mountainman

But it is entirely to be expected that Ehrman ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented the arguments, based on the evidence or lack of it, that Jesus did not exist in the historical sense.

Ehrman has an extremely transparent agenda.

He is not writing as an historian.

He is writing as an Historical Jesus preacher.

He has yet to demonstrate that he can address all the negative evidence against his own claims.


Negative Evidence

"Is there any other point to which you wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night time."
"That was the curious incident", remarked Sherlock Holmes.

~ "Silver Blaze", by Sir Arthur Conon Doyle

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

You seem unfamiliar with the stories of Jesus.

You seem unfamiliar with the mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans

People of antiquity did argue that the Holy Ghost was a figure of history and was the father of Jesus.

If the Holy Ghost never existed then it would be extremely unlikely that the Jesus cult would have publicly declared and documented that Jesus was born after the Holy Ghost impregnated a Virgin.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Ignatius Epistles to the Ephesians, Aristides' Apology, Justin's First Apology, Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ, Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Origen's De Principiis and Eusebius' Church History.

Please, the Holy Ghost and the Son of the same Spirit was a figure of history in antiquity and were considered just as real as David or Adam.

If people of antiquity knew that the Holy Ghost could not have had a son then it would not make any sense for the Jesus cult to have made such a claim for hundreds of years.

Even the Emperor of Rome and the Senate did accept that the Holy Ghost could have a son called Jesus for at least 1600 years.


Ignatius' Ephesians 18Matthew 1:18 CEB It is clear to me that Ehrman's attempt to argue for an historical Jesus has been a total failure and that the HJ argument has finally collapsed on itself.


There is nothing in the history of mankind about Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul at all in the history of antiquity outside of Apologetics.

Ehrman was forced to use the very same admitted discredited sources for his Jesus of Nazareth.

aa5874

Your claim is not only erroneous but now appears to be deliberately mis-leading because you should be aware of the earliest version of the Jesus story found in the Sinaiticus gMark.

The earliest stories of Jesus state precisely that Jesus used to walk on the sea of Galilee and that he transgfigured in the presence of his disciples Peter, James and John.

Please, we have gMark. It has been recovered.

The activities of Jesus in gMark is NOT those of a man.

Mark 6 Mark 9
By the way, when did David exist?

David had a son named Jesus of Nazareth?

Isn't David Jewish Mythology??

It is most amazing that some here make claims about David without a shred of corroborative evidence.

David is in a far worse historical condition than Jesus of Nazareth born of some kind of Sinless Ghost.

Tommy

These are very strong points against the argument that ancient skeptics never apparently disputing the existance of Christ is significant. The window to mythicism in my heart remains ajar

An assumption seemingly built into the HJ position is that the gospel timelines are basically reliable rather than latterly constructed around Paul's description and/or a mythical kernel. This assumption would make it harder to imagine the flourishing of Xianity in the latter C1 without a remembered founder.

Tommy

Well, that`s as maybe. The argument I paraphrase above seemed to be the strongest point in an evangelical critique by Darrell Bock of Robert Price`s mythicist position and thus worth mentioning

(Beilby, J. and Eddy, P., 2009, The historical Jesus, Five views (or via: amazon.co.uk), Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Chili

That's the whole point, it was the rebirth of Joseph who was the Jew this happened to, and Jesus was the second Adam in him.

Huh? A nomad from the desert started peddling second hand hoppers, camelhair coat and all, and you believe anything he wrote?

And do you not think that he should wear Hebrew coat if he had anything to worthwhile to say?

And is that the shit you wallow in?

aa5874

The Jesus cult originated from Mythology.

The Jesus cult originated from the Belief in the Holy Ghost.

People of antiquity did NOT argue that the Holy Ghost did NOT exist.

Again, may I remind you of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

In gLuke and Acts of the Apostles the Jesus cult started without an historical Jesus.

Jesus was in a cloud or had ascended or was in heaven or some unknown mythological mansion.

Again, read gLuke 24, Acts 1 and Acts 2.

The Resurrected Jesus told his disciples to Wait for the promised Holy Ghost.

I did not make it up.

People of antiquity must have accepted that the Holy Ghost was a figure of history and an actual powerful being that existed.

