Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Why did he say this?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Ehrman says:

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

Jesus was a common name back then, like Smith or Jones. "Kristos" meaning "anointed one" was a common motif in ancient times.

Having said that, I don't give a shit if he did exist.

That would be like me claiming "Since we can prove George Washington existed that means he did fart a Lamborghini out of his ass".

There is no such thing as an invisible magic man with a magic wand who knocked up a girl with no sperm to clone himself so he could commit a fake suicide only to survive rigor mortis.

Otherwise George Washington did fart a Lamborghini out of his ass. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Where did he say this?

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

Please quote the book and page # or the article where he said this in context.

Perhaps in context the why will come out.

***Edit Added****

I think jimenez gets this from the New Bart Ehrman book, Did Jesus Exist which releases on 3-20--2012.

I have one on preorder myself, so I don't see how Jimenez can quote this since he can't have actually read it yet.

********

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
And yet he's still a

And yet he's still a non-believer. 

Why would that be?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Was Robin Hood a real person? If yes, were the stories all true?

I've heard this before. I listened to it again. Bart does not go beyond the Jesus existed. He does make a point to indicate that all the Gospels were NOT 1st hand accounts and were written later.

There were storytelling legends abounding in the period.

Nothing indicates what story telling legends are true and what are not true.

Jesus may have been a real person, but that does not make any of the storytelling legends true.

So was Robin Hood a real historical person?

It's similar. If Robin was real, are all the stories about him true?

Both of these characters have many legends or stories that have been told.

Both of these people have many problems fitting into the storytelling legends that have come to us from the past.

Did Jesus perform real miracles? Did he rise from the dead? Did Robin really rob the rich and give to the poor. Was he the son of a noble who fought in the Crusades?

Was Jesus as popular as the texts indicate? Was Jesus perhaps a desert prophet rebel who was attempting to overthrow the Roman yoke?

The Jesus is a lot like those who were fighting against Rome though unlike John the Baptist he was more of a pacifist.

My copy of Bart's book should arrive next week by the 23rd, after I read it I will give comments on what Bart actually wrote.

You need to be careful when you make comments as you did. Bart does not say he believes the story telling legends, in fact he indicates he does not and is not a Christian.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is a difference

There is a difference between a Historian and a theologian. A Historian is one who writes about history not making claims about magic, they simply state "These people did or did not exist and these people held these traditions and beliefs"

A theologian is merely a comic book fan leader no different than a preacher, Rabbi or Imam, they just pretend to not be preachers.

So even if an atheist says "Jesus exited" they are not saying he was  the sperm of a god. Even Thomas Jefferson rejected the magical stories of the bible. He was back then the closest thing to a "Cultural Christian" or "Secular Christian". You could say that he viewed Jesus like Buddhist view Buddha. But he did not believe that Jesus was the literal loins of a god, but just a messenger.

But even Jefferson would say, even today, "Brian37 why do you think I am full of shit?"  Not, "You picked on my god, you hate me!"

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

But here is the truth about humanity on a psychological level. I am quite sure any person can point to their clubs, point  to a real person and real place, THEY ALL DO THAT.

What is actually going on is that the pioneers of these religions, may have truly believed, OR outright lied to gain followers, OR were mentally ill. What has never been true is a magical super hero with a magic wand. The bottom line is that humans invent gods and humans have superstitions and humans believe in all sorts of conspiracies. These are products of the fact that evolution is merely about getting to the point of reproduction. It doesn't care if made up bullshit gets us to the point of fucking and making babies.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Paul

You said,

Jesus may have been a real person.

Not "may" but "did" , as per Bart.

Read his book and get back to me.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
But also "per Bart", the

But also "per Bart", the resurrection did not occur.  

What satisfaction do you find in a scholarly assertion of a historical yet non-resurrected jesus?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Zara

Very simple answer Zara,

100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ,
From Genesis to Revelation.
300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the
Life of Jesus Christ.
There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than
Any other person in history as Bert said,

Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God.
Why?
The bible = Jesus Christ
And Jesus Christ did exist .
Repent if your sins and turn to God,
For the kingdom of heaven is near.
Why repent?
Because God loves you.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Very simple

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. 300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said, Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.
 

        

                                                                                                            ...that was just hilarious !!!   

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Ehrman says:

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

Saying that the "jesus of the bible" existed is like saying, "John Smith" existed. Jesus was a common name back then. I remember hearing a statistic that there were at least 27 jesus's born in Bethlehem at that time.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Bart Never Said....

Bart Ehrman never said the Jesus stories were true in anything he has written pertaining to the Jesus being "the One".

He indicates otherwise. He does not accept the miracles as real. He does not accept the Resurrection as true.

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, Jesus may have been a real person. Not "may" but "did" , as per Bart. Read his book and get back to me.

"May" means could be true as used in this context.

What does "did" have to do with anything in my reply?

I don't see how to use the word did in this context.

Jesus did a real person is not normal English.

You too can buy a copy of his book since you feel you like to misquote what he says.

Then you'll have his actual words in your hands to directly quote.

Available on Amazon. Click any book link on RRS and then paste in - Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Paul

You said

You said, Jesus may have been a real person.

Not "may" ,

But Jesus " did" exist as per the context of Bert on the video.
In your context , Bert would say "was" a real person.

Sorry for the confusion.

Watch the video again. He makes it very clear .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:100% of the bible is

Quote:
100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ,
From Genesis to Revelation.

NO, the OT were the writings of the Jews, the early gospel writers simply attached themselves to the past to market a new superstition.

And are you kidding? Revelations is a just as genocidal and bloody as the OT. Please do yourself a favor, read that book without your god goggles on.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Very simple

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. 300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said, Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.

You're missing the point of my question.

Why do you appeal to Ehrman's authority in regard to the historicity of jesus, but promptly abandon that same authority in regard to the resurrection and other supernatural claims attached to jesus?

While you're waiting for his latest book to arrive, perhaps try reading his last book, Forged, which examines the spurious nature of the NT writings.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said,

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, Jesus may have been a real person. Not "may" but "did" , as per Bart. Read his book and get back to me.

HELLO!

OUR POINT IS WE DON'T CARE! And even IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

You found the DNA of the founder of the Christian religion, you are ONLY finding a man, not a super hero.

No human in history has ever talked to a god. When humans think they do, that is all they are doing. So IF IF IF IF  a man named Jesus existed, he was merely a man who thought he was talking to a god. The likely hood by most historians is that it wasn't an actual man, but a man's name slapped on a movement that the founders wrote about aftetewords. That is how myths and legends start. The underdog takes on the big guy and the motif spreads, and characters are created and legends are created to exaggerate the reality of life.

Buddha existed and Muhammad existed, but you don't buy their writings or hold their labels. It only means a person existed and people took note of their claims.

If you found the DNA of Buddha, would you become a Buddhist?

If you found the DNA of Muhammad would you become a Muslim?

Or would you simply say, "Ok, yea, they existed, but their claims and traditions were just claims and traditions"?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Forged by Bart Ehrman

zarathustra wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. 300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said, Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.

You're missing the point of my question.

Why do you appeal to Ehrman's authority in regard to the historicity of jesus, but promptly abandon that same authority in regard to the resurrection and other supernatural claims attached to jesus?

While you're waiting for his latest book to arrive, perhaps try reading his last book, Forged, which examines the spurious nature of the NT writings.

Very good book.

It has details on Jean Jean's favorite Bible quote. He quotes the forged book of Jude, clearly shown to be of later origin not by Jude the Bro of the Jesus.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said

Jimenezj wrote:

You said You said, Jesus may have been a real person.

Not "may" ,

What???

Is English not your 1st language. If not what is?

Jimenezj wrote:

But Jesus " did" exist as per the context of Bert on the video.

Who is Bert?

Do you mean Bert from Sesame Street?

Or do you mean Bart?

Jimenezj wrote:

In your context , Bert would say "was" a real person.

Bert??

Jimenezj wrote:

Sorry for the confusion. Watch the video again. He makes it very clear .

Bart not Bert indicated clearly in the video that he is not a Christian now.

He does not believe in the Jesus as "the one".

He does not believe in the Jesus as being brought back from the dead.

Clear??

Was Gilgamesh also a god. He was a real king in ancient Sumer or Babylon. Because he was a real king does that mean the claim he became a god is true?

Hercules aka Herakles may have also been a real person. There are claims he went to Mount Olympus upon his death and is now a full fledged god.

Do you accept that he is a god?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm with Prozac, Jim.

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. 300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said, Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.
 

        

                                                                                                            ...that was just hilarious !!!   

 

 

this is straight out of the logic blender. You should get some sandwich boards made up and walk the streets.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
What I reckon

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

 

I have found Richard Carrier to be the most interesting commentator on the topic of historicity.

 

See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2366
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Jimenezj

x wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

 

I have found Richard Carrier to be the most interesting commentator on the topic of historicity.

 

See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

 

 

 

 

                     I'm  agreeing with Richard Carrier, Ehrman's opening article has a few glaring errors, "That I hope do NOT appear in the book".  To begin with, based on recent archeology, Nazareth did not appear untill after 25 CE, by that time the Jesus charactor is 30[or so] years old, the charactor simply did not come from nor grow up in Nazareth. That would make sense because the bible does not refer to the charactor as Jesus of Nazareth.  The charactor is called "the Nazarene"; Nazarene's were a sect of Judaisim,  a very austere sect. Nazarene has nothing to do with Nazareth.  BUT maybe some Nazarene's were the first settlers and that is how the town got it's name.   

 

 

 

                     In the bible peoples  were called based on their group or town as "ites"; Cannanites. Medianites, Amorites, Jerusalemites, Jebusites, etc. So any one from Nazareth would have been called a Nazarite. The Nazarene version of the Mystical Massiah would have been called 'joshua bar Nazarene' in English that would be 'God's savior Nazarene version' .

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Review/Summary Ehrman's Book Did Jesus Exist ? Part 1

As promised I will discuss Bart Ehrman's latest book, Did Jesus Exist?

This is part 1 covering chapters 1 and 2 in the book.

First off, I'm not personally what is called a Mythicist. I consider it highly likely that there was a desert prophet named Jesus to have actually lived.

However, he was not THE MESSIAH, he did no magic or miracles with the aid of the god Yahweh. He was not the son of the god.

I am not a believer in Christianity. I consider the Yahweh god to be a morphed Canaanite god. I consider the Gospels to be storytelling.

I do not consider Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I don't consider any of the stories of magic to be real.

Clear?

THE JESUS portrayed in the Gospels is what I call THE JESUS. Please note the capitals for THE JESUS. This Jesus is a character developed from oral legends or storytelling.

It is impossible to tell thanks to embellishment by early believers what part of these storytelling episodes may have happened, if any of it actually happened at all.

I know many atheists do deny that Jesus ever actually lived. That's fine, as either way, THE JESUS NEVER DID EXIST, which is the character propagated by Christians.

Do you understand this?

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

 Read his book and get back to me.

I'm reading it and here is the 1st part with my comments.

Part 1

Chapter 1 An Introduction to the Mythical View of Jesus

Ehrman spends most of chapter 1 discussing the Mythical View of Jesus by many authors from before Schweitzer and even early on in the 1790s by Volney and Dupuis. He also discusses JM Robertson, Drews, even Lenin. In recent years Earl Doherty, Robert Price, Frank Zindler, Thomas L Thompson, as well as Richard Carrier. Ehrman at least addresses the comments of these authors who he obviously disagrees with especially those who have no graduate or post graduate training in New Testament studies or ancient histories. Ehrman and others consider generally only scholars in the subjects as relevant not generally amateurs. He for example suggests that one would go to an expert for say dental work.

The basic mythicist positions according to Ehrman:

1-No reliable references to the existence of Jesus in any non-Christian sources. No Greek or Roman author mentions him for 80 plus years.

2-If so important, wouldn't there be something surviving written by historians, philosophers, politicians, scholars, poets or someone.

3-Josephus accounts were forged later by Christians.

4-Jesus does not appear prominently even in Christian sources except the New Testament Gospels.

5-Paul says hardly anything about the historical Jesus. Ehrman however says Paul does discuss Jesus, especially his death and resurrection.

6-Mythicists find the 4 Gospels highly problematic as historical documents. Ehrman admits that the Gospels do have many made up stories.

 

Chapter 2 - Non Christian Sources for the Life of Jesus

Ehrman admits that Jesus if real was likely semi-literate at best. He says that he was not well educated and probably could not write. Neither obviously could his alleged disciples be responsible for the well written Greek manuscripts that comprise the 4 Gospels. They all spoke Aramaic, and were likely illiterate as well. The population in Palestine according to Ehrman had a literacy rate of under 3%, generally the wealthly, which the supposed disciple were not.

What we do not have:

1-Physical evidence

2-writing by Jesus

3-Greek or Roman authors who wrote about Jesus in the 1st century

Non Christian Sources of the 1st Century

They don't write about Jesus, but as Ehrman points out they also don't write about 99.99% of the population either. He gives the example of Pilate. There is nothing written by Pilate that has survived. If the Romans were so detailed in documentation as many mythicist's claim, then why isn't there even one document with Pilate's name on it? In fact nothing is written about Pilate by any Roman until Tacitus in 115 CE. Josephus however discussed him, but that was when he was writing in Rome in about 93 CE.

Eyewitness Accounts?

He indicates that we do not have any eyewitness accounts by anyone, pagan, Jew or Christian that was a contemporary eyewitness.

He makes it clear that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts by any of his supposed disciples for several reasons:

They were written in Greek and the disciples much like Jesus were illiterate. They spoke Aramaic and were of the lower classes and would not have had the education in either Greek, writing or reading.

And the Gospels were written in very good Greek, so someone highly proficient in the language of the higher classes.

They were also written later, Mark in about 70 CE Luke in about 80-85 CE and John around 90-95 CE.

And probably not even by any of the original followers of the alleged 12 disciples. They were later Christians who had heard the oral stories and finally decided to write them down.

Non Christian References to Jesus

Pliny the Younger - We talked about this in my response in post #14 in your other thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31305

PJTS post #14 wrote:
You must be referring to his Letters 10.96-97 to Trajan circa 112-113 CE on the subject of Christians. How does the fact that he was discussing those said to be Christians reflect on the reality or not of the Jesus character? This letter only discusses those that believe and is not support that the Jesus was a real person and not just a character.

What Ehrman had to say -

He indicates that the reason behind this letter was the Romans had instituted a law forbidding people to gather in social groups at all. The reason for the law was they were afraid people might band together for political reasons and it might lead to uprisings. This even prevented fire brigades from gathering. The Christians also were a social group that met illegally and his comments were in regard to them. The closest he came to the name was to say they "sing songs to Christ as to a god."

So what we learned from this is there were Christians and they were worshiping someone called Christ as to a god. We already knew that however. Pliny however obviously got his information from the Christians and provides no independent source for Jesus.

Suetonius - We discussed him as well in post #14 of your thread.

PJTS wrote:
I suppose you refer to his book "Life of Claudius 25.4" where it has the statement, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
However, this easily can be a Greek name and not the Jesus character at all.  About this time, 49 CE there is mentioned that Jews were expelled from Rome. Acts supposedly also mentioned this. So was Chrestus the Jesus, a Jew in Rome causing problems, or another messiah wannabe?
Suetonius also in the same book in 16.2 said  "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."
However nothing of the Jesus character is discussed.
Yep, there were probably Christians around. Nope it doesn't prove that the character was real.

Ehrman says pretty much exactly what I said. He indicates that it could refer to Christ but the spelling was wrong and could have easily been a Jew named Chrestus.

Tacitus - We also discussed this as well.

PJTS wrote:
In the Annals book 15 chapter 44 all Tacitus has to say is the legend that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. He refers to Christus being executed by Pilate. This was written in 115 CE well into the storytelling legend of the Jesus. Does this prove Tacitus knew of Jesus or he knew of the storytelling legends? Do You have a copy of his autobiography or detail attesting to what he knew or didn't know on the subject? If so, please detail it for us. What and Why do you think he knew and why do you think that?

