Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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.

What did you write?

Christian Scholars "BELIEVE in a Miraculous Magical Jesus Christ who was the Son of God".

The historical Jesus for Christian Scholars is a Myth--a sacrificed Son of a God who was Raised from the dead.

There may be thousands of Christian Scholars who argue for an historical Jesus who was sacrificed and resurrected like William Lane Craig, Robert Van Voorst, and Ratzinger.

The multiple failed Quest for an HJ was initiated by Bible Believers.

Christians Scholars cannot find their HJ because HJ is a Myth [a Hoax].

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...

Jesus of Nazareth does not exist outside of religious stories.

In the religious stories, Jesus of Nazareth was a Sacrifice--he shed his blood for Remission of Sins..

Hebrews 10:12 KJV

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.

Hebrews 13:12 KJV

Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

 

[Brainache]

What did you write?

Christian Scholars "BELIEVE in a Miraculous Magical Jesus Christ who was the Son of God".

The historical Jesus for Christian Scholars is a Myth--a sacrificed Son of a God who was Raised from the dead.

There may be thousands of Christian Scholars who argue for an historical Jesus who was sacrificed and resurrected like William Lane Craig, Robert Van Voorst, and Ratzinger.

The multiple failed Quest for an HJ was initiated by Bible Believers.

Christians Scholars cannot find their HJ because HJ is a Myth [a Hoax].



Jesus of Nazareth does not exist outside of religious stories.

In the religious stories, Jesus of Nazareth was a Sacrifice--he shed his blood for Remission of Sins..

Hebrews 10:12 KJV

Hebrews 13:12 KJV

What you are talking about is called Christian Apologetics.

What I am talking about is the study of History.

Two very different things.

Stop conflating them please. You have been in the debate long enough to know better and being dishonest about it isn't any good for anyone, especially you.

 

[Craig B]

What you are talking about is called Christian Apologetics.

What I am talking about is the study of History.

Two very different things.

Stop conflating them please. You have been in the debate long enough to know better and being dishonest about it isn't any good for anyone, especially you.

He presumably thinks it annoys his opponents; he has said it many hundreds of times with inhuman repetitiveness, and he will say it a million more times, relentlessly.

 

[dejudge]

What you are talking about is called Christian Apologetics.

What I am talking about is the study of History.

Two very different things.

Stop conflating them please. You have been in the debate long enough to know better and being dishonest about it isn't any good for anyone, especially you.

What a big lie.

You very well know of Christian Scholars.

There are Christian Scholars who argue that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God who was Sacrificed for Remission of Sins and resurrected like William Lane Craig, Robert Van Voorst and Ratzinger.

This is a partial list of Christian Scholars with over a hundred names.

http://christianscholars.blogspot.com/

 

[Craig B]

He presumably thinks it annoys his opponents; he has said it many hundreds of times with inhuman repetitiveness, and he will say it a million more times, relentlessly.

... There are Christian Scholars who argue that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God who was Sacrificed for Remission of Sins and resurrected like William Lane Craig, Robert Van Voorst and Ratzinger.

999,999 times to go.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I don't know what are those "falsehoods" you mention. But I don't discuss with somebody that becomes more and more excited. It is my "foristical" rule number one.

Discussing with you was a pleasure, but the discussion is over.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Awesome, Craig B.
I've just read entire exchange and my keyboard may never be the same. Fortunately there're more coffee in the kitchen cupboard, waiting to be ground and made into café au lait.

I've never quite understood why human sacrifice gets such violent reactions from apologists. Perhaps I'm unduly influenced by having read a great deal of Robert Graves' ideas on Greek, Roman and OT mythology as a young pakeha.

...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.

 

[Craig B]

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.

I am aware of that and I never use the expression Jews, but always Israelites or the like, with reference to pre-exilic times. But the Torah and the later scriptures are part of the history of the Jews, because the Israelite ancestors or predecessors are part of the history of the Jews. Thus, a normal reader, seeing the claim that the Jews had no history of human sacrifice, would assume that that means it's not attested in their scriptures. I may say in this context, that if you show a rabbi a copy of the Torah I don't believe he will say: that has nothing to do with us: it's not about Jews.

In 1698 a Scottish student named Thomas Aikenhead was executed for, among other misdeeds of a similar nature, describing the Pentateuch as "Ezra's Fables". It is of post-exilic provenance, though it contains much older material of course.

I agree entirely, without reservation, that human sacrifice was not practiced by Jews in post-exilic times, being replaced by animal sacrifice. However, the Christians definitely conflated Christ's sacrifice with that of Temple animal victims, as the "Lamb of God"; and gJohn does this very explicitly: see Jn 19:36.

This turned the procedure, manifested as the crucifixion, back into a human sacrifice, and the Eucharist even restores a very primitive, even prehistoric, element--that of devouring the human victim (not attested in the Torah as far as I know); of course in an extremely idealised manner, but the principle is there.

