Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

It's always good to hear some criticisms of a position you hold, and take a hard look at your stance, once and a while.

 

 

Personally, I disagree with the zeitgeist positions he criticizes, I don't think Jesus is based on Tammuz, Osiris, etc... But I do think he was based on the messiah mythos. I'll dig in deeper, but I'll say that he was just a myth. Bart Ehrman doesn't establish any evidence that he did exist, and expects us to give an alternative theory on the origins of the NT, without directly refuting our arguements based on the textual evidence, that he never did.

 

In fact, he the quotes Tacitus, who doesn't even mention Jesus by name! He says Chrestus, which may be Jesus or someone else, who knows? And Christ is greek mind you, so does this not tell us that the Jesus myth had already been in greek? Not the language spoken by Jesus?

 

My own arguement, is that Jesus was merely used as an epithet. Jesus was Messiah, or the guy who came to save the jews. His punishment was that of rebels, like Simon the Son of the Star, he was supposed to lead a rebellion against the romans. In fact, there were a quite a few messiah claimants, and the story of Jesus ended up being an amalgamation of these different stories. This is my personal theory. His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd.

 

As for what evidence we should expect to see of Jesus..... Well... Paul apparently saw Jesus on the road, when he was having his mental breakdown. So should we trust that he knew "Jesus' brothers", and how are we to know that its who they in fact were? If Paul himself even really existed?

 

Even better! We have witnesses alive to the crucifixion, so if he did claim people alive were Jesus' siblings, and Paul's letters were authentic, and he could bring the siblings forth to testify, we still have stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML2Oa4Oigvo

 

Jesus and Mary Magdeline themselves, alive in Australia, claim they remember what happened!

 

Hence, why we need to keep to the evidence. If there is a lack of evidence, we need to suspend the belief that there is such a man until we can prove there is such a man. The "siblings" if Paul did demonstrate the existence of any, could've just been brainwashed converts, that knew Jesus as much as they knew Moses and Abraham.

[mcdaddy]

We don't know if Paul had a Damascus experience. That's only in acts.

 

Doesn't the same Greek word they use typically translated as "seen" (as in seen Jesus) also mean to perceive? Like perceived or seen in the scripture?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

We don't know if Paul had a Damascus experience. That's only in acts.

 

Doesn't the same Greek word they use typically translated as "seen" (as in seen Jesus) also mean to perceive? Like perceived or seen in the scripture?

Not sure, but it might. The problem still stands, we don't have any reliable evidence that he saw/percieved Jesus, nor that he knew his siblings. We have absolutely no documents from the time, and the oldest documents were reportatively from Paul, or at least ascribed to him.

[Antlerman]

Oh good god. Thanks for the link. I'll order his book, which based on this brief introduction does a good job of taking to task the conspiracy/mythicist speculations stated as facts. (same things in the same breath, they are the same).

 

As for, “His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd,” why? He was comparing the qualifications of those who are scientists in the field being challenged by the layity with such absurdities as saying “It’s just a theory”. It is the theory subscribed to by real scientists, as he says. The comparison is that of specialists in the field, versus those armed with Google, like you and other passionate mythicists.

 

I find the whole mythicist conspiracy pretty much the same as the Creationist who calls science an Atheist Conspiracy, dark rooms full of cigar-smoking atheists who conspire to unseat God from the throne of social consciousness. Blech, so much weak, reasoning. The problem today is that qualified individuals are considered of equal opinion with the uneducated. That, that, is the core problem today.

 

This mythicist speculation does not fit evidence, and its supporting arguments are as specious as those of Creationists.

[Joshpantera]

I've been following this debate from the mythicist end of things myself. Here's a link to Vridar's coverage: http://vridar.wordpress.com/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/

 

My own arguement, is that Jesus was merely used as an epithet. Jesus was Messiah, or the guy who came to save the jews. His punishment was that of rebels, like Simon the Son of the Star, he was supposed to lead a rebellion against the romans. In fact, there were a quite a few messiah claimants, and the story of Jesus ended up being an amalgamation of these different stories. This is my personal theory. His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd.

