Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

At

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9500791&postcount=102

Pgwenthold falsely asserts that there's no controversy over Josephus's not referencing Jesus! Now, that is a fringe take on Josephus's blatant reference to Jesus in Antiqs XX. Pgwenthold not only adopts the fringe take on the blatant Antiqs XX reference as no reference at all! He twists that fringe take into a "fact" in his offensive question.

You first refer to things like "Josephus also mentions an Egyptian false prophet", etc., etc. Fine. No problem. But Pgwenthold then piles on with knee-jerk myther propaganda by asking "thoughtfully": "If all these other sources" [including Josephus] "are telling us about whacked messiahs, why didn't they say anything about Jesus?" ........... YUK!

Josephus bloody well does say something about Jesus, acc. to many scholars, thank you very bloody much! To pretend Josephus doesn't do just that -- as if it's now a "fact" that Josephus didn't reference Jesus rather than a fringe opinion that he didn't -- as Pgwenthold does in his question -- constitutes a sneaky underhanded slimeball insertion of a fringe take on Josephus in order to deliberately circulate a bad penny "assuming" no Jesus reference in Josephus at all. Wrong.

It's as if no debatable takes on the Antiqs XX passage exist at all, as if no controversy exists of any kind(!), as if only the myther fanatics have it right! That's a laugh.

It's one thing to maintain a fringe opinion. It's quite another to maintain no other opinion exists! It's one thing to argue the merits of one particular claim in a heated controversy. It's quite another to act as if no controversy exists! -- And on top of that, to also turn one fringe opinion in that controversy into a "fact".

This is why the sneaky tactics in Pgwenthold's question are beneath contempt.
Stone

With all due respect, I think you're reading motivations into people's posts that simply aren't there. Regarding the area I hilited, I suggest you argue against what the person says, rather than making what borders on a personal attack. It's possible to completely disagree with someone's point of view while still accepting that person as an honorable human being.

As to the mention of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," in Josephus, the reasons that it may have been either a deliberate or innocent alteration are:

1) There are several people names Jesus to be found in his writings. It was, after all, a common name among Jews of the first century.

2) James, a variant of Jacob, was also an extremely common.

3) The writings of Josephus are transmitted documents, rather than preserved documents. In the process of transmission editors can add material. Of course, in the case of the T.F., the material is plainly intrusive. This is not the case with Antiq. 20:9:1. The earliest extant copies of the works of Josephus date from the eleventh century (from the site, bolding added):

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.[60] (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.[61])

One oddity about the passage is that Josephus does not mention a Jesus alleged to be the Christ elsewhere. Yet, he does give a fair amount of detail on the rather minor figure, Theudas. In Antiq. 20:5:1 Josephus says of Theudas that he was a magician, that he persuaded a large number of people he was a prophet, that he gathered his followers at the River Jordan, saying he would divide the water; and that Cuspius Fadus sent a cavalry troop against Theudas. They killed many of Theudas' followers, captured many others and cut off Theudas' head. All this amounts to only a paragraph. An alleged Christ, or messianic pretender alluded to in Antiq. 20:9:1, should have warranted a paragraph, like that on Theudas.

 

[pakeha]

...For some idea of what that core might be like, here is the Jesus Seminar annotated translation of the Coptic Thomas.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/PDF/166/Judaism Christianity/166Thomas.pdf

Red is better than pink, which is better than blue, and black isn't Jesus at all (in the opinion of the Jesus Seminar, as aggregated under their voting system). Figure pink and red as an estimate of the core. ...

What a strangely disjointed work the Coptic Thomas is, to be sure.
Some bits read like a Taoist alchemist's manual, others like Koans and yet others like a parody.
Still, sifting levels of probable authenticity in teachings attributed to Jesus is a legitimate academic exercise, of course.

eight bits, I was reading about the Pharisee belief of a physical resurrection after your heads up..
Eew.
Anyway, I can't help wondering if it doesn't ultimately derive from Egyptian beliefs and funerary practises. Off to read more.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

What a strangely disjointed work the Coptic Thomas is, to be sure.Some bits read like a Taoist alchemist's manual, others like Koans and yet others like a parody.

"Wisdom sayings" sometimes don't sound very wise to me. No doubt a spiritual shortcoming.

Anyway, I can't help wondering if it doesn't ultimately derive from Egyptian beliefs and funerary practises. Off to read more.

I don't know. Please let us know what you find.


Ian

The bottom line here is that Paul describes Jesus in miraculous terms.

Right, In Paul's letters, Jesus' miracles begin shortly after he died, when he got a new, improved body - physical but without the annoying constraints of physicality. Paul expects future miracles, too, even longer after Jesus died.

Meanwhile, what Paul describes of Jesus' life before and up to when Jesus was killed is all ordinary stuff: being born to a Jewish woman, playing with his food, and dying.

 

[tsig]

pakeha


"Wisdom sayings" sometimes don't sound very wise to me. No doubt a spiritual shortcoming.


I don't know. Please let us know what you find.


Ian


Right, In Paul's letters, Jesus' miracles begin shortly after he died, when he got a new, improved body - physical but without the annoying constraints of physicality. Paul expects future miracles, too, even longer after Jesus died.

Meanwhile, what Paul describes of Jesus' life before and up to when Jesus was killed is all ordinary stuff: being born to a Jewish woman, playing with his food, and dying.

Turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead being ordinary stuff that any Jewish carpenter would do, right?

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by eight bits
pakeha


"Wisdom sayings" sometimes don't sound very wise to me. No doubt a spiritual shortcoming.


I don't know. Please let us know what you find.


Ian


Right, In Paul's letters, Jesus' miracles begin shortly after he died, when he got a new, improved body - physical but without the annoying constraints of physicality. Paul expects future miracles, too, even longer after Jesus died.

Meanwhile, what Paul describes of Jesus' life before and up to when Jesus was killed is all ordinary stuff: being born to a Jewish woman, playing with his food, and dying.

Turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead being ordinary stuff that any Jewish carpenter would do, right?

Actually, Paul doesn't say squat about the life of Jesus, other than his instituting the eucharist at the last supper and saying that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't believe Paul refers to any of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels or any of his acts (outside of the last supper), miraculous or otherwise.

 

[pakeha]

Turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead being ordinary stuff that any Jewish carpenter would do, right?

Carpenter?
I think not, darling.
Tekton.

Anyway, does Paul mention the wine thingy or the healings or even raising the dead?
He seems more concerned about what Jesus said about divorce and dosh, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[eight bits]

tsig

In what you quote, we were discussing Paul, not the New Testament as a whole.

Turning water into wine,

Not in Paul; that's only in John. I don't know about Jewish perfomers; apparently, though, pagans did it at Bacchus-Dionysus festivals routinely.

healing the sick

Not in Paul. But yes, I imagine most people could do that. Paul supposedly did that himself, according to Acts (and there's just a hint of him having done some wonder working in his letters). He's a Jewish tent maker, is that close enough? Peter got hauled into court for healing before Paul turned, also according to Acts. A Jewish fisherman, then?

raising the dead

Not in Paul. That's trickier, since you need to run across a misdiagnosis of death. But Paul supposedly did that, too, in Acts. So did Peter.

The Christian apologists lied to you, tsig. There are huge differences among the New Testament depictions of Jesus' earthly ministry. That's because the different accounts are written over the course of two generations. What sells in the 50's doesn't cut it in the 90's. If I said that about the Twentieth Century, you'd say "Well, duh." Why would the First Century be different? Why would this product be different from soap?

 

[pakeha]

...There are huge differences among the New Testament depictions of Jesus' earthly ministry. That's because the different accounts are written over the course of two generations. What sells in the 50's doesn't cut it in the 90's. If I said that about the Twentieth Century, you'd say "Well, duh." Why would the First Century be different? Why would this product be different from soap?

A very, very good point, eight bits.
The destruction of Jerusalem after a hideous siege must have totally transformed the background against which the early church moved in the middle east.
Pre and post 11/9 have nothing on it, IMO.

 

[IanS]

Ian


Right, In Paul's letters, Jesus' miracles begin shortly after he died, when he got a new, improved body - physical but without the annoying constraints of physicality. Paul expects future miracles, too, even longer after Jesus died.

Meanwhile, what Paul describes of Jesus' life before and up to when Jesus was killed is all ordinary stuff: being born to a Jewish woman, playing with his food, and dying.

The problem with that is, whoever wrote Paul's letters clearly did not know any such things about the earlier life of Jesus.

So anything of that sort written in Paul’s letters becomes suspect immediately.

Also the fact that anyone writes or speaks of a supernatural being in terms which also involve ordinary non-miraculous events as well as supernatural events, is absolutely standard script for all such stories, from times long before Jesus right up to the present day. For example, the fictional character of Superman is described doing hundreds of perfectly normal human things, but then the next moment he demonstrates his supernatural powers.

The same thing happens with Jesus in the gospels, where stories about what Jesus said and did are given perfectly natural human settings, but then the next moment Jesus says or does something supernatural.

