Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

So when Tacitus tells us that a Christ was put to death by Pilate, and this gave rise to a superstition (whether this Christ was real or imaginary), then there is no reason to suppose that this is the Christ of the Gospels (whether that Christ was real or imaginary)? That is an absurdity and I will expose your diatribe!

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does NOT mention Jesus and does not even claim any one was crucified.

It is just absurd to assume that the word CHRIST can only refer to a character who may not even have existed.

You have confirmed that you are SPECULATING.

It is ABSURD to speculate when you have NO evidence.

Your supposition is worthless.

 

[Brainache]

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does NOT mention Jesus and does not even claim any one was crucified.

It is just absurd to assume that the word CHRIST can only refer to a character who may not even have existed.

You have confirmed that you are SPECULATING.

It is ABSURD to speculate when you have NO evidence.

Your supposition is worthless.

I'm serious: Who on earth do you think would find this kind of empty posturing to be a convincing argument?

 

[dejudge]

Why do you think Carrier knows more than thousands of Historians combined?

Your claim is fallacious--a failure of facts.

Please, name ONE Historian who can provide ACTUAL pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

Harvard University teaches that there most probably was a HJ, just like all the other secular Universities.

You have NO idea what is TAUGHT at Universities. They teach the History of the On-Going Quest for an HJ from the 18th century.

You seem to have NO idea that there are CHAPELS at UNIVERSITIES where Christian Scholars worship Jesus as the Son of God and a resurrected being.

You should have a talk with a Chaplain at Harvard may be he will pray to the resurrected Jesus if he is a Christian Scholar.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim is fallacious--a failure of facts.

Please, name ONE Historian who can provide ACTUAL pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.





You have NO idea what is TAUGHT at Universities. They teach the History of the On-Going Quest for an HJ from the 18th century.

You seem to have NO idea that there are CHAPELS at UNIVERSITIES where Christian Scholars worship Jesus as the Son of God and a resurrected being.

You should have a talk with a Chaplain at Harvard may be he will pray to the resurrected Jesus if he is a Christian Scholar.

Why do you keep lying?

What do you think it says about your position that you need to lie to support it?

Historians are not Priests.

Please learn the difference between Religious faith and Historical education.

It might save you embarrassment in the future, but I'm not promising anything...

 

[proudfootz]

I've never understood why HJ proponents try to make that argument fly.

I think it's because the evidence for Jesus is so thin, they like to try and have Jesus ride along on the coat tails of some real historical figure.

 

[Brainache]

I think it's because the evidence for Jesus is so thin, they like to try and have Jesus ride along on the coat tails of some real historical figure.

OK then give us all the evidence for other 1st century Jewish holy men...

How much writing do we have for them, compared to Jesus?

One or two lines somewhere, or books full of sayings etc?

How much evidence do you expect for such a character?

 

[proudfootz]

I've never understood why HJ proponents try to make that argument fly.

OK then give us all the evidence for other 1st century Jewish holy men...

How much writing do we have for them, compared to Jesus?

One or two lines somewhere, or books full of sayings etc?

How much evidence do you expect for such a character?

No need to expect much for any obscure character.

The problem is whether the evidence we have is adequate.

I have no problem with the hypothesis that such a person may have existed.

I do have a problem with fanatics who claim such a person 'certainly' existed and that to doubt their existence is some sort of heresy.

Apologists who argue 'no Jesus, no Caesar' are simply making poor arguments.

 

[dejudge]

Why do you keep lying?

What do you think it says about your position that you need to lie to support it?

Historians are not Priests.

What lies!!!

I never claimed Historians were Priests.

I SPECIFICALLY stated that Joseph Ratzinger the former Bishop of Rome is a Christian Scholar who preached that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God and was RAISED from the Dead.

There may be thousands of Christians Scholars, some are Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, who worship Jesus as the Son of God and pray that he will forgive their Sins and give them eternal life.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, preached at the Reformed Church of America that Jesus was God's Son who was RAISED from the dead.

Please learn the difference between Religious faith and Historical education.

You need to get enrolled at Harvard to learn the History of the ON-GOING Quest for HJ from since the 18th-21st century.

You seem to have NO idea that Christians Scholars who attended Universities and Colleges argue that their HJ was RAISED from the dead.

It might save you embarrassment in the future, but I'm not promising anything...

You put forward a most absurd proposition that there was probably an HJ because it is TAUGHT at Universities.

What a ridiculous idea!!

You don't seem to understand that the argument for an HJ requires EVIDENCE from antiquity--Not Universities.

Not even Ehrman used such a ridiculous argument and his arguments are considered the worst of worst arguments for an HJ [ a failure of logics].

The vast amount of manuscripts that have been recovered do state that Jesus was BORN of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology--far more mythier than Romulus--the myth founder of Rome.

The Entire NT is a compilation of Jewish, Greek/Roman mythological fables about the God of the Jews, Jesus the Son of God, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost which were fabricated no early than the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

OK then give us all the evidence for other 1st century Jewish holy men...

How much writing do we have for them, compared to Jesus?

One or two lines somewhere, or books full of sayings etc?

How much evidence do you expect for such a character?

The hundreds of manuscripts of the Jesus stories that have been found do NOT support an Historical Jesus.

In the EXISTING NT manuscripts Jesus is a MYTH--the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and BORN of a Ghost.

In fact, there is NO existing manuscripts of the Jesus story from the 1st century and none pre 70 CE.

If Jesus of Nazareth did NOT EXIST pre 70 CE then there would be NO evidence of his existence.

That is PRECISELY what has happened.

The argument that there was NEVER EVER any historical Jesus is ALWAYS valid once there is NO known evidence from antiquity for an HJ.

Based on Phil2112, the HJ argument is based on PISS POOR evidence.
It is TRUE--the HJ argument is PISS POOR.

 

[Brainache]

What lies!!!

I never claimed Historians were Priests.

I SPECIFICALLY stated that Joseph Ratzinger the former Bishop of Rome is a Christian Scholar who preached that the Historical Jesus was the Son of God and was RAISED from the Dead.

There may be thousands of Christians Scholars, some are Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, who worship Jesus as the Son of God and pray that he will forgive their Sins and give them eternal life.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, preached at the Reformed Church of America that Jesus was God's Son who was RAISED from the dead.





You need to get enrolled at Harvard to learn the History of the ON-GOING Quest for HJ from since the 18th-21st century.

You seem to have NO idea that Christians Scholars who attended Universities and Colleges argue that their HJ was RAISED from the dead.




You put forward a most absurd proposition that there was probably an HJ because it is TAUGHT at Universities.

What a ridiculous idea!!

You don't seem to understand that the argument for an HJ requires EVIDENCE from antiquity--Not Universities.

Not even Ehrman used such a ridiculous argument and his arguments are considered the worst of worst arguments for an HJ [ a failure of logics].

The vast amount of manuscripts that have been recovered do state that Jesus was BORN of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology--far more mythier than Romulus--the myth founder of Rome.

The Entire NT is a compilation of Jewish, Greek/Roman mythological fables about the God of the Jews, Jesus the Son of God, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost which were fabricated no early than the 2nd century or later.

The hundreds of manuscripts of the Jesus stories that have been found do NOT support an Historical Jesus.

In the EXISTING NT manuscripts Jesus is a MYTH--the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and BORN of a Ghost.

In fact, there is NO existing manuscripts of the Jesus story from the 1st century and none pre 70 CE.

If Jesus of Nazareth did NOT EXIST pre 70 CE then there would be NO evidence of his existence.

That is PRECISELY what has happened.

The argument that there was NEVER EVER any historical Jesus is ALWAYS valid once there is NO known evidence from antiquity for an HJ.

Based on Phil2112, the HJ argument is based on PISS POOR evidence.
It is TRUE--the HJ argument is PISS POOR.

So, as you can see Mr Proudfootz, the HJ theory is in very little danger of being overturned while ever arguments like these are all the MJ side has got.

Well done again dejudge.

Keep it up.

 

[Stone]

I'm wondering who you think this kind of stupid, vacuous posturing will convince.

Is this the kind of thing you find persuasive?

Actually, Dejudge's writings as Dejuror have convinced virtually all the posters on the huge RatSkep thread. They view him as one of _the_ pace-setters today. He's taken as seriously as, if not more seriously than, most of the other posters there. That's how far the perspective there has now tilted toward mythicism galloping away.

That's a fact.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Why do you think Carrier knows more than thousands of Historians combined?

Carrier was one of the founders of Atheism+. The man is an Ideologue, I'm not a fan of him.

Do you have any references from someone else?

Harvard University teaches that there most probably was a HJ, just like all the other secular Universities.

Why do you think otherwise?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that the type of arguments you use would convince anyone on a skeptic's forum like this.

The thing is, these arguments are already in the mainstream, on a place like RatSkep. It shows that this ignorance of how history is done is too widespread to be checked by now. If even skeptics, who should know better, are now attracted to this Kool-aid, there may now be no way out for a whole generation who will soon swallow this myther woo. We'll have to wait for some next generation who's into more rebellion and who will start seeing the pathetic contradictions in mytherism. Until then, real historians will be in the *^%%^$^#house. There's just too much confirmation bias in the current generation of so-called "skeptics", and the book-burning mentality of mytherism may not be finally perceived until entire history departments and libraries are really under siege from mythers in the same way that schools are now under siege from creationists. Of course, by then, it will be too late, and with the inevitable downsizing of the blatant woo associated with all the religions that will then be dying off, what will be left will be a race of zombies whose swallowing of the myther Kool-Aid will be as pathetic as any previous generation of prayer-bead mumblers.

Stone

 

[proudfootz]

Actually, Dejudge's writings as Dejuror have convinced virtually all the posters on the huge RatSkep thread. They view him as one of _the_ pace-setters today. He's taken as seriously as, if not more seriously than, most of the other posters there. That's how far the perspective there has now tilted toward mythicism galloping away.

That's a fact.

Stone

dejudge exhibits a great familiarity with the literature under discussion. These posts are always worth serious study.

It's rather too bad the traditionalists are being left behind in the dust. But that is what happens when human knowledge advances and some are unable or unwilling to keep up!

 

[proudfootz]

So, as you can see Mr Proudfootz, the HJ theory is in very little danger of being overturned while ever arguments like these are all the MJ side has got.

Well done again dejudge.

Keep it up.

The only person claiming dejudge's arguments represent the whole variegated field of research into the origins of christianity is you.

But do keep up the constant strawmanning - if that's all you've got to offer.

Cheers!

proudfootz

 

[proudfootz]

The thing is, these arguments are already in the mainstream, on a place like RatSkep. It shows that this ignorance of how history is done is too widespread to be checked by now. If even skeptics, who should know better, are now attracted to this Kool-aid, there may now be no way out for a whole generation who will soon swallow this myther woo. We'll have to wait for some next generation who's into more rebellion and who will start seeing the pathetic contradictions in mytherism. Until then, real historians will be in the *^%%^$^#house. There's just too much confirmation bias in the current generation of so-called "skeptics", and the book-burning mentality of mytherism may not be finally perceived until entire history departments and libraries are really under siege from mythers in the same way that schools are now under siege from creationists. Of course, by then, it will be too late, and with the inevitable downsizing of the blatant woo associated with all the religions that will then be dying off, what will be left will be a race of zombies whose swallowing of the myther Kool-Aid will be as pathetic as any previous generation of prayer-bead mumblers.

Stone

The rant above seems to be indicative of the 'copping an attitude' prevalent among the rear guard of the HJ stalwarts.

Carrier is a book burner? Really?

Schools are under siege? How awful? How many casualties thus far?

The only people being attacked and injured seem to be scholars who dare even hint that Jesus might not be 'real' enough.

