Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Here (yet again, and we must have had this quote at least 20 times now), is what his letters apparently actually do say

And I will respond in the same way to the quote for the next thousand times.
<snip twenty first repetition of quote>

That is the very opposite of Paul ever saying he had his belief in Jesus because anyone in Jerusalem told him about Jesus. Paul flatly and absolutely says not. He very specifically says he obtained his Jesus belief through a vision which he says was “God revealing his Son in me”, from which Paul deduced that Christ died for their sins according to prophecy in the scripture, and that he was buried, but rose on the third day, again according to what he believed had been revealed to him from the scriptures.

And in addition that he obtained further information in the "third heaven" but he doesn't tell us what, cos it was so special.

... On what basis can you dismiss Paul’s account and simply invent your own account out of thin air and with not a shred of any evidence of anyone saying any such thing to Paul about Jesus! You are reduced now to just blatantly making things up!

On the basis that Paul's account of where he received information; direct from God; from a Jesus light in the sky; in the third heaven; can't possibly be literally true. Because--I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you--there isn't really a God or a Jesus in the sky, or an information desk in the third heaven. Paul was deluded when he thought he was having these experiences. Assuming he did think he was having them, and was not a charlatan. But I think he was probably a truthful hallucinationist, if I may coin a new word.

But are there other possible sources for the information he did possess, or for his interpretation of his visions? Yes. For the first, the James Group with which we know he was in contact. For the second--his imagination. But he may have truly believed he had picked these things up from God. I don't think he did. No matter what Paul wrote, I don't think he obtained any information or enlightenment from God.

Now I want you to look at your own citation, 1 Cor 15: 3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

See how the atonement of sin interpretation and the third day resurrection are stated to be "according to the scriptures" but no such qualification is attached to the account of the visions experienced by Cephas, the Twelve et al. He doesn't say he learned about the visions from the Scriptures. From whom, then, did he hear these tales?

 

[dejudge]

On the contrary, he claims he received information from Jesus in the sky and from supernatural entities in the third heaven (wherever that may be) and from God.

The Pauline writers have either veracity problems or cannot remember the difference between reality and imagination.

Now, we are told that Paul was several times in contact, including during a year-long preaching campaign in Antioch, with persons from the Jerusalem-based James group; even with "prophets" from Jerusalem. So either we believe that Paul really obtained information from on high, or we dismiss Paul as not a trustworthy source of accurate information on this topic; and we know why he might have been unreliable.

It is well established that the Pauline Corpus is not a trustworthy source.

If we dismiss Paul's account, then we are left with an extremely plausible theory as to his sources of information, whatever Paul may have chosen to say. He got it from the Jerusalem group.

Your statement is illogical and contradictory. If you dismiss Paul's account you are left with nothing plausible.

You cannot assume Paul's account about the Jerusalem group is trustworthy while dismissing Paul's claims at the same time.

In any event, you are exposing the magnitude of the logical fallacies surrounding the HJ argument.

Please, tell us of the trustworthy corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for a Jerusalem group as stated by Paul?

There is none.

 

[Brainache]

The Pauline writers have either veracity problems or cannot remember the difference between reality and imagination.



It is well established that the Pauline Corpus is not a trustworthy source.



Your statement is illogical and contradictory. If you dismiss Paul's account you are left with nothing plausible.

You cannot assume Paul's account about the Jerusalem group is trustworthy while dismissing Paul's claims at the same time.

In any event, you are exposing the magnitude of the logical fallacies surrounding the HJ argument.

Please, tell us of the trustworthy corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for a Jerusalem group as stated by Paul?

There is none.

Except for the fact that his letter is addressed to people who had been visited by "Some from James".

What must those people have thought, getting a letter from Paul about James sending other people out there to boss them around, if no one had been bossing them around?


I know: "It was all fake!"

 

[IanS]

Now I want you to look at your own citation, 1 Cor 15: 3-8 See how the atonement of sin interpretation and the third day resurrection are stated to be "according to the scriptures" but no such qualification is attached to the account of the visions experienced by Cephas, the Twelve et al. He doesn't say he learned about the visions from the Scriptures. From whom, then, did he hear these tales?

Well that is very easily answered, as you would well realise, if you were not totally consumed by your belief that Jesus must have existed (despite the fact that you are completely unable to provide any reliable credible claim from anyone who ever wrote claiming to have met a living Jesus).

But neither I nor anyone else has to give the very plain and obvious answer to why Paul said all sorts of people had seen a similar vision of a dead Jesus. Because before anyone has any obligation to guess about that, you most definitely have a prior obligation to show any evidence at all from anyone ever writing to reliably or credibly claim they had met Jesus and/or told Paul about any such meeting with Jesus ...

... if you claim Jesus really lived, then that is the prior claim, and the onus is 100% upon you to show evidence that your belief is true. If you claim Jesus was real and that people had actually met him, then before I or anyone bothers to guess why Paul said that various people had seen visions of a dead messiah, the first responsibility here most certainly is for you to support your HJ claim ...


