Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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

From the palm of your hands.

That's a new one! Fascinating.

The cremation of the HJ argument is a most fascinating experience.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Please explain the basic logic of your argument. How is it that erroneous accounts written years later by people who were merely repeating and embellishing magical stories that they'd heard, prove that the subject of those stories could never have existed as a real, non-magical person?

Please explain this using your command of basic logic.

Where is the supporting evidence for the crucifixion of the dead obscurity?

The fact that there was a religious movement based on accounts about the life of a Jewish rabbi. That these accounts, although filled with obvious myth, converge on a few common attributes that are not the least bit magical, nor even improbable. The fact that one of these early writers saw the need to reassure his readers that they should believe his interpretation of Jesus, even though it was contradicted by those who knew him. The fact that we have non-Christian references that appear to make an historical account of a relative or associate of Jesus.

That's just the barest, most general statement of the evidence. It isn't proof of the existence of Jesus, but it is evidence that a Jesus could well have existed at the very core of the events that led to the birth of Christianity.

Now, what about the evidence for your hypothesis?

 

[Belz...]

The cremation of the HJ argument is a most fascinating experience.

Your inability to grasp your own arguments' failure even more so.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

I've already presented evidence. In fact, it was evidence that you tried to hide.

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.

Come on, dejudge, tell us how the fact that the gospels were written anonymously and then attributed to certain writers generations later proves that no historical Jesus could have existed.

Scholars have been aware of this fact for a long time, yet they don't think that it eliminates the possibility of an historical Jesus. Are they just stupid compared to you?

 

[dejudge]

I've already presented evidence. In fact, it was evidence that you tried to hide.

Which evidence you presented? The Gospels?

In the Gospels, Jesus the Christ was well known in Galilee and Jerusalem, was born of a Ghost, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned the disciples after death, and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

You presented the source for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Come on, dejudge, tell us how the fact that the gospels were written anonymously and then attributed to certain writers generations later proves that no historical Jesus could have existed.

You have no facts. You have no evidence that the Gospels were written before the 2nd century and then attributed to writers generations later.

No story of Jesus has been recovered and dated pre 70 CE.

You are incapable of proving anything historical about your dead obscure HJ whether or not the Gospels were written in the 1st or 2nd century.

In the Gospels, Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator.

Tell us how you are going to prove than an historical Jesus is plausible when in the Gospels it was plausible that Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator who transfigured and resurrected after he walked on sea water.

You prove nothing and want proof.

Read Matthew 1.18--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Read Mark 6.49--Jesus walked on the sea.

Read Mark 9.2--Jesus transfigured.

Read Mark 16.6--Jesus resurrected.

Read Luke 24. 51--the resurrected Jesus ascended.

Read John 1.1--Jesus was God Creator.

Tell us when the Gospels were written!!

Scholars have been aware of this fact for a long time, yet they don't think that it eliminates the possibility of an historical Jesus. Are they just stupid compared to you?

Either you are attempting to mis-lead or you don't know that Scholars argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Do you think that all Scholars are stupid enough to argue for an HJ when it is known the Gospels are historically unreliable, forgeries, not eyewitness accounts and filled with discrepancies?

Robert Eiseman, an historian, admits no-one has been able to solve the HJ question.

Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty argue that Jesus was most likely a figure of mythology.

Your un-evidence HJ argument has been debunked multiple times.

It is finished. The HJ argument has expired.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Which evidence you presented? The Gospels?

In the Gospels, Jesus the Christ was well known in Galilee and Jerusalem, was born of a Ghost, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned the disciples after death, and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

You presented the source for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Dejudge, can you not understand that the gospels and other accounts are not evidence that their portrayals of Jesus are true, but simply that people were telling stories about a preacher named Jesus, and that one very plausible reason for them to be telling stories about a preacher named Jesus is that there was a preacher named Jesus? Your error, made in complete ignorance of the historical method that you claim to be employing, is to think that the early Christian accounts have to be either 100% true, or 100% false. You think that for an historical Jesus to have existed, then everything written about him has to make logical sense, and that if it doesn't make logical sense, then it cannot be based on any real event. According to the arguments that you use, someone two millennia from now questioning whether Joseph Smith had ever existed would have to conclude that he was a myth because he was portrayed by Mormons as having spoken to God and an angel and translated golden plates using magic stones to write an historically impossible account of pre-Columbian America.

I'm sorry dujudge, but the fact that religious believers told magical stories about Jesus in no way demonstrates that he could not have existed as a deluded religious crank.

You have no facts. You have no evidence that the Gospels were written before the 2nd century and then attributed to writers generations later.

