(February 13, 2013 at 8:41 am)Confused Ape Wrote: As I said in my other post - his books will show how orthodox Christianity came to obscure what he regards as an historical Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

This kind of reminds me of a former friend of mine who was a Christian who insisted that the Catholic Church gathered up and locked away all the evidence of Jesus' existence because they wanted to control what people believed about him.

...and people accuse us Jesus skeptics of advocating conspiracy theories.

Quote:Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical.

[/quote]

Quote:I've never read any of his books and I don't want to sign up to a website just to read his blogs. This means I don't know the details concerning his arguments about Jesus's existence.

I have read his writings and heard him interviewed. I've yet to hear a good argument from him on that subject. Mostly its appeals to authority ("all the scholars say..."), No True Scotsman ("all the SERIOUS scholars say..."), and arguments from ignorance ("something is behind the legend...").

(February 13, 2013 at 10:33 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I have read his writings and heard him interviewed. I've yet to hear a good argument from him on that subject. Mostly its appeals to authority ("all the scholars say..."), No True Scotsman ("all the SERIOUS scholars say..."), and arguments from ignorance ("something is behind the legend...").

The thing is, though, there's no point in promoting Ehrman's books as proof that Jesus didn't exist. Minimalist will have to find a different source of information.

I've found a video interview with Erhman where he says that Paul knew Jesus's relatives because the letter to the Galateans is authentic. (Move the slider to 4.45 to hear that bit.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs

(February 13, 2013 at 11:06 am)Confused Ape Wrote: The thing is, though, there's no point in promoting Ehrman's books as proof that Jesus didn't exist. Minimalist will have to find a different source of information.

I don't agree.

I couldn't care less what Ehrman believes in his heart. The information in his books is all that matters.

To suggest that the information Ehrman has found and presented can't be used in a case because Ehrman, in his heart, believes something different is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

Quote:I've found a video interview with Erhman where he says that Paul knew Jesus's relatives because the letter to the Galateans is authentic. (Move the slider to 4.45 to hear that bit.)

I heard the whole interview as it was broadcast live. I found his reasoning, when he finally got off the "scholars say..." treadmill, to be underwhelming.

(February 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I don't agree.

I couldn't care less what Ehrman believes in his heart. The information in his books is all that matters.

He's written two books about Jesus existing so it's more than just believing it in his heart. The links which I originally supplied in Post #98 take you to the Books Published page on his own website. If the information in his books is all that matters, he's proved that Jesus existed in two of his published books. People can't have it both ways and use some of his books as proof that Jesus didn't exist while ignoring his books about Jesus existing and saying they're just private beliefs.

I'll post all the links again to save people hunting through posts in order to click on them and see where they go to.

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

This is the Book Cover description for The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

Quote:In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

This is one of the reviews for Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Quote:In Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium , Bart Ehrman offers an exciting and accessible study of the historical Jesus. He canvasses a wide range of ancient texts and modern interpretations as he orients his reader both in the distant world of late Second Temple Judaism and the current swirl of scholarly opinion. With verve, warm humor and exemplary clarity, Ehrman's Jesus provides the nonspecialist reader with an excellent introduction to this often elusive figure, the Jesus of history." --Paula Fredriksen, Boston University

In Post #100 I supplied these links.

Inventing Jesus: An Interview with Bart Ehrman

The quotes are from an interview where he's talking about his book, 'The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth'

Quote:They knew Jesus had been crucified and they believed he was the Messiah, so they concluded that the Messiah had to be crucified.

He was a first-century Palestinian Jew

This is a bit more information about what he says in his book.

More On Bart Ehrman's new book about Jesus

Quote:Now, however, he’s pretty insistent that a “Jesus” was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

What does Ehrman argue?

Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus’ time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus’ crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical.

This is an unfavourable review of his book which I found a few minutes ago - it says what Ehrman presents as being the historical Jesus.

Review: Bart Ehrman - Did Jesus Exist?

Quote:Ehrman, peerless scholar of New Testament texts, has dragged himself away from more favoured concerns to draw a line in the sand on the question of Jesus. No, he is NOT a mythicist himself, the direction towards which all his books pointed and as many of his fans were beginning to think. "No, no – Jesus most certainly existed" – a mantra Ehrman repeats endlessly – and was, (Christians please note), "the most important figure in the history of Western civilisation" – a statement scarcely true if, as Ehrman argues, the "man" was a parochial and deluded doom merchant, hostile to the family and fond of prostitutes and drink who was summarily executed after a two-minute trial before Pilate. The professor from North Carolina provides cold comfort for any of his Christian fans and his arrogant dismissal of the entire corpus of mythicist scholarship will cost him supporters elsewhere.

The positive side to all this is that Bart – an accredited scholar, as they say – has been compelled to acknowledge that the very existence of Jesus is "one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion" and deserving of investigation. Mythicism, warns Ehrman darkly, is "seeping into the popular consciousness at an alarming rate."

Quote:The thing is, though, there's no point in promoting Ehrman's books as proof that Jesus didn't exist. Minimalist will have to find a different source of information.

I'm starting to wonder about you, Ape. If you expect to find a definitive book out there which is going to answer all your questions you have two choices. Hang yourself now, because it will never happen or become a theist and grasp onto their fucking bible and tell yourself the whole story is true.

As D-P said, Ehrman in his field on analyzing ancient texts is one of the best. But his "evidence" for his jesus being historical is the same shit as all of the others and it is not convincing. You had best ask yourself what he means by a "historical jesus." That's a little shaky, too. Ehrman sees jesus as a apocalyptic preacher but without the miracles and all the other holy horseshit that got tacked on. The problem with that is that there is no evidence at all for that view. The only stories of "jesus" are the god stories with all of the magic tricks. Ehrman's speculation on other stories is no more valid than your own because we do not have any such stories.

Like I said, you are not going to find any sort of coherent narrative because the early church did a great job of making sure that any such writings were suppressed. The trick is to evaluate disparate pieces of information and try to fit them together and when you do that you can not make mistakes such as you did when you said that 3 Roman historians mentioned jesus. They did not. They mentioned xtians. None of them used the word "jesus" and as you should know by now I doubt that Tacitus even said "christianos." If you examine the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan you'll note that Pliny mentions nothing about any of the main points of xtianity as we now know it. Further, Trajan's reply is exceedingly mild. So mild that I would prefer him on the US Supreme Court than some of the republicunt fuckwits we have now. But neither Trajan nor Pliny gives a hint that xtians were a bunch of raving arsonists who burned down the capital when both were boys. Were Tacitus' account true one would imagine that their attitude towards xtians would have been a bit harsher. But it isn't.

You have to THINK about these anomalies, Ape.

This thread is getting pretty interesting...

Sorry - but there IS NO PROOF that a historical person upon whom the MYTH of the christ was developed over time ever existed. Certainly the christ MYTH never actually existed.

There is LOTS of speculation and lots of inference - but it clearly cannot be true

Literacy in Ancient Rome - in the GOLDEN AGE OF ROME - is often dscussed bit is subject to major disagreement - and many scholars say that most Romans could at least read some - it was writing that many could not do.

However - the jews would have known that the christ myth was NOT THE MESSIAH - because the christ myth failed to fulfill the prophecies for the messiah that are the absolute word of the jewish god - and NOT SUBJECT to interpretation or change (THE word of god is ALWAYS GOOD so it would not change it)

IT is always nice to see someone claim that jesus of NAZARETH exsited - when Nazareth itself did not exist as more than a burial plot at that time.

As far as the crucifixion - the christ would have been stoned to death by the jews LONG BEFORE if he actually did any of the things he is claimed to have been done. Claiming to be the son of god alone is heresy in the jewish religion. The money changers at the temple would have stoned him to death if he ever was there. Remember - the christ was a jewish HERETIC - and would NEVER have been allowed to speak in a real jewish temple - and certainly not the near the VATICAN of jewish temples.

Sorry - but using documents and statements FROM THE SUPPOSED TIME of the christ or from people who could PROVE to be eye witnesses is the only way to prove existence. NONE of the bible was PROVABLY written by any such person.

(February 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: As D-P said, Ehrman in his field on analyzing ancient texts is one of the best. But his "evidence" for his jesus being historical is the same shit as all of the others and it is not convincing.

But he got a lot of his evidence for Jesus existing from the way he analyzed those ancient texts. Paul's letter to the Galateans is one of the ancient texts which he's now using to 'prove' that Paul knew Jesus's brother in real life. Isn't it possible that his scholarship was compromised because he's always been convinced there was an historical Jesus?

(February 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You had best ask yourself what he means by a "historical jesus." That's a little shaky, too. Ehrman sees jesus as a apocalyptic preacher but without the miracles and all the other holy horseshit that got tacked on.

An ordinary man who didn't perform miracles and rise from the dead is the only kind of historical Jesus there could have been. Why does everyone assume that if I mention a possible historical Jesus I'm talking about a divine being? I'M AN ATHEIST.

(February 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The problem with that is that there is no evidence at all for that view. The only stories of "jesus" are the god stories with all of the magic tricks. Ehrman's speculation on other stories is no more valid than your own because we do not have any such stories.

He got his so called evidence by analyzing all those ancient texts and deciding what they really meant before Christians fiddled around with them. This is why I'd find someone else's work if I was arguing that Jesus didn't exist.

(February 13, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The trick is to evaluate disparate pieces of information and try to fit them together and when you do that you can not make mistakes such as you did when you said that 3 Roman historians mentioned jesus. They did not. They mentioned xtians.

I said that Tacitus's report was about what Christians believed, not that it proved Jesus actually existed.

(February 12, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If you examine the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan you'll note that Pliny mentions nothing about any of the main points of xtianity as we now know it.

Why would he mention anything about Christian beliefs when he was asking how to go about prosecuting Christians? He and Trajan would have known what Christians believed so there was no reason for them to have a theological discussion about it in their letters.

(February 12, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But neither Trajan nor Pliny gives a hint that xtians were a bunch of raving arsonists who burned down the capital when both were boys. Were Tacitus' account true one would imagine that their attitude towards xtians would have been a bit harsher. But it isn't.

If Tacitus's fire of Rome story is true, including the bit about the Christians, (which might be a later addition) it's very likely that Trajan and Pliny didn't believe that the Christians were responsible. The full account explains that the Roman citizens thought Nero had ordered the fire to be started. In the end he blamed the Christians to stop the rumours and had a lot of them executed in horrible ways.

Tacitus Annals Written 109 A.C.E. Book XV

Quote:A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire.

These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.

And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Why would executing Christians in horrible ways have stopped the rumours? Maybe there's a clue in the last few lines of the fire story.

Quote:Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Nero made sure that the executions were seen by a lot of the Romans who were accusing him of starting the fire himself. Maybe they thought it was better not to mention it again while he lived in case they ended up as the next spectacle.

(February 12, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You have to THINK about these anomalies, Ape.

But there mightn't be an anomaly if you look at the way Tacitus worded his account.

"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain,"

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt".

It suggests that everyone suspected Nero had just picked an unpopular group of people to be scapegoats.

Anyway, as you still haven't invented a way for Christianity to get started without an historical Jesus I'll have a go myself. People will have to read the full discussion about Yeshu ha Notzri by following the link but I'm just going to quote the bit which is relevant to my invention.

Quote:There are several interesting references to a Yeishu ha Notzri (note the resemblance of the name to "Jesus of Nazareth"), who traveled around and practiced magic during the reign of Alexander Janneus, who ruled Palestine from 104 to 78 BCE. As these references are Talmudic (from the Baraitas and the Gemara), and therefore presumed by Christian scholars to be anti-Christian; Christian apologeticists have simply dismissed them as referring to someone else or being fabricated propaganda. But if they are genuine, and they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that the Jesus of Nazareth story is really based on the life of Yieshu ha Notzri, possibly the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness." Evidence points to him being the founder of the Notzri as the sects were known in first century Palestine, and as the Jesus Movements to modern scholars.

But the pristine version, (of the Talmud) still used by Jewish scholars, gives us some rich detail. Yeishu ha Notzri was considered by the temple authorities of the time to be a troublemaking heretic, and when they had finally had enough of him, they put him on trial. He was convicted of heresy, sentenced to wander the city for 40 days, with a crier going before him, shouting that if anyone had reason why he should not be executed, they should come forward. When no did, he was stoned to death, and his body hung from a tree on the eve of passover, in 88 B.C.E. Note the death on the eve of passover. Note also the hanging of the body from a tree - at the time, a sign of despicability, with its resemblance to the crucifixion myth.

It doesn't matter if Yeishu ha Notzri really existed because we're going on the assumption that Jesus didn't exist. All it would need is a Jewish sect whose members believed that Yeishu ha Notzri had been a real person.

One of the members - I'll call him Fred - developed schizophrenia and had delusions of YHN talking to him and saying he was the son of God. Fred's knowledge that the Romans crucified criminals was incorporated into his delusions so he believed that YHN had been crucified by Pontius Pilate. As Yeshua was a common name at the time his delusions also told him that YHN's real name was Yeshua. Bits and pieces of YHN's story were combined into a jumbled history of Yeshua along with the idea that Yeshua must have been resurrected because Fred was having a conversation with him.

Fred was thrown out of the sect so he went to the Gentiles and the rest is history. (Paul of Tarsus was based on him).

PS: I edited this post because I missed out a line from Tacitus's story of the fire of Rome which might or might not be real history.

Fred did it, that explains everything.

(February 13, 2013 at 4:50 pm)catfish Wrote: Fred did it, that explains everything.

Well I did say people's suggestions could be barking mad.

I forgot to include a line from Tacitus's account in my previous post so I'll add it here in case people read it before I edited it with the extra line.

Tacitus Report

Quote:A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace

It looks like Tacitus didn't think the Christians did it so it's likely he wasn't the only one with that opinion.