Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Speaking of silence, what proof does Carrier present ?

What do you mean by 'proof'?

Proof of what, exactly?

 

[tsig]

What do you mean by 'proof'?

Proof of what, exactly?

Here's how this works, You have to provide iron clad proof there was no HJ, including proof there was a Jesus Myth, the names of those who made it up and even their writings while all the HJ side has to do is prate "Academic Authority".

 

[proudfootz]

Here's how this works, You have to provide iron clad proof there was no HJ, including proof there was a Jesus Myth, the names of those who made it up and even their writings while all the HJ side has to do is prate "Academic Authority".

You've got to love these kind of rules.

The bit about naming the authors is hilarious! We don't know who wrote these 2nd century narratives, yet they are often cited as 'evidence' for a real Jesus.

I seriously doubt any substantial number of historians have made any study of this subject.

Until there is some evidence otherwise, we'll have to consider the 'academic consensus' as a legend like Bigfoot - a tale often repeated but never verified.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

If the James Gang are Jews, why does Paul, industriously pushing his luck preaching a man ascended into heaven who died for our sins, even have any contact with them?
What possible relation does the James Gang have with the budding churches, ... ?

I take Paul at face value here.He doesn't have all that much contact with them. The James Gang are, according to Paul's theory, focused on the right Messiah - like each other or not, they are co-religionists and co-sectarians. They are his corroboration that Jesus' ghost has been widely seen, not just something that happened only in Paul's head. We, the living, cannot be the only ones ever to have wondered about that. There is also "story value." The whole idea of Paul's preaching is to change your way of life, what you were doesn't matter, become righteous now, so being a former persecutor is on-message. Jesus accepted Paul; he can accept you, too*.

As much as Paul would like to say that his being commissioned by a ghost to preach.is all that matters, it is a fact (if Paul's own theory is granted) that the James Gang have that commission themselves plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand. Their handshake, then, is worth something to Paul, as is their agreement not to fish in his pond.

I think Acts is a retrospective attempt to pretend there was unity, when there wasn't. To that extent, then, I agree with part of proudfootz' answer to you. I think Acts fits in with the shared agenda of the synoptics, to build up the disciples at the expense of the dead Paul. Maybe that must be done carefully, because it would appear that some churches, like the one at Corinth, were still fond of Paul at the turn of the Second Century, as suggested by 1 Clement. So, presto! - a myth of early unity, and to hell with Paul himself complaining about factionalism, hypocrisy, scrambling for position and disputes over who gets paid for what.

=

* I actually heard this argument in a very Paul-respecting modern Protestant church in Boston. The pastor was urging participation in the Lord's Supper, and said that Jesus had eaten with prostitutes, bigots and tax collectors - how much worse than that are you?

 

[proudfootz]

pakeha
I take Paul at face value here. He doesn't have all that much contact with them. The James Gang are, according to Paul's theory, focused on the right Messiah - like each other or not, they are co-religionists and co-sectarians. They are his corroboration that Jesus' ghost has been widely seen, not just something that happened only in Paul's head. We, the living, cannot be the only ones ever to have wondered about that. There is also "story value." The whole idea of Paul's preaching is to change your way of life, what you were doesn't matter, become righteous now, so being a former persecutor is on-message. Jesus accepted Paul; he can accept you, too*.

The idea of a real conversion (ex-atheist, or ex-evolutionist, ex-fill-in-the-blank) is a real selling point in evangelism. It would seem to be a feature of the personal salvation idea that was coming into vogue at the time.

I just don't see folks doing the same sort of preaching along the lines of "I used to worship Ceres, but now I'm all about Dionysus!"

As much as Paul would like to say that his being commissioned by a ghost to preach is all that matters, it is a fact (if Paul's own theory is granted) that the James Gang have that commission themselves plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand. Their handshake, then, is worth something to Paul, as is their agreement not to fish in his pond.

While I understand this, I'm hesitant to commit to the idea that Paul is talking about literal discipleship here.