Makes sense to me. Jesus Christ = Savior Annointed / Annointed Savior. The Jesus of the gospels and is more or less an amalgamation of characters, both mythical and historical and in the end they amount to no one particular person.

 

Ehrman really embarrassed himself this go around which is unfortunate because aside from this issue he seems pretty sound. I guess a lot of former Christians struggle with letting go of historicity and I find that understandable. But I'm more or less of the same opinion as you because I'd prefer to take the gospel Jesus as a myth until firmly proven otherwise. That seems like the most reasonable position to take. I understand that no one on either side knows with any degree of certainty so it's pretty much a complete wash with regards to dealing in absolutes. So this supernatural story is best left as mythology unless some contemporary source evidence emerges that can settle the issue once and for all...

[mcdaddy]

Oh good god. Thanks for the link. I'll order his book, which based on this brief introduction does a good job of taking to task the conspiracy/mythicist speculations stated as facts. (same things in the same breath, they are the same).

 

As for, “His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd,” why? He was comparing the qualifications of those who are scientists in the field being challenged by the layity with such absurdities as saying “It’s just a theory”. It is the theory subscribed to by real scientists, as he says. The comparison is that of specialists in the field, versus those armed with Google, like you and other passionate mythicists.

 

I find the whole mythicist conspiracy pretty much the same as the Creationist who calls science an Atheist Conspiracy, dark rooms full of cigar-smoking atheists who conspire to unseat God from the throne of social consciousness. Blech, so much weak, reasoning. The problem today is that qualified individuals are considered of equal opinion with the uneducated. That, that, is the core problem today.

 

This mythicist speculation does not fit evidence, and its supporting arguments are as specious as those of Creationists.

 

I disagree.

[Antlerman]

I disagree.

You disagree that Creationists see the scientists have some 'atheist agenda' that skews how they do science?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

As for, “His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd,” why? He was comparing the qualifications of those who are scientists in the field being challenged by the layity with such absurdities as saying “It’s just a theory”. It is the theory subscribed to by real scientists, as he says. The comparison is that of specialists in the field, versus those armed with Google, like you and other passionate mythicists.

The reasons its absurd are that there is hordes of evidence of evolution. There isn't even a thread off Jesus' robe, nothing at all, to prove he ever existed. The two are just incomparable, the lack of evidence is what Ehrman himself admitted to. As for the scientists who believe he was real in the field, do they also believe in Gimilninurta? Why? And does a scientist believing in it give it even a shred of credibility?

 

For some background, Gimilninurta was a poor peasant who had his goat he wanted to share with the mayor, for his last meal, stolen by the mayor. He got revenge against the mayor, and took all that was the mayor's. The story is plausable in some respects, but its clearly a fable. No one really disputes this. Yet with Jesus, O no man, he has to be real, just because?

 

The mythicist theory isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. I for one, believe that it could've been a cult founded by one man, as in the second video above. We even have Mary Magdeline and Jesus Christ himself telling us what happened at the cross! Paul's "James" might have been someone else brainwashed into testifying to the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus' day, which were quite some time prior.

 

Why don't we have details of Jesus' life? We can't rely on Mark, but all the gospels rely on Mark.

 

Say we only knew he was crucified, but even that we don't have evidence for. He'd have to be a rebel (not a thief, so that puts problems with the crucifixion story), and were he to be one of those, would he not be known like Simon the son of the Star? And why does his story have so much in common with the stereotyped things the Mesiah was supposed to do, and so much in common with other Messiah's? And without an accurate Mark, and without Paul being reliable, what are we left with really? We're left without a reason to believe in a historical Jesus.

 

I find the whole mythicist conspiracy pretty much the same as the Creationist who calls science an Atheist Conspiracy, dark rooms full of cigar-smoking atheists who conspire to unseat God from the throne of social consciousness. Blech, so much weak, reasoning. The problem today is that qualified individuals are considered of equal opinion with the uneducated. That, that, is the core problem today.

 

This mythicist speculation does not fit evidence, and its supporting arguments are as specious as those of Creationists.

