim to have actually known Jesus.
Until anyone can do that, there is simply no genuine evidence of anyone ever knowing Jesus at all.
And the reason it has to be a claim of actually meeting Jesus, is because a mere claim such as that found in the canonical gospels, where an anonymous author merely claims that other unknown people had once told of even earlier people who were believed to have met Jesus, can only ever be un-evidenced hearsay. And in fact in the gospels, it’s a chain of anonymous people writing hearsay with zero reliable or credible evidence to show.
But until anyone can do that, i.e. produce a reliable first century author making a credible to claim to have actually met Jesus, then these threads have just become totally worthless and devoid of any evidential HJ support at all.
That might not be the case if someone could show genuine physical archaeological or other such physical remains. But that has definitely never been done either.
In fact to the absolute complete contrary of all that, what is now absolutely certain in the 21st century, is that far from anyone ever producing any reliable credible writing of anyone shown to have met Jesus, we now know that all the biblical writing was packed full of physically impossible claims that are, and always were, complete fiction.
And we also know that whilst no genuine physical or archaeological evidence has ever been found, there have been countless fraudulent claims made to say such evidential remains of Jesus have been found.
So there is actually a vast mass of genuine undeniable evidence here. But its all, the whole lot of it, against the claimed existence of that figure named in the biblical writing as Jesus.
So…. Where is the actual evidence please?
No more endless and utterly pointless debates about who said what, or interpretations of what you think anyone meant by any obscure wordings etc. Just post the genuine evidence where someone contemporary to Jesus wrote to describe actually meeting Jesus.
There is nothing else left to say in any of these HJ discussions unless and until someone on the HJ ever posts any reliable 1st century writing from any author making a credible claim to have actually known Jesus.
Until anyone can do that, there is simply no genuine evidence of anyone ever knowing Jesus at all.
And the reason it has to be a claim of actually meeting Jesus, is because a mere claim such as that found in the canonical gospels, where an anonymous author merely claims that other unknown people had once told of even earlier people who were believed to have met Jesus, can only ever be un-evidenced hearsay. And in fact in the gospels, it’s a chain of anonymous people writing hearsay with zero reliable or credible evidence to show.
But until anyone can do that, i.e. produce a reliable first century author making a credible to claim to have actually met Jesus, then these threads have just become totally worthless and devoid of any evidential HJ support at all.
That might not be the case if someone could show genuine physical archaeological or other such physical remains. But that has definitely never been done either.
In fact to the absolute complete contrary of all that, what is now absolutely certain in the 21st century, is that far from anyone ever producing any reliable credible writing of anyone shown to have met Jesus, we now know that all the biblical writing was packed full of physically impossible claims that are, and always were, complete fiction.
And we also know that whilst no genuine physical or archaeological evidence has ever been found, there have been countless fraudulent claims made to say such evidential remains of Jesus have been found.
So there is actually a vast mass of genuine undeniable evidence here. But its all, the whole lot of it, against the claimed existence of that figure named in the biblical writing as Jesus.
So…. Where is the actual evidence please?
No more endless and utterly pointless debates about who said what, or interpretations of what you think anyone meant by any obscure wordings etc. Just post the genuine evidence where someone contemporary to Jesus wrote to describe actually meeting Jesus.
Last edited:
The threads are not worthless.
These threads have exposed the worthlessness of the HJ argument.
Thanks to Brainache, Craig B, Foster Zygote and others who argue for an HJ,
Up to the 21st century, it is PROVEN that there was NEVER any established known evidence for an HJ, the disciples and Paul in the history of mankind.
Over 1400 years ago Faustus the Christian destroyed the HJ argument.
Christians admitted their HJ of Nazareth could exist WITHOUT birth.
gMark's Jesus could exist WITHOUT birth.
Augustine's Contra Faustum
These threads are extremely valuable.
These threads have helped to destroy the HJ argument.
It is now exposed that even if people of antiquity claimed Jesus did exist that it did not mean that he was born.
Christians of antiquity believed their HJ came down directly from heaven.
Last edited:
You know this kind of stupid rhetorical arrogance doesn't actually work, don't you?
It is hilarious watching people who have no arguments that hold any weight at all declaring themselves "Winners".
I'm afraid this style of debate doesn't even work for Charlie Sheen, I don't know why you think it will work for you...
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
Interesting, I ran into a similar poster as dejudge on Facebook Richard Dawkins page when I suggested that most historians think there was a historical Jesus. A lot of vitriol and acusations of stupidity.
