Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Which is why rational discussion is so often lacking in most topics. Disagree with me ? You're an idiot, or insane, or evil, or dishonest. No way you could disagree with me otherwise, right ?

Someone on Youtube (I know, I know) accused me of being a sicko because I don't oppose hunting.

You know who else didn't oppose hunting?...

Yeah, The Historical Jesus...

 

[eight bits]

maximara

Also according Paul, Gospels, and Acts Christianity was wildly popular and by 37 CE covered the three Roman provinces of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea

There is no "Christianity" in any canonical Gospel, and 37 would be close after the crucifixion. Gospels relate that by then, Jesus & Co. had traveled in those three contiguous places, which is plausible since all told, they subtend about the area of modern Wales, and Wales has a lot less empty desert. Jesus' reception, according to the Gospels, was mixed: tortured to death by popular demand in Judea, without honor in Galilee, and looked upon with suspicion in Samaria.

Paul and Acts write about a persecuted, not a wildly popular, Jewish homeland church. In particular, a major push into Samaria was supposedly after popular disturbances against the Way emptied Jerusalem of all except the hard core apostles. I suppose "covering" is one way to describe headlong flight.

Since none of this is news, I doubt the accuracy of what you say you found in your source. No matter. Your source's sources are readily available, and what's written there is often not what you say.

You also need to work on what your message is. Your go-to factoid, John Frum, shows the rapidity with which a religious idea can travel by contagion (and then die out except in a literally insular vestige). Either Christianity is also an example of that growth (and not the dying out part), or it is not. If it is, then it cannot be surprising that about a generation after Paul's conversion, there would be pockets of contagion anywhere there was trade contact with Jerusalem.

David

Not after every single mention, but in this case we ought to do it, because Paul excludes explicitly these words in the last sentences.

No, we ought to do it in this case because there is no place in the Jewish scripture where a ghost is seen first by this guy, then by that bunch, blah, blah, blah. In contrast, whenever Paul does say "it is written" or "according to scriptures," we do easily find what he is talking about.

Hence the importance of not letting you rewrite Paul's scriptural concern with a "curse" of being gibbeted. It is not only that Paul says that that curse is in scripture, but that it actually is there. Hence, we know that the appearances are not supposed to be "according to scripture," both because Paul doesn't say they are there, and also because they really aren't there.

At least two posters here have proposed scenarios in which Jesus might have died other than by crucifixion or staking (by stoning or by the sword, in both proposals directly by the hand of Jewish authorities without Roman involvement), without any necessary effects on Jesus' "historicity" except for Paul's obvious insistence of death on a gibbet. It is important, then, that Paul says he has a source for that detail, and that there really is such a source. Maybe Paul did get that detail from scripture. (Interestingly, none of the synoptic Gospels has any male disciple witness Jesus' death - maybe nobody in the James Gang knew what happened after the arrest.)

I do not "endorse" these alternative scenarios, but obviously, the fewer constraints there are on a historical Jesus, the more likely his actual existence. This is especially so if a constraint can be relaxed with no effect on Jesus' potential to influence the later church, and with little damage to the meager historical record, written by Paul and later people who had read him.

 

[Craig B]

IanS

This is nonsensical and untrue.

Be clear about what I had said to Craig about that - I specifically did not say that Paul could not have discussed his religious beliefs with James, Cephas, Others, in Jerusalem. On the contrary I immediately said that (quoting from memory) “of course Paul and the others may very well discussed their religious beliefs. But that is a million miles away from Craig’s insistence that those people had actually met a living Jesus and were thus the source of Paul’s knowledge of Jesus”.

See my #5103, (not quoting from memory)

... Paul can not have been accurate in his account of the source of his beliefs. If he didn't really get them personally from God, or from sky Jesus, or from beings in the Third Heaven, then it follows that he must as a matter of factual reality have got them from somewhere else - some non-supernatural source - regardless of what Paul himself claims. We have two possible sources indicated in the texts. The Jesus followers whom Paul initially persecuted; and the Jesus followers with whom he was in repeated and protracted contact after his conversion, who might of course have included the same people. This is the case whether Jesus existed or not. These individuals presumably believed Jesus had existed; and Paul believed Jesus had existed, and he got that belief from somewhere. And we know he was in contact with these people.

Personally I think the reason why the belief in Jesus prevailed among this group was that he did in fact exist; because it is not an invention likely to be derived from the OT that a Messiah would be crucified by the enemies of Israel. This was a "stumbling block" for the Jews, so Paul ransacked the Scriptures to find something that might make sense of this intractable datum.

