Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

Maximara: You can produce better "proof" that Sherlck Holmes, a known fictional character, lived then exists for Jesus.

Stuff and nonsense.

No it isn't.

Maximara: Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fit Watson's often refereed to war wound.


Not often enough, evidently:

the Jezail bullet I had brought back in one of my limbs as a relic of my Afghan campaign"

Ah but as pointed out by William Baring-Gould and other this claim doesn't stand up to history or internal constancy...just like the story of Jesus doesn't:

Given:

"Captain John Watson, Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers." (The Hounds of Baskerville)

"I was duly attached to the Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers as Assistant Surgeon." (A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 1)

"I . . . sat nursing my wounded leg. I had had a Jezail bullet through it some time before, and, though it did not prevent me from walking, it ached wearily at every change of the weather." (The Sign of Four)

As Garen Ewing in his Second Anglo_Afghan War 1878-1880 page points out:

"Unfortunately, the story falls short of the facts fairly quickly. Watson would not have joined the 5th Fusiliers at Kandahar because that regiment was never stationed there. They were part of the Peshawar Valley Field Force and were employed in the Khyber Pass, the Bazar Valley, Landi Kotal and Jalalabad - all in the northern territories. It is more feasable for him to have joined up with the 66th (Berkshire) Regiment while at Bombay, though, staying with them, he would not have made it into Afghanistan until over a year later as they marched into the southern city of Kandahar early in 1880."

More over there is a clue in Holmes' observation regarding Watson that throws the whole Afghan claim in the dust bin:

"I knew you came from Afghanistan. From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps. There were such steps, however. The train of reasoning ran: "Here is a gentleman of a medical type, but with the air of a military man. Clearly an army doctor then. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and sickness, as his haggard face says clearly. His left arm has been injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an English army doctor have seen much hardship and got his arm wounded? Clearly in Afghanistan." The whole train of thought did not occupy a second. I then remarked that you came from Afghanistan, and you were astonished."

Afghanistan is not a tropical region and the Anglo-Zulu (Boer) war is a better candidate for a English Army doctor to be wounded in a "tropical" region.

As I remember, William Baring-Gould produced an argument that Watson hiding in what war he was actually in because he was not shot in the arm or the leg but in the rear and didn't want to have anyone even think he was not facing the enemy even if it was the result of him leaning over a fallen comrade.

 

[dejudge]

Putting aside that Paul does not identify Jesus' father (that the idiomatic expression "son of God" is uninformative about paternity has been explained to you several times), the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with the false teaching of yours upon which I commented, which was.

Rubbish!! You expose that you are not familiar with the teachings of the Jesus cult of antiquity. Your modern interpretation is completely absurd and contrary to the recovered NT manuscripts and Codices.

If Jesus was the Son of God what words would the author have used?

The author would have written he was God's Son and that is exactly what was done.

Only Jesus character is specifically IDENTIFIED as the Son of God in the NT including the Pauline Corpus.

Christians of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus also claimed Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Please get familiar with Chrysostom's Homily's on the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God and a Woman which is completely compatible with the teachings of the Jesus cult.

 

[jhunter1163]

Dejudge, no one here thinks Jesus was the son of God. We know he wasn't the son of God because there is no God. All of your ranting about what this or that ancient writer said about Jesus being the Son of God is pointless.

What the HJers are proposing, and this is all we are proposing, is that there was, indeed, a religious crank wandering Judea in the first half of the first century CE who came to the attention of the Roman authorities somehow and got himself crucified for stirring up trouble. End of story. We propose nothing else. We accept nothing supernatural from the NT; none of the miracles, no ascension to heaven in a cloud, no virgin birth, no anything.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, no one here thinks Jesus was the son of God. We know he wasn't the son of God because there is no God. All of your ranting about what this or that ancient writer said about Jesus being the Son of God is pointless.

Why are you arguing that Jesus the Son of God in the NT is a figure of history if there is NO God? Your argument is highly illogical.

In the NT, Jesus was a MYTH --the Son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

In the NT, Jesus was a Myth like Adam and Eve, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost.

