Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

You have already told us (very many times) that the propagators of the Jesus story were unlearned illiterate crazy people. But there is an additional significant epithet in the words you posted recently, cited below. I think this is a new angle.

Again, Julian made the statement over 1500 years ago.

Are you not aware that Liars can be considered as Evil?

What is your point?

The mere fact that there were Multiple Heretics, Multiple Heresies, and Multiple versions of the Jesus story in antiquity must mean that most of the stories of Jesus, if not all, were Packs of Lies without a shred of history.

Even Christian writers of antiquity accused other Christians as EVIL LIARS from the Devil.

Irenaeus admitted there were Jesus stories from EVIL LIARS.

Irenaeus Against Heresies

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.

The Jesus stories were established Packs of lies and acknowledge by Christian and non-Christian writers.

By the way, Irenaeus made Paul an Evil Liar when he admitted that it was taught that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE when he was an OLD man.

See Against Heresies 2.22

Why do you use sources of Packs of Lies and forgeries as history for your Jesus?

Why?

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

Effectively Irenaeus argued that an HJ with a human father was a Pack of Lies.

 

[Belz...]

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

I wonder at which point this is going to be considered spamming.

 

[IanS]

It is not logical for you and those other writers to call these people Liars:

Reason: you don't constantly risk your life for something you know is a lie. And these people did constantly risk their lives in the brutal Roman Empire and many paid the ultimate price:

DOC - we do not even know if people like Jesus and his disciples ever existed. That's what was being discussed in this thread (although that discussion now seems to have ended without the claimed evidence being produced).

So whether anyone was deliberately lying or not, it is not an argument to say that people who may not have existed, risked their lives for their beliefs.

And even if they did exist, it's by no means certain that any of them met whatever fate is said in the bible.

Apart from which, religious fanatics have always risked their lives for belief in all sorts of gods, angels, demons etc., none of which ever existed at all. That is - the fact that such fanatics risk their lives for their beliefs, does not mean their beliefs were true (and certainly not impossible beliefs such as the ones these people were said to have preached about Jesus).

 

[Craig B]

DOC - we do not even know if people like Jesus and his disciples ever existed. That's what was being discussed in this thread (although that discussion now seems to have ended without the claimed evidence being produced).

Please, in the interests of accuracy, amend that to read " ... have ended because I go nuts at the very idea that I should be asked even to look at the claimed evidence."

 

[IanS]

Please, in the interests of accuracy, amend that to read " ... have ended because I go nuts at the very idea that I should be asked even to look at the claimed evidence."

Craig - how many times have we been through this? You claim that the bible provides your evidence for Jesus. Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman agree with you. But as you can see from that poll started by tsig; outside of that rather unusual profession, mainly populated by one time highly devout Christians, not many informed neutral observers do think that the bible is a reliable source of evidence sufficient to conclude that Jesus existed (for all the vast number of very obvious discrediting reasons spelt out here literally 100 times and more ... in all of the many thousands of lines we have had discussing that very biblical writing that you are calling your evidence).

 

[dejudge]

The writings of antiquity have exposed that virtually all stories of Jesus were regarded as Packs of Lies by Christians and Non-Christians.

In writings Against Heretics, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen and others claimed that an Historical Jesus, [a human Jesus with a human father] was a LIE.

Christians of antiquity argued that the Historical Jesus was really God Creator, the Logos, born of a Ghost and a virgin.

What is most fascinating is that those Christians who claimed Jesus was ONLY God or ONLY man were considered Heretics or from the Devil.

Christian writers argued that the Historical Jesus was actual God and actual man.

Amazingly, NOT even Christians of antiquity knew who their Jesus was and called one another Blasphemous Atheists.


Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names

Justin's First Apology

...the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.
And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...

 

[Craig B]

Craig - how many times have we been through this? You claim that the bible provides your evidence for Jesus. Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman agree with you. But as you can see from that poll started by tsig; outside of that rather unusual profession, mainly populated by one time highly devout Christians, not many informed neutral observers do think that the bible is a reliable source of evidence sufficient to conclude that Jesus existed (for all the vast number of very obvious discrediting reasons spelt out here literally 100 times and more ... in all of the many thousands of lines we have had discussing that very biblical writing that you are calling your evidence).

But in fact you refuse to engage with it. Your version of "discussing" it is on display here; ie assert that only or mainly devout Christians engage in critical analysis of the gospels. But you can't say that the evidence has not been produced. You simply won't look at it. Fine. As you please.

 

[IanS]

But in fact you refuse to engage with it. Your version of "discussing" it is on display here; ie assert that only or mainly devout Christians engage in critical analysis of the gospels. But you can't say that the evidence has not been produced. You simply won't look at it. Fine. As you please.

That is just completely untrue, and we have been through precisely that claim from you dozens of times.