I want to read through this thread as I just found it, but Bart Ehrman was the one that made me think there may have been an actual person named Jesus.
I have just started reading but one of the interesting claims is that there is as much evidence of a historical Jesus as there is for a historical Hannibal. We have no record of Hannibal that was written while he was supposedly alive. There are no records of him in other countries, like Spain, where he was supposed to have fought and lived. The story of him taking an army of elephants over the Alps is thought to have been made up. And yet no one doubts he actually existed. Of course, he was a famous general. Jesus, if he existed, was just some guy. So there are even fewer records.
Let me catch-up.
I want to read through this thread as I just found it, but Bart Ehrman was the one that made me think there may have been an actual person named Jesus.
I have just started reading but one of the interesting claims is that there is as much evidence of a historical Jesus as there is for a historical Hannibal. We have no record of Hannibal that was written while he was supposedly alive. There are no records of him in other countries, like Spain, where he was supposed to have fought and lived. The story of him taking an army of elephants over the Alps is thought to have been made up. And yet no one doubts he actually existed. Of course, he was a famous general. Jesus, if he existed, was just some guy. So there are even fewer records.
Let me catch-up.
Good luck with that. It started 6 years ago.
If I was you, I'd just read the last 6 months worth, it sort of repeats after a while.
dejudge said:
You have nothing. You don't know how history is done.
You are in a quandary attempting to historicize Ghost stories of the illiterates of antiquity using admitted sources of Lies, fiction, forgeries, false attribution, discrepancies, historical problems and events that could not have happened.
Please, the history of the Quest for an HJ is a well established failure for hundreds of years which is PROOF that no evidence for an HJ has ever been known in the history of mankind.
Examine the Ignatius' Epistle to Ephesians.
Jesus was just a Glorified Ghost character invented in the 2nd century or later.
This argument is the product of ignorance. You should be ashamed of it, not proud.
It certainly isn't doing anything to enhance the reputation of the Forum.
This is not how Academic discourse works. Continually re-stating a vacuous, facile, ignorant, stupid, fallacious, incoherent stream of invective gibberish, does not an intellectual position make.
I can't stop you, of course, you are free to continue posting this pointless nonsense of yours if you want, but why would you want to?
Belz...
Fiend God
That's the second definition of "internet" on Dictionary.com, right after "porn depository."
The claim that Hannibal existed or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth.
There is no actual DATED contemporary evidence for an HJ pre 70 CE.
The HJ argument is purely based on faith and imagination.
The earliest stories of Jesus found in manuscripts and Codices state Jesus was born of a Ghost and God Creator.
By the way, after having read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" it is confirmed that the HJ argument is worthless--riddled with logical fallacies and void of historical evidence.
"Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman received probably the very worse review from Richard Carrier, an historian.
"Did Jesus Exist?" was declared a failure of facts and logic and deemed to be one of the worst argument for an HJ of Nazareth.
dejudge said:
Braianache said:
That is exactly what I expected you to say.
You have NOTHING.
You BELIEVE the Bible is an historical source for your HJ while you simultaneously call Paul a Liar and discredit the other authors.
There was no HJ of Nazareth. The HJ argument is baseless and without of a shred of supporting evidence pre 70 CE.
HJ is a Hoax.
In antiquity Apologetic writers admitted their Jesus was a BORN OF A Ghost.
Examine Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ.
The Jesus story is a just a stupid ridiculous myth fable about Gods and Ghosts.
Last edited:
You don't expect me to agree with this idiocy, do you?
Please get an education, it might help you to understand just how completely ludicrous your position is.
We've tried explaining it to you, but I think you need a team of experts from Geneva or somewhere...
This is a half truth. Most contemporary accounts regarding Hannibal have not survived. We know from other records that Hannibal brought along Silenus, a paid Greek historian on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BCE) is a contemporary to Hannibal himself though not to the Second Punic War though he comments on Sosylus' accuracy. Then you have the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.
With Jesus a claim of contemporary accounts first appears with Irenaeus in c180 CE and that is using accounts that at best we can trace to c130 CE. In fact no Gospel is dated to the time of Jesus but many years to decades after the events.
Also according Paul, Gospels, and Acts Christianity was wildly popular and by 37 CE covered the three Roman provinces of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea (Oxford University Press (2006) The Catholic Comparative New Testament pg 851-967.) Yet it isn't until Pliny the Younger in 106 CE that we get our first contemporary account of the movement and that is so vague regarding its founder as to be useless in that regard.
Furthermore, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who were in Rome c 64 CE make no mention of Christians raising the idea that Tacitus and Suetonius at best are simply repeating an urban myth regarding Christians being in the city c 64 CE.
Last edited:
dejudge said:
You cannot explain anything. You have NO evidence pre 70 CE for your HJ argument.
The HJ argument is illogical and baseless.
All we have are 2nd century or later Ghost stories after Ghost stories about Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of a Ghost.
Examine Origen's "De Principiis"--another Ghost story of Jesus.
The Preface to "De Principiis
There was NEVER any evidence in antiquity for an HJ.
Apologetic writers admitted for hundreds of years their Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.
The HJ argument is an illogical attempt to historicize Ghost stories without no actual supporting evidence pre 70 CE.
Where in the world do they teach people to study History this way?:
Prof: Today we are looking at Origen's "De Principiis". The preface to Origen says: "Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit..."
Therefore, we conclude that Jesus was a ghost, because that Origen guy never lied or was ever mistaken about anything.
Students: OK. Thanks Professor, that makes perfect sense.
Prof: Next week, we accept the Nicene creed at face value, so don't forget your wafers!
...
Is that how you imagine a University History class works, dejudge?
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
You have confirmed you have no idea how history is done.
You appear to have no idea of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.
You apparently do not know that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of the God of the Jews just like Romulus was the Son of a God of the Romans or Perseus was the Son of a God and a Virgin.
Anyhow, there are more Ghost stories of Jesus.
Examine Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 5.3
There is no known HJ and no known evidence pre 70 CE.
Last edited:
Like David and Solomon, from whom he was descended in order to fulfil the Star Prophecy?
Like those "Sons of God".
Where did you study History to learn this idiotic technique of just paraphrasing texts?
Do you think it is what "Scholars" do when they apply Textual Analysis to ancient texts?
Is there any chance that at some future time you might learn how real Historians study the subject? It would help you defeat their arguments, if you were to learn what those arguments actually are, rather than all this ignorant empty blustering like some deranged Commissar of Mythicism.
Trust me, your shtick isn't working here at JREF. It might work at other forums, but this place laughs at empty boasting. Your arguments are nothing but empty boasting. They are less than useful for you, they actually turn people away from the Mythicist position by being so flat-out stupid. So, well done for that, I guess.
Keep up the good work.
David Mo
Philosopher
What? “Paul gives some details of the appearances of Jesus” and “The appearances subject was a weapon of power in the Early Christianity” are the same claim? You must be joking!
This is not contradictory with I have said. May be he was a liar, sure fanatic.
Not after every single mention, but in this case we ought to do it, because Paul excludes explicitly these words in the last sentences. It is a significant exclusion. And yes, a good analysis of a text includes considering all the problematic or significant sentences, above all those that provoke divergent interpretations. What can we do if the critical rationalism is tiring? If you cannot keep the pace you can resign.
NOTA BENE:
“We do not need to guess. Because Paul's letters are very, very, clear on his source of Jesus belief.”
“…is something again directly and even more explicitly declaring that he definitely did not get his beliefs about Jesus from that Jerusalem group”.
And so on.
Perhaps you didn’t express accurately. Or perhaps “very, very clear” and “more explicitly declaring” doesn’t mean the same in Spanish. If I don’t understand English worse than I think, you have maintained that if Paul says he never obtained any information from de Jerusalem circle then he never obtained any information of the Jerusalem circle. It is not so? If this is not to trust absolutely in Paul’s words I don’t understand your English.
It is strange. James, “the brother of the Lord” had never met the Lord and needed Paul to tell him stories about his brother. Strange, very strange.
How do you know that someone is a “fanatic”?
Rational discussion becomes impossible if we disqualify a priori everybody who has different beliefs than ours.
In the same vein I can refuse to discuss with you because you are a “fanatic” positivist and I am not.
I disagree with the main lines of Crossan’s beliefs, but I think some of his arguments are interesting. I know this because I have read some of his books and I know what I am saying. You cannot have any justified opinion about Crossan’s ideas if you have not read them. Sorry, but your position is the most classical intolerance. Very far of rational criticism.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Which is why rational discussion is so often lacking in most topics. Disagree with me ? You're an idiot, or insane, or evil, or dishonest. No way you could disagree with me otherwise, right ?
Someone on Youtube (I know, I know) accused me of being a sicko because I don't oppose hunting.
- Status