Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

It is amazing how often your arguments coincide exactly with apologists'. William Lane Craig disputes collective hallucination as an explanation of some later sightings of Jesus, by some of the same people as are presumably in Mark's boat.

What a big Lie!!

My argument is the opposite to William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig argues that Jesus of Nazareth was really real just like YOU.

You and William Lane Craig are Bible Believers and use gMark as a source of history for Jesus.

I consider gMark as Myth fables with Zombie stories about a Son of a God fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century or later and initially spread by Illiterates.

gMark mathches the Myth fables in Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology like Plutarch's Romulus and the book of Genesis.

 

[dejudge]

Mark, written after Paul died, is the first we read of any Roman involvement, an unrealistic chain of events where Romans place a hideously and possibly fatally beaten Jesus on a piece of wood, where he expires, his corpse gibbeted for a time until a Jew intervenes with Pilate. None of that is in Paul.

What fallacy you write!!

You have no evidence whatsoever from antiquity that gMark was composed AFTER the Pauline Corpus--NONE--ZERO.

No apologetic writer claimed the Pauline writers knew of the Jesus story or wrote letters to Churches before the Jesus story were fabricated.

All Apologetics who mentioned the chronology of the composition of the Jesus story and Pauline Corpus place the writing of the Gospel BEFORE the Pauline Corpus.

Even in the NT, the author of Acts, wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Gospel--remission of sins by the resurrection and nothing of Pauline letters to Churches.

The Jesus story was already written when the Pauline Corpus was composed and the Jewish Temple ALREADY fell c 70 CE.

No Pauline manuscript [P 46] has ever been dated to pre 70 CE.

 

[Belz...]

What fallacy you write!!

Rubbish ! What monstrous fable !

 

[Craig B]

What a big Lie!!

My argument is the opposite to William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig argues that Jesus of Nazareth was really real just like YOU.

You and William Lane Craig are Bible Believers and use gMark as a source of history for Jesus.

I think that's among your best statements along these lines. But it could be improved. You could say Torquemada argued that Jesus was really real just like eight bits. Wow! That would be fun!

I consider gMark as Myth fables with Zombie stories about a Son of a God fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century or later and initially spread by Illiterates.

That's not anything like strong enough. "Fabricated myth fables with Zombie stories spread by illiterates" is good, but you could beef it up a bit. What about "Forged Zombie myth fable hoax lie stories falsely fabricated as fiction by fanatical religious illiterates"?

 

[Craig B]

Dup post

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is void of logic and facts.

If Jesus did exist and started the Jesus cult then it should be obvious that the story of Jesus should have been known BEFORE Paul wrote his supposed letters if he did exist.

If Jesus did exist and did preach his Gospel then the Gospel of Jesus must be before Paul if Paul was a PERSECUTOR of those who believed and preached the Gospel of Jesus.

This is basic logic.

If Jesus survived the crucifixion then it is expected that he would continue to preach his Gospel until he was really dead.

The Gospel of Jesus is found in gMark.

The Pauline writers claimed they Got their Gospel from Jesus AFTER he was dead and resurrected

This is basic logical deduction.

The Gospel of Jesus MUST predate the Gospel of Paul.

Now, if Jesus did NOT exist and Paul was a persecutor of those who believed the Gospel then the Gospel is still BEFORE Paul the Persecutor.

Logically, the Gospels, the story of Jesus, must predate the Pauline Corpus whether or not Jesus did exist.

The Pauline writers admitted they were Last to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Over 500 people knew the story of the resurrected Jesus before the Pauline persecutor.

The Pauline Persecutor may have "heard" from the resurrected Jesus YEARS after he was dead.

The Pauline Gospel was NOT the earliest Gospel whether or not Jesus did exist.

The earliest Jesus story must been have developed WITHOUT the Pauline Persecutor.

gMark, the earliest version of the Jesus story, must or most likely predate the Gospel of the Pauline Persecutor.

No wonder 2nd century or later Apologetic writers like the authors of gMark, gMatthew, Revelation, Acts, Aristides, Justin Maryr, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus and Nothing of the Pauline Persecution but knew of a Jesus story.

 

[maximara]

I asked first. Where do I say they don't contain propaganda?

In post #5487.

You expressly stated that BOTH the ideas of

"That the Gospels are clearly propaganda? Or that based on the FACT they are at odds with known history in terms of social political reality that they are clearly more on the level of the Protocols of Zion then Prelude to War?" were nonsense.

