Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would appear to me that JaysonR does not understand that I can show what is written in any writing without believing it is true.

The claim that Superman has a Big "S" on his chest is true in the story but NOT it is not an historical account.

The claim that Romulus was the founder of Rome is true in the Myth Fables of Plutarch but it is NOT an historical account.

The claim that CreAtion was a six day event is true in Gensis but is is NOT an historical account.

It is true that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God Creator in the NT--the NT is not an historical account. It is a compilation of myth fables like those in Genesis, Plutarch and the Superman Comic books.
 
I wasn't addressing any of that.
You still claimed that "magicians and their followers were called Christians."

And then you claimed, "I never said the word Christian was synonymous with "magician".

Yes, you did.
 
There was no reason required to create an elaborate messianic hoax to justify the Roman actions.
Justification was already well in hand.

What you say is not really logical because we have at least 7 apologetic sources who did put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

1. The author of Acts.

2. The authors of the Pauline Corpus.

3. Aristides .

4. Justin Martyr

5. Tertullian

6. Hippolytus

7. Origen

The propaganda that the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God, was believed by people of antiquity and this propaganda became the basis of a new religion in the 2nd century.
 
Last edited:
What you say is not really logical because we have at least 7 apologetic sources who did put out the propaganda that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

1. The author of Acts.

2. The authors of the Pauline Corpus.

3. Aristides .

4. Justin Martyr

5. Tertullian

6. Hippolytus

7. Origen

The propaganda that the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God, was believed by people of antiquity and this propaganda became the basis of a new religion in the 2nd century.

I didn't say it wasn't believed.

You claimed:
The Jesus story was not initially fabricated for a new religion but was an EXPLANATION [propaganda] for the destruction of the Temple of the Jewish God.

The Romans needed no such propaganda.
If people believed that idea, it wasn't because the Romans needed them to.
 

You did no such thing unless you do not understand what an assertion is.

It would appear to me that you are so accustomed to twist what I write that you cannot even remember that I referred to only two magicians who followers were called Christians--NOT all magicians.

Based on Justin, magicians and their followers were called Christians.
 
You did no such thing unless you do not understand what an assertion is.

It would appear to me that you are so accustomed to twist what I write that you cannot even remember that I referred to only two magicians who followers were called Christians--NOT all magicians.

Based on Justin, magicians and their followers were called Christians.
OK, then you can recant your following position:
How many times must I point out to you that it is illogical to assume that any mention of Christians must refer to a cult who worshiped Jesus or believed the story of Jesus?

Even in the 1st century, since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, magicians and their followers were called Christians.
In any event, in the Pliny letter to Trajan and Trajan's letter to Pliny, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth by Trajan, Pliny or those who were eventually executed or tortured.

Arguing over whether you came up with the idea wasn't the point.
You relied on that piece of information for the argument.

If what you meant by
Even in the 1st century, since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, magicians and their followers were called Christians.

was:
Based on Justin, magicians and their followers were called Christians.

Then your claim that:
I never said the word Christian was synonymous with "magician".
Is merely pedantic.
 
The Romans needed no such propaganda.
If people believed that idea, it wasn't because the Romans needed them to.

I never claimed the propaganda was spread by the Romans. Please, read and repeat exactly what I write.

I wrote that people of antiquity believed the propaganda that the Jews killed the Son of God as is evident in apologetic writings.

This propaganda was believed and propagated for hundreds of years until the Roman Church was started in the 4th century

This is a partial list of 10 apologetics who spread the propaganda from the 2nd to the 4th century.

1. The author of Acts

Acts 2.-----22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth........ ye have taken , and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

2. 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.

3. Aristides

The Apology---------The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. ....... But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried.

4. Justin Martyr

Dialogue with Trypho -------Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One

5. Irenaeus

the Jews had become the slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal life away from them),

6. Hippolytus

Treatise Against the Jews-----7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?....... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

7. Tertullian

Answer to the Jews ----let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him

8. Origen

Against Celsus 1----although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ

9. Lactantius

The manner in Which the Persecutors Died---on the tenth of the kalends of April, as I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

10. Eusebius

Demonstration of the Gospels----And it is plain even to the blind, that what they saw and foretold is fulfilled in actual facts from the very day the Jews laid godless hands on Christ, and drew down on themselves the beginning of the train of sorrows.
 
Last edited:
OK, that's odd.

You wrote before:
Quote:
The Jesus story was not initially fabricated for a new religion

But now claim:

Quote:
This is a partial list of 10 apologetics who spread the propaganda from the 2nd to the 4th century.

