Bart Ehrman defends belief in a historical Jesus.

[Jagella]

According to the Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist?, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has the following to say:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

What's so important about Ehrman's position on the historicity of Jesus to Christian apologists is that not only does Ehrman insist that Jesus did exist, but Ehrman is an atheist! Since he's an atheist, he cannot be biased toward a real Jesus or so apologists seem to believe. So here we have a distinguished professor of New Testament who believes in a historical Jesus and without a Christian bias, or so we are told.

Question for Debate: But how unbiased is Ehrman really?

Of course, we all have biases that can skew our thinking, but there are many different kinds of bias and different degrees of bias. Some biases can be overcome with sufficient evidence, and other kinds of bias will remain regardless of the evidence. I think it's safe to say that an atheist can indeed have a pro-historical-Jesus bias. After all, depending on your theology, a real Jesus doesn't necessitate a real God. So Ehrman might well have a real-Jesus bias, and his being an atheist does not preclude his having such a bias.

There's plenty more I can say about Ehrman's article, but I will save that for later in the discussion.

[Jagella]

If you are repeatedly finding that the message you're reading into the bible is incorrect...

Mith, you are completely ignoring what I just got done explaining. I can very reasonably equate what Paul said he preached about Jesus with what he knew about Jesus. Your saying that the two are different results in the absurdity of Paul not bothering to preach what he knew about Jesus!

So I'm reading nothing into the text but making a very logical deduction.

...it would seem more likely that the problem lies with you than with everyone else.

If your argument is weak and all else fails, then smack your interlocutor around!

For example on a closely related note, I have repeatedly reminded you that I am not an "apologist";

An apologist is a person who defends the truth claims of Christianity.
You defend the truth claims of Christianity.
Therefore, you are an apologist.

...if you're incapable of grasping even that exceedingly simple concept, it doesn't exactly bode well for your claim to some kind of 'deeper understanding' that brother of Jesus means something other than Jesus' sibling!

Christians often refer to other (male) Christians as "brother," and they are generally not siblings. Paul, for example, addressed other Christians as "brothers and sisters" who were not his siblings. (Romans 1:13)

Finally, if you wish to argue how stupid you think I am, then I think it would be more appropriate to do so on a thread dedicated to that topic.

[Mithrae]

If you are repeatedly finding that the message you're reading into the bible is incorrect...

Mith, you are completely ignoring what I just got done explaining. I can very reasonably equate what Paul said he preached about Jesus with what he knew about Jesus. Your saying that the two are different results in the absurdity of Paul not bothering to preach what he knew about Jesus!

Just as you completely ignored what I posted on several counts, yes. You're trying to square off these verses against each other, using 11-12 as your basis for an unusual interpretation of 18-19. But firstly (as suggested in posts #37, 61 and 62) the claim of divine revelation in 11-12 is obviously questionable, so accepting that first and foremost as your basis for interpretation of more mundane facts is both dubious and inconsistent. Historia also has explained to you the need for critically evaluating the claims of ancient sources, rather than blindly accepting or blindly rejecting them. In this case the more reasonable approach would be trying to understand (and perhaps reject) the claim of divine revelation in light of more mundane facts, not vice versa! You have not addressed this problem of taking the claim of revelation as your starting point, beyond seemingly suggesting in post #65 that one should either believe everything Paul wrote or disbelieve everything.

Secondly (as suggested in posts #37, 62 and 66) verses 18-19 clearly say that Paul spent fifteen days visiting Cephas and James on his first visit, and in chapter 2 describes another visit in which he met even more people: From this we can suppose either
A) for fifteen days Cephas and James carefully avoided saying anything about Jesus to Paul, or
B) thanks to supernatural revelation, Paul already shared identical views and knowledge with those who'd been believers before him, or
C) those who'd been believers before him did have things to share, and did so (though Paul insists that they didn't add to his core gospel message).
Obviously, B and especially A are rather absurd, leaving C as the only viable possibility; but once again, this is a point which you have studiously ignored.

