Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

You changed your claim from "not a single person" to "It's not good to generalize".

Well, yeah, because you produced a poster whose posts may be interpreted as supporting a position I thought no one supported. Are you saying I shouldn't have changed my mind based on the evidence ?

 

[dejudge]

If Paul got these things from the NT, where did the NT get them from?

Well, Romulus, the myth founder of Rome, was the Son of a God born of a Virgin with a human brother. After Romulus died, his dead body was never found, but he resurrected, appeared to certain persons in Rome and then ascended into heaven.

Plus we have another fable of Perseus, the Son of God and a Virgin.

In any event, the Pauline writers admitted they used Scriptures and Apologetic writers admitted the Pauline writers knew gLuke.

 

[dejudge]

This thread is about Bart Ehrman's Historical Jesus.

In Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" the author stated that Jesus did certainly exist.

See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the introduction--page 4.

 

[Brainache]

Well, yeah, because you produced a poster whose posts may be interpreted as supporting a position I thought no one supported. Are you saying I shouldn't have changed my mind based on the evidence ?

Of course that what is being said.

It is a sign of weakness to change one's position based on new evidence...
Apparently.

 

[Brainache]

This thread is about Bart Ehrman's Historical Jesus.

In Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" the author stated that Jesus did certainly exist.

See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the introduction--page 4.

It started off being about Bart Ehrman six years ago. Threads this long always drift.

This is now just a general "HJ V MJ" thread. Please don't start another one, this is enough.


Most people here have said that Ehrman overstated his case.

One man's certainty is not universal.

 

[Elagabalus]

Right so absolutely no answer at all from you. Just more constant evasion.


If you say people in Jerusalem had visions of the messiah and knew details such as knowing he rose from the dead, then where do you say they got that information?

You have zero evidence of Jesus, and now you cannot explain where people in Jerusalem got their Jesus visions and beliefs either.

Cut the crap -

1 - where is the evidence of anyone reliably ever writing to say the knew a living Jesus?

2. - where do you think these Jerusalem people got their messiah visions?

Oh, dear ... It appears that IanS is now going to the net!

Uh ...okay, 1. Since you, in the course of the last 3 pages or so have very kindly established that Paul IS a reliable witness we have Paul describing in his letters meeting up with Peter and the brother of the Lord, James. He's very specific. Had he used a more vague phrase like the brother of Jesus, James things would be a little more open-but he didn't. (I believe your friend Richard Carrier has a problem with this interpretation and ironically he sides with the early church fathers who also had problems with Jesus having a brother the criterion of embarrassment). Perhaps James was an estranged brother of Jesus? Maybe Peter and James made the whole thing up.

Fortunately for us, Josephus who seems to have had a thing for messianic claimants at the time before the great revolt lists a number of them. In Antiquities XX.9.1.Josephus mentions Jesus along with his brother James which gives us an instance of multiple attestation. Two sources identifying James as Jesus' brother and placing James in Jerusalem. (Just this once, for you, we'll exclude the TF)

As for 2. I see what you did there. I have no idea where the Jerusalem people got their messiah visions from. Care to tell us what you mean by that? Otherwise I'll just have to say that the Jerusalem people got their idea that Jesus existed from ... wait for it...the historical Jesus. Which HJer's have said a along best fits the information we do have.

 

[dejudge]

It started off being about Bart Ehrman six years ago. Threads this long always drift.

This is now just a general "HJ V MJ" thread. Please don't start another one, this is enough.


Most people here have said that Ehrman overstated his case.

One man's certainty is not universal.

So,now you have inadvertently admitted that Bart Ehrman's argument is worthless--a failure of logic and facts.

There was never any evidence pre 70 CE from the very start to claim Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed.

The argument for an HJ has always been Faith based and driven fundamentally by Bible believers [void of logic and facts] since the Quest began in the 18th century.

 

[Belz...]

Of course that what is being said.

It is a sign of weakness to change one's position based on new evidence...
Apparently.

IF this is what tsig is saying, that would be very ironic.