The reality is on the mundane points we can actually check the Gospels produce nonhistory:

* Given a real Roman official would have sent a modest group of soldiers and got the guy as what happened with John the Baptist the whole Judus betrayal thing is clearly a fiction.

* Based on how we know how it really worked the Sanhedrin trial account is clearly fictional.

* Pontius Pilate is so totally out of character that it is clear that that part is a fiction too.

* The body of what was presumably a seditioner would have been left to rot...which means that part of the story (and the whole empty tomb thing as well) is a fiction.

*As Richard Carrier pointed out in one of his lectures the whole thing in Acts is at odds with how we know things would have been carried out if there was a missing body (a capital offense under Roman Law) so that is a fiction as well.

The Gospels no more relate real history then the fictional book Tess and the Titanic by George P Tummley which has April 14, 1912 as having a full moon and the first officer of the Titanic being an Englishman named Edward James Truman who carried a P08 Parabellum Pistole... a weapon of the German Army.

 

[Craig B]

In post #5487.

You expressly stated that BOTH the ideas of

"That the Gospels are clearly propaganda? Or that based on the FACT they are at odds with known history in terms of social political reality that they are clearly more on the level of the Protocols of Zion then Prelude to War?" were nonsense.

They contain propaganda, no doubt. That is not the same thing as saying of them that they "are" propaganda. They do not consist entirely of propaganda, and are not to be equated with the Protocols. They have a vastly more complex origin and relationship to historical reality than do the protocols. I am simply rejecting all you have to say about this.

Your equation of them with Tess and the Titanic is also absurd. They are not conscious works of fiction of that order. Nonsense. Moreover the word propaganda doesn't necessarily mean consciously composed fiction. If you mean fiction, say so. I do not believe most of what the gospels have to say, or any of the supernatural content, but that is not the same thing as saying that they're novels. For my own views I have made myself sufficiently clear, I think, and if you are still in doubt about them, I regret that you will have to remain in that unfortunate state.

 

[zugzwang]

It used to be said that Josephus wrote pro-Roman propaganda; for example, showing why the Romans had to get tough with fanatical and zealous Jews. I think this view has been mitigated more recently, but in any case, I don't think it would stop historians from treating his works as possible historical sources.

 

[IanS]

It used to be said that Josephus wrote pro-Roman propaganda; for example, showing why the Romans had to get tough with fanatical and zealous Jews. I think this view has been mitigated more recently, but in any case, I don't think it would stop historians from treating his works as possible historical sources.

Historians are not normally looking in writing like Josephus for stories about Jesus. There is hardly any mention of Jesus in Josephus. Historians examine writing like Josephus and Tacitus for non-religious commentary.

But if Josephus had described any Roman Ruler in the way that Jesus is described in the bible, then no genuine historian would accept that as evidence for such a Roman emperor. Where does Josephus describe any Roman emperor or any other genuinely historical figure as a messiah prophesised in ancient religious books, who rose from the dead to make himself known to religious preachers as a figure in the sky, the Son of God, communicating through Yahweh in heaven, “according to scripture”, walking on water and raising the dead, and doing nothing else except performing miracles and making amazing insightful and prophetic religious sayings which amazed everyone … where does Josephus describe any real emperors only in terms like that? … and with nobody ever meeting this emperor? … and where not a single archaeological or any other physical remains are known of them?

Where do any genuine university historians (not bible scholars) say they believe in a Roman emperor like that described in Josephus (or in Tacitus, or Pliny, or…).

 

[dejudge]

They contain propaganda, no doubt. That is not the same thing as saying of them that they "are" propaganda. They do not consist entirely of propaganda, and are not to be equated with the Protocols. They have a vastly more complex origin and relationship to historical reality than do the protocols. I am simply rejecting all you have to say about this.

Your statement is contradictory. Propaganda material by definition must contain propaganda.

There is no reasonable doubt that the Gospels contain propaganda.

The Gospels are propaganda.

You seem not to understand that propaganda material is initially expected to appear to have historical value in order to deceive or distort the real facts.

The Entire NT story of Jesus is propaganda to demonize the Jews as Murderers of their own God.


1. In gMark the Son of God taught the Propaganda demonizing the Jews as Killers of God's Son.

Mark 8:31 KJV

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed , and after three days rise again.

