There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

That is not the view of the majority of scholars. Most of them accept that Jesus existed and all the events that are reported in 2 or more sources (say Paul and Mark) are accepted as probable historical facts.

No that is not true. The Gospels are single theological sources and not treated as history. The Gospels are writing folklore about a legend, so is Paul. 2 fictional legends do not equal "true". Otherwise most religions would be true. But let's get this from an actual historian who studies Jesus. I have highlighted and somewhat transcribed referenced to scripture and the historical method.

Debating the Resurrection (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)

22:50 It has to do with how do you know what happened in the past. Can you say somebody was raised from the dead never to die again? Is that like a historical statement or…it’s a Christian belief, but is it historical? How do you decide what’s historical? How many historians who write books about the 2nd World War claim that the allies won because God intervened at the Battle of the Bulge? If you are going to do it with Jesus how do you justify that?

25:17 No historian (from that time) chronicles any events you find in the Gospels, there are huge historical problems with the Gospels.

26:30 He (Mike Licona) is wrong, the implications that you can prove Christianity to be true are troubling and problematic.

28:23 The Gospel accounts of Jesus resurrecting are not historical and do not pass any historical criteria.

(After this interview Ehrman held a day long debate with Apologist/fundamentalist Mike Licona explaining why the Gospels are not history)

Side note, Licona admitted in a debate that the story about Saints raising from the grave during the resurrection were not literally true. He was immediately fired from the fundamentalist university where he worked.


32:12 Jesus central message was wrong. He believed the end of the world was coming in his own generation, all the forces of evil would be destroyed, resurrection of the dead, kingdom of God would come. (This is a Persian myth, Dr Ehrman doesn’t get into other myths, he just deals with what’s in the Gospels and it’s OT origins)


But his ethics were right. (His ethics were Hillilite teachings)


That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its commentary. Now go and study.


To one who wished to learn the entire Torah on one foot, Shabbat 31a


“Do not judge your friend until you have stood in his place.”13

13	Pirkei Avot 2:4.

Rabbi Hillel 101 BC - 8 AD


34:55 The idea that Jesus preaches family values is wrong. Jesus tells followers to leave family behind and follow him. This was not possible for family at this time. Leaving a wife was a death sentence for her and children.

The actual origins of this is likely something that happened after Jesus. After Jesus died stories circulated that he was raised, some people believed it some didn’t which would split family members. Jesus did not likely actually have that type of influence when he was alive. Much of what was said about Jesus is almost certainly not historical.

36:55 Ehrman on crucifixion - “God killed his own son, really?”

Not well known, actual Christian theologians are more like philosophers, the good ones are incredibly smart and all have problems with the atonement idea.
Ehrman believes after Jesus was killed for crimes against the state the disciples have to figure out what to do with that because he was supposed to be the messiah who saved them from the Romans. This led to them connecting magic blood sacrifice which was done with animals with a more potent magic of a savior.

(Ehrman doesn’t look to Hellenism or any other theology to explain this, he keeps everything within the religion)

40:30 Why would God need apologist and why do they all disagree on doctrine so much? Religion is not historical, not based on history or logic, it’s a belief based on faith.


42:18 You cannot accept the resurrection without faith. It isn’t an accident that only Christians believe the resurrection. If it were provable everyone else would believe it.

Most People Have No Clue What The Gospels Are!


5:04 Scholars realize the Gospels are saying different things


8:30 Ehrman on apologist arguments


10:09 Did the disciples write the Gospels, no, historical evidence says no. There are very good reasons how this is known. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses and written by very high level Greek writing. The illiterate people in the story were not the writers.


12:35 Did the Gospel authors care about what actually happened. -


The Gospels contain historical information and they contain legendary information.


14:40 Can we trust the canonical Gospels? Gospels date probably from 40-65 years after Jesus death. NT writers would not have known eyewitnesses but may have sources who knew stories.


These stories have been passed down for many many years. Each writer probably thought they were writing the “one” Gospel.

 

[joelr]

The only exception are those claims that have theological implications that atheist don’t like.