In addition, Ehrman points out that Tacitus errors calling Pilate the Procurator of Judea (revenue collector) as he was actually the governor or Prefect of Judea who had military forces under his command.

Jewish sources according to Ehrman

There is only one source at all, and it's unclear if it is real, forged, or extremely edited by Christian scribes.

That of course is Josephus.

In Book 20.9.1 is one reference where Ananus the high priest misused his power and had James killed in 62 CE. This James was identified as "the brother of Jesus, who is called the messiah."

Ehrman indicates we learned 2 things here.

1-He had a brother named James.

2-Some people thought he (Jesus) was the messiah.

Ehrman has no problem with either of these nor do I.

Jesus could have been the brother of James the Just, why not.

I think it is conceivable people thought of Jesus as a messiah. He probably thought this of himself, though reality would show otherwise when the legions of angels don't show up as predicted in scriptures

The 2nd quote from Josephus is the one with the most questions and suspicions of alterations, namely Book 18.3.3 aka Testimonium Flavium

The text as presented by Ehrman:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer or startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the 3rd day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Sounds here like Josephus buys into THE JESUS right?

Not really fitting with the views of someone like him however.

Many argue this whole thing was dropped in completely by our good buddy Eusebius as indicated by Earl Doherty in both The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus:Neither god nor man. Since earlier Christian writers such as Justine, Tertullian, and Origen don't ever mention it suspicion is cast on a later addition of either all of it, or perhaps only part according to Ehrman. I personally always considered the entire passage to have been dropped in by the likes of Eusebius or one of his scribes.

Josephus one must remember was a traitor to the Jews, he had surrendered to Vespasian and told him he would become emperor, he did in fact. Josephus was clearly one who believed in the Jewish fairy tales. He however wanted to cast bad light on some Jews as he did in several of his books. He was not very much loved by his fellow Jews at all, they generally never read his works, it was in fact Christians that transmitted them down through the ages to us. Ehrman believes that it is far more likely that as with other books such as the NT, see his book, Misquoting Jesus for example, that words were added to the text here and there resulting in what we have today. Most scholars of Judaism and experts on Josephus consider the edited additions to be the more likely not a complete passage addition.

Ehrman considers the most likely version prior to editing by Christian scribes to be something like this:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him has not died out."

This according to Ehrman is the most likely form of the passage. He indicated this also would show Josephus has some solid info on Jesus such as:

Jesus was known for his wisdom and teaching, he was credited with doing remarkable actions, he had a lot of followers, he was condemned to be crucified by Pilate because of Jewish accusations, and he continued to have followers after he died.

Ehrman in the end suggests that proof in Josephus is still only marginal relevant to whether Jesus existed or not.

I do see his argument that Josephus may have written something in regard to Jesus, he did mention other messiah wannabes that were either executed or dismissed as insane. In this case, Josephus is playing to the Romans more than anyone in his writing, he wrote this some 60 years after the events if it was an event. Just stating that Jesus was crucified made it fairly clear that Jesus was likely rebelling against Rome. And Josephus the turncoat that he was could have just been making that as a point. This person Jesus, like other messiah wannabes was trying to throw off the yoke of Rome. He was then executed.

Josephus has now demonstrated what a good butt kisser he is to Rome.

As Ehrman indicates, Josephus does not do very much towards proving Jesus was real or not. Josephus could have just put rumors down, or it all could have been added later.

Ehrman promises that he will show more as we go through the book to prove Jesus was a real historical person.

I will continue after I read another chapter or 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Very simple

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation.

I love it when people demonstrate up front and without any pretense to the contrary, that they are idiots.

 

Of course, I don't necessarily object to some random goon believing that live sacrifice, torment, incest, rape and floods are somehow related to to their messiah. Nevermind that most Christians and biblical scholars disagree with Jimenutjobcrazyperson about Jesus, along with most atheists... he helps discredit his own cult with this nonsense. Jesus is why Lott did the horizontal mumbo with his own two kids. Jesus is why monotheists couldn't eat shellfish up until Antiquity. Jesus is why you should respect BOTH of your bioparents, despite (supposedly) having only 1 bioparent himself. 

I'm thinking there's more OT stupidity I could link to this one messianic entity based  on "fulfilling" five chapters of an already pointless book, but I can't be arsed.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Extra info on Nazareth

Jeffrick wrote:

 

To begin with, based on recent archeology, Nazareth did not appear untill after 25 CE, by that time the Jesus charactor is 30[or so] years old, the charactor simply did not come from nor grow up in Nazareth. That would make sense because the bible does not refer to the charactor as Jesus of Nazareth.  The charactor is called "the Nazarene"; Nazarene's were a sect of Judaisim,  a very austere sect. Nazarene has nothing to do with Nazareth.  BUT maybe some Nazarene's were the first settlers and that is how the town got it's name.   

 

Thanks. I've read such things, so did some research, in the interests of critical thinking.

The references, in case anyone else wants to check, follow, along with some extracts from the sites.

They pretty much agree with you, but I'm still grinding on with the subject.

 

First, Nazarenes:

http://rexweyler.com/the-jesus-sayings/excerpts/yeshua-the-name/

 

Nazorean (Nazarene, Notseri, Nazoraioi): The Gospel of Philip, written between 150-250 CE in Syria, refers to Jesus as “Yeshua Christos Nazorean,” and explains that “Christos” means messiah, and “Nazorean is “he who reveals what is hidden.” The Hebrew root “Nazar,” means to set apart or consecrate. The Nazoreans were likely an ascetic sect “set apart” in special knowledge, religious purity, and asceticism

 

Nazorean is a title, not a name, and does not likely refer to a town of Nazareth. The text evidence suggests “Jesus the Nazorean,” not Jesus from Nazareth, as in Acts of the Apostles 24:5, where the first followers of Jesus were called nazoraioi (nazoreans). The passage does not suggest that they all came from the same town, but rather that they belonged to the same religious group

 

The difficulty of reconciling Mark 1:9, “Nazareth” with “Nazorean” used elsewhere, a title, not a reference to a town, suggesting to some scholars that Mark 1:9 is a later addition.

[/extract]

 

Regarding the archaeological question of a 1st Century Nazareth, I've had trouble tracking down a reference to 25 CE, but have found supporting references:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Archaeological_evidence

 

Nazareth is not mentioned by name in any pre-Christian Palestinian, Greek or Roman text. Nazareth is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. There are towns with similar names, when you transliterate them, and there are known linguistic shifts in the region that could account for a misplaced name, but this is not evidence that any of these similar named towns are the Biblical Nazareth or that such a town even existed. There is a growing trend of scholars who doubt that the New Testament town referred to by the Greek name Nazara is the historical town of Nazareth in lower Palestine, since both its location and its description do not match what is in Luke. There is however evidence for some level of settlement in the area.

 

It is also possible that little if any archaeological evidence of preexisting artifacts for the simple reason that many cities get built on ancient sites. But this too should be taken with a caution. Given the amount of archaeological work in Palestine, if no evidence has been found, there is valid reason to be skeptical that such a town existed.

 

It is possible that Nazareth might have existed as an insignificant and easily missed village, thus no one recorded it. The gospels state that it had only one synagogue, so it would not be a large city. But, even a large village would likely have been listed somewhere - especially if the Lord and Savior of a people were from this town.

 

Ultimately, all of these "possibles" are not as probable as the idea that Nazareth may have been invented for the Story of Jesus.

 

However,

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period."

 

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/nazareth-dwelling-discovery-jesus

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Very useful

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Non Christian Sources of the 1st Century

They don't write about Jesus, but as Ehrman points out they also don't write about 99.99% of the population either. He gives the example of Pilate. There is nothing written by Pilate that has survived. If the Romans were so detailed in documentation as many mythicist's claim, then why isn't there even one document with Pilate's name on it? In fact nothing is written about Pilate by any Roman until Tacitus in 115 CE. Josephus however discussed him, but that was when he was writing in Rome in about 93 CE.

 

I appreciate your review of this book as I can't see myself getting around to reading it soon.

