to cora.
I am not a god, I am just an investigator.
The work of an investigator is based on precised and documented evidence. So I cannot consider you as an investigator, and you should also remove "investigator" describing yourself.
But according to the reactions on your website, you must be at least a demi-god. Do you think so yourself too?
I am not a demi-god. But I consider very highly the evidence. The evidence is more important than me.
The more I read on this forum, the more I see myself as being an exception.
That's true.
I thought I could talk here about my findings. But I can't.
Yes you can, and you did that already many times.
Should I really repeat Ehrman's blunders here? Writing that there were many papers from 30-70, on which the gospels are based? Which are not there.
Ehrman wrote many things I disagree upon. But you change the subject about Ehrman: you talked about him saying the gospels were written after 185 CE.
Saying that Paul did not have to talk about Jesus' life, because everybody knew it already?
That, I would mostly agree with him (at least concerning the converts of Paul in Corinth), and with evidence, which I explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/20.html
And Paul did talk a bit about Jesus' life:
"humbled himself" (Php2:8) in
"poverty" (2Co8:9) as
"servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and
"was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in
"Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27)
http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html#skandalon
If I would be able to talk with him, I would be done with him in half an hour. But he does not accept mail from people without a PhD.
If you did that, you would be massacred in less than one minute. And the only thing he would need to say: where did you get that?
Yes, scholars in this domain tend to be not willing to deal with amateurs. I tried to get in contact with Ehrmann with no response. However, I am not a member of his blog (you have to pay a fee in order to get in). Here, he may be dealing with amateurs.
On the other hand that Richard Carrier also produces nothing interesting, don't you agree?
Sometimes, on the matter of Jesus (existing or not), he said some good things, and I even quoted him in some of my webpages.
At other times, when I was participating in his blogs, he set me straight on some points and I had to make corrections on my webpages (only if I thought he was right).
But overall I don't agree on almost everything he wrote in OHJ, and I made it plain on many points in my so-called blog:
http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html
You name as your subject: THE REAL JESUS.
The name of my website is
Jesus, a historical reconstruction, In-depth & documented research on the historical Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, from available evidence & critical methodology.
Notice the "a" in the title. I did not write "the".
And that reconstruction is mostly the result of many deconstructions, as shown on most of my webpages.
Actually that is wrong. It means you assume a Jesus already, from the NT.
That's what the evidence tells me.
But it has not been proven that a Jesus existed at all, except from the gospels.
Paul's epistles proved the existence of an earthly human Jesus:
Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27).
Which could just be fake, written in someone's interest (which actually is the case).
Speculations
As I see it you want to write about the gospel Jesus from the catholic church, who certainly existed.
NO, it was never my intention.
Why? Because the catholic church says so.
There are many (some very critical) things I found in my research that the catholic church (and any other churches) would be rejecting. Actually my "historical Jesus" shows that Christian beliefs have been made up early on, therefore destroying the validity of the churches' preaching. If my "historical Jesus" was accepted, these churches should ceased to exist.
I do something totally different. I do not study the content of the NT. I want to find out all the circumstances in which the NT was written: who wrote it, when was it written, ...
And you have answered these questions: Irenaeus, Irenaeus. But where is the the back up evidence (not speculations)
What was all happening between 0 and 200? When did the catholic church start? What was before? Who was living when exactly? This means reading and reading and searching.
So, what did you read?
Also on the internet yes, if you don't mind.
Where on the internet?
There is there much better information than in the books of Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and the whole forum together.
What informations? provide the evidence for each.
This is called historical study. By which you can find answers that are not in the bible themselves. I mean, the NT I know by now. It is not about the content. It is about what happened and where it comes from. And now I am done I know also a lot more about the content.
It is not historical study if it is based on speculations, and you are unable to provide the precise evidence to support it.
That goes as follows: you get a subject, often in the form of a question, and a list of books you must use. You read and search, trying to answer the question and everything about it, you make notes. When you are done, YOU WRITE THE STORY.