The "anti-supernatural bias" is a fallacy. Ehrman gets accused of it by only fundamentalists (you have joined the bandwagon) and it's a misunderstanding of how the critical historical method works. He speaks on it below.
It's also a bunch of B.S. because you don't expect historians to say the supernatural events in the Quran are true, while being attested by multiple people in many cases. Or the updates from Joseph Smith, with multiple witnesses, original documents and far more recent?

It's a faith position, period.

The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]


21:20 People have trouble getting their minds around how scholarship has developed since the Enlightenment that allowed technology to develop. Why didn’t earlier people develop similar advances. It happened when scientists decided not to try to understand everything from a religious philosophical perspective but from an empirical evidence point of reference.


Francis Bacon, Newton…… Historians started developing the same mindset at the same time and also made great leaps.


Someone who thinks Christianity is the exception to the rule is breaking the rule. Even if you are Christian you bracket your faith to study the past.


23:07 Anti Supernatural bias, Ehrman gets accused often of this bias. It is NOT an anti-supernatural bias, it’s how the discipline works. There are millions of historians, many of them are Christian, but when they do history they don’t import their beliefs into it.


You cannot have a resurrection without a miracle and you cannot have a miracle without God intervening. There is no historian who talks about God intervening in history.

27:05 You cannot have a resurrection without a faith commitment

 

[leroy]

Where did you read it? You do not have a history of using reliable sources. And no, you have to own up to your ignorance. An honest interlocutor would do so.

Well that is why I am asking you for a source and a quote

 

[leroy]

No that is not true. The Gospels are single theological sources and not treated as history. The Gospels are writing folklore about a legend, so is Paul. 2 fictional legends do not equal "true". Otherwise most religions would be true. But let's get this from an actual historian who studies Jesus. I have highlighted and somewhat transcribed referenced to scripture and the historical method.

Debating the Resurrection (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)

22:50 It has to do with how do you know what happened in the past. Can you say somebody was raised from the dead never to die again? Is that like a historical statement or…it’s a Christian belief, but is it historical? How do you decide what’s historical? How many historians who write books about the 2nd World War claim that the allies won because God intervened at the Battle of the Bulge? If you are going to do it with Jesus how do you justify that?

25:17 No historian (from that time) chronicles any events you find in the Gospels, there are huge historical problems with the Gospels.

26:30 He (Mike Licona) is wrong, the implications that you can prove Christianity to be true are troubling and problematic.

28:23 The Gospel accounts of Jesus resurrecting are not historical and do not pass any historical criteria.

(After this interview Ehrman held a day long debate with Apologist/fundamentalist Mike Licona explaining why the Gospels are not history)

Side note, Licona admitted in a debate that the story about Saints raising from the grave during the resurrection were not literally true. He was immediately fired from the fundamentalist university where he worked.


32:12 Jesus central message was wrong. He believed the end of the world was coming in his own generation, all the forces of evil would be destroyed, resurrection of the dead, kingdom of God would come. (This is a Persian myth, Dr Ehrman doesn’t get into other myths, he just deals with what’s in the Gospels and it’s OT origins)


But his ethics were right. (His ethics were Hillilite teachings)


That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its commentary. Now go and study.


To one who wished to learn the entire Torah on one foot, Shabbat 31a


“Do not judge your friend until you have stood in his place.”13

13	Pirkei Avot 2:4.

Rabbi Hillel 101 BC - 8 AD


34:55 The idea that Jesus preaches family values is wrong. Jesus tells followers to leave family behind and follow him. This was not possible for family at this time. Leaving a wife was a death sentence for her and children.

The actual origins of this is likely something that happened after Jesus. After Jesus died stories circulated that he was raised, some people believed it some didn’t which would split family members. Jesus did not likely actually have that type of influence when he was alive. Much of what was said about Jesus is almost certainly not historical.

36:55 Ehrman on crucifixion - “God killed his own son, really?”

Not well known, actual Christian theologians are more like philosophers, the good ones are incredibly smart and all have problems with the atonement idea.
Ehrman believes after Jesus was killed for crimes against the state the disciples have to figure out what to do with that because he was supposed to be the messiah who saved them from the Romans. This led to them connecting magic blood sacrifice which was done with animals with a more potent magic of a savior.

(Ehrman doesn’t look to Hellenism or any other theology to explain this, he keeps everything within the religion)

40:30 Why would God need apologist and why do they all disagree on doctrine so much? Religion is not historical, not based on history or logic, it’s a belief based on faith.


