Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

Have I told anyone to "shut up"? I have called "nonsense" on a number of arguments offered, but they are demonstrably fallacious. I'm perfectly willing to engage in a polite debate with you, so please don't start out by poisoning the well with insinuations that I will not politely hear you out.

You haven't but the "scholarly" community has. Robert Price admits the MJ idea is dismissed out of hand ie the very same "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense" that people under Newton were doing with what Sirius companion star was telling them.

As I stated before it is what Horace Miner satirized regarding his fellow anthropologists regarding how dismissive they were of "primate cultures who believed in magic" by showing their very model would reduce any culture...even that of then current 1950s United States... to a bunch of bone through their nose magic using primitives.

The HJ position has the same problem...something a big as Christianity must have come from a big man and that man is described (more or less) in the Gospels. Look at the tack in Eddy and Boyd's Jesus Legend--the Gospels striped of their mythological and supernatural elements tell a reasonably accurate tale (sadly they don't).

This is the very Horace Minerish trap HJ people are in; for the HJ argument to have any validity the Gospels accounts must be in some manner be historical accurate. Otherwise the HJ people are left with an totally obscure preacher who is only remembered thanks to a guy name Paul and his followers...not for anything the preacher himself actual said or did.
It is likely this last part that scare the crap of many HJers...that there is nothing really special about their so called founder and if not for the followers of a guy that had visions he likely wouldn't be remembered anymore then the many other would be messiahs Josephus writes about.

 

[Belz...]

Glad to hear it. I'm surprised you accepted them in the past.

I'm not.

 

[Belz...]

You haven't but the "scholarly" community has. Robert Price admits the MJ idea is dismissed out of hand ie the very same "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense" that people under Newton were doing with what Sirius companion star was telling them.

Yeah, well people have been rejecting new ideas since the dawn of time, so it's at least not surprising.

But in order to go from "probably HJ" to "probably MJ", how can we establish that MJ is more likely than HJ ?

 

[dejudge]

Yeah, well people have been rejecting new ideas since the dawn of time, so it's at least not surprising.

But in order to go from "probably HJ" to "probably MJ", how can we establish that MJ is more likely than HJ ?

You have it upside down and back to front. There is no evidence to support the supposition for an HJ.

The quest for an historical Jesus is still on going and has been on-going since it started around the 18th century.

Jesus of the NT has already been established as Myth--a Jesus of Faith.

The quest for an HJ was initiated because it was realised NT Jesus was not a figure of history.

There is no such thing as an actual historical Jesus and no evidence for historical Jesus has ever been established.

Christians of antiquity worshiped a character who was born of a Ghost and God Creator since at least the 2nd century.

In effect, the claim of a probable HJ is really worthless because of no evidence from the very start.

 

[dejudge]

No, actually I didn't. It has been proposed as a likely explanation for the origin of Christianity by a great many New Testament scholars. I've asked you repeatedly to tell us why it is not a plausible scenario. Your continued evasion is transparently obvious and says much more than you would like it to.

We gone through this a "million" times. We already know that billions of people believe Jesus existed without a shred of evidence.

You are still in the proposal stage. This is the time to present evidence for your proposal.

You have nothing but un-evidence stories for your HJ.

Your approach is no different to a sunday school setting where people are asked to believe the Jesus stories are plausible without evidence.

Please, your HJ is not plausible because you never had the supporting evidence from the start.

Jesus the Son of God, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected was plausible in the 2nd century and that is exactly why there are Christians even today.

Myth Jesus is extremely plausible--far more plausible than your modern unknown HJ.

Myth Jesus was raised from the dead.

Without Myth Jesus there would be no remission of Sins and NO Christian Faith.


1 Corinthians 15:17 NIV

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

 

[Foster Zygote]

We gone through this a "million" times. We already know that billions of people believe Jesus existed without a shred of evidence.

We aren't talking about Christians and the magical Jesus whom they believe in, we're talking about an historical, non-magical religious figure who had a lot of stories made up about him by superstitious people after he died, and the vast majority of academic New Testament scholar's support for the latter interpretation.

You are still in the proposal stage. This is the time to present evidence for your proposal.

Again, you display your erroneous assumption that nothing but certainty has any place in history. It is most likely that there will never be any epistemological proof of the existence of Jesus, simply because of the astronomically unlikely probability of any records of a little known nobody that may have been passingly recorded surviving the two millennia until the modern age.