JaysonR, much as I'd like to continue the good fight at your side, I've decided that dejudge simply isn't worth the bile he raises in me. I'm right. He's wrong. End of story. I'm done with this thread. It has become a waste of time.
 
Or he decided for non-historical reasons, as suggested, that Jesus must have reached a greater age than normally stated, and rearranged the history to suit this ideological requirement.

"Normally stated" where? Irenaeus actually uses reasonable logic in making his point and it is one Carrier himself uses. They both point out that John 8:57 makes little sense if Jesus was in his 30s but makes perfect sense in reference to a man 45 or older.

If you want to read a trip though Illogical Land read Mark J. Bonocore's How Old is Jesus According to St. Irenaeus? where he claims Irenaeus is arguing for a 33 yeas old Jesus. :jaw-dropp

This surreal song and dance is beat up, shoved in a garbage can, and kicked down several flights of stairs by Demonstrations (74) which proves Irenaeus was talking about a 50 or older Jesus.

When I read stuff like Mark J. Bonocore's argument I have to wonder just what apologists are thinking to seriously suggest this kind of nonsense or if they are just desperate and don't realize they are talking nonsense. :boggled:
 
Irenaeus actually uses reasonable logic in making his point and it is one Carrier himself uses. They both point out that John 8:57 makes little sense if Jesus was in his 30s but makes perfect sense in reference to a man 45 or older.
The rest of your post is unpleasantly vituperative, and I abstain from reproducing it, but that bit will be enough for our purposes.

Your analysis of John 8 is breathtaking! Look at it.
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Why did "the Jews" think Jesus was under fifty years old? Evidently because he appeared to be less than fifty years old! That is, he had not reached old age, reckoned at that time to begin at fifty. What age is Jesus claiming to be - fifty? No, more than two thousand if he's older than Abraham. What does this mean, that we may conclude Jesus is really fifty years old? Of course not.

This is part of the grandiose supernatural bombast that the Fourth Gospel attributes to Jesus - in defiance of any historical probability. It derives from the starting point of John's Christology in Chapter 1.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
It has nothing to do with Jesus being fifty. "The Jews" didn't mean fifty as such. They meant "you're not an old man" ie you don't look like one, and he says "I'm older than Abraham". That means he's claiming to be over fifty? Nonsense. Either it means he's claiming to be over two thousand or it's not a claim about his personal age at all.

Ireanaeus wants to make Jesus old because this requirement derives from his Christology of Jesus as "counter-Adam", an antidote to the Fall. Irenaeus has no special source of historical knowledge about Jesus' age, we may be sure.
 
It would appear to me that JaysonR does not understand that I can show what is written in any writing without believing it is true.

It would appear to me that Dejudge does not understand that I can show that people exist without believing the supernatural nonsense added to their stories.
 
DeJudge, you do yourself no favor by insisting that you can never make a mistake.

In an earlier post, you said, (exact quotation):
How many times must I point out to you that it is illogical to assume that any mention of Christians must refer to a cult who worshiped Jesus or believed the story of Jesus?

Even in the 1st century, since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, magicians and their followers were called Christians.

But when JaysonR cites the quotation, you respond:
Your statement is utterly false.

I mentioned Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion whose followers were called Christians according to Justin.

Marcion was not regarded as a magician.

Now, please show where I aserted Christians were synonymous with magicians

Now something is wrong here. Even if you were right in everything you say, why should anyone continue to pay attention to someone who would rather accuse others of falsehood than admit to having said something poorly?
 
It would appear to me that Dejudge does not understand that I can show that people exist without believing the supernatural nonsense added to their stories.
It doesn't mean that a corporeal Jesus is more likely to be the truth though.
 
DeJudge, you do yourself no favor by insisting that you can never make a mistake.

Do you realize that JaysonR has made mistakes? You seem not to understand the fundamentals of debating.

Why don't you expose all your mistakes?
 
Do you realize that JaysonR has made mistakes? You seem not to understand the fundamentals of debating.

Why don't you expose all your mistakes?

Everyone makes mistakes. Failing to admit them is proof of dishonesty.

Having seen that you are a liar, no one needs to bother with your posts anymore.

That is a fundamental of debate around here. Honesty counts for a lot. If you can't be honest, we can have no serious debate.

You blew it.

Game over, dejudge.
 
Do you realize that JaysonR has made mistakes? You seem not to understand the fundamentals of debating.

Why don't you expose all your mistakes?
Tu quoque. Good start in teaching the fundamentals of debating.

It's not about exposing but admitting.

There's an old saying that when your hole is deep enough you should stop digging.

It would be hard for me to make many mistakes in this debate since I have not been arguing either side. I'm just here for the popcorn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom