Historical Jesus?

[davedodo007]

I have never believed that Jesus the real person existed and I have ask for Bart D Ehrman book 'Jesus interrupted' for Christmas (ho the irony.) I assume many posters don't agree with the author so with balance in mind what flaws should I be aware of.

[unkleE]

Dec 9, 2010 7:24:16 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have never believed that Jesus the real person existed and I have ask for Bart D Ehrman book 'Jesus interrupted' for Christmas (ho the irony.) I assume many posters don't agree with the author so with balance in mind what flaws should I be aware of.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know it's flaws nor its strengths. But I do know that Bart Ehrman would not agree with you that Jesus never existed as a real person - as this interview shows.

[ignorantianescia]

Hello Davedodo007,

It's true most posters here (though maybe not all) would judge the New Testament as more accurate than Bart Ehrman does. I've never read a book by Ehrman so I can't point out flaws, but I think you ought to know that he affirms the existence of Jesus (unsurprisingly, since the vast majority of non-religious NT scholars do).

[davedodo007]

Thanks to the replies so far. As an atheist I don't think Jesus was the son of god but still open on whether the man himself existed though reading up on 1st century history It seems that there is no mention of Jesus in all the surviving historical documents, (well non that would be considered a great teacher at least.) but if Ehrman can offer a different view then I'm ok with that, That said if there are any doubts about Ehrman's scholarship or research let me know as I do want to explore his angle from an open perspective?

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2010 8:06:39 GMT davedodo007 said:

As an atheist I don't think Jesus was the son of god but still open on whether the man himself existed though reading up on 1st century history It seems that there is no mention of Jesus in all the surviving historical documents,

The best book that handles the question non-biblical historical reference is Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst.

That said if there are any doubts about Ehrman's scholarship or research let me know as I do want to explore his angle from an open perspective?

One should be careful with Earman to a degree. He's not a moderate scholar, tilting to the far left of NT studies, and his recent books for the general reader are selling based on the sensationalism and the uncritical approach of non-scholars. One historian I knew told me Earman is the "third-league" (and Crossan the second).

[ignorantianescia]

Then I can tell you that although Ehrman will affirm Jesus's existence, he will view Jesus as a human teacher, which will probably to your liking.

There are a few mentions of Jesus in non-Christian texts, though there are a few issues with one (the Josephus quote seems to have been embellished by later Christian editors, but the reference is genuine) leading some people to reject the mentions altogether, but scholars don't. You might also want to read some of the articles on Bede's Library about it, some pages on "Is God Real?" and this ABC forum.

Anyway, it speaks true of you that you are spending rather a lot of time in testing your views on a subject that is probably not of the utmost importance to you. I hope you will enjoy the book.

[timoneill]

Dec 9, 2010 8:15:33 GMT @matko said:

One should be careful with Earman to a degree. He's not a moderate scholar

Translation: "He's not an arch-conservative Christian apologist, he simply looks at the evidence and interprets it objectively."

tilting to the far left of NT studies

The "far left"!!! Heavens to Betsy! Maybe he's even a socialist as well! Hide the children!

One historian I knew told me Earman is the "third-league" (and Crossan the second).

Let me guess - a conservative Christian "historian" by any chance?

[david]

Hello davedodo007!
Check the evidence for Jesus yourself and if you are in doubt check the scholary work. The existence for Jesus is so demonstrated like the existence of any other historical person. Three steps you need:
-check is there any archaeological evidence for gospels and the men mentioned in gospels
-check is there some secular evidence for Jesus(gospels are primary)
-historical impact

And after that, the we will discuss about the divinity of Jesus.

[timoneill]

Playing devil's advocate there, but too many believers play into Mythers' hands by naive and inadequate responses like this:

Dec 13, 2010 10:09:31 GMT david said:

Three steps you need:
-check is there any archaeological evidence for gospels and the men mentioned in gospels

There is zero archaeological evidence for Jesus or any of his followers. And archaeological evidence for more prominent people in the gospels like Caiaphas and Pilate tells us nothing about the existence of Jesus. Such people could be included in the stories of a totally fictional or symbolic character. So that proves nothing.

