Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[zugzwang]

Very well described.
So then we must ask why that craving exists; which systems produce such craving which craves its own craving?

That's also very well expressed.

I've been influenced by two streams of thought in this regard - some Eastern religions, and psychoanalysis. But they both postulate an ego which breaks up reality into pieces, including itself, (hence, self and other, and so on.) This is a highly productive technique, since it enables us to analyze stuff, but it may lead to a sense of alienation, or separation from life (and others). Hence, humans have always developed methods of reconnecting with life; and I think many religions offer some method of doing this, however illusory. I suppose the illusoriness doesn't matter really to many people.

The French analyst Lacan partly defines the ego as lack itself; therefore, one could suggest that this lack must be continually filled or stuffed with things, in order to conceal or dull the lack - thus, ideas, feelings, cravings, addictions, of the usual kind, you know, booze, drugs, girls, boys, religion, intellectuality, utopian schemes.

I suppose it is to a degree on topic, since the notion of Christ presumably fills the hole for some. Or, when the ego is crucified, new life emerges. Well, does it?

 

[proudfootz]

This ignores the Euhemeristic mind set of the time period in question:

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, First Apology [21:30]

Clement of Alexandria's triumphant cry in Cohortatio ad gentes of "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves" is another example.

In the fourth century Eusebius accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos. (Preparation of the Gospel (10.12))

This Euhemeristic mind set can be found in the early 20st century as well: "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods."



Most of the followers of John Frum from 1957 to today believe him to be literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision in the 1930. The best history can come up with is three natives in the 1940-1947 period using that name and several other calling themselves the 'sons of John Frum' NONE of whom match the oral picture of the mainstream cult. So you have a total disconnect between possible founder history records and the cult's image of their founder in a roughly the same amount of time between Jesus and Paul.

Belief that someone existed is not proof they existed. There are a lot of people that still believe in the Pope Joan myth; doesn't mean there really was a Pope Joan.

Yes, it would appear the early christians were aware there wasn't much difference between their savior and the pagan ones.

Why latter day persons should think there is is another mystery...

 

[proudfootz]

You are again stating that as if it were a known fact. But it is by no means clear that Paul thought Jesus was a normal human preacher.

Earl Doherty, and now also Richard Carrier, have both written several books explaining at great length and in great detail why they think Paul actually thought of Jesus as some sort of spiritual messenger of Yahweh, who had never actually been on the earth.

Before that, Ellegard had also reached an essentially similar conclusion when simply pointing out that everything that Paul’s says about “the Christ” is really theological, and not actually a description of what Paul knew to be a human preacher on earth.

I don’t know to what extent Carrier and Doherty are right in their very detailed explanation of Paul believing that Jesus was a spiritual form, crucified in a lower level of the heavens etc. But the point is that they have made a very extensive case for that, complete with a lot of academic references to support it. So, at the very least, it’s not correct to simply state that Paul believed Jesus was a real person, as if that were an incontestable fact.

Certainly, Paul never knew Jesus. Or rather, the writers of the late copied mss that we have as "Paul", did not know Jesus. And that Pauline writer did not ever mention anyone else ever knowing or seeing a human Jesus either. In fact, Paul’s entire message about Jesus was really just to say that “Christ died and rose on the third” day, and he says he knew that by divine “revelation from the lord himself” and “according to scripture”, not because he or anyone else had ever told him about meeting any earthly messiah called Jesus.

If it's true that Ehrman is now arguing that Paul saw Jesus as an angelic being it might be a sign the tide is turning against the 'failed preacher' fad.

 

[IanS]

IanS
You are again stating that as if it were a known fact. But it is by no means clear that Paul thought Jesus was a normal human preacher.

Earl Doherty, and now also Richard Carrier, have both written several books explaining at great length and in great detail why they think Paul actually thought of Jesus as some sort of spiritual messenger of Yahweh, who had never actually been on the earth.

An enumeration of such things I read recently lists Paul's statements about Jesus:

Jesus died for our sins by crucifixion and was then raised from the dead three days later, according to prophecy. He was seen by many after the resurrection. He was a descendant of David, he was betrayed, he defined a bread and wine ritual for his followers, and the Jews killed him.

We may add Galatians 4

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons

These are all (and they aren't much, I agree) statements appropriate to describe a human being living on earth. If God wants to send his son to be born under the law and to redeem people born under the law, where does he send him? The mystical sublunary domain? No, to earth of course, where these unredeemed people dwell. If Jesus was resurrected, as the "first fruit" of resurrection, it must have happened where the "later fruit" are to be found: humans on earth. Nothing else makes any sense. 1 Cor 15:23

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

His coming where? Where the men in the later "order" of resurrection are now present. Here on earth.

Well you say that you above examples “aren’t much”. In fact they are nothing at all. You have no mention there by Paul ever saying he had known Jesus to be a living preacher at the same time as Paul. And nothing there where Paul says that anyone else had known Jesus as living earthly preacher either.

As everyone must know very well by now (because it’s been quoted here at least 50 times), what Paul’s letters actually say is that “Jesus died … according to scripture” and that he was “raised on the third day … according to scripture”. And his letter adds that Paul knew this, not just “according to scripture”, but by “revelation from the Lord himself”. And then he emphasises that his knowledge comes “from no man” and is “not of human origin”, but is again by “revelation of the lord”.

There is no indication in Paul’s letters of him ever saying that he or anyone else, ever knew Jesus as a living preacher who was actually supposed to be contemporary with them all in the same general region of Judea.

 

[pakeha]

If it's true that Ehrman is now arguing that Paul saw Jesus as an angelic being it might be a sign the tide is turning against the 'failed preacher' fad.

Not fad, proudfootz, not fad.
Mainstream scholarship's consensual opinion is the technical expression, IIRC.

 

[proudfootz]

Well you say that you above examples “aren’t much”. In fact they are nothing at all. You have no mention there by Paul ever saying he had known Jesus to be a living preacher at the same time as Paul. And nothing there where Paul says that anyone else had known Jesus as living earthly preacher either.

As everyone must know very well by now (because it’s been quoted here at least 50 times), what Paul’s letters actually say is that “Jesus died … according to scripture” and that he was “raised on the third day … according to scripture”. And his letter adds that Paul knew this, not just “according to scripture”, but by “revelation from the Lord himself”. And then he emphasises that his knowledge comes “from no man” and is “not of human origin”, but is again by “revelation of the lord”.

There is no indication in Paul’s letters of him ever saying that he or anyone else, ever knew Jesus as a living preacher who was actually supposed to be contemporary with them all in the same general region of Judea.

It seems the whole movement represented by the epistles is centered around this messiah still to come, not any 'second coming'.

 

[Craig B]

Well you say that you above examples “aren’t much”. In fact they are nothing at all. You have no mention there by Paul ever saying he had known Jesus to be a living preacher at the same time as Paul. And nothing there where Paul says that anyone else had known Jesus as living earthly preacher either.

That's right, and if such were the only evidential criteria, your point would be a sound one.

As everyone must know very well by now (because it’s been quoted here at least 50 times)

Hundreds of times, I would say

what Paul’s letters actually say is that “Jesus died … according to scripture” and that he was “raised on the third day … according to scripture”. And his letter adds that Paul knew this, not just “according to scripture”, but by “revelation from the Lord himself”. And then he emphasises that his knowledge comes “from no man” and is “not of human origin”, but is again by “revelation of the lord”.

And as many times I have stated that I don't accept your interpretation of these expressions.

There is no indication in Paul’s letters of him ever saying that he or anyone else, ever knew Jesus as a living preacher who was actually supposed to be contemporary with them all in the same general region of Judea.

That is a repetition of your first point above and my comments given in response apply equally to it. You have stated this a vast number of times, most recently at #7492. Unfortunately your aversion to reading anything in the NT is dispensed with by you only in respect of a few phrases of Paul, so it's impossible to argue the point with you.

 

[tsig]

So are Apes.
Our brains, however, are different and capable of sensing its existence differently and thus, construct a different understanding of the input coming in.
As simply as we are able to construct self-identity, that is to say not simply at all, so too are we capable of our ontological markup.

It may not be interesting to everyone, but it isn't over-thinking to note that our brain provides the capacity to hold ontological perception and to examine how that is in itself accomplished.


I'm used to this perspective as a response, but if we stop and think about this for a moment; this really is no different than the Creationist solution of God to the origin of the universe. That is, it only slides the issue a step back and does not really address how humans ever were able to construct ontological self-identity in the first place.


Sure, people go with the herd; that's obvious.
But just as obviously I could say that everyone learns mathematics and yet that does not stop us from examining how that is facilitated in the brain.

It's very simple to just write-off religion as some lesser way of looking at reality and a "sheep" sort of social environment, but it doesn't really answer the questions regarding how we are capable of this, and from which systems do these senses derive?

In a term: "Neurotheology"

Are you saying that the human brain is somehow special and that we need religion to explain that specialness?

 

[IanS]

That's right, and if such were the only evidential criteria, your point would be a sound one. Hundreds of times, I would say And as many times I have stated that I don't accept your interpretation of these expressions.
That is a repetition of your first point above and my comments given in response apply equally to it. You have stated this a vast number of times, most recently at #7492. Unfortunately your aversion to reading anything in the NT is dispensed with by you only in respect of a few phrases of Paul, so it's impossible to argue the point with you.

