Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[GDon]

Yes, I know what you asked. But I don’t feel inclined to re-read g-Mark and get drawn off into an endless discussion about what the original writer of g-Mark may have meant or where he obtained his info from. Especially since we do not have an original copy of g-Mark dating from anywhere near 75AD.

If we are relying on the earliest extant relatively complete and readable copies of any of those canonical gospels, then afaik those probably date from at least the 4th-6th century and later. By which date any amount of additional details, alterations, deletions and changes had probably been introduced.

I see. The "we weren't there" argument. Okay, no further questions. Thanks.

 

[Stone]

I see. The "we weren't there" argument. Okay, no further questions. Thanks.

And of course, if I.S. "knows" that we "weren't there", then why bother to bang and bang and bang the same drum? This is why at a certain point it becomes so blatantly obvious that repetitive propaganda is really the aim, and inquiry isn't.

What everyone here really knows is that nothing new will be added in a discussion that has already covered all the data thoroughly. Consequently, rote repetition is really I.S.'s game -- and DeJudge's. There is a term for someone who's just out to repeat and repeat and repeat the same thing over and over again and not seriously engage ANYONE. But I'll leave it up to the mods to provide that term.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

What everyone here really knows is that nothing new will be added in a discussion that has already covered all the data thoroughly. Consequently, rote repetition is really I.S.'s game -- and DeJudge's. There is a term for someone who's just out to repeat and repeat and repeat the same thing over and over again and not seriously engage ANYONE. But I'll leave it up to the mods to provide that term.

Stone

What a monstrous fable.

I have been engaged in discussions on the HJ question with virtually every poster on this thread here[since November 2013] who argues that perhaps there might have been an HJ or that Jesus did exist

You hardly engage in the discussion except to accuse posters of lying.

You have nothing to contribute to the thread as is evident from your recent posts.

You have no contemporary evidence pre 70 CE for your HJ argument so you are really wasting time.

Your modus operandi has been exposed---You accuse posters of lying and then go in hiding.

Why are you talking about leopards and spots when your leopards can be easily spotted?

Lying about the HJ position in exactly this way is the stock in trade of a whopping majority of the mythers I've encountered in every on-line discussion of this issue. It gives mythers an easy rhetorical advantage to deliberately pretend that the HJ position is synonymous with "belief". The fact that it blatantly isn't synonymous at all, that that's a bare-faced deception, doesn't mean it isn't eminently useful. So for that, they adopt this deception promiscuously. You can't expect the leopard to change his spots.

It's for continual propaganda purposes: They must keep the myther meme alive at any cost, ad infinitum, regardless of how much blatant and deliberate distortion of both HJ-ers' positions and the whole discipline of professional ancient historiography that may entail.

 

[Craig B]

But that's not getting angry. Not even with the absurd posts of several posters who do no more than keep posting content-free vacuous replies with just crude sarcastic personalised abuse in post after post. Even there it's only a matter of losing patience with people who do that whilst failing ever to show any evidence of Jesus (back to Bayern vs Arsenal on TV).

What's the point? You consider being asked to read such evidence as an untoward imposition, and you refuse even to look at it. You don't just want mere "evidence" anyway, because as you have already stated at #5340

… and it is an actual fact that no genuine reliable credible evidence is ever produced to show that anyone at all ever knew a living Jesus. But sadly, many people just cannot admit that, even to themselves (apparently).

However, it's good to hear that you're not getting angry about all this.

 

[Craig B]

In NONE of the Gospels was it stated that Jesus was ever a carpenter.

Mark 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

[Craig B]

Again, may I remind you that James the Apostles in Galatians 1.19 is NOT the brother of Jesus according to Apologetic writings.

He is according to the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.

Again, I remind you that it is NOT stated in gMark that Jesus the son of God had brothers and sisters.

Technically you're right. It is stated in gMark that Jesus the carpenter had brothers and sisters. At Matthew 13:55 it is stated that, not Jesus Son of God, but Jesus son of the carpenter, had brothers and sisters. As I have pointed out before, being "Son of God" in Mark's sense is perfectly consistent with being a human person. But you have been shown this lots of times. In both Mark and Matthew Jesus has brothers and sisters. And one of his brothers is called James.

Please, stop the propaganda and read the Gospels ... Jesus was NOT ever described as a carpenter up to the time of Origen.

Mark was written before Origen, and it does just that, as you yourself show.

James was NOT a brother of Jesus according to John Chrysostom.

According to that rascal, synagogues are worse than brothels. Who cares what he says?

