mountainman

In his new book for the converted Ehrman makes the claim that the idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion, and in fact was made up in the 18th century. Here are a few quotes:


What sort of crystal ball does Ehrman use to make this claim?
He does not appear to substantiate many claims with any evidence.

So what is the evidence? Is this an argument from silence?


Can the claim be proven with evidence?
Can the claim be disproven with evidence?


In the undated and unsigned canonical letters of an unkown John, it is plainly stated that there were many people around and about who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." If many people were of the opinion that Jesus did not appear in the flesh, then how can Ehrman claim that the idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion?

Is there anyone out there who knows anyone who does not appear in the flesh, yet exists?
And please, spare the Bilbo Baggins jokes.

outhouse

well generally doesnt one provide the info to refute Bart, if one has a problem with his findings.???

Its not a arguement from silence.


I believe he is basing this off the first, second, and third quest for understanding historical jesus

outhouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus



Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus

Traditionally, Western scholars considered the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be authoritative and inspired by God, but, starting in the late 18th century, scholars began to submit the Gospels to historical scrutiny. From 1744 to 1767, Hermann Samuel Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but did not publish his findings.[165][166] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.[14] D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.[14] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.[167] Joseph Renan was the first to portray Jesus simply as a human person.[14] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.[14] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.[14] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.[14] Albert Schweitzer[168] showed how modern histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.[14] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.[6] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.[14] The 80s saw the founding of the controversial Jesus Seminar.[169] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever, thanks to better knowledge of 1st-century Judaism, a rebirth of Roman Catholic scholarship, the acceptance of historical methods across denominations, literary analysis of Jesus' sayings, and sociological insights.[14] However, Scot McKnight has said that the latest quest for the historical Jesus is dead

outhouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

During the first three centuries some Christian sects claimed Jesus Christ did not exist as a physical being. Docetists held the view that Jesus Christ only seemed to exist (their name was derived from the Greek word dokes, meaning "to seem"). To the Docetists Jesus existed as an incorporeal phantasm, a pure spirit and hence could not physically die. [38]

Marcion of Sinope (c.100-c.160) promoted the doctrine that "Jesus did not really take human flesh. He was not even born, but simply appeared on earth during the reign of Tiberius. He was a celestial being with the appearance of a human body." [39] To Marcion there was a contrast between Yahweh, the Evil God of the Old Testament and the Good God of the New Testament who sent his son Jesus to redeem mankind. Marcion believed that matter was evil and spirit was good and that was why he rejected the physical substance of Christ.

The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by some biblical scholars during the modern era; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies though Volney felt that confused memories of an obscure historical figure might have integrated into this already existing solar mythology.[40][41]

In the first half of the 20th century, the views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works, like those of Philo for example, to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[42]

According to Cambridge theologian Graham Stanton, the scholarly mainstream rejects the myth thesis,[43] and, in 1934, Quaker biblical scholar Herbert George Wood identified serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[44][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[45] According to Gordon Stein, however, the issue is still far from settled.[46]

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by John M. Allegro, George Albert Wells,[47] Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price and the idea has been popularized in the early 21st century by some of the writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, representing the New Atheism movement.

aa5874

Bart Ehrman is NOT Credible.

Bart Ehrman is ATTEMPTING to re-write history.

It is the QUEST for an historical Jesus that was started about 250 years ago.

Bart Ehrman does NOT realize that the QUEST for an Historical Jesus has been DOCUMENTED.

NO historical Jesus has been ever IDENTIFIED from since the SEARCH for an historical Jesus started because of LACK of CREDIBLE sources.

Nothing has changed. The same forgeries in Josephus have been Exposed and the NT is NOT credible and is WITHOUT a Shred of corroboration for Jesus as human with a human father.

The SEARCH for an HJ continues. This is the THIRD QUEST.

mountainman

Possible exceptions:


1) 325 CE: The five sophisms of Arius

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

2) c.350 CE: Docetism and other references within the The Nag Hammadi Codices

The Interpretation of Knowledge: NHC 11.1 -

"But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive."

3) 361 CE: "Against the Galilaeans" - Emperor Julian.

the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

4) c.450 CE: The heretical ex-archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius

I see many who strongly insist
on these [theories of fiction]
as something [based] on
the truth and ancient opinion.

5) ??? CE: The Letters of "John"

Many there were who would "refuse to confess that Jesus appeared in the flesh"

a) Does anyone have any further possible sources?

b) Does anyone feel strongly that any of the above 5 sources should be scrubbed off this list? If so, please present your reasons.

outhouse

everything you have here is so old its useless in reconstructing a historical jesus.

really your dealing with different ancient opinions of the mythical biblical jesus by people who have less understanding of what really happend then we do

LegionOnomaMoi

Sure. Arianism and its founder never thought Jesus didn't come to earth. Neither did other so-called "gnostic" groups, including those whose understanding of Jesus would fall under the category docetism (a doctrine which stated Jesus only appeared to be human, but was not, and did not have anything to do with whether he actually was on earth).

As for Julian, who was trying to revert back to a (now "christianized")paganism, the fiction is the religion, not the historical person of Jesus.

We actually have an earlier refutation against christianity preserved in a refutation of it (contra celsum). Celsus never states that Jesus didn't exist. Quite the opposite. He tells us Jesus was a nobody, the product of adultery and the son of a roman soldier.

If you know of an ancient source which held that Jesus never existed (rather than that he only appeared to be human) than by all means cite it. Nothing you've cited so far actually claims this.

mountainman

The claim that is being discussed here is the claim that the idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern idea, and every source about Big J. before the 18th century assumes he existed.

outhouse

understood

but as it was pointed out to you. They were making statements of biblical jesus and his mythical nature, not stating he never existed at all.