 

[dejudge]

We know the history of the Quest for an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ was initiated in the 18th century because Jesus in the NT is a Myth--a Jesus of Faith--the Son of God born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

It was BIBLE BELIEVERS who started LOOKING for an HJ over 250 years ago.

They NEVER EVER found any evidence in antiquity outside Apologetics and the Bible.

The HJ argument is AGAINST the Bible.

The very fact there there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ is PROOF that there was NEVER EVER any established evidence for an HJ at anytime in the history of mankind.

The HJ argument is really a waste of time because it is already known that there is NO actual existing pre 70 CE Evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The history of the Quest for an HJ has exposed that the HJ argument is an on-going failure after at least 250 years with NOT a shred of evidence pre 70 CE.

Every single author of the NT is Fake and every single writing is a compilation of fiction and implausibility.

The HJ argument is PISS POOR.

 

[dejudge]

But Ehrman never said the evidence was "as sure" as the reality of the Holocaust. This is what he wrote in the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that [there are people who think that] the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization... Jesus never even existed?​

A charitible reading would be: In a society where people deny things with undeniable evidence for them (e.g. the Holocaust), is it any surprise to learn that there are people who deny the existence of Jesus?

In other words, Ehrman was not equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus, but saying the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger, thus no surprise that there are people who disbelieve other things.

Why are you "redacting" what Ehrman said?

In the passage you quoted Ehrman did NOT say that the evidence for the Holocast was stronger---You made it up.

Ehrman is not credible he poses as an historian when he is not while he questions and ridicules others about their qualifications.

Ehrman has NO evidence from antiquity that there was a Jesus of Nazareth and that he was the greatest figure unless he is NOT aware of the God of the Jews.

The God of the Jews is the greatest figure in the Western World.

Jesus, if he did exist, was the world greatest Idiot and his story was propagated by Illiterates, Liars and Wizards.

If Jesus was a man then it was awfully stupid of him to claim he was the Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin. He got his butt kicked and then crucified--He would NEVER resurrect in three days.

His disciples knew he was a LIAR and an Idiot within 72 hours.

 

[proudfootz]

Why are you "redacting" what Ehrman said?

In the passage you quoted Ehrman did NOT say that the evidence for the Holocast was stronger---You made it up.

Ehrman is not credible he poses as an historian when he is not while he questions and ridicules others about their qualifications.

Ehrman has NO evidence from antiquity that there was a Jesus of Nazareth and that he was the greatest figure unless he is NOT aware of the God of the Jews.

The God of the Jews is the greatest figure in the Western World.

Jesus, if he did exist, was the world greatest Idiot and his story was propagated by Illiterates, Liars and Wizards.

If Jesus was a man then it was awfully stupid of him to claim he was the Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin. He got his butt kicked and then crucified--He would NEVER resurrect in three days.

His disciples knew he was a LIAR and an Idiot within 72 hours.

Here's how Ehrman puts it in the intro to his book Did Jesus Exist?

Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find convincing - whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth - will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

Naturally, since most people are convinced there is a god, atheists are also like Holocaust deniers and people of that ilk. Most people, the overwhelming majority, are persuaded that magical beings control our destinies and will decide whether we will go to heaven to meet our departed loved ones or go to hell to be tortured forever and ever.

The bandwagon fallacy is very strong even among 'secular' scholars...

 

[Craig B]

Naturally, since most people are convinced there is a god, atheists are also like Holocaust deniers and people of that ilk. Most people, the overwhelming majority, are persuaded that magical beings control our destinies and will decide whether we will go to heaven to meet our departed loved ones or go to hell to be tortured forever and ever.

The bandwagon fallacy is very strong even among 'secular' scholars...

I think it's Ehrman's point that most people who are convinced that there is a god don't base their beliefs on evidence, but on faith. To reject faith is not the same thing as to reject evidence.

 

[dejudge]

I think it's Ehrman's point that most people who are convinced that there is a god don't base their beliefs on evidence, but on faith. To reject faith is not the same thing as to reject evidence.

People who believe there was an historical Jesus also base their belief on faith because there is NO actual pre 70 CE evidence.