In Paul's case, he apparently knows absolutely nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, apart from whatever he may or may not have been told by earlier Christian worshippers. But, according to Paul himself, he is not going to say or preach anything about what he may or may not ever have been told, and instead he is going to preach only what he knows by “revelation” from the dead Christ in heaven and what he believes was foretold in OT scripture.

Paul, bless his little cotton socks, believed wholeheartedly in miracles and the supernatural. We should not criticise him for that of course. Because everyone at that time believed in such things. In fact they did not merely “believe” it. They were certain of it.

However, the relevant issue in all these Jesus threads is not whether we should make fun of Paul and the gospel authors for believing in a supernatural Jesus of the 1st century AD. The relevant issue here is whether now in 2013 we should believe that Paul or the gospel authors were writing about someone that they actually knew to be a real person. And the answer to that appears to be that none of those authors actually knew this person called Jesus …

… all that they knew was a religious legend about a miracle worker from earlier times, who was once said to have been the fulfilment of messiah prophecies drawn from an OT tradition of beliefs stretching back to at least 500BC. That became the religious belief preached by Paul and the Gospel writers. But neither Paul nor the gospel authors themselves actually knew who Jesus was.

It should be perfectly obvious that religious writing like that is not a reliable basis for believing that later preachers such as Paul or the gospel writers were ever proclaiming a messiah who they knew to be a real person. And especially not in an age when religious fanatics were even more susceptible than they are today (almost impossible to believe I know) to uncritically accepting stories of miraculous religious persons, and amazing miraculous happenings ordained by a heavenly creator whose existence they all accepted as a matter of absolute certainty …. a “certainty” which today we know to be about as far from a “certainty” as it’s possible ever to get.

 

[pakeha]

Vibhuti, anyone?
http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/sathya-sai-baba-was-exposed-long-ago/

About the possible Egyptian source for the Pharisee's belief in a bodily resurrection:
There's plenty of evidence of such a belief among the AEs, enough to occupy years of serious and fascinating research.
Now whether this influenced the Pharisees is more difficult to assess, as I haven't found anything approaching a causal link between the two belief systems.
Yet.

I'm off to read about Babylonian beliefs as a more likely source for a belief in bodily resurrection, since I have an idea the Babylonian captivity can be shown to have influenced the Hebrew writings.

Be that as it may, the more I read about and consider the matter, I'm struck by how primitive and essentially creepy the idea of bodily resurrection is.
I was taught it from childhood on and never really questioned it or even thought about it very much.

These days, however, perhaps it's me, but it seems morbid and grotesque.
Anyway, off to Babylon and Sumer.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

I don't see anything there that you and I haven't already covered. The point of designating something as a bottom line is to make a final statement before moving on to something else.

We have both have line bottomed. Time to move on.

pakeha

First, that line of inquiry into Babylonian and Sumerian roots for the Pharisees' beliefs is looking good. Maybe the Egyptian wasn't so hot . Looking forward to more, though.

The destruction of Jerusalem after a hideous siege must have totally transformed the background against which the early church moved in the middle east. Pre and post 11/9 have nothing on it, IMO.

Yes, I think you're right about the inevitability of nightmarish events like the siege and sack leaving their stamp on Christian as well as Jewish thought.

Even if Jerusalem hadn't been stomped, though, Christianty appears always to have offered a changing menu of afterlife compensation (pie in the sky when you die) and inlife compenstion for the inconveniences of Christian life. It still makes adjustments in both (Now with no Limbo for unbaptized infants! or "prosperity gospels," formerly the "Protestant work ethic").

"Jesus is coming right back to get you" has a finite shelf life. Maybe in the 50's, a guy who died in the 30's might still be coming back, but it's hard to sell that in the 90's. Inlife, Paul's churches featured charisms - prophecy, exorcism, probably healing, speaking in tongues. Paul is already noticing (I think) in the 50's that the tongues thing is nonsensical gobbledygook. Coherent prophecy has an obvious shelf-life. It's plausible these things were unsellable by the 90's.

Healing and exorcism are still on offer, but nowadays both complement secular treatment. "Sometimes Jesus works through doctors" and for a full-blown Catholic exorcism, you must talk with a psychiatrist first. (Next up: gluten-free communion wafers.)

 

[Stone]

Originally Posted by Stone View Post
No. Mind hiccup. Agapios, which is viewed by some as an earlier source for the T.F. than any extant ms. ...Stone

Come, come, Stone.
You know that was debunked as a source by ANTPogo just before you left off posting here earlier this year.

