Do you believe in the mythist theory ?

[caseagainstfaith]

Hm, I've not really seen them in either his Misquoting Jesus or Lost Christianities. At least not overtly.

Definitely NOT overtly, given that he staunchly defends historicity.  Its just that some of his arguments actually help the mythist case, in spite of himself.  Like in Forged, Ehrman talks about how people just made shit up.

[PilatesQuestion]

The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.
Tacitus also wrote about Jesus. Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian. The Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.

[caseagainstfaith]

The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.

Actually, the entire reference by Josephus is questioned.  I agree that there are a lot of scholars that consider it partially genuine. But there are a lot that think it is 100% fabrication.

Tacitus also wrote about Jesus.

Actually, he primarily wrote about Christians, which nobody doubts existed.  He does state that Jesus what crucified under Pilate, but, we don't know his source. He probably just got it from other Christians.

Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian. The Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.

LOL. Only if they have a Christian bias.  Luke doesn't tell his sources, other than a brief claim that the details were "handed down" from the first eyewitnesses. He doesn't tell us about competing traditions, which we know existed.  He doesn't tell us how he decided what was true and what was false.

And, he did a lot of cut and pasting from Mark, which we know is from oral traditions which could not have been verified.

Don't hand us your bullshit apologetics lines. We fucking know better.

[PilatesQuestion]

So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?
Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.
Everyone has biases, so you can't throw out an entire historical account based on bias. Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?

[caseagainstfaith]

So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?

Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier.  Me.

Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false.  His writing was pro Jewish in every way.  He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone.  He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.

Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.

I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was.  I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.

And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise.  So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.

Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)

At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe.  In short, they made shit up all the time.  It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well.  It is not true that it is the usual case.  Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified.  This is basic, obvious stuff here.  If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not.  Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.

Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?

Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.

Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about?  This is a serious question.  Do you have one fucking clue?

[Colanth]

The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.

"Christian scholars" (apologists with no special expertise) claim that the nature of the writing authenticates or invalidates it, but in the case of that Josephus passage they refuse to accept that the nature of the writing invalidates it.  (It would be like a Christian of the day writing "Our Lord Zeus".)

Tacitus also wrote about Jesus.

He wrote about an anointed leader, he never wrote about Jesus.

Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian.

"Luke" itself claims to just be clarifying the writings of others.  (Scholars read this as "adding more to the story".)

The Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.

By some, not all, scholars.  Same problems, though - who wrote Paul and when?  We have Christian myth but no evidence.

And you keep confusing "scholar" - someone who has studied history or a relevant science (depending on what we're talking about) - with "Christian apologist" - someone who, at most, has studied the Bible and other Christian sources.  Sources that history and science actually contradict.

Remember - if your beliefs and reality don't agree, it's not reality that's wrong.

[Colanth]

Tacitus also wrote about Jesus.

Actually, he primarily wrote about Christians, which nobody doubts existed.  He does state that Jesus what crucified under Pilate

Actually, he never mentions Jesus.

""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius"

"Christus" means "anointed", it's not Jesus' family name.  He's saying that the name of the group comes from the fact that its leader was anointed.  "The anointed one" suffered.  Christianity steals that as "Jesus suffered".

And if he had such reliable sources, why did he get Pilate's title so wrong?

"during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Pilate was prefect, not procurator.  The ruler of Judea in Tacitus' time was a procurator, but that wasn't true in Jesus [supposed] time, so the entire thing is suspect.

[Colanth]

Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)

What was taught was the Bible (the OT, of course).  Oral tradition was important up until the Bible was committed to writing, about 400 years earlier.  And there's nothing in oral tradition about Jesus.  (Isaiah was about a warlord with the name Emmanuel - not about a man who could be, with a lot of tortured twisting, be called "God is with us".  That's Christian stuff added on, that the Jews who wrote it never intended.)

[Colanth]

At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe.

"Not nearly as good"?

According to oral tradition, Exodus happened and, at the time it happened the Hebrews were totally monotheistic.

According to archaeology it never happened (we know what actually happened in Canaan) and they were polytheistic at the time.

"Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.

[caseagainstfaith]

Pilate was prefect, not procurator.  The ruler of Judea in Tacitus' time was a procurator, but that wasn't true in Jesus [supposed] time, so the entire thing is suspect.

Richard Carrier says this part is not correct.  He could have had both titles.

"Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.

LOL.  Well, there are really two issues.  One is how well the oral tradition is preserved in repeated tellings.  And the other issue is how accurate it represents reality.  Jews and Christians like to tout claims of at least the first, that they were capable of maintaining accuracy over repeated tellings.  And it is easy to concede that at least some people, with effort, can maintain accuracy over repeated tellings.  But, even if some people can, that doesn't mean that everybody at the time could.  This was the part that I was referring to, that Ehrman indicates that the ability to maintain accuracy over repeated tellings wasn't, in general, as good as they would have us believe.

[Colanth]

"Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.

LOL.  Well, there are really two issues.  One is how well the oral tradition is preserved in repeated tellings.  And the other issue is how accurate it represents reality.  Jews and Christians like to tout claims of at least the first, that they were capable of maintaining accuracy over repeated tellings.

Since the Jewish Bible was actually (at least) 4 different books that were combined into one during the Exile, and they were all different (Isaac killed, no story about God telling Abraham to kill Isaac, God telling Abraham but changing his mind), it's difficult to say "capable of maintaining accuracy" with a straight face.  How can 4 contradictory stories all be "accurate"?

And it is easy to concede that at least some people, with effort, can maintain accuracy over repeated tellings.

Trained storytellers can, but the Hebrews didn't have a tradition of trained storytellers.

But, even if some people can, that doesn't mean that everybody at the time could.  This was the part that I was referring to, that Ehrman indicates that the ability to maintain accuracy over repeated tellings wasn't, in general, as good as they would have us believe.

I think that Ehrman is giving them FAR too much credit.  For one instance, the Noah tale is the Babylonian story, butchered beyond recognition - WHILE the Hebrews writing it lived in Babylon.  It's almost proof, alone, that the story is made up.  (The story is physically impossible but even if it weren't, the distance it was taken from Gilgamesh in such a short time labels it a fairy tale.)

[PilatesQuestion]

So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?

Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier.  Me.

Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false.  His writing was pro Jewish in every way.  He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone.  He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.

Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.

I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was.  I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.

And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise.  So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.

Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)

At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe.  In short, they made shit up all the time.  It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well.  It is not true that it is the usual case.  Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified.  This is basic, obvious stuff here.  If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not.  Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.

Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?

Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.

Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about?  This is a serious question.  Do you have one fucking clue?

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.

[WitchSabrina]

So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?

Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier.  Me.

Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false.  His writing was pro Jewish in every way.  He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone.  He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.

Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.

I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was.  I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.

And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise.  So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.

Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)

At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe.  In short, they made shit up all the time.  It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well.  It is not true that it is the usual case.  Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified.  This is basic, obvious stuff here.  If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not.  Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.

Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?

Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.

Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about?  This is a serious question.  Do you have one fucking clue?

Epic, Case.  Totally epic !!  =D>  :rollin:  =D>  :rollin:

Can I get a laughing, rolling widget that claps with gleee, please?

[caseagainstfaith]

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.

I think you are probably correct here.  But, to my knowledge, no scholar arguing that it is partially genuine has explained why Josephus would have wrote of Jesus in neutral terms when he condemned other would-be Messiahs.

Bottom line here is, there is no absolute guarantee either way.  I accept that it is at least possible that there was something genuine. And if that is true, then that would be good evidence against mythist position. But, I think it simply at least as likely that it is total fabrication.

2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.

With all things in historical study, there are simply degrees of certainty.  For example, today we discard lots of what Josephus says.  His pro-Roman, pro-Jewish bias is believed to have tainted his reporting.  And when he reports stories of chariots flying in the sky (which he does) we dismiss it as simply impossible. See, history research requires some common sense, and a lot of estimation.

With any claim by any historian, we can only estimate how likely they are to be correct. They could have used a known generally good source, and still be wrong. They could have used a known unreliable source, and yet get something right.  In the particular case, for one, as far as Tacitus on Jesus, as Colanth pointed out, there is debate as to even if his reference to "Chrestus" is actually Jesus the Christ.  But, even if we accept it for sake of argument that it is about Jesus, since we don't know his source, and given that he would probably accept something as trivial as the existence of Jesus from Christians, even if he otherwise didn't like Christians, makes the particular claim not very strong.  I accept it is at least possible that he was talking about Jesus and did have a good source.  In which case, that would again be a good argument against the myth theory.  But, the strength of the claim isn't strong enough to carry much weight.

See, history study isn't so much a case of "throwing things out" as it is going with preponderance of evidence and giving each specific claim an estimated probability of being correct.

3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.

No shit!  Really?  Known Christian apologists argue on the side of Christianity?  Who'd a thunk that???

Seriously, I know that there is bias on all sides.  The references I gave, Price, Carrier, etc. are biased against Christianity.  So it isn't all that surprising that your sources favor your side, my sources favor my side.  But, these are pretty much known facts.  Average people of the time didn't really have a concept of accurate reporting.  Nobody had TV's, newspapers, Internet, etc.  Most people were more interested in what they felt was "spiritual truth" in the stories they told, rather than accurate reporting. They had no way to know what was really accurate or not, nowhere they could look facts up. Thus the entire concept of accurate reporting was foreign to them.

Thus we know for a fact that as a general rule, oral reports were not reliable.  If you want, I can dig up a quote from a historian of the time who said as much.  I don't remember which one, I'd have to go searching.  But I know that someone like Josephus specifically lamented the fact that tales grow taller on down the line.

Even if I accept that some Jewish scholars were trained in reliable storytelling, that says NOTHING about the specific people whom the original Christian stories came from.  You can't say, "some people were reliable", therefore "the people who passed the original Christian stories on down were reliable"

Again, as Colanth pointed out, we know of specific things in the OT that never happened, like the Exodus.  These were events passed down orally, and never happened.

4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.

Well, there is a some debate whether there was a Q, or whether Matthew itself is actually is Q.  But, for sake of argument, I'll go with Q.  In any case, Mark didn't use Q.  I wasn't mentioning Q, I was mentioning Mark.  But, indeed, Luke used both Mark and Q (or Matthew)  So, he cut and pasted from Mark and Q.

I agree that each of the Gospels have some amount that is unique to the Gospel.  And, by the way, when they diverge from Mark & Q is where they have the most contradictions.

In any case, you seem to now concede that Luke did cut and paste from other sources, sources that are oral traditions that cannot be verified.  So, you've just conceded the argument.  You've lost.

I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.

Lee Strobel.  LOL. He's a cheap hack.  I happen to be a Strobel expert of sorts.  I have on my website refutations of all the Case for ... books.  And I don't make a fucking dime on it, you can read it all for free.  Strobel is a conman selling books and making himself rich off fools like you.

Check out my site.  All the articles won't cost you a dime.  I'd suggest starting with the Case for Faith article.  Then Case for the Real Jesus.  Then Case for a Creator.  Do Case for Christ last, as the papers on my site for Case for Christ were not written by me.  All the others are mine.

(See my signature for link)

[caseagainstfaith]

Epic, Case.  Totally epic !!  =D>  :rollin:  =D>  :rollin:
Can I get a laughing, rolling widget that claps with gleee, please?

Thanks Bri!!!!