Here is the problem, as to why you guys are like creationists, and not us. I put forth evidence and arguements, you attack our arguement and don't put forth any evidence. Who was Jesus? When did he live? How do we know this? Don't source directly nor indirectly Josephus, Tacitus (both were additions to the text), nor any biblical documents. But only sources from his time. Nothing after 100 CE (70 years after he supposedly died). Remember, it can't be stuff just sourced off the sources listed.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

For the record, I doubt (let alone don't think) Ehrman has an agenda with this. I assumed there was a historical Jesus until fairly recently. It just became increasingly problematic, when studying Jesus and all the knowledge surrounding him (lack of historical records, religious documents, the historical documents that are said to include him, etc...), he just began to fade into nonexistence for me. He just had to be a myth. There was no place left in history for him

[Adam5]

This mythicist speculation does not fit evidence, and its supporting arguments are as specious as those of Creationists.

 

I partly agree with you. I think a historical Jesus could exist.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the NT authors were like writing total fiction like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I guess there must be some real people in there some where.

 

I am also lately become skeptical of conspiracy theories in general.

[Adam5]

..He just had to be a myth. There was no place left in history for him

 

Hi BD, how are you?

 

Does it matter whether Jesus was a real or a fictional person?

 

I look at it this way. Today, there are lots of deluded people around, who thinks a god is speaking to them, fundies speaking in tongues and performing "miracles". It seems plausible to me the same type of delusional people existed 2000 years ago.

[Antlerman]

As for, “His comparing the evidence for Evolution to the evidence of Jesus is just absurd,” why? He was comparing the qualifications of those who are scientists in the field being challenged by the layity with such absurdities as saying “It’s just a theory”. It is the theory subscribed to by real scientists, as he says. The comparison is that of specialists in the field, versus those armed with Google, like you and other passionate mythicists.

The reasons its absurd are that there is hordes of evidence of evolution. There isn't even a thread off Jesus' robe, nothing at all, to prove he ever existed.

*bzzz, error. His bringing up evolution was not to say the data for a historical Jesus was just as overwhelming and clear as that for evolution. Of course not. He, nor any historian talking about anything in history is that stupid. What he was bringing up evolution for to go after these arm-chair scholars who dismiss actual scholars. And that is why the comparison to creationists challenging and dismissing the actual scientists who understand evolution. It wasn't a comparison with evolution, but with novices reading folks like ArchraS and Gerald Massey and then saying the same things creationists do in dismissing the actual experts, "They have an agenda".

 

You don't see the direct correlation here? It's not about the data, it's about being a hack and dismissing experts in their field. As I said to BP awhile back which he seems blinded to, there is a difference between the opinion of a non-expert and that of an expert. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but make no mistake that opinion is not going to be as good as someone who has a depth of knowledge beyond just researching one thing on the Internet. Education matters. At least it used to is society. And that I think is the real problem. What I hear Ehrman's criticism surrounding is about this.

 

Seriously, do you fancy yourself just as qualified as Ehrman? I don't.

 

Why don't we have details of Jesus' life? We can't rely on Mark, but all the gospels rely on Mark

Ehrman addressed these very points in this video. Did you miss that?

 

Say we only knew he was crucified, but even that we don't have evidence for. He'd have to be a rebel (not a thief, so that puts problems with the crucifixion story), and were he to be one of those, would he not be known like Simon the son of the Star?

Again, this was addressed in the video.

 

And why does his story have so much in common with the stereotyped things the Mesiah was supposed to do, and so much in common with other Messiah's?

Does he really? Again, this was address in the video.

 

And without an accurate Mark, and without Paul being reliable, what are we left with really? We're left without a reason to believe in a historical Jesus.

How is Paul not reliable? According to whom? I of course am aware of the pseduo-Pauline texts, but no serious scholar rejects all of them. There are at least five that no one inside NT scholarship questions. And you wonder why this sounds like conspiracy theory?

 

I find the whole mythicist conspiracy pretty much the same as the Creationist who calls science an Atheist Conspiracy, dark rooms full of cigar-smoking atheists who conspire to unseat God from the throne of social consciousness. Blech, so much weak, reasoning. The problem today is that qualified individuals are considered of equal opinion with the uneducated. That, that, is the core problem today.

 

This mythicist speculation does not fit evidence, and its supporting arguments are as specious as those of Creationists.

 

Here is the problem, as to why you guys are like creationists, and not us. I put forth evidence and arguements, you attack our arguement and don't put forth any evidence. Who was Jesus? When did he live? How do we know this? Don't source directly nor indirectly Josephus, Tacitus (both were additions to the text), nor any biblical documents. But only sources from his time. Nothing after 100 CE (70 years after he supposedly died). Remember, it can't be stuff just sourced off the sources listed.

You're putting forth evidence of lack? I thought you said no evidence exists? No, you are putting forth logic arguments, and there is a huge, wide gulf between that and evidence. I give you a scholar, you give me a logic argument that ignores what this scholar says. That, is exactly what creationists do.

[qadeshet]

Even Ehrman doesn't believe in the miracle working Gospel "Jesus". His failed apocalyptic prophet "Jesus" is one of many possibilities. If Mark's Gospel was intended to be understood allegorically, later Christians may have simply misunderstood. No conspiracy is needed to explain how 2nd century Christians decided that Jesus actually lived. Did Jesus Exist shows just how weak is the case for an Historical "Jesus".

 

Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?

 

Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic

 

Bart Ehrman says that Jesus existed

 

Reviewing Ehrman Did Jesus Exist?: Introduction

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I partly agree with you. I think a historical Jesus could exist.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the NT authors were like writing total fiction like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I guess there must be some real people in there some where.

Could he exist? Yes. And it is possible that they forgot to mention him because he didn't get very far at whatever he was doing. At least not until later. But see that's my problem. Just because he could exist doesn't mean that he did. And I very much do think that the followers of the small religious group that was Christianity thought there was a historical Jesus, but that they didn't have the information they wanted on his earlier life. So like with the story of Joseph and Asenath, they filled in the gaps, like medieval jews did with the midrash. That still doesn't rule out the possibility that Paul made it all up.

Hi BD, how are you?

 

Does it matter whether Jesus was a real or a fictional person?

 

I look at it this way. Today, there are lots of deluded people around, who thinks a god is speaking to them, fundies speaking in tongues and performing "miracles". It seems plausible to me the same type of delusional people existed 2000 years ago.

I'm fine, thanks, yourself? I am a tough debater, I think Antlerman already knows this about me. I just play rough, but I do it with a good spirit.

 

Does it matter to me whether there was a historical Jesus or not? Not really. Though I will say that it definitely matters, in that, being someone who is obsessed with studying the history of that area, that I have a coherent and factual idea of what was going on in the region. For me, this requires me to question previously held assumptions, and test them. And if there is lack of evidence for something, I suspend belief until someone proves to me that such and such is real or occured.

 

It's like with Herodotus, I won't even take the most plausable stuff out of his histories, without some archaeological data to back it up. Its just how I work.

 

Personally, I quite like Ehrman and agree with alot of what he puts forth. I respect the man. He was a HUGE influence on me getting into my research. I owe alot to him knowledgewise, but I still can't just take him at his word.

 

to go after these arm-chair scholars who dismiss actual scholars.

Ah, I see. So he was using evolution to bash amateur scholarship. Well... I'd rather he do what I thought he did originally. Arm-chair scholars, if they actually research things and put forth evidence, and "actual scholars" (ones with degrees that make them look official) just say "actual scholars say...." without putting forth ANY evidence, shows problems on the "actual scholars" end. So either way you look at it. The "I'm an actual scholar" mindset is logically fallacious and is an appeal to authority.

 

I don't have a single doubt that this guy probably knows more about ancient Israel than me, it not even the area I'm mostly familiar with. But in order to attack anothers position, you need to attack their arguements not them, and do so with countering evidence. Which he doesn't even do once. He actually does do a good job pointing out that its still possible that Jesus existed, even given the lack of evidence, but proving that something is possible doesn't prove that it actually is. I don't hear biologists using his arguements to prove creationists wrong. No, they put forth evidence.

