“Yes, ‘for/because of’ would be accurate. It is a figurative statement meaning that many others died ‘for/because of’ their faith or lack of a professed faith in many Gods”
Believers in Zeus willingly laid down their lives for maintaining that Zeus was a divine figure even though they knew he was a mythical figure? Where can your position on this be supported?
prestonp said
“There is no hoax involved and no one was lying.” rosekHe was god and rose from the dead?
No, Jesus was not god and no, he did not rise from the dead and there was no hoax and no one lying. It is a mistake to think that if Jesus wasn’t god and didn’t rise from the dead therefore the early Christians were lying. When Jesus died it caused many Galileans to remember the itinerant preacher and when he came to their town. This by the way would be a great title for a book, The Day Jesus Came to Town, and some of the early chapters of Mark actually tell a similar story.
The Galileans remembered Jesus as a teacher and told stories of his sayings. His death was not the important part because death in the Jerusalem of the Roman Empire era was not particularly unexpected or startling. Q and the Gospel of Thomas have many of these memories written down but much later thus including how the stories evolved in the process of the oral tradition. Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ follower Peter felt there was much more to Jesus’ life and death and their beliefs, not lies but beliefs, led to a Jewish Messianic sect. They felt that Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God and was a great prophet and Messiah on par with Moses and Elijah. James and Peter believed that Jesus would return one day as the Messiah.
In Samaria, the Galilean memories of Jesus as a teacher became a part of the Jewish wisdom tradition and eventually led to the Gospel of Thomas and the gnostic books of later years. In Syria the memories were interpreted in a Jewish Hellenistic environment and then a gentile pagan environment. Visions of the risen Jesus were seen and the Christology of that area began interpreting Jesus as the Son of God contrasting his story with the emperor cult and later elevated him to full deity.
This is too schematic for a very fluid and changing situation as different interpretations of Jesus’ life and death influenced each other almost from the very beginning but one thing is clear, lying was not involved. Many people in many areas held sincere beliefs, not lies, and these beliefs were different in different cultures, countries, languages and religious background. Beliefs are not the same as historical realities.
Rosekeister said
prestonp said
“There is no hoax involved and no one was lying.” rosekHe was god and rose from the dead?
No, Jesus was not god and no, he did not rise from the dead and there was no hoax and no one lying. It is a mistake to think that if Jesus wasn’t god and didn’t rise from the dead therefore the early Christians were lying. When Jesus died it caused many Galileans to remember the itinerant preacher and when he came to their town. This by the way would be a great title for a book, The Day Jesus Came to Town, and some of the early chapters of Mark actually tell a similar story.
The Galileans remembered Jesus as a teacher and told stories of his sayings. His death was not the important part because death in the Jerusalem of the Roman Empire era was not particularly unexpected or startling. Q and the Gospel of Thomas have many of these memories written down but much later thus including how the stories evolved in the process of the oral tradition. Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ follower Peter felt there was much more to Jesus’ life and death and their beliefs, not lies but beliefs, led to a Jewish Messianic sect. They felt that Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God and was a great prophet and Messiah on par with Moses and Elijah. James and Peter believed that Jesus would return one day as the Messiah.
In Samaria, the Galilean memories of Jesus as a teacher became a part of the Jewish wisdom tradition and eventually led to the Gospel of Thomas and the gnostic books of later years. In Syria the memories were interpreted in a Jewish Hellenistic environment and then a gentile pagan environment. Visions of the risen Jesus were seen and the Christology of that area began interpreting Jesus as the Son of God contrasting his story with the emperor cult and later elevated him to full deity.
This is too schematic for a very fluid and changing situation as different interpretations of Jesus’ life and death influenced each other almost from the very beginning but one thing is clear, lying was not involved. Many people in many areas held sincere beliefs, not lies, and these beliefs were different in different cultures, countries, languages and religious background. Beliefs are not the same as historical realities.
How do you know he didn’t rise from the dead?
Perhaps better late than never…
Jesus probably did exist but I’ll grant to the myth proponents it is a close call. I understand from, I believe Hauer and Youngs Intro to the Bible, two credible sources are sufficient to demonstrate an historical person. So, Antiquities 20, 9, 1 (about James the brother of Jesus) is one and Tacitus comment about who Christians are makes a weak two. Both are weak to me because neither are contemporary… But, I was trained as an accountant and auditor so my evidentiary views are probably too strict in this regard. There were too few histories being written at that time to really expect something contemporaneous.
I suspect most legends have some grain of historical truth in them somewhere. I also doubt few peoples as a group invented more “stuff” and wrote it down as history than the Hebrews. But, still the simplest and most likely explanation seems to be Jesus existed, as a charismatic preacher, was crucified dead and buried in a common pit, was remembered and spoken of often by followers until one said, I loved him so much I thought I saw him yesterday… well if he loved him so much he saw him yesterday, I did too…. by the time it got to Paul, Jesus was the resurrected Messiah, exalted son of God which Paul turned into a source of immortality for all who believed…. If you don’t think that was powerful In a world where for most life was very hard, consider the motivation eternal paradise has for the suicide bombers of today!
Rosekeister said
prestonp said
Pete is one of the alleged perpetrators of the hoax. He dies rather than saying, “Okay boys. You got me. I was just playin! You all took me too seriously. I’ll be going now.”There is no hoax involved and no one was lying. After Jesus’ death, different groups interpreted his life and death in many ways. His life and death was interpreted in different cultures, different countries and different languages. What became accepted as orthodox was interpretation by gentiles speaking Greek in Syria, Greece and Rome in contrast to Jesus who was Jewish speaking Aramaic in Galilee.
Christology and deification trivialize the very human Jesus. They drain any meaning from his very human death by turning him into a magician who did tricks for the crowds and died knowing he was just returning to heaven as God. Mark describes Jesus’ death as someone dying feeling forsaken by God. Jesus died a human death that we all face and that is where meaning can be found.
“Small wonder, then, that forgers wrote so many Gospels, epistles, apocalypses, and other works in the names of apostles.” Dr Bart
“And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.” Dr Bart
Why would forgerers seeking to achieve a degree of authority, write the gospels in the names of dead men?
If the forgerers who wrote the new testament and claimed that Christ rose from the dead, healed people, etc., were telling the truth, there wasn’t a hoax. But, if they weren’t telling the truth, there wasn’t a hoax?
prestonp said
“Yes, ‘for/because of’ would be accurate. It is a figurative statement meaning that many others died ‘for/because of’ their faith or lack of a professed faith in many Gods”Believers in Zeus willingly laid down their lives for maintaining that Zeus was a divine figure even though they knew he was a mythical figure? Where can your position on this be supported?
I have toured the catacombs in Italy more than once. May I suggest that most died believing Jesus was Christ. Many died believing Zeus was real, the same is true of many Gods. Azeus
{Azeus, “Many died believing Zeus was real,”
pp You mean many died “for/because of” their faith that zeus lived?}
{Azeus “Yes, ‘for/because of’ would be accurate. It is a figurative statement meaning that many others died ‘for/because of’ their faith or lack of a professed faith in many Gods”}
Believers in Zeus willingly laid down their lives for maintaining that Zeus was a divine figure even though they knew he was a mythical figure? Where can your position on this be supported? pp
Any luck finding evidence of believers in Zeus sacrificing their lives due to their faith in Him as a real figure?
prestonp said
Any luck finding evidence of believers in Zeus sacrificing their lives due to their faith in Him as a real figure?
Yes preston I have, and many others who laid down their lives for beliefs in other gods. You will have to actually read something other than what supports your beliefs. I am not interested in having a debate with someone that continues to hold the same position regardless of how many people try to get them engaged in educating themselves. Obviously, you have not actually read any of the books Bart Ehrman has published. I will assume your God can actually read this post as well if you make the claim that you have. May I suggest you actually sit down and read a whole book by Ehrman. I do not agree with everything he says either preston, but at I know why. You have exposed yourself as nothing more than an amature apologist lacking any real understanding of Biblical scholarship. Several others have encouraged you to engage in an open minded discussion about this topic. I get it preston, God is great, he is the only living God, and Jesus Christ has delivered to you salvation through his love and sacrifice. You win, you are right, and your position is the only one that could possibly be correct. Now that I have been converted by your incessant ranting I will move on. Have a nice life, may peace and joy be yours. I will not respond to your posting any longer because you are just too full of facts for me to lead astray. Best Regards.
Azeus, thank you for your comments…I have read many of Bart’s books and found them very educational. I cannot contribute much to a scholarly conversation on the bible. Yours and others comments are very interesting and worthy of discussion I am looking forward to reading some of the topics and hopefully contribute in some way.
What I have read has sparked my questioning of many beliefs, some of mine which I did not realize I even had. I simply had never asked the questions about religion, beliefs and how we respond to them.
Azeus said
prestonp said
Any luck finding evidence of believers in Zeus sacrificing their lives due to their faith in Him as a real figure?Yes preston I have, and many others who laid down their lives for beliefs in other gods. You will have to actually read something other than what supports your beliefs. I am not interested in having a debate with someone that continues to hold the same position regardless of how many people try to get them engaged in educating themselves. Obviously, you have not actually read any of the books Bart Ehrman has published. I will assume your God can actually read this post as well if you make the claim that you have. May I suggest you actually sit down and read a whole book by Ehrman. I do not agree with everything he says either preston, but at I know why. You have exposed yourself as nothing more than an amature apologist lacking any real understanding of Biblical scholarship. Several others have encouraged you to engage in an open minded discussion about this topic. I get it preston, God is great, he is the only living God, and Jesus Christ has delivered to you salvation through his love and sacrifice. You win, you are right, and your position is the only one that could possibly be correct. Now that I have been converted by your incessant ranting I will move on. Have a nice life, may peace and joy be yours. I will not respond to your posting any longer because you are just too full of facts for me to lead astray. Best Regards.
Is any one able to offer evidence that believers in Zeus died for their faith in him, knowing all the while he wasn’t divine?
I tend to agree that Jesus was not God and never claimed to be God. I believe his followers followed the lead of the pagans and put “God” on his name much the same way the Caesars were believed to be gods. I do believe there was a historical Jesus who taught that God’s kingdom (Empire) was emerging among them. I have read that for some time after the formation of the Way, the followers of Jesus did care for the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit those in prison. But they later lost the vision that Jesus taught and the religion they founded deteriorated into a kind of chaos. It really hasn’t emerged from that state since. The closest today may be AA.
asjsdpjk said
What would constitute evidence that jesus didn’t exist?
I guess that by dismantling all existing sources as fictional tales/forgeries then one could conclude that Jesus was just a fictional character.
However, beside the fact that mythicists’ arguments are often circular, I wonder why they never faced the fact that we have no evidence of any ancient polemics regarding Jesus’ existence. Apocryphal Gospels (jewish-christians, gnostics, docetists, etc.) do not deny his existence; Jewish and Pagan polemics against Christianity covered topics such as the resurrection (e.g. Jesus body was stolen), the virgin birth (e.g. Jesus father was a Roman soldier who raped Mary), the miracles (e.g.: healings/exorcisms happened but they were just evil magic), etc. etc.
Wouldn’t have been easier for them to simply challenge Jesus’ existence if they thought there were reasons to do so? To put it positively, all the available sources (including anti-christian sources) assume Jesus’ existence. It’s therefore tough, in my opinion, to build an argument against Jesus’ existence without being highly speculative.
asjsdpjk said
What would constitute evidence that jesus didn’t exist?
First off, thank you Mary for the kind words. I hope you continue to add your comments and thoughts.
The question of what would constitute evidence that Jesus didn’t exist. That’s a good question and one often asked. I wish I had a great answer to it. Maybe someone in this blog will help with one. The most common response to that question from those that do not believe he did is: The burden of proof is on those that claim he did. If I claim that something ‘is’ and whatever that ‘is’ makes extraordinary claims, I should have extraordinary evidence to support it. Albeit true, I find that answer incomplete.
I can not ‘prove’ that he didn’t exist. I can not ‘prove’ that he didn’t walk on water. What I can do is explain the reasons there is no credible evidence to believe he did. That is also true of Krishna, Xenu, Istanu, Aramazd, or Aeons for that matter. There are some previous Gods we can say most certainly do not exist. Atlas more than likely does not hold the world on this shoulders and so forth. It is an old worn out argument used by many apologists to cast doubt. It simply carries no weight in critical thinking. Because we can not prove thousands of Gods and Deities do not exist, is no evidence at all that they do.
Bart believes, as I understand it, that he did exist. On this particular point he and I disagree. If archaeologists unearthed documents stating that a person or group of people had made the whole thing up, I would be just as skeptical of those documents. They would have to provide supporting evidence that they were authentic and the claim plausible.
What apologists can not seem to be open enough to consider is, the existence of their own bias. They will use every form of deceptive action possible to keep chanting the same mantra. They will change usernames, pretend to agree for a while, and mislead people in every form imaginable. They do not see this as lying. They simply can not separate their theology and belief from critical thinking and historical analysis.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I am assembling a 5 part series on case for the Historical Jesus as well as present an introduction to mythicism and how it all got started.
My work is VERY amateur, but I think it gets my point across rather well. I’m not attempting to take away from Dr. Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist” but hope to take a broader point for the sake of history where mythicists often get it wrong.
Dr. Ehrman, if you are seeing this post, I hope you don’t mind. (I am using course material from Yale Divinity School and not UNC Chapel Hill).
Here is my link to the first video … and more to come in time.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
-Tom
Tom said
I’m going out on a limb here, but I am assembling a 5 part series on case for the Historical Jesus as well as present an introduction to mythicism and how it all got started.My work is VERY amateur, but I think it gets my point across rather well. I’m not attempting to take away from Dr. Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist” but hope to take a broader point for the sake of history where mythicists often get it wrong.
Dr. Ehrman, if you are seeing this post, I hope you don’t mind. (I am using course material from Yale Divinity School and not UNC Chapel Hill).
Here is my link to the first video … and more to come in time.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
-Tom
Thanx Tom. Drawing the picture of a person with skeptical thoughts about the existence of a historical Jesus as someone who doubts the moon landings is over reaching in most cases. I will be the first to admit there are a few who would fit that stereotype. A foundational belief that one will not yield to critical views of their position regardless of any evidence offered results in a belief system based on consensus. I am sure Dale will tell you that is not an effective way to construct a historical view of anything. It will not take long to prove that many, if not most, major advancements in understanding came from those that did not support the view of consensus at the time.
I attempt to keep a skeptical view of any source until it has been thoroughly investigated. Philo for example is used by many to support the claim that Jesus might not have existed. Read what the man has to say about the number 7 for several pages and then explain why he should be used as a reliable source. One of the issues with determining the existence of a historical figure of Jesus is all sources are riddled full of mystical tales and supernatural events. Later sources used these documents or the testimony of people who believed in these documents as sources. We simply do not have access to a Jesus figure in history.
Most historians are quick to point out that we do not have access to Socrates or Gamaliel. Using the exact same criteria, most are not willing to say the same thing about a historical Jesus. Even though those that wrote about Socrates or Gamaliel could hardly be accused of adding the kind of mystical and supernatural testimony that the Jesus authors do. Hope to hear more from you.
Azeus said
asjsdpjk said
What would constitute evidence that jesus didn’t exist?First off, thank you Mary for the kind words. I hope you continue to add your comments and thoughts.
The question of what would constitute evidence that Jesus didn’t exist. That’s a good question and one often asked. I wish I had a great answer to it. Maybe someone in this blog will help with one. The most common response to that question from those that do not believe he did is: The burden of proof is on those that claim he did. If I claim that something ‘is’ and whatever that ‘is’ makes extraordinary claims, I should have extraordinary evidence to support it. Albeit true, I find that answer incomplete.
I can not ‘prove’ that he didn’t exist. I can not ‘prove’ that he didn’t walk on water. What I can do is explain the reasons there is no credible evidence to believe he did. That is also true of Krishna, Xenu, Istanu, Aramazd, or Aeons for that matter. There are some previous Gods we can say most certainly do not exist. Atlas more than likely does not hold the world on this shoulders and so forth. It is an old worn out argument used by many apologists to cast doubt. It simply carries no weight in critical thinking. Because we can not prove thousands of Gods and Deities do not exist, is no evidence at all that they do.
Bart believes, as I understand it, that he did exist. On this particular point he and I disagree. If archaeologists unearthed documents stating that a person or group of people had made the whole thing up, I would be just as skeptical of those documents. They would have to provide supporting evidence that they were authentic and the claim plausible.
What apologists can not seem to be open enough to consider is, the existence of their own bias. They will use every form of deceptive action possible to keep chanting the same mantra. They will change usernames, pretend to agree for a while, and mislead people in every form imaginable. They do not see this as lying. They simply can not separate their theology and belief from critical thinking and historical analysis.
To claim that an earthly Jesus existed and that his activities later initiated a new religion , complete with exaggerated or garbled ideas on what he really said and did, are NOT “extraordinary claims”. It is one attempt among others to explain the growth of Christian communities in the 1. century. You may have an other hypothesis and the problem is to determine which hypothesis has the best explanatory power. You have to demonstrate why your explanation is better. If you have no explanation, you may of course reject everyone put forward. But in that latter case, you will effectively set yourself outside the discussion or to select the one that is the least silly.
Everyone has a bias. The scholarly communities have long ago devised methods for dealing with that. Critical bible scholars are often accused of having some strange bias that make them all fail. Brilliantly, the same critics accuse the scholars of having failed in their quests, because they all have been led to different conclusions, due to poor research methods, poor criteria of authenticity or whatever. They seem to have the same bias and different biases simultaneously.
cheers, g.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)