What the HJers are proposing, and this is all we are proposing, is that there was, indeed, a religious crank wandering Judea in the first half of the first century CE who came to the attention of the Roman authorities somehow and got himself crucified for stirring up trouble. End of story.

Everybody who post here knows what HJers are proposing.

Everybody who post here knows HJers are STUCK in the proposing stage.

We have long gone past the proposal stage.

Now is the time to present evidence. This is the evidence stage.

Where is the evidence to support what you are proposing?

Utter Silence!!

We propose nothing else. We accept nothing supernatural from the NT; none of the miracles, no ascension to heaven in a cloud, no virgin birth, no anything.

Everybody who post here knows that HJers ignore the evidence for Myth Jesus but use the same discredited source for their HJ.

The same source that claims Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, and God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended is the same source HJers use to argue Jesus was a human being.

The same source that is a known compilation of forgeries, are NOT eyewitness accounts, fiction and implausible is used by HJers as history.

HJers do reject the supernatural but appears to have accepted the fictional.

The Baptism of Jesus is FICTIONAL and is NOT an eyewitness account.

The Crucifixion of Jesus is FICTIONAL and is NOT an eyewitness account.

The Pauline Jesus story is Fictional and NOT an eyewitness account.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

If Jesus was the Son of God what words would the author have used?

Beats me; I've never had that problem personally. I have observed that an author might describe a male dog as the "son of a b****," but nevertheless, whenever I encounter that expression, it reliably turns out that the SOB in question isn't a dog at all. Conversely, when I do read about a male dog, the author somehow manages to make the point without misusing an idiom that simply doesn't mean that in actual use.

What has that to do with your teaching

One cannot become the CHRIST after death.

Not a damned thing.

 

[IanS]

Dejudge, no one here thinks Jesus was the son of God. We know he wasn't the son of God because there is no God. All of your ranting about what this or that ancient writer said about Jesus being the Son of God is pointless.

What the HJers are proposing, and this is all we are proposing, is that there was, indeed, a religious crank wandering Judea in the first half of the first century CE who came to the attention of the Roman authorities somehow and got himself crucified for stirring up trouble. End of story. We propose nothing else. We accept nothing supernatural from the NT; none of the miracles, no ascension to heaven in a cloud, no virgin birth, no anything.

With respect, I think the HJ side here (and in all such discussions, on all forums & websites) are in fact proposing something far more than that. In fact they are not merely proposing that bit more, they are insisting that a vital extra part is certainly true. And that vital extra part they are proposing insisting upon as certainly true is -

- they are insisting that what is written in the bible IS certainly evidence of a real Jesus.


But of course not only does the bible most definitely NOT contain any such evidence at all. But moreover, the bible itself is in it’s entirety completely inadmissible as a source of anything remotely reliable or credible in what it’s authors ever wrote about their belief in Jesus, for all the numerous reasons carefully and fully explained literally hundreds of times.

For example the very first thing you need to do, and the absolute minimum, is to provide evidence for how any such writer, eg the author of g-Mark (say), knew the truth of anything he ever wrote about Jesus …

… what is the evidence to show that the writer of g-Mark knew anything at all about any living human Jesus?

 

[pakeha]

...What the HJers are proposing, and this is all we are proposing, is that there was, indeed, a religious crank wandering Judea in the first half of the first century CE who came to the attention of the Roman authorities somehow and got himself crucified for stirring up trouble. End of story. ...

I question the crucified ending to the story.
It doesn't make any sense to me, especially in the context of JtB's fate.

 

[Craig B]

I question the crucified ending to the story.
It doesn't make any sense to me, especially in the context of JtB's fate.

John was killed probably for criticising Herod, while Jesus was executed on a political charge by a Roman governor. Different situations probably, so different modes of execution are credible.

 

[Belz...]

You mean the bible? The bible does not contain any evidence of any living human Jesus.

Neither does Josephus contain any evidence for any character he mentions, by that logic.

 

[Belz...]

You have absolutely no evidence of Jesus.

I don't understand. Where are the words "genuine", "credible", "reliable" and "awesome" in that sentence ??

 

[Belz...]

Dejudge, no one here thinks Jesus was the son of God. We know he wasn't the son of God because there is no God. All of your ranting about what this or that ancient writer said about Jesus being the Son of God is pointless.