By the way, Carrier disagrees with the Pilate argument:

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667#comments



Mistake #1: Ehrman says “not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” False. Philo of Alexandria was a living contemporary of Pilate, and wrote a whole book about him (or rather, against both Sejanus and Pilate, documenting the ways they had persecuted Jews contrary to prior imperial edicts, cf. Schürer and Eusebius, History of the Church 2.5, who had read this book), which we don’t have (it is one of the missing volumes of the Embassy to Gaius), but we do have Philo discussing one event involving Pilate in another book we do have, written in the 40s A.D., probably while Pilate was still alive, in his retirement (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 299-305).
 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think Kap puts it rather well...

 

Jimenezj wrote:

Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation.

I love it when people demonstrate up front and without any pretense to the contrary, that they are idiots.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:pauljohntheskeptic

x wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Non Christian Sources of the 1st Century

They don't write about Jesus, but as Ehrman points out they also don't write about 99.99% of the population either. He gives the example of Pilate. There is nothing written by Pilate that has survived. If the Romans were so detailed in documentation as many mythicist's claim, then why isn't there even one document with Pilate's name on it? In fact nothing is written about Pilate by any Roman until Tacitus in 115 CE. Josephus however discussed him, but that was when he was writing in Rome in about 93 CE.

 

I appreciate your review of this book as I can't see myself getting around to reading it soon.

By the way, Carrier disagrees with the Pilate argument:

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667#comments



Mistake #1: Ehrman says “not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” False. Philo of Alexandria was a living contemporary of Pilate, and wrote a whole book about him (or rather, against both Sejanus and Pilate, documenting the ways they had persecuted Jews contrary to prior imperial edicts, cf. Schürer and Eusebius, History of the Church 2.5, who had read this book), which we don’t have (it is one of the missing volumes of the Embassy to Gaius), but we do have Philo discussing one event involving Pilate in another book we do have, written in the 40s A.D., probably while Pilate was still alive, in his retirement (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 299-305).
 

 

 

The quote from Ehrman is on p44.

I'm not sure where Carrier got the part "not even" It's no where on this page nor is it in the paragraph where the 2nd part is extracted.

The complete sentenace from where Carrier extracted this quote reads: "It would be easy to argue that he was the single most important figure for Roman Palestine for the entire length of his rule." Carrier has chopped and added to this remark.

 

Ehrman calls Philo a Jewish source and not a Roman source. Ehrman says this of Pilate. " On p 45 he says, "and in the writings of Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo"

All people living in the Roman Empire were not technically Romans, yet they lived in the Empire and so are they Roman sources?

This is getting a little bit nit picking on Carrier's part.

Philo was a Jewish source not a Roman source, error for Carrier on his interpretation of what Ehrman actually said.

Philo was correctly a Jew, so technically Ehrman is right, Philo was a Jewish writer not a Roman writer.

Such nit picking by these guys and creative quote mining. Ehrman does this too in his discourse in regard to the mythicist positions, so none are without fault, I just didn't bother with it.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Book Review Summary cot'd Part 2 Chap 3

Chap 3

The Gospels as Historical Sources

This chapter is critically argued against by Carrier in his blog - see http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667#comments

From what Carrier writes, I'm not certain he has read all of what Ehrman has written.

Ehrman is very clear that everything in the Gospels are not historically accurate, p 71. He indicates there are clearly accounts that could not have happened. That there are accounts that are contradictory all over the map. I too have seen this, in previous threads, such as one I wrote 2 years ago called Easter Myth Week. I went through all of the multiple choices one has and made a create your own Passion Story from them.

Ehrman argues that the Gospels are books written by people in historical circumstances and contexts. Atheist mythicists and Fundies both insist that the Gospels be treated in a special way. Fundies that they are the inspired word of God and Atheists that they can't be historical as some people accept them as sacred scripture. Ehrman indicates the writers of the Gospels had simply written what they had heard or read and just wrote about it. In the case of Luke, he indicated this in Luke 1:1-4.

Luke 1:1-4 (NIV) - "1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Here Luke is clear that information had been handed down; from earlier eyewitnesses; he decided to write it himself in an orderly fashion, meaning he obviously didn't consider the others to be good enough of an account probably.

Ehrman also indicates that Luke's writing has no more weight than any other biographer such as Suetonius or Plutarch.

Gospels and their written Sources

He indicates, once one concedes the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources no different from any other historical source containing their authors' biases it becomes clear why historians agree that regardless of whatever else, Jesus did actually live. Historians look for multiple sources to establish a past event happened or lived. Ehrman says that is what we get with the Gospels.

He indicates of these Gospels, Mark is the earliest, followed by Luke and Matthew who used parts of Mark, but both have added sources as well as oral traditions not found in the others. John, used a very different origin having few common stories. So these are 4 sources when considering the added source Q and the additional oral traditions and perhaps earlier writings that are lost.

He also indicates Thomas is a source as well dating to no later than 110-114 CE. Another source not canon but with some similarities dating to this period of up to 100 years after the time was the Gospel of Peter. He indicates this has other independent sources by its differences. One more source is the fragment called Papyrus Egerton. This has 4 episodes of events that have no parallel in any of the Gospels in the NT. There are others, perhaps 40 that date to as late as the Middle Ages, but he limited his time frame to the 1st hundred years.

Written Sources for the Surviving Witnesses

Ehrman claims that the surviving accounts were based on earlier ones that no longer exist. As indicated by the opening remarks in Luke, that would suggest that this was true. The parts called Q, which included the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes were only in Matthew and Luke not Mark suggesting other material or a source. Q according to Ehrman was comprised of mostly sayings of Jesus similar to say Thomas but not the same. Then Luke also has stories not found elsewhere such as the Jesus parable of the Prodigal son and the good Samaritan. This he calls the lost source L. Matthew has stories such as the Wisemen and the parable of the sheep and goats representing another source perhaps he calls M. In a book by Joel Marcus on Mark he contends that Mark used a source or several for his accounts of Jesus words and deeds prior to the passion narrative. So, if this is so there is yet another earlier source. The Gospel of John is so different it obviously has to be from other sources that no longer exist. Scholars have long considered that John used such sources that have been lost. April DeConick argues the Gospel of Thomas dates to an earlier source in circulation perhaps around 50 CE.

Ehrman argues that all of these written sources must be earlier than the surviving written Gospels. They do corroborate many key points said about Jesus and they are all independent of each other. Because of this, Ehrman can't conceive that they could all go back to a single mythical idea that originated the Jesus as a man. He insists that the multiple independent sources indicate Jesus did exist as a real person and they date to within a few decades of his death.

Oral Traditions

He discussed what is called form criticism. The form critics consider the Jesus stories as being transmitted orally and taking on a similar form. Such as all the miracles developed the same style. The stories circulated throughout the area told and retold in various situations developing into certain styles. For example the miracle stories all have this pattern: A person comes to Jesus; his problem is described; there is an interchange between Jesus & the person; Jesus agrees to heal the person; he does so by words or by touch; and all the crowds marvel at it. Then there is the controversy stories. The disciples or Jesus do something that offends the Jewish leaders; they protest; Jesus has a talk with them; the story ends with Jesus delivering a one liner that puts them in their place.

Ehrman indicates these stories were shaped by telling and retelling until they reached the point they gained the forms. Some stories were made up as well to address issues facing the Christian communities as they faced issues from Jewish opposition or failures to observe the Sabbath strictly.

Ehrman concludes there were stories being told about Jesus for a very long time, not just before the written Gospels appeared. He argues this because of the common pieces found such as Q, M, and L as well as Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. He indicates that even Paul in the next chapter will be shown to be aware of them. He says, why would Paul know to persecute Christians, if there were no Christians in existence? Why would Christians exist without a real Jesus? Where would these stories have come from if there was no real person called Jesus if not from oral traditions? He indicates there were common views of Jesus but from different places of origin.