 

[maximara]

Mark 6:3

Except ΤΕΚΤΩΝ does NOT exclusively mean "Carpenter":

1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder 1a) a ship's carpenter or builder 2) any craftsman, or workman 2a) the art of poetry, maker of songs 3) a planner, contriver, plotter 3a) an author
The defunct Jesus Police site pointed out "It is highly unlikely that Jesus was a carpenter. If we examine the 48 parables that occur in the Gospels, not a single one draws upon the experiences of a carpenter. Three of them refer to buildings (e.g., house divided, foolish builder, unfinished tower), and these may offer support for the idea that Jesus’ father was a builder, not a carpenter."


In fact, the Greek ΤΕΚΤΩΝ (tekton) is the root word of our modern English world tectonic which has to do with the movement of the geological plates.


As with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ it is a particular translation to support an already established idea.

 

[Craig B]

Except ΤΕΚΤΩΝ does NOT exclusively mean "Carpenter":

Let dejudge deal with that. I doubt if he's citing the Greek. The English translations, which dejudge is citing, agree that the word meant carpenter. And your own definition includes that plausible meaning. Moreover dejudge is not saying, "Jesus was not a carpenter"; he is saying "Mark does not describe Jesus as a carpenter". But according to your definition "carpenter" is the primary, if not the only, meaning of the word used in Mark's original Greek. I think carpenter or some similarly lowly form of artisanship is understood by the Evangelists. My reasoning: Mark calls him a "tekton"; Matthew amends this to "son of the tekton". If it had the meaning poet, conniver, plotter or author, that would look silly. "Hey, the son of the conniver's back in town. Who the hell does he think he is!" But Matthew's motive is clear if it means a joiner or other modest artisan. Matthew adds exalted touches to Mark's account of Jesus' poor reception in his home town, to mitigate the negative image of the event.

ETA I'm pretty sure the denizens of Capernaum didn't have in mind that

the Greek ΤΕΚΤΩΝ (tekton) is the root word of our modern English world tectonic which has to do with the movement of the geological plates.

even if Plate Theory has been current then. For this is my point: in Mark 6 they are criticising Jesus for his presumption

Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter ...

But moving the Earth's tectonic plates would indeed be a "mighty work done by his hands"; therefore the word must mean in this context more or less the opposite of "tectonic" in the sense you give it here.

 

[GDon]

I see. The "we weren't there" argument. Okay, no further questions. Thanks.

And of course, if I.S. "knows" that we "weren't there", then why bother to bang and bang and bang the same drum?

For me, the curiosity is that he relies on counter-arguments that use the same materials and the same kinds of analysis of materials that mainstream scholarship uses, with the counter-arguments being "obvious and valid objections". If he at least rejected the counter-arguments on the same basis (too long after first written, we don't know what was in the original anyway, counter-arguments are not using "genuine reliable credible evidence", as he puts it), then it would show some consistancy.

(Editted to add: a thought experiment!) Ian S: Can you provide any counter-argument to Paul's use of "James brother of the Lord" not meaning James "brother of the Lord" that uses genuine reliable credible evidence?

 

[dejudge]

In NONE of the Gospels was it stated that Jesus was ever a carpenter.

Mark 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

You need to get familiar with punctuation marks.

Do you not see the question mark?

The author of gMark did not claim Jesus was a carpenter. He ASKED a question.

Surely, you should know the difference between a question and an assertion.

Now, examine gMatthew.

The author of gMatthew ASKED a different QUESTION.

Is Jesus the carpenter's son?

Matthew 13:55 KJV

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The author of gMatthew already answered his QUESTION.

Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18.

Jesus was the Ghost's Son.

 

[Brainache]

You need to get familiar with punctuation marks.

Do you not see the question mark?

The author of gMark did not claim Jesus was a carpenter. He ASKED a question.

Surely, you should know the difference between a question and an assertion.

Now, examine gMatthew.

The author of gMatthew ASKED a different QUESTION.

Is Jesus the carpenter's son?

Matthew 13:55 KJV

The author of gMatthew already answered his QUESTION.

Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18.

Jesus was the Ghost's Son.

I could so very easily demonstrate how wrong you are and receive another warning for a personal attack.

So, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide what question they think I might have asked...

 

[Craig B]

You need to get familiar with punctuation marks.

Do you not see the question mark?

The author of gMark did not claim Jesus was a carpenter. He ASKED a question.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

Surely, you should know the difference between a question and an assertion.

Yes I do.

Now, examine gMatthew.

