Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

The interesting part here is there is a variant of this where Chrestians is Christians and Chrestus is Christ. As you keep saying "evidence has been presented"

You have indeed given evidence, and I will look at it, as I think we have before; but my first observation is the same as Brainache's: "forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus".

Also that Chrestus is not necessarily Christus, and that Serapis is not Osiris, although he is derived from that earlier divinity.

But I will look at it, without describing you as equivalent to the devotees of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the Bermuda Triangle. Nor do I tell you to "Stop the lies" because there is no evidence that you are telling any.

 

[Brainache]

You keep repeating the same fallacies.

1. You keep forgetting that Richard Carrier is an historian.

2. You keep forgetting that Richard Carrier attended a University.

3. You keep forgetting that Richard Carrier argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You keep forgetting that Richard Carrier is not a Professor. He isn't affiliated with any University, and no University in the world is teaching his Theory. He is also only one Historian out of thousands.

So all of those points are irrelevant.

4. Robert Eisenman is an historian .

5. Robert Eisenmsn attended a University.

6. Robert Eisenman has admitted that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ Question.
It should be obvious to you that there is NO evidence from antiquity for an HJ in any UNIVERSTITY.

You think an unanswered question must always be so?

You don't even understand why he said that, or what it means, apparently.

Please, go to your nearest University.

You won't find any evidence for an HJ.

What I will find is an Ancient History course that teaches that Jesus was probably a real Jewish Preacher in the first half of the first century.

I certainly won't find anyone teaching your idiotic "Hoax" nonsense.

All we have from those who attended University are multiple irreconcilable assumed versions of an HJ without any actual supporting evidence.

There may be more versions of an HJ than Universities.

All your arguments demonstrate is a deep ignorance of the study of History.

 

[dejudge]

You keep forgetting that Richard Carrier is not a Professor. He isn't affiliated with any University, and no University in the world is teaching his Theory. He is also only one Historian out of thousands.

Your argument is the very worse that I have encountered. You are not making much sense at all.

Are you a professor?

Are you an historian?

Are you affiliated with a University?

What I will find is an Ancient History course that teaches that Jesus was probably a real Jewish Preacher in the first half of the first century.

Again, your argument is the very worse kind.

You will find that the teachers at Universities do NOT present any actual pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.


Ancient History courses are NOT evidence of an HJ.

You seem to have forgotten that Richard Carrier is an historian who was TAUGHT at a University.

I certainly won't find anyone teaching your idiotic "Hoax" nonsense.

You certainly won't find any evidence for the idiotic HJ nonsense.

You have exposed the Hoax.

People are teaching at University that there was an Historical Jesus and do so WITHOUT Evidence.

That is the precise nature of a Hoax.

The NT and Apologetics of antiquity argued vehemently that the Historical Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Why are people in Universities teaching that Jesus was a human being?

Who told them to say so.

It was NOT Ignatius, Justin, Origen, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Ephraem, Jerome, Hippolytus, Optatus, Chrysostom, the authors gJohn, gLuke, gMatthew, the Pauline writers or Jesus.

All your arguments demonstrate is a deep ignorance of the study of History.

You are not making much sense. You demonstrate you have no idea that historians argue that Jesus was a figure of myth.

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

I also argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You seem to have no idea that typically there are MULTIPLE versions of myth fables about mythological characters.

In antiquity, there were multiple myth fables about the origin and life of Romulus which is very similar to the myth character called Jesus.

Please, go to the nearest bookstore or University with a library and read the about Greek/Roman myths.

There were many, many Greek/Roman myth Gods and Sons of God.

Jesus was ONE of them myth Gods.

May I remind that the Romans in antiquity did argue the Historical Jesus was indeed God and had NO human father.

See the Nicene Creed of the Romans or go to a University.

 

[Brainache]

Your argument is the very worse that I have encountered. You are not making much sense at all.

Are you a professor?

Are you an historian?

Are you affiliated with a University?

I'm not challenging the Consensus, why would I need those qualifications?

You don't have any of those qualifications, but you feel confident in contradicting just about everybody who does.

Why do you do that? You can't imagine that educated people will take your arguments seriously, can you?

Again, your argument is the very worse kind.

You will find that the teachers at Universities do NOT present any actual pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

You don't understand the evidence. I don't know how else to tell you that.

Ancient History courses are NOT evidence of an HJ.

You seem to have forgotten that Richard Carrier is an historian who was TAUGHT at a University.

So what? So is every other Historian in the world who disagrees with him.

You certainly won't find any evidence for the idiotic HJ nonsense.

You have exposed the Hoax.

People are teaching at University that there was an Historical Jesus and do so WITHOUT Evidence.

That is the precise nature of a Hoax.

Now you appear to not even know the definition of "hoax". You really are pulling out all the stops on this one, aren't you?

The NT and Apologetics of antiquity argued vehemently that the Historical Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Why are people in Universities teaching that Jesus was a human being?

Who told them to say so.

It was NOT Ignatius, Justin, Origen, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Ephraem, Jerome, Hippolytus, Optatus, Chrysostom, the authors gJohn, gLuke, gMatthew, the Pauline writers or Jesus.

Why do you think they need permission to use their intelligence?

Where are you from? North Korea?

You are not making much sense. You demonstrate you have no idea that historians argue that Jesus was a figure of myth.

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

I also argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You seem to have no idea that typically there are MULTIPLE versions of myth fables about mythological characters.

In antiquity, there were multiple myth fables about the origin and life of Romulus which is very similar to the myth character called Jesus.

Please, go to the nearest bookstore or University with a library and read the about Greek/Roman myths.

There were many, many Greek/Roman myth Gods and Sons of God.

Jesus was ONE of them myth Gods.

May I remind that the Romans in antiquity did argue the Historical Jesus was indeed God and had NO human father.

See the Nicene Creed of the Romans or go to a University.

Yep, still the stupidest argument in town. They don't come any dumber than that one. You really are doing a great job with this "Mythers are Idiots" schtick.

Bravo!

 

[Craig B]

Serapis is the Greek term for Osiris and a supposed 134 CE letter Hadrian to Servianus documents this:

Serapis is a divinity invented by the Ptolemies, concocted from Osiris and Apis and represented in a Greek fashion. As to the letter; its authenticity has been repeatedly challenged, and I don't know how secure it is.

A letter of Hadrian written from Egypt to his brother-in-law Servianus is quoted at length (and was accepted as genuine by many authorities well into the 20th century).

It is rejected by Enc. Britt. 1911 ed.

Servianus is saluted as consul, and Hadrian mentions his (adopted) son Lucius Aelius Caesar: but Hadrian was in Egypt in 130, Servianus's consulship fell in 134, and Hadrian adopted Aelius in 136. The letter is said to have been published by Hadrian's freedman Phlegon (whose existence is mentioned nowhere except in the HA [Augustan History], in another suspect passage). A passage in the letter dealing with the frivolousness of Egyptian religious beliefs refers to the Patriarch, head of the Jewish community in the Empire. This office only came into being after Hadrian put down the Jewish revolt of 132 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustan_History
Of course, the letter is considered authentic in some quarters, and I don't entirely exclude the possibility that it is genuine.

 

[pakeha]

Breaking News- Ehrman has published another book!
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Read all about it here
http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Bec...R7G_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396085387&sr=1-1

 

[pakeha]

Serapis is the Greek term for Osiris and a supposed 134 CE letter Hadrian to Servianus documents this:

Serapis is a divinity invented by the Ptolemies, concocted from Osiris and Apis and represented in a Greek fashion. As to the letter; its authenticity has been repeatedly challenged, and I don't know how secure it is.

A letter of Hadrian written from Egypt to his brother-in-law Servianus is quoted at length (and was accepted as genuine by many authorities well into the 20th century).

It is rejected by Enc. Britt. 1911 ed.

Servianus is saluted as consul, and Hadrian mentions his (adopted) son Lucius Aelius Caesar: but Hadrian was in Egypt in 130, Servianus's consulship fell in 134, and Hadrian adopted Aelius in 136. The letter is said to have been published by Hadrian's freedman Phlegon (whose existence is mentioned nowhere except in the HA [Augustan History], in another suspect passage). A passage in the letter dealing with the frivolousness of Egyptian religious beliefs refers to the Patriarch, head of the Jewish community in the Empire. This office only came into being after Hadrian put down the Jewish revolt of 132 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustan_History
Of course, the letter is considered authentic in some quarters, and I don't entirely exclude the possibility that it is genuine.

What we can agree on is that synthesised cults presented in a Greek fashion weren't unheard of in the 1st century.

 

[Craig B]

What we can agree on is that synthesised cults presented in a Greek fashion weren't unheard of in the 1st century.

Yes, very true; and the Serapis one is surely the best example.

 

[pakeha]

What we can agree on is that synthesised cults presented in a Greek fashion weren't unheard of in the 1st century.

Yes, very true; and the Serapis one is surely the best example.

Well, one of the very best, anyway.
With or without an HJ, it seems to me the Christian cult has to rate up there with the Serapis cult.
And Roman Isis, of course.

 

[Craig B]

Well, one of the very best, anyway.
With or without an HJ, it seems to me the Christian cult has to rate up there with the Serapis cult.
And Roman Isis, of course.

These were more spontaneous, I mean. Serapis was in origin a political initiative intended to create an object of worship that could attract both Greeks and native Egyptians.

 

[pakeha]

I see your point, Craig B.

The spiritual landscape of the 1st century is peculiar even in these post New Age, Rapture-ridden times.
Of course he's not everyone's favourite author, but Carrier's article hasn't been bettered, AFAIK
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

If anyone knows of a better article on the subject, please post up a link to it.

ETA
A little sample of Ehrman's latest thoughts:

Was Jesus divine? Publisher hedges bets with Bart Ehrman’s new book

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus, believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood. “Before that,” Ehrman said, “I couldn’t figure Paul out"

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/25/ ... -new-book/

 

[Craig B]

A little sample of Ehrman's latest thoughts:
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/25/ ... -new-book/

The observation below doesn't quite make sense. Look at bolded words.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus, believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood. “Before that,” Ehrman said, “I couldn’t figure Paul out.”

Does Ehrman now believe that angels are divine? I must see Ehrman's exact words here, because that can't be what he really meant.

Did Paul believe Jesus was, divine > human? Or angel > human > god? One or the other, surely. And I'd like to see Ehrman's exegesis in these terms of Romans 1

3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

This looks like: Human Son of God > resurrection > Supernatural heavenly Son of God. If you get any further information on how Ehrman fits all this together I would be grateful for it. All the more would I be grateful for evidence of Markan belief in the pre-existing divinity of Jesus.

That Paul believed Jesus was a humanised angel seems possible enough. It would account for the resurrection and the post resurrection appearances which Paul relates; but I still would like to see more.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not challenging the Consensus, why would I need those qualifications?

You don't have any of those qualifications, but you feel confident in contradicting just about everybody who does.

Why do you do that? You can't imagine that educated people will take your arguments seriously, can you?

You admit that you have NONE of the qualifications that you ask of others.

I will let you answer yourself...."Yep, still the stupidest argument in town. They don't come any dumber than that one..


Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, who attended a University admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Richard Carrier, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, who attended a University argues that Jesus was a figure of Mythology.


There is NO consensus by Historians and Scholars and they have NOT conceded that there was an HJ.

At HAVARD UNIVERSITY it is TAUGHT that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ from the 18th-21st century.

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/academic...sNumber=1277&section=01&term=SPRING&year=2016

Course HDS 1277 ----Historical Jesus

The course will introduce the students to the history of the quest for the historical Jesus by examining the most relevant methodological issues and by reviewing the ideological and socio-political stakes in this enterprise that has been intertwined to the cultural history of the western world from the XVIII to the XXI century.

Please, please, please, I beg of you, just go and enroll in the Historical Jesus Course at Harvard University because it is evident that you do NOT know the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th -21st century.

Examine a Lecture at HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html

Ths Historical Jesus"
A lecture by L. Michael White
May 30, 1998, Harvard University

No one is any longer in the position to write a life of Jesus. This is the scarcely questioned and scarcely surprising result today [in 1954] of an inquiry which for almost 200 years has devoted prodigious and by no means fruitless effort to regain and expound the life of the historical Jesus, freed from all embellishments by dogma and doctrine.

At the end of this research on the life of Jesus stands the recognition of its own failure.

These are the opening lines of Gunther Bornkamm's 1956 book, Jesus of Nazareth.

Please, please, please, you need to go to Harvard University without delay.

It is TRUE--"No one is any longer in the position to write a life of Jesus. .........At the end of this research on the life of Jesus stands the recognition of its own failure".

 

[Brainache]

You admit that you have NONE of the qualifications that you ask of others.

I will let you answer yourself...."Yep, still the stupidest argument in town. They don't come any dumber than that one..


Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, who attended a University admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Richard Carrier, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, who attended a University argues that Jesus was a figure of Mythology.


There is NO consensus by Historians and Scholars and they have NOT conceded that there was an HJ.

At HAVARD UNIVERSITY it is TAUGHT that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ from the 18th-21st century.

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/academic...sNumber=1277&section=01&term=SPRING&year=2016

Course HDS 1277 ----Historical Jesus



Please, please, please, I beg of you, just go and enroll in the Historical Jesus Course at Harvard University because it is evident that you do NOT know the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th -21st century.

Examine a Lecture at HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html

Ths Historical Jesus"
A lecture by L. Michael White
May 30, 1998, Harvard University





Please, please, please, you need to go to Harvard University without delay.

It is TRUE--"No one is any longer in the position to write a life of Jesus. .........At the end of this research on the life of Jesus stands the recognition of its own failure".

1956?

Well it's a bit more recent than Max's stuff from 1913 I suppose...

Maybe you should go do that course dejudge, I don't think they teach what you think.

Here's one part of a course from Yale that you can do online:


13. The Historical Jesus

 

[dejudge]

1956?

Well it's a bit more recent than Max's stuff from 1913 I suppose...

Maybe you should go do that course dejudge, I don't think they teach what you think.

Here's one part of a course from Yale that you can do online:


13. The Historical Jesus

Your fallacies have been exposed.

You need to enroll in the Historical Jesus Course at Harvard University.

