Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[David Mo]

[

David


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.

That depends on how you interpret what you mean by "Gospel" or "revelation" and what it applies to.

A not literalist but attentive to the nuances interpretation does not exclude Paul used other sources. Logic and common sense also arrive to the same conclusion.

Let us read the two favourite passages of IanS without biased presupposes:

“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”. ( Galatians 1:11-16).

What is saying here Paul is that his "gospel", it is to say, the good news he preached, were drawn from revelation. If we do a literalist interpretation this will be contradictory with 1 Cor 15:3-8, another passage cherished by IanS.

“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”.

This would be contradictory because in the first passage Paul literally affirms that his news came only by revelation and here he adds "the Scripture" for some claims of "first importance".

Thus a literalistic reading of any text is an absurd. Here we have to interpret with our common sense and conclude that the first passage doesn't is closed and the second passage completes it in adding a new information source: the Scriptures.

This is the same case in the second passage. If you assign to the words a rigid meaning we would get an absurd again: the meticulous account of Jesus' appearances would come from the revelation or the Bible. A more comprehensive and flexible reading provide us a correct understanding of the passage. Here Paul separates clearly his beliefs that are supported by "Scriptures" (that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day) from the rest that have not this source.
Since it would be absurd to suppose that the details about appearances were product of specific revelations we can naturally conclude that these details do not were included among those produced by revelation or the Scriptures.

Ordinary language is not a computational one; it naturally produces nuances and vague utterances that an intelligent partner can understand on the basis of his own practice. Of course, if we insist on doing a literally interpretation of the texts you would incur in some nonsensical interpretations. As you do here.

In short, what Paul means is that the essential part of his message comes from the revelations (we could say his "inspiration"), supported by his “particular” reading of the Bible. But other minor details could not be extracted from the revelation or be maintained by the Bible. Neither had he claimed such thing.

 

[David Mo]

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.

No. It is not what “actually” Paul said but what your literal-rigid reading interprets. See my comment to eight bits.

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.

It is obvious that some details about death and resurrection don't came from revelation or the Bible. If Paul didn’t draw his beliefs in the Jerusalem journey they would be drawn from other informant. Who this informant could be is secondary for me. Those details imply that Paul spoke with someone about them. The Jerusalem group is the most natural supposition.

Of course, we can suppose also that Paul was a compulsive liar and that his trips and visions were simply false. Why not?

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?

This “guess” is a simple deduction of his position as “apostle” in front to Jerusalem circle. Is deductible by simple reading of his letters.


“Invention”, “guess”… you call so the inferences that you don’t like.

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?

“Witnessing the execution” seems to me a little “Quo vadis?”. I affirm that the details that Paul marks about death and resurrection came from an external source. If we accept that Paul travelled to Jerusalem it is plausible to me that someone pretending to be a witness of the Jesus' end told him something. Plausible.

 

[IanS]

Actually, what's cringe-worthy is your absolute lack of knowledge about any of the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (19) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

I think that at some point of time in those fifteen days the topic of Jesus probably came up.

As an aside, if I told you that I had a brother would you then ask me if I had met him?

What do you think you are saying that is new? This is exactly the same bogus conversation we just had from Craig over numerous posts. You seem to have no comprehension of how utterly absurd it is for you or Craig to say that just because Paul spoke with other believers in Jerusalem that means the people in Jerusalem must have personally met Jesus and must have told Paul all about it.

How can you or Craig assume that these people in Jerusalem had met Jesus, unless you are first assuming that Jesus existed? What that amounts to is just trying to invent him from thin air. Trying to wish Jesus into existence, regardless of the complete lack of any evidence at all.

If you cannot produce any evidence of any of those Jerusalem people ever credibly writing to say they had met Jesus, then you have no case at all. So where is the evidence that any of those people ever credibly wrote to say had met Jesus (except in their visionary beliefs).

 

[Belz...]

Again, you are speculating. We are not interested in your imaginative assumptions.

You are just speculating !

 

[Brainache]

What do you think you are saying that is new? This is exactly the same bogus conversation we just had from Craig over numerous posts. You seem to have no comprehension of how utterly absurd it is for you or Craig to say that just because Paul spoke with other believers in Jerusalem that means the people in Jerusalem must have personally met Jesus and must have told Paul all about it.

How can you or Craig assume that these people in Jerusalem had met Jesus, unless you are first assuming that Jesus existed? What that amounts to is just trying to invent him from thin air. Trying to wish Jesus into existence, regardless of the complete lack of any evidence at all.

If you cannot produce any evidence of any of those Jerusalem people ever credibly writing to say they had met Jesus, then you have no case at all. So where is the evidence that any of those people ever credibly wrote to say had met Jesus (except in their visionary beliefs).

I won't bother asking IanS about this, because he has me on ignore, but can someone ask him for evidence of people other than Paul who had "(... visionary beliefs)" about Jesus.

It would help to know what the hell he is talking about.

 

[Brainache]

So it's about an Outsider coming in to solve all their problems. Not one of their own descended from a great folk-hero. OK.

So it's different to the Star Prophecy that so excited the first century Jews:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-6/chapter-5.html

...Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.

This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.

Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness.

But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes;yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.

This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Looking for a candidate whose exploits might have been incorporated into later stories?

It's like the Gospel Jesus was in a "getting whipped contest" against this other Jesus bloke...

Might even be useful for you, if you can find a way to wedge a Mythman in there somewhere...

I would argue the destruction of the Temple would not have galvanized the Christian movement as some claim because the Temple had once been destroyed (586 BCE) and then rebuilt (538-515 BCE) before. Given previous history wouldn't Jewish community figure that once things calmed down they would return and rebuild their Temple?

Remember, that the 130s is when we get external references to Gospels...even if they are brief one sentence blurbs. Well the 130s was when the Bar Kokhba revolt was happening with Simon bar Kokhba being regarded by many Jews as their promised messiah (ie Christ). The aftermath was total decimation of the Jews as a people and a nation and explains why Marcion's Bible was so intent on setting the God of the Christians as separate and superior being to the god of the Jews (ie we're not like those extremists you just defeated, Rome...our God is different).

Look at how much the Gospels promise the end time is near. Now the 130s seem to fit that more then 70 CE does especially if Christianity was still being pushed by its Jewish heritage.

No they were galvanised a hell of a lot more before the the fall of the Temple by people like the Roman Governor Florus.

Bar Kochba was the "Son Of The Star". He was the less successful sequel, not the main event. Here's a tip: If the first one was a flop, don't make a sequel, it'll never work...

Left out this bit of the Josephus quote:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-6/chapter-5.html

...
But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Nothing very ambiguous about that passage. The Messianic Movement was the driving force behind the war with Rome. At least according to Josephus.

 

[eight bits]

David

Paul does not contradict himself ...

That depends on how you interpret ...

No, it depends only on what the writer wrote. It is shooting fish in a barrel for a reader to impose her interpretation on any text, like "If Paul's good-news preached to the Galatians means every opinion whatsoever that Paul ever expressed to anybody about Jesus, then Paul would have written that he had no natural source for his beliefs about Jesus' natural mortal life."

Yup, that's a tautology. But Paul didn't write that the hypothesis of the tautology is true. It's not even a good guess about what Paul meant by his good-news, but that doesn't matter: Paul contradicts himself just when he writes something which asserts the contrary of something else he wrote. That a reading exists which contradicts another reading is inevitable, uninteresting, and on its face is a statement about the reader and no statement at all about the writer. In and of itself, contradictory reading is strong evidence that the reading is wrong.

Much of the rest of your post seems directed to another poster, and does not reply to anything I have written in this thread. In particular, it is obvious that no "literal" case can be made that "what I preached" on one occasion to one audience is in fact identical to "what I received" on another occasion in a different work addressed to a different audience. I never said otherwise.

Paul cites a number of possible sources for his opinions about Jesus. He does not fully catalog what information he got from which sources. Many of his most forcefully expressed opinions are about the meaning of things he believed about Jesus. Visions are a natural phenomenon. The Jewish scriptures are actual texts to which Paul recognizably alludes. It is entirely routine for people to form opinions about meaning based upon their subjective experiences and reading, while forming opinions about secular and factual matters from other sources.