42:18 You cannot accept the resurrection without faith. It isn’t an accident that only Christians believe the resurrection. If it were provable everyone else would believe it.

Most People Have No Clue What The Gospels Are!


5:04 Scholars realize the Gospels are saying different things


8:30 Ehrman on apologist arguments


10:09 Did the disciples write the Gospels, no, historical evidence says no. There are very good reasons how this is known. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses and written by very high level Greek writing. The illiterate people in the story were not the writers.


12:35 Did the Gospel authors care about what actually happened. -


The Gospels contain historical information and they contain legendary information.


14:40 Can we trust the canonical Gospels? Gospels date probably from 40-65 years after Jesus death. NT writers would not have known eyewitnesses but may have sources who knew stories.


These stories have been passed down for many many years. Each writer probably thought they were writing the “one” Gospel.

All that is very interesting, but it doesn't refute the comment that I made.

Namelly
"Events that are reported in 2 or more sources (say mark and and paul) are typically accepted as fact by most historians......... except for those claims that have theological implications that challenge naturalism.

 

[leroy]

The "anti-supernatural bias" is a fallacy. Ehrman gets accused of it by only fundamentalists (you have joined the bandwagon) and it's a misunderstanding of how the critical historical method works. He speaks on it below.
It's also a bunch of B.S. because you don't expect historians to say the supernatural events in the Quran are true, while being attested by multiple people in many cases. Or the updates from Joseph Smith, with multiple witnesses, original documents and far more recent?

It's a faith position, period.

The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]


21:20 People have trouble getting their minds around how scholarship has developed since the Enlightenment that allowed technology to develop. Why didn’t earlier people develop similar advances. It happened when scientists decided not to try to understand everything from a religious philosophical perspective but from an empirical evidence point of reference.


Francis Bacon, Newton…… Historians started developing the same mindset at the same time and also made great leaps.


Someone who thinks Christianity is the exception to the rule is breaking the rule. Even if you are Christian you bracket your faith to study the past.


23:07 Anti Supernatural bias, Ehrman gets accused often of this bias. It is NOT an anti-supernatural bias, it’s how the discipline works. There are millions of historians, many of them are Christian, but when they do history they don’t import their beliefs into it.


You cannot have a resurrection without a miracle and you cannot have a miracle without God intervening. There is no historian who talks about God intervening in history.

27:05 You cannot have a resurrection without a faith commitment

Yes for the most part, I agree with Bart.

The resurection goes beyond the scope of history. and what historians can do.


The relevant question , is why do you have a bias against supernatural claims? And how strong is that bias..... Which is a phylosophycal question that has nothing to do with history.

 

[joelr]

(Note your change from a neutral description of their decline after a reduction in active support to an active claim regarding of a tactic of destruction)

Non sequitur, pointless.

You might have meant something different, but you certainly said it when we read your words in context.

The neglect of churches today is comparable to the neglect of temples in late antiquity, either both are “destruction” or neither are as they are the exact same thing: religious buildings closing down or being repurposed because they cannot financially support themselves due to changing religious norms.

You can’t seem to understand that most things that no longer exist were not destroyed, they just weren’t actively saved despite the fact you can observe it happening today in real time.

Not talking about today. Anti-paganism in Rome was a big thing.

You claimed they destroyed all temples of all religions and eradicated all non-canonical materials.

Being generous and accounting for hyperbole, you need to support a claim that there was a highly successful, systematic campaign to eradicate paganism and heresy across the empire and beyond.

I did, I presented many many instances and types of anti-pagan practices. All you did was produce one report saying archaeologists found less temples may have been actually destroyed. However this is unclear for reasons given. Why are you still trying to get somewhere with this?

As you now admit, paganism declined slowly as this systematic campaign of destruction never happened and all kinds of non-canonical material survived.

What all sources show is that while there was violence and legal oppression at times, violence was the exception and laws were mostly not enforced so its impact was pretty limited.

You presented no evidence that supports your claim, just stuff that supports my claim.

No, all of the examples I gave supported my claim. Since you need more, we can do that.

Theodosius I: The Anti-Pagan Roman Emperor who made Christianity the Official State Religion - World History Edu

Life, Reign and Major Accomplishments of the Roman Emperor who was known for his decrees that persecuted pagans and promoted Nicene Christianity.

www.worldhistoryedu.com

About half a century after Constantine the Great (reign: 306-337) began repressing pagans in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina (i.e. Jerusalem), Emperor Theodosius I (reign: 379-395) turned up the heat on the ban on pagan religious practices and made Nicene Christianity the official state religion.

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began during the reign of Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. Constantine is believed to have ordered the destruction of a pagan temple (believed to be the temple of Aphrodite built by Emperor Hadrian) in Jerusalem (i.e. formerly the military colony of Aelia Capitolina) in order to build a Christian church.


Constantine’s successors, with the exception of Emperor Julian (reign: 361-363), not only intensified their anti-pagan policies they also increased the penalties for carrying out pagan rituals and sacrifices.

There were even cases that some pagans were threatened with death penalties. In Roman Italy for example, some pagan rituals were treated as capital crimes during the co-reigns of Constantine’s sons – Constantius II, Constantine II, and Constans I. For example, Constantius II (reign: 337-361) had a personal maxim: “Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum aboleatur insania”, which means “Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be abolished”.

As part of Constantius II’s efforts to repress the practices of pagans he even removed the Altar of Victory from the Roman Senate. It is said that the altar was placed there by Augustus, Rome’s first emperor, in 29 BC so that senators could make sacrifices upon it before entering the Senate.

Theodosius I’s persecution of pagans​

During Theodosius I’s reign, he reinforced many of those anti-pagan policies, especially those on animal sacrifice and apostasy.
In some cases, the pagan temples were deconsecrated. They did this by removing the cult statue and altar from the temple and then using them as churches. In other cases, the hands and feet of the statues were mutilated – including heads and genitals.

However, in some cases, the emperor chose to look the other way when some Christian zealots destroyed pagan holy sites and temples. For example, refused to bring to book his praetorian prefect Maternus Cynegius who went on a rampage and damaged many pagan shrines in the eastern provinces.

Another thing that he did was to make pagan holidays workdays. He allowed pagans to continue celebrating their festivals because he did not want to make them feel repressed.

Other anti-pagan decrees by Theodosius the Great​

In the decades that followed after his reign, his anti-pagan decrees were further strengthened; and ultimately his successors eliminated public sacrifices for good. Here are a few more things about Theodosius anti-pagan policies:

• With the last Ancient Olympic Games taking place in 393, it is believed that either Theodosius I, or his grandson Theodosius II in 435, suppressed them
• Theodosius ordered for the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum to be extinguished.
• Some of his decrees clamped down on the activities of augury and witchcraft. The former refers to people who interpreted omens from observed behavior of birds.

This is just moving to the 4th century. Your idea that there was no systematic persecution going on and I have a "conspiracy theory" is absurd.
Yes mercy was shown, some temples still exist but this was definitely a thing.

If you now agree with me then great, we can move on.

I'm sorry, I'm not able to do denial. Pagans were persecuted in many forms in Rome. Move on.

Christian gnosticism was Nag Hammadi, dss were Jewish, no?

Did you just. ask if a Christian sect was Jewish? Gnostic sects were like Eastern versions of Christianity. Some say Jesus was a different God than Yahweh. Some say he was only a spirit. No power structure, women can teach.

For any single text to survive you needed rich people or institutions to be willing to spend large sums of money preserving them.

You saved those most important to you, as no one spends vast sums of money in perpetuity to save things that are not important to them.

The texts of fringe groups mostly don’t survive because they weren’t popular enough to gain the institutional support necessary to survive.

Any choice to save one text was implicitly a choice not to save another text.

Not to mention wars and political instability that could destroy any library or institution.

Tapes of the moon landings have been lost or perhaps recorded over, folk like you would see this as a conspiracy to destroy the truth rather than some mundane financial decisions that look bad in hindsight.

These tapes only had to survive a few decades in a rich and stable country, but were lost for all time. You seem to think missing stuff must have been destroyed by nefarious agents though, which is wilfully blind to reality.

So your claim that the reason there is no evidence for your mythical space Jesus heresies is that they were destroyed by the church and all memeory of them erased is implausible knowing what we do about imperial power and it’s limited ability to impose conformity.

We have so many heresies that did survive, and early Christianity was so factional it would be unlikely that the One True Heresy disappeared without trace despite being known to diverse Christians and opponents alike.

We know about many heresies only because orthodox Christians wrote about them to “refute” them.

This doesn’t match your claim that they destroyed all non-canonical materials

Moon landing?

First, I didn't say there was no evidence? I gave two of now which I need repeat because you never actually answer my posts?

But you just said it. You just explained why many text don't survive then ask why there isn't evidence for a different doctrine?
Not everything was destroyed, some was just left alone. Acts 9.1-2, where Paul is said to have written about Christins preaching in synagogues everywhere and other matters. It is a fact that all Christian documents have been selected, forged, meddled or edited. The NT underwent a considerable amount of editing, interpolation and revising over the first 2 centuries, from scribal error and specific dogmatic intent. Extra-biblical literature underwent more of the same, with blatant forgery and revision. The evidence for Jesus is among the most compromised bodies of evidence in the whole of ancient history. It cannot be said this has no effect on it's reliability.

There is a redaction of Ascension of Isiah where Jesus is the highest angel in the 6th heaven (7 is for God) and he goes to the first heaven and battles Satan, dies and resurrects. Nothing is said about visiting earth or being killed by Romans. He is crucified on a tree in the celestial realm.
There was massive amounts of forging, doctoring or not preserving evidence by the orthodox sect.
There was a collective movement to pass off a particular story at some point - that Jesus really lived, said certain things conducive to the doctrines they wanted to promote.
No one "colluded" to forge an ending for Mark. It was not an order. Someone just did it and it happened to agree with what everyone wanted to be there so they continued to preserve it.

Also Philo mentions a firstborn angel, God's favorite son,"The East" and other similar attributes to the Gospel Jesus, far before the NT. This arcangel may have been what was used in the story at first. Philo was mentioning a Jewish Jesus before Christianity was forming.

Heresies that completely change the doctrine would not survive. The Gnostic gospels only survive by being hidden in a cave and preserved.

 

[joelr]

We have mystery religions based around real people.

All of the mystery religions that emerged around the time of the gods purported life were based on real people.

Please direct me to your sources:

Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic

All the others existed in mythic time or demonstrably emerged long after the hero’s purported life.

please direct me to your sources

It’s pretty obvious why this is what we would expect.

The idea that being a god in a mystery religion makes it unlikely they could have existed is clearly false.

Cool, please tell me which person Mithras was based on? Did he kill the bull before or after becoming a God?

Also it's a false equivalence fallacy. x doesn't equal y.

Excellent, we have centuries of heresy and factional fighting that document all kinds of innovations and reimaginings, yet none of them relate to the “real origin” of a mythical space Jesus with no earthly life.

Right. Except Philo and Ascension of Isaiah, version.....?


Oh, and Paul believed Jesus was a heavenly man before he acquired a body that could die (Philippians 2:6-7; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 10:4).

And having your limited human life written about within 20-30 years or so is near real time no matter how much you deny it.

Jesus died ~30AD. Mark wrote in 70 AD. That is 40 years. A human lifetime in that time. Funny you say "deny" when saying something completely false.
Paul knows of a vision of a ghost who was a heavenly being.

Stories of Muhammad and his canonical biography developed for over 300 years after his life and contain many fantastical events and obvious tropes, that doesn’t make his existence less probable or early references to his life inadmissible.

Far less than for Jesus. Mark is one big work of fiction. Rewriting Kings narrative, Romulus, Paul, even Psalms is used in the crucifixion
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.

But everyone conveniently forgot until they started writing polemics in the early modern period…

No the modern historical method started the same time as the scientific revolution. Religion has been too much of a hotbed subject until recently. It wasn't done in the past this way. The first actual instance in the U.S. was the 1940's I think? Spinoza was the first.

That would not be the most parsimonious reading of the evidence and is speculation in defence of a preconceived narrative.

What evidence? You have presented no evidence? You ignore my evidence and make guesses about other religions.

Gospels are a timeline of a human man and the earliest were written within a few decades, likely based on earlier sources.