 

And there are plenty of scholars in the field, I'm sure, that would disagree with Ehrman's baseless assumptions. Do you believe that there was an actual garden of Eden? There actually was, it turns out, a land called Eden, right between the rivers like the Bible said. Do we assume that because of this, there was a historical Adam? Even if we discount that he was the father of humankind? Perhaps he was just the ancestor to all the jews and people in the region? I think not. And I'm sure you do as well.

 

There is more evidence for a historical Adam, than there is for a historical Jesus. Especially since now we're counting sacred texts as evidence, that were written much later.

 

And that is why the comparison to creationists challenging and dismissing the actual scientists who understand evolution. It wasn't a comparison with evolution, but with novices reading folks like ArchraS and Gerald Massey and then saying the same things creationists do in dismissing the actual experts, "They have an agenda".

I've read neither. Just curious, now that we're making an appeal to mysterious motives. What exactly is my agenda?

 

You don't see the direct correlation here? It's not about the data, it's about being a hack and dismissing experts in their field. As I said to BP awhile back which he seems blinded to, there is a difference between the opinion of a non-expert and that of an expert. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but make no mistake that opinion is not going to be as good as someone who has a depth of knowledge beyond just researching one thing on the Internet. Education matters. At least it used to is society. And that I think is the real problem. What I hear Ehrman's criticism surrounding is about this.

 

Seriously, do you fancy yourself just as qualified as Ehrman? I don't.

I don't see myself equally qualified. Nor am I going to take any expert at his word, about something we haven't seen evidence for. Its not asking for much. Expert or not, you still need to put forth evidence for anyone to accept your claims.

 

Ehrman addressed these very points in this video. Did you miss that?

No, in fact, I addressed his address above. Is it plausable, yes. But without evidence, no I can't accept it. I'm not asking for you to have "Jesus the son of Joseph" on a tomb, it could be a definitive change in burials where Jesus reportatively lived and preached or something. And for that to be traced to christian origins. Though it does have to be from his time and definitively christian. You also have to establish when exactly he lived. He did none of these things. He just made an appeal to his own authority, which comes acrossed only as arrogant.

 

Say we only knew he was crucified, but even that we don't have evidence for. He'd have to be a rebel (not a thief, so that puts problems with the crucifixion story), and were he to be one of those, would he not be known like Simon the son of the Star?

Again, this was addressed in the video.

Where?

 

And why does his story have so much in common with the stereotyped things the Mesiah was supposed to do, and so much in common with other Messiah's?

Does he really? Again, this was address in the video.

I'm not talking about the Zeitgeist bullcrap he debunked. Yeah, but I've always spoken against that.

 

Do we have the originals to Paul? No. This creates a problem. We don't know if it was written in Paul's name or actually written by him. Even the original Pauline texts. But that's still beside my point. Actually, I'm willing to concede that he existed, despite the letters being our only evidence. Hence why, despite my saying his existence isn't completely certain, I've argued as if he did. hence my op, he could've had people believe they were witness to the ressurection and were the brothers of Jesus himself. Do you believe in a historical Romulus?

 

I reject Paul for historical information. Clearly, there was an original guy behind the circulation of the letters, or so it seems. It could've been someone writing in his name, I was merely noting that possibility.

 

" You're putting forth evidence of lack? I thought you said no evidence exists? No, you are putting forth logic arguments, and there is a huge, wide gulf between that and evidence. I give you a scholar, you give me a logic argument that ignores what this scholar says. That, is exactly what creationists do."

 

One doesn't prove a negative, as a negative can't be proven. However, I have put forth evidence, in fact, that does poke holes in the idea of a historical Jesus. The video about the Jesus cult in Australia is one line of evidence. This makes it wholly possible that the "relatives of Jesus" that Paul knew and brought along with him, could've just been brainwashed converts. You've given me neither a scholar nor evidence. I've given you both the scholar and the evidence. That's far more than a creationist could do!

 

Further, you nor Ehrman haven't given me a single shred of any arguement for me to analyze. By arguement, I mean actual data that can be refuted. You both hold a position that can't be disproven. That's what creationists do!

 

I use logic, but I've put forth plenty of arguements. Ignore them as you will I guess. I've got lots more to add.

 

I can't prove your historical Jesus to not exist, if he's as gnomic as the deist God. Of course I can't prove that he doesn't exist! Neither of us can prove that he does either! When did he live? How do we know this? Because the Bible tells us so? If you rely on Paul, ironically, that's your answer.

 

As a sidenote. It was amateurs who founded microsoft. As for my being an amateur, not so much so an armchair scholar, since most of my work involves pouring over nooks in local, state, and collegiate libraries. Yeah.... guess me and Ehrman might have similar stuff to pour over. I've also got some material by him himself.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't it a historical fact that there were several Jews calling themselves Messiah (Christ)?

[Joshpantera]

I found this quote from the Vridar blog funny:

 

“But Dr. Ehrman, you’re already a Jesus mythicist; I just believe in one less mythical Jesus than you do!”

 

And that's true. Ehrman's failed doomsday prophet Jesus hypothesis is simply one more layer of an onion with no fixed core.

[mcdaddy]

and remember, xianity at its beginnings was NOT monolithic. it was early "christianities" - since there were so many variant forms at the start (apparently, from the evidence we have).

[Joshpantera]

^ Yes indeed. Doherty's article on second century apologists outlines the issue quite well: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/century2.htm

[Antlerman]

*yawn*

[mcdaddy]

*fart*

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I should've put this in the Lion's Den.

[Adam5]

I should've put this in the Lion's Den.

 

Hi BD, I think its a good subject for discussion.

 

I think when we say "historical Jesus" I mean a man may have existed as the source of the myth.

 

As we know when theists say "historical Jesus"they mean something different. They mean they know a man called Jesus existed and that the gospel accounts are accurate history.

 

And I think when those in the myth camp say Jesus doesnt exist. They dont mean a person called Jesus as a source for the founding myth is impossible. But that it is impossible to say anything concrete about a Historical jesus cause the gospels are so full of myth, contradictions, and propoganda, that there is no sound basis for accepting anything in them.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I should've put this in the Lion's Den.

 

Hi BD, I think its a good subject for discussion.

 

I think when we say "historical Jesus" I mean a man may have existed as the source of the myth.

 

As we know when theists say "historical Jesus"they mean something different. They mean they know a man called Jesus existed and that the gospel accounts are accurate history.

 

And I think when those in the myth camp say Jesus doesnt exist. They dont mean a person called Jesus as a source for the founding myth is impossible. But that it is impossible to say anything concrete about a Historical jesus cause the gospels are so full of myth, contradictions, and propoganda, that there is no sound basis for accepting anything in them.

I know that a nonsupernatural man behind the myth is meant. I'm just stating that there is no evidence for such a man. I was reading up on Tacitus, and the problem with him is that he says Chrestus, wasn't that just a greek epithet for him?

[Ouroboros]

Isn't "christ" the greek translation of "messiah"? And there were a bunch of "messiahs" in Judea pre-70 AD? If those two claims are true (i.e facts), then there were "christs" in Judea. But if any of those two claims are false, then yeah, there were no "christ" of any kind pre-70.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Isn't "christ" the greek translation of "messiah"? And there were a bunch of "messiahs" in Judea pre-70 AD? If those two claims are true (i.e facts), then there were "christs" in Judea. But if any of those two claims are false, then yeah, there were no "christ" of any kind pre-70.

Yeah, sorry I didn't respond to your earlier post. I kind of missed it until just now. Apparently, it appears that some became "spiritual messiahs" because the literal ones kept failing. Which seems to be the ancient jews beginning to doubt that they'll have a messiah in this life, so they determined that one came for the next instead. This new messianity was heavily influenced by the religions at the time, especially zoroastrianism. John the Baptist was actually one of those messiahs.