Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Ouroboros]

whatever.

Wutever.

[Ouroboros]

wow, i totally didn't read that before my above comment. just letting you all know im not stealing.

It must be a fringe idea. Everything starts as a fringe idea based on previous myths. And no person is ever the originator or original. Everyone is just a slave to the past by being fringe people. Only mythical people exists when they build their ideas on previous myths. And real people never exist because that could be terrible news for the other fringe group.

[mcdaddy]

i prefer tassels to fringe. but im a mythicist, so go figure, right?

[Ouroboros]

i prefer tassels to fringe. but im a mythicist, so go figure, right?

Well it depends on how much figure you have. Tassel might be more hassle.

 

You should check with Vogue first. I don't know their official position on this issue.

[mcdaddy]

If tassel is more hassle, then fringe is more .......singe?

 

fuck, nothing rhymes with "fringe".

[qadeshet]

 

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.... "I decide who I put the most faith in". Yes, appeal to authority fallacy right there.

 

Nonsense. Only if you are reading what the surface structures are as literal facts. And if you are, you're defintiely not understanding the use of the various textual criticisms modern scholarship employes. Rather than just offering a list of them like you 'understand them', you need to actually understand them.

 

No, Mr. Fallacy, it is not. You are in fact, not a qualified scholar. It pertains to you sitting in your arm chair and dismissing scholars based on your lack of education. If I were in fact making an actual ad hominem attack, it would be like calling you a simpleton, or something like that. I have no need to resort to those.

 

If this is the extent of your understanding why modern scholars say so, then it's not wonder you are a mythicist. You don't know the arguments, just like creationists don't know the science of evolution.

 

If all you need is the consensus of qualified Bible Scholars, then that's fine. I need Primary Evidence, contemporary accounts, Archeological evidence or inscriptions. Evidence that is contemporary with the supposed time of Jesus. Unprovenanced material written decades after supposed events need external controls for verification. If you take away all the Mythical and Legenday elements from the Gospels, nothing is left. Bible Scholars assume that there is some kind of an historical Jesus to be found in the Gospels. All the Criteria and Source Criticism in the world won't help if the Gospels are fiction. And I submit that the Gospels are nothing more than Historical Fiction. Now, do you have any actual evidence to present?

[Joshpantera]

What about the myth position presented by other members on this board instead? I'm not arguing for or against Doherty or a single dogma or creed by the Official Mythicist™ position, but rather what is being discussed by other members on this site. Pointing to Doherty or the Official Mythicist Creed or such is only a red herring. We're not talking about them. We're talking about what people are talking about here.

Ok, let's pump the brakes. This is confusing because you keep speaking to an argument that I just haven't seen before. Who here on this thread thinks that there were never any Jesus's in first century Palestine?

 

Sure. It wasn't one "Jesus". But I still maintain that the evidence points to "at least one Jesus" for parts of the story.

 

Which Jesus and which parts? It's not just many Jesus's mind you, it's John the Baptist and other figures presented as if it were coming from Jesus too. It's the case of taking various bits of biography and popular sayings of the time and cutting and pasting them together to form Jesus the Nazarene, then it was copied from Mark to the other synoptics. Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being who has little biographical detail and most of which is highly suspect as later interpolation. Paul's Jesus is the least historical of all, and yet the earliest to be written about. The evolution seems to be from a mythical idea about a heavenly savior being to adding historical depth in Mark to bring this esoteric belief down the exoteric minds of the common people, and yet it's still an allegory even at that time. The metaphors and allegories become literalized in interpretation for the sake of proselyzation and keeping the inner mysteries for those who rise through the levels of initiation...

[Ouroboros]

If tassel is more hassle, then fringe is more .......singe?

 

fuck, nothing rhymes with "fringe".

I like it.

[Ouroboros]

"Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" By G.R.S. Mead

Here are the many Jesus's mentioned by Josephus throughout his works along with citations:

1. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322

2. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300

3. Jesus, or Jason – High priest. Ant 12.239

4. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134

5. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239

6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223

7. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325

8. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203

9. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204

10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459

11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450

12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387

13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234

14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200

15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063

16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105

17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200

Ant.

03:049 (numerous) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.

11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]

11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.

12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus

12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.

12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.

15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)

15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.

17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.

18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.

20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.

20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.

20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.

20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.

20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

War

2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.

3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae

3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.

4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.

4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.

6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.

6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Life

1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.

1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.