No story of Jesus has been recovered and dated pre 70 CE.

You are incapable of proving anything historical about your dead obscure HJ whether or not the Gospels were written in the 1st or 2nd century.

We can come back to your errors later. Right now I'd like you to address my request: Tell us how the fact that the gospels were written anonymously and then attributed to certain writers generations later proves that no historical Jesus could have existed.

In the Gospels, Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator.

Tell us how you are going to prove than an historical Jesus is plausible when in the Gospels it was plausible that Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator who transfigured and resurrected after he walked on sea water.

So what? Why can't you walk away from this stupid argument? People can make up magical stories about people who actually lived. In order for you "argument" to be valid, then you must start with the premise that "People cannot make up magical stories about real people". I'm sure you can easily see how ludicrous that premise is.

I'm not the one claiming to prove anything. I've pointed out that scholars see good reasons to think that an historical Jesus was likely. You are the one claiming that Jesus/Christianity wasn't invented until the 2nd Century. So convince us. Use that basic logic that you've talked about.

Read Matthew 1.18--Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Read Mark 6.49--Jesus walked on the sea.

Read Mark 9.2--Jesus transfigured.

Read Mark 16.6--Jesus resurrected.

Read Luke 24. 51--the resurrected Jesus ascended.

Read John 1.1--Jesus was God Creator.

Again, that's the same asinine argument based on the same preposterous premise. "People told myths about Jesus, therefor Jesus was a myth."

Tell us when the Gospels were written!!

According to most scholars Mark was written between 65-70 CE, Matthew and Luke between 80-85, and John between 90-110.

Either you are attempting to mis-lead or you don't know that Scholars argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Do you think that all Scholars are stupid enough to argue for an HJ when it is known the Gospels are historically unreliable, forgeries, not eyewitness accounts and filled with discrepancies?

Robert Eiseman, an historian, admits no-one has been able to solve the HJ question.

Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty argue that Jesus was most likely a figure of mythology.

Your un-evidence HJ argument has been debunked multiple times.

It is finished. The HJ argument has expired.

First of all, it's Eisenman, with an 'n'. Second, you are just evading my question. You only know a tiny fragment of what New Testament scholars now, yet the great majority of them still think an historical Jesus was likely. Are they just stupid compared to you?

 

[IanS]

Where is the supporting evidence for the crucifixion of the dead obscurity?

The fact that there was a religious movement based on accounts about the life of a Jewish rabbi.

Dear me. How much more silly can the HJ argument get.

So the evidence to show Jesus existed, is that 1st century ignorant superstitious religious nut-cases believed it?

That is supposed to be evidence of Jesus? The evidence of their religious belief is supposed to be evidence that the belief was true?

They also believed God was in skies. Is that evidence that God really was in the skies?

They believed they had often seen all manner of winged angels and demons. Is that evidence that those creatures commonly few around Jerusalem in the first century.

 

[Belz...]

So the evidence to show Jesus existed, is that 1st century ignorant superstitious religious nut-cases believed it?

That's one piece of evidence, yes. You'd know that if your ideological blinders didn't prevent you from considering ANY evidence for HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Dear me. How much more silly can the HJ argument get.

Not as silly as the MJ argument you present below. Thats really silly!

So the evidence to show Jesus existed, is that 1st century ignorant superstitious religious nut-cases believed it?

That is supposed to be evidence of Jesus? The evidence of their religious belief is supposed to be evidence that the belief was true?

They also believed God was in skies. Is that evidence that God really was in the skies?

They believed they had often seen all manner of winged angels and demons. Is that evidence that those creatures commonly few around Jerusalem in the first century.

 

[maximara]

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.

But these religious apologists are HJers are they not? And the statement was "Apparently HJers do not know that the NT accounts of Jesus were not eyewitness accounts and were attributed to fake 1st century authors."

Also how many books by "secular academic New Testament scholars" are their compared to those by religious apologist talking about the HJ? The radio is as bad as armchair MJer who wouldn't known good research if it came up and shook their hand vs the scholarly MJ who actually knows what they are doing.

I think we can agree with the following:

"Stories based on eyewitness accounts aren't reliable, and stories from reports of eyewitnesses spread through oral circulation long after the events are extremely unreliable." Jawara D. King 2010 The Awakening of Global Consciousness pg 80

And yet...

Again, I wasn't aware of anyone who debates this topic and who DIDN'T know that they are not firsthand accounts.