These are perhaps among the features that ensured that Christianity would make more headway among pagans than Jews, of whom it never attracted more that a minority.

 

[pakeha]

Aikenhead was indicted in December 1696. The indictment read:

That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Muhammad to Christ: ]That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them : That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ.[3]

Trial and sentence

The case was prosecuted by the Lord Advocate, (grandfather of the future Jacobite economist Steuart), who demanded the death penalty to set an example to others who might otherwise express such opinions in the future.

Wiki, as always.

 

[dejudge]

I agree entirely, without reservation, that human sacrifice was not practiced by Jews in post-exilic times, being replaced by animal sacrifice. However, the Christians definitely conflated Christ's sacrifice with that of Temple animal victims, as the "Lamb of God"; and gJohn does this very explicitly: see Jn 19:36.

This turned the procedure, manifested as the crucifixion, back into a human sacrifice, and the Eucharist even restores a very primitive, even prehistoric, element--that of devouring the human victim (not attested in the Torah as far as I know); of course in an extremely idealised manner, but the principle is there.

These are perhaps among the features that ensured that Christianity would make more headway among pagans than Jews, of whom it never attracted more that a minority.

You have contradicted yourself and exposed your own fallacies.

You never had any evidence that JEWS practiced human sacrifice.

The TORAH is considered to be the history of Jewish tradition and there is ZERO claim that the Jews practised human sacrifice for remission of sins.

Abraham is the FATHER of Jewish nation as claimed in Hebrew Scripture and from Abraham to the present day there is NO record in the history of Jews human sacrifice or that Jews worshiped sacrificed victims as Gods.

In fact, Christian writers of antiquity IDENTIFIED those who practiced human sacrifice and JEWS were NOT included.

Those who worshiped Non-Jewish Gods were known to practice human sacrifice.

Minucius Felix's Octavius

And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your gods.

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.

There is no known evidence of any Jewish tradition of human sacrifice. Such a practice was prevalent by Non-Jews.

Christian writer themselves claimed the sacrifice of human beings to Gods was barbaric and MURDER which was completely unacceptable.

The killing of Jesus in the NT as a human sacrifice would NOT be accepted to Jews.

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

The story of Jesus was most likely fabricated by non-Jews and originated outside of Judea sometime after c 70 CE as the actual recovered evidence show.

"the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them..

The NT Scriptures are not historical accounts of an HJ--they are full of stupidity.

 

[Craig B]

You have contradicted yourself and exposed your own fallacies.

You never had any evidence that JEWS practiced human sacrifice.

In fact I stated that

The ancient Israelites did practice human sacrifice, as is shown repeatedly in the Scriptures.

And that is true. And the scriptures are the Jewish scriptures. People read your statement that in the "OT bible": there is no record of Jews sacrificing people for remission of sins. As I have already pointed out, people reading that might suppose you meant there is no record in the Jewish scriptures of such sacrifices at all. But there is.

This is not intended to convince you of anything, dejudge, but is addressed to any others who might have been misled or confused by your treatment of this question, or by mine.

 

[dejudge]

In fact I stated that And that is true. And the scriptures are the Jewish scriptures. People read your statement that in the "OT bible": there is no record of Jews sacrificing people for remission of sins. As I have already pointed out, people reading that might suppose you meant there is no record in the Jewish scriptures of such sacrifices at all. But there is.

What a big lie

It is you who wanted to give the impression that Jews practiced human sacrifice and made fallacious statements.

You presented NO historical evidence that Jews practiced human sacrifice.

The ancient Israelites did practice human sacrifice, as is shown repeatedly in the Scriptures.

What a big lie.

There is no such practice or Law for human sacrifice by ancient Israelites in the Scriptures.

In the Scriptures Jews practiced animal sacrifice which was the LAW of the God of the Jews based on Hebrew Scripture.

 

[Craig B]

What a big lie.

There is no such practice or Law for human sacrifice by ancient Israelites in the Scriptures.

In the Scriptures Jews practiced animal sacrifice which was the LAW of the God of the Jews based on Hebrew Scripture.

We'll start with the laws, as you are interested in them. Then go on to practice.

Exodus 13:2 "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice ... In Leviticus 27:28-29, the Lord allows for no redemptions. "Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

Quoted in http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

 

[dejudge]

We'll start with the laws, as you are interested in them. Then go on to practice. Quoted in http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

Exodus 13:2 "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice ... In Leviticus 27:28-29, the Lord allows for no redemptions. "Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

What a big lie.

Consecration of first born Jewish sons is not a sacrificial killing.

Again, you are consumed by your own fallacies.

You are now giving the false impression that consecration of first born Jews was carried out by their sacrificial death.

The consecration practice of first born sons did NOT involve the killing of the persons being consecrated.

You are just exposing that you are openly misrepresenting Jewish traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidyon_haben

 

[eight bits]

Craig

I think the issue is

... being replaced by animal sacrifice...

