You have no idea just how pathetic this looks.
You just don't seem to be able to understand that a man called Jesus, about whom crazy stories were told, is not the same thing as an incarnate god.
Why is that?
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
You have no idea just how pathetic this looks.
You just don't seem to be able to understand that a man called Jesus, about whom crazy stories were told, is not the same thing as an incarnate god.
Why is that?
You don't know how Christianity started.
1. Bart Ehrman admitted the NT contains at least 18 books of FORGERIES or false attribution.
2. Bart Ehrman admitted the Gospels are RIDDLED with discrepancies, historical problems and events that most likely did not happen.
3. Bart Ehrman admitted that Taxing by Cyrenius as described in the Gospels most likely did not happen.
4. Bart Ehrman admitted the Barabbas exchange for Jesus most likely did happen.
5. Bart Ehrman admitted the Triumphal entry by Jesus as described most likely did not happen.
6. Bart Ehrman admitted that the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is most likely false.
7. Bart Ehrman admitted the trial by the Sanhedrin most likely did NOT happen as described.
8. Bart Ehrman admitted the claim that Jesus resurrected most likely did NOT happen.
9. Bart Ehrman implied that the claim that Jesus was the actual Son of a God is most likely false.
10. Bart Ehrman admitted the miracles of Jesus most likely did NOT happen.
The Jesus cult started with Forgeries and a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later--the manuscripts have been recovered and dated.
The Jesus stories are ESTABLISHED Forgeries, false attribution and a Pack of Lies, especially the Pauline writers---They virtually lied about everything.
The Pauline Corpus contains more Lies and Idiotic nonsense than any other book of the Canon.
Eusebius' Against Hierocles
Last edited:
Eusebius called them Wizards, therefore Jesus didn't exist?
There were lots of different stories about him, therefore Jesus didn't exist?
The oldest surviving manuscripts are from the 2nd century, therefore Jesus didn't exist?
Why do you think these arguments of yours could persuade anyone? They are totally devoid of logic.
Perhaps even monstrous fables...
You're coming to the thread a little late but I have already suggested several theories using John Frum as the baseline. Here if another off the cuff one:
1) Around 6 BCE a fledgling messiah movement that some great leader will lead the Jewish people in a revolt against Rome forms. (Dositheos the Samaritan and Simon of Peraea fit this and Origen expressly states Dositheos claimed to be the Christ in Contra Celsum i. 57, vi. 11)
2) Various would be messiahs come and go but none really catch on with the messiah movement.
3) Saul has his vision about Jesus and becomes Paul preaching this vision to anyone who will listen.
4) Ala John Frum several people take up the name Jesus and try to take Paul's movement in their own direction eventually resulting in Paul writing his 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning.
5) Paul dies c 67 CE as the situation in Judea deteriorates into a full scale revolt.
6) Paul's vision coupled with vague stories of the Jesuses he warned about and various saying of other would be messiahs start forming a verbal consensus about the life and teachings of Jesus.
7) Somewhere between 70 CE and 130 CE the first Gospel is actually written down. It becomes wildly popular becoming the defacto go to for the life of Jesus.
8) As with the stories of the Bermuda Triangle people add to or delete from the story as they see fit.
9) One sect latches on to four works that by 180 CE become Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John more or less as we know them.
10) The Bar Kokhba revolt kicks an attempt at creating a Chrestian holy work with Marcion of Sinope taking the first stab at it. The sect that favors Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John realizes it needs to collect its works into one book and does so by 180 CE.
9) In the 4th century this sect gets the ear of the Emperor and becomes the official version with all others suppressed. Neglect and active destruction nearly eradicate the works of competing sects and some more oral traditions are thrown in resulting in the Jesus story in the form we know today.
You left out the James gang. What about those guys? They were bossing Paul, Peter and their followers around, but you left them out of your narrative.
How do we fit them and the Ebionites into this scenario?
There is no corroborative evidence for any claims about Jesus or the "James gang in the Pauline Corpus.
The earliest Pauline writings are from the 2nd century or later and NO writing in the NT show any awareness of the Pauline letters to Churches.
The Jesus story in the NT, including the Pauline Corpus, were known to be a pack of lies.
1. Hierocles claimed the Jesus stories were vamped by Peter and Paul, men who were Liars, the uneducated and Wizards.
2.Julian the Emperor claimed the fabrication of the Galileans was fiction.
3.Macarius Magnes claimed Paul was a Liar.
4.The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.
5. Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.
Last edited:
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
There are many unknown persons in history.
For example, it is thought by virtually all scholars that the surviving texts of Josephus are the product of tampering.
Just because we don't know who meddled with the text doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We also don't know who the authors of the canonical and non-canonical gospels are.
It's widely accepted that at least half the epistles attributed to Paul are pseudonymous - basically forgeries and hoaxes like the Howard Hughes diary a few years back. No one knows who wrote these fake epistles, either.
Sometimes the answer in the Historical sense is 'unknown forgers'.
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
A good many people have read the relevant parts of the bible.
Since some of those who have read these 'arguments' found there unconvincing we can chalk this up to another absurd claim about 'all mythicists don't read the bible and therefore disbelieve in Jesus like they should' argument on offer today...
Jesus was the Logos, God Creator, the Son of God and was BORN of a Ghost according to the Liars.
The Jesus story matches Jewish, Greek and Roman Myth fables.
I argue that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT exist until new evidence surfaces.