I think Acts is a retrospective attempt to pretend there was unity, when there wasn't. To that extent, then, I agree with part of proudfootz' answer to you. I think Acts fits in with the shared agenda of the synoptics, to build up the disciples at the expense of the dead Paul. Maybe that must be done carefully, because it would appear that some churches, like the one at Corinth, were still fond of Paul at the turn of the Second Century, as suggested by 1 Clement. So, presto! - a myth of early unity, and to hell with Paul himself complaining about factionalism, hypocrisy, scrambling for position and disputes over who gets paid for what.

We find ourselves in agreement again. I'm glad my argument didn't appear to be completely without foundation.

 

[Craig B]

You've got to love these kind of rules.

The bit about naming the authors is hilarious! We don't know who wrote these 2nd century narratives, yet they are often cited as 'evidence' for a real Jesus.

I seriously doubt any substantial number of historians have made any study of this subject.

Until there is some evidence otherwise, we'll have to consider the 'academic consensus' as a legend like Bigfoot - a tale often repeated but never verified.

Well how do you even know in that case that they belong to the second century? I suppose however that you know plenty, if you can seriously doubt that academic historians have made studies of the subject, and also you are aware that the academic consensus is like Bigfoot. Others say The Bermuda Triangle, but I suppose Bigfoot's much the same as that.

ETA I see at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9954477&postcount=3530 that you explain your erudition in these matters. When Brainache asked if Historians of the Ancient Near East, the overwhelming majority of whom say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based, were ignorant of their own profession? Or "is more likely that most people just don't take the time to actually study the subject?" You were able to reply

True, most people don't take time to study the subject. I have ... Of these alleged 'majority' you cite, how many have taken the time to study the historicity of Jesus? 5%? 10%?

Well, I must admit that I have always believed that historians of the Ancient Near East did study the historicity of Jesus before entering a consensus on the topic.

If they do not, I am most grateful that you at least have gone to this trouble.

 

[proudfootz]

Well how do you even know in that case that they belong to the second century? I suppose however that you know plenty, if you can seriously doubt that academic historians have made studies of the subject, and also you are aware that the academic consensus is like Bigfoot. Others say The Bermuda Triangle, but I suppose Bigfoot's much the same as that.

Specific persons can make specific arguments on specific points.

The problem with all the handwaving about an 'academic consensus' on Jesus is that we don't get any specific argument in support of any specific proposition.

In that sense at least Bigfoot means something in particular.

 

[Craig B]

Specific persons can make specific arguments on specific points.

Yes. They can, and they often do.

The problem with all the handwaving about an 'academic consensus' on Jesus is that we don't get any specific argument in support of any specific proposition.

I'm not sure I understand that. No academic advances any specific argument in support of any specific proposition about Jesus?

In that sense at least Bigfoot means something in particular.

I'm not sure I understand that either.

 

[IanS]

As much as Paul would like to say that his being commissioned by a ghost to preach.is all that matters, it is a fact (if Paul's own theory is granted) that the James Gang have that commission themselves plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand.

Do you mean that Paul's letters say that James and/or anyone else (this "James Gang") had actually met and known Jesus (his "students beforehand")?

Where does it say that in Paul's letters?

 

[proudfootz]

Yes. They can, and they often do.

Maybe so. I've read several books and articles in support of various HJ hypotheses. When an argument is set down we can discuss it.

There's no way to know what 'the consensus' agrees on or what its reasoning might be.

I'm not sure I understand that. No academic advances any specific argument in support of any specific proposition about Jesus?

Maybe one does. Each theory must stand on its own two feet, however.

When The Consensus publishes a paper making an argument we can sit down and read it together.

 

[proudfootz]

ETA I see at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9954477&postcount=3530 that you explain your erudition in these matters. When Brainache asked if Historians of the Ancient Near East, the overwhelming majority of whom say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based, were ignorant of their own profession?