Mark Goodacre has done away with Q and M. How is 70 a "few decades"? It's 40 years?
It isn't based on earlier sources, it's Hellenism, some folklore yes, and other fiction, Paul, Romulus, Jesus Ben Ananias, Homer, OT narratives, total fiction. No sources, improbable events, parables in parables, a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul.


The principal works to consult on Mark's use of Paul (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

Paul refers to family and this matches Josephus.

No he mentions a possible brother in the lord.
Josephus is highly debated.


"Paul is making a distinction; he uses the full term for a Christian (“Brothers of the Lord”) every time he needs to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians. The James in Galatians 1 is not an Apostle. He is just a rank-and-file Christian. Merely a Brother of the Lord, not an Apostolic Brother of the Lord. The only Apostle he met at that time, he says, was Cephas (Peter), the first Apostle (according to 1 Corinthians 15:5 in light of 1 Corinthians 9:1). Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas.

Given what we have from Paul, this is just as likely, if not more likely, than the alternative reading, because we have evidence direct from Paul that he knows of cultic Brothers of the Lord (as in Romans 8:29 he says all Christians are brothers of the Lord), but no evidence he knows of biological brothers of the Lord, a significantly different category of person. So when Paul says “Brothers of the Lord,” he never says which kind he means; and had he known that there were two different kinds of such brothers, the cultic and the biological, he would need to clarify which he meant. That he never clarifies which he meant, means he only knew of one kind. And the only kind of such brother we can clearly establish he knew, was the cultic. And if even that doesn’t move you, he still doesn’t tell you which he meant; so you can’t otherwise claim to know.

That’s how Greek worked. You’d commonly just say things like “Cephas the Apostle and Brother James.” You didn’t need to say anything more for hearers of Greek to know what you mean. Likewise the use of the definite article doesn’t work in Greek exactly like it does in English. It is routine for Paul to say “So-and-so the brother” of many Christians "




Josephus is debated, since 2014 several papers have come out casting doubt on the passage

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

All that is very interesting, but it doesn't refute the comment that I made.

Namelly
"Events that are reported in 2 or more sources (say mark and and paul) are typically accepted as fact by most historians......... except for those claims that have theological implications that challenge naturalism.

Mark is using Paul and folklore. That is not 2 sources. Paul's claim is not one source. Just as Joseph Smith or Muhammad's claims hold no weight for you. It's only a faith based belief. Not historical.

Not events, sources or any such thing in historical scholarship.

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

Yes for the most part, I agree with Bart.

The resurection goes beyond the scope of history. and what historians can do.


The relevant question , is why do you have a bias against supernatural claims? And how strong is that bias..... Which is a phylosophycal question that has nothing to do with history.

The answer is I do not have a bias against supernatural claims. I have a respect for logic, empirical evidence and the facts that can be demonstrated. Most of which you ignore. I am speaking to many things here but the most obvious is this is just a trending myth spreading around a common region.

In fact Bart unintentionally demonstrates Christianity is a Pagan (Hellenism in this case) legend.

He confirms Jewish theology was that the body resurrects because there is no soul. (body resurection is taken from Persian beliefs). For 1000 years Israelites never even heard of a soul going to an afterlife.

But the early Christians Paul was speaking of were raised Pagan (Greek) and THAT is why they believe in a soul that continues on after death.

Paul even says the first Christinas were in Antioch which is the center of Hellenism. See below.

The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]


5:00 No soul in Judaism. 1st Cor, very misunderstood. Paul is writing to a group of Christians who did not believe in a physical resurrection. A physical resurrection is a Jewish idea (from 2nd Temple Persian myth). In traditional Jewish thinking there isn’t a separation between body and soul. It’s all one thing. They did not have the idea that the soul would be rewarded because the body/soul was the same.


6:25 A Soul is Pagan not Jewish Pauls opponents in Corinth who were Christians were raised in PAGAN circles where there was separation of body and soul and were saying there was no physical resurrection of the body, just a soul. Paul was saying there must be a physical resurrection because Jesus was raised from the dead. So Paul argues there are different types of bodies to resolve this conflict. Paul argues Jesus rose in a spiritual body that looked like a human body but was an immortal body.





Clear proof that a soul living into afterlife IS PAGAN, or Hellenistic.




Hellenism comes in contact with Judaism and early Christian beliefs, or Hellenistic Judaism becomes Christianity with the addition of a savior, either Philo's firstborn angel or an actual Rabbi who was considered a messianic figure against the Romans. Who was killed and mythicized.
The cradle of the Christian church is a center of Hellenistic culture.


Hellenistic religion

The apotheosis of rulers also brought the idea of divinity down to earth.
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Antioch on the Orontes

The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity. The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.


[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186



[6] "Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". biblehub.com.

Christianity
Antioch was a chief center of early Christianity during Roman times.[26] The city had a large population of Jewish origin in a quarter called the Kerateion, and so attracted the earliest missionaries.[27] Evangelized by, among others, Peter himself, according to the tradition upon which the Patriarchate of Antioch[28] still rests its claim for primacy,[29] and later (according to the Acts of the Apostles) by Barnabas and Paul[30][clarification needed], its converts were the first to be called Christians.


From here comes the idea of a soul that goes to an afterlife, baptism, eucharist, salvation and a savior.
These are empirical facts that demonstrate the origins of the religion, like all others is not revelations but folklore and man made theology.

 

[joelr]

When someone will argue with the
dictionary they are -or sound- unhinged,
and, yeah. It's a waste.

Yes, thank you, I needed that. It's like , wait, didn't I already...............?????

 

[Audie]

Yes, thank you, I needed that. It's like , wait, didn't I already...............?????

I dunno. Did? (????)

 

[leroy]

Mark is using Paul and folklore.

That Mark is using Paul is not the view of the majority of historians

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is why I am asking you for a source and a quote

And once again you want others to do your homework for you. The "cost" I demanded was minimal and would only be an admission of what everyone already knows.

 

[leroy]

The answer is I do not have a bias against supernatural claims. I have a respect for logic, empirical evidence and the facts that can be demonstrated. Most of which you ignore. I am speaking to many things here but the most obvious is this is just a trending myth spreading around a common region.

In fact Bart unintentionally demonstrates Christianity is a Pagan (Hellenism in this case) legend.

He confirms

Perhaps it is my fault, because I don’t speack English as a mother language, but in my view“bias” is not supposed to be an offensive nor pejorative term……

All I am saying is that you would require more evidence for a supernatural claim, than for a natural claim

that is not suppose to be a bad thing.

 

[leroy]

And once again you want others to do your homework for you. The "cost" I demanded was minimal and would only be an admission of what everyone already knows.

If you are making the claim, it is your homework to support that claim,

But never mind, I will add this to the endless list of claims that you don’t support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are making the claim, it is your homework to support that claim,

But never mind, I will add this to the endless list of claims that you don’t support.

Once again you ignored the post where that was explained to you. Go back and read it. You keep showing that my action is correct.

 

[leroy]

Once again you ignored the post where that was explained to you. Go back and read it. You keep showing that my action is correct.

I am not interested in you “explaining” I am interested in you supporting your assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not interested in you “explaining” I am interested in you supporting your assertions.

I offered to do so. You merely have to demonstrate a tiny bit of honesty. You have to know that you are rather tiresome at times. That is why so many no longer respond to you. You want me to do something for you for free. By not being an honest interlocutor you lost the right to make such demands. The price was small and reasonalbe.

 

[leroy]

I offered to do so. You merely have to demonstrate a tiny bit of honesty. You have to know that you are rather tiresome at times. That is why so many no longer respond to you. You want me to do something for you for free. By not being an honest interlocutor you lost the right to make such demands. The price was small and reasonalbe.

tiresome ?

You are the one who is avoiding and inventing excuses for not supporting your assertions.

We´ve been over 10 post dancing around this.

If you made an assertion you are supposed to support it, regardless if I am being honest or not……..

Don’t you think that other people that are following the thread might be interested in gaining this information that you have?

price was small and reasonalbe

 

[leroy]

I offered to do so. Y

Then do it

This thread is full of random assertions that you have failed to support,

1 your assertions that there are other sources apart from Josephus confirming the date of the Census at 6AD

2 your assertion about the Illiad

3 your assertion about “mundane claims” in paul and the gospels

4 your assertion that the documents whent trough a process of homogenization

( the process of making things uniform or similar.)