Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Your are compounding your problems with veracity.


You are confirming that you not only believe Galatians 1.19 but other sources which you claim mention the Lord's brother.

It isn't belief.

I read and comprehend the arguments of Historians, because History is a complicated subject, it takes years of study.

It takes a bit more than reading things at face value.

It takes a bit more than assuming the earliest surviving copy of a Text was the first copy of that text.

It takes a bit more than declaring certainty in a position based on nothing more than ignorance.

It takes more than insulting your opponents.

You still have not provided a reasonable explanation for your ludicrous ideas, and until you do, I take this kind of criticism as an indication that I am doing the right thing.

If you agreed with me, I would have to re-think the whole thing.

 

[Belz...]

this is a Skeptic site

So why are you here ?

 

[Craig B]

Your are compounding your problems with veracity.


You are confirming that you not only believe Galatians 1.19 but other sources which you claim mention the Lord's brother.

What's the problem with "veracity" then? If Brainache does believe these things, and says them, where is the veracity issue? There is a problem only when people say things they know to be false.

 

[dejudge]

It isn't belief.

I read and comprehend the arguments of Historians, because History is a complicated subject, it takes years of study.

It takes a bit more than reading things at face value.

It takes a bit more than assuming the earliest surviving copy of a Text was the first copy of that text.

It takes a bit more than declaring certainty in a position based on nothing more than ignorance.

It takes more than insulting your opponents.

You still have not provided a reasonable explanation for your ludicrous ideas, and until you do, I take this kind of criticism as an indication that I am doing the right thing.

If you agreed with me, I would have to re-think the whole thing.

You keep compounding your problem.

I asked, "Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?"

And you replied, "I never believed that".

You are presently and actively engaged in a thread you started with hundreds of posts which shows that you do believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

It was expected that you would have problems with veracity.

 

[Craig B]

You keep compounding your problem.

I asked, "Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?"

And you replied, "I never believed that".

You are presently and actively engaged in a thread you started with hundreds of posts which shows that you do believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

It was expected that you would have problems with veracity.

So you think Brainache is stating things that he himself doesn't believe to be true? That's what he would have to be doing to have any questions raised about his veracity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You keep compounding your problem.

I asked, "Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?"

And you replied, "I never believed that".

You are presently and actively engaged in a thread you started with hundreds of posts which shows that you do believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

It was expected that you would have problems with veracity.

The problem is your ignorance of critical thinking. You are stuck in a false dichotomy of certain belief and certain disbelief. There is a difference between regarding something as likely, but not certain, and believing that it is true. If you ask an exobiologist if he/she believes that life exists on other worlds, the answer given will most likely be, "No". If you ask the same person, "Do you think it is probable that life exists on other worlds?", the answer will most likely be, "Yes".

So it really isn't a matter of belief. One can regard something as probable, even highly likely, yet still reserve a measure of provisional doubt.

 

[Brainache]

You keep compounding your problem.

I asked, "Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?"

And you replied, "I never believed that".

You are presently and actively engaged in a thread you started with hundreds of posts which shows that you do believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

It was expected that you would have problems with veracity.

So you think Brainache is stating things that he himself doesn't believe to be true? That's what he would have to be doing to have any questions raised about his veracity.

The problem is your ignorance of critical thinking. You are stuck in a false dichotomy of certain belief and certain disbelief. There is a difference between regarding something as likely, but not certain, and believing that it is true. If you ask an exobiologist if he/she believes that life exists on other worlds, the answer given will most likely be, "No". If you ask the same person, "Do you think it is probable that life exists on other worlds?", the answer will most likely be, "Yes".

So it really isn't a matter of belief. One can regard something as probable, even highly likely, yet still reserve a measure of provisional doubt.

Thanks Craig and Foster, that is what I would have said...

I would appreciate it, dejudge, if you stopped calling me a liar.

 

[dejudge]

You keep compounding your problem.

I asked, "Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?"

And you replied, "I never believed that".