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have no comprehension of how utterly absurd it is for you or Craig to say that just because Paul spoke with other believers in Jerusalem that means the people in Jerusalem must have personally met Jesus and must have told Paul all about it.

What is absurd is that you keep changing the terms of the discussion. So, as you now say,

Paul spoke with other believers in Jerusalem

Whether these people ever met a living Jesus or not, where is it more likely that Paul picked up his ideas--from Jerusalem contacts, or in the "third heaven"? Thus we may cast doubt on this from Galatians 1

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.…

I really don't think he got it directly from sky Jesus. I think he picked up stuff from the James gang, and processed it into a "gospel" in his own brain, without supernatural intervention.

 

[IanS]

No. It is not what “actually” Paul said but what your literal-rigid reading interprets. See my comment to eight bits.

Well, in your above words you are in fact agreeing that is indeed what his letters do actually say. I.e. - you just said yourself "literal rigid reading", but whether you wanted to add the word "rigid" or not, what "literal reading" means is that, that is indeed what the words actually say.

There is really no way around that for you or other HJ believers here. That is what Paul's letters actually ("literally") do say, and the letters are quite clear in stressing those words directly.

What you are trying to do is to invent for yourself some other meaning which is contrary to what is actually written in the letters.

“Witnessing the execution” seems to me a little “Quo vadis?”. I affirm that the details that Paul marks about death and resurrection came from an external source. If we accept that Paul travelled to Jerusalem it is plausible to me that someone pretending to be a witness of the Jesus' end told him something. Plausible.

You "affirm" it? You mean you state it so confidently that you declare it to be factually true that Paul did indeed get his Jesus beliefs from other people? OK, so where is your evidence for that belief?

Where is your evidence that Paul’s letters say he got his Jesus beliefs from what others had told him?

Where is your evidence of any other people who ever wrote to credibly claim that they were the ones who were the source of Paul’s beliefs about Jesus?

Where is the evidence for any such thing?

Do you have any evidence at all (credible reliable evidence please, not some fantastic unbelievable nonsense) for what you are claiming?


And when you say it’s merely “plausible” that people in Jerusalem told Paul about their Jesus beliefs. Well so what? Almost anything might be “plausible”. Where do you think I ever said it was not “plausible” that if Paul met other believers in Jerusalem, they might quite easily have discussed their religious beliefs? I never said anything like that at all. On the contrary I said immediately to Craig, that of course it’s it perfectly likely that they would all discuss their religious beliefs. But that not what Craig was claiming. He was claiming that those people had indeed personally known a living Jesus and were thus able to tell Paul about Jesus from their own first-hand knowledge.

But there is of course precisely zero evidence that any of those people had ever met a living Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

... I said immediately to Craig, that of course it’s it perfectly likely that they would all discuss their religious beliefs. But that not what Craig was claiming. He was claiming that those people had indeed personally known a living Jesus and were thus able to tell Paul about Jesus from their own first-hand knowledge.

But there is of course precisely zero evidence that any of those people had ever met a living Jesus.

What in fact you said at first was

But on the contrary, what Paul’s letters do very clearly say is that he consulted no man about his Jesus beliefs, that his knowledge of Jesus was not of human origin, and that he believed Jesus had died and been raised according to scripture. He believed God had revealed that to him.

(#4810) So whether the other people ever met a living Jesus or not was not the original issue, but whether he consulted any other people. I think his discussing their Jesus beliefs with these other people is the same thing as consulting them, whether they had first hand knowledge or not.

And I do not think saying he was hoisted into the third heaven and heard inexpressible things is Paul telling us God told him how to invent Jesus stories out of the OT.

 

[IanS]

What is absurd is that you keep changing the terms of the discussion. So, as you now say, Whether these people ever met a living Jesus or not, where is it more likely that Paul picked up his ideas--from Jerusalem contacts, or in the "third heaven"? Thus we may cast doubt on this from Galatians 1 I really don't think he got it directly from sky Jesus. I think he picked up stuff from the James gang, and processed it into a "gospel" in his own brain, without supernatural intervention.

Nobody thinks Paul got his Jesus beliefs from an imaginary vision or an imaginary Yahweh.

But Paul did not think Yahweh or his vision were imaginary, did he?

What Paul says in his letters, and he repeats this and he stresses it very specifically and directly in unmistakable terms (we have had the quote many times, so there can be no doubt or dispute about it), is that he believed God had granted to him a vision of, and understanding of, the true messiah.

He believed that Yahweh had chosen to reveal that vision to him, saying "God was pleased to reveal his Son in me". And he believed that Yahweh had blessed him with the power to understand the true meaning of the messianic prophecies "hidden so long" in OT scripture, whereby he thought the scriptures meant that the messiah would be crucified in a symbolic act for the peoples sins and their salvation, and that he was buried, and that he rose again in a symbolic act on the third day.

That's the evidence contained in Paul's letters.

There is no evidence at all in Paul's letters of Paul claiming he got those beliefs from any other human person. In fact on the contrary, he very specifically and directly insists that he did not get it from any other person.

And as for the Jerusalem meeting which you were talking about, there is also no evidence that any of those people in Jerusalem ever wrote to say they had been the ones who had to tell Paul all about Jesus, as if Paul would never have known anything about Jesus unless those people had told him.

In fact Paul's letters actually say very little about Jesus. Almost nothing beyond Paul saying he had a vision, and from scripture he knew (courtesy of God) that the messiah was crucified, but rose on the third day in order to prove to the faithful that they too would be raised up to heaven. Other than that he mentions a last supper, and iirc, mentions very little else about any earthly activity of Jesus. And in fact, even that little bit which is mentioned, comes not from anything Paul himself ever wrote, but in fact about 150 years later from what Christian religious copyists themselves produced as their copies of what Paul was once said to have written.


But the bottom line in all of this, is that there really is nothing left to argue about. Because the HJ side cannot produce any reliable credible evidence at all of a living Jesus. There is, for example, no shred of any evidence for anyone genuinely writing to make a credible claim of having met a living Jesus. All mention of Jesus, by anyone, comes only as mention of their religious beliefs. But not ever as credible claims of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

There us no "NT" which "states" that Jesus was both virgin born and a Creator Logos. There are various disparate and divergent sources, much later collected together along with other material, and compiled into the same integrated volume.

All the sources are from the 2nd century or later. You have NO actual 1st evidence pre 70 CE for what you say.

Thus, Paul makes Jesus special from the resurrection. So he says nothing about any magic birth, and little about Jesus' life.

Your statement shows you have no idea what "Myth" means. It is absurd to suggest that all Myths are born magically.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was the Son of a Spirit --God's Own Son made of a Woman.

See Galatians 4.4. See Galatians 1.1. See Corinthians 15.

Mark makes Jesus special from the Baptism, so he says nothing about Jesus' birth or earlier life.

You have NO evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE for what you say.

The author of gMark said the Jesus character was the Son of God and NEVER claimed the Son of God had a human father before he was baptised.

gMark is just a Glorified Ghost story where Jesus walked on the sea, transfigured, Conversed with TWO Ghosts, and then resurrected.

Matthew and Luke make Jesus special from his conception, so they have (different) stories about his birth.

You have NO actual pre 70 CE evidence for the stories in gMatthew and gLuke. gMatthew and gLuke merely confirm that the Jesus character was indeed a Ghost.

John makes a pre-existing Jesus special since the creation, so he says nothing about Jesus' physical birth, and calls him son of Joseph (not of a Ghost).

You have NO pre 70 CE evidence for what you say. gJohn's Jesus was the ONLY Begotten Son of God, the Logos and God Creator.

gJohn's Jesus was God.

gJohn's Jesus was a Ghost or his Son.

John 3:16 KJV--For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

John 4:24 KJV---God is a Spirit...

So you can't say "the NT" says this or that about Jesus' birth, and you can't mix sources up like that. That is why you are either grossly mistaken or, much more likely, mendaciously provocative when you refer to people who dispute your ravings as Bible Believers.

You have merely ignored the written biography of the Jesus character in the NT and have invented your own "history" based on imagination, speculation and without a shred of evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

The Entire NT Canon is NOT an historical account but 2nd century or later Glorified Ghost stories of the Son of God--myth fables propagated by illiterates.

The stories of the Jesus character are stupid, ridiculous, riddled with outrageous mind boggling nonsense and irreconcilable chronologies similar to Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

 

[dejudge]

I really don't think he got it directly from sky Jesus. I think he picked up stuff from the James gang, and processed it into a "gospel" in his own brain, without supernatural intervention.

What did James know about the Jesus character in the Pauline Corpus?

In the Pauline Corpus the character James mentioned NOTHING at all about the Life of Jesus.

Your argument is of the "dead"--an argument from Silence.

You imagine your own stuff in the 21st century and pretend that they happened.

You merely believe your own made up stuff.

Why don't you just write your own Gospel and date it??

You don't need the DISCREDITED NT.

 

[tsig]

What is absurd is that you keep changing the terms of the discussion. So, as you now say, Whether these people ever met a living Jesus or not, where is it more likely that Paul picked up his ideas--from Jerusalem contacts, or in the "third heaven"? Thus we may cast doubt on this from Galatians 1 I really don't think he got it directly from sky Jesus. I think he picked up stuff from the James gang, and processed it into a "gospel" in his own brain, without supernatural intervention.

Now you're not arguing what Paul said but what you think he meant.

Why not write your own gospel "What I Really Meant" and sign it Paul. You'd fit right in with the other pseudo Pauls.

 

[IanS]

And when you say it’s merely “plausible” that people in Jerusalem told Paul about their Jesus beliefs. Well so what? Almost anything might be “plausible”. Where do you think I ever said it was not “plausible” that if Paul met other believers in Jerusalem, they might quite easily have discussed their religious beliefs? I never said anything like that at all. On the contrary I said immediately to Craig, that of course it’s it perfectly likely that they would all discuss their religious beliefs. But that not what Craig was claiming. He was claiming that those people had indeed personally known a living Jesus and were thus able to tell Paul about Jesus from their own first-hand knowledge.

But there is of course precisely zero evidence that any of those people had ever met a living Jesus.

What in fact you said at first was (#4810)

But on the contrary, what Paul’s letters do very clearly say is that he consulted no man about his Jesus beliefs, that his knowledge of Jesus was not of human origin, and that he believed Jesus had died and been raised according to scripture. He believed God had revealed that to him.

So whether the other people ever met a living Jesus or not was not the original issue, but whether he consulted any other people. I think his discussing their Jesus beliefs with these other people is the same thing as consulting them, whether they had first hand knowledge or not.


And I do not think saying he was hoisted into the third heaven and heard inexpressible things is Paul telling us God told him how to invent Jesus stories out of the OT.

Well firstly there is nothing at all wrong with the highlighted quote that you now appear to be complaining about. And in fact iirc, that quote #4810 is from a much earlier reply that I gave to David Mo before you and I ever started discussing this at all! And secondly, what we were talking about is the exchange below, where you were specifically asked where Paul had ever said that he learned of the execution only because others in Jerusalem had told him about it. And where you replied that regardless of what Paul's letters said, in fact you knew that he got this information (the execution of Jesus) from the people in Jerusalem, and you even stressed that by writing it in bold type (that’s your own bold type in the quote below) -

#4934
Quote where Paul says that he knew about Jesus and his execution because others had told him about it.
.

#4935
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.

But after the above posts #4934 & #4935 I put it to you numerous times that you were trying to claim that these people in Jerusalem had witnessed the execution and told Paul about it, and you never denied that you were claiming them as witnesses.

If these people in Jerusalem only merely “believed” that Jesus had been executed, then they are in no different position to Paul. That is only a belief. But it’s a belief where Paul is supposedly the first person ever to state that belief, in letters supposedly written c.55-65AD. None of those people in Jerusalem were ever claimed to have written at a date prior to Paul’s writing c.55AD, saying that they had already known Jesus had been executed and had been the ones who told Paul about it in Jerusalem..

If you think any of those Jerusalem people had written at a date prior to Paul c.37AD-55AD claiming to know Jesus was executed, then you must produce those manuscripts written before that date by those Jerusalem people.

 

[dejudge]

If you think any of those Jerusalem people had written at a date prior to Paul c.37AD-55AD claiming to know Jesus was executed, then you must produce those manuscripts written before that date by those Jerusalem people.

There is NO corroborative evidence pre 70 CE anywhere in the history of mankind that there was an actual Pauline character and actual Pauline letters since c 37-55 AD.

Even Apologetic sources claimed Jesus was crucified c 50 CE, that the Pauline letters were written AFTER Revelation by John, that the Pauline writer was ALIVE after gLuke and that he knew the Gospel according to Luke.

The Pauline writings must have used gLuke because statements ONLY found in gLuke is found in the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline writer claimed he received the information from the Resurrected Jesus which is most likely false.

There is no actual evidence that there was a Last Supper, no actual evidence of Jesus and the disciples at a Passover and no actual evidence that the Pauline Corpus is historically credible.

1 Corinthians 11 23

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks , he brake it, and said , Take , eat : this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Luke 22:19 KJV

And he took bread, and gave thanks , and brake it, and gave unto them, saying , This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The earliest Jesus story in gMark and gMatthew do not contain the words "this do in remembrance of me".

The Pauline letters were composed AFTER the earliest versions of the Jesus stories in gMark and gMatthew.


Sinaiticus Mark 14

22 And as they ate, having taken bread and blessed, he broke and gave to them and said: Take: this is my body. this do in remembrance of me.

Sinaiticus Matthew 26

26 But as they were eating, Jesus took bread and having blessed he broke, and giving to the disciples he said: Take, eat: This is my body. this do in remembrance of me

 

[Brainache]

Now you're not arguing what Paul said but what you think he meant.

Why not write your own gospel "What I Really Meant" and sign it Paul. You'd fit right in with the other pseudo Pauls.

So you think it's more likely that Paul received his knowledge of Jesus via supernatural entities, than the humans he interacted with?

This is a new side of you tsig...

 

[Brainache]

Well firstly there is nothing at all wrong with the highlighted quote that you now appear to be complaining about. And in fact iirc, that quote #4810 is from a much earlier reply that I gave to David Mo before you and I ever started discussing this at all! And secondly, what we were talking about is the exchange below, where you were specifically asked where Paul had ever said that he learned of the execution only because others in Jerusalem had told him about it. And where you replied that regardless of what Paul's letters said, in fact you knew that he got this information (the execution of Jesus) from the people in Jerusalem, and you even stressed that by writing it in bold type (that’s your own bold type in the quote below) -






But after the above posts #4934 & #4935 I put it to you numerous times that you were trying to claim that these people in Jerusalem had witnessed the execution and told Paul about it, and you never denied that you were claiming them as witnesses.

If these people in Jerusalem only merely “believed” that Jesus had been executed, then they are in no different position to Paul. That is only a belief. But it’s a belief where Paul is supposedly the first person ever to state that belief, in letters supposedly written c.55-65AD. None of those people in Jerusalem were ever claimed to have written at a date prior to Paul’s writing c.55AD, saying that they had already known Jesus had been executed and had been the ones who told Paul about it in Jerusalem..

If you think any of those Jerusalem people had written at a date prior to Paul c.37AD-55AD claiming to know Jesus was executed, then you must produce those manuscripts written before that date by those Jerusalem people.

Now apparently people in the ancient world travelled around with Stenographers recording their every word and we should expect to have original copies of all of these things...


This is sheer lunacy.

It certainly isn't History.

 

[dejudge]

So you think it's more likely that Paul received his knowledge of Jesus via supernatural entities, than the humans he interacted with?

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.

Which "Paul" interacted with human beings pre 70 CE? You know the Pauline writers were Liars.

 

[The Norseman]

So you think it's more likely that Paul received his knowledge of Jesus via supernatural entities, than the humans he interacted with?

This is a new side of you tsig...

You can afford to be a little more charitable in your interpretation.

I am not speaking for tsig; I read it as it's more likely that he made **** up rather than talking to people who claim they knew Jesus.