Aramaic origin for some oral traditions

He gives the example of Mark 5 where Jesus raises a dead young girl. Jairurs comes to Jesus to heal his daughter. She however dies meanwhile. Jesus goes to her and says "Talitha cumi" which is Aramaic. Mark translate it for the readers Little girl, I say to you arise". He concludes this story was originally told in Aramaic as a result. Also he discussed Mark 15:34 where Jesus dies on the cross. He says, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani" meaning My God, my god, why have you forsaken me". Other Gospels do this as well, such as John 1:35-52 where there are 3 examples of it. The disciples learn about Jesus from John the Baptist, they go to him calling him "Rabbi" an Aramaic word meaning "teacher". Andrew runs off to his brother telling him we have found the "messiah" an Aramaic word for Christ. Jesus calls Peter "Cephas" an Aramaic word for Peter.

Some Gospel passages don't contain Aramaic words but only make sense when translated back into Aramaic, for example is Mark 2:27-28. Here Jesus delivers a 2 liner to silence criticism. This is the walking through the field story where the disciples are munching on grain. (I call it stealing, but that was supposedly allowed.) The Pharisees observe and protest. So Jesus tells them, 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the son of man is lord of the Sabbath. The 2nd line makes no sense in context. First off, even if Jesus was the Son of Man in mark's Gospel, is the Lord(master) of the Sabbath, what has that do do with the criticism? They are objecting to what the disciples did, not him. Then the last line does not follow the 1st line. Where you translate from Aramaic however, Aramaic used the same word for man and son of man, "barnash" so it really means, Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. So this story circulated originally in Aramaic.

This also can help you spot made up stories as well. In John 3, the story of Nicodemus. Jesus tells him unless you are born "anothen" you will not be able to enter the kingdom of god. The word "anothen" has 2 meanings. It can mean a "2nd time" or "from above." Jesus means it as "from above" here. Nicodemus however takes it to mean being born a 2nd time. Jesus corrects him in a lengthy discussion. So, clearly this story was never in Aramaic and is probably made up.

In his conclusion to this chapter, Ehrman claims there were 7 sources that were independent that have survived. He says he has named 7.

I have no argument against multiple oral traditions, that's what I consider happened. That the Gospels have multiple choices and differences are clear evidence of that. That Ehrman concludes specifically some of the source material must have been written, is perhaps wishful thinking. I'm not sure I'd agree, for the same reasons it was a long time before the 4 surviving gospels were put in writing, people were generally illiterate at the time. As even Robin Hood stories indicate, multiple accounts will proliferate from a possible original story. What was the true story becomes lost to the legends and embellishment. Ehrman so far is not concerned about that, as his goal here is to only show Jesus was a real person. He's not arguing in regards to what I call THE JESUS, which is the one created by Christian believers at all.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
More on Pilate

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The quote from Ehrman is on p44.

I'm not sure where Carrier got the part "not even" It's no where on this page nor is it in the paragraph where the 2nd part is extracted.

The complete sentenace from where Carrier extracted this quote reads: "It would be easy to argue that he was the single most important figure for Roman Palestine for the entire length of his rule." Carrier has chopped and added to this remark.

 

Ehrman calls Philo a Jewish source and not a Roman source. Ehrman says this of Pilate. " On p 45 he says, "and in the writings of Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo"

All people living in the Roman Empire were not technically Romans, yet they lived in the Empire and so are they Roman sources?

This is getting a little bit nit picking on Carrier's part.

Philo was a Jewish source not a Roman source, error for Carrier on his interpretation of what Ehrman actually said.

Philo was correctly a Jew, so technically Ehrman is right, Philo was a Jewish writer not a Roman writer.

Such nit picking by these guys and creative quote mining. Ehrman does this too in his discourse in regard to the mythicist positions, so none are without fault, I just didn't bother with it.

  

 

Carrier was quoting Ehrman's Huffington Post article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html as he hadn't yet read the book:

 

"It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate."

 

Carrier says:

"Philo and Josephus were Romans (Josephus was certainly a Roman citizen and lived in Rome itself for part of his life; and, as I explained in my article, Philo was almost certainly a Roman citizen as well)."

 

Personally, I don't see that it matters whether they were Jewish Romans or non-Jewish Romans or even non-Romans.

The issue is whether there are contemporary references to Pilate.

 

There is another contemporary Roman reference to Pilate though and it was written by Pontius Pilate.

 

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

 

I'd say Carrier wins the Pilate argument.

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Jimenezj wrote:Ehrman says:

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Why did he say this?

Because, if he did say it and meant it, he's an idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Logos and the Mysterions

Jeffrick wrote:

 In the bible peoples  were called based on their group or town as "ites"; Cannanites. Medianites, Amorites, Jerusalemites, Jebusites, etc. So any one from Nazareth would have been called a Nazarite. The Nazarene version of the Mystical Massiah would have been called 'joshua bar Nazarene' in English that would be 'God's savior Nazarene version' .

 

Yes,

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/would-the-historical-jesus-of-nazareth-really-have-been-named-jesus-of-nazareth/#more-25561

 

also makes the important point that we mustn't let our current conception of how names work to distract us when analysing ancient names, especially those bestowed by mystics.

 

"All, then, that we venture definitely to conclude, is that the first followers of Christ, when they called him by his name and surname, Jesus the Nazarene, did not signify by it Jesus of Nazareth, but an all-powerful divine name accompanied by a distinctive epithet, which meant approximately, “the One sent by Jahweh,” “the Holy One of God.”"

 

Religions have long had an obsession with the power of the word and magical names.

 

See the Gospel of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

 

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation.

Not the 100% I am familar with.

Quote:
300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ.

This is hardly worth the token exercise to show it is nonsense but if you would like to play please feel free to cite a few. I will requite "literal" fulfilment of course. None of this "if you look at it differently" BS.

Quote:
There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said,

That is only if you have no idea what evidence means and are completely unfamiliar with how one establishes existence. Hercules is an obvious example. All the rules of evidence and logic apply in all cases.

Quote:
Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.

You mean the petty malevolent one of the OT?

To cite myself www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

 

* No one knows why the books of the Old Testament were written.

  • No one knows who wrote them.
  • No one knows when they were written.
  • No one knows the original language in which they were written.
  • No one knows when the idea they were religious works started.
  • No one knows when they became a component of a religion.
  • No one knows why any particular selection of books was made.

Should you ever read Josephus you will learn the Galileans were conquered by the Judeans and forced to adopt the Yahweh cult practices. Jesus is described as one a Galilean. Of course he had no use for the Judeans, aka Jews. Keep this one fact in mind and the gospel stories will make a lot more sense to you.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
N. Mouse

Nathan E. Jones said: There are 500 verses in the Old Testament, and 1 in every 25 in the New Testament, which talk about the Second Coming (2nd) of Jesus Christ. There's nothing more prophesied about in the Bible, even more than Jesus' First (1st) Coming which was only covered by 300 prophecies. Since there are 500 prophecies foretelling Jesus' Second Coming, it's clearly an event that God wants us to know about. We can read about the Tribulation and know that when Jesus comes again at the end of that horrible time, it culminates in Jesus' glorious victory.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I'm afraid you're still

I'm afraid you're still evading my question:

Why do you appeal to Ehrman's authority in regard to the historicity of jesus, but promptly abandon that same authority in regard to the resurrection and other supernatural claims attached to jesus?  

Please try answering, and instead of more preaching.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Nathan E.

Jimenezj wrote:

Nathan E. Jones said: There are 500 verses in the Old Testament,

Please list and show why they are prophecies in your view not in Nathan E Jones view.

Jimenezj wrote:

 

and 1 in every 25 in the New Testament, which talk about the Second Coming (2nd) of Jesus Christ.

Duh! The NT is the storytelling of THE JESUS. Should it tell about the 2nd coming of Steve Jobs?

Jimenezj wrote:

There's nothing more prophesied about in the Bible, even more than Jesus' First (1st) Coming which was only covered by 300 prophecies.

List these 300 as well and why you think they relate to Jesus.

Jimenezj wrote:

Since there are 500 prophecies foretelling Jesus' Second Coming, it's clearly an event that God wants us to know about.

It's morphed interpretations of Hebrew scripture since they don't seem to know about it.

Provide the 500 prophecies, list just the book, chap and verse and I will be glad to detail for you why it's not true.

Or it's the "healing circle idea" explained by James Caroll.

