Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[The Norseman]

Yes. I am making up the idea that Paul obtained his belief from the people with whom he was in contact. I am absolutely resisting the idea that Paul obtained his belief personally from God. Paul was wrong about that, so we must look for another source of his belief.

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. 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!

Why could Paul not have simply made stuff up? You conclude that since he could not have gotten his information from a god he therefore got his information from other humans. You seem to dismiss the idea or the concept that Paul just made it up and attributed his made up stuff to his god. I'm curious why because I do believe you have a legitimate reason.

 

[The Norseman]

That's a bit unfair, since we're discussing that question right now, and pretty much not a single person in this thread has claimed certainty about this tipic, except Dejudge, who knows everything.

Your statement here needs clarification. What do you mean by 'certainty'? Is ninety percent certain good enough for you or do you mean that only one hundred percent is how you're describing 'certainty'? How about if a poster says, "Jesus existed. Period."? Would that qualify?

 

[dejudge]

There we are, we are all void of the facts; but thankfully dejudge has all the facts. Just think, if he didn't, how ignorant we would be, but fortunately he has rescued us from this. Hurrah!

Again, you confirm you are void of the facts.

I have shown you the written statements found in the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man but a Ghost--the Last Adam--a Myth.

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[Craig B]

Why could Paul not have simply made stuff up? You conclude that since he could not have gotten his information from a god he therefore got his information from other humans. You seem to dismiss the idea or the concept that Paul just made it up and attributed his made up stuff to his god. I'm curious why because I do believe you have a legitimate reason.

He claims to have been in contact with other people who had been in this religious group before Paul joined it. He was in repeated and protracted contact with its leaders and "prophets" and engaged with them in joint preaching enterprises. He is subservient to the leaders of this group, and makes substantial financial contributions to their funding.

It seems unlikely in these circumstances that he dreamed something up and was able to impose it on an already established movement.

 

[dejudge]

Why could Paul not have simply made stuff up? You conclude that since he could not have gotten his information from a god he therefore got his information from other humans. You seem to dismiss the idea or the concept that Paul just made it up and attributed his made up stuff to his god. I'm curious why because I do believe you have a legitimate reason.

There is no reason to speculate.

The Pauline writers admitted that they USED Scriptures for their story that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

Apologetic writers also admitted the Pauline writer knew of gLuke.

See Eusebius' Church History 6.25 and Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

The Pauline Jesus story fundamentally comes from NT Scriptures.

If the Pauline writers were from the 2nd century or later then they would be expected to use NT Scriptures for their stories of Jesus which is what has happened based on the actual existing dated manuscripts and Codices.

 

[dejudge]

It seems unlikely in these circumstances that he dreamed something up and was able to impose it on an already established movement.

You have no actual evidence pre 70 CE of an established "movement". Your argument is void of logic and void of facts.

 

[tsig]

I believe people find this subject fun for engaging in polemics...

but I don't really think that anyone actually "believes" Jesus never existed.
They might believe that He is different than what is reported about Him
but it is utterly ridiculous to deny the way in which history was recorded and totally discount all tradition and historical axiom(s).

You would have to be incredibly self deceived to actually deny something as basic as a controversial person existing in history... (and agenda driven).

Question everything.

Except Jesus's existence?

That's a bit unfair, since we're discussing that question right now, and pretty much not a single person in this thread has claimed certainty about this tipic, except Dejudge, who knows everything.

The hilited doesn't seem very questioning. Looks like he/she is pretty certain.

 

[Craig B]

There is no reason to speculate.

The Pauline writers admitted that they USED Scriptures for their story that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day ...
The Pauline Jesus story fundamentally comes from NT Scriptures.

If the Pauline writers were from the 2nd century or later then they would be expected to use NT Scriptures for their stories of Jesus which is what has happened based on the actual existing dated manuscripts and Codices.

I now have to admit bafflement. I thought I was arguing against the idea that Paul derived details of the crucifixion from the Jewish scriptures, or "Septuagint" as you charmingly call them. My argument: there is no reference to a crucified Messiah in the OT. But I most certainly DO admit that the NT refers to such a being. Quite where that takes us I don't know, and I'm going to have a lie down and a cup of tea, I think, while I ponder this.

 

[IanS]

I hope that represents an understanding of my recent post. If so, thank you.

Well I understand that it's not possible for you to support your Jerusalem informants claim with any credible argument at all. If you tried to do that then your claim about Paul not getting his information from his religious beliefs would instantly collapse.

OK, so I trust it’s now clear to everyone why your claim that Paul must have got his Jesus info. from those in Jerusalem, creates a logically impossibility and thus cannot be true.

 

[IanS]

He claims to have been in contact with other people who had been in this religious group before Paul joined it. He was in repeated and protracted contact with its leaders and "prophets" and engaged with them in joint preaching enterprises. He is subservient to the leaders of this group, and makes substantial financial contributions to their funding.