-check is there some secular evidence for Jesus(gospels are primary)

The gospels can be used to indicate that the idea Jesus existence has some plausibility, but that's about it. They are too late and too riddled with errors, later additions, supernatural nonsense and contradictions to be more than evidence of what people decades later believed about Jesus. The other secular evidence about Jesus boils down to one of the two references by Josephus (the other has been tampered with so we can't rely on it) and that's about it.

-historical impact

Irrelevant. John Frum has had a huge historical impact on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu. That doesn't mean he existed.

And after that, the we will discuss about the divinity of Jesus.

For which the evidence is even worse.

[david]

Hi, Timoneill!

I see, that you oppose world history. First:

The gospels can be used to indicate that the idea Jesus existence has some plausibility, but that's about it. They are too late and too riddled with errors, later additions, supernatural nonsense and contradictions to be more than evidence of what people decades later believed about Jesus. The other secular evidence about Jesus boils down to one of the two references by Josephus (the other has been tampered with so we can't rely on it) and that's about it.

So, if they are too late with errors and latter additions, what can you say about Alexander the great or any other historical person? Plutarch wrote about Alexander 400 years after his death and you probably believe that Alex. existed. About Roman Emperor Trajan they wrote 150 years after his death and nobody doubt on his existence, etc. And in secular texts, of ancient historians is nothing supernatural writing of Jesus. Jesus is historical person want or not.

And about historical impact, you understand wrong. I'm trying to say here, that if Jesus wasn't exist, there couldn't become Christianity the world religion. Here in west and north doe not grove anymore, but in east and south start abnormal growing, and historical impact we can see today example: a lot of peoples, some also my close friends, were chance their life because faith in Jesus. They stop using drugs, stop drinking alcohol, stop smoking, stop going into prostitution, and start love each other, just because Jesus. Schools Harvard, Princtone, Loma Linda, and lot of others they made in the name of Christianity,..... and there is a lot of more this.

And about archaeology, you have right. We can't proof, that Jesus exist. But it helps, us to have some more trust in gospels. They found persons like Pilate, Herod the great, Caphias, John the baptist and so on. There is possibility, that shroud of Turin is one evidence for Jesus, but I'm very skeptical here.

Best wishes

[ignorantianescia]

Just pointing out that Pliny and Trajan had a quite lengthy exchange of letters (including somw regarding the persecuting of Christians in Bithynia and Pontus, XCVII on the link below) which has been handed down. Trajan's own writings are therefore available.
ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_plinyltrstrajan.htm

[bjorn]

Dec 14, 2010 9:42:51 GMT david said:

Hi, Timoneill!

I see, that you oppose world history.

David:

Tim is one of the more knowledgable about history I am aware of, so I would strongly advice you not to jump to conclusions.

As he also tends not to ... hold back in such discussions, I think it is wise to be a bit more moderate in your wordings.

BTW, where are you from? Russia?

[timoneill]

Dec 14, 2010 9:42:51 GMT david said:

Hi, Timoneill!

I see, that you oppose world history.

Given that you're a newbie, that silly comment will be greeted with amusement by those here who know me. Rule Number One: When you join a new forum, get to know the regulars well before making assumptions. Or silly statements based on them.

So, if they are too late with errors and latter additions, what can you say about Alexander the great or any other historical person?

I can say precisely what I said about the gospels and Jesus: those sources are evidence of what people decades later believed about Alexander etc. Except, unlike Alexander, Caesar, Augustus etc, we have no coins, inscriptions, literary works, laws etc from Jesus. So ALL we have for Jesus is the stuff that tells us what people decades later believed about him. Spot the rather key difference.

Hell, when moronic Jesus Mythers try to pull the brain-dead "there are no contemporary mentions of Jesus" argument, I'm the one who slaps them with the reality that there are no contemporary mentions of Hannibal either. And when they try the ridiculous "the gospels were written decades after the fact" nonsense I'm the atheist who informs them that Arrian was writing centuries after Alexander yet is still a major primary source for ancient historians.

So I don't think I need a lecture from you about the nature of ancient source material, thanks all the same sonny. You, on the other hand, seem to need to get some perspective about how the gospels can be used and how they can't.

Jesus is historical person want or not.

Please try to focus. I agree that there was most likely a historical Yeshua ben Yusef. I'm trying to show you why naive, face value readings of the gospels as documentary history will leave you open to being flayed alive by the more intelligent Mythers.

And about historical impact, you understand wrong. I'm trying to say here, that if Jesus wasn't exist, there couldn't become Christianity the world religion.

Really? So thye success of Islam means Islam is true? How about the remarkable success of Mormonism, in a time period that leaves Christianity's sluggish rise in the dust - proof that Joseph Smith really saw an angel? Or the even more rapid rise of Scientology? Proof that Hubbard's bad science fiction was correct?

You don't seem to have thought this argument through.

And about archaeology, you have right. We can't proof, that Jesus exist. But it helps, us to have some more trust in gospels.

Garbage. Try to concentrate. Shirley MacLaine wrote a book in 1983 called Out on a Limb. It detailed her conversion to a range of New Age concepts and described psychic events of a nature so remarkable that if they were true then her beliefs would have to have credibility. These included healings, messages from long-dead warriors from Atlantis and someone driving a car down a mountain at night without touching the steering wheel. The book also mentioned New York, Los Angeles, Sydney, various famous actors, politicians and celebrities.

Now, does MacLaine mentioning these places and people in her autobiography mean we should accept her claims about warriors from Atlantis and past lives? And that's from a modern autobiography, not some ancient texts of unknown provenance talking about things that supposedly happened decades earlier.

Please try to think rationally.

There is possibility, that shroud of Turin is one evidence for Jesus, but I'm very skeptical here.

Glad to hear it - pity you couldn't bring yourself to be more sceptical earlier. There is zero evidence that the so-called "Shroud" is anything other than a clever Medieval fake from a period of clever Medieval fakes. The carbon dating coupled with the accounts from the time that it was a fake and the letter stating that the faker was known backs up the Medieval iconographical evidence that's it's a fake. You can take a Medievalist's word for that.

And when your argument needs to be bolstered by a Medieval fake you need to stop and question what the hell you're arguing.

Again - I believe it is most likely a historical "Jesus"/Yeshua existed. But naive and poorly considered arguments like yours just play into the hands of those who don't. I could set you in an arena of smart, well-read, multi-lingual Jesus Mythers who would rip your arguments to tiny shreds. One of the reasons they have managed to get a foothold in the debate is that the counter-arguments have been so feeble.

The flaccid arguments of Christian apologists are not helping things here. The fact that the best arguments against the Mythers are coming from atheist historians like me shows how pathetic the apologist camp is. You people really need to get your act together.

[deef]

Dec 14, 2010 11:42:40 GMT timoneill said:

The fact that the best arguments against the Mythers are coming from atheist historians like me shows how pathetic the apologist camp is. You people really need to get your act together.

What's the 'apologist camp' you're talking about here? Whom does that include?

When debating Mythers, as I do very frequently on Dutch forums, I indeed found arguments from atheists to be very effective. Not necessarily because their arguments are better, in my opinion we're all saying pretty much the same things, but because the ever-popular 'you want Jesus to exist because you're christian-argument' won't apply to them.

[david]

Hi!
First Tim if I can call you like that I'm not a newbie.
Second mybe I own you an apologize, I can see, that you are historian and I will respect you from now, cuz history and archaeology are my second love. And about Mormonism, Islam and Christianity. I don't believe in the book of Mormon from one big reason: They are saying, that the God from TBM is the same God in the bible. But if you check Mormon theology and bible theology you can see a big differenc, already in the second book of Nephi.

And about Islam. The holy Qur'an was writen in critical times, among pagans. So, the Almaghity Allah gave Moohamed(peace be with him) revelation, how to serve the real God and who is The real God, because also christianity was corrupted in this time. So holy Qur'an restore the faith in one God, but unfortunately also violence came here, this is also one reason why rapid so fast.

And I must tell you, that I always and sometimes still do watching the bible trought sceptikal lens and I always having atheistic and catholick books for more relliable like others religion books.

And about archaeology and the bible. If archaeology would be so low like archaeology in the book of Mormon, I would probably loose all faith in the bible and events mentioned there.

And I still don't know, why are you attacked those three steps mentioned above? All those steps I copied from the major historical books, on how to proof existence of historical person.

And I believe, that shorud of Turin is much more complicated, to say, that it's medival froud. Shroud was very damaged in fire and then nuns revamped the shroud, and when they made carbon tests, they were taking pieces from those medival cloths. This is one of the theory.

Thanks for the answer.