It happened again today.

My Jesus Timeline video series has attracted another Ehrman groupie who felt inspired to leave yet another butthurt post, claiming indignantly that I have no business cross-examining the Bible and concluding the Christians have never told a coherent story about Jesus that would hold up in the very courtrooms the apologists are so fond of alluding to.

In the video itself I explicitly state on no freaking uncertain terms that this video is NOT about "The Historical Jesus" (which I always thought meant there was a mortal religious teacher crucified by the Romans and later deified by his followers). I can't think of any way I could be more clear that the series is directed at the "Revealed Word of God" crowd who believe that the Gospels are biographies of a miracle-working godman, penned by "reliable eye-witness accounts". But that doesn't seem to satisfy them. Frankly, I don't know what they want.

I'm starting to rethink my "Jesus Moot" strategy.

My thinking on this new approach was that the skeptic should not care whether or not some vague notion of some-religious-leader-named-Yeshua is truly part of the historical timestream in first century Judea. Our concern is with the assertions about a miracle-working godman and the veracity of the Gospels as an account of the life he lived and the teachings he imparted. Bart Ehrman is welcome to sift through the dusty scrolls in his Ivory Tower as he chases after the allusive and poorly defined Historical Jesus.

I'd grown tired of wasting my time wrangling over an oblique reference in the 2nd century Annals of Tacitus, of enduring the barrage of ad hominems and false comparisons to Holocaust Deniers, of trying to keep up with the fancy footwork of the Scholars-Say-Shuffle. I thought it was better to stick to the Bible and expose its contradictions and absurdities. I decided to concede for the sake of argument that a mortal Jesus may have existed but we'll never know anything about him or be able to reliably sift the true story from the myths and legends. Thus, his existence was moot.

That doesn't seem to satisfy.

Their reaction seems rather ironically evocative of the pre-reformation Catholic Church, "How DARE you read the Bible? That's OUR job! This is heresy, er, I mean a polemic!"

A choice quote after I had replied what was stated in the video, that this video is not about The Historical Jesus but rather a cross-examination of Christian beliefs about the miracle-working-godman.

Some Ehrman Groupie Wrote:You are using arguments from the mythicists for your video. It is textual criticism that you failed at [sic]. Which these arguments was debunk in many of Erhman's books [sic]. You keep saying it isn't historical Jesus [sic]. No it is the sources for the historical Jesus that you get wrong [sic].

This particular Ehrman groupie would have done well to spend less time reading Ehrman's books and more time reviewing an English grammar textbook. In fairness, others of his kind have proven to be more eloquent. I don't mean to suggest that they all write at a 3rd grade level. What I found striking about his/her posts, aside from the horrid butchery of the English language and the near-incomprehensible sentences, is the defense of the Gospels as "Historical Documents".

Historical fucking documents?

Seriously?

While I have not yet read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", his groupies like this one have led me to believe that Ehrman not only defends the fuzzy notion of a mortal religious leader being the source of Christian mythology but the mythology itself. After writing so many books tearing the Gospels a new one, exposing the problems of "pseudo-epigraphy" (forgery) and "interpolation" (changes to the text) as well as debunking the Christian dreamscape of the "early church", has Ehrman now suddenly became as the Thermians from the movie Galaxy Quest, embracing these very same Gospels as "HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS!"

You can see why I'm having trouble distinguishing the fundamentalist Christian apologists from the so-called "secular historists" who carry their water. Where do the "historists" draw the line? What sort of skepticism of the Christian tale is allowed in their circles? What do they want?

Would you post a link to that series? I think you have enough posts to merit a little self-promotion.

As it turns out, I too have the same problem with the HJ position. The fuckers cannot decide what they mean by it but I know quite well what I mean by the mythical jesus. I mean he is complete and total horseshit.

And Ehrman's evidence is the same bible crap he's been shitting on for 20 years so he doesn't now get to try to rehabilitate it to sell books to christards.

(April 23, 2014 at 9:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: As it turns out, I too have the same problem with the HJ position. The fuckers cannot decide what they mean by it...

I don't have a problem with the stubborn insistence that there must be some "historical core", which in turn has to be some sort of mortal human religious leader. As I said, Ehrman is welcome to his Ivory Tower musings.

I don't have a problem with the fact that this Historical Jesus is never defined beyond some sort of religious teacher.

I am perplexed by both their insistence on carrying the water for the apologists and their habit of becoming enraged over any skeptic who gets too close to the Bible like a mother bear defending her cubs. That's the question I'm throwing out there. What do you people want? And where do you draw the line between what you consider "serious history" and Christian fantasy? OK, that's two questions.

Anyway, happy to oblige. Cinjin and I will someday remake these videos with his special effects magic. I need to get around to sending him my *.mp3 files of my spoken parts.

Here's my current version with my limited video making skills:
Introduction to The Jesus Timeline




After getting a butthurt Ehrman groupie complaining about my lack of respect for his idol, I offered an apology followed by the start of my cross-examination:
Cross Examining the Synoptic "Eye-Witnesses"




Cross-Examining the Gospel of John




The Assembled Jesus Timeline: What a Mess!




The Apologists Strike Back




Coming Soon to the series:
The Jesus Itinerary: Synoptic Gospels? Not So Much.

The Jesus Itinerary: John's Jesus: Same Name, Different Character, Different Story.

The Jesus Moot Theory: What, If Anything, Can We Actually Know?

Quote:What do you people want?

They want us to stop questioning their fairy tales.

Thanks for the links. I'll watch them tomorrow instead of the "news." I really don't care who Miley Cyrus is blowing.

---

Aw, fuck it. I can't let it go that easily. What pisses me off about the historicists is their inevitable assumption that there "must be" a core of historical truth to the story. When confronted with the question of whether or not there was a historical core to Osiris, Ishtar, Zeus, Shiva and Quetzlcoatl they invariably resort to special pleading. "Obviously THOSE are myths....but not our godboy jesus...." And so it goes....right down the shitter.

(April 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What pisses me off about the historicists is their inevitable assumption that there "must be" a core of historical truth to the story. When confronted with the question of whether or not there was a historical core to Osiris, Ishtar, Zeus, Shiva and Quetzlcoatl they invariably resort to special pleading. "Obviously THOSE are myths....but not our godboy jesus...." And so it goes....right down the shitter.

That's when the exchange manages to progress that far. I've had these discussions enough times that I know the drill:

• Stage 1: Introductions or "Herp, derp, stooopid mytherzzz". Wade through not less than three separate posts of ad hominems. First they just laugh and act incredulous that you deny the obvious. In their second ad hom post, they'll call you names. In the third ad hom post, they'll ask if you also deny the holocaust. If you persist in demanding evidence, you'll make it to...
  
• Stage 2: The Dance Begins. You will have to demand in at least six posts, not less, to see the evidence that compels a belief in a Historical Jesus. During these exchanges, you will get to witness their performance art of repeating the claim that scholarly concensus agrees with them and that settles it. Only persistant demands for evidence will earn your way to...
  
• Stage 3: The Usual Suspects. Oh, look, here's the Annals of Tacitus, presented like you'd never heard about it before.
  
• Stage 4: More Usual Suspects. Josephus finds his way back to the witness stand. No really, the TF is "partially authentic". What's that? What do we base that on? Well, some scholars say...
  
• Stage 5: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel. Hey, look, here's Seutonius talking about a Chrestus in Rome circa 50 CE. Could be. Could be. And what's this? We have a 4th century Talmudic reference to a Yeshua with five disciples. It just might be...
  
• Stage 6: The Bible Tells Me So. You know that "Paul" guy? Yeah, the one who's attributed writings I helped expose as subject to all manner of forgery and interpolation? Well, he says...
  
• Stage 7: Hitting the Reset Button. Ah, why should I explain anything to a stupid mythicist like you? I bet you also doubt the holocaust happened...
  

It's like they receive special training. This is the drill every... single... time.

Now you see why I jump right into insulting them. Saves a lot of time.

(April 24, 2014 at 12:55 am)Minimalist Wrote: Now you see why I jump right into insulting them. Saves a lot of time.

I think it says much that even *I* lack the patience to deal with their run-around.

I've come to the conclusion that an historic Jesus is an intellectual curiosity, nothing more. I doubt very much that the history of Christianity would have unfolded any differently if Jesus was historic, wholly mythic, or somewhere in the middle.

Boru

(April 24, 2014 at 12:59 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 12:55 am)Minimalist Wrote: Now you see why I jump right into insulting them. Saves a lot of time.

I think it says much that even *I* lack the patience to deal with their run-around.

Just post your little "seven stage" thing from above, and tell them that if they can't bring anything new to the table, you won't read their posts. :p

I know, I know: it won't work. They'll tell you that the last guy probably didn't explain Josephus' works properly, or something, and that you totally have to listen to his take on it.

(April 24, 2014 at 12:47 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: It's like they receive special training. This is the drill every... single... time.

Could this be like the five stages of grief? Seven stages of fundy?

(April 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Could this be like the five stages of grief? Seven stages of fundy?

Ehrman is an ex-Christian as well as former divinity student. His doctorate is in divinity. Currently, his field of study is not history but theology. He certainly had a lot of emotional investment in Christianity to go all the way to a doctorate.

Then again, it might just be that writing books about Jesus is lucrative. If he were to take the side of the mythers, what the hell would he publish books about in the future?