Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[eight bits]

degrudge

Now, look at recovered evidence that Crucified Jews were NAILED in the 1st century.

It would be amusing if that First Century Jew crucified by the Romans were the First Century Jew we're looking for, the one who died violently with Jewish involvement and whose corpse was displayed contrary to the Deuteronomy curse of God, and so consistent with the afterdeath mistreatment so common in other ghost stories. If ony it were so, then we would have our HJ and disresurrect him, too.

Unfortunately, he isn't our man. He is irrelevant to what Paul described to have happened to his very earthly Jesus: no Roman involvement mentioned, Jewish involvement mentioned instead, no clear statement of the cause of death, but a crystal clear statement about the treatment of the corpse afterwards.

Once Paul finessed the scriptural curse of God as a mission-critical expedient, later authors were free to build and expand the elaborate circus farce that climaxes in John's "Twilight of the God." Far from showing "embarrassment" about the more and more richly imagined death scene, Gentile Christians plainly revelled in it. Even now, many Christians wear little "Roman" gibbets around their neck, some with tiny dummies "nailed" to them. Embarrassment? Right.

 

[dejudge]

degrudge


It would be amusing if that First Century Jew crucified by the Romans were the First Century Jew we're looking for, the one who died violently with Jewish involvement and whose corpse was displayed contrary to the Deuteronomy curse of God, and so consistent with the afterdeath mistreatment so common in other ghost stories. If ony it were so, then we would have our HJ and disresurrect him, too.

You are still looking for your Jesus!!!

He is not here!! He is RISEN.

The Crucified Ghost is gone.

Mark 16:6 KJV

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted : Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Unfortunately, he isn't our man. He is irrelevant to what Paul described to have happened to his very earthly Jesus: no Roman involvement mentioned, Jewish involvement mentioned instead, no clear statement of the cause of death, but a crystal clear statement about the treatment of the corpse afterwards.

You won't find your Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus was crucified in the NT.


1 Corinthians 1:23 KJV

But we preach Christ crucified , unto the Jews a stumblingblock , and unto the Greeks foolishness..

The crucifixion was a method of execution.


The HJ argument is void of logic, facts, and evidence before c 70 CE.

 

[David Mo]

David

I have no parade. I have a critical edition of the Greek, to which I have repeatedly linked. I haven't the faintest idea what Richard Carrier or Neil Godfrey have to do with any of this.


Nice rearrangement of the word order. What the Greek says is "... of death, of death and of the cross," allowing cross for the type of gibbet, and if you prefer even instead of and, that's fine, too. But the text says only that Jesus both died and also was on a cross. Yup, that what's gibbeting is, all right, doing something additional after killing a person. (…)
It's none of your business who I am IRL, nor is it relevant to the discussion here.

The Greek word δὲ can be translated in a dozen of ways. "After" is one of them, but with only two occurrences in biblical Greek. See here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm
You are the only one in the world that uses "after" in Phil 2 :8. Richard Carrier, Neil Godfrey and Earl Doherty, that are well known mithicists, translate “even” as everybody. You can neither to allege their support, althoug they are opposed to the historicity of crucifixion.

See here: http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-8.htm and here: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/philippians/2-8.htm

Of course it matters the qualification of someone that gives an extraordinary interpretation. Only if you were a qualified translator I would concede you a chance. But you aren't. And you are so inexpert in translation that you are shocked because the English translation changes the order of the Greek words. My God! Any person that have done a translation in his life knows that the order of words is different in diverse languages!

In fact, the Greek terms Paul uses are consistent with the only aspect of Jesus' death scene that Paul offers any detail about, the handling of Jesus' corpse after an excecution.

Paul never details aspects of the death of Jesus except in your head. Paul just speaks of death and crucifixion, and uses the same word, stauros, that Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Lucian, Josephus and others use when speaking about the awful death penalty applied by Romans that we know with the name of “crucifixion”. It is enough for me and for my argument of difficulty.

PS: Could you repeat the link of this critical edition of the Bible you are consulting? Thank you.

 

[eight bits]

David

You keep bringing up "mythicists" as if I am supposed to be impressed. I am not.

PS: Could you repeat the link of this critical edition of the Bible you are consulting? Thank you.

You cited the same one as I did, in this very post of yours which I am quoting from. We have no disagreement about the Greek text.

Paul never details aspects of the death of Jesus except in your head.

Spin that straw! You mean, Paul never details aspects of the death of Jesus, full stop. I have never argued that Paul gives details about Jesus' death, in fact, I insist on the contrary.

The Greek word δὲ can be translated in a dozen of ways.

Then we are in agreement: Paul's writing neither implies nor excludes that Jesus was affixed alive but badly injured to a Roman gibbet and kept there until after he died. The earliest writing that we have that does imply the proposition is Mark.

You are the only one in the world that uses "after" in Phil 2 :8.

Use what? It is not my view that Paul denies that Jesus was affixed alive but badly injured to a Roman gibbet and kept there until after he died, see above, but rather that Paul is silent about the details of Jesus' death.

In contrast, Paul is clear that Jesus' corpse was displayed, which is impossible until after death. I "used" after in no other way in connection with Philippians 2: 8, nor, contrary to your ad hominem straw, was my usage solecist.

Only if you were a qualified translator I would concede ...

David, I couldn't care less what you "concede." There is only discussion. This one, I sense, is ending soon. So far as I can see, you have said what you have to say. Neither of us has persuaded the other. Big whoop.

Let us, then, focus our endgame:

But you aren't.

Put up or shut up with the personal fact claim. I doubt you know the letters in my name, David; fat chance you know the ones after it, or whether there are any. I also doubt you know what I do for a living, or have done for pay and publication in the past. Prove me wrong, or retract. Don't bother to direct anything else to me until you do one or the other.

 

[dejudge]

The use of a single source to corroborate itself is completely unacceptable.

It is highly illogical to use the Pauline Corpus to corroborate itself.

Surely one would not use just the writings of Tacitus for the Histories of the Romans but as much sources as possible.

It is not expected that a single source of antiquity would contain ALL details of all events whether historical or mythological.

What did Irenaeus write about the nailing of Jesus?

What did Ignatius write about the nailing of Jesus?

What did Origen about the nailing of Jesus?

What did Hipplytus about the nailing of Jesus?

What did Gregory write about the nailing of Jesus?

In antiquity, the Jesus cult of Christians did preach, teach and document their Belief that their Jesus was NAILED to a Cross under Pilate.

Arnobius' Against the Heathen

40. But He died nailed to the cross.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

The notion that Jesus of Nazareth was a known human being who was SACRIFICIED to the God of the Jews for salvation is most absurd.

Human sacrifice was considered murder and most evil by Christians writers of antiquity.


Athanasius' Against the Heathen

And even the ancient Romans used to worship Jupiter Latiarius, as he was called, with human sacrifices, and some in one way, some in another, but all without exception committed and incurred the pollution: they incurred it by the mere perpetration of the murderous deeds, while they polluted their own temples by filling them with the smoke of such sacrifices. 4. This then was the ready source of numerous evils to mankind.

Minucius Felix's Octavius

For Saturn did not expose his children, but devoured them. With reason were infants sacrificed to him by parents in some parts of Africa, caresses and kisses repressing their crying, that a weeping victim might not be sacrificed.

Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man.

The Jesus story in the NT is pure fiction from beginning to end--Matthew to Revelation.

The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

 

[Brainache]

...
The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

No one on the HJ side of the debate has claimed that they did.

Why on earth would you think that?

Yet the mythicist claim is that the Jesus story was indeed part of Jewish Tradition. They claim that people were worshipping a sacrificed "Celestial" Messiah for centuries before Paul started writing his letters.

Your arguments are starting to make even less sense than they did before. Good job, I didn't think it was possible.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

The notion that Jesus of Nazareth was a known human being who was SACRIFICIED to the God of the Jews for salvation is most absurd.

Human sacrifice was considered murder and most evil by Christians writers of antiquity.

No one on the HJ side of the debate has claimed that they did.

What a big lie!!

Christian Scholars claim the historical Jesus was SACRIFICIED.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus was a sacrifice for remission of sins.

Ephesians 5:2 KJV

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Hebrews 9:26 KJV

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

 

[David Mo]

I have never argued that Paul gives details about Jesus' death, in fact, I insist on the contrary.

In fact, the Greek terms Paul uses are consistent with the only aspect of Jesus' death scene that Paul offers any detail about, the handling of Jesus' corpse after an excecution.

Either my English get worse day to day or your memory alarmingly fails.

You cited the same one as I did, in this very post of yours which I am quoting from.

What a pitty! I had the impression you had a different source with a different translation. (You had wrote: "I have a critical edition of the Greek, to which I have repeatedly linked"). I see you continue without a support to your "exclusive" translation.