So what are the books you read, what are the notes you made? On the matter of early Christianity.
That goes as follows: you get a subject, often in the form of a question, and a list of books you must use. You read and search, trying to answer the question and everything about it, you make notes. When you are done, YOU WRITE THE STORY. You don't make notes, you do not tell where it all comes from,
Sure, you do that everywhere.
In the back you make a list of the books you have used. Practical all history books work like that.
So where is your list?
You are talking about the ones who reformate and combined other historical books. They don't have to provide evidence because their subject is not controversial. But they are not real historians. Real historians go to the earliest sources to find relevant valid evidence in order to write their works. That's a painstaking job, but that what I did but you did not do.
I had to do it that way, and I still do it that way. It is the only way I know.
You should know better.
In history is the word story. It is always about telling a story. So I tell parts of my story here, proud that I have found so much new. And get heavily criticised or ignored. Mostly ignored. I don't get that. People should be happy, but they rather remain ignorant, and turn their back on me.
Stories can be fictional or true.
By now, you should know why you get heavily criticised or ignored. Mostly ignored.
You are the one who is ignorant: probably a dozen times, maybe more, I have proven you wrong. But you ignored that. And only around 2 months ago, maybe less, you were totaly not interested by Justin because he as an apologist. Now there is a lot of Justin in yout posts. And you are very presumptious about treating people on this forum as ignorant. You are on an ego trip. You think you are a demi-god.
I don't get that trouble about evidence and giving sources.
What evidence and sources you gave? the internet, unamed books, invisible notes, your speculations, your hatred for the catholic church.
You can leave it to me to discern between serious articles and bull shit.
Oh no, I cannot leave it to you. What are these serious articles? Are you bluffing again?
I don't have to give ancient sources, which most of the time are not there anyway. And I don't have to present evidence for everything I say.
Oh, a big admission,
ancient sources, which most of the time are not there anyway
The evidence is already being weighed in the investigation
So from where that evidence come from, if not from ancient sources.
The evidence is already being weighed in the investigation. That is how we do that. That does not mean that I have wild opinions, or am speculating. Not at all.
And we have to trust you about this undocumented investigation.
Well with no defined evidence to back up your viewpoints, what is left is wild opinions and speculations.
Everything is investigated as historians do
Not as true historians do.
I shit on comments from people who do not understand how I work.
But I understand how you work.
Who think that staring in the gospels day in day out brings anything new or exciting. The last 100 years prove It doesn'tWho think that staring in the gospels day in day out brings anything new or exciting.
I did bring many things new and exiting, according to my readers (see my next post to you). But not only from the gospels, but a vast array including Christian, Pagan and Jewish texts.
And I have to say that your telling me all the time in the past, that you can prove me wrong with evidence, is ridiculous.
But I did that many times.
Your evidence comes from the NT itself and the catholic church. The catholic church you can never trust of course, they have everything to loose. And the NT is no evidence of anything, except of what the writer wanted exactly. And who is the writer? There are 2. And Mark and Mathew are not biographies, but catholic propaganda and theology. I suppose you let Marcion out of you study? Too bad, because he was one of the most important persons of the 2nd century.
Speculations again: And I prove that the (still unnamed) four gospels (including gLuke) and Paul's epistles were written before Marcion.
I started reading one of your chapters, and I think it is not bad what you pick out of the gospels until now. Not bad at all.
Coming from you, what a surprise!
I cannot follow what Nasarenes are exactly.
Nazarene: of Nazareth. Nazoreans, something different, as I posted to hakeem recently.
Latest discovery: Justin Martyr invents the name Jesus. Paul and Marcion had another name. This name still exists. He wrote: the name means Man or Jesus. They took Jesus. In that sense Jesus did not exist at all, because they gave him the name Jesus, Justin and Irenaeus.
Speculations. Where does the name given by Paul & Marcion still exists. What was that name?
You should remember that because of your new recent discovery.
Cordially, Bernard