Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently HJers do not know that the NT accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts and were attributed to fake 1st century authors.

HJers simply believe their HJ, THE OBSCURE one, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate because it is in the Bible.

There is no historical account of any obscure man called Jesus who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Romans after he was crucified as a criminal since at least 37-41 CE.
 
dejudge said:
Apparently HJers do not know that the NT accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts and were attributed to fake 1st century authors.

HJers simply believe their HJ, THE OBSCURE one, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate because it is in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Yes, you've discovered our secret! We believe things cos they're in the Bible, and we think the Transfiguration is an eyewitness account written on the spot by the Apostles, and every morning we sing
Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,
To shine for him each day
Click to expand...
:D
 
Craig B said:
Yes, you've discovered our secret! We believe things cos they're in the Bible, and we think the Transfiguration is an eyewitness account written on the spot by the Apostles, and every morning we sing :D
Click to expand...

You even mis-represent your own beliefs in the Bible.

You conveniently believe that your dead obscurity was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate in the forgeries called Gospels which were not eyewitness accounts and not corroborated at all by non-apologetics.

The first time we hear of Gospels called Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Do you recall that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or under Claudius?

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus based on Irenaeus.

Your "dirty" little secret is that you never ever had any evidence for your dead obscurity from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
... Yes, you've discovered our secret! We believe things cos they're in the Bible, and we think the Transfiguration is an eyewitness account written on the spot by the Apostles, and every morning we sing
Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,
To shine for him each day
Click to expand...
:D
Click to expand...


In my pre-coffee state, I read
Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,
For him to drive each day
Click to expand...

Praps I should cut back on watching Top Gear.
 
dejudge said:
Apparently HJers do not know that the NT accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts and were attributed to fake 1st century authors.
Click to expand...


Belz... said:
Only because you keep ignoring what they say.
Click to expand...


You are the one who admitted " everyone has agreed the evidence for an HJ is terrible and that the evidence is very weak" so people who argue for HJ most likely do not know the terrible nature of the NT accounts and do not know that they not eyewitness reports or else they would not argue their Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

Jesus was an old man when he was crucified under Claudius c 50 CE according to Irenaeus a presbyter and bishop of the Church.

The NT is a pack of lies if Jesus did exist and was known to have been crucified when he was an old man c 50CE under Claudius. See Against Heresies 2.22.
 
dejudge said:
Jesus was an old man when he was crucified under Claudius c 50 CE according to Irenaeus a presbyter and bishop of the Church.

The NT is a pack of lies if Jesus did exist and was known to have been crucified when he was an old man c 50CE under Claudius. See Against Heresies 2.22.
Click to expand...
I do occasionally read your posts, but now I'm confused. I can only think of two meanings of the quoted statement, and neither seems very convincing.

1. Jesus is both said to have been crucified ca. 30 CE and in ca. 50 CE. Both cannot be correct, therefore neither is correct.
2. If Jesus was known to be crucified as an old man in 50 CE, then the Bible lies about Jesus, therefore he did not exist.
 
dejudge said:
Jesus was an old man when he was crucified under Claudius c 50 CE according to Irenaeus a presbyter and bishop of the Church.

The NT is a pack of lies if Jesus did exist and was known to have been crucified when he was an old man c 50CE under Claudius. See Against Heresies 2.22.
Click to expand...


H'ethetheth said:
I do occasionally read your posts, but now I'm confused. I can only think of two meanings of the quoted statement, and neither seems very convincing.

1. Jesus is both said to have been crucified ca. 30 CE and in ca. 50 CE. Both cannot be correct, therefore neither is correct.
2. If Jesus was known to be crucified as an old man in 50 CE, then the Bible lies about Jesus, therefore he did not exist.
Click to expand...


You confuse yourself and want to blame me for your own engineered confusion.

You introduce your own logical fallacies and strawman arguments.

Please, you actually repeated what I wrote but immediately forgot.

Do you not see that I specifically stated IF Jesus did exist?

Can you remember that in the NT Jesus was crucified under Pilate around the 15th year of Tiberius when Caiaphas was High Priest?

Well, if you remember that then if Jesus did exist and was crucified c 50 CE when he was an old man under Claudius then the NT is a pack of lies.

HJers have far more problems that previously realized.

HJers are using sources that are known forgeries and were not eyewitness accounts for their HJ and now it has been exposed that even the late 2nd century Church has admitted their Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

The HJ argument died from lack of evidence and is presently being cremated.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Only because you keep ignoring what they say.
Click to expand...

To be fair to dejudge there are Hjers that do treat the Gospels as eyewitness accounts (or at least based on such accounts). Josh McDowell does this and even Eddy and Boyd in their Jesus Legend printed by Baker Academic pull the eyewitness card on pages 73-75.

Richard J. Bauckham has a 2006 book called "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

The sad fact is even scholars are still using the Gospels as eyewitness accounts claim. If we can all agree that they are not why in the name of sanity are scholars still claiming this, hmm?
 
dejudge said:
You confuse yourself and want to blame me for your own engineered confusion.

You introduce your own logical fallacies and strawman arguments.

Please, you actually repeated what I wrote but immediately forgot.

Do you not see that I specifically stated IF Jesus did exist?

Can you remember that in the NT Jesus was crucified under Pilate around the 15th year of Tiberius when Caiaphas was High Priest?