 

[dejudge]

The Historical Jesus is a Myth derived from Ghost stories in and out the NT.

Virtually every Apologetic writer of antiquity who mentioned the birth of Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was the Son of God born of a Ghost or was God who came down from heaven.

The evidence of a non-historical Jesus is overwhelming.

This is a partial list of the evidence for Myth Jesus.

1. gMark--Jesus was the Son of God who walked on water and transfigured.

2. Ignatius--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

3. Tertullian--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

4. Origen--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

5. Melito--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

6. Aristides--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

7. Hippolytus--Jesus was God Creator.

8. Justin Martyr--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

9. Irenaeus--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

10. gMatthew--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

11. gLuke--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

12. gJohn--Jesus was God Creator.

13. The Pauline Corpus--Jesus was the Son of God and a Ghost.

14. Clement of Alexandria--Jesus was the Logos--a Ghost.

15. Eusebius--Jesus was God Incarnate.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

Paul can not have been accurate in his account of the source of his beliefs. If he didn't really get them personally from God, or from sky Jesus, or from beings in the Third Heaven, then it follows that he must as a matter of factual reality have got them from somewhere else - some non-supernatural source - regardless of what Paul himself claims.

While Paul cannot have been accurate in his inferences about some of his sources, he can have been completely accurate in his reports of his expereinces of those sources. Just as Paul imputes meaning to the events in Antioch, he imputes meaning to the events on the meditation mat. That's what brains do, make meaning for whatever seems to have happened, whether real or imagined.

If Paul had said that he got all his beliefs about Jesus' mortal life from some of those sources he infers wrongly to exist, then we could say he was mistaken. But he didn't say that. What he wrote freely combines factual, hortatory and interpretive assertions. And sure enough, among the possible sources he mentions are channels for factual information, guidelines for exhortation, and carriers of meaning which other writers have reported tapping for content before and since.

It is child's play to make up and fake up a "Pauline corpus" where Paul says he got the factual information from the carriers of meaning, the hortatory from the factual channels, and the meanings from the guidlines for exhortation. But Paul didn't say that, the playing child did.

Either that, or the following aptitude test presents an intractable mystery.

Connect each matter of concern

(a) What time it is

(b) The meaning of life

(c) Where Crimea is

(d) How to tie shoelaces

with a likely source for information about it:

(1) an atlas

(2) bikini.com

(3) wrist watch

(4) Alfie (1966)

 

[Craig B]

Craig B ... While Paul cannot have been accurate in his inferences about some of his sources, he can have been completely accurate in his reports of his expereinces of those sources.

Yes, of course. He was probably completely honest in his description of these events, but still and all, they can't have been the real source of his beliefs, which he must have obtained from human sources, as well as from his own imagination; at least insofar as they reflect facts or beliefs about the outside world.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

Yes, of course. He was probably completely honest in his description of these events, but still and all, they can't have been the real source of his beliefs, which he must have obtained from human sources, as well as from his own imagination; at least insofar as they reflect facts or beliefs about the outside world.

It is an easily demonstrated truism of knowledge engineering that people know more than they know they know, even about simple factual subjects. "Lost" information is routinely presented to conscious awareness in dreams, daydreams, therapeutic exercises and meditations. Some people even purposefully engage in such activities to encourage such presentation.

One way to see the "know more than you know you know" may be to review your past work. A few days ago, I read a few thousand words that I wrote eight years ago.When I read the thing, I was shocked how much of the detail I had forgotten, even though I have never forgotten writing it, and had correctly retained the overall gist. So complete was my detail-amnesia, however, that I actually needed to verfiy that one part of it was correct (it was).

It is only too easy to imagine that I might have regained conscious awareness of this "lost" fact not under these conditions, but as some kind of cryptomnesia event. That is, the fact would seem to me to have some source other than my having worked on it already. There's no telling how I might regain awareness, maybe in a dream, perhaps a kobold would tell me all about it. If I happened to believe in kobolds, then I would say a kobold told me, and that what I was told was correct when I checked it.

The reason I rarely pursue these commonplaces of psychology with Paul is that they offer a solution for which there is no known problem. Paul doesn't say where he got the information he shares about Jesus' mortal life, nor did he contradict himself on that point. Consequently, there's no need to explain why he said something that he didn't say in the first place.

 

[tsig]

Craig B


It is an easily demonstrated truism of knowledge engineering that people know more than they know they know, even about simple factual subjects. "Lost" information is routinely presented to conscious awareness in dreams, daydreams, therapeutic exercises and meditations. Some people even purposefully engage in such activities to encourage such presentation.

One way to see the "know more than you know you know" may be to review your past work. A few days ago, I read a few thousand words that I wrote eight years ago.When I read the thing, I was shocked how much of the detail I had forgotten, even though I have never forgotten writing it, and had correctly retained the overall gist. So complete was my detail-amnesia, however, that I actually needed to verfiy that one part of it was correct (it was).

It is only too easy to imagine that I might have regained conscious awareness of this "lost" fact not under these conditions, but as some kind of cryptomnesia event. That is, the fact would seem to me to have some source other than my having worked on it already. There's no telling how I might regain awareness, maybe in a dream, perhaps a kobold would tell me all about it. If I happened to believe in kobolds, then I would say a kobold told me, and that what I was told was correct when I checked it.

The reason I rarely pursue these commonplaces of psychology with Paul is that they offer a solution for which there is no known problem. Paul doesn't say where he got the information he shares about Jesus' mortal life, nor did he contradict himself on that point. Consequently, there's no need to explain why he said something that he didn't say in the first place.

Craig is trying to force a false dichotomy:

Paul either got his JC information from JC's relatives/friends or he got it from god.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, of course. He was probably completely honest in his description of these events, but still and all, they can't have been the real source of his beliefs, which he must have obtained from human sources, as well as from his own imagination; at least insofar as they reflect facts or beliefs about the outside world.

Your statement is highly illogical. You have no corroborative evidence for what you say. You cannot present any actual 1st century pre 70 CE evidence either for Jesus, the James gang and Paul.

People today, HJers and Christians, use their Imagination and NT Scriptures JUST LIKE the Pauline writers.

Once you claim that Paul must have gotten information from his own imagination then you will not be able to show if he got any information about his Jesus from human sources especially when the Pauline writers admitted they immediately conferred with non-humans, that they did not get their Gospel from man, was NOT taught by men, and used Scriptures.

In Galatians, the Pauline writer implied that he was taught the Gospel in conference with non-historical beings for at least THREE years before he met the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem.


Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

The Pauline writers also claim they used Scriptures for their Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

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

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

The very fact that Pauline writings are deduced to be forgeries or falsely attributed suggest that Pauline Corpus is not historically credible.

 

[IanS]

Of course it was a “List”. It was a list of about 10 items, the first 7 or so of which actually seemed to all be the same claim.

What? “Paul gives some details of the appearances of Jesus” and “The appearances subject was a weapon of power in the Early Christianity” are the same claim? You must be joking!

Well that reply highlighted above, appears to have absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that you posted a list of claims (see below), and it (the highlight) appears to be just your own words and not anything I ever wrote at all. You seem to be now just arguing with what you posted yourself!

Below is the “List” you posted earlier - that is a “list” … it’s 10 numbered items listed in numerical order. I have no idea why you are trying to say it was not a “list”.

My argument is done. I am tired to repeat it again and again. But I am going to schematize it for politeness:

1. Paul affirms that his gospel comes from the Bible and revelation .
2. Paul gives some details of the appearances of Jesus (when and who).
3. He explicitly excludes the Bible as the source of these details.
4. It is very unlikely these details come from revelation (ecstatic?).
5. It is very likely that the appearances come from another source.
6. The appearances subject was a weapon of power in the Early Christianity.
7. Paul had an important reason to highlight the direct sources of his gospel and dismissed the actual human sources. That is to say, he pretended the rank of "apostle".
8. First conclusion: Paul had more natural sources that those he would like to admit.
9. The appearances and the crucifixion matters were connected by force.
10. Second conclusion: Paul got some accounts about the crucifixion from human telling.

.

I don’t know what you mean by “vesicles”, but if you mean that Paul does not add the words “according to scripture” after every single mention he ever makes of anything we might now wish to discuss from each line in his letters 2000 years later, then that is clearly an absurd demand. .

Not after every single mention, but in this case we ought to do it, because Paul excludes explicitly these words in the last sentences. It is a significant exclusion. And yes, a good analysis of a text includes considering all the problematic or significant sentences, above all those that provoke divergent interpretations. What can we do if the critical rationalism is tiring? If you cannot keep the pace you can resign.

NOTA BENE: "versicles" = "verses"; incorrect translation from Latin. Sorry. .

Well first of all - it’s not up to you to tell me or anyone here that they should leave the thread, ie as you say “resign”, saying triumphantly (for some inexplicable reason) that others cannot keep up with your pace etc. Remarks like that are just plain silly.

And what is this nonsense about some words in one particular sentence not being immediately preceded or immediately succeed by Paul saying the words came from scripture? As if that were somehow evidence that the words must have actually come from people who had really met a living Jesus.

Because that is what we are arguing about here. I.e. Craig’s insistence that people in Jerusalem had personally met Jesus, and that they were hence the ones who had to tell Paul about Jesus.

The argument is NOT about whether people in Jerusalem might have discussed their religious beliefs with Paul. Of course they might have done. But that is not in any sense evidence to support Craig's constant claim that those people had really known Jesus.

The fact that those people in Jerusalem may have told Paul that they too had seen visions of the messiah is totally irrelevant. They might have claimed all sorts of visions and beliefs and told Paul about that. But that is not any kind of evidence that any of them had known a living Jesus … and THAT is the argument here, i.e. did they really know a living Jesus!

And that is apart from the fact that afaik, none of those other people ever reliably wrote to say they had witnessed any such visions anyway. If they did have visions, then we have no idea what they claimed those visions actually were. They might for example, if they existed at all (the supposed visions), been quite different to Paul’s vision, and not thought to have been identifying the same messiah that Paul had identified as “Jesus” … they might have just told Paul (if they told him anything) that they too had been blessed with visionary insights and understanding from God. Afaik, we don’t know what or who any of those people ever credibly claimed to see in any visions.

Why do you say such a silly thing as that? I did not say anything of the kind. I did not say that I “accept Paul's version of his quarrels with the Jerusalem circle as the only truth”. Where did I ever say any such thing? Can you quote me saying that, please? .

“We do not need to guess. Because Paul's letters are very, very, clear on his source of Jesus belief.”
“…is something again directly and even more explicitly declaring that he definitely did not get his beliefs about Jesus from that Jerusalem group”.

And so on.

Perhaps you didn’t express accurately. Or perhaps “very, very clear” and “more explicitly declaring” doesn’t mean the same in Spanish. If I don’t understand English worse than I think, you have maintained that if Paul says he never obtained any information from de Jerusalem circle then he never obtained any information of the Jerusalem circle. It is not so? If this is not to trust absolutely in Paul’s words I don’t understand your English..

I don’t have to trust absolutely in Paul’s words. I don’t have to do anything like that. It is more than sufficient to point out that none of those people in Jerusalem ever wrote to reliably claim that they had met Jesus or that they were the ones who told Paul about Jesus (as if Paul would never have known about Jesus unless those people had told him). There is no evidence that any of those people in Jerusalem were Paul’s source of belief in Jesus, and none of those people ever wrote to say any such thing.

Paul’s letters say the complete contrary. The words in the physically surviving P46 are crystal clear in saying that Paul got his Jesus beliefs, i.e. the “gospel” that he preached about Jesus (which was very little at all about Jesus, actually, just 4 things iirc), from his religious faith in God granting him visions and granting to him, ie "revealing" to him, the "true" understanding of scripture "hidden so long".

If you claim that people in Jerusalem had met a living Jesus, then where is your evidence for that?

If you are only making the completely pointless and trivial speculation that religious fanatics in Jerusalem may have discussed their beliefs with Paul, and Paul may have repeated that when saying that others before him had also claimed to see visions of their messiah, then so what? That is not evidence that any of thus people ever met a living Jesus and were hence somehow the source of telling Paul about a real Jesus. And it is in any case NOT what we were arguing about at all! …

… the argument is over Craig’s repeated insistence that those people in Jerusalem had actually met a living Jesus, and that they were thereby the source of what Paul believed about Jesus, i.e. because Paul had been told that by people who had actually met Jesus. That was the argument!

Be clear about what I had said to Craig about that - I specifically did not say that Paul could not have discussed his religious beliefs with James, Cephas, Others, in Jerusalem. On the contrary I immediately said that (quoting from memory) “of course
Paul and the others may very well discussed their religious beliefs. But that is a million miles away from Craig’s insistence that those people had actually met a living Jesus and were thus the source of Paul’s knowledge of Jesus”.