1. Please quote anyone who reliably wrote to describe how they had met a living human Jesus.


If you cannot do that (and you have had many hundreds of pages failing to do that now), then you simply have zero evidence of a human 1st century Jesus.

You are constantly trying to make claims with zero evidence (where in fact all known evidence is actually to the contrary), and trying to dodge your responsibility. If you make the HJ claim then the responsibility is yours, not mine or anyone else’s …

1. Repeat - please quote where anyone ever reliably claimed to have met a living Jesus.

2. Please quote where Paul ever claimed that he found out about the execution of Jesus because James or anyone else had told him about it


You have zero credible evidence of a living Jesus. That’s’ the problem here, just as it has been in all of these HJ threads.

 

[dejudge]

You really have tied yourself in knots with this, haven't you?

Remember those from James who came and told the people in Galatia (or Corinth or wherever) that they had to be circumcised to follow Jesus? Remember Paul getting mad and complaining that these "Super Apostles" were no better than him, even if he didn't meet Jesus in the flesh?

When did these things happen? Where is the corroborative evidence for the Pauline Corpus?

You merely believe the Pauline letters--that is all.

There is no corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for a single word from Paul about the supposed Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Brainache]

When did these things happen? Where is the corroborative evidence for the Pauline Corpus?

You merely believe the Pauline letters--that is all.

There is no corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for a single word from Paul about the supposed Jesus and the Apostles.

"It's all fake!" is a useless argument, but you keep using it, if you want.

 

[Brainache]

Well that is very easily answered, as you would well realise, if you were not totally consumed by your belief that Jesus must have existed (despite the fact that you are completely unable to provide any reliable credible claim from anyone who ever wrote claiming to have met a living Jesus).

But neither I nor anyone else has to give the very plain and obvious answer to why Paul said all sorts of people had seen a similar vision of a dead Jesus. Because before anyone has any obligation to guess about that, you most definitely have a prior obligation to show any evidence at all from anyone ever writing to reliably or credibly claim they had met Jesus and/or told Paul about any such meeting with Jesus ...

... if you claim Jesus really lived, then that is the prior claim, and the onus is 100% upon you to show evidence that your belief is true. If you claim Jesus was real and that people had actually met him, then before I or anyone bothers to guess why Paul said that various people had seen visions of a dead messiah, the first responsibility here most certainly is for you to support your HJ claim ...


1. Please quote anyone who reliably wrote to describe how they had met a living human Jesus.


If you cannot do that (and you have had many hundreds of pages failing to do that now), then you simply have zero evidence of a human 1st century Jesus.

You are constantly trying to make claims with zero evidence (where in fact all known evidence is actually to the contrary), and trying to dodge your responsibility. If you make the HJ claim then the responsibility is yours, not mine or anyone else’s …

1. Repeat - please quote where anyone ever reliably claimed to have met a living Jesus.

2. Please quote where Paul ever claimed that he found out about the execution of Jesus because James or anyone else had told him about it


You have zero credible evidence of a living Jesus. That’s’ the problem here, just as it has been in all of these HJ threads.

That isn't really an answer though, is it? Just an unrealistic expectation of more evidence for Jesus than other similar ancient people.

I couldn't help but notice that the rest of Craig B's post was apparently not so easy to answer...

I assume you are working on that...

 

[dejudge]

...Your statement is illogical and contradictory. If you dismiss Paul's account you are left with nothing plausible.

You cannot assume Paul's account about the Jerusalem group is trustworthy while dismissing Paul's claims at the same time.

In any event, you are exposing the magnitude of the logical fallacies surrounding the HJ argument.

Please, tell us of the trustworthy corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for a Jerusalem group as stated by Paul?

There is none.

Except for the fact that his letter is addressed to people who had been visited by "Some from James".

What must those people have thought, getting a letter from Paul about James sending other people out there to boss them around, if no one had been bossing them around?


I know: "It was all fake!"

Your statement is horribly illogical. A letter with an address or addressed to some one does not mean it is not fake.

You have no idea how Ancient History is done. You seem to have no idea that you MUST, MUST, MUST first find corroborative evidence from antiquity for the Pauline Corpus which you have not done and is incapable of doing.

Please, are you not aware of the Fake or falsely attributed Epistles addressed to Timothy and Titus by Fakes or Falsely attributed Pauline writers?

The Pauline Corpus is a well established compilation of Fake Pauline writers.

Look at a partial list of Fake or Falsely attributed letters under the name of Paul.

1 Timothy 1.1

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith...

2 Timothy 1. 1

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1. 1

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness...... 4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith...

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is horribly illogical. A letter with an address or addressed to some one does not mean it is not fake.

You have no idea how Ancient History is done. You seem to have no idea that you MUST, MUST, MUST first find corroborative evidence from antiquity for the Pauline Corpus which you have not done and is incapable of doing.

