dog-on

You can bring forward as many historical Jesus models as there are NT Historians.

The question will always be; what evidence do you really have to prefer one over another, or indeed any of them over none of them?

schriverja

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I believe Ehrman's view that there was a historical Jesus that the NT was based upon, but he seems to not think it is a necessarily accurate depiction of who/how that historical person actually was. This is my take after reading Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities . Also listening to Intro to New Testament studies course available from Open Yale University, taught by Dale Martin, who seems thinks highly of Ehrman's scholarship.

You can listen to the lecture series yourself for free at open yale religious studies

Jonathon Wilder

No, I'm not sure you understand, I plan on using Bart Ehrman research to prove that their was a Jesus Christ, or at least use him as my start.

schriverja

Oh, I understand. I'm just saying that if you read his books I'm not sure that you will come to the conclusion that Ehrman thinks we have accurate information about a historical Jesus. Ehrman thinks that the historical Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet living in the 1st century. Beyond that, he doesn't make any claims (that I am aware of) to the anything more than that... In other words, if you had Ehrman in a room and could ask him how much useful information about Jesus is contained in the NT, and he would say "very little". Here's a clip (unfortunately defile by a muslim apologist) from the man himself detailing how unreliable, historically-speaking, the Bible is...

Toto

You could have saved a lot of time by stating this at the beginning.

Ehrman has done no research to prove that there was a historical Jesus. His specialty is the analysis of early Christian texts, not ancient history. Most people here respect his work on Christian texts and his rejection of the evangelical faith that he started with, but that does not make him god.

Like most of his colleagues, Ehrman seems to think that the New Testament is sufficent evidence of a historical Jesus, even though it consists of unreliable, highly mythologized tales written at least a generation after Jesus was supposed to have lived and died.

There was a Jesus Project a few years ago that aimed to examine the actual historical evidence for Jesus. Ehrman declined to participate.

aa5874

Please start.

I eagerly await your plan to prove there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified as a blasphemer and eventually worshiped as a God before the Fall of the Temple.

Juststeve

Using Ehrman to “prove an historical Jesus”, as the thread starter would have it seems to be an argument from authority, a well known fallacy. Sort of like Jesus existed because Ehrman thinks he did. Not a very good argument.

Steve

Juststeve

aa5874:

You set the historical Jesus bar pretty high, to prove something about the pre-70CE state of affairs when we all know that there are no surviving relevant documents from that time. Additionally believing in an historical Jesus does not require one to affirm that he was crucified as a blasphemer. I don’t read the Gospels as saying that and it seems unlikely to me that the Roman crucified him for blaspheming the Hebrew God. Why would they care?

A question for you. By what date do you think at least some people were worshiping Jesus?

Steve

Loomis

That’s begging the question.

Isn’t it?

aa5874

It is the description in the NT of Jesus of Nazareth that MUST be used. You cannot discard the written statements about Jesus as fiction and still claim that Jesus was NOT fictional/mythical.

People who propose that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure history MUST show by whatever means that the Jesus story is FUNDAMENTALLY true.

It must shown within reason that:

1. Jesus did exist and had a mother named Mary.

2. Jesus did at least live with or was known or believed to be the son of a carpenter called Joseph.

3. It was believed or known that Jesus performed miracles.

4. It was known or believed that Jesus walked on water and could transform his appearance.

5. Jesus was crucified when he was around 30 years old under Pilate sometime about the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

6. Jesus was known or believed to have been raised from the dead after the third day.

7. Jesus was seen or believed to have been seen by the disciples after his resurrection.

8. Jesus was known or believed to have ascend through clouds on his way to heaven.

9. Jesus was ACTUALLY worshiped as a God by Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

10. Jews called Jesus the Messiah and that he had the ability to REMIT their SINS.

People who propose that Jesus of Nazareth did exist MUST have corroborative historical sources external of the Church and the NT Canon; that is a BASIC standard requirement.

The external corroborative sources for the Synoptic, Johanine and Pauline Jesus Messiah BEFORE the Fall of the Temple are completely missing.