You are presently and actively engaged in a thread you started with hundreds of posts which shows that you do believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

It was expected that you would have problems with veracity.

Thanks Craig and Foster, that is what I would have said...

I would appreciate it, dejudge, if you stopped calling me a liar.

This is what you said in an earlier post. Please, Wake up.

In this very thread you used writings attributed to Origen and Josephus to support your belief of Galatians 1.19.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9736715&postcount=2773

"The Just One" is James The Just, Brother of Jesus.

Wake up.

You obviously believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account yet you claimed you never believed it.

 

[Craig B]

This is what you said in an earlier post. Please, Wake up.

So Brainache is not only a liar, he is a sleeping liar.

 

[David Mo]

Paul's letters are even crystal clear in saying that is exactly where he obtained his belief in Jesus. And yet you still want to argue about that saying you want to ignore what Paul's letters actually say, ignore what the gospels actually say, and instead you want to invent the belief that there were some people who really met a living Jesus and told Paul about it!! ... well who were those people then? ... where did any of those people ever write to claim they met Jesus? ... where did Paul ever say any of those people ever told him about Jesus?

What you are trying to do (and probably others here too), is a three step process which is wholly and completely inadmissible -

1. You are trying to ignore the evidence of what is actually said about Jesus in Paul’s letters and the Gospels.

It is untrue that I'm "trying to ignore the evidence of what is actually said about Jesus in Paul’s letters and the Gospels".

I keep in mind what Paul says in a specific context about the origin of his belief in Christ (only from the Old Testament and revelation) and I maintain this is incoherent with other passages of his letters (the dispute with the Jerusalem leaders and some details about Jesus' appearances).

"Paul's letters are even crystal clear in saying that is exactly where he obtained his belief in Jesus".

This is an unjustified assumption about the sincerity or the objectivity of Paul's words. Paul was interested in present his authority in this way (directly inspired by God and only God) and in saying this it was in contradiction with other passages of his letters that point to other sources. Your interpretation is very ingenuous or onesided. "Crystal clear"! No many men are "crystal clear" and Paul wasn't one of them.

I don't invent nothing. I submit the texts to criticism. And I suppose anything about the other Paul's sources . I don't know i f they actually were present in the Jesus crucifixion or another related event. I think I had already remarked this. In my opinion is likely that legendary stories about Jesus began very early, perhaps during his lifetime. It is not so strange.

 

[eight bits]

David

"Paul's letters are even crystal clear in saying that is exactly where he obtained his belief in Jesus".

This is an unjustified assumption about the sincerity or the objectivity of Paul's words.

Paul does not comment on where he obtained his belief in Jesus' natural (mortal) existence.

Paul does disclose his extensive exposure to possible natural sources of such beliefs.

Paul does not say that any of his beliefs about Jesus' natural (mortal) life came from revelation or from scripture.

Paul does not contradict himself about the sources of his belief about Jesus' natural (mortal) life. Obviously not, since he does not discuss them, only disclosing exposure to possible sources.

Paul does cite revelation and scripture as his supports for his inferences about the meaning of what Paul believes about Jesus' natural (mortal) life and reports of his after-death appearances.

 

[IanS]

It is untrue that I'm "trying to ignore the evidence of what is actually said about Jesus in Paul’s letters and the Gospels".

I keep in mind what Paul says in a specific context about the origin of his belief in Christ (only from the Old Testament and revelation) and I maintain this is incoherent with other passages of his letters (the dispute with the Jerusalem leaders and some details about Jesus' appearances).

Well there are two absolutely fatal problems with the case you are trying to make. I have explained this before several times, but anyway -

1. The first problem is - what I have pointed out IS what is actually said in Paul’s letters. And he does not just say it once, or say it as some throw-away line. He makes a specific point of stressing those things, and he repeats it several times.

So if you (or any reader) does not accept that Paul actually meant what he said by those words, then you are most certainly “ignoring” what he very clearly and repeatedly did say & say with very pointed direct insistence.