It seems unlikely in these circumstances that he dreamed something up and was able to impose it on an already established movement.

So why did those other people believe it? Why did they believe they too had seen visions of the messiah and that he had been raised from the dead? Where did those people in Jerusalem obtain that knowledge?

 

[Craig B]

So why did those other people believe it? Why did they believe they too had seen visions of the messiah and that he had been raised from the dead? Where did those people in Jerusalem obtain that knowledge?

Why don't you content yourself with your understanding that

... it’s now clear to everyone why your claim that Paul must have got his Jesus info. from those in Jerusalem, creates a logically impossibility and thus cannot be true.

If it is logically impossible, then that's that.

 

[IanS]

Why don't you content yourself with your understanding that If it is logically impossible, then that's that.

Well it would have been nice if you could admit your mistake in thinking Paul could only have obtained his beliefs if people in Jerusalem had told him what to believe about Jesus.

But what is "logically impossible" is not that that people could tell each other things. That's more than possible. That's highly likely. But what is a logical impossibility here is your explanation that, that must have been the reason Paul believed those things about Jesus ... that idea creates a logical contradiction, as I expect you now realise.

 

[The Norseman]

He claims to have been in contact with other people who had been in this religious group before Paul joined it. He was in repeated and protracted contact with its leaders and "prophets" and engaged with them in joint preaching enterprises. He is subservient to the leaders of this group, and makes substantial financial contributions to their funding.

It seems unlikely in these circumstances that he dreamed something up and was able to impose it on an already established movement.

Thank you, I appreciate your response and it makes sense to me. I was offering an alternative to what you were saying and why you were accused of making a false dichotomy -- Paul did not get his information from God, so he must have gotten it from humans. It may be quite unlikely that Paul made it up, but I believe it still needs to be taken into consideration when discussing what might have happened, especially since that seems to be part of the historical method that is talked about here.

 

[dejudge]

I now have to admit bafflement. I thought I was arguing against the idea that Paul derived details of the crucifixion from the Jewish scriptures, or "Septuagint" as you charmingly call them. My argument: there is no reference to a crucified Messiah in the OT. But I most certainly DO admit that the NT refers to such a being. Quite where that takes us I don't know, and I'm going to have a lie down and a cup of tea, I think, while I ponder this.

There is no need to ponder.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

1. The NT refers to a crucified and resurrected Jesus on the THIRD day.

2. The NT also refers to characters called Apostles including Peter/Cephas and James.

3. Apologetic writers admitted the Pauline writers knew gLuke.

4. Statement about the Last Supper in the Pauline Corpus is found in gLuke.

Unless, you are void of logic it can be deduced that the Pauline writers used NT Scriptures or that the Pauline Jesus story is according to NT Scriptures.

 

[Craig B]

There is no need to ponder.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

1. The NT refers to a crucified and resurrected Jesus on the THIRD day.

2. The NT also refers to characters called Apostles including Peter/Cephas and James.

3. Apologetic writers admitted the Pauline writers knew gLuke.

4. Statement about the Last Supper in the Pauline Corpus is found in gLuke.

Unless, you are void of logic it can be deduced that the Pauline writers used NT Scriptures or that the Pauline Jesus story is according to NT Scriptures.

If Paul got these things from the NT, where did the NT get them from?

 

[Belz...]

You have confirmed you are void of the facts.

What a monstrous fabrication !

 

[Belz...]

Your statement here needs clarification. What do you mean by 'certainty'?

NO ONE has claimed that we know for sure whether there really was a Jesus, period. The only one claiming certainty is Dejudge.

What's so hard to understand there ?

 

[Belz...]

Again, you confirm you are void of the facts.

You're amazing. You are so utterly unable to distinguish stuff that you can't even tell posters apart.

 

[Belz...]

The hilited doesn't seem very questioning. Looks like he/she is pretty certain.

Really ?

Let's highlight things differently, shall we ?

but I don't really think that anyone actually "believes" Jesus never existed.

They might believe that He is different than what is reported about Him
but it is utterly ridiculous to deny the way in which history was recorded
and totally discount all tradition and historical axiom(s).

You would have to be incredibly self deceived to actually deny something
as basic as a controversial person existing in history... (and agenda driven).

Question everything.

But let's give you that this poster does think it's certain that Jesus existed. Is that a good reason to generalize and say that people don't question Jesus' existence ?

 

[tsig]

That's a bit unfair, since we're discussing that question right now, and pretty much not a single person in this thread has claimed certainty about this tipic, except Dejudge, who knows everything.

Really ?

Let's highlight things differently, shall we ?



But let's give you that this poster does think it's certain that Jesus existed. Is that a good reason to generalize and say that people don't question Jesus' existence ?

You seem to be reading posts I never made.

You changed your claim from "not a single person" to "It's not good to generalize".