Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[welshdean]

No, I didn't misread it. I got the quotes by reading a portion of the book myself. Don't you think if the quotes and page numbers were inaccurate someone would have jumped on it by now.

I'm working on it. I've bought the 'kindle' edition. Unfortunately I've not uploaded it yet (to my kindle), it's still on the laptop and 'Calibre' doesn't seem to display page numbers just the percentage of book read.

I'll be back shortly though DOC.

 

[welshdean]

On page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?", Bart Ehrman writes this:

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

Some might say, well you are using what's in the bible as evidence.

Here is a quote from Bart Ehrman on page 73 of the book cited above;

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly".

___

Remember the gospels were written by 8 or 9 writers who had no idea their writings would end up in something called a bible. And one of those writers was Luke, a man archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian {regarding non-supernatural events}.

Context:
"If it is hard to imagine Jews inventing the idea of a crucified messiah, where did the idea come from? It came from historical realities. There really was a man Jesus. Some of the things he said and possibly did make some of his followers wonder if he could be the messiah. Eventually they became convinced: he must be the messiah. But then he ran afoul of the authorities, who had him arrested, put on trial, and condemned to execution. He was crucified. This, of course, radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all—we don’t know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised. This reconfirmed in a big way the hopes that had been so severely dashed by his crucifixion. For his reinspirited followers, Jesus truly is the one favored by God. So he is the messiah. But he is a different kind of messiah than anyone expected. God had a different plan from the beginning. He planned to save Israel not by a powerful royal messiah but by a crucified messiah.
Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified. No Jew would have invented him. And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus’s right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus’s brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus’s death."

Context 2:
"I should stress that I am not saying that Luke and the other Gospel writers were trying to present disinterested accounts of the life of Jesus. These authors were anything but disinterested, and their biases need to be front and center in the critics’ minds when evaluating what they have to say. But at the same time, they were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.
Some mythicists, though, do precisely that. As just one example, the Gospel of Luke indicates that Jesus’s hometown was Nazareth. As we will see later in the book, many mythicists deny that Nazareth even existed in the days of Jesus, and they refuse to take Luke’s and the other Gospels’ word for it, not deeming them as reputable historical sources since they are part of the Bible. But the reality is that Luke inherited oral traditions about Jesus and his connection with Nazareth, and he recorded what he had heard. What he heard may have been right or it may have been wrong, but the fact that later Christians long after he was dead placed his book into the canon of the New Testament has nothing to do with it."


Sorry folks, I still can't get page no.s for some reason. I'm new to both Calibre and the Kindle.

 

[welshdean]

DOC, from the same book, what do you make of this:

