Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

We have enough supporting evidence to suggest that the Jesus tales related by those who wrote the first extant texts on the subject were based on a run-of-the-mill doomsday preacher from the early 1st Century.

We have shown it. You simply can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof. When someone says, "These fragments of information suggest that X is a possible explanation", you respond, "You can't prove that X is the explanation, therefor it is not possible that it is the explanation". It's a pristine illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your misapprehension of logic occurs at such a fundamental level that you can't even comprehend how fallacious your arguments are. .

You most certainly do not have any such claimed evidence of a human Jesus. And you also certainly have never posted even the most microscopic spec of any such evidence.

It is not ” evidence” of Jesus for anyone simply to say they believe ”These fragments of information suggest that X is a possible explanation" … anyone could say that about absolutely anything at all! Anything might be a possible explanation! "Could be", "might be", "possibly", "somehow". But that takes you precisely nowhere, and is most certainly NOT evidence to show that Jesus was probably real.

Of course Jesus might have been real. Because, after all, people did exist in the 1st century, and some of them were Christian preachers in Jerusalem. But the fact that such people existed, and that it’s therefore possible one of them might have been Jesus, is absolutely NOT evidence that one of them WAS in fact the Jesus.

All you are saying in a statement like that is that Jesus might have existed, because preachers like that did exist. But that is not evidence that the bible is actually based on any specific individual of that name doing any of the things claimed in the bible.

Why has nobody here ever posted any actual evidence of Jesus being known as a living person by anyone at the time? You don’t have any evidence! None at all.

You have had hundreds of pages now in which to produce ANY evidence at all that is even remotely credible or reliably confirmed in any way at all. So lets cut the crap right here - either post genuine evidence of anyone knowing Jesus as a living human, or else stop claiming that you have evidence when all you have is anonymous hearsay writing of rumours of past fantastic religious legends.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I personally LAUGH at those who claim their God is PLAUSIBLE...

Are you still stuck on the simplistic false dichotomy that the only alternative to denial that an historical Jesus ever existed is to be a fundamentalist Christian?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You most certainly do not have any such claimed evidence of a human Jesus. And you also certainly have never posted even the most microscopic spec of any such evidence.

We've been through this before. In your ignorance of historical methodology, and apparently logic in general, you conflate evidence with proof.

 

[Brainache]

No one here has claimed that it has. We've only said that there is reason to think that an historical Jesus is plausible, yet you refuse to address this argument, preferring your strawman of someone claiming to have proved the existence of Jesus.

By the way, Eiseman thought that early Christian writers, like Paul, went out of their way to separate Jesus from his brother James, because they wanted to eliminate the Jewish religious insurrectionist elements of the story for gentile consumption. Eiseman thought that there was likely an historical Jesus who was mythologized after his death.

Indeed. He still does.

He's not dead yet, although there are one or two Catholic Scholars who probably wish otherwise...

 

[dejudge]

Are you still stuck on the simplistic false dichotomy that the only alternative to denial that an historical Jesus ever existed is to be a fundamentalist Christian?

Please, your HJ ARGUMENT is embarrassing. Your argument has collapsed so much that you do not even realize that fundamentalist Christians are on your side.

You don't even remember that the Fundamentalists use the very same Ass Talking--Cloud Talking Bible to argue that Jesus did exist.

Have you stopped using the Ass Talking--cloud talking Bible to argue that your obscure man was baptized by John?

 

[dejudge]

We've been through this before. In your ignorance of historical methodology, and apparently logic in general, you conflate evidence with proof.

You conflate history with Mythology and do so without a shred of corroborative evidence.

Although in antiquity Christians themselves were Laughing at each other and calling one another Liars you still use the admitted discredited NT as history.

Irenaeus called other Christians Liars [dishonest Idiots] because they did not accept his Myth Jesus born of a Ghost.


Against Heresies" 1

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.

They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.

By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

Since the 2nd century people who believed the Jesus story was history were calling others dishonest idiots when they had no proof of what they said.

Marcion used to LAUGH at them and TOLD people the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

The Son of God had NO birth.

The Son of God was never really real.

Why do people today still believe that Jesus in the NT was really REAL??

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please, your HJ ARGUMENT is embarrassing. Your argument has collapsed so much that you do not even realize that fundamentalist Christians are on your side.

You don't even remember that the Fundamentalists use the very same Ass Talking--Cloud Talking Bible to argue that Jesus did exist.

Have you stopped using the Ass Talking--cloud talking Bible to argue that your obscure man was baptized by John?

Really? Fundamentalist Christians think that Jesus was a delusional religious nut who never had any special powers or commission from any god and got himself killed because he tried to start a revolt against the Roman Empire?

