What drivel. Anyway he was a lake water walker. What in the name of sanity is a "Davidic phantom"? One of the weird phantasms that populate your brain?
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
What drivel!! You know what fiction characters really did??
The Gospels are not history. They are not eyewitness accounts. They are myth fables.
You must repeat what is written not what you imagine.
Jesus was a resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker in gMark.
Mark 6:48 NAS
Craig B said:
That is your HJ--your obscurity with the title of a Davidic King --the son of God.
How did your obscurity conveniently have the title of a Davidic king when you argue he was an obscure preacher?
He must have been a Davidic Phantom--[he only appeared to be a Davidic King but was not.]
By the way, there is NO Davidic King called Jesus of Nazareth c 33 CE in the existing history of mankind except perhaps in your imagination.
Marcion's Phantom had the title of a Davidic King [Son of God] but without a birth narrative and came down directly from heaven.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I was talking about people on these topics, as in threads, here. Of course CHRISTIANS of all sorts believe that ****, but that's not my problem, as I don't usually include them as critical thinkers.
Belz...
Fiend God
Belz...
Fiend God
It's even more absurd to think that he was the Son of God just because someone claims he is.
What's that you say ? It's like saying that he existed because someone says so ? Well, no, for two reasons: 1) no one is saying that and 2) the latter claim is not physically impossible.
Your statement is highly illogical. In the NT there are claims made about many characters like Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, Herod the King, John the Baptist, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, and the Holy Ghost.
It is the very description or claims that one must corroborate in order to make a determination about the nature of their existence.
There is corroboration for Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, Herod the King and John the Baptist.
There is none for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost and Jesus the Son of God, God Creator, the resurrecting, transfiguring sea water walker.
I will consider that the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost and Jesus the son of God as figures of mythology until new evidence surfaces.
Belz...
Fiend God
Before we can proceed further, can you explain to me what, for you, is "logic" ?
I ask because you constantly use that term in a context where it makes no sense.
Foster Zygote said:
Your argument is illogical, unsupported by the evidence and asinine. "We have myths about Jesus therefore it is plausible Jesus was a figure of history".
What total absurdity--Mythology is now the evidence [NOT history] for the plausibility of your HJ.
I consider Jesus as a figure of mythology as I did for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost until new evidence surfaces.
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
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?
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.
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.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
If you genuinely think that is an element of the argument for an historical Jesus, then you really are just completely failing to understand it. The argument actually states that the early Jesus narratives contain elements that are decidedly non-magical, and it is these most mundane elements (a preacher who went to Jerusalem and was crucified by the Romans) that are the most consistent among the narratives. The fact that obviously fantastic elements are contained in these narratives does not in itself indicate that an historical Jesus could not have existed.
I wish there was some way to make you comprehend this, but I can't state it any more simply.
So you really are smarter than the great majority of academic New Testament scholars, yes?
If you live in an area prone to heavy winds why would you go "Probably raccoons"?
Furthermore your Bigfoot comparison is a non sequitur as we have a scientifically documented example of how Christianity could have formed without any identifiable founder: the John Frum cargo cult.
In fact if you think about it the whole HJ position is nearly on par with Bigfoot exists. Right now serious HJer are left with dialing back Jesus to this local trouble maker that no one at the time payed much attention to. Which raises the question if Jesus was that minor a person during his life then what propelled him to point where he was remembered and all the other would be 'end of the world is nigh' nutters forgotten.
Also we have the curious situation where thanks to Paul's letter we can say Christianity existed in the 1st century and was reasonablly wide spread (all those churches he was writing back too) and yet at best no non believer writes of the movement until c90 CE nearly 60 years later.
Yet when the idea of a pro-Christian cult is put for we are told 'there is no evidence'. Well if not for Paul and a handful of his followers we would have any evidence of Christianity in the 1st century either.
How do you know what I know? You are always making fallacious statements.
You have never provided the data or statistics to show that "the great majority of NT Scholars still think an historical Jesus was likely" yet you accuse people of dishonesty.
1. Name or give the number of all the NT Scholars in the world.
2. Name or give the number of all NT Scholars who are agnostic about the existence/non-existence of Jesus.
3. Name of give the number of all NT Scholars who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.
4. Identify the non-apologetic evidence that is used to support the HJ argument.
Please, get statistics and evidence--not Chinese Whispers.
Foster Zygote said:
Foster Zygote, how can you prove the gospels were written anonymously and attributed to certain writers generations later?
Foster Zygote, how can you prove an historical Jesus could have existed?
You keep forgetting that we have the contents of the Gospels. They have been recovered in hundreds of manuscripts and Codices and none are dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.
We know that the Jesus of the Christian cult was described as the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator--a resurrected, transfigured, sea water walker.
There is no evidence at all that the Jesus stories were written in the 1st century and attributed to later unknown authors.
Last edited:
So, just as I stated. The expression "Son of God" was a title that could applied to human kings. At last! Thanks.
Belz...
Fiend God
Can you explain to me what, for you, is "logic" ?
I ask because you constantly use that term in a context where it makes no sense.
Belz...
Fiend God
You just altered the parameters of the scenario for him, and you think he should've picked another conclusion, based on your alteration ?
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
maximara
Isn't it inevitable that any historical Jesus must be "less awesome" than the typical religious (Christian or Muslim) Jesus? Most of RJ's "identifying features" aren't even historical subject matter, and many of them are unsigned (and past due) IOU's about what he'll do in the indefinite future.
Good press is fame. No further explanation is needed. Ask Lady Gaga. Compare all the other young women in her birth cohort who'd have liked to have a career in show business. What? She looks and sounds so much better than all the rest of them?
The actual difficulty for a Christian cult earlier than what Paul says he persecuted is that Paul gives an origin for the cult he knew, those people who Paul thinks saw Jesus' ghost before he did. All of those sightings he places after Jesus' death, and it is one and only one man's ghost he is writing about. So, looking for something earlier is not an absence of evidence situation, but an absemce of rebuttal evidence to a timely, plausible and partially witnessed origin narrative.
Paul roots his cult in historical events, some guy died and living men later saw him. Not decisive, but few here do anything more than quote odds.
I bag my trash; if the bags are ripped open and the contents are scattered immediately adjacent, then I'm thinking that's a mighty talented wind. In any case, all Foster did (or I would do) was come to a belief that raccoons were a lively prospect, not a certainty that racoons surely did it.
Cargo cults arose in reaction to Christian encroachment, so it is unsurprising that they would need no "founder" more palpable than their opponents' Jesus.
I guess I'm a serious HJer (60-40). What Jesus have I ever "dialed back?"
Isn't it inevitable that any historical Jesus must be "less awesome" than the typical religious (Christian or Muslim) Jesus? Most of RJ's "identifying features" aren't even historical subject matter, and many of them are unsigned (and past due) IOU's about what he'll do in the indefinite future.
So, that's pretty much John the Baptist. John's more confidently a historical figure than Jesus, and that because of exactly one surviving early mention outside the New Testament. That suggests a historical Jesus could have had several people paying attention to him, comparable with the number of people who paid attention to Dunker John's local trouble making, and Jesus ended up with only one fewer surviving early mention outside the New Testament. Good show.
An elite First Century Greek prose stylist thought he saw Jesus' ghost, and according to that writer's religious views, that meant the end of the world was in progress. He went on a lecture tour and wrote about it to his admiring fans.
Good press is fame. No further explanation is needed. Ask Lady Gaga. Compare all the other young women in her birth cohort who'd have liked to have a career in show business. What? She looks and sounds so much better than all the rest of them?
Curious parallel there. Were it not for Josephus and zero of his followers, Dunker John would have no better purchase on historicity than Jesus. But MJers seem very impressed that there's no early mention of Jesus outside the New Testament (a body of work collected long after the compositions to contain all such early references to a recognizable Jesus; kind of like Texas sharpshooting, then, that there's no mention outside the painted bull's eyes).
The actual difficulty for a Christian cult earlier than what Paul says he persecuted is that Paul gives an origin for the cult he knew, those people who Paul thinks saw Jesus' ghost before he did. All of those sightings he places after Jesus' death, and it is one and only one man's ghost he is writing about. So, looking for something earlier is not an absence of evidence situation, but an absemce of rebuttal evidence to a timely, plausible and partially witnessed origin narrative.
Paul roots his cult in historical events, some guy died and living men later saw him. Not decisive, but few here do anything more than quote odds.
Last edited:
Yes. The derivative character of the religiosity of Tanna makes it less necessary for worshippers there to venerate real founders of their faith. The work of establishing the background had already been performed by the Christian missionaries, and the islanders took the product over and reworked it to meet their own needs. See wiki on Tanna.
The islanders are, however, capable of worshipping real people, however odd they may be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanna_(island) Here, too, we have a "ready-made" figure, whom I was taught back in 1953 to revere as the Queen's husband; though we were never required to worship him; contenting ourselves with prayers for his well being, along with that of the rest of the Royal Family.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
One thing that can't be repeated often enough is that the standard of evidence is different for historical events simply because the certainty of conclusion is very, very low. Or, actually, the certainty is low because of the quality and quantity of the evidence, but when one asks for a demonstration to show why one arrives at the conclusion, you have to work backwards and mention the evidence; so the lower the certainty, the poorer the evidence. That seems to be a given.
So if someone says "Jesus existed, that is certain.", you expect a large amount of evidence to show that he did, in fact, exist. But if you say "Jesus probably existed" or even "Jesus is more likely to have existed than not", then you don't expect much, so you must adjust your expectations accordingly.
Even then the HJ scenario is not particularily convincing, but the problem I see here is that Ian and Dejudge do NOT adjust their expectations and standards of evidence to match the claim. They still expect evidence for "Jesus existed, that is certain" when someone claims "Jesus is more likely to have existed than not." I don't know if this results from poor reading of the claim, ideological blinders like I used to have on this topic, or something else.
So if someone says "Jesus existed, that is certain.", you expect a large amount of evidence to show that he did, in fact, exist. But if you say "Jesus probably existed" or even "Jesus is more likely to have existed than not", then you don't expect much, so you must adjust your expectations accordingly.
Even then the HJ scenario is not particularily convincing, but the problem I see here is that Ian and Dejudge do NOT adjust their expectations and standards of evidence to match the claim. They still expect evidence for "Jesus existed, that is certain" when someone claims "Jesus is more likely to have existed than not." I don't know if this results from poor reading of the claim, ideological blinders like I used to have on this topic, or something else.
You forget that in Jewish Myth that God had many Sons.
You forget that before they were even kings of the Jews that there were sons of God in Jewish Mythology.
You keep forgetting the book of Genesis.
You keep forgetting the book of Job.
Genesis 6:4 KJV
Job 1:6 KJV
Please, get familiar with Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.
Gods had Multiple sons in Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.
How many times must you be told that Bart Ehrman claimed Jesus "certainly existed"?
Please, read the introduction to Bart's Ehrman "Did Jesus Exist?" page 4--line 5-6.
Ehrman admitted he wrote his book to demonstrate that Jesus CERTAINLY EXISTED.
This thread is about Bart's Ehrman claims of CERTAINTY of the existence of Jesus.
- Status