We don’t need to "interpret" those expressions. They are perfectly clear as written. Paul says in very direct and explicit terms that his gospel of “Christ died and risen” is known to him “from no man”, but instead by “revelation of the lord” “according to scripture”. There is no interpretation required there.

I am not averse to reading what is said in the NT. Indeed we have discussed every relevant NT passage in these various HJ threads, literally thousands of times!

But what I say about the gospels (as distinct from Paul’s letters), is that they are filled with too many untrue claims to be taken as credible reliable evidence, from unknown late copyist authors, none of who ever claimed to have known Jesus or any of the other characters involved.

 

[Craig B]

We don’t need to "interpret" those expressions. They are perfectly clear as written. Paul says in very direct and explicit terms that his gospel of “Christ died and risen” is known to him “from no man”, but instead by “revelation of the lord” “according to scripture”. There is no interpretation required there.

Well, that's that, then.

But what I say about the gospels (as distinct from Paul’s letters), is that they are filled with too many untrue claims to be taken as credible reliable evidence, from unknown late copyist authors, none of who ever claimed to have known Jesus or any of the other characters involved.

So we must believe these things that Paul said because they are too plain to need even to be interpreted; but every other statement from early sources is to be rejected in its entirety because it's by "late copyist authors". As I've said, it's impossible to argue the point with you. I really think you should take your own advice about these studies being a waste of time.

 

[dejudge]

So we must believe these things that Paul said because they are too plain to need even to be interpreted; but every other statement from early sources is to be rejected in its entirety because it's by "late copyist authors". As I've said, it's impossible to argue the point with you. I really think you should take your own advice about these studies being a waste of time.

Your modern interpretation of the Pauline Corpus is unknown and never known in writings of antiquity.

Writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus clearly stated that the Jesus character found in the Pauline Corpus was born of a Ghost, God Creator, God Incarnate--100% God and 100% man.

1. In Epistles attributed to Ignatius references were made to Pauline writings and it is argued that Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

3. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

4. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human.

We already know how the Pauline Corpus was interpreted in antiquity. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ"

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

 

[Craig B]

Writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus clearly stated that the Jesus character found in the Pauline Corpus was born of a Ghost, God Creator, God Incarnate--100% God and 100% man.

And who are these? Why, our old friends

1. In Epistles attributed to Ignatius references were made to Pauline writings and it is argued that Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
2. "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.
3. "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.
4. "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus makes references to the Pauline Corpus and it is argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human.

And who could argue with that infallible gang of religious maniacs? But what if they're all forgeries concocted by "copyist authors" whatever that may be?

 

[dejudge]

And who are these? Why, our old friends And who could argue with that infallible gang of religious maniacs? But what if they're all forgeries concocted by "copyist authors" whatever that may be?

So who are these modern 21st century infallible gang who discredit the NT, call Paul a Liar and use their imagination as evidence for their own HJ?

All of a sudden, the WITNESSES of antiquity have been discarded and imagination is now evidence of the past.

Whatever the 21st century infallible gang imagined happened is now the truth.

Witnesses of antiquity argued that their Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and was God Creator.

 

[IanS]

Well, that's that, then.

Well "that's that" in so far as those particular sentences in Paul's letter are concerned, because they are crystal clear. You can't go around saying that you want to "interpret" it to mean the exact of opposite of what it clearly & unarguably says.

So we must believe these things that Paul said because they are too plain to need even to be interpreted; but every other statement from early sources is to be rejected in its entirety because it's by "late copyist authors". As I've said, it's impossible to argue the point with you. I really think you should take your own advice about these studies being a waste of time.

What you have to believe accept is those sentences in Paul letter very clearly and quite insistently say that "Paul" obtained his gospel of "Christ risen on the third day", not from anyone telling him about it, and not from any human origin, but as he specifically says "by revelation from the lord" and "according to scripture".

There really can be no argument about that. And you cannot go around inventing otherwise by claiming to have "interpreted" it.

 

[Brainache]

So who are these modern 21st century infallible gang who discredit the NT, call Paul a Liar and use their imagination as evidence for their own HJ?

No. They use the Historical Method. Look it up, you might learn something.

All of a sudden, the WITNESSES of antiquity have been discarded and imagination is now evidence of the past.

Whatever the 21st century infallible gang imagined happened is now the truth.

Witnesses of antiquity argued that their Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and was God Creator.

They witnessed nothing, had an agenda and were religious fanatics. They weren't trying to find the truth of what happened like modern Historians do, they were pushing their Theology.

You really should try to learn a bit more about the scholarship before you make any more idiotic arguments like this.

 

[dejudge]

There is no indication in Paul’s letters of him ever saying that he or anyone else, ever knew Jesus as a living preacher who was actually supposed to be contemporary with them all in the same general region of Judea.

A Pauline writer claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

It is clear that the Pauline Corpus is a story about a character called the Son of God who was supposedly in Judea.

