Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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.

Are you now willing to admit you made a mistake to argue for an HJ of Nazareth after you found out that there was NO evidence from antiquity?

It should be a fundamental of debate around here.

Honesty should count a lot.

If you can't be honest , we can't have a serious debate!!

You have no evidence from antiquity for an HJ of Nazareth, DON'T You??

Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

You blew it---you crossed the line.

Everytime I ask you for evidence for your HJ you say nothing.

You made a terrible mistake to argue for an HJ after you found out there was NO evidence from antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

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.

Why are you running away when you should have a MASSIVE amount of evidence from antiquity to support your position?

You should have had me tied in knots.

The opposite happened because I knew all along that you had no evidence at all.

The argument for an HJ is dead and cannot be revived--there is no supporting evidence.

Without evidence an argument is LIFELESS.

 

[JaysonR]

It's pretty amusing to watch you swing at shadows; thinking absolutely everyone who disagrees with you is therefore by default for an historical Jesus.

As I've said before, ultimately, the historicity of Jesus may not be that important. Even the non-supernatural incidents in the narratives of the Christian scriptures - the gospels and the Book of Acts - are made up and based on one or more of four basic sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and contemporary events seen through an apocalyptic lens, pagan mythology, and Greek literature.

About the only thing we can say with any certainty about a historical Jesus is that he was a messianic pretender who was, predictably, put to death by the Romans.

We can infer that, as one who thought himself to be the Messiah, he had an apocalyptic view and expected the end of the world in his generation. Assuming the teachings attributed to him at least somewhat approximate what he said, he also, in keeping with his apocalyptic views preached an anti-materialistic way of life, renunciation of the world and a severing of ties with it - including familial ties. However, these must remain inferences only. They are not corroborated by any non-Christian sources.

We also need to separate Jesus from the Christ or Christ Jesus of Paul. The latter is psychological / philosophical construct. Paul even says in Galatians that he didn't consult those who had known Jesus, but that his knowledge of Christ came through a direct revelation - one that could only have happened after the death of any historical Jesus.

The problem here is, I think, is that all we have is the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus and his similarity both to earlier Jewish teachers and the mythic parallels to other dying and rising gods. I think the debate has shifted as time goes on, to three basic positions: Jesus was historical, but only barely; Jesus is an amalgam of various historical characters, with a lot of mythology, jewish and pagan, thrown in; and Jesus was totally mythical, a composite of Old Testament miracle workers (Moses, Elijah and Elisha) dying and rising gods (such as Osiris and Dionysus) and Jewish apocalypticism.

About the only historical support for Jesus, outside of Christian writings, are a brief allusion by Josephus of the execution of James, the brother of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," and the description by Tacitus of Christ has having been put to death by Pilatus. As to the first, the phrase, "who was called the Christ," has been called into doubt. As to the second, Tacitus was only writing, in all probability what he had heard second or third hand, possibly from Christians.

Tim's problem was your timeline for the evolution of the early christian groups; as noted above - he's hardly set on an historical Jesus.

You assumed he was because you assumed that if anyone doesn't accept absolutely everything you propose, that they therefore must be for an historical Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

It's pretty amusing to watch you swing at shadows; thinking absolutely everyone who disagrees with you is therefore by default for an historical Jesus.

You fell for the trap. I specifically did not mention that Tim Callahan was HJ.

 

[JaysonR]

Then you are silly for ranting off about an historical Jesus while at the same time taunting Tim for being fed up with you and that he "had no evidence at all".

 

[dejudge]

Then you are silly for ranting off about an historical Jesus while at the same time taunting Tim for being fed up with you and that he "had no evidence at all".

I have merely exposed your rush to judgment. By the way, I am fed up with Tim Callahan.

Now, it is not a silly rant that there is no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

It makes you sound silly when you say things like that.

Are you implying that you have evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth??

 

[JaysonR]

Yes, yes, you are the great and mighty dejudge of exposing many things; flatter yourself all you want.

I was saying that it's poor communication and rather silly to write your post to Tim and rant about HJ arguments lacking evidence while at the same time banging his head for your refusal of his evidence (I'm sure you'll ignore everything in this post and just write something about how he didn't provide evidence, etc...), when Tim hasn't anything to do with the second part of your complaining to him.

Did you just feel like whining about something more, as if anyone hadn't perfectly already understood your position regarding the HJ proposition?

People are silly that can't articulate their thoughts very well and blame others for their short-coming.

 

[Craig B]

Irenaeus claimed Jesus obtained his fiftieth year so there is no confusion.

The time period for the reign of Claudius [c 41-54 CE] would be compatible with a fifty year old Jesus.

Jesus would be fifty years old in the time of Claudius if he was about to be 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius [c 29-30 CE]

What sort of argument is that? I have explained what Irenaeus meant by this claim of Jesus' age. Of course if Jesus had attained such age - which he didn't - it would have been under Claudius. What does that prove?

There is also another significant point----Irenaeus did not refer to the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles in AH 2.22 when he argued that Jesus was fifty years old.

But he knows both, and refers to them elsewhere.

In any event, we have further corroboration by Irenaeus that the Pauline Corpus was unknown by the Church c 180 CE when he argued that Jesus was fifty years old before or at his crucifixion.

Nonsense.

AH 3:3:2 ... the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. 3:3:3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. 3:3:4 as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10)

for Irenaeus's knowledge of earlier works see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus:

Scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts:[all 4 Gospels, plus] Acts of the Apostles (3:14), Romans (3:16), 1 Corinthians (1:3), 2 Corinthians (3:7), Galatians (3:22), Ephesians (5:2), Philippians (4:18), Colossians (2:3), 1 Thessalonians (5:6), 2 Thessalonians (5:25), 1 Timothy (1reface), 2 Timothy (3:14), Titus (3:3) [plus 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation].

 

[dejudge]

Yes, yes, you are the great and mighty dejudge of exposing many things; flatter yourself all you want.

Why are you so annoyed because I expose the fallacies of the HJ argument and the fallacy that there are authentic Pauline Epistles?

I will now expose that Clement's First Epistle was indeed a forgery and written no earlier than the end of the 4th century.

In Against Heresies 3 attributed to Irenaeus it is claimed that there was a Bishop of Rome called Clement.


Against Heresies 3.3.3

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

So, based on Against Heresies 3, the order of the Bishops up to Clement was Peter/Paul--Linus--Anacletus--Clement.

We will be told that there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth and the Church of Rome dispatched a letter to the Corinthians.

Against Heresies 3.3.3

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith...

The time of Clement as Bishop was from the 12th year of Domitian to the 3rd year of Trajan. See Eusebius' "Church History 3.

1. Clement was bishop c 93 -101 CE

2. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians c 93-101 CE.

3. Clement wrote the letter when there was a Great Dissension of Corinth Church.

4. Clement was the Third Bishop after the Apostles.

I will continue later.

 

[dejudge]

What sort of argument is that? I have explained what Irenaeus meant by this claim of Jesus' age.

You have explained nothing.

We can find Irenaeus' explanation in Against Heresies 2.22. Irenaeus argued that Jesus was 50 years old when crucified which was TAUGHT by the Elders of the Church and in the Gospel c 180 CE.

The Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles were unknown in the Church and by so-called Heretics in the time of Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr claimed the Gospel--the Memoirs of the Apostles--was read in the Churches---Not the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

In Against Heresies 2.22 it is clearly stated that Jesus obtained his fiftieth year and that was also found in the Gospel and preached by the Elders.

AH 2:22:4

For He came to save all through means of Himself ... He therefore passed through every age ... a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all ... as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.

That's Irenaeus's starting point. Here's his argument. It is not founded on any special knowledge, but on mere ideological conjecture, as is quite evident. 2:22:6

Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old.

 

[Brainache]

Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie called Abdul...

 

[Craig B]

You have explained nothing. ... The Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles were unknown in the Church and by so-called Heretics in the time of Irenaeus.

I have just quoted sections of the Pauline Corpus from numbered paragraphs of AH! I have just listed the locations in AH where Paul is cited! This is beyond bizarre.

Justin Martyr claimed the Gospel--the Memoirs of the Apostles--was read in the Churches---Not the Pauline Corpus.

It has been shown umpteen times here, and is a scholarly commonplace, that Justin knew Paul's works.

 

[Brainache]

Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie called Abdul...

No he didn't...

 

[Belz...]

Why are you running away when you should have a MASSIVE amount of evidence from antiquity to support your position?

Strawman. He never said that he had. You are arguing against armies of strawman, and listening to no one else.

You fell for the trap. I specifically did not mention that Tim Callahan was HJ.

And now you're using dishonest children's tactics for arguing ? This is going to end well.

 

[dejudge]

I have just quoted sections of the Pauline Corpus from numbered paragraphs of AH! I have just listed the locations in AH where Paul is cited! This is beyond bizarre.

You seem to have no idea what a forgery is.

You seem to have no idea that even the Pauline Corpus contains forgeries.

You seem not to understand that there may have been at least SEVEN different authors using the name Paul.

You do not seem to understand that at least 18 books and Epistles in the NT are attributed to FAKE authors.

As soon as you understand the massive amount of forgeries in apologetic writings you may be able to understand that "Against Heresies" is a compilation of at least TWO authors.

The writer who claimed the Gospel, Elders of the Church and the disciples TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE is not the same author who mentioned the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles where Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

It has been shown umpteen times here, and is a scholarly commonplace, that Justin knew Paul's works.

Your claims are fallacies. It is the complete opposite. It has been shown multiple times that Justin did not acknowledge Paul but 12 ILLITERATE disciples who preached the Gospel to every race of men.

It has been shown multiple times that Justin admitted it was the Memoiirs of the Apostles that was used in the Churches--NOT the Pauline Corpus,

And further, Justin did NOT acknowledge the Revelations of Paul but acknowledge the Revelation of John and showed that John's Revelation was used in the EARLY TEACHINGS of the Church--Not the Pauline Revelation

Even in the NT itself there is NO evidence at all that any of the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE.

 

[Brainache]

You seem to have no idea what a forgery is.

You seem to have no idea that even the Pauline Corpus contains forgeries.

You seem not to understand that there may have been at least SEVEN different authors using the name Paul.

You do not seem to understand that at least 18 books and Epistles in the NT are attributed to FAKE authors.

As soon as you understand the massive amount of forgeries in apologetic writings you may be able to understand that "Against Heresies" is a compilation of at least TWO authors.

The writer who claimed the Gospel, Elders of the Church and the disciples TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE is not the same author who mentioned the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles where Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.




Your claims are fallacies. It is the complete opposite. It has been shown multiple times that Justin did not acknowledge Paul but 12 ILLITERATE disciples who preached the Gospel to every race of men.

It has been shown multiple times that Justin admitted it was the Memoiirs of the Apostles that was used in the Churches--NOT the Pauline Corpus,

And further, Justin did NOT acknowledge the Revelations of Paul but acknowledge the Revelation of John and showed that John's Revelation was used in the EARLY TEACHINGS of the Church--Not the Pauline Revelation

Even in the NT itself there is NO evidence at all that any of the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE.

I hope you don't expect anyone to take these lies seriously.

 

[IanS]

Now, my question to you still stands: If Jesus were entirely mythic, not just almost entirely mythic - as I have argued, why did the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke find it so necessary to jump through all those hoops to have him born in Bethlehem, yet be a guy form Galilee? If you're making someone up out of whole cloth and they're supposed to come from Bethlehem, why not just say that's where they came from, particularly when your audience is comprised of Greek-speaking, hellenized Jews ignorant of the geography of Judea.

Tim - I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above. Why do you think its’ indicating a real Jesus if extant copies of g-Mathew and g-Luke (which afaik, probably date from 4th century and later) say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but that he did many things in a place called Galilee? Why is that indicative of Jesus being a real person?

By the time those Christian copyists were writing the extant copies of those gospels (ie about 300 years and more after the supposed death of Jesus), there might have been countless reasons why they thought legend had it that Jesus was born in any particular town and/or that he later did things in any other quite nearby location (Galilee and Bethlehem are not worlds apart, about 70miles?).

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have no idea what a forgery is.

As soon as you understand the massive amount of forgeries in apologetic writings you may be able to understand that "Against Heresies" is a compilation of at least TWO authors.

The writer who claimed the Gospel, Elders of the Church and the disciples TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE is not the same author who mentioned the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles where Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

So you say, AH doesn't know Paul. I then list the many references to Paul in AH. You respond, these bits were forged. If I find a pre 180 reference to Christ, then it wasn't the same Christ. As previously stated, your arguments are completely irrefutable.

 

[dejudge]

I hope you don't expect anyone to take these lies seriously.

Your post is directly applicable to you "I hope you don't expect anyone to take these lies seriously."