Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

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

But we'll all roast in Hell because we're liars!

 

[pakeha]

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

The book's being discussed here, if you want to know more about the Angel of the Lord. Apparently the book's available on Kindle, too.

 

[dejudge]

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

Your statement is false.

You don't seem to know the difference between Consensus and Majority.

You don't know the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th to 21st century

Harvard University is offering Courses on the History of the Quest for HJ.

Please, get enrolled.

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?

You have confirmed that you are not familiar with the On-Going Quest for an HJ.

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.

Your claim is false and contradictory. Historians have NOT conceded that there was an HJ.

Richard Carrier a Qualified Historian argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED Historian, admits NO-ONE has ever solved the HJ question.

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.

Your Belief without evidence is nothing more than blind faith.

Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

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.

Your statement is false. You are anti-Theist. You claim the NT contains Lies or crazy fiction stories and reject the birth narratives, the resurrection of Jesus and the God of Christians.

All you are doing is ranting fallacies about a Consensus.

I have merely exposed your fallacies.

You don't know the facts.

1. Historians have NEVER conceded that there was an HJ.

2. Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, William Craig and other Scholars argue that HJ was a resurrected being--[a Myth character]

3. There has been an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ since the 18th century.

4. No pre 70 CE evidence has been found for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is false.

You don't seem to know the difference between Consensus and Majority.

You don't know the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th to 21st century

Harvard University is offering Courses on the History of the Quest for HJ.

Please, get enrolled.



You have confirmed that you are not familiar with the On-Going Quest for an HJ.



Your claim is false and contradictory. Historians have NOT conceded that there was an HJ.

Richard Carrier a Qualified Historian argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Eisenman, a QUALIFIED Historian, admits NO-ONE has ever solved the HJ question.



Your Belief without evidence is nothing more than blind faith.

Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.



Your statement is false. You are anti-Theist. You claim the NT contains Lies or crazy fiction stories and reject the birth narratives, the resurrection of Jesus and the God of Christians.

All you are doing is ranting fallacies about a Consensus.

I have merely exposed your fallacies.

You don't know the facts.

1. Historians have NEVER conceded that there was an HJ.

2. Scholars argue that HJ was a resurrected being--[a Myth character]

3. There has been an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ since the 18th century.

4. No pre 70 CE evidence has been found for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

On what planet does empty rhetoric like this win Academic debates?

If your ideas have merit, all you have to do is publish something that convinces Historians to change their minds.

That hasn't happened.

If you can't do that, ranting and raving in this Forum won't help your cause.


ETA: And when I say "Publish", I don't necessarily mean a hardback book or Peer-Reviewed Journal, people are "publishing" stuff on the web these days; blogs and things technically count as "Publications", so if you can get enough Historians to read your blog and change their minds on this subject, you are on your way. Hop to it dejudge, time's a-wastin'...

 

[dejudge]

On what planet does empty rhetoric like this win Academic debates?

Your post is empty rhetoric.

You have not presented any evidence pre 70 CE for your claims about your HJ and cannot present any evidence that Historians have conceded that there was an HJ.

You don't know the history of the Quest for an HJ.

If your ideas have merit, all you have to do is publish something that convinces Historians to change their minds.

What about your claims? Why don't you publish them? Why don't you try to change the minds of Historians and Scholars like Robert Eisenman, Richard Carrier, Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, and William Lane Craig.

Ratzinger, a Scholar, argues that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead.

Fundamentalist Christian Scholars argue that the Historical Jesus was as described in the NT--the resurrected son of God.

It is simply not true that Historians have conceded that there was an HJ.

 

[Brainache]

Your post is empty rhetoric.

You have not presented any evidence pre 70 CE for your claims about your HJ and cannot present any evidence that Historians have conceded that there was an HJ.

You don't know the history of the Quest for an HJ.



What about your claims? Why don't you publish them? Why don't you try to change the minds of Historians and Scholars like Robert Eisenman, Richard Carrier, Ratzinger, Robert Van Voorst, and William Lane Craig.

Ratzinger, a Scholar, argues that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead.

Fundamentalist Christian Scholars argue that the Historical Jesus was as described in the NT--the resurrected son of God.

It is simply not true that Historians have conceded that there was an HJ.

You keep saying these things as if you believe them to be true, but you actually know that they are not true. Is there a word for that?

If the overwhelming majority of Historians have not decided that there was most probably a HJ, where are all of the Historians teaching about the MJ?

It shouldn't be hard to find examples of such a controversial Teacher working in Mainstream Academia...

Remember Richard Carrier doesn't teach at University, so find me a Myth Jesus History Professor dejudge. Where are they all?

