Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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.

You don't like the details in gMark anymore? The character you claimed had a Messianic title was in the presence of Satan the Devil and Angels in the wilderness, he Walked on the sea, Transfigured and Resurrected.

The character with your assumed Messianic title, the Son of God, in gMark was non-historical--a myth fable character.

There is NO evidence of an historical Jesus in the NT with or without your assumed Messianic title.

Now, please, tell us the name of the Messiah in Psalms 2.

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

Your Jesus was the Son of David yet he lived in the time of Pilate?

You have no actual existing evidence for an historical David or Abraham.

Your Jesus with the assumed Messianic title was a Myth.

King David, most likely a Jewish myth, supposedly lived hundreds of years before Pilate.

Abraham also was most likely a Myth--there is no actual evidence that Abraham or David were figures of history.

Now, look at the book of Job. Pay attention to the details.

The God of the Jews had Sons in Jewish Mythology

Job 1:6 KJV

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

I will now state that there is NO evidence at all for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the ENTIRE BIBLE.

 

[Craig B]

Now, please, tell us the name of the Messiah in Psalms 2.

None is named. There is no name in Psalm 2.

Your Jesus was the Son of David yet he lived in the time of Pilate?

Yes. I don't think you quite understand what Son of David means. It can mean "descendant". Didn't you know that?

King David, most likely a Jewish myth, supposedly lived hundreds of years before Pilate.

Abraham also was most likely a Myth--there is no actual evidence that Abraham or David were figures of history.

That's right. But the authors of the gospels believed in the existence of these people. Maybe "Christian scholar Ratzinger" believes in them too. I don't, at least in the case of Abraham. There may have been some kind of historical David. I don't know. So what?

 

[proudfootz]

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

I never claimed it was an 'argument'.

But I will withdraw the statement with the same humility and sincerity you offered for your ad homs

Interesting if yet again disquieting to see yet another addition to the vehemence and hostility that appears to characterise the proponents of the viewpoint you have embraced.

But, let's not go down this road again.

 

[Craig B]

If these historians pray to Jesus, then they would also have to believe in Satan.

To believe in Satan would therefore have to be answered in some form of method that would apply to a spirit presence inside of stone.

Eh? You'll need to run that one past me again. Maybe dejudge can help. I'll ask him.

 

[proudfootz]

He's been using arguments?

I must have missed that.

Must have.

Since everyone else seems to know this fact, you'd better reassess your prejudices.

The consensus on this board is that I make arguments!

 

[Craig B]

I never claimed it was an 'argument'.

But I will withdraw the statement with the same humility and sincerity you offered for your ad homs



But, let's not go down this road again.

And what was I objecting to, when I wrote that? I was disappointed by your ad hom then too, and I expressed disquiet. I now express it again.

 

[dejudge]

None is named. There is no name in Psalm 2. Yes. I don't think you quite understand what Son of David means. It can mean "descendant". Didn't you know that?

I don't think you understand what Myth means.

Jesus was born of a Ghost in the same book which claimed he was the Son of David.

You have no actual evidence for an historical Jesus or David and now you admit that David was NOT the actual father of Jesus.

You have confirmed you have no evidence of an historical Jesus in the Bible.

1. Jesus is called the Son of God .

2. David was NOT the father of Jesus.

3. Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost.

4. Jesus was with Satan the Devil in the wilderness.

5. Jesus was on the Temple with Satan the Devil.

6. Jesus Walked on the sea.

7. Jesus transfigured.

8. Jesus resurrected on the third day.

9. Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee AFTER he was resurrected.

10. Jesus commissioned his disciples after the resurrection.

gMatthew is about a non-historical Jesus---He was born of a Ghost.

But the authors of the gospels believed in the existence of these people. Maybe "Christian scholar Ratzinger" believes in them too. I don't, at least in the case of Abraham. There may have been some kind of historical David. I don't know. So what?

You have no evidence that there was an historical Jesus and the manuscripts and Codices of the Jesus story describe him as a Myth.

I argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth like Romulus or Adam until NEW evidence surfaces.

The NT is just a compilation of myth fables about Gods, Sons of Gods, Angels, Devils and Holy Ghosts.

 

[proudfootz]

And what was I objecting to, when I wrote that? I was disappointed by your ad hom then too, and I expressed disquiet. I now express it again.

...and I express disgust at hostility to agnostics and skeptics.

Surely I have as much right as you do to post about disappointment?

Or is there some Double Standard at work?

 

[Craig B]

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).

Here is dejudge.

The NT is just a compilation of myth fables about Gods, Sons of Gods, Angels, Devils and Holy Ghosts.

But you disagree? Do you think the NT is evidence for the existence of Jesus, but not good enough to convince you? May we get to see you arguing this point with dejudge?

 

[dejudge]

.... Do you think the NT is evidence for the existence of Jesus, but not good enough to convince you? May we get to see you arguing this point with dejudge?

Do you think the NT is Evidence for a Mythological Jesus but NOT good enough to convince you?

