The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman

[vorlon13]

Golly geewillikers!


The christers have been pretty sure their version of the crucifixion was as icky as it got. The addition of rotting for a few months seems to trump their take on it quite a bit.
Still, a longer time in Hades would let Jebus score more souls from Satan.

See, the Mighty Hand of God knows what it's doing even if the flock muffs the details . . .

[Minimalist]

No.  The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada.  The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman.  J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary."  Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet. 

The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.

But.... that's not what is says, Abs.

5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!”
6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.”

John 19

The Romans appointed the high priest, its true, although Caiaphas had been appointed by Valerius Gratus and Pilate apparently saw no reason to remove him.  I'm sure they had a very cozy hand-in-glove relationship but that hardly made them puppets.  In fact, the Sanhedrin had a degree of autonomy within the city and Pilate had a very nice villa in Caesarea where he could run his prefecture away from all those smelly jews.  The whole fucking story makes no sense at all.  Don't forget the whole reason that Pilate and his 4 predecessors as prefect were there was because the jewish nobility petitioned Augustus to remove Archilaus and become a Roman prefecture.  I can't recall if it was Suetonius or Tacitus who wrote that when Tiberius died "all was quiet in the East."  Those crimes you list are crimes against the Jews....not the Romans.  I'm sure the Romans didn't give a flying fuck about the temple.

If fuckface jesus had started a riot in the temple courtyard - an enormous area, btw, the temple guard would have had no compunction about shoving a spear up his ass.  That's why they were there.

---

The historical evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, who likely had epilepsy, schizophrenia or some other disorder, perhaps, a lesion on his brain.  He started out in northern Galilee, where he was born, but after awhile, his friends and followers encouraged him to take his "message" to Jerusalem.  The end came quickly for him; a short time after his arrival, there was an altercation in the Temple, and he was arrested by the Romans.  After a short hearing and consultation with the Jewish authorities, the Romans executed him.  Perhaps, or perhaps, not, the Jewish leaders allowed a burial as an appeasement to some of his distraught followers, which the Roman authorities were completely indifferent to.

The rest is history...

Actually what you mainly have there is fantasy.

[Jehanne]

No.  The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada.  The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman.  J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary."  Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet. 

The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.

The Romans rarely mentioned anyone that they crucified, out of the many thousands who they put to death.  Jesus was a trouble-maker, an inciter of riots during the Passover, an out-of-town stranger with delusions of grandeur.  It did not take the Romans long to make an example out of him, something that they did almost daily.

[Minimalist]

So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning.  "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD.  Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong."  It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.

I am certainly not claiming that Paul was accurate in everything that he wrote; however, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus referenced Jesus explicitly, Christian interpolations notwithstanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Are you at all interested in having your opinion challenged or are you just wasting my time?

---

The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.

The Romans rarely mentioned anyone that they crucified, out of the many thousands who they put to death.  Jesus was a trouble-maker, an inciter of riots during the Passover, an out-of-town stranger with delusions of grandeur.  It did not take the Romans long to make an example out of him, something that they did almost daily.

And the evidence for that exists no where except in your useless gospel tale.  Truly, there is only 1.  Mark.  The others are merely fan fics built on that.

I think your gosples are a worthless pile of shit in a historical sense.  Now where do you want to go?

[Jehanne]

I am certainly not claiming that Paul was accurate in everything that he wrote; however, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus referenced Jesus explicitly, Christian interpolations notwithstanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Are you at all interested in having your opinion challenged or are you just wasting my time?

---

The Romans rarely mentioned anyone that they crucified, out of the many thousands who they put to death.  Jesus was a trouble-maker, an inciter of riots during the Passover, an out-of-town stranger with delusions of grandeur.  It did not take the Romans long to make an example out of him, something that they did almost daily.

And the evidence for that exists no where except in your useless gospel tale.  Truly, there is only 1.  Mark.  The others are merely fan fics built on that.

I think your gosples are a worthless pile of shit in a historical sense.  Now where do you want to go?