What is there in the words "by some" that is unclear? Moreover, no opinion -- even the sainted ANTPogo's <roll eyes> -- debunks anything. Something is debunked if something concrete is found that can be demonstrated to be the original found source for Agapios. ANTPogo discovered nothing of the kind. He showed why the Agapios might be suspect. That's all. But he proved/debunked nothing. Anyone who thinks he did debunk doesn't understand history. ANTPogo has shown there are problems in the professional academic understanding of Agapios. That only diminishes certain degrees of likelihood. But what is likely is all that ancient history trades in. It does not trade in certainty.

Stone

 

[Stone]

With all due respect, I think you're reading motivations into people's posts that simply aren't there. Regarding the area I hilited, I suggest you argue against what the person says, rather than making what borders on a personal attack. It's possible to completely disagree with someone's point of view while still accepting that person as an honorable human being.

As to the mention of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," in Josephus, the reasons that it may have been either a deliberate or innocent alteration are:

1) There are several people names Jesus to be found in his writings. It was, after all, a common name among Jews of the first century.

2) James, a variant of Jacob, was also an extremely common.

3) The writings of Josephus are transmitted documents, rather than preserved documents. In the process of transmission editors can add material. Of course, in the case of the T.F., the material is plainly intrusive. This is not the case with Antiq. 20:9:1. The earliest extant copies of the works of Josephus date from the eleventh century (from the site, bolding added):

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.[60] (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.[61])

One oddity about the passage is that Josephus does not mention a Jesus alleged to be the Christ elsewhere. Yet, he does give a fair amount of detail on the rather minor figure, Theudas. In Antiq. 20:5:1 Josephus says of Theudas that he was a magician, that he persuaded a large number of people he was a prophet, that he gathered his followers at the River Jordan, saying he would divide the water; and that Cuspius Fadus sent a cavalry troop against Theudas. They killed many of Theudas' followers, captured many others and cut off Theudas' head. All this amounts to only a paragraph. An alleged Christ, or messianic pretender alluded to in Antiq. 20:9:1, should have warranted a paragraph, like that on Theudas.

And you're assuming way too much. Just because some of the Jesus stuff in Josephus is odd, untypical, out of sequence -- whatever -- does NOT make it a frigging FACT that Josephus never wrote about Jesus at all! We don't really know that. In fact, we DO have something. It may not pass the myther saliva test, but it is there, and NOT not there, and you have to deal with it. Sure, you can say it all came from some scribe on BLOOMING Mars for all I care. But that's frigging different from there being nothing there at all. That is NOT frigging synonymous with "Nothing here, move on." Get it? Your own "should-have-warranted-a-paragraph" incantation is of a piece with the rest of the myther kool-aid. You are taking myther OPINIONS and turning them into objective facts.

Contemptible.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Originally Posted by eight bits


Meanwhile, what Paul describes of Jesus' life before and up to when Jesus was killed is all ordinary stuff: being born to a Jewish woman, playing with his food, and dying.


Actually, Paul doesn't say squat about the life of Jesus, other than his instituting the eucharist at the last supper and saying that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't believe Paul refers to any of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels or any of his acts (outside of the last supper), miraculous or otherwise.

No, nothing much.................. Only


Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law

The family may have been partly related to the David line, or "descent from David" may have simply been an emblematic way of saying he was of David's people -- i.e., a Jew.
Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David

He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.


Do us a favor next time. Try doing a bit of honest research <SNIP>.

Stone

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

 

[TimCallahan]

And you're assuming way too much. Just because some of the Jesus stuff in Josephus is odd, untypical, out of sequence -- whatever -- does NOT make it a frigging FACT that Josephus never wrote about Jesus at all! We don't really know that. In fact, we DO have something. It may not pass the myther saliva test, but it is there, and NOT not there, and you have to deal with it. Sure, you can say it all came from some scribe on BLOOMING Mars for all I care. But that's frigging different from there being nothing there at all. That is NOT frigging synonymous with "Nothing here, move on." Get it? Your own "should-have-warranted-a-paragraph" incantation is of a piece with the rest of the myther kool-aid. You are taking myther OPINIONS and turning them into objective facts.
Contemptible.
Stone

1) First hilited area: Nor am I saying that it is a fact that Josephus didn't mention Jesus. I am, however, offering his failure to mention his activities earlier - as he did those of Theudas and those of another messianic pretender, an unnamed Egyptian - as evidence that the clause, "who was called the Christ," may have been a later interpolation.

2) Second hilited area: As such, I am not taking mythicist arguments and citing them as facts.

3) Nor is what I'm doing contemptible. Again: It isn't necessary, nor even acceptable behavior, to insult people just because you disagree with them on an issue.