Are you going to be arguing that Craig B?

 

[eight bits]

tsig

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

There should be an award for patience. Craig would win.

On the "virgin birth" thing, I'd score it as two and a half virgin-mother-free Gospels. Neither Mark nor John says anything about a virgin birth. Luke is equivocal - God takes an interest in the pregnancy (just as Paul thinks God took an interest in his own birth - a fine Jewish thing to think), but Gabriel does not volunteer God's services at stud. In fact, there is a clear parallelism between the Lukan Gabriel-Mary dialog and an old joke:

Mary: Every week, I pray to win the lottery, and I never do.

Gabriel: Try buying a ticket once in a while.

So, that leaves us with Matthew of the two asses as the only source who says plainly that Mary wasn't getting any. And even in Matthew, Jesus' dad isn't a ghost.

)Oh, and BTW, reading Luke as literature, written by an adult for adult readers, rather than as a proof text for later Christian creeds, then Joe is Jesus' dad, and so Joe's geneaology is Jesus' geneaology. That would also explain why Luke bothered to include it.(


Brainache

I was thinking a little more yesterday about your DSS-Jerusalem church ideas. If I were making that kind of argument, then I'd see if I could connect DSS material to the Didache

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

It's a composite document, and so hard to date, I think pieces may go back to the 50's, or be "echoes or revivals" of things that do. In any case, it seems anti-Paul in several ways (for example, who gets paid is interesting, chapters 11-13 - and asking for money is "just say no"). The Didache positions itself as "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" - that is to say, teachings through the Jeursalem apostles to the Gentiles. Hmm.

Quite a bit is Jewish, notably the eucharistic prayer (9) and the after-prayer (10)... with the directive that one should "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire." (I wonder if that is where Paul's institution fit in liturgically). No pretending to drink blood or eat human flesh, and fullly consistent with a unitarian theology, and "low or middle" chirstology.

It could be the work of those dreaded "Judaizers," of course. But if so, then they made a fair job of it.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache

I was thinking a little more yesterday about your DSS-Jerusalem church ideas. If I were making that kind of argument, then I'd see if I could connect DSS material to the Didache

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

It's a composite document, and so hard to date, I think pieces may go back to the 50's, or be "echoes or revivals" of things that do. In any case, it seems anti-Paul in several ways (for example, who gets paid is interesting, chapters 11-13 - and asking for money is "just say no"). The Didache positions itself as "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" - that is to say, teachings through the Jeursalem apostles to the Gentiles. Hmm.

Quite a bit is Jewish, notably the eucharistic prayer (9) and the after-prayer (10)... with the directive that one should "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire." (I wonder if that is where Paul's institution fit in liturgically). No pretending to drink blood or eat human flesh, and fullly consistent with a unitarian theology, and "low or middle" chirstology.

It could be the work of those dreaded "Judaizers," of course. But if so, then they made a fair job of it.

Thanks for that, I'll have a look. I haven't read that one.

 

[Craig B]

...and I express disgust at hostility to agnostics and skeptics.

Surely I have as much right as you do to post about disappointment?

Or is there some Double Standard at work?

Leaving this vituperation aside: if people who think there was probably a real person behind the gospel Jesus stories are not sceptics or agnostics, what do you imagine them to be? All religious believers?

 

[IanS]

Here is dejudge. But you disagree? Do you think the NT is evidence for the existence of Jesus, but not good enough to convince you? May we get to see you arguing this point with dejudge?

What has your above post got to do with me? It has nothing to do with me does it! You are just complaining about dejudge.

 

[Belz...]

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.

In other words, you'd rather not answer that. You're very combative about this topic. I wonder why that is.

Did you use to be a Christian ?

 

[Craig B]

What has your above post got to do with me? It has nothing to do with me does it! You are just complaining about dejudge.

Well, I would have liked to see you discuss this evidence / myth issue with dejudge. But if you don't want to, then of course you shouldn't.

 

[IanS]

Well, I would have liked to see you discuss this evidence / myth issue with dejudge. But if you don't want to, then of course you shouldn't.

Why should I want to discuss the bible with dejudge? Afaik he does not think any of that biblical writing is credible as evidence of a human Jesus, and nor do I.

What do you think I would be seriously in disagreement with dejudge about?

 

[Stone]

Leaving this vituperation aside: if people who think there was probably a real person behind the gospel Jesus stories are not sceptics or agnostics, what do you imagine them to be? All religious believers?

Hear, hear! Excellent question, Craig. Am looking forward to Proudfootz's reply.

Cheers,

Stone

 

[Craig B]

Why should I want to discuss the bible with dejudge? Afaik he does not think any of that biblical writing is credible as evidence of a human Jesus, and nor do I.

What do you think I would be seriously in disagreement with dejudge about?

See #6490. But of course your differences may indeed have no importance whatsoever.

 

[pakeha]

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

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

The Apocritus

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

Thanks for the heads-up on those authors, dejudge.
Off to learn more about these ancient commentators' writings.