Bart Ehrman on the existence of Christ

On a forum dedicated to "alternative views", and a case based on similarities in their lives which turn out not to match under close examination.I think that proves my point. Why would a serious scholar waste his time with something like that ?

Come on PaulK,If you have something (specific) to say, say it. I suppose you, like Bart Ehrman, would not want to discuss Luigi Cascioli:http://www.luigicascioli.it/ateismo_eng.phpor the Baron d'Holbach:Holbach Indexeither.When it comes right down to it, isn't it the "Christian" view that is the "alternative view"?

Ok, then present your evidence for the fact that all four books share the same author. Don't just post a bare link, please use your own words to describe the evidence. It's kind of hard debating bare links.

---

I hunt for the truth

I've given adequate answers to what you actually posted. We don't argue against links here. If you want to discuss specifics, then provide them.And I didn't see any indication that either of the pages you linked to had anything to do with Josephus writing any part of the New Testament.

PaulK & Huntard,I'm just saying there are people who have argued this and that (such as Josephus wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John plus the NT writings of Paul), i.e., that Josephus and Paul were one person.If you have something that opposes such a position please point it out (but don't give me something that squashes the discussion -- like it is an "alternative view," that doesn't hack it with me).Cascioli, for example, has claimed that Josephus is unreliable in certain respects and that Jesus Christ was John of Gamala (in Josephus).Have either of you ever read The Fable of Christ (by Luigi Cascioli)? If so, what do you think of his argument about there never having been a Jesus Christ? I asked Bart Ehrman and he told me he had not.On the other hand, If Cascioli is mistaken (about the quote from Josephus in Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 ), because Josephus really did mention the NT Jesus (and the paragraph was not a Catholic Church redaction at a later date), it would make a world of difference if Josephus and Paul were: either different people or the same person with different names.I mention Holbach because, as you may know, in his book, System of Nature, he claimed for reasons of personal safety that it was authored by someone else. The story of the Crucifiction of Jesus in the NT, it seems, would argue favorably for these Christian writers, living in a Jewish world, to remain anonymous (like atheist Holbach living in a Christian world). Holbach's 1770 book was outlawed by the French government within a few months after it appeared and, apparently, some were jailed for having either sold it or having purchased it. It's a nasty world sometimes.

quote:

---

I'm just saying there are people who have argued this and that (such as Josephus wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John plus the NT writings of Paul), i.e., that Josephus and Paul were one person.

---

And I've pointed out that your only example is on a forum for "fringe" ideas and it didn't fare well even there.

quote:

---

if you have something that opposes such a position please point it out (but don't give me something that squashes the discussion -- like it is an "alternative view," that doesn't hack it with me).

---

You seem to be very confused. If all you want to do is note that the idea is out there and point to examples then you are hardly inviting a detailed discussion - which would not be on topic in this thread anyway. The responses you have got have been appropriate to what you posted. If you want a more serious discussion then you should start a new thread and put forward the case that the Gospels plus the Pauline Epistles were written by Josephus. Although you ought to find a source which makes a decent case first.

quote:

---

Cascioli, for example, has claimed that Josephus is unreliable in certain respects and that Jesus Christ was John of Gamala (in Josephus).

---

Of course Josephus is unreliable in some respects. The rest I don't know about, but I doubt that there is much evidence (that could decide it either way).

quote:

---

I mention Holbach because, as you may know, in his book, System of Nature, he claimed for reasons of personal safety that it was authored by someone else.

---

In other words, neither of them endorse the idea that Josephus wrote any of the NT, and they are not relevant to your original question.

PaulK wrote:"...In other words, neither of them [Cascioli and Holbach?] endorse the idea that Josephus wrote any of the NT, and they are not relevant [in any way?] to your original question."My original "question":"I have heard it claimed that Josephus wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John plus the writings of Paul. In other words, Josephus and Paul were the same person. Has Bart Ehrman ever discussed this possibility?"Okay.