2. If instead of taking what Paul very clearly said to be what he really meant to say about his Jesus beliefs, you say that what he actually said was “incoherent with other passages" then you are simply making your own subjective judgement, or guess, as to whether you personally think the various things he said are all reconcilable with one-another. But that is your guess. And others might easily disagree with you. Whereas what his words do say is not open to such guessing or doubt - the actually words are very clear indeed.

But as for those Jerusalem meetings and disputes with other church leaders being contrary to Paul’s words saying his beliefs were not of human origin and not from consulting any Man etc., I don’t know what you actually have in mind about any such inconsistencies over what Paul’s letters say in describing any Jerusalem meetings, but - iirc there is nothing said about any of those meetings, where any of them ever say they had met Jesus and had told Paul about it. So any speculation of that sort is a total non-starter.

"Paul's letters are even crystal clear in saying that is exactly where he obtained his belief in Jesus".

This is an unjustified assumption about the sincerity or the objectivity of Paul's words. Paul was interested in present his authority in this way (directly inspired by God and only God) and in saying this it was in contradiction with other passages of his letters that point to other sources. Your interpretation is very ingenuous or onesided. "Crystal clear"! No many men are "crystal clear" and Paul wasn't one of them.

I don’t have to make guesses about whether Paul was sincere or objective in anything he wrote. And that would be another complete guess anyway, and 100% unnecessary. It’s more than sufficient to point out what the words in his letters do say, and say very clearly and unambiguously.

You are again making a complete guess when you say things like “Paul was interested in present his authority in this way (directly inspired by God and only God)”. None of us actually have any real idea of what Paul’s motives were or why he thought or said that he saw a vision etc. Why guess?

I don't invent nothing. I submit the texts to criticism. And I suppose anything about the other Paul's sources . I don't know i f they actually were present in the Jesus crucifixion or another related event. I think I had already remarked this. In my opinion is likely that legendary stories about Jesus began very early, perhaps during his lifetime. It is not so strange.

Well it’s certainly an “invention” if you say that Paul would have learned about Jesus from others he met in Jerusalem. Because you have no reliable credible evidence that anyone in Jerusalem had ever met Jesus, do you? What is the evidence that any of those people ever met a living Jesus? Where did any of those people ever write to claim they had met Jesus and told Paul about it all? Where is the evidence that Paul ever claimed those people had told him of their personal meetings with Jesus?

If you cannot produce the quotes of where any of those people ever credibly wrote any such claims, then you are most certainly “inventing” it if you try to claim they had told Paul all about their personal knowledge of Jesus.

Here is a question (I actually asked you before) - how can you assume that any of those people told Paul about witnessing the execution, unless you are assuming Jesus actually existed?

 

[Craig B]

Well there are two absolutely fatal problems with the case you are trying to make. I have explained this before several times

But not established your case even once.

Here is a question (I actually asked you before)

Wow!

How can you assume that any of those people told Paul about witnessing the execution, unless you are assuming Jesus actually existed?

That's right. If Jesus didn't exist he wouldn't have been executed. In that case people couldn't have told other people that they had witnessed it.

Your argument is: if Paul didn't say people told him they witnessed Jesus' execution, then they didn't witness it, which is consistent with nobody having witnessed it, which is consistent with his never having been executed, which is consistent with his never having existed. Proof: people who don't exist don't get executed and therefore other people don't tell Paul they witnessed the execution.

Sounds good to me!

 

[IanS]

But not established your case even once. Wow!That's right. If Jesus didn't exist he wouldn't have been executed. In that case people couldn't have told other people that they had witnessed it.

Your argument is: if Paul didn't say people told him they witnessed Jesus' execution, then they didn't witness it, which is consistent with nobody having witnessed it, which is consistent with his never having been executed, which is consistent with his never having existed. Proof: people who don't exist don't get executed and therefore other people don't tell Paul they witnessed the execution.

Sounds good to me!

Just quote where any reliable witness credibly claims to have met a living Jesus.

Quote where Paul says that he knew about Jesus and his execution because others had told him about it.

Where is it?

Quote it!

You have precisely zero evidence of anyone ever writing to reliably claim they had met Jesus. All these hundreds of pages and still not one shred or reliable or credible evidence of a single soul ever meeting a human Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

... Quote where Paul says that he knew about Jesus and his execution because others had told him about it.

On the contrary, he claims he received information from Jesus in the sky and from supernatural entities in the third heaven (wherever that may be) and from God.

Now, we are told that Paul was several times in contact, including during a year-long preaching campaign in Antioch, with persons from the Jerusalem-based James group; even with "prophets" from Jerusalem. So either we believe that Paul really obtained information from on high, or we dismiss Paul as not a trustworthy source of accurate information on this topic; and we know why he might have been unreliable.

If we dismiss Paul's account, then we are left with an extremely plausible theory as to his sources of information, whatever Paul may have chosen to say. He got it from the Jerusalem group.

 

[tsig]

On the contrary, he claims he received information from Jesus in the sky and from supernatural entities in the third heaven (wherever that may be) and from God.

Now, we are told that Paul was several times in contact, including during a year-long preaching campaign in Antioch, with persons from the Jerusalem-based James group; even with "prophets" from Jerusalem. So either we believe that Paul really obtained information from on high, or we dismiss Paul as not a trustworthy source of accurate information on this topic; and we know why he might have been unreliable.

If we dismiss Paul's account, then we are left with an extremely plausible theory as to his sources of information, whatever Paul may have chosen to say. He got it from the Jerusalem group.

You want to dismiss what Paul actually said and substitute your own theory?

 

[Craig B]

You want to dismiss what Paul actually said and substitute your own theory?

Yes. I dismiss what Paul said about visiting the third heaven, seeing a Jesus light in the sky and getting messages from God.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

On the contrary, he claims he received information from Jesus in the sky and from supernatural entities in the third heaven (wherever that may be) and from God.

But Paul never says that he received any information or formed any belief about Jesus' natural mortal life through such means.

Yes. I dismiss what Paul said about visiting the third heaven, seeing a Jesus light in the sky and getting messages from God.

Such experiences are found everywhere people are for whom we have records. They are observed today both in anthropological field work and laboratory settings in such places as the United Kingdom and the United States.

http://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/...t-thinking-about-thought-forms-from-stanford/

There is no reason to doubt that Paul had the experiences (just as there is no reason to accept what he projected onto them). There is no reason to doubt that having the expereinces was instrumental to his amplification of the meaning of actual events, as people have done everywhere and at all known timnes before and since.

tsig

You want to dismiss what Paul actually said and substitute your own theory?

Of course, I cannot speak for what any other poster wants. Regardless of wants and wishes, it is simply a fact that no statement of Paul's needs to be dismissed, but he doesn't name his sources for secular information in the survivng business letters. Any explanation whatsoever of why Paul preached about this fellow Jesus is therefore necessarily an uncertain hypothesis.

Paul does say that he had extensive face-to-face contact with possible natural sources about Jesus' natural life, so there is no reason to think they are the same sources as he cited in connection with his teachings about the meaning of Jesus' life, death and being seen later. He never says how he first found out about Jesus' life and death, what he found out, or from whom.

 

[IanS]

On the contrary, he claims he received information from Jesus in the sky and from supernatural entities in the third heaven (wherever that may be) and from God.

Now, we are told that Paul was several times in contact, including during a year-long preaching campaign in Antioch, with persons from the Jerusalem-based James group; even with "prophets" from Jerusalem. So either we believe that Paul really obtained information from on high, or we dismiss Paul as not a trustworthy source of accurate information on this topic; and we know why he might have been unreliable.

Here (yet again, and we must have had this quote at least 20 times now), is what his letters apparently actually do say -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

The conversion in Paul's letters
In his surviving letters, Paul's own description of his conversion experience is brief. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians,[9:1] [15:3-8] he describes having seen the Risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV


Paul's Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with God's Son appearing in Paul.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV



That is the very opposite of Paul ever saying he had his belief in Jesus because anyone in Jerusalem told him about Jesus. Paul flatly and absolutely says not. He very specifically says he obtained his Jesus belief through a vision which he says was “God revealing his Son in me”, from which Paul deduced that Christ died for their sins according to prophecy in the scripture, and that he was buried, but rose on the third day, again according to what he believed had been revealed to him from the scriptures.

If you say Paul knew about the death of Jesus because anyone in Jerusalem told him about it then you must quote that person who claimed to tell Paul about the death of Jesus -

Who said that?
Quote who said that he had told Paul about the death of Jesus.
Quote where Paul says any other person in Jerusalem was the one who told him about Jesus.

Paul’s letters above, say the total 100% opposite of that.

If we dismiss Paul's account, then we are left with an extremely plausible theory as to his sources of information, whatever Paul may have chosen to say. He got it from the Jerusalem group.

On what basis can you dismiss Paul’s account and simply invent your own account out of thin air and with not a shred of any evidence of anyone saying any such thing to Paul about Jesus! You are reduced now to just blatantly making things up!

How could anyone in Jerusalem tell Paul about witnessing the execution of Jesus unless Jesus was actually real and unless they had seen him for themselves? What you are doing simply amounts to you quite blatantly trying to invent Jesus from thin air by saying someone must have seen him and told Paul about it .

 

[Brainache]

Here (yet again, and we must have had this quote at least 20 times now), is what his letters apparently actually do say -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

The conversion in Paul's letters
In his surviving letters, Paul's own description of his conversion experience is brief. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians,[9:1] [15:3-8] he describes having seen the Risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV


Paul's Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with God's Son appearing in Paul.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV



That is the very opposite of Paul ever saying he had his belief in Jesus because anyone in Jerusalem told him about Jesus. Paul flatly and absolutely says not. He very specifically says he obtained his Jesus belief through a vision which he says was “God revealing his Son in me”, from which Paul deduced that Christ died for their sins according to prophecy in the scripture, and that he was buried, but rose on the third day, again according to what he believed had been revealed to him from the scriptures.

If you say Paul knew about the death of Jesus because anyone in Jerusalem told him about it then you must quote that person who claimed to tell Paul about the death of Jesus -

Who said that?
Quote who said that he had told Paul about the death of Jesus.
Quote where Paul says any other person in Jerusalem was the one who told him about Jesus.

Paul’s letters above, say the total 100% opposite of that.







On what basis can you dismiss Paul’s account and simply invent your own account out of thin air and with not a shred of any evidence of anyone saying any such thing to Paul about Jesus! You are reduced now to just blatantly making things up!

How could anyone in Jerusalem tell Paul about witnessing the execution of Jesus unless Jesus was actually real and unless they had seen him for themselves? What you are doing simply amounts to you quite blatantly trying to invent Jesus from thin air by saying someone must have seen him and told Paul about it .

You really have tied yourself in knots with this, haven't you?

Remember those from James who came and told the people in Galatia (or Corinth or wherever) that they had to be circumcised to follow Jesus? Remember Paul getting mad and complaining that these "Super Apostles" were no better than him, even if he didn't meet Jesus in the flesh?

Who were those guys he was talking about?

We know that Paul couldn't have gotten any information from "Heaven" or "God" or bright lights in the sky, because that is "woo". So he must be lying about getting information in that particular way.

The stuff about James would not make any sense, unless there had been someone telling Paul's "Flock" to get circumcised and follow the Jewish Laws. So Paul was not alone in preaching Jesus, he was just preaching a different Jesus than those other guys (whoever they were).

You can now argue that those other guys never met Jesus either, but then you have to explain why Paul calls them "Brothers of the Lord" and "Apostles", and why he credits them ahead of himself in the hierarchy of Jesus sightings.