 

[TimCallahan]

No, nothing much.................. Only


Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law

The family may have been partly related to the David line, or "descent from David" may have simply been an emblematic way of saying he was of David's people -- i.e., a Jew.
Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David

He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink. 1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.


Do us a favor next time. Try doing a bit of honest research <SNIP>.

Stone

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

For the sake of clarification:

1) Paul does not mention any of the miracles attributed to Jesus either in the Synoptic Gospels or that of John. Nor does he mention any of the teachings of Jesus from the sermon on the mount. He also doesn't mention any of the pericopes recorded in the gospels, such as that of, the beheading of John the Baptist, the anointing woman or the woman taken in adultery. Further, he does not allude to any of the parables of Jesus. He claims in Galatians that the only source of his gospel is his direct revelation of Jesus (Gal. 1:11, 12) and goes on to say that he did not confer with those who knew Jesus (Gal. 1:16, 17) and adds that he got nothing from those reputed to be of importance among the followers of Jesus (Gal. 2:6, 7). So, his main, perhaps only source of his "knowledge" of Jesus was his own hallucination.

2) As to Gal. 4:4, the idea that Jesus was born of a woman merely says he was a human being. Had Paul asserted the virgin birth, as did Matthew and Mark, or had he asserted that Jesus was the divine Logos of John, that would amount to something.

3) The assertion that he was a descendant of David is something I overlooked. However, what I was focusing on and responding to was whether or not Paul made reference to any of the miracle attributed to Jesus. He didn't.

4) I don't see where you get two brothers in Paul's epistles. Galatians only refers to James.

5) Concerning the hilited area, I already said that the institution of the eucharist was one of the only things Paul said about Jesus.us. I probably should have included the crucifixion. However I do believe I mentioned that Paul said Jesus was resurrected and appeared to a number of people. His post-resurrection appearances differ from those in the gospels, which differ from each other.

6) Given that Paul's only real knowledge of Jesus was his hallucinatory revelation, his admonition about not divorcing may only have come from what he observed as practiced by Jewish followers of Jesus.

7) Finally, and once again, it isn't necessary or even particularly intelligent to insult those with whom you disagree. In fact, it's childish. Hence, your post was edited by the moderators for breech of rules 0 and 12.

 

[pakeha]

What is there in the words "by some" that is unclear? Moreover, no opinion -- even the sainted ANTPogo's <roll eyes> -- debunks anything. Something is debunked if something concrete is found that can be demonstrated to be the original found source for Agapios. ANTPogo discovered nothing of the kind. He showed why the Agapios might be suspect. That's all. But he proved/debunked nothing. Anyone who thinks he did debunk doesn't understand history. ANTPogo has shown there are problems in the professional academic understanding of Agapios. That only diminishes certain degrees of likelihood. But what is likely is all that ancient history trades in. It does not trade in certainty.

Stone

Interesting.
I suppose there's some reason why you didn't try to engage ANTPogo at the time?

Added
I've reviewed the discussion and ses Stone DID engage ANTPogo, up to a certain point.
There was no reply to ANTPogo's
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9355740&postcount=3967

And once again, Stone, please refrain from insulting and belittling those who disagree with your take on Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Ian

I don't see anything there that you and I haven't already covered. The point of designating something as a bottom line is to make a final statement before moving on to something else.

We have both have line bottomed. Time to move on.

Sure we can let it drop & move on. But probably not if you persist in saying that Paul’s letters are credible evidence of Jesus because they don’t present Jesus as a miraculous figure. Because that’s clearly untrue.

 

[pakeha]

No, nothing much.................. Only


Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law

The family may have been partly related to the David line, or "descent from David" may have simply been an emblematic way of saying he was of David's people -- i.e., a Jew.
Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David

He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.


Do us a favor next time. Try doing a bit of honest research <SNIP>.

Stone

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Speaking of honest research, Stone, you've lifted this entire list from a poster at RatSkep without giving any sign of it being a copy paste.

ETA
Here's a link to the post, dated 27 January, 2011
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-7460.html#p689382
That poster even brought up the same list earlier this year, on 20 April
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-33220.html#p1690143

 

[ddt]

Speaking of honest research, Stone, you've lifted this entire list from a poster at RatSkep without giving any sign of it being a copy paste.

ETA
Here's a link to the post, dated 27 January, 2011
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-7460.html#p689382
That poster even brought up the same list earlier this year, on 20 April
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-33220.html#p1690143

The name of that poster at RatSkep is "Stein", which is German for "Stone". This lends to the idea that it is the same poster.

Is that you, Stone, posting under the name Stein at RatSkep?