Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

That means either some sort of convincing archaeological or physical evidence, or some writing contemporary to the lifetime of Jesus quoting historical factual details from a reliable known eye-witness who’s account can be verified as likely true.

But you don’t have anything remotely like that. All you have is the unreliable incredible writing of the supernatural in the NT.

So don’t tell us that we have been shown the evidence but that we won’t read it. Don’t tell us that the bible contains your evidence. Because everyone here has discussed all of that biblical writing to death over many thousands of posts long before you told us to read the links to your biblical “evidence”.

Right, this is why I equate the so called evidence for a HJ on par with that suggesting there is a mysterious force in the Bermuda Triangle. In fact the Bermuda Triangle comparison is more appropriate when you realize what few details we can check against history doesn't match...just like the Bermuda Triangle stories.

I mean look at what we really have:

1) Paul rambling on about a Jesus he saw in a vision with no real details that put him in a time and place and warning about "another Jesus" and "another Gospel" as well as "another spirit". It's on par with the stories of John Frum.

2) Then you have the Gospels which in terms of known social-political dynamics are a train wreck with an obviously fictional Sanhedrin trial followed by an equally fictional meeting and defense by Pontius Pilate who behaves totally out of character. Then you have the unusually short time between crucifixion and the Romans allowing the removal of the body for vague reasons. Never mind at best we can show Luke (or some version of Luke) existed 140 CE and no earlier and that was credited to Paul of all people ie it was a vision. If you go for Lucan priority then the whole hose of cards falls apart as everything go back a vision rather then history.

3) Carrier has gone into detail regarding the social-political dynamics train wreck the aftermath of the supposed resurrection in Gospels and Acts are so we needn't go into that mess, again.

4) The geography in the Gospels is on par with the 1980s example of US children putting the United States where China should be because the geography courses were crap.

5) The first Church Father to quote the Gospels en mass puts the crucifixion 42-44 CE.

6) Josephus is a mess because Origen does not use the TF and his comments regarding Josephus comments on James to NOT match the passage in Antiquities. More over we are told that James brother of the Lord was informed of Peter's death which is thought to have happened either 64 or 67. Problem is the James in the passage often references clearly died 62 CE due to the temporal references so clearly James in Josephus can NOT be the brother of the lord because he had to be alive a minimum of two years later to be informed of Peter's death.

7) Since neither Josephus or Pliny the Elder both of whom were in Rome c64 CE mention the followers of Jesus cult Tacitus and Suetonius seem to be at best repeating an urban myth that sprang up in the intervening 50 years.

8) Everything else is way to late to be any good.

 

[Craig B]

You don’t have any evidence. It’s no good telling us to read the bible (which you said was indeed your evidence).

The NT bible is only a source of peoples religious beliefs written centuries later by anonymous religious fanatics, telling tales of the supernatural. It’s no good telling us that is a credible source of reliable evidence for a human Jesus that none of it‘s authors ever knew.

Yes, that's what you say. So you won't read it. That's fine. Don't. All I'm saying is that evidence has been presented and you don't like it, won't look at it and won't address it. Like a four year old being offered cabbage for dinner.

 

[dejudge]

If Jesus of the Gospels actually lived outside of the time of Pilate as Governor of Judea under Tiberius such as claimed by Irenaeus who put the crucifixion firmly in 42-44 CE in Demonstration (74) then of course you will find no evidence under Tiberius if the guy was crucified by King of the Jews Herod Agrippa I under Claudius Caesar because you are looking in the wrong freaking time. The same is true if Jesus actually lived and died before Pilate's rule began.

Irenaeus does not firmly put the crucifixion of Jesus at 42-44 CE in Demonstration.

There is total confusion. Pilate was governor c 27-37 CE and Claudius was Emperor c 41-54 CE.

Irenaeus' Demonstration

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.

Irenaneus firmly puts the crucifixion of Jesus 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius or around c 50 CE in "Against Heresies".

In the Church c 180 CE, based on Irenaeus, It was TAUGHT by the Elders that Jesus was an old man who was crucified about 50 years of age.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 2.22

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age ........ Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify..

Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction character with no established date of crucifixion.

 

[dejudge]

OK. You win.

Now what?

How are you going to convince qualified people of your Hoax theory?

No one else has bought it so far, how will you convince people who have actually studied the subject?

