Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Quite a number of peoples who were not Jewish came to adopt christianity seemingly rather early.

Where is the actual evidence for your speculation? The Gospels are known forgeries and are not eyewitness accounts.

There is NO evidence from antiquity at all that there were people who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God since the time of Pilate.

There is no known culture or tradition where Jews or non-Jews worshiped a man called Jesus as a God in the 1st century.

No anthropological study have shown that Jews in Galilee or Jerusalem or non-Jews worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God after he was crucified.

John and Luke show strong indications of Hellenistic interests, and the opening of Matthew as well.
There are definate Jewish values and concepts preserved in them, however, but Rome was facinated with mystery and messianic traditions and it was not odd at all for Rome to adopt coquered cultures into its religious culture in hopes of harmonizing the social culture.

You are merely taking the Gospels at FACE VALUE.

May I remind you that the Gospels are really forgeries or falsely attributed to unknown authors of unknown date of authorship whose accounts are not eyewitness reports and filled with historical problems, discrepancies and events which did not happen.

Just the mere non-historical contents of the Gospels should be a read flag that they should NOT be taken at Face Value.

The Gospels were probably written 80 years after the time of Tiberius or probably no earlier than c 115 CE.

 

[Craig B]

... The Gospels are known forgeries and are not eyewitness accounts ...
May I remind you that the Gospels are really forgeries or falsely attributed to unknown authors of unknown date of authorship ...

As I asked in my last post

Why is it that anyone ancient or modern who says anything you think is false, has to be a conscious liar and forger?

 

[dejudge]

So what? You stated that Paul worshipped a dead Jew. No he didn't. He believed Jesus had come alive again. The Pauline writers did not admit that their own writings were lies, as you absurdly suggest above. Why is it that anyone ancient or modern who says anything you think is false, has to be a conscious liar and forger?

So what you ask?? The Pauline Corpus is NOT history. The Pauline writings are historically and theologically constipated.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown up to at least c 180 CE because Christians writers knew nothing of the teaching that WITHOUT the resurrection that there would be no remission of sins.

None of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles wrote anything about Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

The Pauline teaching of Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus is completely UNKNOWN by all other authors in the NT Canon.

The Pauline Corpus is WITHOUT corroboration in the NT.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge,

Pressed that "paste" key again? We've seen all this before. It in no way addresses what I wrote. Whoever and whenever wrote Paul, he didn't worship a dead Jew.

 

[Belz...]

You mean the Pauline Corpus is the product of Lies or Fiction about the resurrection.

The Pauline writers did not need an actual human Jesus--they just needed a pack of Lies or Fiction as is evident and admitted.

Indeed.

How did the fiction start ?

 

[Belz...]

The Pauline writings are historically and theologically constipated.

They are what ? What the hell does that even mean ?

 

[dejudge]

dejudge,

Pressed that "paste" key again? We've seen all this before. It in no way addresses what I wrote. Whoever and whenever wrote Paul, he didn't worship a dead Jew.

You keep asking me the same questions over and over hoping that I would make mistakes.

When you ask the same questions repeatedly you will always get the same answer.

You don't have any evidence at all that there was an HJ and don't have any evidence at all that the Pauline Corpus was composed in the 1st century.

Your repeated questions can never hide your lack of evidence for your unknown dead HJ.

 

[TimCallahan]

Paul has almost nothing to tell us about the human life of Jesus. Paul never met him, and his information about him was received in the form if supernatural revelations. Jesus doesn't tell Paul, I was born in a normal way in Galilee. That's true, but neither did Jesus tell Paul, I was born in a miraculous fashion in Bethlehem. Paul is not a source for these details. However, one thing Paul was convinced of is this: Jesus came back to life.

Paul's lack of any knowledge of the nativities of either Matthew or Luke - and remember that dejudge claims the Pauline epistle were written after Luke / Acts - is one of many indicators demonstrating that they were written before the gospels. Another is that Paul has no knowledge of Judas betraying Jesus, nor any idea of the grisly death of Judas, neither of the story in Matthew that Judas hanged himself, nor the story in Acts that Judas, guts burst open and that he "shed his bowels to the ground."