[Put up or shut up with the personal fact claim. I doubt you know the letters in my name, David [etc].

It seems you are a little upset. Be calm, please. I don't intend to uncover the secrets of your personality that obviously doesn't interest me. I offered you the possibility of some justification of your intensely personal interpretation of the text. I see you have none. Let us stay here.

 

[Craig B]

The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

The ancient Israelites did practice human sacrifice, as is shown repeatedly in the Scriptures. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, not to remit sin, but to gain victory. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac. That tale is designed to justify the switch to animal sacrifices that had taken place by the time the story was written. The Temple cult was a massive sacrificial procedure.

The sins were disposed of by transferring them to a goat, which was then driven into the desert. But the earliest writings do refer to human sacrifice, later denounced as evil.

As I have pointed out before; Christianity did not succeed in winning over a majority of Jews, so it is no wonder in any case that it acquired some non-Jewish features from its formerly pagan converts.

 

[Brainache]

What a big lie!!

Christian Scholars claim the historical Jesus was SACRIFICIED.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus was a sacrifice for remission of sins.

Ephesians 5:2 KJV

Hebrews 9:26 KJV

No one on the HJ side of the debate is arguing that Jesus died for a remission of sin.

Mostly people have been arguing that he was a Jewish Preacher who offended the Romans and got crucified for it.

God, Sin, and all that other superstitious nonsense that those people believed in those days has very little to do with it.

If you knew anything about the study of History, you would not be saying these things.

 

[pakeha]

The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

The ancient Israelites did practice human sacrifice, as is shown repeatedly in the Scriptures. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, not to remit sin, but to gain victory. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac. That tale is designed to justify the switch to animal sacrifices that had taken place by the time the story was written. The Temple cult was a massive sacrificial procedure.

The sins were disposed of by transferring them to a goat, which was then driven into the desert. But the earliest writings do refer to human sacrifice, later denounced as evil.

As I have pointed out before; Christianity did not succeed in winning over a majority of Jews, so it is no wonder in any case that it acquired some non-Jewish features from its formerly pagan converts.

Now that is a poser.
How can someone with so much knowledge at their disposal not know the ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice?

 

[Craig B]

Now that is a poser.
How can someone with so much knowledge at their disposal not know the ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice?

dejudge will probably respond by saying he knew they did it all along, but that it wasn't for the remission of sins, and that's what he meant. But I say, it's a very odd omission, not to mention the practice at all.

 

[eight bits]

David

What part of put up or shut up don't you understand? You made a personal, factual claim about me, back it up or retract it. Then, after you've done that, back up or retract your fresh steaming bull pie that I have argued that Paul offers details about Jesus' death except some observation about the handling of the corpse afterwards. I will discuss nothing else with you until you have resolved these two falsehoods.

Craig

Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, not to remit sin, but to gain victory. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac.

"Jephthah" recites, of course, a folk tale and mythologucal motif, the ill-specified vow or curse. It turns out that to keep his word, he must ...(something)... his daughter. It is unclear whether he actually kills her. Any half-way decent lawyer would get fulfillment commuted to lifetime virginity. The vow was gratuitous in any case, and its fulfilment once it was made belongs to a different category of obligation than sacrifice, regrardless of why the vow was made.

Abraham is ordered to kill, behaves as if willing to comply, but does not kill Isaac. When asked, Abraham predicts that God will provide the sacrifiical victim (Genesis 22: 7-8), and that it will be a sheep (that is, not a human being). And that is how the story develops. Careful Christian apologists, in my experience, argue that Abraham knew that he certainly would not need to kill Isaac based upon God's promise when Abraham mortally imperiled his other son at 21:12.

Neither case is comparable with the practice of offering one's firstborn infant to an idol as worship and in hopes of future reward from the god. I agree that some Isaraelites seem to have done that, despite disapproval from some of their fellows (the victors, if it is the victors who write history).

That tale is designed to justify the switch to animal sacrifices that had taken place by the time the story was written.

That is one interpretation of it. Clearly, though, it is not an institution myth (the practice already exists in the story), and Cain and Abel already serves as that myth. There may have been no "switch," either. We don't really know the details of the emergence of a monolatrous Israelite people. For all we know, they never sacrified people as part of their distinguishing-or-defining religion, even if their ancestors did. The points of both Jephthah and Isaac's binding may have played off an existing abhorrence of human sacrifice. (for example, the obligations to keep a vow - or to be careful what you vow because you will be held to it - and to obey a direct order may trump any other consideration).