Dr. Dale Martin, a YALE professor, prays to Jesus as a God.

Christian Scholars are ALREADY CONVINCED that the Mythological RESURRECTED Jesus is the REAL Jesus.

Christian Scholars like Robert Van Voorst and Joseph Ratzinger are convinced the Historical Jesus was a RESURRECTED being and God's own Son.

Dr. Dale Martin is personally convinced that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[Brainache]

Dr. Dale Martin, a YALE professor, prays to Jesus as a God.

Christian Scholars are ALREADY CONVINCED that the Mythological RESURRECTED Jesus is the REAL Jesus.

Christian Scholars like Robert Van Voorst and Joseph Ratzinger are convinced the Historical Jesus was a RESURRECTED being and God's own Son.

Dr. Dale Martin is personally convinced that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

So what?

Why does that mean that there wasn't a Jewish Preacher called Jesus?

Why does that mean it was all a fake forged hoax from the 2nd century?

How does any of what you argue follow on from what you claim?

 

[Craig B]

So what?

Why does that mean that there wasn't a Jewish Preacher called Jesus?

Why does that mean it was all a fake forged hoax from the 2nd century?

How does any of what you argue follow on from what you claim?

What do you mean "2nd century"? Has IanS not just told us that

The NT bible is only a source of peoples religious beliefs written centuries later by anonymous religious fanatics

So dejudge's hoax forgers are anonymous religious fanatics generations later, according to IanS.

It's all very hard to follow, but great fun.

 

[Brainache]

What do you mean "2nd century"? Has IanS not just told us that So dejudge's hoax forgers are anonymous religious fanatics generations later, according to IanS.

It's all very hard to follow, but great fun.

Fun is one word for it...

Now we have a new player in the thread, I wonder how long until we hear about Acharya S and Zeitgeist?

 

[IanS]

I don’t know if people have ever noticed the two part YouTube video linked below, but this is a lecture by a biblical studies professor from Iowa State Univ., named Hector Avalos, who is actually an atheist, and who (from what he says in this video) appears to specialise in archaeological evidence as well as manuscript evidence and it’s dating, for both the old and new testament periods.

I had not heard of this guy before, and the two part video below is admittedly quite a long lecture, and nor is it directly or specifically about Jesus historicity. In fact most of it is about the old testament evidence (ie the lack of it). So I am not asking anyone to watch this unless they actually want an insight into why the subject of bible scholarship and it’s practitioners might not be as objective or trustworthy as you’d like to hope they were (part 2 of this video is entirely of him answering questions from the audience) -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiiPK-FXicc




You can check who Avalos is in Wiki -

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

 

[dejudge]

So what?

Dr Dale Martin, a Yale professor, believes in a Myth Jesus.

You did not even know that Dr. Dale Martin believes that Jesus was REALLY born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and is REALLY God Creator.

Why does that mean that there wasn't a Jewish Preacher called Jesus?

What does this mean? Dr. Dale Martin, a Yale Professor claims the REAL Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Dr. Dale Martin is convinced that Jesus was REALLY a Myth--God Incarnate.

Why does that mean it was all a fake forged hoax from the 2nd century?

What does this mean? Dr. Dale Martin admitted the historical Jesus is NOT the Real Jesus.

How does any of what you argue follow on from what you claim?

What are you arguing about? You have NO evidence from antiquity for an HJ.

I can't follow your un-evidenced arguments. They are baseless.

Universities are NOT evidence of an HJ just like a Church building is NOT evidence of Gods.

 

[IanS]

Yes, that's what you say. So you won't read it. That's fine. Don't. All I'm saying is that evidence has been presented and you don't like it, won't look at it and won't address it. Like a four year old being offered cabbage for dinner.

Well I have just pointed out to you that if the bible is your source evidence, as you repeatedly say it is, then we had already discussed that to death many hundreds of times before you told us to read the same thing all over again.

You are offering us the bible? Well, we have seen it all before, thanks.

 

[dejudge]

OK. You win.

Now what?

You knew long ago that I would be the winner.

Now that you are the admitted loser what are you going to do?

Your arguments for an HJ are still exceptionally flawed and baseless.

It makes very little sense to declare me a winner and continue to exhibit some of the very worst arguments for an HJ.

Your arguments for an HJ are far worse than Bart Ehrman and he is REALLY bad.