Jimenezj wrote:

We can read about the Tribulation and know that when Jesus comes again at the end of that horrible time, it culminates in Jesus' glorious victory.

Your tribulation is of your own making. You create a fantasy and torture yourself with it.

You can stop now, there is a cure. Face reality. The real world awaits your discovery.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Correction

x wrote:

 I'd say Carrier wins the Pilate argument.

 

 

I have since read that in the book, rather than the badly worded article, Ehrman does not in fact claim that there are no contemporary references to Pilate.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Nathan E. Jones said: There are 500 verses in the Old Testament, and 1 in every 25 in the New Testament, which talk about the Second Coming (2nd) of Jesus Christ. There's nothing more prophesied about in the Bible, even more than Jesus' First (1st) Coming which was only covered by 300 prophecies. Since there are 500 prophecies foretelling Jesus' Second Coming, it's clearly an event that God wants us to know about. We can read about the Tribulation and know that when Jesus comes again at the end of that horrible time, it culminates in Jesus' glorious victory.

Whoever he is, he is a liar. You are either ignorant of the facts or you yourself are also lying.

For the record the last anointed Messiah was Bar Kockbah who lead the last Jerusalem revolt.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Paul John

Here are a few from Isaiah for you to analyze
And comment

Seventy Prophecies of Yeshua's First Coming

By Eddie Chumney

CHAPTER 11

He would be a descendent of Abraham (Avraham).
(Genesis 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18; Matthew 1:1-2,17; Galatians 3:8,16)
He would be from the tribe of Judah (Yehudah) .
(Genesis 49:8-10; Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5)
He would be a descendent of David. (2 Samuel 7:4-5,12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14; Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32-33,67-69; Acts 2:29-30; Matthew 1:17; Romans 1:3)
He would be born in Bethlehem (Beit Lechem).
(Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:4-6; John 7:42)
He would be from Nazareth and be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26-27; John 1:45; Judges 13:5-7,24)
The exact time of His crucifixion was known (483 years from the decree to build the temple, which was around 444 B.C.E.). (Daniel 9:25; Nehemiah 2:1-8; 5:14)
He would be born of a virgin.
(Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:20-23; Galatians 4:4; Genesis 3:15)
His name would be Immanuel. Immanuel in Hebrew means "G-d with us."
(Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
His name would be Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew), which means "Savior" or "Salvation." The word Yeshua in Hebrew means "salvation." It is derived from another Hebrew word, Yashah, which means "to save, deliver, preserve, bring salvation, get victory." (Matthew 1:21)
His name would be the Messiah. The word Christ in English comes from the Greek word Christos, which means "The Anointed One." Christos in Greek is the word Mashiach in Hebrew, which also means "The Anointed One." The word Mashiach means "Messiah," who is Yeshua. (John 1:41)
He would be the only begotten Son of G-d.
(Psalm 2:2,6-7; John 1:14; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:1-2,5)
He would be the Son of G-d and G-d would be His Father.
(Psalm 89:26-27; 2 Samuel 7:8,12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:7-10; Hebrews 1:1-2,5; Mark 14:36; John 20:30-31)
He would be circumcised the eighth day according to the law of purification.
(Luke 2:21-24; Leviticus 12:1-6)
He would go to Egypt and return to the land of Israel.
(Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15)
Young babies would die in an attempt to kill Yeshua at His birth.
(Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
He would be preceded by a messenger (a type of Elijah [Eliyahu] known as John (Yochanan) the Immerser [Baptist]) who would prepare the way of the Lord. (Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:13,76; Matthew 11:7,10)
The messenger, John (Yochanan) the Immerser (Baptist), would be preaching in the wilderness. (Isaiah 40:3-5; Luke 1:13,80,3:2-6)
He would be a prophet like Moses (Moshe).
(Deuteronomy 18:15; John 1:45; Acts 3:20-23)
He would be anointed of the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh).
(Isaiah 11:1-2; 42:1; Matthew 3:16)
He would preach and teach in the temple (Beit HaMikdash).
(Malachi 3:1; Luke 4:16; Matthew 26:55; John 7:28; 8:1-2)
He came specifically to the house of Israel and not to the Gentiles.
(Matthew 15:21-26)
Yeshua would be rejected by His own people Israel (corporately). [Note: It should be pointed out that many, many individual Jews were believers in Messiah during the first century. This can be seen very clearly by carefully examining Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Book of Acts.(Psalm 69:8; 31:11; 88:8,18; Job 19:13; John 1:11; 7:3,5)]
Yeshua is the stone that the builders rejected.
(Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 3:10-12; Romans 9:11)

Yeshua would be received by the Gentiles (corporately). [Note: It should be pointed out that many Gentiles are not believers in Yeshua and many others are believers in name only and not true followers with their hearts. The believers in Messiah are commanded to follow G-d with all of their heart (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).] (Isaiah 11:10; 42:6; 49:6,22; 54:3; 60:3,5,11,16; 61:6,9; 62:2; 66:12,19; Malachi 1:11; Luke 2:30-32; Acts 28:28)
He would speak in parables.
(Psalm 78:2-4; Matthew 13:34-35)
The ministry of Yeshua would be in Galilee.
(Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:12-16,23)
His ministry would be to heal the sick, set the captives free, and preach deliverance. This is known as the basar (gospel) in Hebrew.
(Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:16-21; Matthew 4:23; 9:34-35; Acts 2:22; 10:38)
Yeshua was to be the shepherd of Israel because Israel had no shepherd.
(Ezekiel 34:5-10; 1 Kings 22:17; Zechariah 10:2; Genesis 49:22,24; Psalm 23:1; 80:1; Isaiah 40:10-11; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24; John 10:11,14-15)
His message would not be believed.
(Isaiah 53:1; John 12:37-38)
The meek would praise Him.
(Psalm 8:1-2; Matthew 21:15-16)
Illegal merchandise trading would be done in the temple.
(Psalm 69:9; John 2:13-17; Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:12-13)
He would be hated.
(Psalm 69:4; 35:19; 109:2-3; 119:161; John 15:24-25)
He would be a reproach to the people.
(Psalm 69:9; 89:50-51; Romans 15:3)
He would not seek publicity.
(Isaiah 42:1-2; Matthew 12:15-19; 9:30; 8:4)
He can be trusted and would be compassionate.
(Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:15,20-21)
No evil words would proceed from His mouth.
(Isaiah 53:9; Luke 23:41; 1 Peter 2:21-22; 2 Corinthians 5:21)
His disciples would forsake Him.
(Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31-35,56)
There was nothing physically beautiful in Him to be desired.
(Isaiah 53:2; Psalm 22:6; Mark 6:1-3; Philippians 2:7)
He gave up the glory in Heaven for the poverty of earth.
(Luke 9:58; 2 Corinthians 8:9)
He would publicly enter Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) before the time of His crucifixion. (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:1-5)
He would ride into Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) on a donkey.
(Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:5)
He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver.
(Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-16)
His betrayal price would be given for a potter's field.
(Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 27:3,7-10)
He would be betrayed by a friend.
(Psalm 41:9; John 13:18-21)
Both Jew and Gentile would conspire against Him.
(Psalm 2:1-2; Acts 4:27-28; Matthew 26:3; 27:1-2)
He would be nailed to a tree.
(Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Psalm 22:16; John 19:18; 20:25)
He would suffer for others.
(Isaiah 53:6; Matthew 20:28)
He would die for our sins.
(Isaiah 53:5; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24)
He would be mocked.
(Psalm 22:7-8; Matthew 27:39-43)
He would die with the transgressors.
(Isaiah 53: 12; Mark 15:27-28)
He would make intercession for His murderers.
(Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
He would be smitten.
(Micah 5:1; Isaiah 50:6; Lamentations 3:30; Matthew 26:67; 27:30)
He would be spit upon.
(Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 26:67, 27:30)
He would be forsaken by G-d.
(Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46)
He would be given gall and vinegar to eat and drink.
(Psalm 69:21; Matthew 27:34,48)
He opened not His mouth when accused.
(Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 26:63-64; 27:12-14)
His garments would be parted.
(Psalm 22:18; Matthew 27:35)
Not one bone would be broken.
(Psalm 34:20; John 19:33,36)
He would be pierced.
(Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34,37)
He would be like a lamb going to the slaughter.
(Isaiah 53:7; Acts 8:26-35)
He is King of the Jews (and the world).
(Psalm 2:6; John 18:33,37; 19:19-22)
He would be buried with the rich.
(Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
He would die.
(Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:50)
His soul would not be left in hell.
(Psalm 16:10; 49:15; 56:13; Acts 2:27,31; 13:33-35)
He would rise from the dead.
(Psalm 16:10; Luke 24:6,31,34; Acts 2:27-31; 13:35)
Others would rise from the dead with Him.
(Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8; Matthew 27:52-53)
He would rise the third day from the grave.
(Jonah 1:17; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Luke 24:45-46; Matthew 12:40)
He would ascend into Heaven.
(Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9; Luke 24:50-51)
He would sit at the right hand of G-d.
(Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:2-3; Ephesians 1:20-21; 1 Peter 3:22)
He would usher in a New Covenant (Brit Hadashah).
(Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 22:20)
He would be a sure foundation to all who believe.
(Isaiah 28: 16; Romans 10:11; 1 Peter 2:4-6)
 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Here are a

Jimenezj wrote:
Here are a few from Isaiah for you to analyze And comment

Seventy Prophecies of Yeshua's First Coming

By Eddie Chumney CHAPTER 11

Are you Eddie Chumney?

I asked you:

PJTS wrote:

Please list and show why they are prophecies in your view not in Nathan E Jones view.

And

PJTS wrote:

List these 300 as well and why you think they relate to Jesus.

So, how is this you putting your own evidence forward?

I will comment on these quotes shortly, probably over the week end anyway even though you did not.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Paul John

Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one.
Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies
Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35
165. Isaiah 7:14...To be Emmanuel-God with us... Matthew 1:18-23
166. Isaiah 8:8...Called Emmanuel...Matthew 28:20
167. Isaiah 8:14...A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense... 1 Pet. 2:8
168. Isaiah 9:1,2...His ministry to begin in Galilee...Matthew 4:12-17
169. Isaiah 9:6...A child born-Humanity...Luke 1:31
170. Isaiah 9:6...A Son given-Deity...Luke 1:32; John 1;14; 1 Tim. 3:16
171. Isaiah 9:6...Declared to be the Son of God with power... Romans. 1:3,4
172. Isaiah 9:6...The Wonderful One, Peleh...Luke 4:22
173. Isaiah 9:6...The Counselor, Yaatz...Matthew 13:54
174. Isaiah 9:6...The Mighty God, El Gibor...Matthew 11:20
175. Isaiah 9:6...The Everlasting Father, Avi Adth...John 8:58
176. Isaiah 9:6...The Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom...John . 16:33
177. Isaiah 9:7...To establish an everlasting kingdom...Luke 1:32-33
178. Isaiah 9:7...His Character-Just...John 5:30
179. Isaiah 9:7...No end to his Government, Throne, and Peace...Luke 1:32-33
180. Isaiah 11:1...Called a Nazarene-the Branch, Netzer...Matthew 2:23
181. Isaiah 11:1...A rod out of Jesse-Son of Jesse...Luke 3:23,32
182. Isaiah 11:2...The anointed One by the Spirit...Matthew 3;16,17
183. Isaiah 11:2...His Character-Wisdom, Understanding, et al....John 4:4-26
184. Isaiah 11:4...His Character-Truth...John 14:6
185. Isaiah 11:10...The Gentiles seek Him...John 12:18-21
186. Isaiah 12:2...Called Jesus-Yeshua (salvation)...Matthew 1:21
187. Isaiah 16:4,5…Reigning in mercy…Luke 1:31-33
188. Isaiah 22:21-25…Peg in a sure place…Revelation 3:7
189. Isaiah 25:8...The Resurrection predicted...I Corinthians 15:54
190. Isaiah 26:19...His power of Resurrection predicted...John 11:43,44
191. Isaiah 28:16...The Messiah is the precious corner stone...Acts 4:11,12
192. Isaiah 29:13...He indicated hypocritical obedience to His Word...Matthew 15:7-9
193. Isaiah 29:14...The wise are confounded by the Word...I Corinthians 1:18-31
194. Isaiah 32:2...A Refuge-A man shall be a hiding place...Matthew 23:37
195. Isaiah 33:22…Son of the Highest…Luke 1:32; 1 Timothy 1:17 6:15
196. Isaiah 35:4...He will come and save you...Matthew 1:21
197. Isaiah 35:5...To have a ministry of miracles...Matthew 11:4-6
198. Isaiah 40:3,4...Preceded by forerunner...John 1:23
199. Isaiah 40:9..."Behold your God."...John 1:36;19:14
200. Isaiah 40:11...A shepherd-compassionate life-giver...John 10:10-18
201. Isaiah 42:1-4...The Servant-as a faithful, patient redeemer... Matthew12:18-21
202. Isaiah 42:2...Meek and lowly... Matthew 11:28-30
203. Isaiah 42:3...He brings hope for the hopeless... John 4
204. Isaiah 42:4...The nations shall wait on His teachings... John 12:20-26
205. Isaiah 42:6...The Light (salvation) of the Gentiles...Luke 2:32
206. Isaiah 42:1,6...His is a Worldwide compassion... Matthew 28:19,20
207. Isaiah 42:7...Blind eyes opened... John 9:25-38
208. Isaiah 42:13-25…Messiah’s actions at His second coming…Revelation
209. Isaiah 43:11...He is the only Savior... Acts 4:12
210. Isaiah 44:3...He will send the Spirit of God... John 16:7,13
211. Isaiah 45:23...He will be the Judge... John 5:22;Romans. 14:11
212. Isaiah 48:12...The First and the Last...John 1:30;Rev. 1:8,17
213. Isaiah 48:17...He came as a Teacher...John 3:2
214. Isaiah 49:1...Called from the womb-His humanity...Matthew 1:18
215. Isaiah 49:5...A Servant from the womb...Luke 1:31;Phil. 2:7
216. Isaiah 49:6...He is Salvation for Israel...Luke 2:29-32
217. Isaiah 49:6...He is the Light of the Gentiles...Acts 13:47
218. Isaiah 49:6...He is Salvation unto the ends of the earth... Acts 15:7-18
219. Isaiah 49:7...He is despised of the Nation... John 8:48-49
220. Isaiah 50:3...Heaven is clothed in black at His humiliation... Luke 23:44,45
221. Isaiah 50:4...He is a learned counselor for the weary... Matthew 11:28,29
222. Isaiah 50:5...The Servant bound willingly to obedience... Matthew 26:39
223. Isaiah 50:6a..."I gave my back to the smiters."... Matthew 27:26
224. Isaiah 50:6b...He was smitten on the cheeks... Matthew 26:67
225. Isaiah 50:6c...He was spat upon... Matthew 27:30
226. Isaiah 52:4-5…Suffered vicariously…Mark 15:3,4,27,28; Luke 23:1-25,32-34
227. Isaiah 52:7...To publish good tidings of peace... Luke 4:14,15
228. Isaiah 52:13...The Servant exalted...Acts 1:8-11; Ephesians 1:19-22
229. Isaiah 52:13...Behold, My Servant... Matthew 17:5; Phil. 2:5-8
230. Isaiah 52:14...The Servant shockingly abused... Luke 18:31-34; Matthew 26:67,68
231. Isaiah 52:15...Nations startled by message of the Servant... Romans. 15:18-21
232. Isaiah 52:15...His blood shed to make atonement for all... Rev. 1:5
233. Isaiah 53:1...His people would not believe Him... John 12:37-38
234. Isaiah 53:2a...He would grow up in a poor family.... Luke 2:7
235. Isaiah 53:2b...Appearance of an ordinary man... Phil. 2:7-8
236. Isaiah 53:3a...Despised.... Luke 4:28-29
237. Isaiah 53:3b...Rejected... Matthew 27:21-23
238. Isaiah 53:3c...Great sorrow and grief... Luke 19:41-42
239. Isaiah 53:3d...Men hide from being associated with Him... Mark 14:50-52
240. Isaiah 53:4a...He would have a healing ministry... Luke 6:17-19
241. Isaiah 53:4b...He would bear the sins of the world... 1 Pet. 2:24
242. Isaiah 53:4c...Thought to be cursed by God... Matthew 27:41-43
243. Isaiah 53:5a...Bears penalty for mankind's transgressions... Luke 23:33
244. Isaiah 53:5b...His sacrifice would provide peace between man and God... Col. 1:20
245. Isaiah 53:5c...His back would be whipped... Matthew 27:26
246. Isaiah 53:6a...He would be the sin-bearer for all mankind...Galatians 1:4
247. Isaiah 53:6b...God's will that He bear sin for all mankind... 1 John 4:10
248. Isaiah 53:7a...Oppressed and afflicted... Matthew 27:27-31
249. Isaiah 53:7b...Silent before his accusers... Matthew 27:12-14
250. Isaiah 53:7c...Sacrificial lamb... John 1:29
251. Isaiah 53:8a...Confined and persecuted... Matthew 26:47-27:31
252. Isaiah 53:8b...He would be judged... John 18:13-22
253. Isaiah 53:8c...Killed.... Matthew 27:35
254. Isaiah 53:8d...Dies for the sins of the world... 1 John 2:2
255. Isaiah 53:9a...Buried in a rich man's grave... Matthew 27:57
256. Isaiah 53:9b...Innocent and had done no violence... Mark 15:3
257. Isaiah 53:9c...No deceit in his mouth... John 18:38
258. Isaiah 53:10a...God's will that He die for mankind... John 18:11
259. Isaiah 53:10b...An offering for sin... Matthew 20:28
260. Isaiah 53:10c...Resurrected and live forever.... Mark 16:16
261. Isaiah 53:10d...He would prosper... John 17:1-5
262. Isaiah 53:11a...God fully satisfied with His suffering... John 12:27
263. Isaiah 53:11b...God's servant... Romans. 5:18-19
264. Isaiah 53:11c...He would justify man before God... Romans. 5:8-9