It is going to start in the SPRING of 2016.

You obviously have very little knowledge of what is being Taught at Harvard.

You lack the very qualifications that you demand of others.

Now, you seem not to realize the LECTURE at Harvard University by L Michael White was conducted in MAY 1998.

1. We know that UP to 1956 there was NO known evidence for the Life of an Historical Jesus.

2. We know that up to 1956 there was NO Consensus for the Life of Jesus.

3. We know that there is a THIRD Quest for an HJ.

The THIRD Quest for an HJ was ALREADY expected to Fail.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html

When Bornkamm was talking this way in the middle of this century, his was what was then called the "new quest for the historical Jesus." We're now, by the way, in what's now called the "third quest for the historical Jesus."

There will be a fourth, I can assure you, somewhere along the way.

Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, has corroborated L Michael White and ADMITTED NO-one has solved the HJ Question.

There was NEVER any Consensus in any century for an HJ to to the present 21st century.

 

[Brainache]

Your fallacies have been exposed.

You need to enroll in the Historical Jesus Course at Harvard University.

It is going to start in the SPRING of 2016.

You obviously have very little knowledge of what is being Taught at Harvard.

You lack the very qualifications that you demand of others.

Now, you seem not to realize the LECTURE at Harvard University by L Michael White was conducted in MAY 1998.

1. We know that UP to 1956 there was NO known evidence for the Life of an Historical Jesus.

2. W

W?

Really?

I don't demand anything, you must have me confused with someone else...

I'm not the one challenging the HJ Consensus, that's you.

If you want the Scholars to take you seriously, you really are going to have to produce better arguments than you have so far.

Or, you could keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

 

[Brainache]

Your fallacies have been exposed.

You need to enroll in the Historical Jesus Course at Harvard University.

It is going to start in the SPRING of 2016.

You obviously have very little knowledge of what is being Taught at Harvard.

You lack the very qualifications that you demand of others.

Now, you seem not to realize the LECTURE at Harvard University by L Michael White was conducted in MAY 1998.

1. We know that UP to 1956 there was NO known evidence for the Life of an Historical Jesus.

2. We know that up to 1956 there was NO Consensus for the Life of Jesus.

3. We know that there is a THIRD Quest for an HJ.

The THIRD Quest for an HJ was ALREADY expected to Fail.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html




Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, has corroborated L Michael White and ADMITTED NO-one has solved the HJ Question.

There was NEVER any Consensus in any century for an HJ to to the present 21st century.

You edited your post after I replied.

Oh I see it is more of the same ignorance of the way History is studied.

Carry on, if you must, but it is only convincing more and more people of the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not the one challenging the HJ Consensus, that's you.

You don't know that there is an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ. You need to enroll at Harvard and do a Course with the History of the Quest for an HJ.

If you want the Scholars to take you seriously, you really are going to have to produce better arguments than you have so far.

You have no idea that there are Scholars who argue that Jesus was a resurrected being.

Robert Van Voorst, Ratzinger, William Craig and hundreds of Christians Scholars do NOT take you seriously.

Some Scholars worship the Historical Jesus as a resurrected being and pray to him for their Salvation.

 

[dejudge]

You edited your post after I replied.

Oh I see it is more of the same ignorance of the way History is studied.

Carry on, if you must, but it is only convincing more and more people of the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

It should be obvious that parts of my post was somehow deleted or removed after I posted it.

Your claim of a Consensus has been utterly exposed as a fallacy.

We are NOW in a THIRD Quest for an HJ after it was found that NO-ONE is in a position to write of the Life of Jesus since 1956.

It is confirmed by Robert Eisenman, a Qualified Historian, that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

 

[Brainache]

It should be obvious that parts of my post was somehow deleted or removed after I posted it.

Your claim of a Consensus has been utterly exposed as a fallacy.

We are NOW in a THIRD Quest for an HJ after it was found that NO-ONE is in a position to write of the Life of Jesus since 1956.

It is confirmed by Robert Eisenman, a Qualified Historian, that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

No. You edited after I posted. Doesn't matter.

It has been explained to you before, many times, what a "Consensus" is. One or two guys with different ideas does not change anything.

So now we have to "Write a life of Jesus" do we? Where did that requirement come from? When did that little goal-post shift happen?

All I or anyone on the HJ side in this debate has ever claimed is that there most probably was a Jewish Preacher upon whom the Jesus of the Gospels was based. He wasn't some traditional Celestial Being who never walked on the Earth like Carrier asserts, he was a flesh and blood human being. And that is what the Consensus of Historians says as well.

If you want a more detailed biography of Jesus than that, you just have to speculate and others will let you know how plausible they think it is.

All of this ranting online achieves absolutely nothing for your anti-Theist cause. All you are doing is making MJ people look stupid. If that was your intent, then you have truly excelled yourself.