Then you need to read more be cause it was insanely easy to find examples of HJers who (if you take the position they are being honest) DON'T know that the Gospels are not firsthand accounts:


"In the above examples, speakers often quote the New Testament and refer to the authors of the Gospels as eyewitnesses who directly experienced the described events." (Jovan Byford 2008 Denial and Repression of Antisemitism pg 177)

"We can now see that the purpose of Papias in his comments on both Mark and Matthew is to explain why it is that, although both Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony..." Richard Bauckham 2007 The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

"These four men [Refering to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John]), three of them eyewitnesses, wrote of the life of that greatest Person who ever lived — Jesus Christ" (Kermit Zarley - 2001 The Gospels Interwoven: A Chronological Narrative of the Life of Jesus pg 17)

"Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples and therefore an eyewitness to the events he recorded." Mark Driscoll 2008 On the New Testament Page 57

---

There are plenty of many more examples available but I think these prove my point.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dear me. How much more silly can the HJ argument get.

So the evidence to show Jesus existed, is that 1st century ignorant superstitious religious nut-cases believed it?

That is supposed to be evidence of Jesus? The evidence of their religious belief is supposed to be evidence that the belief was true?

They also believed God was in skies. Is that evidence that God really was in the skies?

They believed they had often seen all manner of winged angels and demons. Is that evidence that those creatures commonly few around Jerusalem in the first century.

Why did you leave the rest of my post out?

That these accounts, although filled with obvious myth, converge on a few common attributes that are not the least bit magical, nor even improbable. The fact that one of these early writers saw the need to reassure his readers that they should believe his interpretation of Jesus, even though it was contradicted by those who knew him. The fact that we have non-Christian references that appear to make an historical account of a relative or associate of Jesus.

That's just the barest, most general statement of the evidence. It isn't proof of the existence of Jesus, but it is evidence that a Jesus could well have existed at the very core of the events that led to the birth of Christianity.

Is it because you can't really find fault with the reasoning behind the possibility of an historical Jesus unless you try to weaken it by leaving a bunch of it out.

I'll ask you what I asked dejudge:

You only know a tiny fragment of what New Testament scholars now, yet the great majority of them still think an historical Jesus was likely. Are they just stupid compared to you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

But these religious apologists are HJers are they not?

Only in the most generic terms. They believe that Jesus really is the savior sent by God to redeem them from their sins and show them the way to Heaven. The historical Jesus hypothesis being presented in this thread is a secular academic assessment that Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic Jew with grand delusions and a small following who got himself executed by the Romans to the shock of his followers, and no doubt himself as well.

Why do you seem so keen to associate this secular academic position with Christian belief. Can you think of any Christian believers who are amenable to the idea that Jesus actually had almost nothing to do with the mythologized version whom they think answers their prayers?

 

[maximara]

You are attempting to poison the well by association.

No I am not. Again look at our "evidence":

1) Paul who wants to write about the Jesus in his head and doesn't give any historical framework regarding his Jesus in the seven letters that are supposedly his.

2) The Gospels written some time before 130 CE, maybe, as we only have single line quotes from Church Fathers until 180 when we get a mammoth quote dump and on every point we can check them against known history they fail spectacularly. And these are four of the some 30+ Gospels known to have existed.

3) Acts like the Gospels has many historical issues.

4) Tampered, unsourced, or obviously desperate to make a connection third party references.

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.

And there is nothing extraordinary about about a deluded Navy Serviceman preaching some wonky idea that God would bring the natives he is preaching to heaven on Earth in the form of cargo in the 1910s and his native followers took the idea and ran with it.

Yet I have to see any anthropologist support this idea regarding the John Frum cargo cult even though a letter written in 1949 suggests such a thing is possible.

Humpheries points out the problem in the youtube video The 'Jesus of history' -- Memory or Myth? ...basically the same one Price pointed out.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then you need to read more be cause it was insanely easy to find examples of HJers who (if you take the position they are being honest) DON'T know that the Gospels are not firsthand accounts:

"In the above examples, speakers often quote the New Testament and refer to the authors of the Gospels as eyewitnesses who directly experienced the described events." (Jovan Byford 2008 Denial and Repression of Antisemitism pg 177)

This is actually an example of poor research on your part. The quote you give, taken from page 177 of byford's book, is talking about how Serbian Orthodox clergy were quoting the Bible to justify controversial statements by Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović. He isn't saying anything about academic scholars thinking that the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

"We can now see that the purpose of Papias in his comments on both Mark and Matthew is to explain why it is that, although both Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony..." Richard Bauckham 2007 The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

Baukham is a seminarian. I fail to see what his religious opinions have to do with the state of secular scholarship.