Or, is it just Richard Carrier all alone with his big book still not published?

Once again: One or two dissenters does not mean there is no Consensus. Your objections are ludicrous.

Publish and change minds, or don't. The choice is yours. Continuing to insult me and my intelligence with this drivel isn't going to get you anywhere.

Keep it up!

 

[Craig B]

Ratzinger, a Scholar, argues that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead.

Hey, I argue for a historical Jesus too. That must mean I believe in a historical resurrected son of God. Well I didn't know I believed that, so thanks for telling me. Also I didn't realise I was a retired pope. I'd better go to the Vatican pensions office and register!

 

[dejudge]

You keep saying these things as if you believe them to be true, but you actually know that they are not true. Is there a word for that?

You keep saying there is a Consensus for an HJ when it is not so. There is a word for that.

Remember Richard Carrier doesn't teach at University, so find me a Myth Jesus History Professor dejudge. Where are they all?

Your argument is a failure of logic. It is absurd to suggest that a QUALIFIED Historian should teach at a University in order to argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Once again: One or two dissenters does not mean there is no Consensus. Your objections are ludicrous.

You cannot name any Historians or Scholars who have evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ.

You don't even remember that there are hundreds of evangelicals and fundamentalists Christian Scholars who argue that the Historical Jesus was really a resurrected Son of God.

You don't remember that Bible Believers initiated the On-Going QUEST for an HJ.

You don't remember that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question according to Robert Eisenman.

You don't remember that this is the THIRD Quest for an HJ.

Publish and change minds, or don't. The choice is yours. Continuing to insult me and my intelligence with this drivel isn't going to get you anywhere.

Keep it up!

I am exposing your fallacies. Virtually all your claims about HJ and Historians have been found to be un-evidenced and baseless.

1. Historians have NEVER conceded that there was an HJ.

2. You have NO pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

Hey, I argue for a historical Jesus too. That must mean I believe in a historical resurrected son of God. Well I didn't know I believed that, so thanks for telling me. Also I didn't realise I was a retired pope. I'd better go to the Vatican pensions office and register!

Your statement does not logically follow.

It is virtually impossible for you to argue for an HJ without a shred of actual evidence pre 70 CE and while you simultaneously discredit your 2nd century or later sources.

You believe your Jesus existed--that's all.

You ought to know that the Pope also believe their Jesus the resurrected Son of God existed without a shred of actual pre 70 CE evidence.

You and the Pope BELIEVE the Bible is an historical source for an HJ.

 

[Venom]

Hey, I argue for a historical Jesus too. That must mean I believe in a historical resurrected son of God. Well I didn't know I believed that, so thanks for telling me. Also I didn't realise I was a retired pope. I'd better go to the Vatican pensions office and register!

Well a lack of faith definitely won't be an obstacle for you

 

[dejudge]

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.

There is no actual evidence for a Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

Hadrian was emperor c 117-138 CE.

Hadrian's letter supports 2nd century Christian cults if it is historically credible.

It is simply naïve to believe that only persons who believe the Jesus story were called Christians.

Please, get familiar with writings AGAINST the so-called Heretics.

According to Justin Martyr even those he considered ATHEISTS and Blasphemers were being called Christians in antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

You ought to know that the Pope also believe their Jesus the resurrected Son of God existed without a shred of actual pre 70 CE evidence.

You and the Pope BELIEVE the Bible is an historical source for an HJ.

Me, the Pope, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Yes indeed.

 

[Craig B]

You keep saying there is a Consensus for an HJ when it is not so. There is a word for that.

Which you have used dozens of times. Why are you going all coy now?

 

[Brainache]

You keep saying there is a Consensus for an HJ when it is not so. There is a word for that.



Your argument is a failure of logic. It is absurd to suggest that a QUALIFIED Historian should teach at a University in order to argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

That isn't what I said. I asked you to find me one who does. None of the History Professors who do teach at University teach MJ. Why not?

Anybody can argue for MJ if they like, but no one has made a convincing case for him yet. If they had made a convincing case, they would have convinced someone qualified.

You cannot name any Historians or Scholars who have evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ.

That would be an indication that you have no idea how Historians reach conclusions. It isn't my problem.

You don't even remember that there are hundreds of evangelicals and fundamentalists Christian Scholars who argue that the Historical Jesus was really a resurrected Son of God.

I do remember. I also remember that it is irrelevant to any Historical argument.

What makes you think this is a good argument? I'm curious.

You don't remember that Bible Believers initiated the On-Going QUEST for an HJ.

You don't remember that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question according to Robert Eisenman.

You don't remember that this is the THIRD Quest for an HJ.