About this time, when I assert Paul had no knowledge of the betrayal of Jesus, someone will cite 1 Cor. 11:23 (bolding added):

For I have received of the Lord what I delivered to you that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed took bread . . .

However, it turns out that the words translated as "delivered" and "betrayed" or both forms of a Greek verb paradidomi, that means "deliver over." Depending on the context, the verb can mean to: give a present, deliver a message, arrest, or betray. Since those translating the Christian scriptures into English were Christians who had already read the gospels, the translated the second occurrence of the verb as "betray." Here is the verse in the original Greek, translated directly, then interpreted as it is in our Bibles.

In any case, Paul has the risen Christ appear to "the twelve" which would not have included Judas had Paul been knowledgable of any of the four canonical gospels. Clearly, the genuinely Pauline epistles were written before the gospels were composed

 

[Craig B]

You keep asking me the same questions over and over hoping that I would make mistakes will provide rational responses.

FTFY.

 

[dejudge]

Paul's lack of any knowledge of the nativities of either Matthew or Luke - and remember that dejudge claims the Pauline epistle were written after Luke / Acts - is one of many indicators demonstrating that they were written before the gospels. Another is that Paul has no knowledge of Judas betraying Jesus, nor any idea of the grisly death of Judas, neither of the story in Matthew that Judas hanged himself, nor the story in Acts that Judas, guts burst open and that he "shed his bowels to the ground."

Your claims are not logical at all. The fact that the later forgeries or falsely attributed Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus contain virtually nothing of the miracles of Jesus and the betrayal of Judas and were most likely written after Gospels prove that any Epistle under the name of Paul could have been written AFTER the Gospels.

Plus, the General Epistles and Revelation also do not contain the miracles of Jesus and the betrayal of Judas and were mostly likely written after the Gospels.

It is now illogical to assume the Pauline Corpus is early because of lack of details of the life of Jesus as soon as late forgeries were found without the miracles and betrayal of Jesus.


In fact, all of the 21 Epistles, Pauline and non Pauline have virtually nothing about the miracles and the betrayal of Jesus and 14 of them were most likely written after the Gospels.

Plus, Origen and Eusebius did clearly state that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and was ALIVE AFTER it was composed.

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

If HJ did actually live it is virtually impossible that the Pauline Corpus was composed before the story of Jesus was known and virtually impossible to prove Paul the persecutor was the first to write about Jesus.

 

[Foster Zygote]

dejudge,

Pressed that "paste" key again? We've seen all this before. It in no way addresses what I wrote. Whoever and whenever wrote Paul, he didn't worship a dead Jew.

Despite what many Christian's would like to claim, it's not like orthodox Christianity sprang fully formed from Jesus' twelve apostles. To the earliest members of the Jesus movement, even after his death, the idea of worshipping him as a god would certainly have been seen as blasphemous.

 

[Craig B]

... Plus, the General Epistles and Revelation also do not contain the miracles of Jesus and the betrayal of Judas and were mostly likely written after the Gospels.

Eh? They don't contain this gospel material, so they were written later?

It is now illogical to assume the Pauline Corpus is early because of lack of details of the life of Jesus as soon as late forgeries were found without the miracles and betrayal of Jesus.

But even if they are late: if they are intended to mimic Paul, their authors would eschew subjects seemingly unknown to Paul.

Plus, Origen and Eusebius did clearly state that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and was ALIVE AFTER it was composed.

That settles it, then?

If HJ did actually live it is virtually impossible that the Pauline Corpus was composed before the story of Jesus was known and virtually impossible to prove Paul the persecutor was the first to write about Jesus.

So what? It's argued that Paul wrote before the gospels as we have them. What you say there is irrelevant to that question.

 

[TimCallahan]

Despite what many Christian's would like to claim, it's not like orthodox Christianity sprang fully formed from Jesus' twelve apostles. To the earliest members of the Jesus movement, even after his death, the idea of worshipping him as a god would certainly have been seen as blasphemous.

In fact, Jesus becomes increasingly less human and more divine as the gospels develop, starting out as a mortal upon whom the Holy Spirit descends in Mark and ending up as the divine Logos in John. This is particularly true of the baptism stories. In Mark, Jesus has an epiphany that is entirely subjective. He sees the the heavens opened and a voice from heaven says "Thou art my beloved son . . . ." Matthew and Luke each alter the scene, either having the heavens actually opened, not just seen as such by Jesus or having the voice say to everyone, "This is my beloved son . . . ." John, having alrea,dy made Jesus the Logos, dispenses with having Jesus get baptized by John, altogether.

Paul's main claim about Jesus is that he was raised from the dead. This doesn't require worshipping him as a god. Since the Christians of Bithynia, according to Pliny the Younger, worshipped Christ as a god. ca. CE 110, and the earliest unequivocal reference to the Gospels of John was by Irenaeus ca. CE 180, these are yet more indications that the genuinely Pauline epistles were written before the end of the first century.

 

[Belz...]

You keep asking me the same questions over and over hoping that I would make mistakes.

You make mistakes over and over, Dejudge.

 

[Belz...]

Your claims are not logical at all.

Do you even know what that word means ?

 

[dejudge]

In fact, Jesus becomes increasingly less human and more divine as the gospels develop, starting out as a mortal upon whom the Holy Spirit descends in Mark and ending up as the divine Logos in John. This is particularly true of the baptism stories. In Mark, Jesus has an epiphany that is entirely subjective. He sees the the heavens opened and a voice from heaven says "Thou art my beloved son . . . ." Matthew and Luke each alter the scene, either having the heavens actually opened, not just seen as such by Jesus or having the voice say to everyone, "This is my beloved son . . . ." John, having alrea,dy made Jesus the Logos, dispenses with having Jesus get baptized by John, altogether.

It was the author of gMark in the Canon who established that Jesus of Nazareth was NOT human.

It was the author of gMark who first wrote in the Canon that Jesus had the ability and did WALK on the Sea and Transfigured.

The author of gMark also established that Jesus was the Son of God when he publicly admitted it when on trial before the Sanhedrin.

You must remember that the author of gMatthew used virtually the Entire gMark for his story and sometimes word for word.

gMatthew's Jesus is essentially gMark's Jesus with a birth narrative and a post resurrection visit in Galilee.

Paul's main claim about Jesus is that he was raised from the dead. This doesn't require worshipping him as a god. Since the Christians of Bithynia, according to Pliny the Younger, worshipped Christ as a god. ca. CE 110, and the earliest unequivocal reference to the Gospels of John was by Irenaeus ca. CE 180, these are yet more indications that the genuinely Pauline epistles were written before the end of the first century.

You must have forgotten what is found in Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified at the age of FIFTY years old.

It would be virtually impossible for Irenaeus to have known of gJohn and argued that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE UNDER Claudius when Jesus was crucified in the time of Pilate in gJohn.

It would be virtually impossible for Irenaeus to have known of the Pauline Corpus and claim Jesus was crucified c 50 CE when Paul supposedly preached Christ crucified c 37-41 in the time of King Aretas.

In fact, Irenaeus writing c 180 CE and arguing that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE confirms that the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles was unknown in the Church.

 

[Foster Zygote]

In fact, Jesus becomes increasingly less human and more divine as the gospels develop, starting out as a mortal upon whom the Holy Spirit descends in Mark and ending up as the divine Logos in John. This is particularly true of the baptism stories. In Mark, Jesus has an epiphany that is entirely subjective. He sees the the heavens opened and a voice from heaven says "Thou art my beloved son . . . ." Matthew and Luke each alter the scene, either having the heavens actually opened, not just seen as such by Jesus or having the voice say to everyone, "This is my beloved son . . . ." John, having alrea,dy made Jesus the Logos, dispenses with having Jesus get baptized by John, altogether.

Paul's main claim about Jesus is that he was raised from the dead. This doesn't require worshipping him as a god. Since the Christians of Bithynia, according to Pliny the Younger, worshipped Christ as a god. ca. CE 110, and the earliest unequivocal reference to the Gospels of John was by Irenaeus ca. CE 180, these are yet more indications that the genuinely Pauline epistles were written before the end of the first century.

The difference just between Mark's Jesus and Luke's is striking. Mark's Jesus is a bit of a brooding hot-head. He feels anger and fear. Luke's is so cool and in control, so serene, that he's downright boring. The Jesus of Revelation reminds me a lot of some other apocalyptic depictions of the messiah as a demigod who would single-handedly incinerate the enemies of Israel with fire from his mouth. The author of the Apocalypse Of John was definitely the Michael Bay of New Testament writers.

 

[Belz...]

It was the author of gMark in the Canon who established that Jesus of Nazareth was NOT human.

Aside from the miracles he seemed to be pretty human to me.

Or perhaps you're conflating things again.

 

[Belz...]

The author of the Apocalypse Of John was definitely the Michael Bay of New Testament writers.

I had noted the similarities : nonsensical script, focus on special effects, stupid characters, cliché ending...

 

[JaysonR]

Where is the actual evidence for your speculation? The Gospels are known forgeries and are not eyewitness accounts.

There is NO evidence from antiquity at all that there were people who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God since the time of Pilate.

There is no known culture or tradition where Jews or non-Jews worshiped a man called Jesus as a God in the 1st century.

No anthropological study have shown that Jews in Galilee or Jerusalem or non-Jews worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God after he was crucified.

You are speaking of something rather different than I was and assuming, again, that I was making a case for the proof of Jesus' existence.

When I was referring to the early aquisition of the religion, it was in remark to Belz' inquiry of Christianity which was asking why any non-Jewish group would bother to adopt Jewish-like ideological baggage.

I was explaining that Rome actually had a habit of doing this regularly with many religions, and that mysticism and messianic followings were common of the era as incorporated religions within the Roman empire.

The evidence for this is rather widely known and well documented, such as Serapis or mysticism "magi" religions, or several of the "Christian" (anointed person) followings.

What we know as Christianity, as you yourself have noted, was not the inherently referred to term early on in Rome by the term, "Christianity", and the term instead referred to any following which greatly revered some believed human being as specially anointed, and these "leaders" (real or contrived) were typically accredited with theological commentary on social politics and justifications.
These groups were of issue for Rome in that Rome only permitted one human being to be venerated in such capacity, and that was the Emperor.

There are many noted messianic claims, some more surprising than others, but the frequency was rather large during the 1st c BCE to 1st c CE time period, and continued onward a bit into the 2nd c CE.

"Jesus" became the most widely known over time, but at first, we do not read of Rome so concisely knowing of the Jesus cult, but we do read of them knowing "Christians", but (again, as you noted) this term was being applied for any such group similar.
If some small group was following the legend of Simon of Peraea, Athronges, or Menahem ben Judah, for example, they would be labelled as Christian just the same as some "Jesus" cult, as they were all "messiahs", or "anointed persons".


Oddly, you are arguing against me here when my post to Belz actually could be used to support your position, though you seemed to take it to counter your position for some reason.

You are merely taking the Gospels at FACE VALUE.

May I remind you that the Gospels are really forgeries or falsely attributed to unknown authors of unknown date of authorship whose accounts are not eyewitness reports and filled with historical problems, discrepancies and events which did not happen.

Just the mere non-historical contents of the Gospels should be a read flag that they should NOT be taken at Face Value.

The Gospels were probably written 80 years after the time of Tiberius or probably no earlier than c 115 CE.

Again, that is not a "face value" reading of the texts.
Determining the cultural values by what way they frame their claims, which symbols they focus on, and the grammatical fashion in which the texts are written in a literary form is not a "face value" reading.

A "face value" reading would be if the gospel of John read, "this texts was written in Asia Minor by those in Asia Minor who believe the prophecies of Daniel and hold Jesus to be the divine son of our god and whom champions our vindication in the coming apocalypse", and then me stating, "Hey, this text was written in Asian Minor by those in Asia Minor who believe the prophecies of Daniel and hold Jesus to be the divine son of their god and whom champions their vindication in a coming apocalypse they believed was going to occur".

That's not what I was referring to, nor what I had done, so no; I was not, taking the text on face value.


Further, again, the point of that description actually would help support a mythical Jesus position, but you somehow read the concept of differing cultures viewing this Jesus figure differently, and applying their cultural values into a fusion with the legends of Jesus as some sort of argument that I wasn't making for the support of proof that Jesus existed.