Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
eight bits said:
Job appears to be a composite work: an older wrapper (which would include the also archetypal Satan-God interaction) with a more recent filling (all that very Jewish talk among the friends and family about how Job must have had it coming).
Click to expand...
Yes, God comes across as a bit of a stinker, and He has to ask Satan where he's been and what he's been thinking about, so His omniscience must have conked out, or it hasn't been invented yet.

All this is rather old fashioned I suppose.
 
Last edited:
HJ the obscure itinerant preacher could never ever be a plausible explanation-- such an HJ is without a shred of evidence.

Belief in NT Jesus stories must be the ONLY Plausible explanation for the start of the Jesus cult.

It is completely illogical to assume there is another explanation for the start of the Jesus cult when Christians writers of antiquity clearly explained what they BELIEVED and it matches the stories of Jesus found in the NT.

1. Ignatius claimed his Jesus was God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

2. Justin Martyr claimed his Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

3. Tertullian claimed his Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

4. Irenaeus claimed his Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

5. Hippolytus claimed his Jesus was the Logos, God Creator--this belief is compatible with the NT.

6. Origen claimed his Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

7. Aristides claimed his Jesus was God who came down from heaven and born of a Virgin--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

8. Eusebius claimed his Jesus was GOD Incarnate--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

9. Jerome claimed his Jesus was the Son of God born of a Virgin--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

10. Chrysostom claimed his Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost--this belief is completely compatible with the NT.

We can see that HJ the OBSCURE Itinerant preacher is NOT a Plausible option for start of the Jesus cult.

Christian writers themselves show that BELIEF in Myth Jesus, the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator was EXTREMELY Plausible and was in fact BELIEVED.

There is no reason and highly illogical to put forward an alternative explanation when there is NO evidence.

There is NO Christian writer of antiquity who claimed that Jesus was an OBSCURE Jewish Itinerant preacher.

HJ the obscure Itinerant Jewish preacher makes NO sense.

HJ the obscure itinerant Jewish preacher is NOT Plausible.

The BELIEF in Jesus the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator is the ONLY Plausible option BASED on the EXISTING evidence.
 
Stone said:
It is the myther's stock in trade to deliberately confound the human Jesus of history with the fanciful Christ of Christian faith. I have come to the conclusion that that stock in trade is not applied out of real confusion but from an intent to confuse others. Despicable, of course.

Stone
Click to expand...



Which ” human Jesus of history" is this?

You are talking as if there definitely was a human Jesus. Whereas in fact (a)that is the very thing which is in dispute here, and (b)there is in fact no evidence except for the religious beliefs in an obviously unreliable and incredible holy bible.

Like most of the pro HJ believers here, you are automatically assuming that he must have existed (despite not a shred of reliable evidence, and against all evidence showing how unreliable and incredible the biblical stories are).
 
jhunter1163 said:
What contemporary evidence is there for the existence of the Buddha? Or Confucius?
Click to expand...



Why are we talking about them? This thread is about whether or not there is good evidence to show that Jesus existed. And so far it seems nobody can produce any such evidence at all.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
... In the case of entirely religious figures like Jesus, it is the existence of the figure himself that is crucial. If Jesus does not exist, then the entire basis of the Christian belief system is bogus.
Click to expand...
I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability.
 
Brainache said:
It does no such thing, if you are familiar with Josephus. Josephus puts James' death at 64 CE and says that the later calamities of the war, siege and destruction of the Temple, could all be traced back to that event.
Click to expand...

You are dodging the big issue. Origen in two separate places in the same work claimed that Josephus wrote that the death of James the Just was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

I again ask oh Wise One where in 20.9.1 is there anything about Josephus saying that the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple was the punishment for the death of James the Just? As I asked before WHERE in Josephus is there even such a statement?
 
Last edited:
maximara said:
You are dodging the big issue. Origen in two separate places in the same work claimed that Josephus wrote that the death of James the Just was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

I again ask oh Wise One where in 20.9.1 is there anything about Josephus saying that the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple was the punishment for the death of James the Just? As I asked before WHERE in Josephus is there even such a statement?
Click to expand...
Presumably it wasn't in Origen's copy, which must have been prior to any now extant. That James Temple reference was in his copy, but it's not in the extant versions. The attestation of Jesus as the Christ was not in his copy, but it is in ours. How many other changes have been made that we don't know about?
 
jhunter1163 said:
What contemporary evidence is there for the existence of the Buddha? Or Confucius?
Click to expand...

Two things here.

Buddha stated that you should find your own path ie his way was NOT the only way. So in many ways Buddha is the opposite of Jesus who supposedly said his way was the only way.

Confucius was not well known in his own life time and it wasn't until the Han Dynasty some 200 years later who needed a philosophy for their rule that he became important.