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Those "prophecies" are

 Those "prophecies" are based on the gospel writers ability to look back through the OT and make Jesus fit (even if they have to mangle the OT passage to do it).

Don't you guys have anything new after all your years of trying?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Jc

There are 100 Prophacies of Isaiah posted here.

If you are serious about what you preach, then why don't you analyze and comment on the first 70 prophecies ?
.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:There are 100

Jimenezj wrote:
There are 100 Prophacies of Isaiah posted here. If you are serious about what you preach, then why don't you analyze and comment on the first 70 prophecies ? .

I did.

They're not prophecies of Jesus. They are prophecies of either the coming Messiah (not Jesus) or the country of Israel (also not Jesus) that the gospel writers researched years later and wrote Jesus to fit them.

There's no good reason to go through each "prophecy" just to say that each time.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Jc

How are these prophecies not Jesus the Messiah?

164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35

Or All of Isaiah 53.

Example:

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Can you explain in more detail?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:How are these

Jimenezj wrote:
How are these prophecies not Jesus the Messiah? 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 Or All of Isaiah 53. Example: Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Can you explain in more detail?

Because it was written about the Messiah. The Gospel writers made Jesus the Messiah.

Here's why Jesus doesn't fit:

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Jewish-View-Of-Jesus.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ITS WORKING BACKWARDS!There

ITS WORKING BACKWARDS!

There is NO FUCKING SUCH THING AS A "PROPHET". The writers manufactured their super hero AFTER THE FACT to make it fit the older OT writings.

"Prophet" is the same motif as "oracle" as "crystal ball medium" ALL THE SAME SHIT but there is no fucking such thing.

The bible DOES NOT mention cell phones, DNA, mitosis, Steve Jobs, anymore than the Greek oracles could have predicted anymore than the Koran "predicts".

THE ARE ALL MERE SUPERSTITIOUS myths and it is merely retrofitting ambiguity AFTER THE FACT.

Scientific method is the ONLY valid tool that is universal that makes predictions about the nature of reality. BUT it does not make the superstitious claims that in 1,000,000 years a man named Frank will fuck a horse and make a Centaur and and his son named Roy will become President and save the world.

All science "predicts" is when humans fuck they make babies. I am sorry theists don't find reality sexy enough for them.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Jc

The Jews rejected Christ as stated by Isaiah.
The Jews prefer the material worship of God and will
Accept a non spiritual man known as the Antichrist.
Just like they preferred to be governed by a man called
Saul and not God. The Jews have rejected God since the
Bigining ( read the old testament) it is of no surprise that
They rejected the promised Savior. They will accept the
Antichrist when he will arise bringing peace to Israel. But
That peace will not last. He will be here to bring hell on
The Jews and on the world.

The only hope and escape for the Jew and the world is to confess
That Jesus is Lord and Savior.

God is Spirit and therefore is worshiped in the spirit and not
In the material ways of humanity.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The Jews

Jimenezj wrote:
The Jews rejected Christ as stated by Isaiah. The Jews prefer the material worship of God and will Accept a non spiritual man known as the Antichrist. Just like they preferred to be governed by a man called Saul and not God. The Jews have rejected God since the Bigining ( read the old testament) it is of no surprise that They rejected the promised Savior. They will accept the Antichrist when he will arise bringing peace to Israel. But That peace will not last. He will be here to bring hell on The Jews and on the world. The only hope and escape for the Jew and the world is to confess That Jesus is Lord and Savior. God is Spirit and therefore is worshiped in the spirit and not In the material ways of humanity.

So the fact that he doesn't meet the requirements of Messiah doesn't bother you?

Did you look at the article I linked to?

The Jews rejected Paul's attempt to make Jesus a god and himself as his sole prophet (as per his pagan roots). Jesus (being an observant Jew) wouldn't have approved of that either.

How could observant Jews reject the God that their ancestors created? Or do you mean that they rejected what Paul created and you like?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Very simple

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. 300 old testament prophecies in the bible were completed by the Life of Jesus Christ. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than Any other person in history as Bert said, Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.

BULL SHIT! THERE ARE 300 OT CLAIMS AND EVERY SINGLE ONE IS AMBIGUOUS MEANINGLESS CRAP AND WORKS JUST LIKE MODERN HOROSCOPES YOU READ IN A CRAPPY NATIONAL RAG LIKE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, IF YOU WANT TO READ SOMETHING INTO IT YOU WILL.

Jesus was not a magic baby and he did not survive death. He made no predictions about shit. He is an invention of people who wanted a super hero to exist BACK THEN.

YOU WILL NOT FIND DNA mentioned in the bible. You wont find my name mentioned in the bible, you wont find this post ver batum in the bible.

MUSLIMS TRY THE SAME "PREDICTION" SHIT TOO but you are not a Muslim.

Elaborate crap is still crap. You can poor tones of time into a domino display but it means absolutely NOTHING but entertainment.

"Kristos" or "anointed one" was a common motif in ancient cultures. "Jesus" as a name was as common as Smith or Jones. ALL cultures back then competed to market their super heros, but none of them saw into the future like you stupidly want to claim. It is merely manufacturing backwards after the fact to attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.

MYTH MYTH MYTH

Talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes, dirt magically popping out adults, the sun and moon being treated as separate sources of light. And you have the nerve to claim the bible predicts shit when it doesn't even get science right?

I have a prediction for you. I predict you will NEVER obtain a patent on your "poof magic man" theory and I also predict you will never win a Nobel Prize in science. How is that for "prediction".

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You know what these quotes are?

The quotes you mention are all based on someone or a group of followers looking back into the Hebrew Bible to puzzle piece fit THE JESUS.

The NT references are opinions by 1st century Jesus believers. All of which is in opposition to the originators of the storytelling myths of the Yahweh creators the Jews.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one. Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

When you post, all of your text is in one huge mass when one goes to quote it. This causes excessive issues as one must reformat the whole post to address the comments. I don't know how you are posting this stuff, from a smartphone with a crappy browser perhaps and you copy paste the text? It completely sucks.

I will address your Isaiah assertions first as I have time.

Meanwhile, go visit the English translation of the Hebrew Bible for a start to see part of why your Isaiah claims are a fishing expedition.

See - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.