Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

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?

Why would anyone need that stuff to conclude that a human being is a plausible explanation for the origins of the Jesus stories?

You are being silly.

 

[Elagabalus]

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!

Not that you haven't seen this or anything...but here it is one more time. Stone has even put it in red ink for you and, it must be said, matches your own shrillness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9711351#post9711351

And please no more epistles. Your message hasn't changed since you first appeared on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-2220.html

 

[Belz...]

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.

 

[Belz...]

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!

Round and round and round it goes...

 

[Craig B]

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!

I have done. You refuse even to read it. I invite you to refute, rather than deny the existence of, evidence derived from an analysis of the gospel sources.

 

[zugzwang]

Not that you haven't seen this or anything...but here it is one more time. Stone has even put it in red ink for you and, it must be said, matches your own shrillness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9711351#post9711351

And please no more epistles. Your message hasn't changed since you first appeared on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-2220.html

It's quite eerie to read that, with exactly the same arguments being produced by some of the same personnel, in 2010! But you have the bonus appearance of Earl Doherty who has a brief contretemps with Tim O'Neill.

 

[Stone]

It's quite eerie to read that, with exactly the same arguments being produced by some of the same personnel, in 2010! But you have the bonus appearance of Earl Doherty who has a brief contretemps with Tim O'Neill.

This is a grim agon that will continue past the current generation until the middle of this century sees religion downsized enough for woo-heads like these mythers to play the same jackbooted games with our educational system that fundies are doing today with our science classes.

Welcome to the brave new world. One big totalitarian lie from the Chr. fundies will be replaced with another from the inheritors of the woo-head mythers you see here. Nothing will change except the color of the drapes.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Jesus is a god in Christianity today, but he was not a god during the early years of the Jesus movement...

Your post reflects the sort of absurdity and completely lack of knowledge of the Jesus movement.

In the manuscripts and Codices that have been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later with the stories of Jesus he is certainly described not only as the Son of God but also as God Creator.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator in the recovered dated manuscripts and Codices are confirmed in writings attributed to Christian writers of antiquity like Ignatius, Justin, Aristides, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Arnobius, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine, Optatus, Clement of Alexandria, Ephraem, Severus, Rufinus and others.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge

So your list of Christian writers agree that Jesus was God. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

 

[zugzwang]

This is a grim agon that will continue past the current generation until the middle of this century sees religion downsized enough for woo-heads like these mythers to play the same jackbooted games with our educational system that fundies are doing today with our science classes.

Welcome to the brave new world. One big totalitarian lie from the Chr. fundies will be replaced with another from the inheritors of the woo-head mythers you see here. Nothing will change except the color of the drapes.

Stone

Bit gloomy there, Stone. It just amazed me that in 2010, there is IanS and dejudge saying exactly the same things as they are now. There is also some interesting stuff from HJ people, but I guess that none of the arguments have changed at all. It makes you wonder what the point of it is? Some kind of emotional investment, I suppose. Also weird to see Doherty turn up in a forum like that, although he ran away pretty quickly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your post reflects the sort of absurdity and completely lack of knowledge of the Jesus movement.

In the manuscripts and Codices that have been recovered and dated to the 2nd century and later with the stories of Jesus he is certainly described not only as the Son of God but also as God Creator.

In fact, the claims that Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator in the recovered dated manuscripts and Codices are confirmed in writings attributed to Christian writers of antiquity like Ignatius, Justin, Aristides, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Arnobius, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine, Optatus, Clement of Alexandria, Ephraem, Severus, Rufinus and others.

Calling someone a "son of God" doesn't universally mean an attribution of divinity to that person.

In Judaism God does not have a son, and although references to "sons of God" or "son of God" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the Lord your God". In the introduction to the flood story, Genesis 6:2 refers to "sons of God" who married the daughters of man and is used in a polytheistic context to refer to angels. In the Book of Exodus Israel as a people is called "God's son", using the singular form. When used by the Rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Messiah.

Source.

And even if Jesus had claimed to be God and his followers had believed him, how would this mean that he couldn't actually have existed? You're still just arguing that Jesus can't have existed as a real person because illogical claims were made regarding him.

 

[dejudge]

Not that you haven't seen this or anything...but here it is one more time. Stone has even put it in red ink for you and, it must be said, matches your own shrillness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9711351#post9711351

And please no more epistles. Your message hasn't changed since you first appeared on RatSkep:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-2220.html

What evidence are you talking about for HJ who was an obscure itinerant preacher who was NOT born in Bethlehem and was NOT the Christ?

Stone never never ever presented any evidence for his HJ.

Stone presented the evidence for MYTH Jesus using the Bible.

Jesus the Christ in Josephus and Christus in Tacitus could NOT be Stone's HJ.

Stone's HJ was NOT the Christ--he was an obscure preacher man.

Plus, the very Christian writers DENY that Jesus had a human brother who was called Apostle James and also claimed James was ALIVE long after James in Josephus was dead.

The Bible contains ONE Jesus--the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator

Myth Jesus called the Christ in the NT, was born in Bethlehem, was baptized by John, and crucified under Pilate and was WELL-KNOWN around Galilee and Jerusalem

Stone can't use the same admitted discredited Bible as history---that is like PERJURY in a court trial.

There appears to be a consensus among Scholars [HJ, MJ and Agnostics] that the NT is NOT a reliable historical source for Jesus and is riddled with discrepancies and events that could NOT have happened.

It is completely illogical to use the NT as an historical source when the accounts of Jesus are NOT even eyewitness accounts and are forgeries.

And further, if it is argued that the Pauline Epistles Predate the stories of Jesus then it is obviously evident that the Jesus stories were made up and was not based on an historical Jesus.

The Pauline Epistles have NOTHING on the actual life of Jesus except that his parents were GOD and a Woman and that he was crucified and definitely resurrected.

Galatians 4:4 NAS

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law..

 

[dejudge]

Calling someone a "son of God" doesn't universally mean an attribution of divinity to that person.

If you read gMark then you would have seen that Jesus WALKED on the SEA and Transfigured in the presence of his disciple so it is completely irrelevant whether or not you think Jesus was a Divine character.


Mark 6

... at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea ; and He intended to pass by them.

49 But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified.

But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, "Take courage ; it is I, do not be afraid." 51 Then He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped ; and they were utterly astonished...

Jesus the Son of God character in gMark was a PHANTOM just like Marcion's Son of God.

gMark's Son of God and Marcion's Son of God have NO BIRTH Narrative.

gMark's Jesus ONLY APPEARED to have Flesh.

gMark's Son of God character will reveal he was indeed a Phantom again when he Transfigures and Resurrect.


Mark 9:2 NAS

Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves . And He was transfigured before them.

Mark 16:6 NAS

And he said to them, "Do not be amazed ; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen ; He is not here ; behold, here is the place where they laid Him..

gMark's Son of God was a PHANTOM like Marcion's Son of God--No birth narrative and No history in antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

This is Robert Eiseman, an historian, who admits that the question of the Historical Jesus has NOT been solved by anyone who has been involved in the matter...

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.

Again, you show either a lack of familiarity with Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? or is attempting to mislead.

Bart Ehrman actually claimed he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" to demonstrate that Jesus CERTAINLY did exist.

Please, go to page 4 of the introduction of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and read line 5-6.

It is most fascinating how those who argue for an HJ can openly contradict themselves.

 

[Stone]

Bit gloomy there, Stone. It just amazed me that in 2010, there is IanS and dejudge saying exactly the same things as they are now. There is also some interesting stuff from HJ people, but I guess that none of the arguments have changed at all. It makes you wonder what the point of it is? Some kind of emotional investment, I suppose. Also weird to see Doherty turn up in a forum like that, although he ran away pretty quickly.

Everyone will have to speak for himself to your point. Personally, my own emotional investment here lies in the disgust with which I view an evidently sloppy educational curriculum that has bequeathed us so many adherents of really nauseating woo like creationism and a pervasive and destructive ignorance on everything to do with professional research in ancient history, to name but two such examples. There are more. I view all of this as of a piece, because it vomits up whole generations who are ignorant of -- and ultimately intolerant of -- higher learning across the board. Higher learning is one of the chief reasons why much of the world today is no longer living with the sick assumptions that it is "normal" for most humans to be "born with saddles on their backs", with a "favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God" (Thomas Jefferson). Absent higher learning, today's presumption of human equality (however occasionally dishonored in its observance) might not even exist.

There are very few elements in our culture that help sustain this accord on human equality: our knowledge of history and the more widespread dissemination of higher learning are two of those fragile elements. Flushing both history and higher learning together(!) down the toilet entails an implicit welcome of a reactionary return to both greater ignorance and greater inequality for all humanity.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Everyone will have to speak for himself to your point. Personally, my own emotional investment here lies in the disgust with which I view an evidently sloppy educational curriculum that has bequeathed us so many adherents of really nauseating woo like creationism and a pervasive and destructive ignorance on everything to do with professional research in ancient history, to name but two such examples.

Again, you present an illogical emotional post.

Robert Eiseman, an historian, has ALREADY declared that NO-ONE has been able to solve the question of the historical Jesus yet you to want to give the impression the QUEST for HJ is not on-going as we speak.

The Multiple versions of HJ is a clear indication that those who argue for an historical Jesus are themselves WHOLE CLOTH inventors.

How illogical it is to argue that HJ was NOT the Christ and then turn around and claim he was the Christ in Josephus.

The ONLY TIME one could be called the CHRIST is when he was ALIVE.

Your HJ was a little known itinerant preacher when he was ALIVE.

Your HJ could NEVER be called the CHRIST after he was dead.

If your HJ was NOT the CHRIST before he was dead then he could never ever be called the Christ.

One cannot become an Emperor AFTER death.

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

One cannot be the KING of the Jews after death.

The one called CHRIST must be alive when he comes.

Your HJ, the obscure dead preacher, is unknown and is NOT FOUND in or out NT.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Again, you show either a lack of familiarity with Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? or is attempting to mislead.

Bart Ehrman actually claimed he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" to demonstrate that Jesus CERTAINLY did exist.

Please, go to page 4 of the introduction of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and read line 5-6.

It is most fascinating how those who argue for an HJ can openly contradict themselves.

I didn't realize that Bart Ehrman was posting on this forum.

 

[dejudge]

I didn't realize that Bart Ehrman was posting on this forum.

I didn't realize you don't know the title of the thread.

We are actually on a thread which allows the discussion of Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus which he claimed CERTAINLY existed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I didn't realize you don't know the title of the thread.

We are actually on a thread which allows the discussion of Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus which he claimed CERTAINLY existed.

Of course you can discuss Ehrman's statements.

It's just that the statement of mine that you were responding to read, "No one here has claimed that it has".

Your response indicates a failure of reading comprehension.

 

[dejudge]

Of course you can discuss Ehrman's statements.

It's just that the statement of mine that you were responding to read, "No one here has claimed that it has".

Your response indicates a failure of reading comprehension.

Your response shows that you do not comprehend people here are discussing the claims made by Bart Ehrman about the historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman claimed he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" to demonstrate that Jesus CERTAINLY existed.

All of sudden, HJers are conveniently dis-associating themselves from Ehrman which indicates that Ehrman's argument for Jesus of Nazareth was a total failure.