What the HJers are proposing, and this is all we are proposing, is that there was, indeed, a religious crank wandering Judea in the first half of the first century CE who came to the attention of the Roman authorities somehow and got himself crucified for stirring up trouble. End of story.

Yeah but all that Dejudge is proposing is that he was a god in the story, and therefore he didn't exist at all, allowing Dejudge to safely not be a Christian. Or something.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah but all that Dejudge is proposing is that he was a god in the story, and therefore he didn't exist at all, allowing Dejudge to safely not be a Christian. Or something.

Then the Emperor Augustus and Alexander the Great could not have existed, for they also were believed to be Gods. But we know from other evidence that they did exist. Therefore people wrongly believed to be gods may possibly exist. Therefore it is possible that Jesus existed, even though there is little evidence for him outside the canonical texts. The canonical texts of the NT do not all agree that he was a god, anyway. There is an evident tendency for the later texts to enhance his supernatural character. This pattern is also evidence for the physical existence of a non-supernatural character. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence.

To the mythicists, let me pose this question. Suppose unimpeachable evidence for Jesus unambiguously turned up (most improbably, but say through a discovery of recoverable calcined documents in Pliny the Elder's library in Pompeii, or something equally serendipitous) would you then say: he existed, therefore he must have been God"? I don't think you'd be that daft.

 

[tsig]

John was killed probably for criticising Herod, while Jesus was executed on a political charge by a Roman governor. Different situations probably, so different modes of execution are credible.

Any evidence for that statement?

 

[pakeha]

John was killed probably for criticising Herod, while Jesus was executed on a political charge by a Roman governor. Different situations probably, so different modes of execution are credible.

And that's where my doubts arise, Craig B.
I don't see much reason to think Jesus was actually tried by a Roman governor.

 

[Craig B]

Any evidence for that statement?

Yes. All the gospels report something like this.

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

John expands this in his usual way, of course.

19:19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 21 Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

 

[dejudge]

Yeah but all that Dejudge is proposing is that he was a god in the story, and therefore he didn't exist at all, allowing Dejudge to safely not be a Christian. Or something.

Belz has acknowledged that he is NOT convinced there was an historical Jesus, that everyone has agreed the evidence is TERRIBLE. Plus, Belz admitted he NEVER claimed to have had evidence for HJ and then contradicted himself by claiming the evidence is very weak.


Belz is proposing inadvertently that the HJ argument is really TERRIBLY weak and contradictory.

 

[dejudge]

John expands this in his usual way, of course.

I am extremely happy that you notice what the forgery called gJohn contains.

Now, the author of gJohn will expand on the SEA water walking story and the feeding of THOUSANDS.

In the forgery called gJohn [not an eyewitness account] Jesus thought he would become the King of the Jews because he did Miracles [ miracles are non-historical]

John 6

Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did , said , This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force , to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. 16 And when even was now come , his disciples went down unto the sea, 17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.

18 And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew . 19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid . 20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid .

Walking 3-4 MILES on a sea appears to be a Mythological WORLD record. No man can do or will ever do that.

It is clear that the Forgery called gJohn is NOT history--it is just a compilation of the Myth fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED in the 2nd century and later.

 

[tsig]

Yes. All the gospels report something like this. John expands this in his usual way, of course.

You don't see anything wrong with the hilited words?

 

[Craig B]

I am ... <snip usual drivel> ... and later.

Stop spouting your usual drivel. The expression King of the Jews refers to a Messianic claim. There is no requirement to go for strolls on the surface of a lake in order to establish messianic credentials. You've got to arm yourself and take on the Romans, if need be with miraculous assistance from God. This Jesus sought, but evidently didn't receive. Probably because God doesn't exist.

 

[dejudge]

Then the Emperor Augustus and Alexander the Great could not have existed, for they also were believed to be Gods. But we know from other evidence that they did exist.

I am extremely happy that you acknowledge that there is OTHER evidence for Augustus and Alexander.

Again, show us the OTHER evidence for your little know itinerant preacher who was NOT the Christ, Not born in Bethlehem and was NOT the Son of God?

What source of antiquity mentioned your little known preacher man?