Chaucer

And yours is a confounding of the entirely secular entirely human Jesus of Nazareth model as found in the extra-Biblical sources with the gussied-up magic abracadabra figure in much of the N.T. and among traditional Christian believers. Ehrman has made it crystal clear that he subscribes to the former, not the latter, and this thread is about Ehrman.

Kindly stick to the subject.

Thank you,

Chaucer

Chaucer

Ehrman has not said that he believes Jesus rose from the dead. He's said that "some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead". That does not reflect on the credibility of the followers' claim one way or the other.

Do yourself a favor: Learn how to read.

Chaucer

mountainman

But this is also an unsupportable claim. According to the chronicles prepared by Frodo Baggins, Gandalf the Grey reappeared after falling into the Pit of Moria as Gandalf the White, and there are many witnesses - who were the followers of Gandalf - to this fact.

But in regard to this issue of credibility, why do you selectively snip, censor, and fail to respond to the evidence and references to forgery, a specific term that Ehrman himself uses in the TITLE of some of his books.



Selectively? No thanks. I think you need to deal with the implications of forgery. It's no use just censoring these again and again. The evidence of manifest pious forgery, in the form of manuscript evidence, is not going to go away.

Chaucer

I see. So you think this is one big joke. Let's see whether you're still joking about this when the ignoramuses like you are finally so numerous that they join forces with the Creationists and burn down all the libraries and laboratories and sack all the institutions devoted to historical and scientific research, when the know-nothings are finally in the saddle and can trample on the rights of students of higher learning everywhere, when the very notion of rigorous research based on DATA rather than prejudices pulled from their lordly asses will be terrorized right out of the public marketplace.

There's already one place like that I can name right away, today: it's called Texas. You want faux skeptics to build their own citadels of misinformation and of trashing anyone who really studies anything in depth; our own Texas, where we skeptics will learn under the jackboot to kowtow to the notion that verdicts precede evidence, just as in Alice In Winderland.

You're just falling in with the Texas mentality of flaming resentment against anyone who takes the trouble of specializing in any discipline at all. Let's trash the accumulated findings of disciplined historiography just as recklessly as the Creationists trash the discipline of scientific research, yeah. Pay no attention to such awkward things as facts, my no. Don't pay attention to there being no better documentation for Hannibal then there is for Jesus of Nazareth, my no. This is about payback, not about facts, yes sirree.

Facts can go screw themselves. We'll joke about them instead. Welcome to our own brave new Texas.

Chaucer

Toto

Chaucer: no one here is advocating burning down libraries or laboratories or disregarding evidence.

Would you like to discuss the evidence behind Ehrman's assertion that it is a fact that Jesus' disciples believed that he rose from the dead?

Chaucer

That's OK: Your gang has already come up with the needed ad hoc contrivances against both these earliest references, so I'm safely past the naive notion that any myther will deal honestly with either of these pieces of evidence --

-- The earliest extant version of the TF in Antiq. 18, with none of the incongruous ingredients found in the post-Agapios mss. --

Arabic Version
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; "accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders".

-- & the earliest known reference of any kind, which peer-reviewed secular scholars date from before the earliest extant gospels --

1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day

-- Of course, these are both found in texts, and texts are not kosher in the myther world.

Chaucer

Toto

You need to start by realizing that people can honestly disagree with you. Otherwise there's no point trying to discuss things.

You are quoting a text from the 10th century that is uniformly judged by both historicists and mythicists to have been tampered with. Once you admit this, you can't be sure how the text read originally. This has nothing to do with mythicism.

This passage in Paul's letters is generally regarded as part of a creed. Some scholars think that Paul incorporated it from an earlier source, but there is no actual evidence for that. (Care to cite the peer review?) But Paul never knew Jesus and doesn't tell us anything about Jesus' disciples directly.

So this evidence is rather thin. It hardly justifies labeling this as a historical fact.

Why do you say that? Earl Doherty has written a long footnoted book that relies on texts. Richard Carrier has spent his time analyzing texts. :huh:

Steven Carr

So Ehrman subscribes to the Popeye school of history?

If Jesus of Nazareth was based on a real person, he existed, just like Popeye existed?

Steven Carr

Oh God.


Chaucer is talking about dealing honestly, and then quotes a 10th century Christian Bishop who writes that Pilate sentenced Jesus to die, when speaking to Muslims who, of course, believed Pilate did not crucify Jesus.

And despite this obvious anti-Muslim writing by a 10th century Christian Bishop, Chaucer claims these are the words of a first century Jew.

hjalti

Steven Carr, your point might be valid, but what do you want Ehrman to say? "Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist, but he was based on a real person, whose name was probably Jesus and he said a lot of stuff similar to what is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, and he also got killed by the Romans like Jesus of Nazareth"?