 

[Brainache]

Well I have just pointed out to you that if the bible is your source evidence, as you repeatedly say it is, then we had already discussed that to death many hundreds of times before you told us to read the same thing all over again.

You are offering us the bible? Well, we have seen it all before, thanks.

And if you read it critically and include other ancient writings like the Gnostic Gospels and the early church histories (also read critically), then you have seen the evidence.

You don't find it convincing, Historians do.

I know whose analysis I'm going with.

 

[tsig]

Yes, that's what you say. So you won't read it. That's fine. Don't. All I'm saying is that evidence has been presented and you don't like it, won't look at it and won't address it. Like a four year old being offered cabbage for dinner.

We cannot read what you won't provide.

I like cabbage.

 

[Brainache]

You knew long ago that I would be the winner.

Now that you are the admitted loser what are you going to do?

Your arguments for an HJ are still exceptionally flawed and baseless.

It makes very little sense to declare me a winner and continue to exhibit some of the very worst arguments for an HJ.

Your arguments for an HJ are far worse than Bart Ehrman and he is REALLY bad.

I don't have to do anything dejudge. The HJ is still what they teach in Universities, so why would I want to change their minds? I think they are right.

How are you going to change the way they teach History at all those Universities?

That is what you really need to do. "Winning" a forum debate has exactly zero impact on the consensus of Academic Scholars.

How will you demonstrate your superiority to the Academy?

 

[dejudge]

And if you read it critically and include other ancient writings like the Gnostic Gospels and the early church histories (also read critically), then you have seen the evidence.

You don't find it convincing, Historians do.

I know whose analysis I'm going with.

What a big lie. We know the History of the Quest for an HJ.

There is NO known evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ and that is precisely why there has been an ON-GOING Quest for hundreds of years after multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable versions of an assumed HJ.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, declared that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Richard Carrier, an historian, agues that Jesus was a figure of Myth and that the HJ argument is logically fallacious.

Dr. Dale Martin, a Yale professor, admits the REAL Jesus is the 2nd person in the Trinity who was born of a Ghost.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, argues that Jesus was God's Son who was RAISED from the dead.

Joseph Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, preached that Jesus was God's Son born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[Elagabalus]

Right, this is why I equate the so called evidence for a HJ on par with that suggesting there is a mysterious force in the Bermuda Triangle. In fact the Bermuda Triangle comparison is more appropriate when you realize what few details we can check against history doesn't match...just like the Bermuda Triangle stories.

I mean look at what we really have:

1) Paul rambling on about a Jesus he saw in a vision with no real details that put him in a time and place and warning about "another Jesus" and "another Gospel" as well as "another spirit". It's on par with the stories of John Frum.

2) Then you have the Gospels which in terms of known social-political dynamics are a train wreck with an obviously fictional Sanhedrin trial followed by an equally fictional meeting and defense by Pontius Pilate who behaves totally out of character. Then you have the unusually short time between crucifixion and the Romans allowing the removal of the body for vague reasons. Never mind at best we can show Luke (or some version of Luke) existed 140 CE and no earlier and that was credited to Paul of all people ie it was a vision. If you go for Lucan priority then the whole hose of cards falls apart as everything go back a vision rather then history.

3) Carrier has gone into detail regarding the social-political dynamics train wreck the aftermath of the supposed resurrection in Gospels and Acts are so we needn't go into that mess, again.

4) The geography in the Gospels is on par with the 1980s example of US children putting the United States where China should be because the geography courses were crap.

5) The first Church Father to quote the Gospels en mass puts the crucifixion 42-44 CE.

6) Josephus is a mess because Origen does not use the TF and his comments regarding Josephus comments on James to NOT match the passage in Antiquities. More over we are told that James brother of the Lord was informed of Peter's death which is thought to have happened either 64 or 67. Problem is the James in the passage often references clearly died 62 CE due to the temporal references so clearly James in Josephus can NOT be the brother of the lord because he had to be alive a minimum of two years later to be informed of Peter's death.

7) Since neither Josephus or Pliny the Elder both of whom were in Rome c64 CE mention the followers of Jesus cult Tacitus and Suetonius seem to be at best repeating an urban myth that sprang up in the intervening 50 years.

8) Everything else is way to late to be any good.