And what about you? Where is the evidence that proves that Jesus never existed? Every argument that you've offered so far has been a non-starter.

You have nothing but un-evidence stories for your HJ.

Then who were the Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century? Please, who were they?

Your approach is no different to a sunday school setting where people are asked to believe the Jesus stories are plausible without evidence.

What Sunday school teaches that Jesus is merely plausible?

Please, your HJ is not plausible because you never had the supporting evidence from the start.

Who were the Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century?

Jesus the Son of God, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected was plausible in the 2nd century and that is exactly why there are Christians even today.

That sentence doesn't even make sense in context with your other statements. Are you saying that people could imagine someone with magical attributes in the 2nd Century, but not in the 1st?

Myth Jesus is extremely plausible--far more plausible than your modern unknown HJ.

How so? You have yet to indicate what parts of the historical Jesus scenario are not plausible, and you have yet to offer anything but the most vague scenario for an entirely mythical Jesus.

Myth Jesus was raised from the dead.

And this Jesus is more plausible to you than a deluded Jesus who got himself executed?

Without Myth Jesus there would be no remission of Sins and NO Christian Faith.

Actually, there were Christian groups who did not think that Jesus came to die for our sins. You keep addressing Christianity in a way that indicates that you don't know much more about its early history than the typical evangelical.

1 Corinthians 15:17 NIV

What do you think that proves, other than what many Christians believed about Jesus? Again, what does what Christians believed about Jesus have to do with the reality of Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

We aren't talking about Christians and the magical Jesus whom they believe in, we're talking about an historical, non-magical religious figure who had a lot of stories made up about him by superstitious people after he died, and the vast majority of academic New Testament scholar's support for the latter interpretation.

I am glad that you have conveniently admitted that you are not dealing with the evidence in the NT and Apologetic writings.

You have no interest in the history of the Jesus cult and what they believed as documented .

The abundance of evidence in Apologetics, the recovered dated NT manuscripts and Codices confirm that Jesus called the Christ was a figure of mythology.

You are talking about what you imagine.

I am dealing with writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Origen, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Jerome, Arnobius, Augustine, Severus, Chrysostom, Optatus, Ephraem, Rufinus, Minucius Felix, Julian, the Muratorian Canon, the Chronograph of 354 and others of antiquity.

The Jesus character was a Myth--a figure of Faith--an eschatological concept who never had any real existence.

Your unknown obscure crucfied Jesus makes no sense.

Why would Romans worship a known crucified criminal as a God?

Why would a Pharisee called Paul tell the Romans to worship the same crucified criminal as a God?

The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century.

The HJ argument is dead.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am glad that you have conveniently admitted that you are not dealing with the evidence in the NT and Apologetic writings.

That didn't even come close to addressing what I wrote.

You have no interest in the history of the Jesus cult and what they believed as documented .

On the contrary, I do.

The abundance of evidence in Apologetics, the recovered dated NT manuscripts and Codices confirm that Jesus called the Christ was a figure of mythology.

How so? Every argument that you've offered so far has been extremely flawed.

You are talking about what you imagine.

Are you capable of composing a cogent paragraph? Why does nearly everything you write consist of single sentences separated like paragraphs?

I am dealing with writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Origen, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Jerome, Arnobius, Augustine, Severus, Chrysostom, Optatus, Ephraem, Rufinus, Minucius Felix, Julian, the Muratorian Canon, the Chronograph of 354 and others of antiquity.

I guess those stupid academic New Testament scholars have never heard of those guys. They really ought to come to you for some serious learnin'.

The Jesus character was a Myth--a figure of Faith--an eschatological concept who never had any real existence.

Say dejudge, who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century? It's almost as if you can't see that question being asked over and over.

Your unknown obscure crucfied Jesus makes no sense.

I've asked you to explain why several times, but you just keep evading the question.

Why would Romans worship a known crucified criminal as a God?

Maybe you should ask the Roman Catholic Church, or Emperor Constantine the Great?

Why would a Pharisee called Paul tell the Romans to worship the same crucified criminal as a God?

There's no evidence that he ever did, yet Romans, and many other Pagans did come to do just that.

The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century.

Now that's just an enormous load of BS that you pulled right out of your darkest regions.

The HJ argument is dead.