2. Examine the monstrous propaganda put out by the Logos, God Creator in gJohn.

John 8:44 KJV

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

3. Examine more propaganda demonizing the Jews as murderers by the Pauline writers.

1 Thessalonians

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us...

4. Propaganda in Acts demonizing the Jews as murderers of God's Son.

Acts 2

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know : 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken , and by wicked hands have crucified and slain....

 

[Brainache]

Historians are not normally looking in writing like Josephus for stories about Jesus. There is hardly any mention of Jesus in Josephus. Historians examine writing like Josephus and Tacitus for non-religious commentary.

But if Josephus had described any Roman Ruler in the way that Jesus is described in the bible, then no genuine historian would accept that as evidence for such a Roman emperor. Where does Josephus describe any Roman emperor or any other genuinely historical figure as a messiah prophesised in ancient religious books, who rose from the dead to make himself known to religious preachers as a figure in the sky, the Son of God, communicating through Yahweh in heaven, “according to scripture”, walking on water and raising the dead, and doing nothing else except performing miracles and making amazing insightful and prophetic religious sayings which amazed everyone … where does Josephus describe any real emperors only in terms like that? … and with nobody ever meeting this emperor? … and where not a single archaeological or any other physical remains are known of them?

Where do any genuine university historians (not bible scholars) say they believe in a Roman emperor like that described in Josephus (or in Tacitus, or Pliny, or…).

Is that really what you think Historians do?

They look through old texts to find the bit that says what they want, then just say: "hey everybody, look what Josephus says here..."<points at Josephus declaring Vespasian Messiah> "...So obviously Vespasian was the Messiah. Mystery solved. Time for cream buns..."

Just read what the Ancient Historians said and repeat it in English. Quite a cushy job really...

It doesn't actually work that way. None of this stuff can be just taken at face value, not the bible, not Paul, not Josephus, not Herodotus nor any of the Ancient sources. It all needs to be interpreted in context with an eye on biases and such.

Please learn more about History before you declare the entire subject useless.

 

[Craig B]

The Gospels are propaganda.

OK. They're Forged propaganda Zombie myth fable hoax lie stories falsely fabricated as fiction by fanatical religious illiterates.

 

[Brainache]

OK. They're Forged propaganda Zombie myth fable hoax lie stories falsely fabricated as fiction by fanatical religious illiterates.

...in Egypt!

 

[Craig B]

...in Egypt!

Yes because millions of papyri written by these illiterates are found there!

 

[Belz...]

...in Egypt!

"In space" would've been better.

 

[dejudge]

The NT contains the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God and it was the very same propaganda which inadvertently became the basis of a new cult.

It can easily be seen that virtually all Christian writers of antiquity BELIEVED the propaganda.

1. The author of gMark put out the propaganda that the Jews caused the death of the Son of God.

2. The Pauline writers put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

3. The author of Acts put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

4. c 117 CE-138 CE or later--Aristides BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

5. c 138-161 CE or later--Justin Martyr BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

6. c 180 CE or later-Irenaeus put out the progpaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

7. c 200 CE or later--Tertullian put forward the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

8. c 170 CE or later--Hegesippus put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

9. c 225 CE or later--Hippolytus put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

10. c 250 CE or later--Origen put out the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.


11. c 300 CE or later--Lactantius put out the propagand that the Jews Killed the Son of God.


12. c 325 CE or later--Eusebius put out the progpaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

13. c 380 CE or later--Chrysostom put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

The basis of the new religion of the Jesus cult of Christian was based on the BELIEF that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

The propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God was put out to explain the reason for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.

Manuscripts with the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God have been RECOVERED.

The propaganda Maunscripts are dated AFTER c 70 CE--the 2nd century or later.

 

[Brainache]

The NT contains the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God and it was the very same propaganda which inadvertently became the basis of a new cult.

It can easily be seen that virtually all Christian writers of antiquity BELIEVED the propaganda.

1. The author of gMark put out the propaganda that the Jews caused the death of the Son of God.

2. The Pauline writers put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

3. The author of Acts put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

4. c 117 CE-138 CE or later--Aristides BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

5. c 138-161 CE or later--Justin Martyr BELIEVED the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

6. c 180 CE or later-Irenaeus put out the progpaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

7. c 200 CE or later--Tertullian put forward the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

8. c 170 CE or later--Hegesippus put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

9. c 225 CE or later--Hippolytus put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

10. c 250 CE or later--Origen put out the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.