1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?

1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.

1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

Josephus: The Complete Works Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus in Greek

Flavius Josephus

 

[mcdaddy]

Jesus, thats alot of Jesuses.

[Ouroboros]

Jesus, thats alot of Jesuses.

There's no evidence of anyone of them. They're all myth.

[mcdaddy]

Well, none of them are being accused of being god either.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, let's pump the brakes. This is confusing because you keep speaking to an argument that I just haven't seen before. Who here on this thread thinks that there were never any Jesus's in first century Palestine?

Actually, what I was really discussing last started with this one:

 

 

 

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

Neither were really fringe ideas.

 

I just didn't like the idea of Evolution or Theory of Gravity or most of our scientific discoveries to be "fringe" ideas. They were revolutionary, and sometimes fought against to some degree. But the term "Fringe" science has a meaning that is very far from sound science, even when it's new.

 

You picked up on that thread of discussion and it spun out of control into back to the historicity of Jesus. It wasn't really were I started with that part. And it wasn't even with you.

 

Sure, go ahead, call it fringe science whenever scientists make breakthroughs. I think it's a misleading term.

 

Which Jesus and which parts? It's not just many Jesus's mind you, it's John the Baptist and other figures presented as if it were coming from Jesus too. It's the case of taking various bits of biography and popular sayings of the time and cutting and pasting them together to form Jesus the Nazarene, then it was copied from Mark to the other synoptics. Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being who has little biographical detail and most of which is highly suspect as later interpolation. Paul's Jesus is the least historical of all, and yet the earliest to be written about. The evolution seems to be from a mythical idea about a heavenly savior being to adding historical depth in Mark to bring this esoteric belief down the exoteric minds of the common people, and yet it's still an allegory even at that time. The metaphors and allegories become literalized in interpretation for the sake of proselyzation and keeping the inner mysteries for those who rise through the levels of initiation...

Yes. So there were historical Jesuses. Ehrman is wrong in the singular form. But it's not wrong with the plural.

[Ouroboros]

Well, none of them are being accused of being god either.

Well, that was how the myth was evolved.

 

I think Julius Caesar and other ones were given godlike things too. I think some of them did miracles. There were miracles around Buddha too. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln were a vampire slayer.

[mcdaddy]

LETS JUST AGREE TO AGREE WITH MY POSITION , OK??

[Joshpantera]

6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.

This is cleary not the NT Jesus from Nazareth in total, but the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple could have easily been lifted off of this reference in Josephus by the NT writers whose works don't appear until the second century. Lots of different bits of biographical mention could be combined to come up with a hodge podge character who himself was never historical in the first place, not from Nazareth as Ehrman asserts...

[Ouroboros]

LETS JUST AGREE TO AGREE WITH MY POSITION , OK??

Shit! Argument from CAPS. U killz me! U win.

[Ouroboros]

6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.

This is cleary not the NT Jesus from Nazareth in total, but the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple could have easily been lifted off of this reference in Josephus by the NT writers whose works don't appear until the second century. Lots of different bits of biographical mention could be combined to come up with a hodge podge character who himself was never historical in the first place, not from Nazareth as Ehrman asserts...

And I said it earlier, I think Ehrman is probably going too far in his assertion.

[mcdaddy]

its like "dynamite" in rock/paper/scissors. its unbeatable.

 

unless you play scissors. it cuts the fuse.

[Ouroboros]

its like "dynamite" in rock/paper/scissors. its unbeatable.

 

unless you play scissors. it cuts the fuse.

What about magic missile? Or bitch slap. That's the best one. No one sees that one coming...

[mcdaddy]

BITCH SLAP. i will HAVE to use that one.

[mcdaddy]

backhand is still the correct form, right? I would hate to embarrass myself by bitchslapping someone with improper technique.

[Ouroboros]

backhand is still the correct form, right? I would hate to embarrass myself by bitchslapping someone with improper technique.

Not sure. I think it's open hand for bitchslap and backhand for challenge to duel in the break of dawn.

[mcdaddy]

backhand is still the correct form, right? I would hate to embarrass myself by bitchslapping someone with improper technique.

Not sure. I think it's open hand for bitchslap and backhand for challenge to duel in the break of dawn.

 

I think that's correct. Boy, I'm glad I asked!

[mwc]

There's no evidence of anyone of them. They're all myth.

So you would place the gospels in the same category as Antiquities and Wars?

 

mwc