Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

To History?
Where's the historian's qualification?
And yes, of course you're right.
Ehrman on the DSS is hilarious, if you like your humour dark.

I haven't read Ehrman on the DSS. I was under the impression that he hadn't studied them.

He was teaching Ancient Near East Studies for a long time at California State University Long Beach. I'm not sure if it counts as historian's qualification, but: "Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford, England." I think you have to be pretty good to get that.

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

But I could be wrong.

 

[Brainache]

...
Anyway, for the humour of it, if posting on Ehrman's blog doesn't appeal to you, Brainache, there's always the option of leafing through
http://www.brill.com/handbook-study-historical-jesus-4-vols

Just €926,00 or $1,200.00!

Flipping Heck!

I got my copy of Eisenman for about 15 bucks.

 

[dejudge]

The answer was the first word of the post you strange person. I'll repeat it for the ten millionth time:

NO.

Got it now?

You are a bit late. I had already removed the error. Please read the edited post.

But again, unlike you I'm not making it up. I'm telling people about what a Historian thinks. He might be wrong, but I enjoy learning about this stuff.

Now, your statement is quite contradictory and fallacious. You make stuff up as soon as you implied that I make things up about Jesus.

It is virtually impossible for me to make up stuff about Jesus when I only write what is found in the existing NT Canon and apologetic sources of antiquity.

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth could NOT have even existed as described.

Jesus of Nazareth could NOT have been a real Zealot.

I said that Jesus the Zealot was an oddball theory just like the claim that Jesus was crucified in the heavenly plane.

Robert Eiseman invented Jesus the Zealot from his imagination because no such Jesus of Nazareth is found in all antiquity of the 1st century

You seem to imply that an Historian cannot make stuff up.

If Jesus was a really a Zealot then Ehrman invented his Apocalyptic Jesus.

Effectively, based on the numerous HJ theories then it must be that Historians are actively making things up.

In other words, the probability that any given Historian is making up things about Jesus is extremely high--Robert Eiseman is one of them.

 

[Belz...]

You probably don't understand what 'historical' means.

Considering that, by your own admission, you are close-minded about this issue, I find any claim by you to be suspect.

The Gospels specifically described the conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth--he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Irrelevant, as I've explained already. You have not addressed my Kim Il-Sung analogy. Adding supernatural features to a character does not magically remove the historical elements of that character, if any. Ergo, you cannot argue that a character didn't exist on the simple fact that such features exist in that character's stories.

The word 'Christian' has nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of Jesus.

I beg to differ, since one is an explanation of the other.

Please, get familiar with the Bible before you make statements that are full of errors.

You have yet been unable to do anything beyond claim that your opponents are in error. Having an opinion, even if it happens to be yours, doesn't make it logical.

 

[Belz...]

Created himself, apparently by being mythical in the first place...

Yes, a wonderful illustration of circular reasoning.

 

[dejudge]

Because it appears to be behind some kind of paywall. I'm not a big Ehrman fan. I haven't read any of his books. I'm only in this thread because this is where the HJ debate is.
I don't particularly care what Bart Ehrman's opinion is. I wanted the Mythicists in the thread to tell me what was implausible about my scenario.

You have not read any of Ehrman's books!! Now, you want people to read Robert Eiseman's books??


This thread is about Ehrman's Historical Jesus. This thread is about Ehrman's opinion.

You are admittedly not qualified to discuss "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus".

Your own words may be applicable to you. Examine your own post.

So, sorry if I seem less than polite to you, but I find the invincible ignorance on display from some posters (not you) just deplorable.

 

[Brainache]

You have not read any of Ehrman's books!! Now, you want people to read Robert Eiseman's books??


This thread is about Ehrman's Historical Jesus. This thread is about Ehrman's opinion.

You are admittedly not qualified to discuss "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus".

Your own words may be applicable to you. Examine your own post.

The thread has drifted a long way from Bart Ehrman and the HJ since the OP was posted in 2008.

Sorry.

 

[Belz...]

You are admittedly not qualified to discuss "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus".

Are you ?

 

[dejudge]

Considering that, by your own admission, you are close-minded about this issue, I find any claim by you to be suspect.

Again, you present no evidence to support your 60-40 historical Jesus theory.

I am 100-0 that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Matthew 1:18 CEB ----This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus of Nazareth is 100% myth.