Why would the authors of Acts and gLuke claim that the Holy Ghost must FIRST come and would give power to the disciples to preach the Gospel if people of antiquity did NOT accept the Holy Ghost as a figure of history?

Luke 24:49 KJV The Jesus cult could not have started with an historical Jesus but with an "historical" Holy Ghost--perfect mythology.

Acts 2 Please, examine gJohn.

John 14:26 KJV The author claimed Jesus MUST first go away, must first go to heaven before the Holy Ghost would come.

John 16:7 KJV Jesus was NEVER needed for the Jesus cult of Christians it was the Holy Ghost.

Effectively, the Jesus cult NEEDED Mythology for its initiation.

It is documented and was taught publicly in the Roman Empire for hundreds of years and was accepted by Constantine and the Roman Senate.

Examine an excerpt from the Nicene Creed of the Romans over 1600 years ago.

[u]
Jesus and the Holy Ghost are ONE.

Jesus and God are One.

John 10:30 KJV Jesus and Mythology are truly ONE.

It is documented and was publicly taught in the Roman Empire for hundreds of years.

Nobody argued that the Holy Ghost did NOT exist and could NOT have a son--Not even Constantine the Emperor of Rome.

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth by Ehrman is completely baseless and hopelessly contradictory.

At one time in "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claimed the Gospels were among the best attested books of antiquity but in the very same chapter admitted the New Testament accounts of Jesus are riddled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small.

See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" page 180, 182 and page 184.

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth cannot recover or be maintained.

The Jesus cult of Christians was started by the Holy Ghost-by Mythology.

Clivedurdle

Isn't this ancient?

Chili

It is not possible for Jesus to be a lover of the world nor is it possible for him to accept [erotic] love from the world [below] since he was called to order as second Adam at the point in life when Joseph had reached the end of his world where desire came to a dead stop, and consequently this turn-around in life was made.

It actually means that Jesus as role player in the mind of Joseph (second Adam called insurrectionist), made a stand against the first Adam (that we call conversion), wherein She meets him at the gate of Eden where she was 'stationed' to be on the look-out for him, to see just when the end of his world was reached . . . and she would snatch him there to make him hers and actually raised the kundalini to make him hers while still in the material world [below]. This so is where 'sage impotence' begins now as true to only her.*

This is not 'maybe stuff' that so made Paul a slave to Christ as well with Magdalene put on park and now a greater love is sought, where in the next step the kundalini is to be raised from the heart to the head where this greater woman is at and be with her forever more. This so is where eros is not known except as the playground for humans while they are entertained by the folly of hu-mans [down below], but [maybe] are just not part of it.

This so is where celibacy becomes part of the vow to make as suffering servant among humans to demonstrate this end in sight, that in turn also would be a contradiction without this vow in force and hence is reinforced by them.

We call this purgatory stuff that they named Galilee as 'called and chosen' to become a God all on our own, where this time now She will take the 'saved sinner' home to be with her but must crucify the sinner first.

* It is fair to say that this final end in destiny holds the essence of virginity in females (first-hand to them), and the essence of integrity for males to find the greater love they intuit but must leave home to find it on their own first hand to them (as foreshadowed in Gen. 2:24).

Chili

A good reading should tell you that Christ never was part of the show but was identified only by Peter when he said: "are you not the promised one" that we are looking for? (my paraphrase to show). To this Jesus replied to tell no-one that he was the Christ and so really never was part of it until after Jesus was crucified, and later, Jesus was placed subservient to Christ and was rightfully called Christ-Jesus now after the 'Christ' was revealed from upon the cross by Jesus there.

So it was Peter who moved to Rome and they just left Jesus hanging there, as if the say: he is not ours nor will he ever be in the Church Militant that actually must keep him at bay and just left him hanging there to say just that.

And notice please that John took 'woman' under his care: "Woman there is your son" and did not call her Mary as the living-theotokos who is kin to woman each generation anew, and thus by whom also her gown is made each generation to show that she is Mary and not 'the woman' she contains. This actually is why Golgotha is just outside the city and not within, and for example is why Corioli was next to Rome for Coliolanus there.