"In my judgment a much more interesting argument about Paul’s knowledge of the historical Jesus is one that is hammered time and again by G. A. Wells. If Paul knew about the historical Jesus, asks Wells, why was he silent about almost everything that we hear about Jesus in the surviving Gospels? We hear almost nothing about Jesus’s teachings (just three references to them in Paul). Were Jesus’s other teachings irrelevant to Paul? If they were relevant, why didn‘t he mention them? Furthermore, we hear almost nothing about the events of Jesus’s life: no descriptions of miracles or exorcisms or raisings of the dead. Were these things unimportant to Paul? We hear almost nothing about the details of Jesus’s death: the trip to Jerusalem, the betrayal, the trial before Pontius Pilate, and so on. Did none of this matter to Paul? In Wells’s view all of these traditions about Jesus should have been massively important to Paul, and he would have written about them had he known about them. That suggests that Paul in fact did not know about them.For Wells it is particularly significant that Paul does not quote the sayings of Jesus extensively or refer to his miracles. Surely Jesus’s teachings should have mattered, especially when Paul talks about the same issues. For example, Wells points out, Paul indicates that “we do not even know how to pray as we ought” (Romans 8:26).17 But Jesus actually taught his disciples how to pray when he taught them the Lord’s Prayer. If Paul knew anything about Jesus, wouldn’t he at least know this? Paul also taught that followers of Jesus ought to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7). Surely if he knew about Jesus, he would know that Jesus too praised those who renounced marriage for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). Paul taught that Christ’s followers should “bless those who persecute you” (Romans 12:14). Why would he not quote Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to bolster his argument, to show that the injunction is not based simply on his own personal view? With respect to miracles—since, in Wells’s words, “The Jews certainly expected that miracles would characterize the Messianic age”—it is almost impossible to understand why Paul would not appeal to a single miracle of Jesus or even mention that he did any if he wanted to authorize his gospel message.
With respect to all the silences of Paul, Wells makes one particularly significant methodological point. It is not simply that Paul does not mention some things about Jesus’s life. It is that he does not mention things that would have bolstered precisely the points he was trying to make to his readers. In Wells’s words: “Of course silence does not always prove ignorance, and any writer knows a great many things he fails to mention. A writer’s silence is significant only if it extends to matters obviously relevant to what he has chosen to discuss.”18 In the end, Wells finds it puzzling that if Paul really thought Jesus lived just a few years earlier, “there is no mention of a Galilean ministry; no mention of Bethlehem, Nazareth, or Galilee; no suggestion that Jesus spoke parables or performed miracles; and no indication that he died in Jerusalem.” With respect to the crucifixion, “he might be expected at least to allude to when and where this important event occurred, if that was known to him.”19 The conclusion that Wells draws is that Paul did not know about a Jesus who had lived just a few years before, a Galilean Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate."

 

[Akhenaten]

Context:

<snippy>

I'm afraid all I can see there is a whole heap of bare assertions, conjecture, circular reasoning, a few assorted and very flimsy claims and nothing at all that resembles evidence.

Sorry folks, I still can't get page no.s for some reason. I'm new to both Calibre and the Kindle.

I wouldn't sweat it, mate. The only one who's really hung up on page numbers is DOC because he thought by mentioning them all the time he'd be able to get away with pretending that he had a copy of the book and that he'd actually read it.

The fact that he kept quoting the same few sections over an over but was unable to provide the contextual setting as you have done was an early and obvious indicator of his duplicity in the matter.


Thanks for the excerpts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry folks, I still can't get page no.s for some reason. I'm new to both Calibre and the Kindle.

Use books.Google.com, go to advanced search and you can search for a text string. Google books will give you the page #.

 

[welshdean]

Use books.Google.com, go to advanced search and you can search for a text string. Google books will give you the page #.

Mate, I'm done with this bloody book. As Aberhaten noticed, there's no evidence being offered, just bald assertion, circular reasoning, unqualified assertion and wishful thinking (amongst other fallacious reasoning). I only took the time to do it as a service to my fellow posters here.





(Is Aberhaten near Aberdare, Abergavenny or Abercwmboi?)

 

[DOC]

I'm afraid all I can see there is a whole heap of bare assertions, conjecture, circular reasoning, a few assorted and very flimsy claims and nothing at all that resembles evidence....

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

I once had a history professor who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

 

[pakeha]

...It matters little what the epistles "ascribed to him" have to tell us, as they were most certainly not written by Peter, nor even by the same pseudonymous author. See wiki

This is something brought up repeatedly and never really addressed by DOC, IIRC.

If true, that is just more evidence the NT writer's were telling the truth. If true, now, in addition to Peter, we have evidence of Mary, Martha, and Lazareth. And if they were indeed Peter's bones, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't spend his final years in Rome. ...

If? You mean you post this up not knowing if it's been confirmed?

No, I didn't misread it. I got the quotes by reading a portion of the book myself. Don't you think if the quotes and page numbers were inaccurate someone would have jumped on it by now.

I'm very disappointed you didn't actually read your source before quoting it.

Mate, I'm done with this bloody book. As Aberhaten noticed, there's no evidence being offered, just bald assertion, circular reasoning, unqualified assertion and wishful thinking (amongst other fallacious reasoning). I only took the time to do it as a service to my fellow posters here. ...

