I am so glad I am shocking you... hopefully it will shock you into thinking beyond your source and causing you to be challenged. Obviously if he is all you read, that is what you will believe. If all you read is from flat-earthers, you would probably be one too.
For every historian Ehrman there are dozens of historian anti-Ehrmans.
My shock is that you re restricting your information to only sources that support your beliefs and are demonstrating no sense of open minded-ness whatsoever. Except of course when it come to me.
Except all you had to do was ask. I follow apoogetics and read some theology/apologetics. But I've watched every single Richeard Carrier debate and every Bart Ehrman debate and every Matt Dillahauntty debate which includes listening to the counter arguments from either apologists or other historians.
First you are making somethi8ng up that is very telling.
There are no "anti-Bart Ehrman" historians. As Bart has said, Elaine Pagels has said and Carrier has said the entire historicity field is in consensus. Christianity is an off-shoot of Jewish mythology and is equally myth. This view is considered standard in the historicity field.
What you said about "anti-Ehrman" is a made up guess that you cannot suppory with facts.
Doubling down and imagining there are "dozens" of historians who think Jesus was an actual magic being rather than a mythicized human is 100% incorrect.
I
Trying to make it simple for you...
So first of all, who is this speaker? Is it a local Pastor who read about Osirus off Google? Do you just believe anything online if it confirms your beliefs?
Historians are not using Google information to gain information about older Pagan dying/rising demigods. They work only with the earliest possible sources. In the case of Osirus it's Pyramid text and stone tablets.
Each dying/rising demigod was unique to the religion. The point is a son/daughter of a God dies and a few days later comes back to life defeating death and giving salvation to followers.
"
Not only does Plutarch
say Osiris
returned to life and was
recreated, exact terms for resurrection (
anabiôsis and
paliggenesia:
On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in
The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his
physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch,
On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is
explicitly described in pre-Christian
pyramid inscriptions!
Osiris, collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages; the tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; the double doors of heaven are open for thee…thy soul is in thy body…raise thyself up!” (Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, =
Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me.
Plutarch
writes that “Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle,” and taught him lessons, and then “Osiris consorted with Isis after his death and she became the mother of Harpocrates.” It’s hard to get more explicit than that.
And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire.
https://mychristiandaily.com/atheist-historians-concede-evidence-for-jesus-resurrection/
There is one debate in Jesus historicity:
Jesus was a man who was later mythicized as a dying/rising demigod
There never even was such a man and it's all myth.
Your dogmatic position to eliminate those who lived during the time of Jesus and those historians of the next generation is quite amazing.
The first attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John is from Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181), but before this the Fourth Gospel was quoted as authoritative by Tatian, Athenagoras, Polycarp and Papias. Polycarp is known to be a successor and associate to the original twelve apostles, having been martyred in A.D. 156 at the age of 86.
THIS is historical and has much more weight that doubting Ehrman.
I am again shocked that you don't think Ehrman has written countless times about every single extra-biblical mention of Jesus? What do you think PhD who devote their lives to this study do? They have to read everything in the original language just to get to masters?
ALL mentions of Jesus are from historians saying there either are a group of people who follow the gospels or a group of people called Christians. They do not confirm the truth of the gospel fictions.
No historian thinks this?
From Carriers Blog, this is just a short hand of the extra-biblical mentions being useless as confirmation. All historians agree and are familiar with this.
“Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”
No, he almost certainly did not (
OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did,
he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.
19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”
Actually, he probably didn’t (
OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.
20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”
No, he doesn’t (
OHJ, ch. 8.11).
Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (
Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32).
Here is what Van Voorst
actually said:
Who is Chrestus? The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled.
“Serapion mentions Jesus”
That’s both
disputed and
irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.
22. “Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”
Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.
3. “Lucian mentions Jesus”
Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.
24. “Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”
As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts
against historicity. Not for it (
OHJ, ch. 8.1). See items 1 and 3 again.
25. “Celsus attacks Jesus’s character”
Celsus wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Celsus only used the Gospels as his source. He knew no other sources to check. Therefore, Celsus is not an independent source. Nor could he have known the truth of what really happened over a hundred years before his time. This evidence is useless.
26. “Clement of Rome writes on Jesus’s existence”
Not on earth (
OHJ, ch. 8.5). Clement seems only to know of a Jesus as a revelatory being who communicates through visions and having planted hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures. Just like Paul. So Clement’s letter actually counts against historicity.
27. “Ignatius of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”
Using only Gospels as his source. And nearly a century after the fact. Therefore, useless (
OHJ, ch. 8.6).
28. “Quadratus of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”
Ditto (
OHJ, pp. 274, n. 41).
29. “Aristides the Athenian writes on Jesus’s existence”
Ditto (ibid.).
30. “Justin Martyr writes on Jesus’s existence”
Ditto. In fact, now we are a 130 years after the fact. And Justin’s only sources are the Gospels. This is useless.
I gave you a multitude of sources which you ignore... let me give you another one:
"Education a Priority
In the ancient Jewish community, education for children took a high priority. Barclay goes so far as to state, “It would not be wrong to say that for the Jew the child was the most important person in the community.” Examining the words of Josephus, Barclay may be correct. Josephus writes, “Our ground is good, and we work it to the utmost, but our chief ambition is for the education of our children…We take most pains of all with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corresponding with them, the most important affair of our whole life.”:
Ancient Jewish Education of Children and Use of Scripture | World History
https://worldhistory.us/ancient-his...ducation-of-children-and-use-of-scripture.php
Because your "source" has no references? It's just taking concepts from Jewish sources and pretending like this is true for the exact followers of Jesus? I though you would understand the difference between a PhD paper about one specific time period vs a vague paper, no sources and that isn't for any specific time?
Bart Ehrman sources a paper by a historian demonstrating a literary rate for a specific group and time of Jews.
Again, I did not ignore anything, I COMMENTED ON YOUR SOURCE, No PhD, no scholarship, no sources????
I
OMG...
And you know that Luke wrote the book AFTER Josephus... how?
No... Luke wrote from eyewitness, Josephus (if there were any mistakes) were written by Josephus.
At 23:08 PhD Carrier goes over some of the ways scholars know Luke was cribbing from Josephus:
The Josephus text in question were way before Luke? There are far too many coincidences. But Luke is a classic fictional travel narrative, it emulates Odysseus and others. Luke also uses scripture and re-writes many OT stories, sometimes line by line. Acts 10 is Ezekiel 1, 2, 4, 20 and Luke recreates the Kings narrative as well. Jesus is written to be the updated Moses and ELljah.
Dennis McDonald has an excellent book explaining all the connections.