It is strange. James, “the brother of the Lord” had never met the Lord and needed Paul to tell him stories about his brother. Strange, very strange.

Good grief - you are now actually reduced that same argument that Bart Ehrman was reduced to in his book, when he said that he believed Jesus was real because it said so in the bible where it said that Paul met James “the lords brother!?

How many times have we discussed those three words “the Lords brother”? We have discussed that to absolute death here.

The words do not definitively claim that James was a family blood-brother of a human Jesus. There are multiple very obvious objections to those final 3 words at the end of that sentence, and we have discussed all those objections here scores of times before! And you now want to waste everyone’s time going over all those objections yet again? You are deliberately wasting everyone’s time, whilst still failing ever to produce any genuine reliable or credible evidence of a human Jesus.

However, for the record -

1. The earliest known copy of Paul’s letters with that sentence is P46, which probably dates from c.200AD. So we don’t know if Paul ever wrote those final three words , because it only appears in a Christian religious copy written 150 years after Paul had died!

2. The sentence actually is (from memory) “other apostles saw I none, save James, the lords brother”. Grammatically that sentence was actually complete without any of those final highlighted 5 words. Those final few words are added in the form of an “afterthought”, as if saying “I saw nobody else …oh except for James … oh I should add that he was the lords brother”. So the grammatical structure and the position of the words at the end of that sentence makes it a natural place for any later scribe to add either just the final 3 words “the lords brother”, and/or the final 5 words “save James, the lords brother”.

3. It is by no means clear that the final three words mean a family blood brother anyway. As Ellegard and others have pointed out - Paul often uses the term brother, brothers, and brethren, but far more often to mean brothers in religious belief than to mean actual family members.

4. Paul’s letter refers to this “James” as an “Apostle”, not a “disciple” of Jesus. Paul refers to himself as an “apostle”, he describes all sorts of believers as “apostles”, though clearly none of them had met Jesus except in their religious visions. As Ellegard again points out ; in Paul’s usage the word “apostle” just means a brother in the faith, a fellow believer “called” by God to preach their gospel. It does not mean the same as “disciple”, which iirc in Paul’s usage (according to Ellegard) means someone who was believed to have personally accompanied Jesus. That much according to Ellegard at least (in a carefully written, carefully researched and fully referenced book, so I expect he is probably right about that).

5. It is not clear who this person “James” actually was. That is - there are several different people named “James” in the NT biblical writing (epistles and gospels), and they are at various times mixed-up by the biblical writers such that they appear not to know which person “James” they actually meant in certain sentences (again, see Ellegard Ch-11 on that, and I can quote him and give the page refs etc if necessary, though I have given it all before). On which point, iirc even Eight-Bits here has also explained why he thinks that particular passage in Paul’s letters is not referring to the same person “James” who people thought it was (ask Eight-Bits about that).

6. The same person “James” was supposed to have written his own “epistle”. But in that epistle (again according to Ellegard), this same James makes no such claim to ever have been the actual brother of Jesus. Nor, iirc, doe he even ever claim to have met any living Jesus!

7. Apparently (according to Ellegard), that single mention in Galations is the one and only time Paul describes James as the “Lords brother”. It is never mentioned again anywhere else by Paul.


In fact Ellegard (Jesus, One Hundred Years Before Christ) has a whole chapter on the issue of James “the Lords Brother” (Ch-11), in which he points out that in the gospels and in Acts there is enormous confusions over various figures named “James”, such that it seems the authors did not actually know which of several different people named “James” they were referring to. And where a further confusion arises over the name “Mary”, supposedly the mother of Jesus, but where again all sorts of different people named “Mary” become mixed-up with one-another, to the point where Ellegard concludes saying this -


“ the whole idea of identifying James with the a physical brother of Jesus, as I have argued, is due to Eusebius attempts to make sense of Luke’s confused presentation in Act’s-12. Owing to Luke’s mistake in having James the apostle killed in the beginning of that chapter, Eusebius thought, logically enough, that all subsequent mentions of James in Acts must mean somebody else. He concluded that this person was the Jerusalem church leader whom Paul, in Galations 1;19, called “James” the brother of the Lord”. And further he says ….”the fact that Luke himself never says anything about James being Jesus’ brother (or for that matter, the Lord’s brother), is a telling indication that he, at least, never thought he was.” (Ellegard, p238, Ch-11).


Below is a link to some comments and explanation on all of that from sceptical writer Neil Godfrey (I will save space here by not quoting Godfrey, you can just read it for yourself) -

http://vridar.org/2010/05/02/applying-sound-historical-methodology-to-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

Applying Sound Historical Methodology to “James the Brother of the Lord”
by Neil Godfrey

But I will quote the following shorter piece from Richard Carrier writing as a reply to HJ believer James McGrath on this issue of talking literally those final three words “the lords brother” to mean a family member of a human Jesus -


http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier...hard+Carrier+Blogs)&utm_content=Google+Reader

That leaves one last thing (that same thing I covered last the first time)…
James the (Adopted/Biological?) Brother of the Lord
I argued that all Christians were “brothers of the Lord” because: (a) they were all adopted sons of God, (b) Jesus was an adopted son of God, and (c) that by definition made them all the adopted brothers of Jesus; and (d) Christians called each other brother, therefore they would have called each other brothers of Jesus, too. I also showed (e) that they believed Jesus had explicitly called them his brothers and (f) they explicitly said Jesus was only “the firstborn among many brethren.” Another important point I made is that Jesus became Lord at his adoption, so Christians would be brothers of the Lord specifically, a uniquely Christian concept (and one that could only have been uttered after the origins of Christianity; e.g., even if James was the biological brother of Jesus, he would never have been called “the brother of the Lord” until Christians invented that phrase for him).
McGrath does not challenge any of the above (which is fortunate, because it is all proved conclusively from passages in Paul, which I cited profusely). The argument then follows: all Christians were the brothers of the Lord; so it would be confusing ….



That above explanation from Carrier continues far longer than just the above (go to the link and try reading it). But the point is not that I agree specifically with Carrier on why he is sceptical about those three words, nor even that I fully agree with Ellegard. The point is that numerous authors such as these have pointed out why it is obviously very unwise to assume those three words could only mean that the person “James” (which “James”?) was actually a flesh-&-blood brother of a human Jesus.


Also, see the following from Rational-Wiki (I will avoid taking more space reproducing it here, you can check it yourself)-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Please … Dominic Crossan is a total religious fanatic and former priest (iirc), who’s entire life from even earliest childhood has been spent absolutely drowning in religious belief. Please do not quote Crossan to us as any kind of objective neutral party on the issues of belief in Jesus historicity.

How do you know that someone is a “fanatic”?
Rational discussion becomes impossible if we disqualify a priori everybody who has different beliefs than ours.
In the same vein I can refuse to discuss with you because you are a “fanatic” positivist and I am not.
I disagree with the main lines of Crossan’s beliefs, but I think some of his arguments are interesting. I know this because I have read some of his books and I know what I am saying. You cannot have any justified opinion about Crossan’s ideas if you have not read them. Sorry, but your position is the most classical intolerance. Very far of rational criticism.

OK, - well here is the religious background of Dominic Crossan. Please do not try to claim this is a person whose is neutral and objective on the subject of his Jesus belief -

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

John Dominic Crossan (born February 17, 1934[1] is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, and former Catholic priest who has produced both scholarly and popular works. His research has focused on the historical Jesus, on the anthropology of the Ancient Mediterranean and New Testament worlds and on the application of postmodern hermeneutical approaches to the Bible.

Life - Crossan was born in Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland.Though his father was a banker, Crossan was steeped in the rural Irish life, which he experienced through frequent visits to the home of his paternal grandparents. On graduation from Saint Eunan's College, a boarding high school, in 1950, Crossan joined the Servites, a Catholic religious order, and moved to the United States. He was trained at Stonebridge Seminary, Lake Bluff, Illinois, then ordained a priest in 1957. Crossan returned to Ireland, where he earned his Doctor of Divinity in 1959 at St. Patrick's College Maynooth, the Irish national seminary. He then completed two more years of study in biblical languages at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1965 Crossan began two additional years of study (in archaeology) at the Ecole Biblique in Jordanian East Jerusalem. During this time, he travelled through several countries in the region, escaping just days before the outbreak of the Six Day War of 1967.[2]
After a year at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois, and a year at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Crossan chose to resign his priesthood. In the fall of 1969 he joined the faculty of DePaul University, where he taught undergraduates Comparative Religion for twenty-five years until retiring in 1995. In 1985, Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar, a group of academics studying the historical Jesus, and Crossan served as co-chair for its first decade. Crossan also served as president of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research in 1978-1979, and as president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2012.
Crossan married Margaret Dagenais, a professor at Loyola University Chicago in the summer of 1969. She died in 1983 due to a heart attack. In 1986, Crossan married Sarah Sexton, a social worker with two grown children. Since his retirement from academia, Crossan has lived in the Orlando, Florida, area, remaining active in research, writing, and teaching seminars.[citation needed]

 

[dejudge]

Craig is trying to force a false dichotomy:

Paul either got his JC information from JC's relatives/friends or he got it from god.

It is bizarre that Craig B got his information about JC and Paul from NT Scriptures and his own imagination but refuse to admit that Paul could have done the very same.

 

[Brainache]

Craig is trying to force a false dichotomy:

Paul either got his JC information from JC's relatives/friends or he got it from god.

I think you'll find if you read Craig B's posts for comprehension, you'll see that he is saying nothing of the sort.

He is saying that even if Paul said he got all of his Jesus info from "God" (which Paul doesn't even say), then Paul is wrong, because "God" doesn't exist.

So therefore, even if Paul thinks he got all of his Jesus info from "God", he is wrong. There must have been another source, because "God" doesn't exist.

There is some stuff that Paul says about Jesus that relate to OT verses, and other things that don't.

Paul tells us things about Jesus that came neither from visions nor the Old Testament.

Where did that other stuff come from tsig?

 

[Craig B]

Craig is trying to force a false dichotomy:

Paul either got his JC information from JC's relatives/friends or he got it from god.

On the contrary, a true "monochotomy". He definitely didn't get anything from God, or from sky Jesus, or from beings in the third heaven. Whether he thought he did or not, in factual reality he didn't. Therefore he got it from some human source. Whether that source consisted of Jesus' relatives and friends or not, that is where he got it. And it may not have been JC information, of which he possessed very little, as far as we can see; but the source of his beliefs, whether these were based on fact or not.

I think there probably was a Jesus but even if there was not any Jesus I think Paul was dependent for his beliefs on people who claimed to be "disciples" and "brothers" of Jesus, and to be in command of "myriads" of supporters.

It seems to me that the most plausible reason why these people believed in a Jesus is that there was one; but even if here was not, that is the source to which Paul is at least partly indebted.

If anyone misrepresents my views again, I will refer them by number to this post, and to the previous one.

ETA I just noticed that IanS has done exactly that.

the argument is over Craig’s repeated insistence that those people in Jerusalem had actually met a living Jesus, and that they were thereby the source of what Paul believed about Jesus, i.e. because Paul had been told that by people who had actually met Jesus. That was the argument!

No it wasn't, you naughty chap. Consider yourself referred to the appropriate posts. You are intentionally misrepresenting my statements. But I know you depend on your "memory" and I don't want to put that faculty under further strain, so rave on!

 

[dejudge]

I think you'll find if you read Craig B's posts for comprehension, you'll see that he is saying nothing of the sort.

He is saying that even if Paul said he got all of his Jesus info from "God" (which Paul doesn't even say), then Paul is wrong, because "God" doesn't exist.

So therefore, even if Paul thinks he got all of his Jesus info from "God", he is wrong. There must have been another source, because "God" doesn't exist.

There is some stuff that Paul says about Jesus that relate to OT verses, and other things that don't.

Paul tells us things about Jesus that came neither from visions nor the Old Testament.

Where did that other stuff come from tsig?

The Pauline writers told us how they got their Gospel so there is no need to speculate.

The Pauline Gospel that was preached to the Gentiles was from Revelation of the resurrected Jesus or NT Scriptures.

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

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

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

 

[Brainache]

The Pauline writers told us how they got their Gospel so there is no need to speculate.

The Pauline Gospel that was preached to the Gentiles was from Revelation of the resurrected Jesus or NT Scriptures.

Galatians 1

Galatians 1

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

So where did Paul learn about Jesus' thoughts on marriage and divorce? And how is it that the people he is writing to have already heard what Jesus had to say?

Was that part of his "vision" or is that in the OT?

The little story about Jesus passing around bread and wine on the night he was "delivered up", was that "vision", or OT?

And a bonus question: What on earth makes you think anyone would take your opinion on this subject seriously?

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline writers told us how they got their Gospel so there is no need to speculate.

So, I thought as much. A bible believer! I don't take any statement in the bible as true on its face, as a bare statement. If I did, I would be a bible believer like you. But I'm not. "No need to speculate because the 'Pauline writers' say it". I tell you, you'll be a saint soon, or at least a venerable or a beatus. Last Wednesday I saw the Pope in the Vatican. (That is literally true, by the way.) Next time I see him I'll mention you to His Holiness. He'll be most impressed. Paul's veracity is important to Popes. Speaking personally, I don't have any faith in it, let alone regard Paul's statements as incontrovertible.

 

[IanS]

the argument is over Craig’s repeated insistence that those people in Jerusalem had actually met a living Jesus, and that they were thereby the source of what Paul believed about Jesus, i.e. because Paul had been told that by people who had actually met Jesus. That was the argument!

ETA I just noticed that IanS has done exactly that. No it wasn't, you naughty chap. Consider yourself referred to the appropriate posts. You are intentionally misrepresenting my statements. But I know you depend on your "memory" and I don't want to put that faculty under further strain, so rave on!

Well we just had precisely that argument a few pages back, where I showed you the quotes where you had in fact said or implied that these people in Jerusalem had actually met Jesus. And I put that to you repeatedly over about 6 or 7 posts, and each time you replied without denying it at all.

So … do you say these people in Jerusalem had met Jesus or not?

If you are not claiming they met Jesus, then where are you now claiming that any of them got their “visions” and beliefs from?

You just said that they could not have got the beliefs from God. So where did James or anyone else get his “vision” from?

 

[Craig B]

Well we just had precisely that argument a few pages back, where I showed you the quotes where you had in fact said or implied that these people in Jerusalem had actually met Jesus. And I put that to you repeatedly over about 6 or 7 posts, and each time you replied without denying it at all.

So … do you say these people in Jerusalem had met Jesus or not?

If you are not claiming they met Jesus, then where are you now claiming that any of them got their “visions” and beliefs from?

You just said that they could not have got the beliefs from God. So where did James or anyone else get his “vision” from?

Not from God, at any rate. As to the rest: Tosh. Absolute rubbish. You're depending on that old memory of yours, aren't you? So quote me, and we can discuss what I actually wrote. But it's late here now, so take as long as you like.

 

[maximara]

maximara


There is no "Christianity" in any canonical Gospel, and 37 would be close after the crucifixion. Gospels relate that by then, Jesus & Co. had traveled in those three contiguous places, which is plausible since all told, they subtend about the area of modern Wales, and Wales has a lot less empty desert. Jesus' reception, according to the Gospels, was mixed: tortured to death by popular demand in Judea, without honor in Galilee, and looked upon with suspicion in Samaria.

Paul and Acts write about a persecuted, not a wildly popular, Jewish homeland church. In particular, a major push into Samaria was supposedly after popular disturbances against the Way emptied Jerusalem of all except the hard core apostles. I suppose "covering" is one way to describe headlong flight.

"Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them. (Matthew 4:23)

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1-4)

"Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." (Act 9:31 regarding the aftermath of Saul's conversion to Paul)

Saul had to find people to persecute and Acts tells us where those people were: "throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria". To be that widespread the concept of what would be called Christianity had to be popular.

Depending on how much of the "miracles" you want to say were faith healing inspired then you can get the numbers regarding followers Jesus into the hundreds if not thousands easily.

You also need to work on what your message is. Your go-to factoid, John Frum, shows the rapidity with which a religious idea can travel by contagion (and then die out except in a literally insular vestige). Either Christianity is also an example of that growth (and not the dying out part), or it is not. If it is, then it cannot be surprising that about a generation after Paul's conversion, there would be pockets of contagion anywhere there was trade contact with Jerusalem.

Belief in John Frum is as strong as it ever was and has even become something of a political party so I have no idea where this "die out except in a literally insular vestige" idea is coming from. When asked in 2006 “John promised you much cargo more than 60 years ago, and none has come; so why do you keep faith with him? Why do you still believe in him?” Chief Isaac replied “You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth, and you haven’t given up hope.”

 

[Brainache]

"Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them. (Matthew 4:23)

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1-4)

"Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." (Act 9:31 regarding the aftermath of Saul's conversion to Paul)

Saul had to find people to persecute and Acts tells us where those people were: "throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria". To be that widespread the concept of what would be called Christianity had to be popular.

Depending on how much of the "miracles" you want to say were faith healing inspired then you can get the numbers regarding Jesus into the hundreds if not thousands easily.

WOW.

The MJ crowd certainly do put a great emphasis on literal readings of the NT.

Why do you guys believe the bible?