Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Well the first thing is - by now you should know that most sceptics here have only said that they think the evidence for Jesus is not good enough to conclude that he probably existed. And virtually nobody here has ever endorsed any specific myth theory.

However, if Ehrman is quoted correctly saying that he believes Paul thought Jesus was an angel who assumed human form on earth, then that sounds very much like the explanation given in 1999 by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle, and apparently also endorsed as very likely by Carrier in his forthcoming (overdue) book.

...maybe Ehrman will give credit to these scholars who seem to have preceded him in the recent publications!

 

[proudfootz]

Craig - why did you even bother to post the above silliness?

Everyone here who can read and who is not blinded by their own bias, can see very clearly from the quotes you provided (the quotes of my earlier posts), that they absolutely do NOT propose or endorse any specific myth theory in any way at all. And on the contrary the quotes just make absolutely crystal clear exactly what I just said in reply to Stone (and what I have explained to you at least 50 times before), namely that all I am claiming and all I have ever claimed is that “THE EVIDENCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH”! ….

… as I have explained directly to you at least 50 times here before - what has been offered by bible scholars and others, inc. posters here, as “evidence” of Jesus, is actually only evidence of people 1st century religious beliefs about Jesus. It is not actually evidence of Jesus himself. And the quotes which you decided to pick out and post above, actually even spell that out!


And finally, perhaps people would like to note the following complete fabrication from Craig, attempting to claim I had said something entirely different to what he just quoted from me (see the highlighted parts below) -


What you see highlighted there is Craig actually quoting where I had said “everyone here has discussed all of that biblical writing to death “ … and he simply decided to re-interpret that as me saying of the biblical writing "everyone" has dismissed "all" of it “ ! …

…. I did not of course say any such thing in that quote (or anywhere else, ever). I did not say, as Craig just claimed that “everyone” has dismissed all the biblical writing. What I said about “everyone”, is that that “everyone here has discussed all of that biblical writing to death “ .

Agnosticism is the excluded middle option, and would seem top be very respectable as the proposition that there was an historic Jesus is merely suggested as a possibility.

 

[dejudge]

...They were supposedly people making written copies of previous written or spoken gospels and letters. But what they wrote as those copies, was filled with what turned out 1800 years later to be shown as impossible tales of the supernatural.

It was known that the Jesus stories were a Pack lies since at least the 4th century or 1600 years ago.

Examine Against Hiorocles attributed to Eusebius.

Against Hierocles

..To this he adds after a little more the following remark: "And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,—men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards...

In the Apocritus attributed to Macarius Magnes it also admitted that Paul was a Liar.

The Apocritus

We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

There is no evidence whatsoever of an historical Jesus in the NT.

 

[proudfootz]

Your statement is a fallacy and a failure of logic.

The genealogies in gMatthew and gLuke are for a character called Joseph.

In gMatthew and gLuke Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and his conception is described.

Essentially, the genealogy of Jesus is one of a Ghost.

There is ABSOLUTELY No evidence of an historical Jesus in the NT.

Good catch!

Your attention to detail is indispensable on these threads.

 

[Craig B]

The genealogies in gMatthew and gLuke are for a character called Joseph.

Here are the first words of the Gospel of Matthew.

1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

 

[dejudge]

Good catch!

Your attention to detail is indispensable on these threads.

Please, please, please, let us ALL pay attention to the details in the NT.

The genealogy of Jesus is that of a Ghost.

Look at the details.


Matthew 1:18 KJV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary........ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:20 KJV

..... the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying , Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

The genealogy of Jesus is that of a SPIRIT.


1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

There is absolutely no evidence of an historical Jesus in the NT.

 

[Craig B]

Please, please, please, let us ALL pay attention to the details in the NT.

The genealogy of Jesus is that of a Ghost.
The genealogy of Jesus is that of a SPIRIT.
There is absolutely no evidence of an historical Jesus in the NT.

Yes he is presented in different ways by different sources in the same Gospels. And in the earlier Gospel gMark there is no ghost, only a baptised human being.

 

[IanS]

Agnosticism is the excluded middle option, and would seem top be very respectable as the proposition that there was an historic Jesus is merely suggested as a possibility.

Yep. Well … Craig has tried that same "myther" accusation here many times (as have a couple of his fellow HJ posters), even though he knows very well that my position is to say that the evidence is just so hopeless flawed that we really cannot make any reliable guess on it at all (either way).

That’s not a 50-50 position though. That’s a position which says there is just no actual evidence for the persons existence. And in the absence of any such evidence, I don’t think it makes objective sense to guess at any sort of figure for the likelihood of a HJ, whether that’s 0.000...1% or 99.999...9%, or any other figure in between.

Of course, as far as the miraculous Jesus of the bible is concerned, that figure is about as likely as any other claim of the supernatural.

 

[dejudge]

Yes he is presented in different ways by different sources in the same Gospels. And in the earlier Gospel gMark there is no ghost, only a baptised human being.

What a load of nonsense. There is absolutely NO evidence of an historical Jesus in gMark.

Immediately after Jesus was baptized it was declared that he was God's Son.

Mark 1:11 KJV

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .

Pay attention to the DETAILS in gMark.


Mark 6.48-49 ASV

... about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them: 49 but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost...