It is a failure of logic to argue without evidence that since Eusebius called them wizards therefore Jesus DID exist.
The stories of Jesus say that he God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God born of a Ghost, that he WALKED on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and ascended in a cloud.
The stories are obvious packs of lies without external corroboration.
The Jesus story matches Jewish, Greek and Roman Myth fables.
I argue that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT exist until new evidence surfaces.
It is a failure of logic to argue without evidence that since there were lots of different stories about him, therefore Jesus DID exist.
There is ZERO manuscript of the Jesus story pre 70 CE, ZERO mention of Jesus of Nazareth in non-Apologetic sources attributed to contemporary writers and the stories are a Pack of lies.
The Jesus story matches Jewish, Greek and Roman Myth fables.
I argue that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT exist until new evidence surfaces.
It is a failure of logic to argue without evidence that since the oldest surviving manuscripts are from the 2nd century, therefore Jesus DID exist
You arguments for an HJ are totally devoid of logic BECAUSE you have NO supporting evidence.
Last edited:
proudfootz
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 957
It does look rather pathetic that one of the 'qualified experts' whose opinion is supposed to be so authoritative not only thinks there was a man called Jesus, but this man was a god incarnate.
This is exactly why we cannot take what alleged 'experts' say on faith.
If we knew on what basis this person holds these beliefs we could judge for ourselves whether what he finds so persuasive is worthwhile.
I am not "offering you the Bible" and you know that perfectly well. I am referring to critical analysis of certain texts. As I say if, you don't like this, nobody is making you look at it. But at least you should admit that is the position, and not keep stating that people refuse to provide evidence. If people are saying things to death hundreds of times, and you don't like that, then you are the second worst culprit. The worst is of course dejudge, who's in a class of his own.
Sometimes we don't really know if a text was meddled with if we do not have the supposed un-meddled text.
We know gMark was meddled with. We have both the Long and short version of gMark.
We cannot assume texts were interpolated or assume we know what was interpolated just because the texts contain passages that do not support a theory.
Many of the claims that the Pauline Corpus was interpolated cannot be shown to be true or it cannot be shown that the Pauline Corpus was written in the 1st century pre 70 CE and interpolated later.
Last edited:
Who are you, and what have you done to dejudge?
I'm trying to follow your reasoning.
IanS refuses to look at the gospel sources.
These are in the Bible.
IanS is a mythicist
Therefore there exists a mythicist who doesn't read the Bible.
HJers note IanS's aversion to this material.
So they must be saying that mythicists don't read the Bible.
But mythicists do read the Bible.
Therefore HJers are wrong again QED.
Belz...
Fiend God
What you are offering from the bible is not reliable or credible as evidence of Jesus. The bible is not a reliable or credible source of it's an anonymous authors ever knowing anything about Jesus. And we have discussed it all to death many hundreds of times already.
As far as repetition is concerned - there is nothing wrong with repeating the same argument, as long as the argument is credible and logical in what it says. But the bible is not a credible or reliable source as evidence of Jesus ... that's why there is no point in us accepting your invitation to read it all over again for the 500th time.
If you have something independent of the biblical writing, then I will of course read it (as I have said to you at least a dozen times before). Do you have anything which is not from the NT?
To be more precise, you have repeated the same thing hundreds of times, and I think it's tosh. But that's entirely up to you. What I don't think you are entitled to do is keep saying, or even say once, that you have not been offered evidence, because that encourages less well informed people to think your opponents are being "lazy" and such rubbish as that, if they have not been able or inclined to follow the most interesting discussions we've been having.
If you reject critical analysis of texts, absolutely fine. But it's a valuable procedure, in the opinions of others, whether you think so or not.
What you are offering from the bible is not reliable or credible as evidence of Jesus.
Just because the bible, or any source, makes claims about anything, does not mean that it’s mere mention and mere claim is truly evidence for anything it says. It's not evidence of Jesus merely because the bible says Jesus did A, B & C. That alone is just an un-evidenced claim.
The bible is a book of peoples religious beliefs. It’s evidence of peoples 1st century superstitious beliefs. But there is no reliable evidence in the bible to show that those beliefs were ever true.
What you are trying to claim is that the beliefs themselves are evidence of their own truth. What it needs to turn those religious beliefs of the bible into evidence of Jesus, is some external independent verifiable corroboration to show that mere claims like that, it’s mere words, are likely to be actually true.
But just because I won't read you biblical evidence for the 100th time, does not mean that other sceptics here wont read it. And they have asked you for it several times on just the last few pages (tsig asked you and so did proudfootz) - why don't you post it here for them to read?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for your take on Pliny's the Younger possible interactions with Christians or whatever they were.
Too true, I've never worked in a bureaucracy and with any luck, I never shall do. CYA doesn't apply in my field, at least not in the way you've plausibly explained as a motive for Pliny's letter.
Still, I'm left wondering why Pliny, a man respected in his life-time, statesman, consul and so on would be concerned with CHA to the Emperor on the matter to the point of mentioning the torture of two deaconesses puzzles me.
Something in this correspondences niggles. I haven't a clue just what it is, not a clue, so I'm reduced to reading and learning til I do.
Of course you're right about the secret meetings and how that would attract the attention of a governor.
Off to learn more about Bithynia. I know it's Antinoös' birthplace and where Pliny the Younger died and nothing more.
A good question, proudfootz.
Any volunteers?
Thanks for the links.
- Status