Yeah, but those stupid academic New Testament scholars just won't recognize your learning in this matter. Whatever are we to do to convince them to listen to you? You should really publish a book or something.

 

[Belz...]

That didn't even come close to addressing what I wrote.

Sensing a pattern ?

 

[dejudge]

...Yeah, but those stupid academic New Testament scholars just won't recognize your learning in this matter. Whatever are we to do to convince them to listen to you? You should really publish a book or something.

Yeah?? Are you calling Robert Eiseman a stupid academic?

Robert Eiseman, an historian, admitted that no-one has solved the question of the historical Jesus.

Richard Carrier has claimed Bart Ehrman's arguments for an HJ of Nazareth are void of logic.

I do not need to publish any books.

An abundance evidence have been recovered. Hundreds of NT manuscripts and Codices have found and dated from the 2nd century and later and they confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of Faith--a Myth--an eschatological concept who never had any real existence.

The evidence show that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Without the resurrection of Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost there would be NO remission of Sins, No Christian Faith and No preaching of the Gospel.

The HJ argument of an obscure crucified dead is not plausible.

We know Myth Jesus was plausible because the stories have been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later.

Your modern HJ fables haver never been recovered in or out the Bible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yeah?? Are you calling Robert Eiseman a stupid academic?

Robert Eiseman, an historian, admitted that no-one has solved the question of the historical Jesus.

Yet he also believes that it is most likely that an historical Jesus existed. Since the arguments that you have presented are so devastating against the historical Jesus hypothesis, then it seems rather obvious that you are far smarter than the great majority of academic New Testament scholars. Right?

Richard Carrier has claimed Bart Ehrman's arguments for an HJ of Nazareth are void of logic.

Which arguments?

I do not need to publish any books.

But you have so much to teach the academic community regarding the impossibility of an historical Jesus. I'm sure it's never occurred to them that the fact that people made up magical stories about him means that he couldn't have existed as a real person who was later mythologized by people who believed in the supernatural, or that we can be sure that there were no texts written prior to the oldest extant witnesses because we know that the ones we have are the oldest that have ever existed. You really need to share your expertise with the world. Why would you hold it back?

An abundance evidence have been recovered. Hundreds of NT manuscripts and Codices have found and dated from the 2nd century and later and they confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of Faith--a Myth--an eschatological concept who never had any real existence.

How do they confirm it? You still haven't proved the impossibility of the simple historical scenario that I've presented. Surely it should be easy for someone of your learning.

The evidence show that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

No, the evidence shows that (some varieties of) Christians eventually came to believe those things. What it doesn't show is that these beliefs mean that there could never have been a real Jesus about whom these stories were fabricated.

Without the resurrection of Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost there would be NO remission of Sins, No Christian Faith and No preaching of the Gospel.

And without the visitation of the angel Moroni and the revelation of the golden plates and the translation of the Book Of Mormon, there would be no message about celestial marriage, no Mormon faith, and no well groomed young men riding around in pairs on bicycles.

The HJ argument of an obscure crucified dead is not plausible.

You still haven't explained why.

We know Myth Jesus was plausible because the stories have been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later.

Then we know that Josephus was a myth because we have no extant texts of his older than the Medieval Period. Seriously, that's your best argument. And that's not a question, it's a statement. That's your best argument.

Your modern HJ fables haver never been recovered in or out the Bible.

Then who were the Christians whom Nero was persecuting during the mid 1st Century?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century.

By the way, are you just going to pretend you never said that?

 

[Craig B]

... It is likely this last part that scare the crap of many HJers...that there is nothing really special about their so called founder and if not for the followers of a guy that had visions he likely wouldn't be remembered any more than the many other would-be messiahs Josephus writes about.

I'm pretty certain that's absolutely true. Completely true. Now explain why such a concept should "scare the crap" out of HJers? Why should any non-believer be in the least worried about the idea that but for certain entirely fortuitous circumstances not of his own making, Jesus would be no better remembered than the individuals mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5? No better remembered than Honi the Circle Maker, or Jesus son of Ananias, the apocalyptic raver? Why should that scare anyone but a Christian believer?

Time after time, the MJers attribute to the HJers a concern for "belief in the Holy Bible" or for the transcendental super importance of a real Jesus (something special "about their so-called founder") and it is on account of these illusory preoccupations perhaps, that they sometimes display such vehemence, not to say downright hostility, whenever it is suggested that Jesus may have existed as a real person.

