Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

It isn't a case of "winning", I'm just amused by the fact that these arguments of yours are so hilariously moronic.

Keep it up!

What's is the point of arguing with me when you know in advance that you cannot ever win based on the massive amount of evidence for Myth Jesus..

I have seen your Game. I have seen your "hand".

You have no evidence, no data, no statistics, nothing to support the HJ argument.

You did not even vote for the existence of an HJ in the polls.

The HJ argument is dead.

Only rhetoric and ridicule is left.

An HJ was not ever plausible as is evident.

The Quest for HJ has produced nothing after hundreds of years.

 

[Brainache]

What's is the point of arguing with me when you know in advance that you cannot ever win based on the massive amount of evidence for Myth Jesus..

It isn't argument. It's laughter.

I have seen your Game. I have seen your "hand".

Apparently you didn't understand it though.

You have no evidence, no data, no statistics, nothing to support the HJ argument.

That is a lie.

You did not even vote for the existence of an HJ in the polls.

What do you think that proves?

The HJ argument is dead.

Academia has not been made aware of this earth-shattering knowledge. You should let those dummies share in your wealth of learning. What are you talking to me for? I can't help you, I don't teach History, those are the guys you should talk to.

Why not try talking to a Historian dejudge?

Only rhetoric and ridicule is left.

The real arguments have all remained unaddressed by you, that's for sure.

An HJ was not ever plausible as is evident.

Wrong. The HJ remains the most plausible explanation, according to real experts, not blokes called "dejudge" on the internet.

The Quest for HJ has produced nothing after hundreds of years.

You could try reading a few recent books on the subject to learn just how wrong that statement is, but will you?

 

[pakeha]

Indeed. The fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith is made perfectly clear by the fact that there is no anthropological, paleontological, archaeological, linguistic or genomic evidence for the great civilizations described in the Book Of Mormon. And the "translation" of the Book Of Abraham is a laughably obvious lie because Egyptologists can readily read what the hypocephali actually say. Yet we don't see Mormons decamping from the LDS in droves, do we?

I don't know.
Is there any way of knowing what the figures are for LDS membership and whether it's growing, shrinking or static?

What makes you think the Romans ever heard about what Jesus taught?

Well, they did nail him to a cross. I very much doubt that they'd heard anything about him prior to his arrest. But something made them think he was worth making an extreme example of. If they did write his crime as "Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum", then that would tell us that they regarded him as another apocalyptic revolutionary and dealt with him accordingly.


Cool. Lots of fascinating stuff to be found. I think I have some references stashed away in my bookmarks. I'll look for them when I have more time.

Actually, the hilited bit is what I have doubts about. In fact the entire story from the entry to Jerusalem to the death scene seems highly improbable to me.
Anyway, when you have to dig up those links, I'd be happy to follow them up. Thanks in advance.

 

[IanS]

And it has been clear to us old HJ people, that's what your motive is. A "logical" pseudo-syllogism:
Christianity should not exist.
Without a historical Jesus, Christianity would not exist
Ergo, there is no historical Jesus.

Well that's the 3rd or 4th time you've repeated that here now. And you were told each previous time that your accusation was entirely untrue. Even some on your own HJ side pointed out to you that I had never said any such thing. And yet here you are again deliberately and knowing making the same entirely untrue accusations.

If you think it's being said that the reason Jesus did not exist is because that would be destroy Christian beliefs today, then you are the only person here who has said any such thing.

You really must start trying to tell the truth in these threads. Though the fact that you cannot seem to do that, probably does explain your delusion about the credibility of the biblical writing.

 

[Brainache]

I don't know.
Is there any way of knowing what the figures are for LDS membership and whether it's growing, shrinking or static?





Actually, the hilited bit is what I have doubts about. In fact the entire story from the entry to Jerusalem to the death scene seems highly improbable to me.
Anyway, when you have to dig up those links, I'd be happy to follow them up. Thanks in advance.

I recently read an interesting idea about Samaria and a person known as "the Taheb" (or something). Supposedly the "Messiah Ben Joseph", whose followers were killed by Pilate, many by crucifixion. This being one of the incidents which lead to Pilate being recalled to Rome for being too brutal (!).

If there is a conflation of characters in the Jesus traditions, this guy has to be one candidate IMO.

 

[Craig B]

Well that's the 3rd or 4th time you've repeated that here now. And you were told each previous time that your accusation was entirely untrue. Even some on your own HJ side pointed out to you that I had never said any such thing. And yet here you are again deliberately and knowing making the same entirely untrue accusations.

If you think it's being said that the reason Jesus did not exist is because that would be destroy Christian beliefs today, then you are the only person here who has said any such thing.