Again, this is totally irrelevant nonsense.

I am exposing your fallacies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's a good one.

Virtually all your claims about HJ and Historians have been found to be un-evidenced and baseless.

1. Historians have NEVER conceded that there was an HJ.

2. You have NO pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

Please educate yourself, that isn't my job.

 

[dejudge]

That isn't what I said. I asked you to find me one who does. None of the History Professors who do teach at University teach MJ. Why not?

If that is what you said it still does not make much sense. Your statement may even be false.

The quantity of History Professors is NOT evidence of an HJ.

Please, name all the History Professors in the world who teach at University or the source which supports your claim.

Typically, your claims about Historians are repeatedly erroneous and without supporting evidence.

Where do you get your stories? Which books? Who are the authors?

Anybody can argue for MJ if they like, but no one has made a convincing case for him yet. If they had made a convincing case, they would have convinced someone qualified.

Your statement is false.

Richard Carrier a qualified Historian argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.


Richard Carrier a qualified Historian claims Earl Doherty's arguments for MJ are convincing.

Why is your memory so bad?

 

[Craig B]

Please, name all the History Professors in the world who teach at University or the source which supports your claim.

You do make some strange requests!

 

[pakeha]

There is no actual evidence for a Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

I'll disagree with you there, dejudge.
Pompeii seems to have had some anti-Christian graffiti scribbled on a brothel's wall.


There's a transcript for those with delicate sensibilities, thank TFSM.

Please, get familiar with writings AGAINST the so-called Heretics.

A great idea, but at the end of the day, these writings are too late to have much bearing on the subject, aren't they?
They're all of them writing after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Roman army and the destruction of the Roman records by fire.
How valuable do you think those counter-heretic sources are?

 

[Belz...]

You keep saying there is a Consensus for an HJ when it is not so. There is a word for that.

Your argument is a failure of logic.

You cannot name any Historians or Scholars who have evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ.

You don't even remember that there are hundreds of evangelicals and fundamentalists Christian Scholars who argue that the Historical Jesus was really a resurrected Son of God.

You don't remember that Bible Believers initiated the On-Going QUEST for an HJ.

You don't remember that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question according to Robert Eisenman.

You don't remember that this is the THIRD Quest for an HJ.

I am exposing your fallacies.

Your post is void of content.

 

[Aepervius]

I'll disagree with you there, dejudge.
Pompeii seems to have had some anti-Christian graffiti scribbled on a brothel's wall.


There's a transcript for those with delicate sensibilities, thank TFSM.




A great idea, but at the end of the day, these writings are too late to have much bearing on the subject, aren't they?
They're all of them writing after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Roman army and the destruction of the Roman records by fire.
How valuable do you think those counter-heretic sources are?

1) The graffiti is not supposed to have been made earlier than 70AD. Therefore what de judge is correct at elast vis a vis this graffiti.
ETA: in fact there are dispute on whether or not it was not made much later. ETA : 3rd century

2) the graffiti itself only indicate that *some* people worshiped somebody crucified, "alexamenos worship his god". Thus it indicates that some people worshiped a crucified guy, but we already knew that.

it is still not a direct evidence of a christ.


And frankly if there had been a direct evidence of christ that debate would have long been closed.

The problem is that we have at best only evidence of Christian, which worshiped some guy which was crucified and then resurrected. We have no independent evidence of that guy existence.

Now if you ask me the whole thread made me think there is a slightly higher chance a guy jesus existed, than i had before, 70% HJ / 30% MJ, but from all what has been gathered here, there really not enough to say HJ is the 95+% null. It is still way too indirect , inferred, textually analyzed.

I see the MJ position as weak, but not invalid, and I see the HJ position as strong but not "proved".

 

[pakeha]

1) The graffiti is not supposed to have been made earlier than 70AD. Therefore what de judge is correct at elast vis a vis this graffiti.
ETA: in fact there are dispute on whether or not it was not made much later. ETA : 3rd century

2) the graffiti itself only indicate that *some* people worshiped somebody crucified, "alexamenos worship his god". Thus it indicates that some people worshiped a crucified guy, but we already knew that.

it is still not a direct evidence of a christ.
ETA: in fact there are dispute on whether or not it was not made much lait is still not a direct evidence of a christ. ...

Sorry, you've confused the Pompeii graffito with the Alexamenos graffito^WP.

I quite agree the graffito Pompeii graffito isn't evidence of an HJ. Dejudge claims there's no evidence of a Christian cult before 70 and to amuse myself, I brought up one of the few bits of evidence there actually existed such a cult in the 1st century- a graffito scribbled on a brothel's wall, preserved by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79.

It's about all we have, as far as I know.