1 Thessalonians 2

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men..

Acts 2

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified , both Lord and Christ.

The Pauline writer is NOT claiming that the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, was not on earth.

The Lord Jesus from heaven was KILLED by the Jews.


1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline writings are compatible with Acts of the Apostles or at least 10 Apologetic writings that the JEWS Killed Jesus the Son of God.

1. Aristides claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, God who came down from heaven.

2. Justin Martyr claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost.

3. Irenaeus claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost.

4. Hippolytus claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, the Son of God and God Creator.

5. Tertullian claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, the Son of God.

6. Origen claimed the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost.

7. Lactantius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God.

8. Eusebius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God.

9. The author of Acts claimed the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God.

10. Chrysostom claimed the Jews Killed Jesus, the Son of God.

 

[dejudge]

All of a sudden, the WITNESSES of antiquity have been discarded and imagination is now evidence of the past.

Whatever the 21st century infallible gang imagined happened is now the truth.

Witnesses of antiquity argued that their Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and was God Creator.

They witnessed nothing, had an agenda and were religious fanatics. They weren't trying to find the truth of what happened like modern Historians do, they were pushing their Theology.

You really should try to learn a bit more about the scholarship before you make any more idiotic arguments like this.

I am extremely delighted that you mention IDIOTIC arguments.

Your response is a complete failure of logic and facts.

Is it NOT IDIOCY to accept Galatians 1.19 at face value when you knew in advance of posting that the Galatians writer had an agenda, was a religious fanatic, weren't trying to find the truth and were pushing theology?

Please, please, please!!! Your post doesn't make much logical sense.

Plus, it is a well known and established fallacy that modern historians do NOT have any agenda.

Dr. Dale Martin a professor at Yale admitted the REAL Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and admits he PRAYS to Jesus while repeating the NICENE Creed.

Many Modern Christian Scholars today PRAY to their HJ for Salvation and Remission of Sins hoping to be in heaven with the LORD Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

I am extremely delighted that you mention IDIOTIC arguments.

Your response is a complete failure of logic and facts.

Is it NOT IDIOCY to accept Galatians 1.19 at face value when you knew in advance of posting that the Galatians writer had an agenda, was a religious fanatic, weren't trying to find the truth and were pushing theology?

I doubt Paul's agenda included making others more powerful than himself. I doubt that he would want people to think he was in conflict with "The Brother Of The Lord" if he wasn't, or if James didn't exist.

It is a result of thinking critically about the text, not accepting it at face value. You apparently can't see the difference, not my problem.

Please, please, please!!! Your post doesn't make much logical sense.

Plus, it is a well known and established fallacy that modern historians do NOT have any agenda.

Dr. Dale Martin a professor at Yale admitted the REAL Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and admits he PRAYS to Jesus while repeating the NICENE Creed.

Many Modern Christian Scholars today PRAY to their HJ for Salvation and Remission of Sins hoping to be in heaven with the LORD Jesus.

This is just a ridiculous ad hominem argument. It is pathetic, idiotic and insulting. You get the trifecta for that one...

Why not read what Jewish Historians have to say?

How many Jews are praying to "Lord Jesus"?

 

[dejudge]

I am extremely delighted that you mention IDIOTIC arguments.

Your response is a complete failure of logic and facts.

Is it NOT IDIOCY to accept Galatians 1.19 at face value when you knew in advance of posting that the Galatians writer had an agenda, was a religious fanatic, weren't trying to find the truth and were pushing theology?

I doubt Paul's agenda included making others more powerful than himself. I doubt that he would want people to think he was in conflict with "The Brother Of The Lord" if he wasn't, or if James didn't exist.

It is a result of thinking critically about the text, not accepting it at face value. You apparently can't see the difference, not my problem.

Your response only confirms that you don't really know what you are talking about.

You have now contradicted yourself.

You forget that you just wrote that the supposed Witnesses of antiquity "WITNESSED NOTHING".

They witnessed nothing, had an agenda and were religious fanatics. They weren't trying to find the truth of what happened like modern Historians do, they were pushing their Theology.

Please, I am sorry. You have a very serious problem with Memory.

Your HJ argument is a Failure of Memory, Logic and Facts.

 

[Brainache]

Your response only confirms that you don't really know what you are talking about.

You have now contradicted yourself.

You forget that you just wrote that the supposed Witnesses of antiquity "WITNESSED NOTHING".



Please, I am sorry. You have a very serious problem with Memory.

Your HJ argument is a Failure of Memory, Logic and Facts.

The difference of course is that the people you cited were all from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century, unlike Paul who was 1st century.

Your arguments are stupid and insulting to anyone who has actually studied the subject.

I wish you could see how stupid your posts look to everyone else. It might make you stop and think.