 

[dejudge]

The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century.

By the way, are you just going to pretend you never said that?

You are not serious? You are joking, right?


Pilate loved the Jews

Gaius loved the Jews

Nero loved the Jews

Vepasian loved the Jews

Titus loved the Jews.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is likely this last part that scare the crap of many HJers...that there is nothing really special about their so called founder and if not for the followers of a guy that had visions he likely wouldn't be remembered anymore then the many other would be messiahs Josephus writes about.

Why are you conflating "HJers" with Christian believers? The idea that Jesus was most likely just another delusional religious crank who got himself brutally executed when he went to Jerusalem to carry out "God's plan", and that it is just an accident of history that a cult started around his narrative that grew into a major religion is pretty much the heart of the historical Jesus scenario.

 

[maximara]

Then who were the Christians whom Nero was persecuting in the mid 1st Century? Please, who were they?

As John Frum shows existence of a belief doesn't mean that there has a founder.

History from the get go had the view that myths were distorted history with Euhemerus kicking it to the next level and saying that all myths had some basis in historical fact.

"The work is of immense importance, for Euhemerus proposes that myth is history in disguise, that deities were originally living men and women who were elevated to divine status because of heroic feats when alive." (Neusner, Jacob; Alan Jeffery Avery-Peck (2007) Encyclopedia of religious and philosophical writings in late antiquity Brill, Page 369)

The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Hastings, James; John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray (1919) Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10) captures this mind set perfectly.

In fact, Euhemerus himself stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete (Zeus Is Dead: Euhemerus and Crete, S. Spyridakis, The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8, May, 1968, pp. 337-340.) and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos (Preparation of the Gospel 10.12)

 

[maximara]

Why are you conflating "HJers" with Christian believers? The idea that Jesus was most likely just another delusional religious crank who got himself brutally executed when he went to Jerusalem to carry out "God's plan", and that it is just an accident of history that a cult started around his narrative that grew into a major religion is pretty much the heart of the historical Jesus scenario.

Look at the majority f the literature out there. How much of it has the HJ essentially be the Jesus of the bible?

More over why are you conflating the existence of Christians in the 1st century CE with the existence of their founder? John Frum shows that idea is DOA.

 

[dejudge]

Why are you conflating "HJers" with Christian believers? The idea that Jesus was most likely just another delusional religious crank who got himself brutally executed when he went to Jerusalem to carry out "God's plan", and that it is just an accident of history that a cult started around his narrative that grew into a major religion is pretty much the heart of the historical Jesus scenario.

You must not have realised that the main reason why HJers seem like Christian Believers is because they use the Bible for the history of their Jesus without a shred of corroborating evidence.

You keep repeating the Creed of HJers--not the evidence.

"We believe Jesus existed and that he was a preacher" is only a Creed it is not evidence.

People nowadays are less and less unwilling to believe what you say if you fail to provide the supporting evidence.

When will you actually present some evidence for HJ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You are not serious? You are joking, right?


Pilate loved the Jews

Gaius loved the Jews

Nero loved the Jews

Vepasian loved the Jews

Titus loved the Jews.

Jews lived throughout the Empire in general harmony with the rest of the population. There were certainly tensions between the Roman government and the radical elements of Judaism, and many in the Empire thought the Jewish religious practices peculiar, even suspicious at times. But Jews enjoyed the protection of the state for their religious practices for a long time. So your claim that Romans would never have converted to Christianity because, "The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century" is completely asinine and has no demonstrable basis in fact. Even more asinine is your objection that Romans would never worship a crucified individual as a god because, clearly, they did just that. Of all the fallacious argument that you've presented, these are probably the laziest and most thoughtless.

By the way, are you aware that most people in the Roman Empire weren't Romans? And then there's the fact that 10 - 15% of the population of the Empire was slaves. Remember that Christianity was portrayed by both apologists and antagonists as being popular among slaves.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You must not have realised that the main reason why HJers seem like Christian Believers is because they use the Bible for the history of their Jesus without a shred of corroborating evidence.

You keep repeating the Creed of HJers--not the evidence.

"We believe Jesus existed and that he was a preacher" is only a Creed it is not evidence.

People nowadays are less and less unwilling to believe what you say if you fail to provide the supporting evidence.

When will you actually present some evidence for HJ?

Who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting?