And the funniest part of all of this is that according to Maximara's definition, the consensus of mainstream Scholars' "HJ", is actually what he calls the "MJ".
So I'm still a little confused about just what he is debating.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
And the funniest part of all of this is that according to Maximara's definition, the consensus of mainstream Scholars' "HJ", is actually what he calls the "MJ".
So I'm still a little confused about just what he is debating.
Not what I call the MJ but what OTHERS (including APOLOGISTS) call the MJ.
Unless you are claiming I am Herbert George Wood who in a 1934 University Press book classified Christ Myth as being among "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."
Or are you claiming that I am some how Eddy-Boyd who classified two books that accepted a 1st century Jesus being behind the Gospels as Christ Myth books.
Or perhaps you are saying I am Albert Schweitzer who despite Sir James George Frazer stating "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" was still classified Frazer as being among "those who contested the historical existence of Jesus" nearly 20 years later.
Not my definitions but those of others and you keep ignoring that to salvage your position.
Let's be factual here. Too many HJers and MJers have thrown around the Christ Myth term around with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery and applied it to theories that accepted Jesus as a flesh and blood person at times for no other reason then those theories didn't take the Gospels as historical truth.
Remsburg, the darling of the armchair Christ Mythers felt there was just enough to show Jesus lived but also that the Gospels told us nothing about that man other then he existed...at one time. In short Remsburg was arguing that the "story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"... the very definition give to the Christ Myth by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J in 1982 and 1995.
As has been pointed out before there are plenty stories of known historical people that are "pieces of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes". I have asked before and all the HJ people here have dodged the question---how did we get from story of to man himself?
Last edited:
No, I'm claiming that you are using a definition of "MJ" which is so broad as to be useless for this debate.
It is exactly what I've been telling you from the start.
But it is the definition the APOLOGIST THEMSELVES HAVE GIVEN US!Deal with it.
Definitions vary according to context. Deal with that!
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
maximara
Legal metaphors are popular around here. Let me say it this way. That eleven jurors have voted guilty is no reason for the twelfth juror to follow suit. It is, however, a reason for the twelfth juror to think about what the other eleven see that (s)he doesn't, and why what the twelfth sees is unpersuasive to the other eleven. Real juries are often instructed about that.
I miss that lack of decent regard for the serious possibility that the other view may be correct, and that in the meantime, while uncertainty persists, the opposing view is not held capriciously. Endless re-recitals about "John Frum," "Chinese whispers," and the lack of "actual, genuine, reliable, credible evidence" won't move anybody who hasn't already been moved. This ineffectuality cannot be a surprise, since all those arguments restate and restate again what is obvious in the first place, that the underlying question is uncertain. No Shinola, Sherlock.
Yes, that's what uncertainty means. As all your examples illustrate, the vast majority in scholarship is reliably responsive to new evidence. The problem is that we wish to form passably accurate beliefs based on the evidence that actually is available to us, today.
Legal metaphors are popular around here. Let me say it this way. That eleven jurors have voted guilty is no reason for the twelfth juror to follow suit. It is, however, a reason for the twelfth juror to think about what the other eleven see that (s)he doesn't, and why what the twelfth sees is unpersuasive to the other eleven. Real juries are often instructed about that.
I miss that lack of decent regard for the serious possibility that the other view may be correct, and that in the meantime, while uncertainty persists, the opposing view is not held capriciously. Endless re-recitals about "John Frum," "Chinese whispers," and the lack of "actual, genuine, reliable, credible evidence" won't move anybody who hasn't already been moved. This ineffectuality cannot be a surprise, since all those arguments restate and restate again what is obvious in the first place, that the underlying question is uncertain. No Shinola, Sherlock.
Definitions vary according to context. Deal with that!
And the context for the Christ Myth I am given is that provided by the APOLOSTISTS THEMSELVES.
As I have said they (and the MJ side) have thrown around the term so much that it has no real meaning.
Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall stated there were TWO ways Jesus could be mythical:
1) The man himself could be a fictional creation akin to Doctor Who or King Lear.
2) The story of that man has no more historical reality then those of King Arthur.
Point 2 is problematic because the Gospel account is supposedly our oldest account of Jesus that give us actual details to check against history. Yet when we do cross check they spectacularly blow up...exactly what you would expect of either a fictional or legendary account.
But, and this is the kicker, regardless of the story being fictional or legendary it is non historical on those points we can check. So why assume any of it is historical?
Ken Humphreys' Jesus Never Existed webside has a companion youtube channel jesusneverexistd where even more irregularities are pointed out.
Last edited:
Re the highlighted question - well those are quotes from Ehrman’s book, so strictly speaking I guess we’d really have to ask Ehrman who he is including when he says that “nearly every trained scholar on the planet” shares his view that Jesus “certainly existed”.
But from his context I think he clearly means the people teaching various branches of religious studies in various universities and theological institutes, mainly in the USA.
I expect he is right to say there are thousands of bible studies teachers like that (inc. himself), who do all agree that Jesus was definitely real. Though as a group, those people appear to be very far from the typical neutral objective university academics in any non-religious field (the ones named in these threads almost all have deeply religious backgrounds for example).
Belz...
Fiend God
But it is the definition the APOLOGIST THEMSELVES HAVE GIVEN US!
Let's talk about you for a second: are you in the MJ camp or the "I don't know" camp, already ?
There has been no "consensus" since the Enlightenment period regarding the Gospel account--everybody has had (and has) their own idea on what is historical and what is made up in it.
Note what I said:
Which proves the point regarding the whole HJ position: it has required numerous ad hoc tweaks to keep going and the more of the Gospel one take as history the worst it gets.
Ad hoc: an extraneous (and sometimes untestable) hypotheses added to a theory to save it from being falsified.
Einstein himself used an ad hoc in the form of a cosmological constant in his equations (because he wanted a static universe) that he later said was the greatest blunder in his life. Ironically that ad hoc sort of fits current theories about dark matter but that constant was not based on any evidence but on Einstein wanting a static universe.
The assumption with Jesus is that the canonal Gospel account is historical even if it is the bare minimum of some guy named Jesus teaching something in 1st century CE Galilee and being executed by Romans as a result. If any of those three points is not true the house of cards falls apart. And even if it holds together you have the next question; did Jesus really found Christianity or did Paul take some existing cult and over 20 some years reshape it into Christianity?
Remember John Robertson's 1900 version of the Christ Myth theory did NOT seek to deny Jesus existed as a human being but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
So you are denying that the vast majority of historians and so-called experts agree that there probably was an historical Jesus ?
I haven't seen that. Perhaps you could give examples. On the other hand I see MJ-supporters constantly adapting their hypothesis with additional speculation in order to make it fit known facts.
Let's not go there. Any time someone mentions Einstein to support their claim, it ends up badly.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So MJ is science because it's continually adapting the hypothesis?
You have placed yourself in the position of a creationist.
Which Jesus? The messianic king, the progressive Pharisee, the Galilean shaman, the magus, the Hellenistic sage, Buddhist teacher, or trapped spaceman? All in all seriousness have been suggested at one time or another.
As Price said in Christ a Fiction:
"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."
Already gave some:
The "evidence" for Jesus has been used to "sell absurd theories to idiots"
Theories like a census that require people to return to their ancestor's place of residence
Theories like commanders who are such wonderful multitaskers that they can run a a census while fighting a war...two Roman provinces to the east.
Theories that try to explain why nobody recorded a three hour eclipse.
And speaking of no body how about the theories of the undead jamboree of Matthew 27:52-53 that no one else saw?
Then there the Misrepresentations like Pliny the Younger writing about Jesus (he doesn't), the 5000 Greek manuscripts (over 14 freaking centuries), Suetonius talking about Jesus (he doesn't), and the list goes on and on.
Facts or misrepresentation of facts? Like going to the Egyptian Book of the Dead as to way the Isis the virgin theory is wrong when no one could even read hieroglyphs since before the time of Alexander the Great? All the while ignoring things like The Golden Ass where Isis is said to be called by various other names including Diana, Minerva, and Hecate...all of whom in Greek mythology were virgin goddess.
"In the most remote age it appears that Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set were all independent and unconnected deities, belonging probably to different tribes. Isis was a virgin goddess at Buto in the Delta, Horus came to be worshiped with her,..." (Progress (1897) - Volume 3 - University Association Page 382)
Then you have the idea that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth ie signifying the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" and never meant to be taken literally.
No it doesn't. In fact, Einstein is a perfect example of the Miner effect.
This is found only in Luke, and not anywhere else. It is rejected on rational grounds derived from critical analysis of the gospels. This has been referred to several times in recent threads. I doubt if any HJ proponent here accepts either the Lukan or the very different Matthean account of the birth in Bethlehem.
My theory as to why no ancient source notices these things? They didn't happen.
In Letter 10 Pliny alludes to "Christ" and to "Christians" and his description of their behaviour and beliefs makes it very probable that they were followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Suetonius has a "Chrestus" instigating disturbances among Jews in Rome. That may be a garbled reference to early Christians, or it may refer simply to messianic agitation among the Jews of the diaspora. Or it may be a person called Chrestus, a common name in that period, as has been noted here several times.
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm simply pointing out the irony in Max' post.
Belz...
Fiend God
Really, I thought we were having a reasonable discussion, until now.I think you have HJ confused with the Christ figure. And this doesn't seem to support or even be related to your claim.
Facts.
You've lost me. What does this have to do with HJ ?
Does too.
maximara said:
What account of the birth of Jesus do HJers accept?
You know!
They accept what they imagine.
Look at a most imaginative theory without a shred of supporting evidence.
Craig B said:
It is clear that your imagination has gone wild. Why don't you simply admit that you really don't know what probably happened when you have no evidence?
Jesus of Nazareth was NOT your HJ [the obscure criminal].
Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of Faith--a Myth.
The Quest for an historical Jesus is still on-going--NO HJ has ever been found.
Belz...
Fiend God
Stop lying, Dejudge.
There has actually been no reliable or credible evidence of Jesus presented by anyone in this thread. And you appear to be the only person here who keeps getting confused by the word "proof".
What you are claiming as evidence of a human Jesus is only biblical writing from people who never themselves met Jesus and who could not themselves have any personal evidence of Jesus beyond that which they believed from the stories told by other earlier unnamed people.
In the case of the gospel writing, that is at best, only evidence that the unknown anonymous gospel authors knew the hearsay stories told by others about a legendary messiah. That's evidence of peoples beliefs. It's not evidence of Jesus.
And in the case of Paul’s letters, Paul did not know Jesus either and he repeatedly says that his knowledge of Jesus came to him as a gift from God, whereby God revealed to him the true meaning of the messiah prophecies hidden in the scriptures. That again is zero evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of Paul's religious belief in God and OT scripture.
There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary, of course. Eg, there is abundant scientific evidence to show that miracle claims, such as those which fill the whole of that biblical writing, are untrue religious fiction invented by religious fanatics in times of ancient superstitious ignorance.
As for these constant personalised insults such as calling people a liar, and as we have in fact had in abundance from the HJ side throughout all these threads saying such things as “dishonest, lying, liar, ignorant, uneducated moron,…etc”, that really is just a dead give-away for how weak your position actually is and the fact that you actually have no answer at all when asked for any credible or reliable first-hand evidence from anyone who ever claimed to know Jesus in any way at all.
Mmm. That doesn't leave much space for this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
- Status