 

[Brainache]

Really? Fundamentalist Christians think that Jesus was a delusional religious nut who never had any special powers or commission from any god and got himself killed because he tried to start a revolt against the Roman Empire?

It's almost as if someone has been telling lies about us over here on the HJ cheer squad...


Weird.

 

[Brainache]

You conflate history with Mythology and do so without a shred of corroborative evidence.

Although in antiquity Christians themselves were Laughing at each other and calling one another Liars you still use the admitted discredited NT as history.

Irenaeus called other Christians Liars [dishonest Idiots] because they did not accept his Myth Jesus born of a Ghost.


Against Heresies" 1


Since the 2nd century people who believed the Jesus story was history were calling others dishonest idiots when they had no proof of what they said.

Marcion used to LAUGH at them and TOLD people the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

The Son of God had NO birth.

The Son of God was never really real.

Why do people today still believe that Jesus in the NT was really REAL??

Still waiting for a Scholarly source for any of your ludicrous assertions.

Got one?

 

[dejudge]

Still waiting for a Scholarly source for any of your ludicrous assertions.

Got one?

We are still waiting for your evidence for your "ludicrous assertions" that your HJ was an obscure dead Nazarite preacher who was NOT the Christ and NOT from Nazareth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is NOT in or out the Bible.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is not even a Myth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is an undocumented modern fable.

Now, look at the evidence for Myth Jesus in the RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts.

 

[Brainache]

We are still waiting for your evidence for your "ludicrous assertions" that your HJ was an obscure dead Nazarite preacher who was NOT the Christ and NOT from Nazareth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is NOT in or out the Bible.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is not even a Myth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is an undocumented modern fable.

Now, look at the evidence for Myth Jesus in the RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts.

You still haven't got the concept of "Plausibility".

Yes, they made up stories around the person of Jesus.

Is this a new concept for you?

 

[dejudge]

We are still waiting for your evidence for your "ludicrous assertions" that your HJ was an obscure dead Nazarite preacher who was NOT the Christ and NOT from Nazareth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is NOT in or out the Bible.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is not even a Myth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is an undocumented modern fable.

Now, look at the evidence for Myth Jesus in the RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts.

You still haven't got the concept of "Plausibility".

Yes, they made up stories around the person of Jesus.

Is this a new concept for you?

You haven't got the concept of "Evidence".

You haven't got a clue that you MUST first get EVIDENCE before you can argue for "Plausibility".

Evidence is UNKNOWN to you.

It is IMPLAUSIBLE that the Jesus cult was started by KNOWN lies if Jesus was a known dead man.


On the other hand, the abundance of EVIDENCE from antiquity dispels your illogical un-evidenced Plausible HJ.

We have at least FOUR PLAUSIBLE Myth Jesus stories that were BELIEVED by Christians since the 2nd century and up to this day.

gMark's Myth Jesus [the transfiguring sea water-walker] is so PLAUSIBLE that even Atheists today BELIEVE he was really real.

gMark's Jesus is just like Marcion's Son of God--they were so PLAUSIBLE that people thought they were really real.

We actually have the stories of Jesus recovered in manuscripts and Codices and they all about a Myth called the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection, commissioned his disciples after he was DEAD, and then ascended in a cloud.

By the 4th century, the Myth Jesus story was so PLAUSIBLE that Constantine made Myth Jesus the God of the Empire.

There is NOTHING about your obscure Nazarite preacher in or out the Bible.

Your obscure Nazarite preacher is Implausible and Unknown.

Examine the Nicene Creed.

Myth Jesus is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and cult.


Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.


And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.....

 

[Brainache]

We are still waiting for your evidence for your "ludicrous assertions" that your HJ was an obscure dead Nazarite preacher who was NOT the Christ and NOT from Nazareth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is NOT in or out the Bible.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is not even a Myth.

Your obscure dead Nazarite is an undocumented modern fable.

Now, look at the evidence for Myth Jesus in the RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts.





You haven't got the concept of "Evidence".

You haven't got a clue that you MUST first get EVIDENCE before you can argue for "Plausibility".

Evidence is UNKNOWN to you.

It is IMPLAUSIBLE that the Jesus cult was started by KNOWN lies if Jesus was a known dead man.


On the other hand, the abundance of EVIDENCE from antiquity dispels your illogical un-evidenced Plausible HJ.

We have at least FOUR PLAUSIBLE Myth Jesus stories that were BELIEVED by Christians since the 2nd century and up to this day.

gMark's Myth Jesus [the transfiguring sea water-walker] is so PLAUSIBLE that even Atheists today BELIEVE he was really real.

gMark's Jesus is just like Marcion's Son of God--they were so PLAUSIBLE that people thought they were really real.

We actually have the stories of Jesus recovered in manuscripts and Codices and they all about a Myth called the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection, commissioned his disciples after he was DEAD, and then ascended in a cloud.

By the 4th century, the Myth Jesus story was so PLAUSIBLE that Constantine made Myth Jesus the God of the Empire.

There is NOTHING about your obscure Nazarite preacher in or out the Bible.

Your obscure Nazarite preacher is Implausible and Unknown.

Examine the Nicene Creed.

Myth Jesus is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Jesus story and cult.


Nicene Creed

Nope. Sorry, that argument remains as stupid today as it was the first time it lurched onto the forum. Trotting it out over and over again is just making a spectacle of it.

At least no animals were harmed, which is a positive, I guess...

 

[Craig B]

It is IMPLAUSIBLE that the Jesus cult was started by KNOWN lies if Jesus was a known dead man.

I don't know what to make of that statement at all.

gMark's Myth Jesus [the transfiguring sea water-walker] is so PLAUSIBLE that even Atheists today BELIEVE he was really real.

You must meet some odd untypical atheists, if they believe in a mythical person who can walk on water.

 

[dejudge]

Nope. Sorry, that argument remains as stupid today as it was the first time it lurched onto the forum. Trotting it out over and over again is just making a spectacle of it.

At least no animals were harmed, which is a positive, I guess...

No, No, No!!!, sorry, you have not presented any EVIDENCE from antiquity for your unknown head Nazarite preacher.

I won't allow you to divert from the fact that your HJ argument is baseless and never had any supporting evidence from the start.

All you do is repeat the same sentences day after day which are void of logic and substance.

But it was expected when your argument is un-evidenced.


Myth Jesus was PLAUSIBLE and that is EXACTLY why there are at least FOUR versions in the Canon.

Apologetics show that MYTH JESUS the Son of God, born of a Ghost was indeed PLAUSIBLE.

1. Ignatius---"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God........ by the Holy Ghost".

2. Aristides---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....

3. Irenaeus---the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all.

4. Tertullian --He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

5. Origen---it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...


6. Justin--the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven...

Myth Jesus is the ONLY Plausible explanation based on the existing manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

 

[Craig B]

All you do is repeat the same sentences day after day which are void of logic and substance.

I wonder where he picked up that habit, dejudge.

 

[Brainache]

I wonder where he picked up that habit, dejudge.

Not only that, but I try to vary my one-line dismissiveness.

It's difficult to change the response when the stupid argument hasn't changed.

 

[dejudge]

Not only that, but I try to vary my one-line dismissiveness.

It's difficult to change the response when the stupid argument hasn't changed.

Your one liners are all you have left. Your HJ argument has collapsed.

You never had any evidence from the start.

We know this because of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

There is nothing in it for your HJ.

Ehrman's HJ was from Nazareth and was NOT born in Bethlehem.

Where is your HJ from? You know?? You have his genealogy?

 

[maximara]

We have enough supporting evidence to suggest that the Jesus tales related by those who wrote the first extant texts on the subject were based on a run-of-the-mill doomsday preacher from the early 1st Century.

Actually we don't have enough supporting evidence that the Jesus tales are based on any one person.

As John Robinson suggested back in 1900 the idea that Archibald Robertson reiterated in his 1946 Jesus: Myth or History? of the Jesus tales being like those of Robin Hood ie composed of many people over centuries and localities finally being set in a particular time and place with the suggested components being:

"A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.

An historical Jesus who may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.

The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion.

A Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation who may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult.

To Robinson's list we can add John Frum based idea of a long held minor myth (possibly based on the Teacher of Righteousness or the Talmud Jesus) finally hitting critical mass due to other social factors resulting in people inspired by Paul's teaching taking up the name Jesus and preaching their own Gospel which along with Paul's teachings are worked back into the original myth to form a composite person ie a person who in a real sense never existed.
"The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that the Gospel Jesus is based in part on flesh and blood people or Jesus himself was a flesh and blood person]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

 

[IanS]

We've been through this before. In your ignorance of historical methodology, and apparently logic in general, you conflate evidence with proof.

Uh huh,... so the above is supposed to be your evidence of Jesus is it?

Your evidence of Jesus is just to say "We've been through this before. In your ignorance of historical methodology, and apparently logic in general, you conflate evidence with proof" . What a joke lol

Where is the evidence of a human Jesus??

Produce the evidence!