I suppose it is a question of how big the existence of Jesus plays in the whole of the field.

How long a time period is covered in this field, and how large a geographic area?

"The ancient Near East was the home of early civilizations within a region roughly corresponding to the modern Middle East: Mesopotamia (modern Iraq, southeast Turkey, northeastern Syria and Kuwait), ancient Egypt, ancient Iran (Elam, Media, Parthia and Persia), Anatolia/Asia Minor (modern Turkey and Armenia), the Levant (modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, State of Palestine and Jordan), Cyprus and the Arabian Peninsula. The ancient Near East is studied in the fields of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient history. It begins with the rise of Sumer in the 4th millennium BC, though the date it ends varies: either covering the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the region, until the conquest by the Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century BC or Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC."

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

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

In fact, it would appear ANE does not include Roman Judea (wrong era).

Sometimes I think people over-estimate the importance of this little contretemps in the larger scheme of things.

Or "is more likely that most people just don't take the time to actually study the subject?" You were able to reply Well, I must admit that I have always believed that historians of the Ancient Near East did study the historicity of Jesus before entering a consensus on the topic.

Interestingly enough, Bart Ehrman seems to indicate he was surprised this was even an issue, and he'd already spent a long career in the related field of bible studies.

He seems to think his book is the first to attempt to address the historicity of Jesus:

"Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise. "

http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

If they do not, I am most grateful that you at least have gone to this trouble.

Well, someone had to do it.

 

[dejudge]

When Brainache asked if Historians of the Ancient Near East, the overwhelming majority of whom say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based, were ignorant of their own profession?

The overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East have not conceded that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based WHEN there is no evidence.

Typically, Historians do not even accept the Bible as a credible historical source.

 

[Brainache]

The overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East have not conceded that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based WHEN there is no evidence.

Typically, Historians do not even accept the Bible as a credible historical source.

So, tell me dejudge, what do the overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East say about Jesus?

Every report I've seen says that they do accept that there was a person upon whom the bible stories were based, do you have a source that says otherwise?

 

[dejudge]

So, tell me dejudge, what do the overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East say about Jesus?

Every report I've seen says that they do accept that there was a person upon whom the bible stories were based, do you have a source that says otherwise?

You have seen nothing. You make stuff up.

Historians cannot confirm anything about Jesus of Nazareth except he was described as a Myth by the overwhelming majority of Apologetic writers of antiquity.

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

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

 

[Brainache]

You have seen nothing. You make stuff up.

Historians cannot confirm anything about Jesus of Nazareth except he was described as a Myth by the overwhelming majority of Apologetic writers of antiquity.

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

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Please don't lie about me.

Do you know how many Historians of the Ancient Near East there are in the world?

Do you think that Eisenman means that there was no HJ? Or is he actually saying that we don't know very much about the man?

Do you think that because Richard Carrier says something that disagrees with the vast majority of Historians, that the vast majority must be wrong?

Do you know anything about the construction of logical arguments?

 

[dejudge]

Please don't lie about me.

Your claim is un-evidence and known to be a fallacy that the overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Historians of the Ancient Near East say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based.

Do you know how many Historians of the Ancient Near East there are in the world?

Do you know the majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East in the world? I am merely exposing your fallacious statements.

It is just totally absurd, a complete failure of logic, to suggest that your imagined INVENTED majority is EVIDENCE for an HJ.

Do you think that Eisenman means that there was no HJ?
Or is he actually saying that we don't know very much about the man?

Robert Eisenman has admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question which would include himself.

People who argue for a Mythological Jesus also don't know anything about your imagined man.

Nobody knows anything about your assumed invented HJ.

Do you think that because Richard Carrier says something that disagrees with the vast majority of Historians, that the vast majority must be wrong?

What an absurd argument!! The vast majority is NOT evidence of an historical Jesus.

Do you know anything about the construction of logical arguments?

It is most obvious that you have no idea of logic.

You don't even know that the vast majority' is NOT evidence from antiquity of an HJ.

The 'vast majority' is ONLY evidence of QUANTITY--NOT History.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim is un-evidence and known to be a fallacy that the overwhelming majority of Historians of the Ancient Historians of the Ancient Near East say that there probably was a real person upon whom the stories were based.



Do you know the majority of Historians of the Ancient Near East in the world? I am merely exposing your fallacious statements.

It is just totally absurd, a complete failure of logic, to suggest that your imagined INVENTED majority is EVIDENCE for an HJ.



Robert Eisenman has admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question which would include himself.

People who argue for a Mythological Jesus also don't know anything about your imagined man.

Nobody knows anything about your assumed invented HJ.




What an absurd argument!! The vast majority is NOT evidence of an historical Jesus.



It is most obvious that you have no idea of logic.

You don't even know that the vast majority' is NOT evidence from antiquity of an HJ.

The 'vast majority' is ONLY evidence of QUANTITY--NOT History.

So regarding my question about logical arguments, I'm guessing the answer is "no".

OK. Problem solved.

Learn logic. It will help you make better arguments.

 

[dejudge]

So regarding my question about logical arguments, I'm guessing the answer is "no".

You keep guessing.

 

[wendy moir]

So regarding my question about logical arguments, I'm guessing the answer is "no".

OK. Problem solved.

Learn logic. It will help you make better arguments.

A historical Jesus would infer that any previous mention of the spiritual values relating to Jesus as the Christ and a new born could not have been mentioned beforehand.

He was stated to be born via an immaculate conception, yet physically anyone studying conception would apply that historically this is physically impossible.

Carpentry which was stated to be a historical reference to the Christ is also a Biblical stated inventory relating to "building" such as the Ark.

Genesis
Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

The term Lord said to be a title for the Jesus Christ.

Religion and its study proposed to be discussing acts of creation.

Therefore how could "man" be made as a living being from dust of the ground?

What many religious teachers have implied is that you take the worded references and then give your own meaning to them. If this is the case then the total of the biblical references have no substantial meaning in the textual advice.

If you apply textual advice to the word man and an inference of being created from the dust of the ground, this would imply to the "alpha", and the alpha related to the nuclear situation of stone and its creation.

The alpha and the omega also a relationship stated to belong to Jesus. This relates beginning and also the end function in Earth's Heaven, being the atmosphere.

12"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Historically the evidence of Jesus textual advice would imply that as man was stated to be the first act by God in creation, then the alpha would relate to this situation.

The term for alpha is an ancient reference to a leader or an ox.

A particle relating to alpha defines the state to be less penetrating in rays than beta. Therefore the alpha is higher than the secondary body

Humanity understand that to breathe we need oxygen, the reason for life itself.

What would be the holy spirit of life if not oxygen? Isn't oxygen a reason for the nuclear of stone to not harm us even though we stand upon it and live upon it? Where is Satan, the evil/burnt spirit, stated to be inside the stone of Earth. Who protects us from Satan.....Jesus does for he castes out devils.

Wouldn't life itself be created and also be consistently created only because of the Holy OXygen?

The term gen in the dictionary references "to be born".

Therefore wouldn't this term denote that Jesus the new born is the Creator Spirit of the Holy life....a life that is only known in the diaphanous body (spirit) of the Heavenly atmosphere around Earth?

As GENESIS reveals gen e SIS. Who was the more ancient Holy Mother as a religious reference....ISIS.

Aren't the historical holy teachings actually about creation itself, and the spirits involved in creation as a history?

Why does the WORD OF GOD relate to textual advice called the ALPHA BET.

If you apply the WORD alphabetalphabet it demonstrates alpha beta.

Weren't religious teachings historically only discussed literally by the intellectuals and the society taught morality?

 

[Brainache]

You keep guessing.

That was the wrong word. I apologise.

Having read your arguments, I know there is no logic to them.

Is that better?