I don't see any evidence that animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice in any monolatrous proto-Judaism. In polytheisms, each god gets what (s)he wants, with a diversity among the gods in what that is. The Bible seems clear in its accusations that some gods who were worshipped in the Isarealite homeland wanted long pork. It doesn't follow that all gods want that.

I don't see anything that fingers El Shaddai (or whatever the ancestral form of Yahweh was) as accepting barbecued humans. Also, the money word in Exodus 13:2 isn't consecrate, but redeem. Jews didn't roast the children of parents who couldn't come up with the tax.

Leviticus 27: 29 appears to address the situation of a person under "ban" who commits a capital crime, which penalty might ohterwise be settled for cash. Not for the banned, they must be executed. That is not worship, it's law enforcement.

As to the Christian spin, there is a lot of doublethink in Paul. We've seen that with the "curse of God" being made to fit that God exalted Jesus. Most Christians don't practice animal or human sacrifice, because Jesus' death was an "ultimate sacrifice." So, we have the curiosity that the religion in its usual form doesn't practice blood sacrifice because somebody else did, before the religion rolled out. God seems to have his treat and eat it, too - just this once.

As to pagan potential convert reaction, if we are talking about ancient "western" pagans, we note that animal sacrifice is expensive and would have been a barrier to conversion, just as circumcision would have been. In contrast, "making sacred" some bread and wine, which you then get to eat, is low-cost. You eat bread anyway and it's watered wine... that is, water made tasty and safe to drink - what you drink anyway. What you pretend these cheap eats are instead of what they really are is your affair - your grocer charges you only for what's real.

 

[pakeha]

...The Bible seems clear in its accusations that some gods who were worshipped in the Isarealite homeland wanted long pork. ...

That would be long pig, I think.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is:

1. Void of logic

2. Void of facts.

3. Void of evidence pre 70 CE [before the Fall of the Jewish Temple].

In writings of antiquity attributed to Apologetics it is claimed that Christians considered human sacrifice to Gods as murder, extremely barbaric and evil.

Such claims by Apologetics support the argument that the Jesus of Nazareth was not considered a human being But God Incarnate--GOD in the flesh.

In fact, Apologetic writers argued against human sacrifice, the use of human blood and showed that Roman/Greek Myth are riddled with stories of sacrifices of human and Gods.



Origen's Against Celsus 5

and how it is an act of impiety to do away with those laws which, for example, prevail in the Tauric Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in sacrifice to Diana , or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of children to Saturn..

Justin Martyr's Discourse to the Greeks

Do not suppose, ye Greeks, that my separation from your customs is unreasonable and unthinking; for I found in them nothing that is holy or acceptable to God.
For the very compositions of your poets are monuments of madness and intemperance. For any one who becomes the scholar of your most eminent instructor, is more beset by difficulties than all men besides.

For first they say that Agamemnon, abetting the extravagant lust of his brother, and his madness and unrestrained desire, readily gave even his daughter to be sacrificed..

Minucius Felix's Octavius

To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.

Arnobius' Against the Heathen

Then Jupiter, being ensnared by the ambiguous terms used, uttered these words: “You have overreached me, Numa; for I had determined that evils portended by thunder should be averted with sacrifices of human heads, not with hair and an onion.

 

[Brainache]

The HJ argument is:

1. Void of logic

2. Void of facts.

3. Void of evidence pre 70 CE [before the Fall of the Jewish Temple].

In writings of antiquity attributed to Apologetics it is claimed that Christians considered human sacrifice to Gods as murder, extremely barbaric and evil.

Such claims by Apologetics support the argument that the Jesus of Nazareth was not considered a human being But God Incarnate--GOD in the flesh.

In fact, Apologetic writers argued against human sacrifice, the use of human blood and showed that Roman/Greek Myth are riddled with stories of sacrifices of human and Gods.



Origen's Against Celsus 5

Justin Martyr's Discourse to the Greeks

Minucius Felix's Octavius

Arnobius' Against the Heathen

OK, so you think Jesus existed, but he was God incarnate and not just a Jewish Preacher who had crazy stories told about him?

That seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Craig B]

That would be long pig, I think.

I recently saw in the English version of a menu in a restaurant in Italy, Cinghiale or wild boar translated as "wild pork" and it did look a bit odd.

 

[Belz...]

The HJ argument is:

1. Void of logic

2. Void of facts.

3. Void of evidence pre 70 CE [before the Fall of the Jewish Temple].

In writings of antiquity attributed to Apologetics it is claimed that Christians considered human sacrifice to Gods as murder, extremely barbaric and evil.

Such claims by Apologetics support the argument that the Jesus of Nazareth was not considered a human being But God Incarnate--GOD in the flesh.

In fact, Apologetic writers argued against human sacrifice, the use of human blood and showed that Roman/Greek Myth are riddled with stories of sacrifices of human and Gods.



Origen's Against Celsus 5

Justin Martyr's Discourse to the Greeks

Minucius Felix's Octavius

Arnobius' Against the Heathen

What a monstrous fable !