We had already discussed here, for many hundreds of posts, the material in the bible as claimed evidence of Jesus. That had already been discussed to death here over many months, if not years (and before that for at least the last 5 years on RatSkep and RDF). And all sceptics have explained why they reject that biblical writing as not remotely reliable or credible evidence of a human Jesus. And what you wanted to do was to insist that I must read it all over again for the 500th time to see why you believe that some of that biblical writing is reliable enough for you to believe it. But sceptics here know perfectly well what it says in the bible, and not a single one of them regards the bible as credible evidence for what it claims about Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

That doesn't surprise me. You likely haven't heard of Iosif Aronovich Kryvelev's 1987 Christ--myth or reality? (part of the the Religious studies in the USSR series) either.

No I haven't.

But you aren't going to tell me that Soviet Science was a model of objective reasoning untouched by propaganda, are you?

Moving the goal posts I see. Besides we have seen this old battle horse trotted out more often then not to know what kind of nonsense this leads to--the old 'if we deny a HJ then we deny most of ancient history' BS.

What goal post did I move?

And it isn't BS to point out that Historians use the same methods for Jesus as anyone else in Ancient History.

During most of the Soviet Union era it was more or less Drews with his arguments appearing in both school and university textbooks (Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.) There were even public meetings between Party officials and the clergy with "Did Christ live?" as the topic of choice (Peris, Daniel. Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. Cornell University Press, 1998, p. 178.)

So the question goes back to where on Remsburg-Marshall's Christ Myth range do you put Drews?

No the question goes back to why you are talking about the Soviet Union as if it is a place that still exists?

I'm talking about what is taught in Secular Universities in the world of today. Catch up.

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)

So, not teaching Myth Jesus. Just what I thought.

Drews if you actually read him didn't definitively say Jesus didn't exist but rather there wasn't anything in the Gospel that lead back to a man of the level of importance the Gospels were describing.

You mean Jesus wasn't the Son Of God? Well, what a big fat surprise...

Besides you still have Robertson's definition "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that the Gospel account may have a flesh and blood behind them]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

Right now the best we seem to be getting is this minimal Jesus who during his lifetime was effectively a nobody with only a handful of followers who if not for Paul's conversion would have wound up in the dust bin of history.

That Jesus IMHO is no less plausible then the idea that one day during the reign of Pontius Pilatus some crazy man runs into the sacrifice area of the Temple wrecking havoc while screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before a guard runs him through.

The problem with any Jesus like that he is even more of a blank slate then the jesus of the Gospels.

Who here is proposing that we worship the Historical Jesus?

Why does it bother you that HJ isn't God, just a loudmouth troublesome Priest?

 

[Craig B]

That is just completely untrue, and we have been through precisely that claim from you dozens of times.

We had already discussed here, for many hundreds of posts, the material in the bible as claimed evidence of Jesus. That had already been discussed to death here over many months, if not years (and before that for at least the last 5 years on RatSkep and RDF). And all sceptics have explained why they reject that biblical writing as not remotely reliable or credible evidence of a human Jesus. And what you wanted to do was to insist that I must read it all over again for the 500th time to see why you believe that some of that biblical writing is reliable enough for you to believe it. But sceptics here know perfectly well what it says in the bible, and not a single one of them regards the bible as credible evidence for what it claims about Jesus.

None of which means that evidence has not been produced. You are being dishonest when you assert that. I think the character of the NT sources indicate a good probability of the existence of an HJ. You don't, but that doesn't mean I have no evidence.

 

[Brainache]

That is just completely untrue, and we have been through precisely that claim from you dozens of times.

We had already discussed here, for many hundreds of posts, the material in the bible as claimed evidence of Jesus. That had already been discussed to death here over many months, if not years (and before that for at least the last 5 years on RatSkep and RDF). And all sceptics have explained why they reject that biblical writing as not remotely reliable or credible evidence of a human Jesus. And what you wanted to do was to insist that I must read it all over again for the 500th time to see why you believe that some of that biblical writing is reliable enough for you to believe it. But sceptics here know perfectly well what it says in the bible, and not a single one of them regards the bible as credible evidence for what it claims about Jesus.

Why are you still ignoring the fact that the History Departments of Secular Universities all over the world disagree with you?

Why do you feel entitled to dismiss the consensus of Academic Historians?

What gives you the Authority to contradict the work of thousands of Scholars in learning institutions ranging from Oxford and Cambridge down to your local Adult Education Night School?

What makes you smarter than all of those people put together?

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Micah 6:6-7

There's no question that the Israelites understand that there were cultures that practiced child sacrifice, and maybe the officially unrighteous among them did, too. Whether they did it for atonement or not, and whether they did it in honor of YHWH or not, some people did it. The prophet here is asking what does YHWH want? Whether anybody did it for atonement with YHWH or not, it would be a bigger deal than a herd of sheep. Does YHWH want either the herd or the children?

Micah's answer is verse 8:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

I think that's a no.

 

[IanS]

None of which means that evidence has not been produced. You are being dishonest when you assert that. I think the character of the NT sources indicate a good probability of the existence of an HJ. You don't, but that doesn't mean I have no evidence.

