Robert M. Price posted on his FB wall a few weeks ago that he was considering starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to debate Ehrman. Looks like things might be going ahead? Ehrman said on ‘The Skeptic Fence’ podcast a few months back that he’d be OK with debating Price. Reading between the lines of this video, it looks like they may made some sort of verbal agreement? Dr. Ehrman, are you aware of this challenge??
I really hope this happens. I remain in the historicist camp, and I think the ‘failed doomsday prophet’ remains the strongest option on offer. Buy I also don’t think it’s as closed a case as is often implied by Ehrman.
I’m in camp with you. But i think the mythicists have a hurdle they’ll never clear (or ten). I have to confess i did not read either Ehrman/s book on this, or Carrier’s, et al; however, I watched a few of Carrier’s debates against minor leaguers on utube and thought he was thoroughly thrashed on the James/brother passages. Damned inconvenient to their central thesis. Hard to disappear Peter and John as well in their few crossings with Paul.
I will never understand these mythicists. They’re atheists, but why is it important to believe that Jesus never existed? I’m agnostic, I believe he existed, but I don’t believe he was divine. Why is it important to them to want to believe that he never existed? What does it change one way or the other? In my opinion they’re better off examining and discussing why he wasn’t divine. They’d get more attention at least.
If Jesus was not a real person or not, then there is no debate about his divinity is there? 
I’m actually surprised that Bart seemed to change his mind on this because he always argued that the historical evidence we have OUTSIDE of the NT is sparse to non existent. The fact that many or even most biblical historians say the opposite is not or should not be absolute proof although to be fair to Bart, he said we can go with what was ‘likely to have happened is a good measure.
I thought Professor Erhman made his name from sticking to the ‘evidence’?
I have listened to many of these debates and there is too much smoke and mirrors and would hope Bart just sticks to the non biblical evidence as surely a man who did miracles, healing the blind and sick and raising dead people would surely have come to the notice of the Roman Authorities and even Caesar himself and Josephus would have been more specific about such a person?
The question of his divinity is really easy to rebut but not many atheists don’t apply the right test in these debates like with William Lane Craig and others. That is Jesus saying he was coming ONLY to save the lost sheep of Israel and would be back in his generation with his angels to judge the whole world. Not just the jews then? Apologetics try and say he meant something different like the destruction of the temple in AD70. That should be stamped on by people like Bart as how does that relate to the end of days, judgement on the whole world or coming back with his angels to rule on the earth to bring peace? Don’t let them get away with changing those words in the Gospel to suit is my advice. I can’t prove this but why would the Romans spend so much time dismantlng the temple stone by stone, so not one lay upon the other? How long would that take being they weighed a ton each or something? Its said they did that because the Jews hid Gold between them. I can’t believe that tbh.
Another question about AD 70? How come the Jews staged other subsequent wars with the Romans, many decades later IF the temple had been destroyed and all them captured or killed or fled to the mountains? That certainly wasn’t within that generation when Jesus lived anyway.
gmatthews said
I will never understand these mythicists. They’re atheists, but why is it important to believe that Jesus never existed? I’m agnostic, I believe he existed, but I don’t believe he was divine. Why is it important to them to want to believe that he never existed? What does it change one way or the other? In my opinion they’re better off examining and discussing why he wasn’t divine. They’d get more attention at least.
Couldn’t agree more. It hurts their cred on other matters. They play to new atheist crowds who don’t know any better, but in the long run, when they maybe look into it themselves, and discover, SHock! that there probably WAS a jesus- well, the house of cards their disbelief is built on falls (or not). Still, seems like a huge waste of gas and energy to me.
MikeyS said
If Jesus was not a real person or not, then there is no debate about his divinity is there?
Steefen
You do not understand thought forms. A thought form can be divine.
Second. Jesus was a number of real persons in addition to being a thought form. His reality is beyond not being a real person (thought form only).
MikeS
a man who did miracles, healing the blind and sick and raising dead people would surely have come to the notice of the Roman Authorities and even Caesar himself and Josephus would have been more specific about such a person?
Steefen
The gospels were written during the lifetime of Josephus and the Flavian emperors. Jesus DID come to the notice of the Roman authorities, even Caesar himself. Given the popularity of the gospels and Jesus, a staging of Vespasian healing the lame and giving sight to the blind was arranged.
Josephus was more specific about Jesus in the passage that follows the Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus believes it is questionable that Jesus could be called a/one man. He thinks Jesus was a calamity for the Jews. He thinks Jesus corrupted Judaism. Josephus does not like Paul or the invention of Christianity.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
MikeS
That is Jesus saying he was coming ONLY to save the lost sheep of Israel and would be back in his generation with his angels to judge the whole world.
Steefen
Jesus did not say he would be back in his generation to judge the whole world. After the Son of Man was sacrificed, the Son of Man office was filled by a non-Jew. The Son of Man is sometimes spoken of in first person and third person terms. Jesus gave us the Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers to explain, yes, he was the Son of Man but he was killed. The Son of Man would still appear and be enthroned. The second person to hold the office of Son of Man of the kingdom with authority over Israel would be Gentile, not Jewish. The Jewish Revolt against Rome would fail or speaking after the fact, the Jewish Revolt against Rome failed and the Son of Man was general Titus who was enthroned after his father died.
I’m tired of people re interpreteting these passages obviously because he did not return as God, Jesus, Son of God, Son of Man, anything.
How can anyone possibly come to any other conclusions? Not just that. Paul who lived at that time would surely know more than we do about these events and he said the time of Jesus’s return was shorter than when we first believed etc. John the Baptist and Jesus preached the same message. The end times were coming and Judgement was at hand and why they were apocalyptic preachers. Paul even told people NOT to get married, the time was so short. etc etc.
…Matthew ** you do not have permission to see this link **“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
The rest of the statements by Jesus don’t matter a jot if he got that bit wrong.
Can you provide evidence that Caesar actually knew about Jesus during his lifetime please?
Bart may like to comment on that?
The ancient world was filled with mystics, magicians and charlatans. There wasn’t a single act that Jesus was claimed to have done that wasn’t attributed to a score of others at some other time. Sorry to be crude, but about the only thing he could have done that would have brought himself to the attention of an official higher up that Pilate would have been to fly off the cross.
MikeyS said
I’m tired of people re-interpreting these passages obviously because he did not return as God, Jesus, Son of God, Son of Man, anything.
Steefen
Are you denying the Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers?
MikeyS
Paul said the time of Jesus’s return was shorter than when we first believed etc.
Steefen
Paul was wrong. Jesus was right. Jesus said: 1) you kill me, the office of Son of Man will not be filled by another Jew and the kingdom of God will be given to another people; 2) soon, the world will no longer see me; 3) because the world will no longer see me, I’m sending you the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.
MikeyS
The rest of the statements by Jesus don’t matter a jot if he got that bit wrong.
Steefen
Because of something Paul said?
MikeyS
Can you provide evidence that Caesar actually knew about Jesus during his lifetime please?
Steefen
I gave you evidence that Caesar, Vespasian, knew about Jesus. Now you want to know if Caesar, Tiberius, knew about Jesus.
Jesus, written about after the Jewish Revolt started–and it’s possible that the Gospel of Mark was written not in 67 but in 71-78–Jesus is a composite character. Many of the people borrowed to create the biblical Jesus lived during the Jewish Revolt.
Here are some examples:
1 Woe-speaking Jesus (see Wars of the Jews by Josephus)
2 Jesus who is whipped by Romans is the Woe-speaking Jesus (see Wars of the Jews by Josephus)
3 Jesus who is whipped by Romans and a cross is thrown up for his crucifixion is also Eleazar in Wars of the Jews by Josephus
4 Jesus who is captured on the Mount of Olives is the same Eleazar.
5 Three people crucified, one survives the Cross (see the autobiography of Josephus)
6 Jesus who feeds 5,000 is likely King Izates who, with his holy mother, Queen Helena, feeds 5,000 more than once in the famine of 47 C.E.
7 Izates was known historically as the “only begotten son” of his father.
8 Izates’ father was known to Augustus Caesar. Izates’ father’s wisdom was cherished by Augustus Caesar. It is likely that some of the wisdom of the gospels could have come from Izates’ father. The only thing I have for sure on this is that when the New Testament speaks of storing treasures in heaven, that did come from Izates’ father. So, Izates’ relayed that part of the gospel. Now, if you don’t want to agree that Izates’ is a component of the biblical Jesus, then he has to be a contemporary of the biblical Jesus, they met, and then Jesus picked up “storing treasure in heaven” from Izates.
9 Reza Aslan seems to say the Samaritan “crucified” by Pontius Pilate would be a Jesus.
So, MikeyS, with Tiberius Caesar reigning from 14-37 and the biblical Jesus dying no later than 36, Tiberius could be associated with points 7, 8, and 9.
Here’s something of interest from the economist…wow. In France they have wiki edit wars about “jesus”? Surprises me. I wonder if it’s about historicity issues? anyone have a sense for why the French are doing this, but not Americans?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Thanks for your extensive reply Steefen.
I’m still not convinced sorry.
Paul was chosen and taught by Jesus himself or so Paul said. So do you agree that we can disregard everthing he said and wrote because he so clearly got the atonement and last days message so clearly wrong? Read that passage of Matthew again where Jesus clearly states he will be coming back in THAT generation with his angels to repay every man according to his deeds. Some standing there will not taste death until they see the Son of Man etc.
How can that not be misinterpreted to mean something different? All the disciples thought it as did Paul. IF Paul got all that wrong Steefen, why didn’t Jesus tap him on the shoulder again to correct him? Every generation since has been expecting Jesus to return and yet three quarters of the world are still not Christian and will go to hell apparently. I would guess Christians will wait for the whole world to convert before Jesus comes back and then one may ask, what then is the point? God waits with crossed arms as Christopher Hitchens used to say while the world goes to hell in a handcart and still is today…
Anyone wonder why the two thieves were crucified along with Jesus? Was theft a capital offence with the Romans as I thought that was reserved for crimes against the State? eg Jesus with sedition etc.
The other more simple explanation is that none of that happened the way the Gospels suggest. Would the Romans really allow others to get that close to a crucifixion that they could hear the tortured prisoners actually speak?
My solution?
Not sure we can believe in heaven or hell as nobody has been back to tell us but IF there is Judgement, then a just loving God would do just that. Reward all those humans that have done no harm to others during their lifetime and condemn all those who have. That is quite an easy task for God and not one religious faith involved anywhere.
SWerdal said
Here’s something of interest from the economist…wow. In France they have wiki edit wars about “jesus”? Surprises me. I wonder if it’s about historicity issues? anyone have a sense for why the French are doing this, but not Americans?** you do not have permission to see this link **
I didn’t know about what you describe until just now, but I wrote a comment to Bart’s blog post for today where I also mentioned wiki editing by Christians (but as it relates to Pythagoras). History has been a victim of Christian re-writes more than a few times starting with the earliest writings about Jesus. That is, if one believes Bart’s view that Jesus was no more than an itinerant apocalyptic rabbi who believed God was going to cleanse the world (and that his divinity was a fiction).
Jesus also said to the Sanhedrin at his Judgement that they would see the Son of Man coming back. Obviously Jesus thought he would be during their lifetimes as nothing else makes sense. Other than they would see him from their graves 2000 years plus and counting?
What reallu bugs me is why did Jesus have to go ‘back’ to heaven while the world was awaiting conversion? Why didn’t Jesus leave the area and go abroad to continue with his preaching to the ‘whole’ world. Even more so as the resurrected Jesus that could not die again an earthly death and so he could have spent the next 500 years converting the whole world IF John 3:16 was true?
Or even to Caesar then which would have saved the lives of all his new converts and apostles and thousands of martyrs. And the Roman Historians of the time would surely have written about him doing that.
The alternative simple alternative was that Jesus was a Jewish Local Preacher only interested in Jews and none other and he thought he was the Messiah come to save the lost sheep of Israel. And the Romans put that all to naught and why IF he cried, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”! That would make sense if he said anything at all.
Having said that, I believe in a spiritual resurrection not a bodily one and that was happening before Jesus came and since.
Maybe its more of a hope but it makes sense in a way. Jesus could not have bodily gone up to heaven as flesh and blood, wherever Heaven is now we know its not where they thought it was just above the clouds.
MikeyS said
Read that passage of Matthew again where Jesus clearly states he will be coming back in THAT generation with his angels to repay every man according to his deeds. Some standing there will not taste death until they see the Son of Man etc
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Stephen
The Son of Man is spoken of by Jesus in first person and third person terms. Therefore the Son of Man is a role, an office, sometimes held by Jesus and sometimes held by another. The Son of Man does not have to be a heavenly entity. Jesus as a human held the office. Given the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, a Gentile can hold the role, not just a Jewish Messiah, uninvited and rejected.
The verse clearly does not say Jesus is coming back.
I doubt you are going to get support that the Son of Man is only spoken by Jesus in first person terms.
MikeyS said
Thanks for your extensive reply Steefen.Anyone wonder why the two thieves were crucified along with Jesus? Was theft a capital offence with the Romans as I thought that was reserved for crimes against the State? eg Jesus with sedition etc.
Steefen
You’re welcomed.
The modern scholarly consensus is that thief is not the best translation but bandit is. Rebels, seditious people, were considered bandits. That is why they were crucified together.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)