You really must start trying to tell the truth in these threads. Though the fact that you cannot seem to do that, probably does explain your delusion about the credibility of the biblical writing.

I have no delusions about the credibility of "biblical" writing. I don't believe there is such a thing as a single integrated "biblical writing" as well you know. And as to my explanation of your motives, which you relate in your second paragraph, here is what you said previously.

Does it matter? Well it matters to current day Christianity! Because without Jesus its’ worldwide preaching has no honest basis. And if people doubt that then they should try asking the head of their local Christian church if they would mind telling their congregation that Jesus was actually mythical and that everything they had sworn unto god and heaven was actually all just 2000 years of a whopping great lie … see how many heads of the Christian church (not to mention their devout congregations) would be comfortable with that outcome.

(My bold.)

 

[Belz...]

What you say is not logical because Christians de-convert.

There's that word, again. Logical. You are making quite a bit of effort to avoid answering my request to define it.

 

[dafydd]

Are you the same dafydd who voted that Jesus was a figure of history?

Yes, I'm a creature of whim. I don't give a toss about Jesus

 

[dafydd]

You don't even understand what you are saying. People who play the Numbers Game use specific words or phrases like "most", "the majority" , "the vast majority" and "consensus".

I did not use these words or phrases:

1. "the majority of atheists"

2. "the vast majority of atheists"

2. "most atheists"

3. "the consensus of atheists"

You play the Numbers Game a lot but you can't win.

How much is ''many''.

 

[jond]

Actually, the hilited bit is what I have doubts about. In fact the entire story from the entry to Jerusalem to the death scene seems highly improbable to me.
Anyway, when you have to dig up those links, I'd be happy to follow them up. Thanks in advance.

Me too. I think this could be a very interesting discussion, perhaps worthy of a separate thread?

(Crucifixion? Good. Through the door, line on the left, one cross each...)

 

[dejudge]

How much is ''many''.

In the UK based on a 2011 census Christianity in the United Kingdom may become a minority in 4 years by 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom

In the 2011 Census, 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the entire population (25%) of England and Wales, said they had no religion, a rise of 6.4 million since 2001.

In Scotland, more than one third of the population (37%) stated that they had no religion. The British Humanist Association (BHA) had encouraged people to tick the "No religion" box and said the fall was "astounding". It has calculated that Christians could be in a minority by 2018.[89]

 

[dafydd]

Your statement is highly illogical. You do not even understand that there are atheists who were once believers.

And there are believers who were once atheists. So what?

 

[dafydd]

In the UK based on a 2011 census Christianity in the United Kingdom may become a minority in 4 years by 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom

That is good news. Could you please state what your point is in this thread? I still have no idea what it is.

 

[jhunter1163]

In the 2011 Census, 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the entire population (25%) of England and Wales, said they had no religion, a rise of 6.4 million since 2001.

In Scotland, more than one third of the population (37%) stated that they had no religion. The British Humanist Association (BHA) had encouraged people to tick the "No religion" box and said the fall was "astounding". It has calculated that Christians could be in a minority by 2018.[89]

I'm sure that recent Church scandals have far more to do with this than any debunking of the HJ does.

 

[IanS]

I have no delusions about the credibility of "biblical" writing. I don't believe there is such a thing as a single integrated "biblical writing" as well you know.

Well whether you want to call it “integrated” or not, makes no difference at all to the fact that you are relying on what was written in the bible. That is the source of your belief in Jesus.

And as to my explanation of your motives, which you relate in your second paragraph, here is what you said previously. (My bold.)

Originally Posted by IanS Does it matter? Well it matters to current day Christianity! Because without Jesus its’ worldwide preaching has no honest basis. And if people doubt that then they should try asking the head of their local Christian church if they would mind telling their congregation that Jesus was actually mythical and that everything they had sworn unto god and heaven was actually all just 2000 years of a whopping great lie … see how many heads of the Christian church (not to mention their devout congregations) would be comfortable with that outcome. (My bold.)

Well not a single word in that above highlighted quote supports your accusation where you repeatedly keep accusing me of the following -

And it has been clear to us old HJ people, that's what your motive is. A "logical" pseudo-syllogism:
Christianity should not exist.
Without a historical Jesus, Christianity would not exist
Ergo, there is no historical Jesus.

I’m simply saying, as you have been told several times before, that in my opinion any realisation that Jesus was probably only a mythical figure, would be very damaging to the current day Christian church and it’s faithful flock of worldwide believers.

And as I have explained several times, that is the main reason I am interested in the fact that for 2000 years Jesus seems to have been claimed by leaders of the Christian church, and believed by it’s followers as absolute certain fact (and actually taught to children in schools as certain fact), when it seems the truth is that there is really no reliable evidence to support 1st century beliefs in his existence at all. That seems to me to a rather serious issue for Christianity today, if it ever came to the position of having to admit that the very basis for it's belief and all it’s biblical preaching about the absolute truth of Jesus, was after all probably only fiction.

And just to be clear yet again about something that so offends you - the problem is that you do not actually have any evidence of Jesus at all. What you are calling evidence of Jesus, is only the biblical writing of people who themselves did not have any evidence of Jesus. Those biblical writers were doing no more than to say that other unknown people in the past were said to have believed that still earlier people had once been witness to Jesus performing all sorts of miracles.

That is not evidence of Jesus. Those gospel writers (for example) did not know Jesus and did not themselves have any evidence of Jesus to give! All they knew, and all they could write about, was their belief in stories that other people had once known the evidence ... though not one of those other people ever wrote a single word to confirm anything that was claimed on their behalf.

Gospel writing like that is not, and cannot be, a presentation of actual evidence of Jesus. It is at best, only evidence of the anonymous religious authors beliefs in stories told by earlier unknown hearsay believers.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your statement is highly illogical. You do not even understand that there are atheists who were once believers.

It only seems that way to you because your reading comprehension is so poor.

Seeing as I am an atheist who was once a believer, it is obvious to me that there are atheists who were once believers. In fact, there are many atheists on this forum who used to be religious believers of various sorts. You used to be a Christian too, yes?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tell your story to Foster Zygote because he seems to think that "once a Christian always a superstitious believer".

Nowhere in any post of mine have I implied something even remotely like that. The fact that you've inferred it is more evidence of your dismal reading comprehension. What I am challenging is your ridiculous assertion that you can bring about the decisive collapse of Christianity by telling people that Jesus was a myth because he was "The Son of A God born Of a Ghost" or the like. We already have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs. We even have a good model for explaining the origin of god beliefs in terms of evolutionary psychology. Yet these facts haven't brought about the collapse of theism, have they?

It is simply a fallacy that people who abandon a superstitious belief will move on to a next one.

Yet that's just what happens the vast majority of the time.

Many Atheists are evidence against Foster Zygote's fallacy.

I never said that no one ever abandons supernatural religious beliefs. There are far more powerful arguments against the veracity of Christianity than your poorly thought out offerings. If all it took was solid evidence, then Christianity would have collapsed during the enlightenment. You can't reason someone out of an idea that he didn't reason himself into.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know.
Is there any way of knowing what the figures are for LDS membership and whether it's growing, shrinking or static?

I keep hearing the LDS proclaim itself the fastest growing religion in the world, but I've heard reports that they are exaggerating. I know a few former Mormons who left the church for rational reasons. And given their cruel shunning of apostates, I imagine there are quite a few people just going through the motions. So it's hard to say. But what is glaringly apparent is that solid rational evidence of Joseph Smith's fraud has long been available and the LDS has done anything but collapse.

Actually, the hilited bit is what I have doubts about. In fact the entire story from the entry to Jerusalem to the death scene seems highly improbable to me.
Anyway, when you have to dig up those links, I'd be happy to follow them up. Thanks in advance.

I've got to go about my daily rounds now, but I found this page that goes with the Frontline documentary Apocalypse!. My bookmarks are a bit disorganized right now.

 

[Belz...]

I never said that no one ever abandons supernatural religious beliefs.

And this again illustrates the inability of some people to distinguish things or keep things in perspective. You said that Christians, many of them at least, maintain their beliefs in the face of obvious contrary evidence, to show that the non-existence of Jesus in the eyes of historians would do little to shake off their delusion, and Dejudge thinks you mean that no Christian ever abandons their belief.

It is also subtle evidence of your suspicions concerning Dejudge's religious past.

 

[maximara]

You have been told it and you must know it .... And it has been clear to us old HJ people, that's what your motive is. A "logical" pseudo-syllogism:
Christianity should not exist.
Without a historical Jesus, Christianity would not existErgo, there is no historical Jesus.

John Frum shoots the highlighted point down in flames. And the first point is nonsensical.

This pseudo-syllogism of yours is such a Non sequitur that I don't seen how it adds anything.

Stripped of all the supernatural stuff everything else in the Gospel account is a nonsensical mess; the geography is a train wreck; the betrayal is non historical garbage and so are both the trials, the handling of the body after the crucifixion is similarly non historical as is the Romans response to reports of Jesus being up and around (Carrier had a field day with that one in one of his lectures)