Thanks, welshdean.
You have to wonder what prompted the author to publish the work in the first place.

 

[Garrette]

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

I once had a history professor who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

But its subjects existed, without doubt.

The analogy is actually quite apt, DOC:

Jesus Christ wasn't named Jesus (more likely Yeshua if a model existed) and wasn't the Christ, and yet Christian subjects certainly exist.

 

[DOC]

DOC, from the same book, what do you make of this:

"In my judgment a much more interesting argument about Paul’s knowledge of the historical Jesus is one that is hammered time and again by G. A. Wells. If Paul knew about the historical Jesus, asks Wells, why was he silent about [SIZE=+2]almost everything that we hear about Jesus in the surviving Gospels? We hear [SIZE=+2]almost[/SIZE] nothing about Jesus’s teachings (just three references to them in Paul). Were Jesus’s other teachings irrelevant to Paul? If they were relevant, why didn‘t he mention them? Furthermore, we hear [SIZE=+2]almost[/SIZE] nothing about the events of Jesus’s life: no descriptions of miracles or exorcisms or raisings of the dead. Were these things unimportant to Paul? We hear [SIZE=+2]almost[/size] nothing about the details of Jesus’s death: the trip to Jerusalem, the betrayal, the trial before Pontius Pilate, and so on. Did none of this matter to Paul? In Wells’s view all of these traditions about Jesus should have been massively important to Paul, and he would have written about them had he known about them. That suggests that Paul in fact did not know about them.[/SIZE]For Wells it is particularly significant that Paul does not quote the sayings of Jesus extensively or refer to his miracles. Surely Jesus’s teachings should have mattered, especially when Paul talks about the same issues. For example, Wells points out, Paul indicates that “we do not even know how to pray as we ought” (Romans 8:26).17 But Jesus actually taught his disciples how to pray when he taught them the Lord’s Prayer. If Paul knew anything about Jesus, wouldn’t he at least know this? Paul also taught that followers of Jesus ought to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7). Surely if he knew about Jesus, he would know that Jesus too praised those who renounced marriage for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). Paul taught that Christ’s followers should “bless those who persecute you” (Romans 12:14). Why would he not quote Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to bolster his argument, to show that the injunction is not based simply on his own personal view? With respect to miracles—since, in Wells’s words, “The Jews certainly expected that miracles would characterize the Messianic age”—it is almost impossible to understand why Paul would not appeal to a single miracle of Jesus or even mention that he did any if he wanted to authorize his gospel message.
With respect to all the silences of Paul, Wells makes one particularly significant methodological point. It is not simply that Paul does not mention some things about Jesus’s life. It is that he does not mention things that would have bolstered precisely the points he was trying to make to his readers. In Wells’s words: “Of course silence does not always prove ignorance, and any writer knows a great many things he fails to mention. A writer’s silence is significant only if it extends to matters obviously relevant to what he has chosen to discuss.”18 In the end, Wells finds it puzzling that if Paul really thought Jesus lived just a few years earlier, “there is no mention of a Galilean ministry; no mention of Bethlehem, Nazareth, or Galilee; no suggestion that Jesus spoke parables or performed miracles; and no indication that he died in Jerusalem.” With respect to the crucifixion, “he might be expected at least to allude to when and where this important event occurred, if that was known to him.”19 The conclusion that Wells draws is that Paul did not know about a Jesus who had lived just a few years before, a Galilean Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate."

Notice all the "almosts" above.

And how could Paul not know about Jesus when Luke reports he met with Peter and James for 2 weeks and even Ehrman seems to believe this is the case.

And here is a quote from Paul from 1 Corintians 15:3-8

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

[Craig B]

Notice all the "almosts" above.

And how could Paul not know about Jesus when Luke reports he met with Peter and James for 2 weeks and even Ehrman seems to believe this is the case.

And here is a quote from Paul from 1 Corintians 15:3-8

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Notice that Paul is here citing scriptural prophecies not relating personal observations.

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

So he knows nothing of Judas' defection. There should be eleven at this point.

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

This huge astonishing appearance is utterly unknown to the gospels.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

And how was he seen by Paul? As a resurrected physical being with holes in his physical body? Not at all, as a blinding light (seen in Syria at noonday!) associated with a voice from the sky. We conclude that the experiences he attributes to the apostles and the "five hundred" were of the same order as he claims for himself. Apparently, hallucinations.

The passage you cite is absolute proof that Paul was not intimately acquainted with the various disparate accounts related in the Gospels.

 

[Belz...]

I once had a history professor

Unlikely.

 

[zooterkin]

Unlikely.

My thoughts went off in more of a Norwegian Wood direction, but it's probably best not to dwell on that.

 

[Fitter]

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

I once had a history professor who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

Was this at the same school you got the A in logic?

 

[welshdean]

Notice all the "almosts" above.

Good god DOC, surely you understand the use of the word 'almost' in the context given.

I know you only read down to your last bolded 'almost'. The thing is though my slippery little friend, you missed the crux of the post.

In the end, Wells finds it puzzling that if Paul really thought Jesus lived just a few years earlier, “there is no mention of a Galilean ministry; no mention of Bethlehem, Nazareth, or Galilee; no suggestion that Jesus spoke parables or performed miracles; and no indication that he died in Jerusalem.” With respect to the crucifixion, “he might be expected at least to allude to when and where this important event occurred, if that was known to him.”19 The conclusion that Wells draws is that Paul did not know about a Jesus who had lived just a few years before, a Galilean Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate."

 

[Akhenaten]

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

You think you're in a position to lecture me about educating myself, do you?

I once had a history professor who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

You should have listened more closely, DOC. I'm fairly sure he didn't say those were the only three things you needed to know.

Alas.


In any case, apart from this nonsense being a complete non sequitur, what happened to the rest of my post? The bit that dealt with your obvious lie about Ehrman's major claim in the book is missing.

You must know by now that I'll just keep reposting it until you respond.

 

[welshdean]

This is something brought up repeatedly and never really addressed by DOC, IIRC.

Along with a very extensive list of others.

Thanks, welshdean.

No problems, glad to be of service old bean

You have to wonder what prompted the author to publish the work in the first place.

Indeed. Not only does it fly in the face of his other works, it begs the question as to why his usually scholarly methods were ignored and what is he trying to accomplish with such a poorly presented argument.

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice all the "almosts" above.

Notice all the "historicals" below:

"Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book says "YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

What's that? There's only one? Hmm . . .

Maybe you aren't in any better position to be lecturing people about how to read than you are to be linstructing them about historical evidence.

And that's doing you the favour of assuming that the above was an honest mistake.

And how could Paul not know about Jesus when Luke reports he met with Peter and James for 2 weeks . . .

In exactly the same way that Bilbo Baggins didn't know about Cyrus Black when Rhett Butler reports that he met with Lady Macbeth and Belgarath the Sorcerer for two weeks.

Obviously.

. . . and even Ehrman seems to believe this is the case.

For all I know or care he might believe in the Loch Ness Sasquatch.

What does his evidence say?

And here is a quote from Paul from 1 Corintians 15:3-8

<snip>

Do I qualify for the million dollars if I predict that DOC will mention the bible now?

Unfortunately this is only a low budget thread and the best we can offer is one of my cookies and one of catsmate's delicious muffins.

Who wants to be a millionaire?

Enjoy.

​

 

[Akhenaten]

You seem to have overlooked a question, DOC.

No, I didn't misread it. I got the quotes by reading a portion of the book myself.

Which portion, and how did you read it?

 

[ddt]

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

I once had a history professor who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

Evidence that you had a history professor at all? Your 6,900+ posts are solid evidence of an utter lack of education rather than anything else.

And while a nice quip, there's a lot more to know about the HRE than that.