In any case, the other poster's point stands as written. Jews refers to the post-exilic religion, which is the religion that is relevant to the circumsatnces of a historical Jesus. Jews have no history of human sacrifice. Broken clocks and all that.

 

[dejudge]

The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

The ancient Israelites did practice human sacrifice, as is shown repeatedly in the Scriptures. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, not to remit sin, but to gain victory. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac. That tale is designed to justify the switch to animal sacrifices that had taken place by the time the story was written. The Temple cult was a massive sacrificial procedure.

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

In the OT Bible, Abraham NEVER did sacrifice Isaac.

In the OT Bible, there is NO claim at all that the Jews sacrificed human beings to their God for Remission of Sins.

You seem to be engaged in self deception.

You knew in advance of posting that the Myth God of the Jews sent an angel to stop the attempted Sacrifice in the myth fables called Genesis and that there is no other story in the OT Bible of HUMAN sacrifice by Jews for Remission of Sins.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no intention of even stating what is found written in Genesis 22.

Genesis 22:12 KJV

And he said , Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

It is completely unacceptable for you to blatantly mis-represent the history of the Jews in the OT Bible.

There is NO history that the Jews practiced Human sacrifice to their God for Remission of Sins.

 

[dejudge]

No one on the HJ side of the debate is arguing that Jesus died for a remission of sin.

Mostly people have been arguing that he was a Jewish Preacher who offended the Romans and got crucified for it.

God, Sin, and all that other superstitious nonsense that those people believed in those days has very little to do with it.

If you knew anything about the study of History, you would not be saying these things.

What a big lie.

Christians Scholars argue that the historical Jesus not only was sacrificed but that he was raised from the dead.

Robert Van Vorst , a Christian Scholar, argues and preaches that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind.

Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, former bishop of Rome, preached and taught that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind.

There are probably thousands of Christian Scholars who argue that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind and the NT is a credible historical source for Jesus.

 

[tsig]

dejudge will probably respond by saying he knew they did it all along, but that it wasn't for the remission of sins, and that's what he meant. But I say, it's a very odd omission, not to mention the practice at all.

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

In the OT Bible, Abraham NEVER did sacrifice Isaac.

In the OT Bible, there is NO claim at all that the Jews sacrificed human beings to their God for Remission of Sins. You seem to be engaged in self deception.

You knew in advance of posting that the Myth God of the Jews sent an angel to stop the attempted Sacrifice in the myth fables called Genesis and that there is no other story in the OT Bible of HUMAN sacrifice by Jews for Remission of Sins.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no intention of even stating what is found written in Genesis 22.

Genesis 22:12 KJV

It is completely unacceptable for you to blatantly mis-represent the history of the Jews in the OT Bible.

There is NO history that the Jews practiced Human sacrifice to their God for Remission of Sins.

Craig B wins the JREF prophecy award for the day!

 

[Craig B]

Pakeha

Deleted.

 

[dejudge]

Craig B wins the JREF prophecy award for the day!

Craig B won the JREF false prophecy award.

Craig B Predicts I will say what I have NOT said.

Follow the timeline.

Dejudge At 2.36 AM ---The Jews had NO history of sacrificing human beings to their God for remission of Sins.

Craig B at 6.28 AM ----dejudge will probably respond by saying he knew they did it all along, but that it wasn't for the remission of sins, and that's what he meant.

Dejudge 9.39 AM---In the OT Bible, there is NO claim at all that the Jews sacrificed human beings to their God for Remission of Sins.

 

[Brainache]

What a big lie.

Christians Scholars argue that the historical Jesus not only was sacrificed but that he was raised from the dead.

Robert Van Vorst , a Christian Scholar, argues and preaches that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind.

Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, former bishop of Rome, preached and taught that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind.

There are probably thousands of Christian Scholars who argue that the historical Jesus died for the Sins of mankind and the NT is a credible historical source for Jesus.

Since when have any of those people argued for the HJ in this debate?

Those people believe in a miraculous magical Jesus Christ who was the son of God. That isn't HJ, that's the Gospel Jesus.

HJ was killed because he offended "the powers that be", not because he was some magical messiah; Magical Messiahs don't actually exist outside of religious stories. Troublesome Jewish Preachers were quite plentiful at the time...