Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

1) Every single detail in the gospel about the crucifixion is non historical 2) but we are assured that the crucifixion itself is historical.

1) Who said that ?
2) Assured ? I don't think that's the verb you wanted to use.

 

[tsig]

Every single detail in the gospel about the crucifixion is non historical but we are assured that the crucifixion itself is historical.

1) Who said that ?
2) Assured ? I don't think that's the verb you wanted to use.

1. I said that, I hilited it for you. If you want to dispute it then we can go over the various accounts and details, sweating blood, cutting off an ear, The "Roman custom" of releasing a prisoner, and good old Pilate a pushover for crowd demands.

2. You know what I wanted to write instead of what I did write?? A million awaits you.

 

[Brainache]

You know I love white rabbits almost as much as you do, Brainache.
Any sources to throw at me?
...

The story of Pilate's dismissal is in Josephus, Ant 18, 4, 1. Pilate sent a cavalry unit to intercept them, and violence resulted. The ringleaders were captured and executed, but Josephus doesn't name them, or specify that they were crucified. Pilate was recalled to Rome following this incident, and disappears from recorded history.

Thanks, Craig B.

Yes that was the one. Thanks.

 

[Belz...]

1. I said that, I hilited it for you.

Ok, so your post, which gave the impression that there was a contradiction in the rhetoric of your opposition, was a fabrication ?

2. You know what I wanted to write instead of what I did write?? A million awaits you.

You would have prefered if I had said you lied, which is probably the case ? No one has assured anything, but you claimed that they have. Again, in my opinion you want to use another verb.

 

[dejudge]

And? I still have no idea what your basic point is. Enlighten me please.

I have no idea what you point is.

Now, you first must understand Foster Zygote's point--"we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs".

Jesus of the NT was God Creator--Jesus of the NT was an imaginary construct.

 

[dafydd]

I have no idea what you point is.

Now, you first must understand Foster Zygote's point--"we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs".

Jesus of the NT was God Creator--Jesus of the NT was an imaginary construct.

Whether Jesus existed or not is a matter of sublime indifference to me. I agree that all gods are inventions of mankind so what are we discussing? I still have no idea what your point is. We seem to be agreeing. As for Foster Zygote's point I would say that there is no evidence for the existence of any god. I leave it to him to explain his point.

 

[dejudge]

Whether Jesus existed or not is a matter of sublime indifference to me. I agree that all gods are inventions of mankind so what are we discussing? I still have no idea what your point is. We seem to be agreeing. As for Foster Zygote's point I would say that there is no evidence for the existence of any god. I leave it to him to explain his point.

The records show that you voted that "Yes, Jesus was an itinerant Jewish Rabbi whose tale grew in the telling" so it could not be of sublime indifference to you.

Now, you don't understand how Foster Zygote could say "we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs."

Is not the God of the Jews an imaginary construct?

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Logos and God Creator.

Jesus is an imaginary construct--we have SOLID evidence.

We have hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

What is your point?

 

[Brainache]

The records show that you voted that "Yes, Jesus was an itinerant Jewish Rabbi whose tale grew in the telling" so it could not be of sublime indifference to you.

Now, you don't understand how Foster Zygote could say "we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs."

Is not the God of the Jews an imaginary construct?

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Logos and God Creator.

Jesus is an imaginary construct--we have SOLID evidence.

We have hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

What is your point?

Do you think that if Jesus was real, he was God?

Is that the problem?

 

[tsig]

Ok, so your post, which gave the impression that there was a contradiction in the rhetoric of your opposition, was a fabrication ?



You would have prefered if I had said you lied, which is probably the case ? No one has assured anything, but you claimed that they have. Again, in my opinion you want to use another verb.

You get the wrong impression of my post so I'm guilty of a fabrication?

Are you saying that no one here has claimed that the crucifixion is an historical event that is evidence for the HJ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you think that if Jesus was real, he was God?

Is that the problem?

I think the issue is that in order for him to satisfy his psychological need to destroy his hated former faith, he needs to prove that Jesus was God, and since gods don't exist, therefor Christianity goes poof. I'm reminded of the disproof of God in the Hitchhiker's Guide:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

In the end, all he has offered is that the narratives don't make rational sense. But then neither do the narratives about Joseph Smith. But, as with a religious fundamentalist, there is only one acceptable conclusion for dejudge, and he will employ any rationalization required to get himself there.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I have no idea what you point is.

Now, you first must understand Foster Zygote's point--"we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs".

Jesus of the NT was God Creator--Jesus of the NT was an imaginary construct.

Yes, the Jesus of the New Testament was an imaginary construct. People imagined Jesus doing all sorts of magical things, and saying things that they invented for him.

But that doesn't mean that the Jesus before the early Christian writers, before the decades of oral traditions, wasn't a real person.

Keep in mind that you have agreed that Joseph Smith actually existed. Yet those stories about him meeting supernatural beings, and finding golden plates, and translating them into a holy book by gazing at stones in a hat are clearly fictional, yes? The Joseph Smith who met the angel Moroni was a fictional construct. If I make up a story about how CraigB saved me from a bear attack by killing the beast with a swift kick to the testicles wearing nothing but his house slippers, then the bear-ball kicking CraigB is a fictional construct. But that does not mean that there isn't a non-fictional CraigB in existence.

The simple fact that people can compose fictions based on real people, like Alexander the Great or Kim Jong-il, is something you have to awkwardly ignore because, for you, there is clearly only one acceptable conclusion regarding the historicity of Jesus.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, why is it that people only 40 - 50 years after Jesus died would have seen the stories as absurd, yet people after about, let's say 100 years later (You've never actually given any timeline for your invention of Jesus) would have no trouble swallowing these absurd tales? Why would people in the 1st Century know Paul to me a "monstrous liar", yet people in the 2nd Century would start swallowing the same story as true when it was told by someone else?

 

[Belz...]

I have no idea what you point is.

Repeating stuff isn't clever, Dejudge.

 

[Belz...]

You get the wrong impression of my post so I'm guilty of a fabrication?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding post after post ?

Are you saying that no one here has claimed that the crucifixion is an historical event that is evidence for the HJ?

Quote them.

Your entire contradiction is a fabrication. No one said the first half (you admitted so already) and no one said the second half.

 

[dejudge]

Do you think that if Jesus was real, he was God?

Is that the problem?

Do you think that if Jesus was really a Crucified Criminal, caught red-handed, that he would be worshiped as a God by those who caught him in the act and Crucified him?


According to HJers, obscure HJ created havoc in the Jewish Temple and he was Crucified for the Crime.

Why would the Jews and Romans worshiped a known Crucified Criminal as a God which supposedly preached by Paul since the time of Gaius c 37-41 CE?


The HJ argument makes no sense--that is the problem.

 

[DC]

Do you think that if Jesus was really a Crucified Criminal, caught red-handed, that he would be worshiped as a God by those who caught him in the act and Crucified him?


According to HJers, obscure HJ created havoc in the Jewish Temple and he was Crucified for the Crime.

Why would the Jews and Romans worshiped a known Crucified Criminal as a God which supposedly preached by Paul since the time of Gaius c 37-41 CE?


The HJ argument makes no sense--that is the problem.

i have never seen anyone defending this position in such a fanatical and agressive way. its almost WBC like to see you go off in those topics.

 

[dejudge]

Do you think that if Jesus was real, he was God?

Is that the problem?

Do you think that if Jesus was really a Crucified Criminal, caught red-handed, that he would be worshiped as a God by those who caught him in the act and Crucified him?


According to HJers, obscure HJ created havoc in the Jewish Temple and he was Crucified for the Crime.

Why would the Jews and Romans worship a known Crucified Criminal as a God which was supposedly preached by Paul since the time of Gaius c 37-41 CE?

Surely if obscure HJ was crucified after the disturbance at the Temple then obscure HJ never abolished the Laws of the Jews.

The Jewish and Romans Laws were enforced and he was Crucified.

The claim that HJ was crucified destroys the credibility of the Pauline Corpus.

HJ was "abolished" [crucified] by the Laws of the Jews and Romans


The HJ argument makes no sense with supposed authentic Pauline writings--that is the problem.

 

[tsig]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding post after post ?



Quote them.

Your entire contradiction is a fabrication. No one said the first half (you admitted so already) and no one said the second half.

One of us is certainly misunderstanding, I can't say whether deliberately or not since my mind reading fu is weak but you seem to have no problem with imputing intentions to others.

If you're going to deny that the crucifixion has been used as evidence of an HJ I don't see how quoting posts you have already read will help.

 

[dafydd]

The records show that you voted that "Yes, Jesus was an itinerant Jewish Rabbi whose tale grew in the telling" so it could not be of sublime indifference to you.

Now, you don't understand how Foster Zygote could say "we have solid evidence that all gods are imaginary constructs."

Is not the God of the Jews an imaginary construct?

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Logos and God Creator.

Jesus is an imaginary construct--we have SOLID evidence.

We have hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

What is your point?

My vote wasn't serious. I was bored and just clicked on one. My point is that I agree that there are no gods. I have no idea why you are getting so het up about this. What is the problem?

 

[dafydd]

The HJ argument makes no sense with supposed authentic Pauline writings--that is the problem.

Your problem. Nobody else seems bothered by it.