And then? And then? Where's the theory? You still haven't put forth anything that resembles a coherent narrative-just a magical mystery spontaneously generatin' religion that no one in the ancient world ever bothered to document.

 

[dejudge]

And then? And then? Where's the theory? You still haven't put forth anything that resembles a coherent narrative-just a magical mystery spontaneously generatin' religion that no one in the ancient world ever bothered to document.

Does anybody have a theory for Adam and Eve that resembles a coherent narrative? We need a coherent narrative for Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.


What about Romulus the Myth founder of Rome? Did Plutarch put forward anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What about the God of the Jews and the Jewish religion? Did the Jews put forth anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What resembles a coherent narrative for Mythology?

Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos, God Creator, Born of a Ghost!!!

It MUST MUST be THOSE who claim there probably was an HJ who should provide the evidence from antiquity unless they mean the probability of an HJ is next to zero or a lower number because of no evidence.

HJers MUST present a coherent narrative for their assumed HJ with the supporting evidence from antiquity.

250 years have already passed. It is obvious that there was never any established evidence for an HJ in the history of mankind.

The Quest for an HJ was initiated in the 18th century WITHOUT anything that resembles a coherent narrative.

 

[Brainache]

Does anybody have a theory for Adam and Eve that resembles a coherent narrative? We need a coherent narrative for Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.


What about Romulus the Myth founder of Rome? Did Plutarch put forward anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What about the God of the Jews and the Jewish religion? Did the Jews put forth anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What resembles a coherent narrative for Mythology?

Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos, God Creator, Born of a Ghost!!!

It MUST MUST be THOSE who claim there probably was an HJ who should provide the evidence from antiquity unless they mean the probability of an HJ is next to zero or a lower number because of no evidence.

HJers MUST present a coherent narrative for their assumed HJ with the supporting evidence from antiquity.

250 years have already passed. It is obvious that there was never any established evidence for an HJ in the history of mankind.

The Quest for an HJ was initiated in the 18th century WITHOUT anything that resembles a coherent narrative.

You must realise that this is idiotic nonsense.

The question is: How did Christianity start?

Your answer: "Unknown fake myth hoax forgery fakers"...

Doesn't really answer the question in a Historical sense.

 

[Elagabalus]

Does anybody have a theory for Adam and Eve that resembles a coherent narrative? We need a coherent narrative for Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.


What about Romulus the Myth founder of Rome? Did Plutarch put forward anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What about the God of the Jews and the Jewish religion? Did the Jews put forth anything that resembles a coherent narrative?

What resembles a coherent narrative for Mythology?

Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos, God Creator, Born of a Ghost!!!

It MUST MUST be THOSE who claim there probably was an HJ who should provide the evidence from antiquity unless they mean the probability of an HJ is next to zero or a lower number because of no evidence.

HJers MUST present a coherent narrative for their assumed HJ with the supporting evidence from antiquity.

250 years have already passed. It is obvious that there was never any established evidence for an HJ in the history of mankind.

The Quest for an HJ was initiated in the 18th century WITHOUT anything that resembles a coherent narrative.

Damit Dejudge! How dare you use my coherent narrative schtick! My coherent narrative™ schtick is for my express use only! I, and I alone, am the sole owner! Although I would be willing to license it it for a small fee.

 

[dejudge]

I don't have to do anything dejudge. The HJ is still what they teach in Universities, so why would I want to change their minds? I think they are right.

What a ridiculous argument!!

Dr. Dale Martin, a YALE historian, admits he BELIEVES the REAL Jesus was the 2nd person in the Trinity.

How are you going to change the way they teach History at all those Universities?

I cannot stop people from KNOWINGLY making false or un-evidenced claims.

When one believes Jesus was 100% God and 100% man [a Myth] and turn around and teach that he was 100% man then I view that as pure deception especially when they have no evidence.

That is what you really need to do. "Winning" a forum debate has exactly zero impact on the consensus of Academic Scholars.

How will you demonstrate your superiority to the Academy?

I will always win because there is NO evidence for an HJ. I have exposed the contradictory position of Academic Scholars.

They BELIEVE Jesus was a Myth [God Incarnate] and PRAY to him for Salvation but teach that he was a man without a shred of evidence.

I detest such an argument since it is tantamount to open deception.

Just imagine--Scholars are PRAYING to Jesus as a God and telling people he was just a man. This is unacceptable at any level.