 

[dejudge]

duplicated

 

[Brainache]

Again, you present no evidence to support your 60-40 historical Jesus theory.

I am 100-0 that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Matthew 1:18 CEB ----This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

Do you really think constantly repeating the same rejected stuff over and over again is going to win you any debates?

 

[dejudge]

Are you ?

I have read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? and can confirm that it is a Failure of Facts and Logic.

Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? has effectively destroyed any argument for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Effectively, the HJ argument is now permanently dead. There can be no resurrection for the HJ of Nazareth argument.

Ehrman did the unthinkable. Ehrman DISCREDITED his own sources in the argument for his HJ of Nazareth.

Go to page 182 of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman declared that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

 

[dejudge]

Do you really think constantly repeating the same rejected stuff over and over again is going to win you any debates?

Please, you are not qualified to discuss Bart Ehrman's Historical Jesus. I have no interest in your opinion. You have not read any books from Ehrman.

You reject the evidence of myth Jesus and promote another myth called Jesus the Zealot.

Plus, have you been repeating claims about an unknown consensus attempting to win the debate?

 

[dafydd]

Created himself, apparently by being mythical in the first place...

I thought that a myth was a female moth.

 

[dafydd]

Ehrman declared that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

Wow! Stop the presses! Why didn't anybody notice that before?

 

[Brainache]

I have read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? and can confirm that it is a Failure of Facts and Logic.

Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? has effectively destroyed any argument for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Effectively, the HJ argument is now permanently dead. There can be no resurrection for the HJ of Nazareth argument.

Ehrman did the unthinkable. Ehrman DISCREDITED his own sources in the argument for his HJ of Nazareth.

Go to page 182 of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman declared that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

This was news to you?

Please, you are not qualified to discuss Bart Ehrman's Historical Jesus. I have no interest in your opinion. You have not read any books from Ehrman.

You reject the evidence of myth Jesus and promote another myth called Jesus the Zealot.

Plus, have you been repeating claims about an unknown consensus attempting to win the debate?

You don't know about the Consensus? Where have you been?

I thought that a myth was a female moth.

At latht! Thomething thenthible.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, a wonderful illustration of circular reasoning.

Again, you display a lack of knowledge of gJohn and ancient mythology.

In gJohn1-- Jesus is the Logos and God Creator.

In gJohn 1--the Logos, God Creator became Flesh.

Effectively Jesus, the Logos, God Creator made himself a man.

John 1 NAS

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being................14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you display a lack of knowledge of gJohn and ancient mythology.

In gJohn1-- Jesus is the Logos and God Creator.

In gJohn 1--the Logos, God Creator became Flesh.

Effectively Jesus, the Logos, God Creator made himself a man.

John 1 NAS

So why would you believe a story like that?

 

[dejudge]

You don't know about the Consensus? Where have you been?

We have already debunked your unknown consensus which you yourself do not adhere to.

At this present time there are Agnostic historians, Historian who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology and other multiple characters.

You are actively engaged in promoting an oddball fringe theory that Jesus of Nazareth was a Zealot.
]
If Jesus was a real Zealot then there is no consensus on the historical Jesus.

 

[tsig]

I NEVER EVER claimed that I am an historian or that I was qualified as an historian.

Why is it even necessary to be an historian to read a book of myth fables and show people on the internet?

You seem to believe the Bible story of Jesus is history.

Are not these myth fables?

In gMark 1 a Holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus.

In gMark 6 Jesus of Nazareth walked on the sea of Galilee.

In gMark 9 Jesus of Nazareth transfigured.

In gMark 16 Jesus resurrected.

In gMatthew 1 Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

In gLuke 24 Jesus resurrected and told his disciples to wait for a Ghost to get Power.

In John 1, Jesus was God Creator.

In Acts 1. Jesus ascended and a Powerful Ghost came down from heaven and started the cult of Christians on the day of Pentecost.

In Galatians, 1 a Pauline writer claimed he did NOT immediately consult with human beings when he was called by God to preach about God's own Son.

The NT is just basic mythology like Plutarch's Romulus.

Plutarch's Romulus

Mark 15:33 NAS

Don't worry!! The Jesus story is a compilation of myth fables.

Who told you that one has to be an historian to evaluate myth fables in the Bible which are just like Plutarch's Romulus?

Unless you are a Historian (facts be not with them) you are unworthy to challenge the Consensus.