The author of gMatthew ASKED a different QUESTION.

Is Jesus the carpenter's son?

No, he didn't. That was not the question. He made the people ask, quite obviously rhetorically, which is why it's in the negative.

“Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

The author of gMatthew already answered his QUESTION.

Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18.

I see. And what was Mark's answer? If I thought this post was serious, I would be a bit worried for you. But fortunately I don't.

 

[dejudge]

Let dejudge deal with that. I doubt if he's citing the Greek. The English translations, which dejudge is citing, agree that the word meant carpenter. And your own definition includes that plausible meaning. Moreover dejudge is not saying, "Jesus was not a carpenter"; he is saying "Mark does not describe Jesus as a carpenter".

I am saying what is found in Origen's "Against Celsus".

I am saying what is found in gMark.

The author of gMark asked a QUESTION.

Origen is supposed to be a 3rd century WITNESS of the Jesus cult and the contents of the Gospels used in the Churches.

"Against Celsus 6.36

in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

All of a sudden you seem not to understand what an interpolation is.

Origen should have been a WITNESS of the contents of the Gospels in HIS time supposedly in the 3rd century.

 

[Craig B]

All of a sudden you seem not to understand what an interpolation is.

Origen should have been a WITNESS of the contents of the Gospels in HIS time supposedly in the 3rd century.

So Matthew's question wasn't even there? It was an interpolation. And after that the whole NT thing was forged by hoaxers. It's hard to keep up with all this, you know.

 

[Brainache]

I think he was a Freemason...

 

[dejudge]

He is according to the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Technically you're right. It is stated in gMark that Jesus the carpenter had brothers and sisters.

Technically you are wrong. The author of gMark asked a QUESTION. There is no statement that Jesus was a carpenter.

At Matthew 13:55 it is stated that, not Jesus Son of God, but Jesus son of the carpenter, had brothers and sisters.

Technically you are wrong. The author of gMatthew asked a QUESTION.

This is the STATEMENT about the birth of Jesus and that he was the Son of a Holy Ghost in gMatthew.


Matthew 1:18 KJV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

As I have pointed out before, being "Son of God" in Mark's sense is perfectly consistent with being a human person.

As I have pointed out before the author of gMark claimed his Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured in the presence of the resurrected dead Moses and Elijah and was raised from the Dead.

I also pointed out to you that specific gravity, anatomy and biology of human beings do not allow them to WALK on the sea, transfigure and later resurrect after being dead.

Your argument is highly illogical and baseless.

gMark's Jesus was NOT a figure of history, plus you have no contemporary evidence pre 70 CE to support an HJ.

 

[Brainache]

Technically you are wrong. The author of gMark asked a QUESTION. There is no statement that Jesus was a carpenter.




Technically you are wrong. The author of gMatthew asked a QUESTION.

This is the STATEMENT about the birth of Jesus and that he was the Son of a Holy Ghost in gMatthew.


Matthew 1:18 KJV




As I have pointed out before the author of gMark claimed his Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured in the presence of the resurrected dead Moses and Elijah and was raised from the Dead.

I also pointed out to you that specific gravity, anatomy and biology of human beings do not allow them to WALK on the sea, transfigure and later resurrect after being dead.

Your argument is highly illogical and baseless.

gMark's Jesus was NOT a figure of history, plus you have no contemporary evidence pre 70 CE to support an HJ.

You can't seriously think that this childish display will convince anyone, can you?

 

[Craig B]

Technically you are wrong. The author of gMark asked a QUESTION. There is no statement that Jesus was a carpenter.
Technically you are wrong. The author of gMatthew asked a QUESTION.

And here it is.

“Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

So it is a real and not a rhetorical question? I'll be interested to read what comments IanS might want to make. Very strange stuff this is indeed. Matthew doesn't say Jesus has a brother James. He asks if Jesus has a brother James. And doesn't bother answering.

 

[dejudge]

So Matthew's question wasn't even there? It was an interpolation. And after that the whole NT thing was forged by hoaxers. It's hard to keep up with all this, you know.

So gMark's question was always there?

Christians of antiquity knew Origen was Lying when he claimed Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in the Gospels!!!

You can't keep up with interpolations, manipulation, false attribution and forgeries.

How convenient!!

You must try and keep up because the HJ argument is void of logic and facts.

 

[Elagabalus]

... There is a term for someone who's just out to repeat and repeat and repeat the same thing over and over again and not seriously engage ANYONE...

Stone

hyperlian trolloi!!


I kid ... I kid ... kind of ...