Mark 9:2 KJV

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Mark 16:6 KJV

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted : Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

 

[Craig B]

What a load of nonsense. There is absolutely NO evidence of an historical Jesus in gMark.

Immediately after Jesus was baptized it was declared that he was God's Son.

Pay attention to the DETAILS in gMark.

You're the one who's not paying attention. The title Son of God is a human messianic title, as I have shown before but on account of your inattention you're going to have to read this again, from Psalm 2.

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

 

[tsig]

You're the one who's not paying attention. The title Son of God is a human messianic title, as I have shown before but on account of your inattention you're going to have to read this again, from Psalm 2.

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel

.

When did Jesus break the heathens with a rod of iron or dash them in pieces?

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is a fallacy and a failure of logic.

And yours is spam. Why don't you learn new words to throw at us ?

Here's one: serendipity.

 

[Belz...]

What a load of nonsense. There is absolutely NO evidence of an historical Jesus in gMark.

Nice dodge. Craig's point is that one of the Gospels has no virgin birth.

 

[dejudge]

You're the one who's not paying attention. The title Son of God is a human messianic title, as I have shown before but on account of your inattention you're going to have to read this again, from Psalm 2.

You are not paying attention. You have made reference to Psalms 2--NOT gMark.

Jesus the Son of God who WALKED on the sea, transfigured and resurrected is in gMark--Not Psalms 2.

Pay attention to gMark.

Mark 14]

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith , What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

There is NO evidence at all in the NT for an historical Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

You are not paying attention. You have made reference to Psalms 2--NOT gMark.

Jesus the Son of God who WALKED on the sea, transfigured and resurrected is in gMark--Not Psalms 2.

Pay attention to gMark.

Mark 14]

There is NO evidence at all in the NT for an historical Jesus.

What would you consider evidence, if it was in the NT?

If someone in the NT said that Jesus was a amna who walked around and preached, would that be evidence of a HJ?

Somehow I doubt it.

Maybe if we take a step back and look at the form of these writings, their similarities and differences, try to tease out where they fit into their various cultural concepts we might be able to make deductions based on things other than the face value of the stories. Maybe.

Or you can treat them as you do, without any analysis.

What do you think Historians do all day?

 

[dejudge]

What would you consider evidence, if it was in the NT?

What would you consider as evidence for an historical Satan and historical Angels? They are in the NT.


Mark 1:13 KJV

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

If someone in the NT said that Jesus was a amna who walked around and preached, would that be evidence of a HJ?

If someone said Satan the Devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness in the presence of angels would that be evidence of an HJ?

Maybe if we take a step back and look at the form of these writings, their similarities and differences, try to tease out where they fit into their various cultural concepts we might be able to make deductions based on things other than the face value of the stories. Maybe.

Or you can treat them as you do, without any analysis.


What do you think Historians do all day?

1. According to Richard Carrier, an historian, the HJ argument is based on fallacious methodologies and logical fallacies.

2. Dale Martin, a history professor at Yale, admits he BELIEVES that the real Jesus was 100% Divine and 100% man--God Incarnate--and he also PRAYS to Jesus.

3. Joseph Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, preached that Jesus was the Son of God born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin. He also prays to Jesus for Salvation.

4. Robert Eisenman, a Scholar, admitted that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ Question.

5. There is a 250 year old ON-GOING Quest for an HJ with multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable version of the assumed HJ.

 

[Craig B]

You are not paying attention. You have made reference to Psalms 2--NOT gMark.

The MJ people, or some of them, are the very ones who've been saying that the story of Jesus was a fiction cobbled together from OT passages, taken by the later Christian writers as "prophecies" of Jesus as the foretold Messiah. Here I am with just such a passage, establishing "Son of God" as a Messianic title, and you tell me not to look at it! How very strange.

Here's the messianic promise to David in 2 Sam 7, about his posterity.

12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

So that was a dynastic Royal title of the "Sons of David", which the Synoptic gospels tell us Jesus was. You paid attention to Matthew 1:1, I hope.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Paul says it too.

Romans 1:3 ... concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

 

[proudfootz]

Yep. Well … Craig has tried that same "myther" accusation here many times (as have a couple of his fellow HJ posters), even though he knows very well that my position is to say that the evidence is just so hopeless flawed that we really cannot make any reliable guess on it at all (either way).

That’s not a 50-50 position though. That’s a position which says there is just no actual evidence for the persons existence. And in the absence of any such evidence, I don’t think it makes objective sense to guess at any sort of figure for the likelihood of a HJ, whether that’s 0.000...1% or 99.999...9%, or any other figure in between.

Of course, as far as the miraculous Jesus of the bible is concerned, that figure is about as likely as any other claim of the supernatural.

Some people just seem to glom on to the notion that defending the alleged historical Jesus is so important that they get very hostile toward those who don't go along with that agenda.

 

[Craig B]

Some people just seem to glom on to the notion that defending the alleged historical Jesus is so important that they get very hostile toward those who don't go along with that agenda.

That's not an argument. Up to now you've been using arguments. That's pure ad hom, by contrast.

 

[Brainache]

That's not an argument. Up to now you've been using arguments. That's pure ad hom, by contrast.

He's been using arguments?

I must have missed that.