And thirdly (as discussed most clearly in post #66) what Paul actually wrote in verses 11-12 is that "the gospel [that is, the core message, literally the 'good news'] which was preached by me [his main point of public focus] is not according to man." You are trying to insist that the name of Jesus' mother, for example, or how tall he was or what he was like as a child must all be part of the gospel which was preached by Paul - that he could not possibly have learned anything about Jesus from his brother, because he said that they added nothing to the gospel that he preached. But yet again, that is obviously absurd: Literally millions of Christians have preached their various gospels without mentioning every single thing they know about Jesus, so trying to equate the good news with 'everything Paul knew about Jesus' is not only a far-fetched attempt to read into the passage something which simply isn't there, but special pleading of quite a staggering magnitude! It would be a fallacious interpretation even standing alone... but trying to set that bad interpretation against verses 18-19 and running headlong into the absurdity of A or B above is even more questionable.

[Jagella]

A - there is zero evidence for a Dec 25th birth date. The gospels do not mention a date (as you yourself state), there is certainly no celebration of it in what is written.

I know of no birth date for Christ in the New Testament.

B - All things being equal, there would be a 1 in 365 chance that Christ was born on December 25th. I guess that means there is a 364 in 365 chance that Christ was born on any OTHER day of the year. You're an odds guy, Jagella. How confident would you be in those odds?

Those numbers are correct assuming it's not a leap year, and we have no reason to believe Christ was born on a particular date. If it was a leap year with 366 days, then the odds of being born on any day assuming there's an equal chance of being born on any day is 1/366.

All things are not equal, because we have evidence that Christ was NOT born in the middle of winter. Such as the sheep and shepherds still being out in the fields at night.

I might agree with you here, but I'm not sure if shepherds would not herd sheep in Palestine in the winter at night. It looks to be a possibility to me.

I should point out that if you wish to rule out December 25 as the date of Christ's birth, then odds of 1/365 or 1/366 won't do it. You'd need to establish that the probability of Christ being born on December 25 is zero.

Instead of taking issue with my confidence on this matter, perhaps you should be taking issue with the mythicists confidence on this matter?

OK, Tam--here goes: Hey you mythicists; what's all this nonsense I'm hearing about Christ being born on Christmas? You should know that Christians didn't make that up until centuries later!

[John Human]

[quote="Don't you believe Paul when he said that he received all his knowledge of Christ from revelations and from no "human source"? (Galatians 1:12) James, if he existed, would qualify as a "human source," and if he was Jesus' blood brother, then he would almost certainly have told Paul things about Jesus--something Paul clearly says never happened.

It appears that you have misinterpreted what Paul was saying. Paul said "the gospel I preach" (the risen Lord who atoned on the cross for our sins), not "all my knowledge about Christ" came from a revelation.

In other words, Paul"s "gospel" skips over what people like James would have said about the flesh-and-blood Jesus whom they knew personally, and cuts straight to his (Paul's, which he attributed to the risen Jesus) message of salvation. This is far different from asserting that "James never told Paul anything about Jesus."

Ancient Demon speaks:

Paul did not receive a revelation from Jesus. Paul received a revelation from Zeus.

[Jagella]

It appears that you have misinterpreted what Paul was saying.

I think it's hard to say with certainty what Paul meant in Galatians 1, so it's possible that either one of us are misinterpreting verses 11-12 and/or 19. Since we don't have certainty, we need to sensibly decide what Paul probably meant in those passages.

Paul said "the gospel I preach" (the risen Lord who atoned on the cross for our sins), not "all my knowledge about Christ" came from a revelation.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's probable that Paul preached everything he "knew" about Christ. My reasoning is that since Paul was a very zealous preacher with a stated mission to save souls, it is very unlikely that he withheld any knowledge of Jesus from those he preached to. So what he preached is essentially equivalent to what he thought he knew about Christ.

So John, to rebut what I just argued, you need to explain how it is likely that Paul withheld knowledge of Jesus from those he preached to.

In other words, Paul"s "gospel" skips over what people like James would have said about the flesh-and-blood Jesus whom they knew personally, and cuts straight to his (Paul's, which he attributed to the risen Jesus) message of salvation.

How likely is it that Paul would not preach what James told him about Jesus? After all, Jesus is portrayed in the gospel as preaching salvation to his disciples who in turn were "sent out" to preach that message to others. Peter is a very good example of such an apostle. If James was really the blood-brother of Jesus, then it's a sure bet that James like Peter would preach Jesus' version of salvation to others including Paul. Contrary to what you argue, Paul would likely have used what James told him about Jesus'version of salvation, but Paul says that never happened!

To make your case, you need to demonstrate that it is likely that either

• A. James never bothered telling Paul about what Jesus told James about salvation.
  or
  B. Paul never bothered to preach what James told him about Jesus and Jesus' message.

I can say right now that you cannot sensibly demonstrate that either one of these premises is likely, and I am correct in my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:11-12, 19.

By the way, I posted my James-is-not-Jesus-brother argument on the Atheist Forums boards, and they have no trouble seeing how my argument is sound. (One of the members there is a theist, and even he does not buy the "historical" Christ claim.) The difference I think is due to a bias for a real Jesus on the part of those who have a stake in Christ's existence, and those who have such a stake, like Bart Ehrman, need not be atheists.

In conclusion, let me explain that arguing what is unlikely to be true is what makes apologetics so unconvincing to a lot of people. Many people are not stupid, and they can readily see why apologetics' arguments are not credible.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many people are not stupid, and they can readily see why apologetics' arguments are not credible.

Many people ARE stupid (or gullible or naive).

Education may NOT be a solution in the case of willful ignorance – resistance to or denial of information that contradicts emotionally-held beliefs.

Even Pascal's wager is a convincing apologetic ‘argument’ to many people. Or, “I know better what the Bible says and means than do Bible translators, editors, scholars, and theologians’

Notice that many of these debates involve word play / semantics rather than substance. “If you can’t present valid arguments, baffle ‘em with __________� and diversionary tactics.

[Jagella]

Many people ARE stupid (or gullible or naive).

I know because I have been one of them. None of us are so smart or so wise that we cannot be taken, and at times in our lives we will be taken. The world is full of hucksters who know what we want and how to convince us that they have it to give. As a result, we all need to stay on our toes constantly looking out for scams and deceptions offering simple answers to tough questions. As we have seen on this thread, to know whether or not Jesus existed is a very tough question to answer. Yet we are given simple, easy answers by people like Bart Ehrman who tell us that we can know Jesus existed because he and the other "experts" can tell truth from fiction in the gospel by just reading it. Hell--there's no need for tombs or remains or documents mentioning Jesus from the early first century written by unbiased authors; just read the New Testament, apply the methods that Bible scholars do, and PRESTO!--there's your Jesus.

Now--all you Christians go back to church and stop worrying about what those awful mythicists are saying.

Education may NOT be a solution in the case of willful ignorance – resistance to or denial of information that contradicts emotionally-held beliefs.

Education may not be the solution to willful ignorance, but I still try education. And I sometimes wonder if we might get through to people by fighting fire with fire--we can use emotion too by telling people--truthfully--that they don't need religion to be happy or have hope. Heck, they might be more hopeful and happy without religion.

Notice that many of these debates involve word play / semantics rather than substance. “If you can’t present valid arguments, baffle ‘em with __________� and diversionary tactics.

I sure have noticed those tactics. Goose, for example, likes to attack me rather than my arguments, and Tam went on a very long red herring arguing semantics taking care to avoid the issue I raised in the OP. My tough questions for debate very often go unanswered. Why answer a question which if answered sensibly will expose what they want to believe as untrue?

[Mithrae]

My tough questions for debate very often go unanswered. Why answer a question which if answered sensibly will expose what they want to believe as untrue?

Exactly what do you think will be exposed as untrue if you were willing to sensibly acknowledge that we don't really know what biases Mr. Ehrman has and how much or little they've affected his scholarship? (Heck, I'm not even sure what you think it'd prove even if we were to grant the assumption that your opinion is correct!)

You're obviously extremely... ah... eager for people to see this 'truth' that you have somehow gleaned regarding that person's inner motivations, but the fact that you have singularly failed to persuade anyone else is not the same thing as your question being "tough" or going unanswered.



Edit- In the spirit of fairness, I will say that you've made one good point: That thing about Pilate in post #64 would be highly misleading to a casual listener. Strictly speaking, it's not actually untrue as Ehrman phrased it - "narrative accounts" - so that puts it on about the same intellectual level as much of what I've seen of DM Murdock's work. And more to the point, that's not Ehrman's scholarship under discussion; that's Ehrman trying to score cheap points in a face to face debate. It's even possible that Price had already stooped to a similar level and Ehrman was simply reciprocating. But it's still pretty disappointing no matter the circumstances.

[Jagella]

Exactly what do you think will be exposed as untrue if you were willing to sensibly acknowledge that we don't really know what biases Mr. Ehrman has and how much or little they've affected his scholarship?

I do acknowledge that we cannot know what biases Ehrman may have regarding his bizarre "scholarship" and outlandish claims that he has a methodology that can uncover a "real" Jesus from merely reading parts of the New Testament all the while trashing other parts that he concludes are unhistorical. But I'm sorry if you find this critical thinking of mine to be repugnant. It is what it is! If something looks like tripe to me, then I say it's tripe no matter how loudly the chorus of boos from the self-appointed experts may be.

So what has been exposed with my acknowledgement? I hope what has been exposed is a man who uses his own judgment and reason and who listens to his inner voice rather than the noise from the pulpits and the Bible schools and the seminaries. I have discriminating reasoning powers. May I use those powers and think like a mature man rather than be fed like a gullible baby with what looks to me like nonsense?

You're obviously extremely... ah... eager for people to see this 'truth' that you have somehow gleaned regarding that person's inner motivations, but the fact that you have singularly failed to persuade anyone else is not the same thing as your question being "tough" or going unanswered.

Well, what you posted here is an obvious personal attack, but allow me to say that you shouldn't be too quick to smear me as unconvincing. I posted my argument that James is not the sibling of Jesus in another forum, and they all immediately understood and agreed with my reasoning.

Isn't it amazing how different people think differently and how much that different thought is anathema to Christian faith which only thrives on imposed uniformity?

[Mithrae]

I posted my argument that James is not the sibling of Jesus in another forum, and they all immediately understood and agreed with my reasoning.

Yes, I noticed that earlier. It's very interesting. Virtually all experts acknowledge that James was the brother of Jesus; but you've found a few amateurs who didn't refute your argument to the contrary, and you think the latter is a persuasive point worth raising on more balanced forums while simultaneously trashing experts' conclusions as irrelevant.

Exactly what do you think will be exposed as untrue if you were willing to sensibly acknowledge that we don't really know what biases Mr. Ehrman has and how much or little they've affected his scholarship?

I do acknowledge that we cannot know what biases Ehrman may have...

Excellent; that at least is progress. Not a very gracious concession, but a big step to go from declaring that your "tough" question was being avoided, to admitting that I had the right answer back in post #4.

So setting aside this bias question (especially since you now apparently consider it a 'personal attack'), we're back where we started. You remain unable or unwilling to make a cogent case for your unusual claim that Paul, Josephus, Mark, Luke and John in their references to Jesus' brothers were all either wrong or somehow meant something besides brother. In fact we've really only discussed Paul's reference so far, and all we've seen is that your best argument, your supposed check-mate, was extremely dubious firstly in the method of accepting a claim to divine revelation as your basis for interpreting more mundane facts, secondly in its absurd implications for Gal. 1:18-19 and thirdly in its special pleading and eisegesis of v11-12.