Well, if you remember that then if Jesus did exist and was crucified c 50 CE when he was an old man under Claudius then the NT is a pack of lies.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is my first interpretation. I.e. the narratives cannot both be true. I agree. I just don't see how this implies that both are false.
 
maximara said:
To be fair to dejudge there are Hjers that do treat the Gospels as eyewitness accounts (or at least based on such accounts). Josh McDowell does this and even Eddy and Boyd in their Jesus Legend printed by Baker Academic pull the eyewitness card on pages 73-75.

Richard J. Bauckham has a 2006 book called "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

The sad fact is even scholars are still using the Gospels as eyewitness accounts claim. If we can all agree that they are not why in the name of sanity are scholars still claiming this, hmm?
Click to expand...

All you've done is provide examples of religious apologists. Those people aren't the same sort of "scholars" as the ones being referenced in this thread. Those people are accredited by seminary schools, not secular universities. They say that the gospels are eyewitness accounts because they want to validate their religious beliefs. Secular academic New Testament scholars all know that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts (they never even claim to be), but were written decades later by anonymous authors.
 
H'ethetheth said:
Yes, which is my first interpretation. I.e. the narratives cannot both be true. I agree. I just don't see how this implies that both are false.
Click to expand...

So what do you want me to do because of your failure to understand basic logic?

This is basic.

If two accounts contradict each other then there are two logical options to consider.

1. One is false.

2. Both are false.

I don't see how you fail to understand the logical implications of contradictory narratives.

If you read Against Heresies and other writings the author is claiming to have knowledge of the four Canonised Gospels and Pauline Corpus where Jesus was crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was High Priest c 30 CE and Paul preached Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE but simultaneously argued that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE when he was an old man in the time of Claudius.

"Against Heresies" should have been made public around c 180 CE.

"Against Heresies" is evidence that support the claim that the NT are not historical accounts.

HJers claim their dead obscurity was crucified under Pilate.

Where is the supporting evidence for the crucifixion of the dead obscurity?
 
maximara said:
To be fair to dejudge there are Hjers that do treat the Gospels as eyewitness accounts (or at least based on such accounts). Josh McDowell does this and even Eddy and Boyd in their Jesus Legend printed by Baker Academic pull the eyewitness card on pages 73-75.

Richard J. Bauckham has a 2006 book called "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

The sad fact is even scholars are still using the Gospels as eyewitness accounts claim. If we can all agree that they are not why in the name of sanity are scholars still claiming this, hmm?
Click to expand...

Again, I wasn't aware of anyone who debates this topic and who DIDN'T know that they are not firsthand accounts.
 
dejudge said:
Apparently HJers do not know that the NT accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts and were attributed to fake 1st century authors.
Click to expand...

(Perhaps if I try a different writing style, without grouping sentences together in thematic sequences, dejudge may have a better chance of apprehension. If this doesn't work, simpler sentences may be in order.)

Those who think an historical Jesus likely are well aware that no New Testament texts were written by anyone who saw the events portrayed.

They also know that Christians came to popularly attribute the gospels to various characters from Christian narratives.

This has no implication regarding the hypothesis that Jesus was an actual religious figure.

It's like we're saying, "Jesus was most likely a real person who was increasingly mythologized in the years after his death", and you're responding, "What rubbish! What nonsense! HJ the son Of a Ghost God incarnate who Walked on water is a MYTH because Jesus Was mythologized!!".
 
Foster Zygote said:
All you've done is provide examples of religious apologists. Those people aren't the same sort of "scholars" as the ones being referenced in this thread. Those people are accredited by seminary schools, not secular universities. They say that the gospels are eyewitness accounts because they want to validate their religious beliefs. Secular academic New Testament scholars all know that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts (they never even claim to be), but were written decades later by anonymous authors.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that Luke is an eyewitness account has never read that gospel. It STARTS with the author pretty much saying "yeah, well I wasn't there, but here's what I gathered ..."
 
maximara said:
Evidence has been produced that is on par with that for the Bermuda Triangle or Ancient Astronaut.
Click to expand...

You are attempting to poison the well by association. There is nothing the least bit extraordinary about the idea that a deluded preacher got himself executed by the Romans and that his equally deluded followers refused to accept reality.
 
Foster Zygote said:
(Perhaps if I try a different writing style, without grouping sentences together in thematic sequences, dejudge may have a better chance of apprehension. If this doesn't work, simpler sentences may be in order.)

Those who think an historical Jesus likely are well aware that no New Testament texts were written by anyone who saw the events portrayed.

They also know that Christians came to popularly attribute the gospels to various characters from Christian narratives.

This has no implication regarding the hypothesis that Jesus was an actual religious figure.

It's like we're saying, "Jesus was most likely a real person who was increasingly mythologized in the years after his death", and you're responding, "What rubbish! What nonsense! HJ the son Of a Ghost God incarnate who Walked on water is a MYTH because Jesus Was mythologized!!".
Click to expand...

If you had evidence from antiquity for your HJ hypothesis then you would stand a chance.

You have nothing but fallacies and strawman arguments.

You keep saying what you imagine while we expose your lack of evidence from antiquity.

In the NT, Pilate was governor, Caiaphas was High Priest, Satan was the Devil, Gabriel was an Angel, Jesus was the Son of a Ghost that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

What are you saying? Where do you get your sayings from?

From the palm of your hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom