Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Which Jesus existed? Where, when? What historical source of antiquity mentioned this supposed historical character??

Jesus of the Bible could not have existed as described. An "historical" Jesus appears to be an invention-a myth-- without a shred of actual evidence.

Please, state the biography and source of the historical Jesus because Bible Jesus was a myth.

Welcome to the Forum dejudge.

Take a look around. Relax, take in the view.

I'll see you in a little while, no doubt.

Oh and I disagree with just about everything in your post. Please see this thread before we go any further, it will save a lot of time:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268331

ETA: I don't expect you to read the whole thing, but you could maybe just search for posts by a Poster called Nick Terry.

Sorry if I seem rude I've just been through this.

 

[dejudge]

Welcome to the Forum dejudge.

Take a look around. Relax, take in the view.

I'll see you in a little while, no doubt.

Oh and I disagree with just about everything in your post. Please see this thread before we go any further, it will save a lot of time...

I asked you some very simple questions that you should have been able to answer.

Please, very quickly tell me which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and what source you relied on?

Bible Jesus is a myth and could not have existed as described.

 

[Stone]

you wouldn't be in the position of having every Historian who comes through these threads telling you all how wrong-headed your approach to Ancient History is.

There: That's better.

Service with a smile.

Stone

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to restore altered quote. Edited so as not to disrupt forum.

 

[Brainache]

I asked you some very simple questions that you should have been able to answer.

Please, very quickly tell me which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and what source you relied on?

Bible Jesus is a myth and could not have existed as described.

If you knew anything at all about the study of Ancient History, you would know that those are not "very simple questions".

If you do know about the study of Ancient History, what am I to conclude about you?

So for the sake of Charity I have to assume you are ignorant.

Please read that thread I linked to. You might learn something. (I know, impossible, right?)

 

[dejudge]

There: That's better.

Service with a smile.

Stone

Your response is extremely odd for such simple questions.

 

[Brainache]

There: That's better.

Service with a smile.

Stone

No one will ever accuse you of being overly subtle.

 

[Brainache]

Your response is extremely odd for such simple questions.

We've been over this subject recently. Some spirits are still a bit high, I see.

 

[dejudge]

If you knew anything at all about the study of Ancient History, you would know that those are not "very simple questions".

If you do know about the study of Ancient History, what am I to conclude about you?

So for the sake of Charity I have to assume you are ignorant.

Please read that thread I linked to. You might learn something. (I know, impossible, right?)

Do I have to know about the study of Ancient History to read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth?

Do I have to know about the study of Ancient History to read and understand Plutarch's Romulus, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius?

Please, if you knew about the writings of antiquity you would realize that my questions are extremely easy to answer.

Not one non-apologetic source of ancient history who wrote about pre 70 CE events mentioned an actual character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God and Creator by Jews and people of the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

And not only was there no Jesus of Nazareth--none of his acquaintances, disciples, relatives, parents, have ever been found in any non-apologetic writings about pre 70 CE events.

The entire cast of Jesus of Nazareth with family and disciples were an invention.

If you know about the study of Ancient History please just show me where Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius.

That should be easy to do.

 

[Brainache]

Do I have to know about the study of Ancient History to read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth?

Do I have to know about the study of Ancient History to read and understand Plutarch's Romulus, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius?

Please, if you knew about the writings of antiquity you would realize that my questions are extremely easy to answer.

Not one non-apologetic source of ancient history who wrote about pre 70 CE events mentioned an actual character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God and Creator by Jews and people of the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

And not only was there no Jesus of Nazareth--none of his acquaintances, disciples, relatives, parents, have ever been found in any non-apologetic writings about pre 70 CE events.

The entire cast of Jesus of Nazareth with family and disciples were an invention.

If you know about the study of Ancient History please just show me where Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius.

That should be easy to do.

No. You have to know the study of Ancient History if you want to challenge the Academic Consensus. It is that simple.

We've just been through all this on that other thread, there is no point going over it every time a know-it-all with a paperback and a Richard Carrier Youtube video comes in here.

You rant away all you like about Corinthians and Romans and bloody Calathumpians if you like, but I don't have to take you seriously. Your position is no stronger than a Truther hawking "Loose Change".

Please stop.

 

[dejudge]

No. You have to know the study of Ancient History if you want to challenge the Academic Consensus. It is that simple.

We've just been through all this on that other thread, there is no point going over it every time a know-it-all with a paperback and a Richard Carrier Youtube video comes in here.

You rant away all you like about Corinthians and Romans and bloody Calathumpians if you like, but I don't have to take you seriously. Your position is no stronger than a Truther hawking "Loose Change".

Please stop.

Something is radically wrong with your statement. Academics have not conceded that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Richard Carrier claimed that Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was a failure of facts and logic.

Academics are right now actively engaged in arguments for and against an historical Jesus.

In any event, your response is confirming that an historical Jesus of Nazareth is a myth--without a shred of evidence.

If you had knowledge of Ancient History and is claiming that there is a consensus then you should know which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and the source which was relied on based on your so-called unknown consensus.

 

[Brainache]

Something is radically wrong with your statement. Academics have not conceded that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Richard Carrier claimed that Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was a failure of facts and logic.

Academics are right now actively engaged in arguments for and against an historical Jesus.

In any event, your response is confirming that an historical Jesus of Nazareth is a myth--without a shred of evidence.

If you had knowledge of Ancient History and is claiming that there is a consensus then you should know which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and the source which was relied on based on your so-called unknown consensus.

OK.

Thanks for the History lesson Professor.

What now?

 

[dejudge]

OK.

Thanks for the History lesson Professor.

What now?

You claimed that there was a consensus when no such thing has happened. The Quest for an historical Jesus by Academics is still on going for hundreds of years and you ask me what now?

Are you going to retract you erroneous statement about the unknown consensus?

You knew in advance of posting that there was no consensus.

Now, the argument for the historical Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman is pathetically weak.

Ehrman discredits his main sources, the books of the New Testament, and admitted that they are riddled with contradictions, historical problems and events that most likely did not happen.

Ehrman's argument is fatally flawed. His sources are admittedly not credible. His argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is essentially worthless.

 

[Brainache]

Something is radically wrong with your statement. Academics have not conceded that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Richard Carrier claimed that Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was a failure of facts and logic.

Academics are right now actively engaged in arguments for and against an historical Jesus.

In any event, your response is confirming that an historical Jesus of Nazareth is a myth--without a shred of evidence.

If you had knowledge of Ancient History and is claiming that there is a consensus then you should know which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and the source which was relied on based on your so-called unknown consensus.

Here's an Atheist Blog you may be interested in:

...
I personally want to take this chance to discourage my fellow atheists who are not historians from publicly making a big deal out of the historicity of Jesus, and especially when engaging with Christians. Why? Because the historical consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. Responsible, mainstream, qualified history scholars who judiciously disregard supernaturalistic claims about Jesus and have no agenda to promote Christianity nonetheless, as a matter of academic consensus, believe there was a historical Jesus. Could they be wrong? It’s possible. But if they are, that is for qualified historians to prove, not laypeople. And it is for the field of ancient history to be persuaded to change its consensus before laypeople go around making claims that Jesus did not exist. I think it’s perfectly fine that Richard Carrier thinks he has a good case to make to the scholars of ancient history that there never was a historical Jesus. I enjoy listening to his arguments and am happy to pass his work on as a resource. But that is a debate for him to have with other historians and for secular historians to at least become widely divided over before atheists start advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently. In the meantime, we should either be agnostic on the issue (as I am), defer to historical consensus, or, if we really find Carrier’s arguments compelling still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

ETA: Found this on Carrier's Blog. He is referring to the quote above:

In aid of that last parenthetical, I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now and expected this February, if their production timeline goes to plan) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed. When using what I think are more realistic estimates of the requisite probabilities (estimates I believe are closer to the truth), those chances drop to around 1 in 12,000.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Just thought you might want to be aware of what you are doing. But if that doesn't bother you, I can't stop you.

Carry on.

 

[Brainache]

You claimed that there was a consensus when no such thing has happened. The Quest for an historical Jesus by Academics is still on going for hundreds of years and you ask me what now?

Are you going to retract you erroneous statement about the unknown consensus?

You knew in advance of posting that there was no consensus.

Now, the argument for the historical Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman is pathetically weak.

Ehrman discredits his main sources, the books of the New Testament, and admitted that they are riddled with contradictions, historical problems and events that most likely did not happen.

Ehrman's argument is fatally flawed. His sources are admittedly not credible. His argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is essentially worthless.

Oops. See above.

 

[Stone]

Not one non-apologetic source of ancient history who wrote about pre 70 CE events mentioned an actual character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God and Creator by Jews and people of the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

That's a lie.

And not only was there no Jesus of Nazareth--none of his acquaintances, disciples, relatives, parents, have ever been found in any non-apologetic writings about pre 70 CE events.

That's a lie.

And in ignoring these two obvious posts on the data, and on the newest scholarly consensus on this data in secular academe,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603160&postcount=443

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604546&postcount=452

you shew you're not honestly interested in getting answers to any of your questions at all. If you were honestly interested, you would check out these two links to find out just why your two statements above are a lie.

You're just pretending to be interested in these questions in order to peddle your Kool-Aid propaganda, again and again and again and again and again.

Stone

 

[Brainache]

You claimed that there was a consensus when no such thing has happened. The Quest for an historical Jesus by Academics is still on going for hundreds of years and you ask me what now?

Are you going to retract you erroneous statement about the unknown consensus?

You knew in advance of posting that there was no consensus.

Now, the argument for the historical Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman is pathetically weak.

Ehrman discredits his main sources, the books of the New Testament, and admitted that they are riddled with contradictions, historical problems and events that most likely did not happen.

Ehrman's argument is fatally flawed. His sources are admittedly not credible. His argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is essentially worthless.

Since I found another Blog, I thought I'd post a separate reply.

I'm not sure if you've heard of this guy Richard Carrier? He has a Blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.
I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here...

Happy now?

 

[Brainache]

I was just reading this quote again:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

...
In aid of that last parenthetical, I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now and expected this February, if their production timeline goes to plan) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed. When using what I think are more realistic estimates of the requisite probabilities (estimates I believe are closer to the truth), those chances drop to around 1 in 12,000....

A question for all of those people crowing about how the Consensus is based on such slight probabilities: How good is Carrier's "Bayes Theorem" method, if he can massage the figures and get a probability anywhere from 1 in 12,000 to 1 in 3?

Sure, maybe he has quantified it.

Whoopee?

 

[dejudge]

That's a lie.

Please, do not embarrass your self. You will not see any character called Jesus of Nazareth in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

They never even mentioned Nazareth.

...you shew you're not honestly interested in getting answers to any of your questions at all. If you were honestly interested, you would check out these two links to find out just why your two statements above are a lie.

You're just pretending to be interested in these questions in order to peddle your Kool-Aid propaganda, again and again and again and again and again.

Stone

Please, you seem not to understand what is propaganda. How in the world can there be consensus among Academics while they are presently arguing about whether or not Jesus was a figure of Faith or history?

Richard Carrier has NOT conceded that Jesus was a figure of history.

Earl Doherty has NOT conceded that Jesus was figure of history.

Robert Price has NOT conceded that Jesus was figure of history.

You seem to have no idea that there is an ongoing Quest for an historical Jesus for hundreds of years among Scholars.

Please, you seem to have no idea of the historical Jesus of Nazareth and cannot provide any evidence to support such a character.

Bible Jesus is a Myth and no other non-apologetic source mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples and acquaintances.

 

[Brainache]

Oh dear...

I say we have to wait and see. Even if I am a little bit iffy on the numbers right now.

 

[dejudge]

I must address this claim of consensus because it seems to be used as propaganda to cover the very weak argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Not only is there no consensus among Academics but those who argue for an historical Jesus have NOT conceded who their Jesus was .

How in the world could there be a consensus among Academic when as we speak so-called historicists do not know which Jesus was the historical Jesus?

The claim of consensus must be laid to rest as worthless rhetoric.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is a product of imagination and varies from Scholar to Scholar.

In other words, the historical Jesus of Nazareth is a Myth--a character with no corroborative historical evidence or value.