I am an atheist, bud.  For starters, Mark is not the only Gospel that establishes the existence of the historical Jesus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-document_hypothesis

In short, scholars have Mark, Matthew's unique sources ('M'), Luke's unique sources ('L'), the 'Q' document (both common to Matthew & Luke), the authentic letters of Paul, the three mentions by Josephus and the mention by Tacitus.

[Minimalist]

Mark was the original story.  The others copied from it extensively and made up other parts to fill in some blanks.  "John" is a complete re-write because he apparently thought that Mark's jesus was too much of a pussy.

The paul bullshit knows nothing of the gospel stories.  That's a mythical god from outer space like all the other greco-roman gods extant at the time.

I strongly suggest you read Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."

Josephus is one blatant forgery and one innocent interpolation. Tacitus is a much, much later interpolation. "Q" is absurd.

[vorlon13]

Mark was the original story.  The others copied from it extensively and made up other parts to fill in some blanks.  "John" is a complete re-write because he apparently thought that Mark's jesus was too much of a pussy.

The paul bullshit knows nothing of the gospel stories.  That's a mythical god from outer space like all the other greco-roman gods extant at the time.

I strongly suggest you read Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."

Josephus is one blatant forgery and one innocent interpolation.  Tacitus is a much, much later interpolation.  "Q" is absurd.

And even Mark and Luke do NOT agree on Jesus death providing an atonement for sin.

And that's big.  They don't have a fucking religion till they resolve that fuck up.

[Jehanne]

Mark was the original story.  The others copied from it extensively and made up other parts to fill in some blanks.  "John" is a complete re-write because he apparently thought that Mark's jesus was too much of a pussy.

The paul bullshit knows nothing of the gospel stories.  That's a mythical god from outer space like all the other greco-roman gods extant at the time.

I strongly suggest you read Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."

Josephus is one blatant forgery and one innocent interpolation.  Tacitus is a much, much later interpolation.  "Q" is absurd.

Richard Carrier is an unemployed (and, probably, unemployable) academic whose "credentials" are questionable at best.  He does not represent modern scholarship and is not at all even fluent in the original languages of the New Testament (Aramaic, Greek)  The existence of Q is accepted by nearly every modern scholar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Likewise, the Gospel of Thomas, a "sayings Gospel", probably contains some original sayings of Jesus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

There is no doubt whatsoever that Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum was altered, but there is wide consensus that there is an original core that was authentic to Josephus.

As for Paul, he was familiar with some of the Gospel stories, namely, the Last Supper.

---

Mark was the original story.  The others copied from it extensively and made up other parts to fill in some blanks.  "John" is a complete re-write because he apparently thought that Mark's jesus was too much of a pussy.

The paul bullshit knows nothing of the gospel stories.  That's a mythical god from outer space like all the other greco-roman gods extant at the time.

I strongly suggest you read Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus."

Josephus is one blatant forgery and one innocent interpolation.  Tacitus is a much, much later interpolation.  "Q" is absurd.

And even Mark and Luke do NOT agree on Jesus death providing an atonement for sin.

And that's big.  They don't have a fucking religion till they resolve that fuck up.

Everyone (even, the so-called believers) agree that the Gospels were not historical; that does not mean that they do not contain some history.  All the Christian apologetic bullshit can be refuted by this guy, Honi ha-M'agel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_ha-M'agel

Point is that the so-called "miracle workers" existed during the life of Jesus, before him, and after; they were a "dime a dozen".  That's the problem with Christian apologetics -- it accepts some miracle stories while reject scores of others.  What can be said about Jesus was also said about Octavian.  I don't believe that Octavian was born of a virgin or that he ascended into Heaven after his death, but I do believe that he existed.

[vorlon13]

I think my idea about Jesus being crucified twice goes a long way to resolving the contradictions in the gospels.


First time he was in a better mood on the way to the cross

Second time he was despairing cuz he knew how bad it was

First time did not atone for sins

Second time did

First crucifixion was on the day Mark said

Second time was on the day John said

First time was with 3 nails

Second time was with 4

First time there was an earthquake

Second time there was an eclipse

First time Jesus said forgiven them, they know not what they do

Second time Jesus said God, why hast thou forsaken me ?



I have made an original and SIGNIFICANT contribution to Christian apologetics !!!

Jesus got the cross TWICE !!!!!

[vorlon13]