Sima Qian, a historian, from 109 to 91 BC wrote Records of the Grand Historian using archives and imperial records and traveled through out China to verify information. While many of the sources he used did not survive he did cite them and noted when there were problems with incomplete, fragmentary and-or contradictory sources.

It is from Records of the Grand Historian that much of what we know about Confucius comes from. So with Confucius we have a trained historian, who cites his sources and notes when things are incomplete, fragmentary and-or contradictory with what he does find. Jesus doesn't have anything even remotely like this.
 
IanS said:
Why are we talking about them?
Click to expand...

To try to make you understand something that you've been ignoring since all this started: history isn't a courtroom or a lab. The standard of evidence is different, and applying the same rigour to it that we do in these other venues woudl disqualify the majority of the established timeline of human civilisation. That's a stupid way to go about doing history.
 
Craig B said:
I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.
Click to expand...

To be fair I don't think this is Ian's argument, but I have no doubt that it is the reason behind his siding with the MJ scenario.
 
Craig B said:
Presumably it wasn't in Origen's copy, which must have been prior to any now extant. That James Temple reference was in his copy, but it's not in the extant versions. The attestation of Jesus as the Christ was not in his copy, but it is in ours. How many other changes have been made that we don't know about?
Click to expand...

Origen had a "special personal" copy of Josephus. No-one before Origen ever corroborated his "special personal" Antiquities of the Jews.
 
Craig B said:
I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability.
Click to expand...

Your argument works both ways.

I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ HJ position. Christianity is bad, good and ought not to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus existed.

This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability
 
dejudge said:
Origen had a "special personal" copy of Josephus. No-one before Origen ever corroborated his "special personal" Antiquities of the Jews.
Click to expand...

dejudge said:
Origen had a "special personal" copy of Josephus. No-one before Origen ever corroborated his "special personal" Antiquities of the Jews about James being the cause of the Fall of the Temple.
Click to expand...
I prefer your repetitions being in the same post. Saves space; and it's more convenient for the unfortunate reader.
 
Craig B said:
I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability.
Click to expand...

What a strawman argument!!! HJers use that strawman argument everytime their HJ argument is exposed as baseless.

It is those who argue for an Historical Jesus who are actively and inherently exposing that Christian writers of antiquity were LIARS [Embellishers] and were involved with forgeries.

Bart Ehrman who argues for an historical Jesus has EXPOSED the forgeries, falsely attributed writings, the discrepancies, the historical problems and implausibility in the NT itself and many other writings about Jesus.

In order to show that Jesus was an OBSCURE Itinerant preacher HJers MUST show that the NT description of Jesus was a PACK OF LIES [pack of Embellishments] from conception to ascension.

In other words, if Jesus was really an obscure man as HJers intend to show, then the Pauline Hallucinations and Gospels are actually WORTHLESS historically and theologically.
 
Craig B said:
I have pointed out long ago that this seems to be one of the main motives for adopting the MJ position. Christianity is bad, and ought to disappear. If it was acknowledged by its present adherents to be bogus, it would disappear. If Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would be acknowledged by these adherents to be bogus. Therefore Jesus didn't exist.This is an absurd reason for believing Jesus not to have existed. It is a fallacy. Whether the discovery of Jesus' non-existence would have desirable consequences or not, has no effect at all on its probability.
Click to expand...



The highlighted bit does not follow at all, and nobody said it did follow (only you claimed that!).
 
The HJ argument is inherently flawed and hopelessly illogical.

If one examines the NT is quickly observed that the Jesus described is NOT human.

The author gMark shows his Jesus character WLAKING on the SEA and Transfiguring in the presence of his disciples.

The author of gMatthew and gLuke claimed THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost or Ascended in a cloud.

The author gJohn claimed his Jesus was the Logos and God Creator.

The Pauline writers claimed the PARENTS of Jesus was GOD and a Woman.

The NT Jesus is NOT based on an Itinerant preacher.

An Itinerant preacher MAKES NO SENSE in the NT.

NT Jesus is based directly on the Mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

How in the world could the Jesus character in the NT be BELIEVEABLE and an ALTERNATIVE to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman Mythological GODS if he was a mere man?

The Jesus story MUST start with a BANG from the get go!!

The Jesus cult or inventors must first INRODUCE THEIR Jesus as the actual Son of God from the beginning to be a NEW COMPETING RELIGION.

An obscure itinerant man just doesn't cut it!!

A KNOWN itinerant man would have destroyed Paul's Hallucination Jesus.

Paul's Hallucination Jesus only works if nobody knew of the itinerant preacher.

Paul's Hallucination Jesus was absolutely successful.

There are BILLIONS of Christians who believe Paul's Hallucination Jesus did exist.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom