Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

No, I do not. He has said it at least a half dozen times in the two most active threads that you're participating in.

Can you give me a hint?

Was it: "People make up stories all the time, therefore Jesus is a made up story"? Because that's as close as he gets to a cohesive theory as far as i've seen.

Sadly, I think this proves my point that you're not looking for any new evidence or interested in re-examining the existing evidence.

I go offline and read library books for years about this subject, and you accuse me of being ignorant?

Thanks.

No. I do think the "John Frum" concept has merit in providing a believable alternate explanation for the evidence we currently have. If that makes me a Myther with all the attendant mocking and derision, then so be it.

It certainly puts you in opposition to what all the Historians are saying about the subject. If that's the position you want to adopt, that's your choice.

I'm sorry that you think this is an acceptable characterization of those who do not think the evidence shows any corporeal existence of Jesus. I wonder if you think you should be taken seriously in these threads when you consistently post like this. Should I take you seriously? It's a fair question, but let me anticipate your answer being that you "couldn't care less what anonymous people on the internet think of you" and that your position is the only rational one and you couldn't care less of I or anyone is convinced of this huge mountain of evidence which has convinced an overwhelming consensus of all historians.

It's not that, it's just when they say things like: "Paul probably only ever used the septuagint", or "How do you know the Temple was a centre of Jewish Learning?", that reveals to everyone who is paying attention, that these guys have no clue what they are talking about.

Why on earth should anyone take them seriously after saying the crap that they have?

I think IanS has come up with one but it's combined with what many others like HansMustermann, dejudge, Kapyong, and several others who I can't remember off the top of my head have all said.

A made up Jesus figure fits all the evidence we have and is a reasonable alternate theory to the one where Jesus was a real figure that the Christian religion was founded upon.

It doesn't actually. Comparing the Myther stuff to the Historical corpus on this subject, is like comparing "Loose Change" to the NIST Report.

If you can't see that, then I can only recommend you read some books.

You are yourself not an historian by your own statements. How do you know with such precise detail how Historians work and yet others do not? The very same others, I might add, that happen to be your opponents in this debate.

I can tell pseudohistory when I see it.

And I'm looking at it right now.

 

[tsig]

I said that not only don't we know, we can't know whether or not Jesus actually existed but that statement has been ignored in the drumbeat for Historical Consensus and the firm intent to categorize everyone who won't agree with an HJ as a dreaded Myther, destroyer of Academia and an ignoramus.

Don't forget all those dishonest arguments that have been made. We shouldn't forget all of the disingenuous strawmen arguments put up by people defending a personal bias in the face of an Academic Consensus.

Don't forget that tsig.

Q. E. D.

 

[tsig]

IanS has already put forth a convincing theory of a mythical Jesus (for lack of a better term) but since you're already an avowed 90% believer in a Jesus the Zealot, I'm not really certain whether you're being fair when you claim pretty much everything else that has been said on the topic remains unconvincing to you. Can you see what this may look like to others in this thread? I mean, that's a huge amount of let's say inertia that must be overcome in your instance. I'm going to presume that in order to sway you at all, there essentially needs to be some new writings that are unearthed which say conclusively that Jesus was made up in some manner. The current evidence seems quite overwhelming to you that a corporeal Jesus the Zealot existed according to other statements you've made, yes?

What I find more curious, however, is those who have said they're 60/40 in favor of an historical Jesus who cling just as doggedly to their 60/40 as do you to your 90%. To me, it strains credibility that they're that close to being 50/50.

That's my take on it. He is demanding a written document by early Christians saying Jesus is a myth.

That's an impossible bar.


ETA: Some seem to have left Christianity and even become atheists but they still have a soft spot in their heart for Jesus. Jesus was their earliest belief so denying Jesus is like cussing their mother, killing puppies or pissin' in the apple pie.

 

[tsig]

1. Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was crucified in the heavenly pleroma?

2. I cited the stuff about the heavenly realm in the air because those are some of the ideas in Earl Doherty, one of the prime mythicists.
3. Christology has certainly come up on another thread; anyway, it refers to the nature and person of Jesus, thus, 'low Christology' means Jesus is human; 'high' means he is divine and human; and I suppose there is ultra-high - only divine, not human. Hence, the adage that mythicism requires a very early and very high Christology.

Maybe you could argue with the posters here at JREF and not Earl Doherty.

 

[tsig]

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

All I've seen from him is vague assertions and ignorance of the history of the Ancient Near East.

I don't think we are reading the same thread...

You don't mean "John Frum", do you?



Nope, it's a fair amount of book-lernin'. Something which appears lacking in my opponents, who appear to get these ideas from Youtube.


What would sway me is a cohesive theory which better explains the evidence in hand. So far the Myth people haven't come up with one. When/if they do, I'll be very interested to see it.

Reading how they think Historians work, is like watching Truthers talk about Engineers. It's just sad.
I don't get that either. But you'll have to ask them about that.

What's really sad is that you post only insults not arguments.

 

[Brainache]

What's really sad is that you post only insults not arguments.

They aren't insults tsig. They are observations. You can take them personally if you want, I can't stop you. But I can't think of another word for people who ignore evidence. Can you?

I know the kettle/pot thing is a cliche tsig, but other people can go back through the thread and read it for themselves.

Do you really want to make this argument you are making?

Show me the arguments have you posted in this thread tsig, I'm keen to be educated...

I expect crickets.

 

[Belz...]

It is you who want to make Jesus a figure of history claiming he was a Jew.

You are dodging the question. What could the son of Jews be if not a Jew ? Don't try to squirm out by bringing God into this discussion, since we both know there is no such thing. A human is a human, not a demigod, so I repeat: if Jesus existed at all, how could he not be a Jew ?

Furthermore, you have just revealed your bias by admitting you are not reading my posts. Only someone who is not reading my posts could possibly claim that I want Jesus to be a figure of history. If you don't bother reading people's posts, why are you here ?

 

[Belz...]

I do think the "John Frum" concept has merit in providing a believable alternate explanation for the evidence we currently have.

I agree. The question is: do you believe this alternate explanation has more, less, or equal merit to the current, so-called consensus ?

 

[tsig]

They aren't insults tsig. They are observations. You can take them personally if you want, I can't stop you. But I can't think of another word for people who ignore evidence. Can you?

I know the kettle/pot thing is a cliche tsig, but other people can go back through the thread and read it for themselves.

Do you really want to make this argument you are making?

Show me the arguments have you posted in this thread tsig, I'm keen to be educated...
I expect crickets.

Looks like we need to start your education with English, then we can go on to more complicated things like "forum manners" and "civility".

 

[Belz...]

I said that not only don't we know, we can't know whether or not Jesus actually existed but that statement has been ignored in the drumbeat for Historical Consensus and the firm intent to categorize everyone who won't agree with an HJ as a dreaded Myther, destroyer of Academia and an ignoramus.

People on both sides of this debate have been equally guilty of such tactics.

Some seem to have left Christianity and even become atheists but they still have a soft spot in their heart for Jesus.

Well, I'd never thought I'd see this. We have people accusing the HJ people of wanting Jesus to be real, people accusing MJ people of wanting to remove Jesus because of their opposition to religion (I remember making that accusation to Dejudge) but I never thought I'd see people down the middle accused of having a soft spot for Jesus. It requires quite a bit of disdain for the very idea of people disagreeing with you on anything to invent such a stupid and ridiculous accusation.

 

[tsig]

People on both sides of this debate have been equally guilty of such tactics.

Quote:
Some seem to have left Christianity and even become atheists but they still have a soft spot in their heart for Jesus.

Well, I'd never thought I'd see this. We have people accusing the HJ people of wanting Jesus to be real, people accusing MJ people of wanting to remove Jesus because of their opposition to religion (I remember making that accusation to Dejudge) but I never thought I'd see people down the middle accused of having a soft spot for Jesus. It requires quite a bit of disdain for the very idea of people disagreeing with you on anything to invent such a stupid and ridiculous accusation.

I'm just trying to figure out the reason why an atheist would engage in a long and convoluted apologetic for Jesus using the same arguments that Christians use while insulting everyone who disagrees, it seems to go beyond any rational reason and be an emotional thing so I'm looking for an emotional reason.

Maybe it's a sore spot?

 

[Brainache]

Looks like we need to start your education with English, then we can go on to more complicated things like "forum manners" and "civility".

That's one of your arguments, is it?

Well done.

The Consensus of Historians doesn't stand a chance.

Hop to it tsig, your Nobel prize awaits...

 

[Brainache]

I'm just trying to figure out the reason why an atheist would engage in a long and convoluted apologetic for Jesus using the same arguments that Christians use while insulting everyone who disagrees, it seems to go beyond any rational reason and be an emotional thing so I'm looking for an emotional reason.

Maybe it's a sore spot?

Have you considered that some people try to put their own biases aside and see what the experts are saying?

That maybe arguments from personal incredulity are pretty worthless?

Try that tsig.

 

[zugzwang]

Maybe you could argue with the posters here at JREF and not Earl Doherty.

Excuse me? I wasn't arguing with Earl Doherty - as far as I know, he hasn't taken part in this thread as yet, has he? I was discussing mythicism with another poster, and referred to some of Doherty's ideas, since he is one of the leading mythicists. So not 'with Doherty', but 'about Doherty' would make your statement accurate.

Blimey, is this forum always as aggressive as this?

 

[dejudge]

"Low Christology" is like gMark, where there is no Virgin birth and the miracles are more of the "faith healer" Charismatic Preacher type. This Jesus is a more like a man inspired, than a God incarnate.

You always promote fallacies. There are miraculous events in gMark that depict Jesus as non-human.

1. Mark 6. Jesus walked on the sea, identified himself and then entered the boat with the disciples.

2. Mark 9. Jesus transfigured and Moses and Elijah resurrected simultaneously
in the presence of Peter, James and John

Those miraculous events cannot be accomplished by inspiration--only by mythology.

gMark's Jesus outperformed Plutarch's Romulus.

 

[eight bits]

The Norseman

What's being discussed is what the text says, not what you think it really means.

What is the ordinary function of a text, in your view, if not to inspire thoughts about its meaning?

If you feel that my posts are off-topic, then call a moderator. Otherwise, I will post my thoughts here. If you'd rather not participate in that aspect of the discussion, then don't. Problem solved.

An argument from incredulity? I'm sure there were god stories where they were much cooler and some which were much lamer. That doesn't impact whether or not these particular Jesus stories were made up.

Straw man much?

As I said, IanS has stated numerous times a position which fits the available evidence quite nicely that does not rely on a corporeal Jesus, nor does it rely on this mountain of guesswork, "maybes" and "just-so stories" to reach a conclusion that there was a corporeal Jesus.

I don't think anybody disputes that such theories fit the sparse data quite well, just like other incomaptible theories do. That may explain why few people participating in this discussion have reached "a conclusion that there was a corporeal Jesus." I am not among those few.

 

[Brainache]

...
I don't think anybody disputes that such theories fit the sparse data quite well, just like other incomaptible theories do. That may explain why few people participating in this discussion have reached "a conclusion that there was a corporeal Jesus." I am not among those few.

I do dispute that.

Just as one recent example:

Another poster here said what amounts to (paraphrased): "Paul never said anything in his letters to indicate that he thought Jesus was a real earthly human being."

I quoted the line where Paul says Jesus took some bread and told the disciples to eat it and remember him etc...

This is an obvious reference to Jesus as someone who eats and drinks and talks to people about food rituals. It contradicts the poster's stated position.

Rather than respond to this point, after saying he would answer contingent upon me answering another of his points (which I did), he has continued to ignore it.

The point still stands.

We can go on discussing these things with that poster, but I just hope people remember that he has run away from an honest discussion of this point.

 

[Stone]

Excuse me? I wasn't arguing with Earl Doherty - as far as I know, he hasn't taken part in this thread as yet, has he? I was discussing mythicism with another poster, and referred to some of Doherty's ideas, since he is one of the leading mythicists. So not 'with Doherty', but 'about Doherty' would make your statement accurate.

Blimey, is this forum always as aggressive as this?

All threads throughout the Web are when they involve the MJ perspective. RatSkep is only the most extreme example. The fact is that the kind of intolerance that, for instance, would actually ascribe a soft spot for Jesus(!) to those who are merely undecided is typical of the kind of take-no-prisoners hardliners like Dejudge, Tsig and some others. That's why some HJ-ers like myself and Tim O'Neill have just plain had it and push back with real fury. We see crypto-cultism in a lot of mythers if not necessarily all. Some atheist HJ-ers thought they had left woo merchants and cultists behind them -- and then they find that right here among the mythers. Yes, it's infuriating -- although I'm the first to concede it's not always admirable to give in to such exasperation, and I'm one of the worst offenders.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

You are dodging the question. What could the son of Jews be if not a Jew ? Don't try to squirm out by bringing God into this discussion, since we both know there is no such thing. A human is a human, not a demigod, so I repeat: if Jesus existed at all, how could he not be a Jew ?

You are the one arguing that if Jesus existed that he was a Jew but have utterly failed to present any evidence. Your rhetorical questions have no value as evidence.

You want to cross out the evidence in gMark that shows Jesus was a figure of myth.

You will not find that Jesus was the son of a Jew in gMark.

You don't even know that some in the late 2nd century claimed Jesus was perhaps the son of a Roman soldier.

Effectively, if Jesus existed, he could be a Roman.

 

[maximara]

True, they instead ignore or handwave away half the evidence that's already there!

No they don't "handwave" half of the evidence but point out why it is borderline useless.

The writings generally agreed to be Paul's don't really give us definitive details that can be crosschecked with known history. His Jesus has the same vague quality as John Frum.

Next come the Gospels (we think) with Mark at c70-85 CE being the first and the foundation for nearly all the succeeding Gospels that actually have details...which more often then not do not agree with history as we know it.

Then you have Josephus whose TF it far too upbeat for a Roman audience, is vague to nearly the point of uselessness, and breaks the flow of the narrative it is in. This is all ignoring that to some degree it has been tampered with if not a totally fabrication.

Past that point on from what we know of the myth making of John Frum things are either too late or come off as desperate straw grasping as if the pro-HJ advocates know the actual evidence is just above nil.