"These four men [Refering to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John]), three of them eyewitnesses, wrote of the life of that greatest Person who ever lived — Jesus Christ" (Kermit Zarley - 2001 The Gospels Interwoven: A Chronological Narrative of the Life of Jesus pg 17)

"Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples and therefore an eyewitness to the events he recorded." Mark Driscoll 2008 On the New Testament Page 57

---

There are plenty of many more examples available but I think these prove my point.

You know, just because someone writes a book, it doesn't make him/her a scholar. Kermit Zarley is a professional golfer, and Mark Driscoll is the pastor of a mega-church (and a plagiarist).

 

[Foster Zygote]

No I am not. Again look at our "evidence":

1) Paul who wants to write about the Jesus in his head and doesn't give any historical framework regarding his Jesus in the seven letters that are supposedly his.

2) The Gospels written some time before 130 CE, maybe, as we only have single line quotes from Church Fathers until 180 when we get a mammoth quote dump and on every point we can check them against known history they fail spectacularly. And these are four of the some 30+ Gospels known to have existed.

3) Acts like the Gospels has many historical issues.

4) Tampered, unsourced, or obviously desperate to make a connection third party references.

None of that addresses my point. If someone wakes to find the trash cans overturned and trash spread all ever the place and says, "Probably raccoons", a lack of tracks or other direct evidence doesn't make the speculation on par with saying, "probably Bigfoot".

And there is nothing extraordinary about about a deluded Navy Serviceman preaching some wonky idea that God would bring the natives he is preaching to heaven on Earth in the form of cargo in the 1910s and his native followers took the idea and ran with it.

Yet I have to see any anthropologist support this idea regarding the John Frum cargo cult even though a letter written in 1949 suggests such a thing is possible.

Humpheries points out the problem in the youtube video The 'Jesus of history' -- Memory or Myth? ...basically the same one Price pointed out.

So if the academic consensus supported the idea of an historic John Frum, you'd consider it likely? So why doesn't the academic consensus regarding the likelihood of an historic Jesus move you similarly?

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, can you not understand that the gospels and other accounts are not evidence that their portrayals of Jesus are true, but simply that people were telling stories about a preacher named Jesus, and that one very plausible reason for them to be telling stories about a preacher named Jesus is that there was a preacher named Jesus?

Your statement is illogical. Your HJ is not plausible because you have no evidence to support such a claim.

Stories about a Son of a God do not imply that there was a human character behind the stories.

There are stories of God, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost in the NT and there is no known human being behind those characters.

There are also stories in Greek/Roman myth of Romulus, Remus and Perseus who were Sons of Gods and born of Virgins and there is no known human being behind those stories.

There is Marcion's Son of God who came down from heaven into Capernaum around the same time as Jesus the Son of God in the NT stories.

It is just highly absurd to assume the Son of God was a man and to do so without a shred of corroborative evidence.

The Myth God of the Jews was believed to have Sons in Jewish Mythology.

Job 2:1 KJV

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Jesus in the NT was a Mythological son of the God of the Jews.

 

[Craig B]

It is just highly absurd to assume the Son of God was a man and to do so without a shred of corroborative evidence.

Then you need to read it again, and the other similar passages giving "Son of God" as a title of the Davidic kings.

Psalms 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

I can paste stuff too, dejudge, including "corroborative evidence" for my statements. More than you can do for your "NT is a late forgery" theory.

 

[dejudge]

Then you need to read it again, and the other similar passages giving "Son of God" as a title of the Davidic kings.

You need to read the Gospels again. Jesus the Son of God walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

Davidic Kings can't do those things with or without the Title of Son of God.

I can paste stuff too, dejudge, including "corroborative evidence" for my statements. More than you can do for your "NT is a late forgery" theory.

Just do it if you can.

If you could you would have done so long ago but wait until the cremation process has begun.

You pasted all that you could have. You pasted forgeries in Josephus, forgeries in Tacitus, forgeries in the NT, about a well known character called Jesus Christ the Son of God--a resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker.

You have nothing to paste for your dead obscurity.

 

[Craig B]

You need to read the Gospels again. Jesus the Son of God walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

Davidic Kings can't do those things with or without the Title of Son of God.

That's imbecilic! They can have the title Son of God without doing these things; that's my point.

 

[dejudge]

That's imbecilic! They can have the title Son of God without doing these things; that's my point.

That's imbecilic.

A title of the son of God changes nothing when Jesus was a resurrecting, transfiguring, sea water walker in the NT.

You can call Jesus whatever title you like but he was not human in the NT-- A Davidic Phantom.