Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
eight bits said:
dejudge


Rumor has it that there were several real-life Jews whom the Romans or Roman client-rulers dispatched, too. Some for posing not much threat at all. John the Baptist, for instance, if Josephus can be trusted. Did John have any disciples do you think?
Click to expand...

Your HJ argument is based on those rumors!!!
 
Craig B said:
One finds references in Acts to things also mentioned by Paul in his letters. There are no fewer than three accounts in Acts of the manifestation on the road to Damascus, in Chapters 9, 22 and 26, and at 1 Cor 15:8 Paul mentions having seen the risen Christ; but I agree that Acts nowhere says, "And then Paul sat down and wrote a letter to the Corinthians about this". You infer, then, that he wrote no such letters. Acts nowhere tells us, as far as I remember, what Paul ate for breakfast. You infer, I suppose, that he never ate breakfasts.
Click to expand...

So what is your basis for arguing that Pauline letters were early when no such thing is stated in any of the letters themselves?

You admit we don't know what Paul ate for breakfast so why are you claiming you know when the Pauline Corpus was composed?

The author of Acts did not tell us that Saul/ Paul wrote letters.

The Pauline authors did not tell us when they wrote letters.

It is a logical fallacy to infer that a breakfast eater is also a Church letter writer.

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church.
 
dejudge

Your HJ argument is based on those rumors!!!
Click to expand...
That's not a responsive answer. My question to you was

Did John the Baptist have any real-life disciples, in your opinion?

Please choose exactly one from among:

Yes.

No.

I don't know

Please expand on your chosen answer to your heart's content, but please do so only after you have disclosed which one responsive answer you selected.

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
eight bits said:
dejudge


That's not a responsive answer. My question to you was

Did John the Baptist have any real-life disciples, in your opinion?

Please choose exactly one from among:

Yes.

No.

I don't know

Please expand on your chosen answer to your heart's content, but please do so only after you have disclosed which one responsive answer you selected.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Click to expand...

I cannot speculate about John the Baptist!! A character called John the Baptist is mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews 18 and there is no association of John the Baptist with Jesus of Nazareth documented.
 
maximara said:
Except there was no "Herod king of the Jews" in Tiberius time.
Click to expand...

Quite right.
I was just considering the confusion you'd posted about here:

maximara said:
You do know I am quoting Demonstrations (74) (also c180 CE) by Irenaeus, right?

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

As I have mentioned before aside from the Pontius Pilate reference this puts the crucifixion 42-44 CE as that is when Herod Agrippa I had his "King of the Jews" title (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)

Strangely Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1:27:2 stated "But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

So if you take Against Heresies and Demonstrations (74) together (as they were both written c180) you are left with the conclusion that Irenaeus believed Pontius Pilate was procurator under Tiberius and became governor under Claudius or that he wasn't sure when Pontius Pilate's rule was.



The problem is "about 30 years" could mean anything from 26 to 34 years old and the 15th year of Tiberius is actually September 18, 28 CE to September 17, 29 CE.

A Jesus born 7 BCE would have been 34 years old in 28 CE and 50 years old in 44...which matches two of the temporal references in Demonstrations (74).

Ergo when you consider Demonstrations (74) and Against Heresies together Irenaeus is saying Jesus was crucified in 44 CE at the age of 50 or 15 to 16 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

Interestingly Theudas the magician's actions (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98) are dated 44-46 CE and would have effectively obscured the actions of a leader who had a smaller group.
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
You really do not understand, do you? You really do not know the significance of the Bethlehem birth story and why Matthew and Luke have to get him born there, though they go about it in two irreconcilably different ways? You really do not understand why the later Synoptics have to jump through such hoops, as TimCallahan says, to get a Galilean born in Bethlehem, a most improbable circumstance? And how the birth stories, absent from Mark and John, can't possibly be true? So if he has to be born in Bethlehem, it would suit Matthew and Luke better to state that he was really from Bethlehem, and always lived there. Why then do we keep getting told he was a Galilean? Is it because he really was one, and the evidence for that is ineluctable?

This is the sort of argument I offered earlier, in the post you won't read, about Jesus' baptism by John, another embarrassing story that the later gospels would like to omit, but they can't. Why can't they? Because it really happened? Can you see the force of arguments of that kind? They may be wrong, but they depend in no way on the assumption that the NT is infallible, or any such rubbish.

The Bethlehem clue, by the way, is in John 7:41-43 The Scripture that says it is Micah 5:2 Yet he is located in Galilee as John points out. Why? Well a very parsimonious way of explaining this is to suggest that a mythical Jesus was born in Bethlehem for ideological reasons, and the one resident in Galilee is a real one. Is that an insane idea? No. Does it depend on the infallibility of the gospels? No.
Click to expand...

