Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Concerning the area I've hilited, the Gospel of Mark, in fact, make's no such claim.

I never ever claimed that there was a birth narrative for Jesus, the Son of God, in gMark.

I only showed that gMark's Jesus admitted he was the Son of God after he walked on the sea and instantly transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

Ultimately, the miracles of the gospels have little bearing on the historicity of Jesus. Any historical Jesus would have served as a mere kernel, like the irritant the oyster coats with layers of nacre to create a pearl.

Your assumptions are not even logical. It is completely irrational to argue for an historical Jesus when virtually all accounts of Jesus are either fiction or implausible.

The gospels are demonstrably fictional, just as are the stoires of King Arthur. Gildas refers to a Romanized Briton, Ambrosius Aurelianus, as leading the Briton resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. He's probably the historical basis for Arthur, and the Arthur of Mallory's Morte d'Arthur bears the same resemblance to him as the gospels do to any historical Jesus.

Once you admit the Gospels are demonstrably fiction then there are no other sources, no witnesses, and no non-apologetic sources for the biography of HJ of Nazareth.

HJ of Nazareth is essentially a myth.

....Ultimately, I find the argument as to whether Jesus was or was not historical to be moot. By the time Paul had largely dispensed with any historical Jesus in favor of his hallucinogenic revelations and by the time the wildly syncretistic Christian church had incorporated imagery from the cult of Isis, among other pagan material, any historic Jesus had been buried in layer after layer of myth - just as the irritant kernel is buried in layer after layer of nacre to make a pearl.

You just destroyed your own HJ argument. An HJ was not needed for a Jesus cult to develop.

Based on your own admission, the Gospels are fictional and the Pauline Corpus is a product of hallucinations.

An historical Jesus was of no use for the Jesus cult.

 

[Brainache]

...
An historical Jesus was of no use for the Jesus cult.

Except as, you know, the reason that there was a Jesus cult.

Apart from that, not much...

 

[dejudge]

Paul in his first letter to Corinth says that Peter and the brothers of Jesus travel with their 'adelphen gunaika' or sister-wives/believing wives and perhaps actual wives. This is not an outright religious statement and it is in the Bible.

What?? 1 Corinthians itself is a religious statement.

Now, I wont allow you to get away with your presumptions.

You have no idea when 1 Corinthians was composed and cannot corroborate any event or account of Jesus or Paul.

Your presumptions are worthless.

You must show, I don't know how, that a character called Paul actually lived and did preach Christ crucified since 37-41 CE or since the time of King Aretas and wrote letters to the Corinthians and others.

There is no evidence at all anywhere from non-apologetics that Jews and Roman citizens worshiped a man as a God whom Paul claimed was raised from the dead since 37-41 CE.

 

[pakeha]

Paul in his first letter to Corinth says that Peter and the brothers of Jesus travel with their 'adelphen gunaika' or sister-wives/believing wives and perhaps actual wives. This is not an outright religious statement and it is in the Bible.

Are you quite certain the Pauline Epistle specifically says "brothers of Jesus"?
That may be what you or I understand the text to mean, but is it what the text actually says?

 

[dejudge]

Except as, you know, the reason that there was a Jesus cult.

Apart from that, not much...

Your statement is without rational.

In Origen's "Against Celsus", the non-apologetic writer, Celsus c 180 CE, argued that Jesus was the son of Panthera, a soldier.

Origen accused Celsus of inventing fiction because he did not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus.

The story of Jesus must be about a mythological being or else it would be exposed as a pack of lies.

A human being cannot walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect.

Jesus must be a God to historicise all the events and accounts about him in the NT.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God...

Jesus MUST be God from the beginning.

 

[Belz...]

I only showed that gMark's Jesus admitted he was the Son of God after he walked on the sea and instantly transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

Question: are you aware of what "son of god" might mean, aside from the literal meaning ?

Your assumptions are not even logical. It is completely irrational to argue for an historical Jesus when virtually all accounts of Jesus are either fiction or implausible.

This doesn't follow. As such, your own claim is illogical.

HJ of Nazareth is essentially a myth.

"Essentially" ? Well that's a step forward, I guess.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is without rational.

In Origen's "Against Celsus", the non-apologetic writer, Celsus c 180 CE, argued that Jesus was the son of Panthera, a soldier.

Origen accused Celsus of inventing fiction because he did not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus.

The story of Jesus must be about a mythological being or else it would be exposed as a pack of lies.

A human being cannot walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect.

Jesus must be a God to historicise all the events and accounts about him in the NT.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Jesus MUST be God from the beginning.

You think Tertullian counts as "the Beginning" of Christianity?

You don't think there were any earlier versions?

Is there any point in me asking for a cite or something?

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is without rational.

You really should stop thinking that your opinion is somehow the standard for logic in the universe.

A human being cannot walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect.

Actually, according to the story he can since God can do anything to anyone.

Jesus MUST be God from the beginning.

Non sequitur.

 

[dejudge]

You think Tertullian counts as "the Beginning" of Christianity?

You don't think there were any earlier versions?

Is there any point in me asking for a cite or something?

You think Jesus the Zealot is the founder of Christianity?

You think Robert Eiseman's opinion of Jesus counts 1900 years later?

Tertullian supposedly gave an opinion of Jesus in the late 2nd-3rd century and his opinion don't count?

What about Celsus?? Around c 180 CE Celsus argued that Jesus was a magician in True Discourse but I don't know where Robert Eiseman Jesus the Zealot can be found.

Jesus the Zealot must COUNT as a modern myth.

Origen's Against Celsus

But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the miraculous circumstances attending it...........................And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts “that he (Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god.”

 

[Brainache]

You think Jesus the Zealot is the founder of Christianity?

You think Robert Eiseman's opinion of Jesus counts 1900 years later?

Tertullian supposedly gave an opinion of Jesus in the late 2nd-3rd century and his opinion don't count?

What about Celsus?? Around c 180 CE Celsus argued that Jesus was a magician in True Discourse but I don't know where Robert Eiseman Jesus the Zealot can be found.

Jesus the Zealot must COUNT as a modern myth.
...

Can you tell me what is impossible about Eisenman's "Righteous Teacher" = "Jesus" idea?

I'd love to read your considered response to all of that.

What do you think these DSS Pesharim are talking about?

Is it the Maccabean period, or Herodian?

Who is "the Spouter Of Lies"?

Who is "The Wicked Priest"?

etc...

You know these scrolls were left there in the first century and not discovered until 1900 years later, don't you? They weren't edited and changed to fit later Roman ideas of "Jesus" or anything.

They are the real deal IMO, and unless you can explain it better than Robert Eisenman does, I'll stick with him, OK?

Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

Can you tell me what is impossible about Eisenman's "Righteous Teacher" = "Jesus" idea?

I'd love to read your considered response to all of that.

What do you think these DSS Pesharim are talking about?

Is it the Maccabean period, or Herodian?

Who is "the Spouter Of Lies"?

Who is "The Wicked Priest"?

etc...

You know these scrolls were left there in the first century and not discovered until 1900 years later, don't you? They weren't edited and changed to fit later Roman ideas of "Jesus" or anything.

They are the real deal IMO, and unless you can explain it better than Robert Eisenman does, I'll stick with him, OK?

Thanks.

There is no DSS with Jesus of Nazareth so it is rather useless speculating.

 

[Brainache]

There is no DSS with Jesus of Nazareth so it is rather useless speculating.

It appears so for you, because all you know about the history of the place comes from the Bible.

Oh well.

 

[dejudge]

It appears so for you, because all you know about the history of the place comes from the Bible.

Oh well.

Again you write more fallacies. Your posts are riddled with fallacy after fallacy.

The Bible is a source of mythology, fiction and implausibility.

 

[Brainache]

...
The Bible is a source of mythology, fiction and implausibility.

That's right. So I don't know why you base your understanding of history on it.

Try looking outside the bible at what was going on in that place at that time.

You don't need miracles to explain the beliefs.

Give it a try.

It won't hurt.

 

[dejudge]

...
The Bible is a source of mythology, fiction and implausibility.

That's right. So I don't know why you base your understanding of history on it.

Try looking outside the bible at what was going on in that place at that time.

You don't need miracles to explain the beliefs.

Give it a try.

It won't hurt.

Again, you post another fallacy. It is YOU who admit that the history of your Jesus is in the Bible. Your Jesus was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

The only information outside the Bible for your Jesus is the Shroud of Turin and forgeries in Josephus.

You forget what you write so easily. Why??

Just about 2 days ago you admitted you use the Bible to get history for your Jesus.

I use the Bible for mythology.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure mythology like Romulus, and Perseus.

Mark 6

........About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50 because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

51 Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed

 

[Brainache]

Again, you post another fallacy. It is YOU who admit that the history of your Jesus is in the Bible. Your Jesus was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

The only information outside the Bible for your Jesus is the Shroud of Turin and forgeries in Josephus.

You forget what you write so easily. Why??

Just about 2 days ago you admitted you use the Bible to get history for your Jesus.

I use the Bible for mythology.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure mythology like Romulus, and Perseus.

Mark 6

I said I used the bible as a starting point. You seem to think that Ancient Palestine is a time and place that only exists in the Bible. I'm telling you to look outside of that, but you refuse.

I don't know why you accuse me of not understanding History, when it is you who is obsessed by the details of these ridiculous religious stories in the gospels.

Here is a little bit of History from there:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

... Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him...

I've bolded some bits that are actual History written by a bloke called Josephus in the first Century, which you can also find in the bible.

Now stop reading the bible and read Josephus. Then read other books about the history around the time and place.

Then come back and tell us all how much you know about it all.

 

[jobberone]

No. In your highlight you left out the rest of the sentence which I have just highlighted in RED for you. As you very well know, we are talking about Paul’s belief in Jesus - that sentence, like everything in this discussion, is very clearly referring specifically to what Paul and the gospels say about Jesus and whether or not that is just evidence of their religious belief in Jesus or whether any of it is evidence of Jesus as a real person ... that's why the red part of that sentence, which you so "helpfully" chose to omit from your highlight, specifically does say that it's referring to evidence of Jesus.

Try not to deliberately mislead people by pretending you did not know that the discussion here is about biblical beliefs in Jesus (it's not about whether the bible names real places such as Jerusalem or whether Paul says he visited Cephas ... nobody here is arguing that Jerusalem was only a biblical religious belief - we know Jerusalem is a real place and not merely a figment of Pauls/Gospel religious belief).

I did leave it out on purpose because I was addressing your comments I highlighted. What you said was, "What's written in those gospels and Paul's letters is, as you very well know by now, only evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is no evidence there of Jesus."

That makes me think you view the Bible as religious beliefs only. And using a city present then and now doesn't mean a thing. But the eyewitness testimony of a person is just as pertinent then as it is now. If numbers of people say they saw a person who did this and that and write a book on it then how is that different from a biography written today?

I can't read your mind and won't attempt but it appears you and others dismiss much of the Bible's testimony.

 

[dafydd]

Your statement is without rational.

Incomplete sentence. Without rational what?

 

[Brainache]

Incomplete sentence. Without rational what?

Have fun!

 

[dejudge]

I said I used the bible as a starting point. You seem to think that Ancient Palestine is a time and place that only exists in the Bible. I'm telling you to look outside of that, but you refuse.

I don't know why you accuse me of not understanding History, when it is you who is obsessed by the details of these ridiculous religious stories in the gospels.

Again, you post fallacies. You are the one who MUST believe the Bible is a source of history for your Jesus. Your history of Jesus STARTS and ENDS in the Bible unless you use the Shroud of Turin and forgeries in Josephus.

By the way, please do not tell me about the writings of Josephus because I will expose your fallacies.

John the Baptist in Josephus is NOT associated with Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible.

You have been told that it is already known that there are NO non-apologetic sources of antiquity who mentioned a character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens since c 37-41 CE.

Why are you looking outside the Bible and apologetics? You won't find Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.