Well, yes some of it is most likely eye witness such as 1 Peter. Some is probably delivered thru a disciple. Some of it was passed down like the oral tradition was. Some is second hand or more. And there are things added in much later which are in no sense remotely authentic.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Well, yes some of it is most likely eye witness such as 1 Peter. Some is probably delivered thru a disciple. Some of it was passed down like the oral tradition was. Some is second hand or more. And there are things added in much later which are in no sense remotely authentic.
What?? Please name the first Christian writer to acknowledge an Epistle called 1 Peter?
1 Peter is a forgery or falsely attributed. The so-called apostle Peter was a fictitious character found in the Gospels.
Up to c 180 CE, Apologetic and Non-Apologetics were not aware of 1 Peter.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
My statement lacks logic in what way - other than that I have the temerity to disagree with you?
Given the arrogance of your response, it may surprise you to know that I have a fairly extensive knowledge of ancient Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology. My point, the one you consistently avoid addressing, is that Mark's Jesus is considerably more human and less divine than those of the other gospels, with John's Jesus, the latest and most theologically sophisticated, being the most divine and least human.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Mark's Jesus was God's son, but he didn't know he was until he had a very subjective epiphany, after coming, like an ordinary, sinful, guy, to be baptized by John. Both Matthew and Luke had to go through gyrations to explain why Jesus, the God-man, had to be baptized by a lesser person. The Gospel of John dispenses with the baptism entirely.
As to the term "son of God," it's pretty obvious that those referred to as the bene elohim in Job 1 are angels. However, consider this verse (Ps. 2:7):
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day I have begotten thee.
Or, consider this verse from the beatitudes (Mt. 5:9):
Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.
My point here is that the term, "son of God" can have varied meanings and may be heavily dependent on context. In the contest of Mark, Jesus as son of God best fits that of Ps. 2:7.
Nor will you find a birth narrative for any of the judges, except Samson. Nor is there a birth narrative for Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc. In fact the only birth narratives involving supernatural intervention in the Hebrew scriptures other than those of the patriarchs in Genesis, are for Samson and Samuel. So, what is your point?
Yes, in ancient times, the Jews, Greeks and Romans believed that divine beings walked the earth. So?
Our argument has to do with the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark. By the time the Gospel of John was written, as I've noted, Jesus had become the divine Logos. Thus, Marcion's views on Jesus are irrelivant to this discussion.
I answered this insulting remark above. Please get familiar with the concept that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily ignorant and stupid.
How about this? (Mk. 6:3):
Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not his siters with us? and the took offense at him.
See what I posted above concerning Elijah and others.
Again, consider what I said about the term "son of God." Mark's Jesus most certainly is different from those of John and Marcion.
BTW, just out of curiosity, you and I differ only slightly in our view of the HJ. Frankly, as I've said before, if it turns out that Jesus can be absolutely proven to be entirely, rather than mostly (99%), mythical, it wouldn't exactly floor me. As it is, I see him as almost entirely mythical, so much so that any HJ might well be irrelevant. On the other hand, given that's the case, a solid proof that he was historical, likewise wouldn't matter all that much to me. Considering that our views aren't that far apart, why are you so vehement about all this?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Here's what Wikipedia has to say on 1 Peter. It's highly unlikely that any historical Peter would have been literate or would have had a secretary to whom he dictated letters. Peter would have had to have gone from an ignorant fisherman to an energetic organizer who traveled all the way to Rome and had staff.
As to the gospels, Mark is demonstrably the earliest, most primitive and least theologically sophisticated. Mark "predicts" the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. This would have to be either divinely inspired prophecy from the lips of Jesus, recorded by an eye witness, or history written after the fact. Were it divinely inspired, we would expect the rest of Mark and any prophecies in it to be likewise divinely inspired. However, the prophecy at the end of Mark 8 and beginning of Mark 9 (see also parallel verses in Matthew 16) that some of the generation that knew Jesus would taste death before his return is obviously false. Ergo, the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Mark was history written after the fact, and the author of Mark was not an eyewitness. If Mark wasn't an eye witness, neither were the authors of the other canonical gospels.
Belz...
Fiend God
It's just projection on his part. Reminds me of a poster who made crazy claims about the Japanese and anyone who disagreed with him was said to know about Japan only through anime and manga. We figured that this was the poster's own source of information.
A pet peeve of mine, and one of the most common failings of men.
Last edited:
It is simply not true that I have not addressed your flawed opinion. Please examine gMark and the book of Daniel.
1. Mark 1:1 KJV---The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
2. Mark 3:11 KJV----And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried , saying , Thou art the Son of God.
3. Mark 5:7 KJV---And cried with a loud voice, and said , What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
4. Mark 15:39 KJV----And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.
5. Mark 14 KJV-------Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
6. Daniel 7 KJV -----13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away , and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed .
7. Mark 1:15 KJV-----And saying , The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye , and believe the gospel.
There was no need for Jesus, the Son of God and one like the Son of man, to be born on earth in order to come down from heaven.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
No, I concur. You haven't.
For someone who doesn't believe the bible, you pretty much regurgitate nothing but verses from it.
You can read a bit about what E S Drower thought about the Primal Adam here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/598374?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103040835587
You have no idea what you are talking about and is always contradicting yourself.
I must show and regurgitate that the Bible is TERRIBLE evidence for an historical Jesus.
I am extremely delighted that you admit that everyone agrees the evidence for an HJ is terrible but you refuse to show the terrible evidence.
I must show that Jesus of Nazareth was excluded from the genealogies of Jews in the Bible and was declared to be God Creator from the beginning.
Jesus was myth from the start.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
And here. from Luke's genealogy of Jesus, is Lk. 3:28 (bolding added):
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
So, are you asserting that Luke thought that Adam was the literal, flesh and blood, son of God, or is "son of God" here being used as an honorific?
As to the rest of your post, yes, as Randal Helms and other Bible scholars have pointed out, Mark is highly apocalyptic in tone and depends greatly on the Book of Daniel. It's not clear from Daniel that that his Son of man is the literal son of God. However, given its context as part of Jewish messianism and apocalypticism, it's unlikely that this would be the case, the physical son of God being more of a Greco-Roman concept.
Now let's consider your quote from Mk. 14: 61b, 62:
-------Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Here, the priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ or Christos, the Greek word for "anointed," corresponding to the Hebrew mashioch (sp.?), which we anglicize as messiah. As the Messiah, God's anointed, he most likely would not have been the literal son of God. As the "Son of man, sitting on the right hand of power," Jesus fits the apocalyptic visions of Daniel. This doesn't make him the literal son of God.
Now, can you answer the question I posed in a previous post? Since we aren't that far apart in what we think, why all the heat and lather on your part?
Last edited:
Please, your argument is virtually worthless. Luke does not have a genealogy of Jesus. Please stop your fallacies immediately.
The author of gLuke specifically wrote about the genealogy of the SUPPOSED father of Jesus.
Now, please tell us the real father of Jesus in gLuke.
You could not have forgotten the Ghost!!!
The Ghost conception of Jesus in gLuke is the most detailed of all the Gospels.
Luke 1 CEB
It is really useless trying to use gLuke to prove or argue Jesus was a human being. It is virtually impossible to do so.
Last edited:
All dejudge has to say to that is
Frankly I think it's pointless trying to get him to say anything else. He relentlessly metes out the same treatment to me. His single-mindedness on this issue is almost superhuman. It's like being interrogated in a cellar by the GPU for day after day in Stalin's USSR. Confess your guilt before the toiling masses of the people, and repudiate your incorrect thinking!
You never imagined the day would come when the fallacies of the "historicists" would be exposed.
The argument for an HJ of Nazareth is probably the very worst argument ever put forward by mankind on any matter relating to history.
Who would have ever imagine that people would argue that the Bible is a source of history for Jesus the Son of a Ghost and God Creator.
Bible believing atheists?? Impossible!!!
Off to the Gulag with him!
Impossible!!!
Troll away!
Tim - in all honesty and genuine polite enquiry … whether or not g-Mark contains fewer miracles than later gospels, does not by any measure make g-Mark a work describing a real Jesus, does it?
Because, is it not the case that g-Mark still contains plenty of miracles from Jesus, and still provides no genuine evidence of Jesus as a real person?
That really does not make it any better than a later gospel of Mathew, in which that later author has expanded on Mark’s use of the OT, to furnish g-Mathew with even more miracle stories than were already written in g-Mark.
And if it comes to that - the “expert scholars” who tell us that g-Mark is the earliest of the canonical gospels, also tell us that the letters of Paul pre-date g-Mark. And those letters, which contain even fewer Jesus-miracles than are contained in g-Mark (almost none in fact), also describe an undeniably supernatural figure of Jesus who is the Son of Yahweh in heaven, and who rises from the dead in front of people. And again of course with zero actual credible evidence of Jesus as a human person.
IOW - the fact that going forward in time through Paul to Mark to Mathew … etc., generally seems to cause an increase in the number of supernatural claims, does not hide the fact that even in the earliest writing of Paul and g-Mark, Jesus is described (without evidence) as a supernatural miracle worker and Son of Yahweh in heaven.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok I'm going to call you on this: please show me contradicting myself. Quote me, or you are lying.
- Status