This may be the finest posting in this whole thread.

Stone
 
I now continue to show that other apologetic sources place Clement well away from 93-101 CE and appear to corroborate that the supposed Clement letter to the Church of Corinth was a forgery.

1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome after Peter [93-101 CE]

2. Tertullian--Clement was first bishop of Rome after Peter [c 68 CE]

Now, it is very important to understand that Eusebius in Church History primarily used the writings of Irenaeus for the chronology and date for Clement as bishop of ROME.

Supposedly Irenaeus was not a presbyter of the Church of Rome but the Church of Lyons.

Tertullian was a supposed Christian writer in Rome.

Eusebius' Church History is claimed to have been written about c 325 CE.

After Church History claimed Clement was bishop c 93-101 CE another document called "The Chronography of 354" completely contradicted Eusebius and gave intricate details showing that Clement was bishop of Rome c 68-76 CE.

The Chronography of 354
Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days.

He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulate of Tracalus and Italicus [68] to that of Vespasian for the 6th time and Titus [76].
Click to expand...

Based on Tertullian and the Chronography of 354 Clement was not bishop of Rome c 93-101 CE when a letter was written by a bishop of Rome to the Church of Corinth when there was a Great Dissension.

The Clement First Epistle to the Corinthians is a forgery based on Tertullian and the Chronography of 354.

Clement may have been already dead by 93-101 CE if he did live

Clement First Epistle to the Corinthians was not composed up to at least the middle of the 4th century.

1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome c 93-101 CE.

2. Tertullian--Clement was First bishop of Rome no later than c 68 CE.

3. The Chronography of 354--Clement was Second bishop of Rome c 68 -76 CE.

There is more evidence from apologetics that that Clement letter to the Corinthians was a forgery.
 
Last edited:
dejudge: I've asked you this before, but I don't believe you've given me a solid answer:
How do you see Christianity - and by this I mean the form of Christianity that succeeded - developing? I mean by this a general timeline as to when see the canonical gospels having been written - we'll skip the Pauline epistles for now, since I already know you views on that - and your take on who began the religion and how.

I would also like you to tell me how, in your opinion, this particular form of Christianity got its connection to Judaism. By this I mean the gospel narratives identifying the Christ (a title) with the person of Jesus, a fictional or mostly fictional (take your pick) Jewish rabbi. I had thought earlier that you saw Christianity as being originated by Hellenized Jews. However, you said I had misunderstood you in that regard.

Now, what I would like you to do in response to this post is to resist the urge to tell me my question is stupid, resist the urge to tell me you've already answered it, resist the urge to tell me I'm misquoting you - in other words, to resist any urge to be abrasive and abusive, but to instead by dispassionate, and simply give me an answer. If it pleases you to think I'm obtuse, that's your business. However, if you directly respond to the questions I've posed in this post, I certainly will not be able to ask them of you another time without appearing to be a fool to everyone posting on this thread.
 
dejudge said:
So what is your basis for arguing that Pauline letters were early when no such thing is stated in any of the letters themselves?

You admit we don't know what Paul ate for breakfast so why are you claiming you know when the Pauline Corpus was composed?
Click to expand...
Maybe he was eating breakfast early instead of composing his Corpus then.

I will copy these two little remarks of yours and cherish them for the rest of my life. In moments of misfortune, they will be an unfailing consolation to me. Thank you.
 
There is more evidence from apologetic sources that Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians is a forgery and was really unknown in the 4th century.

So far it is seen that Tertullian and the Chronography of 354 place Clement before c 93-101 CE.

1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome after Peter c 93-101 CE.

2. Tertullian--Clement was First bishop of Rome after Peter no later than c 68 CE.

3. The Chronography of 354--Clement was Second bishop of Rome after Peter c 68 -76 CE.

Now, in the 4th century according to Church writings, Optatus wrote "Against the Donatists".

Optatus appears to corroborate the author of the Chronography of 354.

Clement was SECOND bishop of Rome after Peter.

Optatus' Against the Donatists" 2
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus...
Click to expand...

Optatus' chronology for the bishopric of Clement matches the Chronography of 354.

Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians was indeed a forgery based on multiple apologetics.

1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome after Peter c 93-101 CE.

2. Tertullian--Clement was First bishop of Rome after Peter no later than c 68 CE.

3. The Chronography of 354--Clement was Second bishop of Rome after Peter c 68 -76 CE.

4. Optatus--Clement was Second bishop of Rome after Peter.

The evidence from apologetic sources that the Clement letter is a forgery has serious implications for the history of the Church.

There is still more evidence that Clement's First Epistle is a forgery.
 
Last edited:
Dejudge: for the Clement thing, why don't you open a new thread on that?
It's enough of a tangent to be it's own thread and is rather a tangent in here.
 
JaysonR said:
Dejudge: for the Clement thing, why don't you open a new thread on that?
It's enough of a tangent to be it's own thread and is rather a tangent in here.
Click to expand...

I am merely showing that there is really no evidence at all that the Pauline writings can be used in the argument for an HJ.

Some posters here are claiming or implying without evidence that the Pauline Corpus is evidence of pre 70 CE Jesus cult.

It is the opposite.

The evidence from antiquity shows that virtually all writings which mention Paul are themselves forgeries and were written no earlier than 180 CE.

Clement of Rome was supposedly the first writer to mention a Pauline letter to the Corinthians when in fact no such thing really happened--Clement's First Epistle was composed no earlier than the end of the 4th century.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus was not used in the early development of the Jesus cult.
 
Last edited:
dejudge

I cannot speculate about John the Baptist!! A character called John the Baptist is mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews 18 and there is no association of John the Baptist with Jesus of Nazareth documented.
Click to expand...
That's not what I asked you. I see that you are not going to respond to my question at the present time. Perhaps I'll ask you again sometime.
 
JaysonR said:
Most of your argument is built around a dismissal of several texts, paleography, anthropology, and assumes (as in, follows) only a given set of options out of several that are possible to consider.
Click to expand...

You are openly making fallacious statements. Most of my posts are built around the actual statements found in apologetic sources, non-apologetic sources and the NT.

At this very time I am actually presenting the most comprehensive posts showing that the Clement letter was a forgery using the writings of antiquity.

It is most obvious that you are attempting to disrupt my posts.

You are really wasting your time. I already know what you are up to.

If you have nothing to contribute then please do not attempt to derail the thread. Let us settle the matter once an for all.

The Clement First Epistle was a forgery and was unknown up to the 4th century and cannot be used to show that the Pauline Corpus was known in the 1st century.

Clement was probably dead before 93 CE if he was bishop c 68 CE


1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome after Peter c 93-101 CE.

2. Tertullian--Clement was First bishop of Rome after Peter no later than c 68 CE.

3. The Chronography of 354--Clement was Second bishop of Rome after Peter c 68 -76 CE.

4. Optatus--Clement was Second bishop of Rome after Peter.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
I'll just leave this here;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

ETA: This link shows the accepted chronology of popes by the Church, with appropriate citations.

ETA Some More: It also shows that Clement's letter to the Corinthians was cited by multiple writers in the second century CE.
Click to expand...

You just dumped a link and just left!! That is the end of the matter?? That is completely unacceptable.

There are massive discrepancies and historical problems in that very link. If there were documented records of the bishops of Rome since the 1st century then it would have been completely idiotic and senseless for the Church writers to have presented multiple chronologies and time period for the bishops of Rome.

Plus, Church writings from the 2nd up to the end of the 4th century do not corroborate that Clement was the third bishop after Peter.
 
TimCallahan said:
dejudge: I've asked you this before, but I don't believe you've given me a solid answer:
How do you see Christianity - and by this I mean the form of Christianity that succeeded - developing? I mean by this a general timeline as to when see the canonical gospels having been written - we'll skip the Pauline epistles for now, since I already know your views on that - and your take on who began the religion and how.

I would also like you to tell me how, in your opinion, this particular form of Christianity got its connection to Judaism. By this I mean the gospel narratives identifying the Christ (a title) with the person of Jesus, a fictional or mostly fictional (take your pick) Jewish rabbi. I had thought earlier that you saw Christianity as being originated by Hellenized Jews. However, you said I had misunderstood you in that regard.

Now, what I would like you to do in response to this post is to resist the urge to tell me my question is stupid, resist the urge to tell me you've already answered it, resist the urge to tell me I'm misquoting you - in other words, to resist any urge to be abrasive and abusive, but to instead by dispassionate, and simply give me an answer. If it pleases you to think I'm obtuse, that's your business. However, if you directly respond to the questions I've posed in this post, I certainly will not be able to ask them of you another time without appearing to be a fool to everyone posting on this thread.
Click to expand...

So, dejudge, are you going to answer these questions?
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'll just leave this here;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

ETA: This link shows the accepted chronology of popes by the Church, with appropriate citations.

ETA Some More: It also shows that Clement's letter to the Corinthians was cited by multiple writers in the second century CE.
Click to expand...

I thought this was interesting:

The two messengers are described as "faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably", thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero's persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled "Virgin and Martyr", is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

So many early Church connections with the Imperial Roman Family. No wonder people make CT's about it all the time...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom