Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Historical Jesus

#43241  Postby RealityRules » May 08, 2021 1:29 am

RealityRules wrote:Justin said the prophecies spoken by the ‘prophets of God’ were ultimately not their own words, but utterances inspired by 'the Prophetic Spirit', something he refers to several times and which he said spoke as a single voice.

Justin portrayed the so-called 'Prophetic Spirit' as close to God and twice described it as being venerated:

    on the first occasion:

      ‘We worship both this God and also the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow him and are made like him, and also the prophetic Spirit…’ (1 Apol. 6.2)

    and, on the second occasion, introduced it as an element of hierarchy (as the Holy Spirit?):

      ‘Jesus Christ… we rationally worship… For we have learnt that he is the son of the true God, and we hold him in second place and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank’ (1 Apol. 13.3).
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43242  Postby dejuror » May 08, 2021 7:06 pm

Stein wrote:
By the way, Jesus of Galilee did not come down to Earth from anywhere. Pagan chronicles, like Tacitus and the

S E C O N D

Jesus reference in Josephus's Antiquities,

C H A P T E R

G O D -

D A M N

20
,

make it effing clear that Jesus of Galilee was a normal scrappy human being who had the sheer insolence to be both a Jew and a pioneering entirely human empath. So put that in your antisemitic pipe and smoke it.


Firstly, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20 does not mention any character called Jesus of Galilee. Secondly, NT Jesus of Galilee is portrayed as an antisemitic or "smoking an antisemitic pipe".

These are the words from Jesus of Galilee while speaking to Jews in the Temple.
John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



In fact, Christian writers in an out the NT claimed Jews were murderers of Jesus of Galilee, the son of their God.

1 Thessalonians 2.
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men


Aristides' Apology
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews......


It is documented that Christian writers did claim their Jesus came down from heaven and was murdered by the Jews.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43243  Postby proudfootz » May 09, 2021 3:10 pm

Christians are still spreading the word today:

An agency that provides administrative services to the US military posted an Easter sermon on its website that described a New Testament passage preaching to Jews as a demand to “say sorry” for killing Jesus.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... sus-667497
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43244  Postby Stein » May 10, 2021 6:10 pm

The latest from Bart Ehrman --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBZpWyn-okw&t=29m42s

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2471

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43245  Postby Hermit » May 10, 2021 6:37 pm

I listened to three minutes of nothing but ad homs before I closed the tab. :yawn2:
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4683
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43246  Postby proudfootz » May 11, 2021 2:47 am

It's really disappointing that after dismissing the extra-Biblical and pagan sources for evidence of an Historical Jesus in his book, Ehrman goes on to say in this video that the evidence for his Jesus is 'overwhelming'.

You can thump a Bible all day and all night but I don't think much reliable history is going to fall out.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43247  Postby RealityRules » May 12, 2021 11:03 am

In my opinion, nothing will defeat a thesis faster than uncertainty. For example, if a graduate student presented a master thesis or a doctoral student defended a dissertation with the rhetoric, “I believe ...” ('I simply have faith that ...'), or that, after hundreds of hour of study (for a masters) to years and thousands of hours of study for a doctorate, the PhD candidate defended his dissertation with, “I just don’t know ..", "I believe ..", "I just don’t think I’ll ever know ..", "I’m am uncertain ('an agnostic') about my research”; then one thing would be certain, there would be no graduate degree conferred upon such a poor student who, after years of research, didn’t know anymore than the average person on the street.

Yet this is exactly how many atheists approach the existence of a Historical Jesus! We just don’t and will probably never have enough data to prove Jesus did or did not exist but, 'I believe Jesus did exist at one time.' This is just what one finds in Bart Ehrman's book after years of research on the Historical Jesus (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperOne, 2013).

I’m led to the conclusion that Ehrman remains a believer in a Historical Jesus because his mentor, Bruce M. Metzger, was himself, not only a Historical Jesus believer, but a practicing Christian (an ordained Presbyterian clergyman) I know of one occasion at The Evangelical Theological Society where Metzger not only participated, but read a paper supporting The Society’s conservative Biblical and theological doctrines by reading a paper on the how the Greek New Testament could be trusted textually as preserving and linking the modern Church with Early Christianity and its Historical Jesus (Metzger was on the editorial board of all 4 editions of the United Bible / American Bible Society’s Greek New Testament).

Thus, in my view, the fact Ehrman had a believing mentor (Metzger) who he idealized along with the fact he once was an Evangelical Christian himself, and to avoid the social stigma of wondering around at the annual meetings of Society of Biblical Literature / Academy of Religion as a known Mythicist, a position at odds with most scholars attending (most teaching in either a Christian university or seminary), it’s in Ehrman’s best interest to fall in line with the majority ...

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... never.html

Ehrman's wife still goes to church, with a friend of theirs, apparently
Last edited by RealityRules on May 12, 2021 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43248  Postby proudfootz » May 12, 2021 4:06 pm

While it's fun to speculate as to why Ehrman uses dishonest and fallacious arguments to defend his position, it's ultimately not something I'm prepared to go into.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43249  Postby RealityRules » May 15, 2021 1:33 am

Raphael Lataster (2014), The Fourth Quest: A Critical Analysis of the Recent Literature on Jesus’ (a)Historicity, Literature Aesthetics, 24 (1): pp.1-28

Abstract

"There has been some recent scholarly discussion on the reasonableness of questioning Jesus’ historicity. While generally avoiding the question, this analysis seeks to compare the methods of those who assert Jesus’ historical existence (historicists), and those who are less certain (mythicists or agnostics). Examples were taken from four recent authors on the topic.

"It was found that the [then] recent defences of historicity by Bart Ehrman [Did Jesus Exist?, 2012] and Maurice Casey [Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths?, 2014] lack lucid and competent methodologies; rely on highly questionable documents; and further make use of sources that no longer exist, if they ever did. They also seemed polemical, were occasionally vulgar, and often resorted to cavilling, focussing on tangential arguments of the more amateurish mythicists ..."

The Case for Jesus’ Historicity: Bart Ehrman

"The first of the [then] recent [ie. pre-2014] books arguing for Jesus’ historicity, Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? acknowledges that the Christ of Faith is a myth, and seeks to demonstrate the reality of 'the Historical Jesus'. Parts II (‘The Mythicists’ Claims’) and III (‘Who Was the Historical Jesus?’) of the book can be overlooked as they proceed from the assumption of Jesus’ historicity. It is in Part I, ‘Evidence for the Historical Jesus’, where Ehrman’s positive case for Jesus’ historicity is presented. Over five chapters, Ehrman acknowledges that the available sources are problematic, yet somehow finds them useful regarding the Historical Jesus, and appeals to hypothetical 'sources' supposedly pre-dating the Gospels – which supposedly provide certainty over Jesus’ historical existence – and the Pauline Epistles.

"Ehrman...clarifies that historians would prefer numerous, contemporary, detailed, and somewhat disinterested sources, which corroborate others’ accounts without collaboration having taking place. This is effectively a description of precisely what is lacking in the case for Jesus. In what could be mistaken as a case for Jesus agnosticism, Ehrman then admits that there is no physical evidence for Jesus, there are no mentions of him by first-century Greek or Roman authors, and agrees that no contemporary accounts are available. Focussing on the non-Christian sources that are available, Ehrman generally dismisses the testimonies of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus. Likewise dismissing the disputed Talmudic references to Jesus, Ehrman somewhat surprisingly finds the Josephean references to Jesus inconclusive, as they would be derivative if genuine (citing arguments that suggest they had in fact been forged)."

https://www.academia.edu/26664790/The_F ... istoricity
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43250  Postby dejuror » May 15, 2021 4:31 am

proudfootz wrote:Christians are still spreading the word today:

An agency that provides administrative services to the US military posted an Easter sermon on its website that described a New Testament passage preaching to Jews as a demand to “say sorry” for killing Jesus.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... sus-667497


The Christian religion was precisely initiated on the false claim that the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the desolation of the Temple was because the Jews killed their supposed Messiah not on an historical Jesus.

In other words, early Christianity could have only began after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43251  Postby proudfootz » May 15, 2021 12:00 pm

dejuror wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Christians are still spreading the word today:

An agency that provides administrative services to the US military posted an Easter sermon on its website that described a New Testament passage preaching to Jews as a demand to “say sorry” for killing Jesus.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... sus-667497


The Christian religion was precisely initiated on the false claim that the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the desolation of the Temple was because the Jews killed their supposed Messiah not on an historical Jesus.

In other words, early Christianity could have only began after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.


Kind of like the Q-Anon of the Roman Empire.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43252  Postby dejuror » May 15, 2021 8:05 pm

proudfootz wrote:
dejuror wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Christians are still spreading the word today:

An agency that provides administrative services to the US military posted an Easter sermon on its website that described a New Testament passage preaching to Jews as a demand to “say sorry” for killing Jesus.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... sus-667497


The Christian religion was precisely initiated on the false claim that the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the desolation of the Temple was because the Jews killed their supposed Messiah not on an historical Jesus.

In other words, early Christianity could have only began after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.


Kind of like the Q-Anon of the Roman Empire.


Precisely!! The very people who put out the falsity that the US Presidential election was stolen can never admit they were lying which have now resulted in millions of believers of the lie.

This is exactly what has happened when those who fabricated the falsehood that the reason for the fall of Jerusalem and the desolation of the Temple was because the Jews killed their prophesied Messiah. Those who started the propaganda against the Jews could not have admitted their falsehood and now we have billions of people who believe the fable.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XVI
Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him..


1 Thessalonians 2
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us..


Hippolytus' Expository Treatise Against the Jews
7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf? Was it on account of the idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the prophets? Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel? By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.


Lactantitius' On How the Persecutors Died 2
In the latter days of the Emperor Tiberius, in the consulship of Ruberius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, and on the tenth of the kalends of April, as I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43253  Postby RealityRules » May 16, 2021 1:19 am

'Q' started as Trump started his presidency in 2017, so perhaps Q might be the equivalent of Paul or the like ...

The post 2020 election hysteria is, however, likely to continue to fuel versions of QAnon, and there's also MAGA and things like the sidelining and heresy-ifying of Liz Chaney ...
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43254  Postby dejuror » May 16, 2021 6:10 am

RealityRules wrote:'Q' started as Trump started his presidency in 2017, so perhaps Q might be the equivalent of Paul or the like ...

The post 2020 election hysteria is, however, likely to continue to fuel versions of QAnon, and there's also MAGA and things like the sidelining and heresy-ifying of Liz Chaney ...


Paul?? There was no real Paul. Someone invented a story about the Apostles and Saul in Acts of the Apostles and the name Saul was later changed to Paul.

The propaganda that the Jews killed their Messiah predates every NT book.

It was the" big lie" [the Jews killed their Messiah] that started Christianity.

Aristides' Apology
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous


Early Christians did not need the Epistles. The Christian cult predates all NT Epistles. It was the Gospel stories post c 70 CE that was used by early Christian.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43255  Postby proudfootz » May 16, 2021 3:56 pm

It's a weird turnaround that anyone would push accusations of anti-Semitism against anyone who holds a skeptical view of the writings of the biggest spreaders and preservers of the 'blood libel' from the ancient world.

It's pretzel logic all the way down.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43256  Postby RealityRules » May 21, 2021 11:02 pm


Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus

Ehrman on Jesus’ Historicity

In 2012 Bart Ehrman sought to put an end to the increasing scepticism about Jesus’ historical existence by publishing 'Did Jesus Exist?', which I earlier reviewed in this journal. He has since published two more books on 'the Historical Jesus' (henceforth HJ) in this HarperOne series, which has prompted me, as one of the few scholars to seriously consider Jesus’ possible ahistoricity, to consider all three books in relation to the issue of Jesus’ alleged historical existence. In the second and third chapters of 'Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman described what sources historians prefer, and focussing on Christian sources by way of necessity, he acknowledged that the Gospels are very much unlike these sources, being filled with non-historical information and contradictions.

To make the challenge of discovering the Historical – and indeed the historicity of – Jesus even more difficult, I often point out that the earliest Christian documents come from Paul, who knows little to nothing about a recent and Earthly Jesus; who constantly refers to the Jewish sacred texts and divine revelations from a Celestial Jesus (who seems eerily similar to pre-Christian Jewish – and non-existent – figures like the Son of Man and the Logos) as his sources of this crucial information; and, who explicitly rules out human sources.

Ehrman’s solution is dubious. Throughout 'Did Jesus Exist?' Ehrman asserts that the highly questionable, fiction-filled, and relatively late Gospel accounts can generally be trusted because of written and oral sources underlying them that "obviously” existed, though they do not anymore (for example, see pp. 75-79). Not once does Ehrman explain the rationality and widespread endorsement of this ‘method’. Nor does he explain how his approach can provide information about the content, genre, and so forth, of these hypothetical sources. Finding this approach to be illogical, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent, I note that all of Ehrman’s critics can do likewise.

Fellow secular proponents of the HJ might use such non-existing sources to argue against Ehrman’s favoured apocalyptic interpretation. Christian scholars might (and do!) appeal to such sources to prove that, contra Ehrman, the resurrection is historically probable. Those few that deny or at least question Jesus’ historical existence could similarly claim that there were sources in which Peter or some other early Christian admitted to fabricating the story whole cloth. Unfortunately, Ehrman provides no reliable way to restrict this ‘hypothetical source’ approach, so that one theory is as good as another.

In other words, Ehrman had not achieved his aim. He had not proven that Jesus was certainly a historical character, and had not convincingly argued that that such scepticism is futile. In fact, he achieved the opposite; scholars like myself have become suspicious that this almost universal and long-held paradigm should rest on hypothetical sources. His book actually aids the case of 'Jesus Mythicism' (henceforth JM), and its more measured sibling, 'Historical Jesus Agnosticism' (which I subscribe to).

https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu ... 431/10834#
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43257  Postby Stein » May 23, 2021 1:23 am

Thanks for NOT providing the author's name. Cute -- NOT -- but typical, of course. :-(

Stein

RealityRules wrote:

Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus

Ehrman on Jesus’ Historicity

In 2012 Bart Ehrman sought to put an end to the increasing scepticism about Jesus’ historical existence by publishing 'Did Jesus Exist?', which I earlier reviewed in this journal. He has since published two more books on 'the Historical Jesus' (henceforth HJ) in this HarperOne series, which has prompted me, as one of the few scholars to seriously consider Jesus’ possible ahistoricity, to consider all three books in relation to the issue of Jesus’ alleged historical existence. In the second and third chapters of 'Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman described what sources historians prefer, and focussing on Christian sources by way of necessity, he acknowledged that the Gospels are very much unlike these sources, being filled with non-historical information and contradictions.

To make the challenge of discovering the Historical – and indeed the historicity of – Jesus even more difficult, I often point out that the earliest Christian documents come from Paul, who knows little to nothing about a recent and Earthly Jesus; who constantly refers to the Jewish sacred texts and divine revelations from a Celestial Jesus (who seems eerily similar to pre-Christian Jewish – and non-existent – figures like the Son of Man and the Logos) as his sources of this crucial information; and, who explicitly rules out human sources.

Ehrman’s solution is dubious. Throughout 'Did Jesus Exist?' Ehrman asserts that the highly questionable, fiction-filled, and relatively late Gospel accounts can generally be trusted because of written and oral sources underlying them that "obviously” existed, though they do not anymore (for example, see pp. 75-79). Not once does Ehrman explain the rationality and widespread endorsement of this ‘method’. Nor does he explain how his approach can provide information about the content, genre, and so forth, of these hypothetical sources. Finding this approach to be illogical, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent, I note that all of Ehrman’s critics can do likewise.

Fellow secular proponents of the HJ might use such non-existing sources to argue against Ehrman’s favoured apocalyptic interpretation. Christian scholars might (and do!) appeal to such sources to prove that, contra Ehrman, the resurrection is historically probable. Those few that deny or at least question Jesus’ historical existence could similarly claim that there were sources in which Peter or some other early Christian admitted to fabricating the story whole cloth. Unfortunately, Ehrman provides no reliable way to restrict this ‘hypothetical source’ approach, so that one theory is as good as another.

In other words, Ehrman had not achieved his aim. He had not proven that Jesus was certainly a historical character, and had not convincingly argued that that such scepticism is futile. In fact, he achieved the opposite; scholars like myself have become suspicious that this almost universal and long-held paradigm should rest on hypothetical sources. His book actually aids the case of 'Jesus Mythicism' (henceforth JM), and its more measured sibling, 'Historical Jesus Agnosticism' (which I subscribe to).

https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu ... 431/10834#
Stein
 
Posts: 2471

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43258  Postby Hermit » May 23, 2021 4:20 am

Stein wrote:Thanks for NOT providing the author's name. Cute -- NOT -- but typical, of course. :-(

It's in the link. As if you didn't know. :roll:
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4683
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43259  Postby dejuror » May 23, 2021 8:14 pm

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is probably the very worst argument since he discredits his primary sources, books of the NT . Ehrman admits the NT Gospels are riddled with fictional accounts even on non-miraculous events and that they were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, the author of the Pauline Epistles shows no knowledge of an historical Jesus but claims he got his gospel from revelation or scriptures.

In effect, Ehrman cannot provide any credible historical evidence for an HJ.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43260  Postby proudfootz » May 23, 2021 10:42 pm

Surely Raphael Lataster's PhD in the study of religion and professional position as a lecturer at a major university should satisfy the noisy Credentialists?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 8 guests