Hey Byron, People argue a lot of things, does this mean we should take all they say for granted? Ok, how about this: There's no evidence for it. If there is, please prvoide it. He can claim alot, without evdidence they're just that, claims. I haven't read it, however, I do think the Jesus of the bible never existed. It would, but there's no way to tell, is there? While all true, this doesn't mean Josephus did the same. Please provide evidence for this being the case. Oh, and as PaulK has noted, it's kind of off topic here, so you would do best to start a new thread.

---

I hunt for the truth

Truth? What is that.I find it most interesting that PaulK (and yourself) have not read Cascioli (at least he did not say he had). And, although I didn't ask if the two of you ever read Holbach's 1770 book (known by some as the Atheist Bible), neither of you volunteered having done so. I believe that I, like you two, have some skepticism about the possibility that Josephus and Paul were one and the same, but I have no problem considering that possibility. To say it has no business on this thread? wow. I thought this was a "discussion forum." Sorry for having been so presumptuous.By the way, my grammar is American (Chicago Manual of Style) and I am aware that in Europe things are done differently.

I can only speak for myself, and I haven't read either. Why is it so important I read them? Is the case for Josephus and Paul being the same person made in these books? I have no problem with considering it either, I only point out that to my knowledge, there is no evidence for it, and so, there's no point in considering it, other for the sake that it could be a possibility. But if we are to consider everything that could be a possibility, without looking at the evidence for that possibility, then there will be so many things to consider we'll be lost in that maze forever. That's why I, and I think PaulK too, asked for evidence. It doesn't belong on this thread because it's not what the thread is about. You're perfectly welcome to make a new topic about it in the Proposed New Topics, and if the admins think it is a good enough OP they will surely promote it. No discussion is shunned here, as long as the opening post is of a good enough quality. I don't know why you wrote this. I don't care if you write color or colour, as long as it's in well written sentences. So far, you seem to be doing fine, so I don't think there'll be a problem there. Oh, and this is an American site, by the way.

---

I hunt for the truth

Cascioli's obscure and doesn't seem to have published anything of importance.
Holbach was famous (although probably less so these days) but to the best of my knowledge his work is not much cited.I would be surprised if there were that many people now who have read either, let alone both.The fact that this is a discussion forum means that you are certainly permitted to start a new thread to discuss a new subject. It does not mean that the every thread is a free-for-all.I also note that for someone who is "skeptical" of the idea you seem to be curiously compelled to attack anyone who points out that it seems to be a crank idea with no serious evidential support.

PaulK,Maybe you could buy a mirror (or if you have one, look into it once in a while).After you have actually taken the time to read Cascioli and Holbach you may be in a position to call me someone who is "...curiously compelled to attack anyone who points out that it seems to be a crank idea with no serious evidential support." I simply presented an idea ABOUT AND RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD that you have chosen to attack. If you don't want to discuss it (the idea I presented), then why did you respond? And, of course, there is the age old question, What Is Truth?As for The Fable of Christ and System of Nature, real scholars have read them both (real scholars read serious research, whether or not they agree with it, and both of these are serious works of scholarship, whether you think so or not).

quote:

---

PaulK,
Maybe you could buy a mirror (or if you have one, look into it once in a while).

---

And so we have yet another baseless attack.

quote:

---

After you have actually taken the time to read Cascioli and Holbach you may be in a position to call me someone who is "...curiously compelled to attack anyone who points out that it seems to be a crank idea with no serious evidential support." I simply presented an idea ABOUT AND RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD that you have chosen to attack. If you don't want to discuss it (the idea I presented), then why did you respond? And, of course, there is the age old question, What Is Truth?

---

Since you yourself have admitted that neither Cascioli nor Holbach endorsed the idea you are supposedly discussing them, reading their work is not relevant. Let me point out that the only relevant link you have supplied so far simply confirmed my answer to the original question.So we see that you are yet again attacking people solely because they dare to - accurately - criticise a proposition that you claim to be skeptical of.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall....

PaulK:Please stay on topic.Rules:"...10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person."