11. c 300 CE or later--Lactantius put out the propagand that the Jews Killed the Son of God.


12. c 325 CE or later--Eusebius put out the progpaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

13. c 380 CE or later--Chrysostom put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

The basis of the new religion of the Jesus cult of Christian was based on the BELIEF that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

The propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God was put out to explain the reason for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.

Manuscripts with the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God have been RECOVERED.

The propaganda Maunscripts are dated AFTER c 70 CE--the 2nd century or later.

I'm curious dejudge, what do you think was the reason for the fall of the Temple in 70 CE?

Did it just fall over by itself?

What started the war?

How long had it been brewing?

What were some of the major issues involved?

 

[David Mo]

The issue was whether there is sufficient information in the scriptures for Paul possibly to have inferred that Jesus was, or must have been, gibbeted. (…)Paul formed an opinion about the means of Jesus' death nor what that opinion was

I don't understand what has to do the gibbeting with our issue. With “cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” Paul is matching the exposure of the stoned man's corpse and the body of crucified Jesus. Both are nailed on a wood and cursed by the Law. I don't know what else you are trying to draw out from here, because Paul had a very clear opinion about the death of Christ and he said it in several occasions: He was crucified.

II didn't realize that we were discussing a lawful Russian killing, and in any case, what I said about this hypothetical Russian misadventure was that I missed its relevance to what Paul thought about Jewish accountability for, or Roman involvement in, Jesus' death. I still miss that.

I see. It is an easy comparison between two similar situations:

If a Russian hears that a Russian court has condemned somebody to the electric chair he will think that there is some mistake: or the court wasn't Russian or the penalty wasn't the electric chair.
If a Jew in Palestine in the half of the first century had heard somebody to say that the Jewish authorities had condemned to someone to be crucified he would think that there was some mistake: or the authority was Roman or the man hadn't been crucified.
Then:
We have two Pauline versions of the death of Jesus: in several cases (Philippians 2, 8) Paul said that Jesus was crucified, and in other isolate example Paul says that the Jews killed Jesus.

You may extract your conclusion. It is clear to me.

Luke 14: 1; Paul's peer as a prose stylist:

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/14-1.htm

"...the archonton of the Pharisees..." Read 'em and weep, David.

I don't see why.

Arkhon, in Greek ἄρχων, has a main meaning in my dictionary: Chief or leader, and a specific one: ruler or the highest authority. Luke can speak of "arkhonton of the Pharisees" in the sense of their leaders. But we are now in the half of the First Century and in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 2:6-8. “Rulers of this world" makes reference to the highest authority in Palestine, i.e., first of all the Romans and the High Priests in a lesser degree. Perhaps he involves the Jewish authority also, but everyone that read it would immediately think in Romans. And if Paul wanted to talk about the Sanhedrin or the High Priest had written "Jewish leaders". It is obvious that Paul is swipping what everyone knew in Palestine: the Romans crucified but the Jews did not.

NOTA BENE:
Whoever wrote the story of the persecuted Jewish prophets killed by their people -Paul or not Paul-, he was most likely inspired on the apocryphal Lives of the Prophets, a non canonical text of the First Century manipulated by the Christians. Jeremiah's death and other legends don't come from Chronicles. You can see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Prophets

 

[eight bits]

maximara

The Gospels no more relate real history then the fictional book Tess and the Titanic by George P Tummley which has April 14, 1912 as having a full moon and the first officer of the Titanic being an Englishman named Edward James Truman who carried a P08 Parabellum Pistole... a weapon of the German Army.

Did you mean there is a real book Tess and the Titanic by George P. Tummley which is a work of fiction, or did you mean there is a work of fiction which refers to a non-exiistent book of that title and author?

Either one might have parallels to issues that arise in an HJ-MJ discussion, and I have been unable to place this one after moderate search.

The moonphase would be wrong, and enough so to be possibly material to the events. I can find no "Edward James Truman" connected to either the real or any fictional Titanic's. However, while it is true that a P08 was German military issue, it was not exclusively used by Germans. I include that just as a reminder that what most usually happened is often a shaky guide to what actually happened. This would be especially liable to be true of any situation which was selected for scrutiny because it was different than other arguably similar events.

For example, John Frum might have packed a P08. Maybe he won it in a poker game.