 

[dejudge]

Uh ...okay, 1. Since you, in the course of the last 3 pages or so have very kindly established that Paul IS a reliable witness we have Paul describing in his letters meeting up with Peter and the brother of the Lord, James. He's very specific. Had he used a more vague phrase like the brother of Jesus, James things would be a little more open-but he didn't.

Your argument is void of logic. Specificity is not related to history or veracity.

The Pauline Corpus is riddled with forgeries or false attribution, and fiction even though the writers appear to make specific statements.

The author of gLuke gave very specific details about the birth and resurrection of Jesus.

The author of gJohn gave specific details about Jesus walking on the sea.

The author of gMatthew gave specific details about the Temptation of Jesus by Satan the Devil.

The author of gMark gave specific details about the Transfiguration.

 

[Elagabalus]

Your argument is ...

Submit to Our Glorious Thesis HJ!

The wheels are about to come off your pathetic MJ thesis. Look there! Even as I type, your wheels have gone all wobbly! Your wheels are but a nanosecond away from complete catastrophic collapse! Haha! What a puny attempt to make a thesis!

Our Glorious Thesis HJ is fully formed, robust …sexy! It makes its own sauce! Unlike your sad little thesis there's no shoddy workmanship anywhere in evidence! Our wheels are made with Lignum Vitae. Lignum Vitae! It exudes its own grease! Our wheels are self lubricating! They'll never come off or go wobbly!

Our HJ thesis will go on forever just as we will never stop proclaiming the merits of Our Glorious Thesis HJ!

 

[The Norseman]

NO ONE has claimed that we know for sure whether there really was a Jesus, period. The only one claiming certainty is Dejudge.

What's so hard to understand there ?

Why not answer my questions? What's so hard about answering them? Didn't think you'd actually avoid them, they seemed pretty simple to me.

 

[dejudge]

Submit to Our Glorious Thesis HJ!

The wheels are about to come off your pathetic MJ thesis. Look there! Even as I type, your wheels have gone all wobbly! Your wheels are but a nanosecond away from complete catastrophic collapse! Haha! What a puny attempt to make a thesis!

Our Glorious Thesis HJ is fully formed, robust …sexy! It makes its own sauce! Unlike your sad little thesis there's no shoddy workmanship anywhere in evidence! Our wheels are made with Lignum Vitae. Lignum Vitae! It exudes its own grease! Our wheels are self lubricating! They'll never come off or go wobbly!

Our HJ thesis will go on forever just as we will never stop proclaiming the merits of Our Glorious Thesis HJ!

That is what I expected you say.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is void of logic and facts.

There is an abundance of mythology for Myth Jesus and corroborated by multiple apologetic writers for hundreds of years since the 2nd century or later.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Augustine's Contra Faustum

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

John 6:19 KJV

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid .

 

[Brainache]

NO ONE has claimed that we know for sure whether there really was a Jesus, period. The only one claiming certainty is Dejudge.

What's so hard to understand there ?

Your statement here needs clarification. What do you mean by 'certainty'? Is ninety percent certain good enough for you or do you mean that only one hundred percent is how you're describing 'certainty'? How about if a poster says, "Jesus existed. Period."? Would that qualify?

That's a bit unfair, since we're discussing that question right now, and pretty much not a single person in this thread has claimed certainty about this tipic, except Dejudge, who knows everything.

Originally Posted by Breckmin View Post
I believe people find this subject fun for engaging in polemics...

but I don't really think that anyone actually "believes" Jesus never existed.

They might believe that He is different than what is reported about Him
but it is utterly ridiculous to deny the way in which history was recorded
and totally discount all tradition and historical axiom(s).

You would have to be incredibly self deceived to actually deny something
as basic as a controversial person existing in history... (and agenda driven).

Question everything.

Except Jesus's existence?

Why not answer my questions? What's so hard about answering them? Didn't think you'd actually avoid them, they seemed pretty simple to me.

Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

It seemed like Belz... gave a pretty straightforward answer to me.

 

[Brainache]

That is what I expected you say.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is void of logic and facts.

There is an abundance of mythology for Myth Jesus and corroborated by multiple apologetic writers for hundreds of years since the 2nd century or later.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

Augustine's Contra Faustum


John 6:19 KJV

It is good that you keep making this argument, there might be one or two people still not sure how stupid that position is.

We'll convince them yet, hey dejudge?

Keep up the good work!

 

[The Norseman]

Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

It seemed like Belz... gave a pretty straightforward answer to me.

Is 90% considered certainty? What is? When someone says, "Jesus existed. Period." does that count as certainty?

Both of those have been said by different posters in these threads, so Belz... is demonstrably wrong. Other statements have been made similarly. Belz... is the one coming across as argumentative to me by stating dejudge is the only one expressing certainty.

 

[dejudge]

You have confirmed the HJ argument is void of logic and facts.

There is an abundance of mythology for Myth Jesus and corroborated by multiple apologetic writers for hundreds of years since the 2nd century or later.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Augustine's Contra Faustum

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

John 6:19 KJV

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid .

It is good that you keep making this argument, there might be one or two people still not sure how stupid that position is.

We'll convince them yet, hey dejudge?

Keep up the good work!

You have nothing. You have exposed that the HJ argument is void of logic , facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

It is completely illogical to argue that there was an HJ because people in antiquity BELIEVE so.

People in antiquity and even today BELIEVE the God of the Jews, Adam and Eve, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost exist.

People of antiquity in the Roman Empire BELIEVED the following Gods exist:

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/

Jupiter - King of the Gods
Juno - Queen of the Gods
Neptune - God of the Sea
Pluto - God of Death
Apollo - God of the Sun
Diana - Goddess of the Moon
Mars - God of War
Venus - Goddess of Love
Cupid - God of Love
Mercury - Messenger of the Gods
Minerva - Goddess of Wisdom
Ceres - The Earth Goddess
Proserpine - Goddess of the Underworld
Vulcan - The Smith God
Bacchus - God of Wine
Saturn - God of Time
Vesta - Goddess of the Home
Janus - God of Doors
Uranus and Gaia - Parents of Saturn
Maia - Goddess of Growth
Flora - Goddess of Flowers
Plutus - God of Wealth

The Jesus story is the same as the rejected myth fables of the Greek and Romans.

After 250 years, historians and Scholars cannot even convince themselves who their Jesus was with multiple irreconcilable HJ without a shred of evidence.


Try and convince Bart Ehrman, Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, William Craig, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and thousands of Christian Scholars that Jesus was a Zealot and that Paul was an Herodian.

Please, you may be lucky!!

 

[Brainache]

Is 90% considered certainty? What is? When someone says, "Jesus existed. Period." does that count as certainty?

Both of those have been said by different posters in these threads, so Belz... is demonstrably wrong. Other statements have been made similarly. Belz... is the one coming across as argumentative to me by stating dejudge is the only one expressing certainty.

Please.

This doesn't look like irrelevant pedantry to you? It does to me.

Some people are more confident than others.

Only DOC, dejudge and Bart Ehrman have expressed certainty.

Now you can go searching to find another example of someone overstating their case, to prove me wrong. Big whoop.

Academic Opinions vary. This shouldn't be news.

You have nothing. You have exposed that the HJ argument is void of logic , facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

It is completely illogical to argue that there was an HJ because people in antiquity BELIEVE so.

People in antiquity and even today BELIEVE the God of the Jews, Adam and Eve, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost exist.

People of antiquity in the Roman Empire BELIEVED the following Gods exist:

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/



The Jesus story is the same as the rejected myth fables of the Greek and Romans.

After 250 years, historians and Scholars cannot even convince themselves who their Jesus was with multiple irreconcilable HJ without a shred of evidence.


Try and convince Bart Ehrman, Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, William Craig, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and thousands of Christian Scholars that Jesus was a Zealot and that Paul was an Herodian.

Please, you may be lucky!!

Thanks.

You keep making arguments like that, and soon there won't be any Mythers left at all.

Well done!

 

[dejudge]

The Jesus story is the same as the rejected myth fables of the Greek and Romans.

After 250 years, historians and Scholars cannot even convince themselves who their Jesus was with multiple irreconcilable HJ without a shred of evidence.


Try and convince Bart Ehrman, Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, William Craig, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and thousands of Christian Scholars that Jesus was a Zealot and that Paul was an Herodian.

Please, you may be lucky!!

Thanks.

You keep making arguments like that, and soon there won't be any Mythers left at all.

Well done!

There is virtually nobody arguing that there was an HJ. All of a sudden HJers are only saying it is possible that there may have been an HJ because it has been exposed that they NEVER had in actual evidence pre 70 CE.

HJers now appear to be Agnostics--they don't know of the pre 70 CE evidence and don't know if there was an actual HJ.

In effect, There are NO HJers left to argue for an HJ who can present evidence pre 70 CE.

You are NOT really an HJer perhaps a weak Agnostic.

In the recent poll you never voted for HJ.

May I remind you that Robert Eisenman, an historian, declared that No-one has solved the HJ question.

The Jesus story is really no different to the Myth fables of the Jews, Greeks and Roman.

The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was the Last Adam--a Spirit.

Adam is a myth character created by God in Jewish mythology.

The Jesus character is just a Glorified Ghost story propagated by illiterates in the 2nd century or later.

 

[Brainache]

There is virtually nobody arguing that there was an HJ. All of a sudden HJers are only saying it is possible that there may have been an HJ because it has been exposed that they NEVER had in actual evidence pre 70 CE.

HJers now appear to be Agnostics--they don't know of the pre 70 CE evidence and don't know if there was an actual HJ.

In effect, There are NO HJers left to argue for an HJ who can present evidence pre 70 CE.

You are NOT really an HJer perhaps a weak Agnostic.

In the recent poll you never voted for HJ.

May I remind you that Robert Eisenman, an historian, declared that No-one has solved the HJ question.

The Jesus story is really no different to the Myth fables of the Jews, Greeks and Roman.

The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was the Last Adam--a Spirit.

Adam is a myth character created by God in Jewish mythology.

The Jesus character is just a Glorified Ghost story propagated by illiterates in the 2nd century or later.

Go get 'em Tiger!


I particularly liked the bit about the illiterates who faked all those texts.

If that doesn't convince them it's a stupid idea, nothing will.

Well done again. Genius!

 

[David Mo]

maximara

David Mo

You and I had discussed whether or not Paul referred to a passage about "crucifixion" or "staking" in the Jewish scripture. It emerged that Roman crucfixion necessarily included gibbeting as an integral part of the procedure. Deuteronomy 21:23 regulates the duration of gibbeting, remarking that the gibbetee is a curse of God - which phrase Paul uses in his writing.

This fact opens a door to various possibilities in which Paul could write what we have in hand about a Jesus who died by violence and was gibbeted, by Jewish hands alone (the only group Paul blames for Jesus' death), without Roman involvement. Other posters have suggested two such scenarios, stoning and swordplay.

I might have added, but did not, that you have extensively defended the "criterion of embarrassment" in scriptural interpretation. Well, what concerned Paul is the gibbeting, cursed by his religion's sacred scripture, and he says so. It is possible that later writers, or just "Mark," while trying to figure out (at least a generation later) what Paul was on about, inferred that he meant Roman crucifixion, and so imagined the unrealistic "Roman trial" after a Jewish arrest that is the now The Passion. I do not endorse this theory, but the evidence does not exclude it.

Deuteronomy 21 :18-23 is not speaking about Crucifixion but on a case of stoning. If Paul was the Pharisee he claimed have been he had to know this passage.
He compares this passage with the Crucifixion because both penalties included a subsequent exhibition of the corpse and imply a curse on the dead.
Conclusion: Deducing that Paul drew his idea of crucifixion from the passage of Deuteronomy is a daring inference that contradicts the obvious reading of it.

Jesus’ trial surely is a literary invention of the evangelists. But I don’t remember in what passage Paul blames the Jews to have crucified Jesus. Certainly John did it. But John seems very far from the first half of the First Century.