The bible is not a reliable source of evidence for any of it's writers ever knowing a human Jesus.

You want to claim that anything ever said, no matter how absurd and demonstrably untrue, can still be called "evidence" of Jesus.

The bible contains evidence of peoples superstitious 1st century religious beliefs. But it does not contain any reliable or credible evidence of anyone ever claiming to have known a human Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

The bible is not a reliable source of evidence for any of it's writers ever knowing a human Jesus.

You want to claim that anything ever said, no matter how absurd and demonstrably untrue, can still be called "evidence" of Jesus.

The bible contains evidence of peoples superstitious 1st century religious beliefs. But it does not contain any reliable or credible evidence of anyone ever claiming to have known a human Jesus.

So what?

You don't think people can extract any useful Historical data because of that?

Why do you think that?

Do you know how they approach problems like this?

Do you think no one has ever thought of these basic things before? Have you ever considered going to a History Department at a University and talking to an Expert?

 

[pakeha]

pakeha



There's no question that the Israelites understand that there were cultures that practiced child sacrifice, and maybe the officially unrighteous among them did, too. Whether they did it for atonement or not, and whether they did it in honor of YHWH or not, some people did it. The prophet here is asking what does YHWH want? Whether anybody did it for atonement with YHWH or not, it would be a bigger deal than a herd of sheep. Does YHWH want either the herd or the children?

Micah's answer is verse 8:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

I think that's a no.

Possibly, though we know the Israelites did sacrifice the other creatures mentioned in the verses, don't we?

 

[Craig B]

Micah's answer is verse 8:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

I think that's a no.

That's Micah's answer. Yes. So there was no priestly Temple cult with all its sacrifices and rituals? Reformers often made such statements. Matt 21

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Philo says that [the Essenes] were a pacifist group, refusing even to manufacture weapons of war, and describes the group in a way that suggests Pythagoreanism: rejection of oaths, rejection of slavery, and rejection of animal sacrifice

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2012/07/06/the-essenes-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

 

[maximara]

None of which means that evidence has not been produced. You are being dishonest when you assert that. I think the character of the NT sources indicate a good probability of the existence of an HJ. You don't, but that doesn't mean I have no evidence.

The problem with that line of argument is it can also apply to the Bermuda Triangle, the idea that all root canals are unsafe, that Earth is being visited by aliens many of them are sexual perverts, and many other questionable things out there. If the evidence is questionable then it is not worth much...if anything at all.

If Jesus was anywhere as successful in spreading his message as the Gospels and Acts claim then why didn;t anybody of his time notice him?

 

[Craig B]

If Jesus was anywhere as successful in spreading his message as the Gospels and Acts claim then why didn;t anybody of his time notice him?

Because he wasn't as successful in spreading his message as the Gospels and Acts claim.

 

[dejudge]

If Jesus was anywhere as successful in spreading his message as the Gospels and Acts claim then why didn;t anybody of his time notice him?

Because he wasn't as successful in spreading his message as the Gospels and Acts claim.

What??

Thank you very much.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery then.

Jesus in the NT did not even want the populace to know he was the Christ and wanted the populace to remain in sin.

In the earliest version of the Jesus story in gMark, the Jesus character did NOT even commission his disciples to preach the Gospels.

The short gMark ends at 16.8.

The Gospels was invented after the supposed Jesus was dead

In the Synoptics Jesus instructed his disciples to tell NO-ONE he was the Christ.

Matthew 16:20 KJV

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

In Acts, it was the Holy Ghost--Not Jesus--that gave the disciples the Power to preach the Gospels.

See Acts 2.

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come , they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting . 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance ..

In the NT, it was Peter and the disciples who first preach the Gospel about Jesus and started the Jesus cult after they were filled with the promised Holy Ghost.

The Gospel is a LATER addition.

Examine the FORGERY called the long gMark.

Mark 16:15 KJV

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

The Gospel about Jesus was first preached AFTER he was dead in the very NT.

 

[Brainache]

...


What??

Thank you very much.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery then.

Jesus in the NT did not even want the populace to know he was the Christ and wanted the populace to remain in sin.

In the earliest version of the Jesus story in gMark, the Jesus character did NOT even commission his disciples to preach the Gospels.

The short gMark ends at 16.8.

The Gospels was invented after the supposed Jesus was dead

In the Synoptics Jesus instructed his disciples to tell NO-ONE he was the Christ.

Matthew 16:20 KJV

In Acts, it was the Holy Ghost--Not Jesus--that gave the disciples the Power to preach the Gospels.

See Acts 2.

In the NT, it was Peter and the disciples who first preach the Gospel about Jesus and started the Jesus cult after they were filled with the promised Holy Ghost.

The Gospel is a LATER addition.

Examine the FORGERY called the long gMark.

Mark 16:15 KJV

It's idiotic nonsense arguments like this which ensure you will never get anyone to agree with the MJ idea.

Keep it up!