Please, are you not aware of the Fake or falsely attributed Epistles addressed to Timothy and Titus by Fakes or Falsely attributed Pauline writers?

The Pauline Corpus is a well established compilation of Fake Pauline writers.

Look at a partial list of Fake or Falsely attributed letters under the name of Paul.

1 Timothy 1.1

2 Timothy 1. 1

Titus 1. 1

The letter was addressed to churches in "Galatia".
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
...

Do you think there were no Churches in Galatia?

Do you think that the Galatians never heard this stuff until the end of the 2nd century?

I guess we could look at that region to find out if they had Christians or Jews there in the first century, but most Scholars seem convinced that there was a real Paul who wrote real letters to real congregations in those places.

There does appear to be some letters falsely attributed to Paul, but Galatians isn't one of them.

 

[dejudge]

The letter was addressed to churches in "Galatia".
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5


Do you think there were no Churches in Galatia?

There were NO Pauline Churches pre 70 CE base on the existing dated evidence.

Do you think that the Galatians never heard this stuff until the end of the 2nd century?

Nobody knew of Paul and the Pauline Corpus pre 70 CE base on the existing dated evidence.

I guess we could look at that region to find out if they had Christians or Jews there in the first century, but most Scholars seem convinced that there was a real Paul who wrote real letters to real congregations in those places.

I asked you for corroborative evidence from antiquity. We already know that most Scholars BELIEVE the Bible like you.

Anyone who argues for a real Paul must Believe the Bible is a source of history while they simultaneosly discredit Paul and show that he wrote fiction.

You have not a single shred of corroborative evidence for PAUL's letters in the NT.

There does appear to be some letters falsely attributed to Paul, but Galatians isn't one of them.

Well, well, well!! You seem not to understand that Galatians would be authentic if Paul REALLY lived in the 2nd century and wrote the Epistle at that time.


Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later and people BELIEVE he wrote them pre 70 CE.

There is a massive difference between authenticity and veracity.

Based on existing evidence, the characters called Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later about his revelations from a fiction character called Jesus the Son of God who was raised from the dead on the third day.

 

[Brainache]

There were NO Pauline Churches pre 70 CE base on the existing dated evidence.



Nobody knew of Paul and the Pauline Corpus pre 70 CE base on the existing dated evidence.



I asked you for corroborative evidence from antiquity. We already know that most Scholars BELIEVE the Bible like you.

Anyone who argues for a real Paul must Believe the Bible is a source of history while they simultaneosly discredit Paul and show that he wrote fiction.

You have not a single shred of corroborative evidence for PAUL's letters in the NT.



Well, well, well!! You seem not to understand that Galatians would be authentic if Paul REALLY lived in the 2nd century and wrote the Epistle at that time.


Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later and people BELIEVE he wrote them pre 70 CE.

There is a massive difference between authenticity and veracity.

Based on existing evidence, the characters called Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later about his revelations from a fiction character called Jesus the Son of God who was raised from the dead on the third day.

What evidence do you have that Paul wrote in the 2nd Century?

Who do you expect would be quoting Paul before then?

Are you positive that what we have is everything that was ever written?

Who were the Christians in Tacitus and Pliny?

Your "Theory" is not backed by any Scholarly opinions at all, not even Jewish or Atheist Scholars think Paul was invented in the 2nd Century.

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

 

[pakeha]

But not established your case even once. Wow!That's right. If Jesus didn't exist he wouldn't have been executed. In that case people couldn't have told other people that they had witnessed it.

Your argument is: if Paul didn't say people told him they witnessed Jesus' execution, then they didn't witness it, which is consistent with nobody having witnessed it, which is consistent with his never having been executed, which is consistent with his never having existed. Proof: people who don't exist don't get executed and therefore other people don't tell Paul they witnessed the execution.

Sounds good to me!

Anyway.
Do we have evidence anyone witnessed Jesus' crucifixion?

 

[Craig B]

Well that is very easily answered, as you would well realise, if you were not totally consumed by your belief that Jesus must have existed (despite the fact that you are completely unable to provide any reliable credible claim from anyone who ever wrote claiming to have met a living Jesus).<snip>... if you claim Jesus really lived, then that is the prior claim, and the onus is 100% upon you to show evidence that your belief is true.
<snip>You have zero credible evidence of a living Jesus. That’s’ the problem here, just as it has been in all of these HJ threads.

Very ingenious. I'm showing that Paul could not by any standard of reasonableness have been correctly reporting the sources of his beliefs about Jesus, and that he reports contacts from which it is inconceivable that he obtained no information.

Your response? Redefine the question by saying the "prior claim" is the existence of Jesus, so you don't need to defend your absurd thesis about Paul. And you declare the issue to be "easily answered". Well it is if you "answer" it that way. Good show!

 

[dejudge]

You seem not to understand that Galatians would be authentic if Paul REALLY lived in the 2nd century and wrote the Epistle at that time.

Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later and people BELIEVE he wrote them pre 70 CE.

There is a massive difference between authenticity and veracity.

Based on existing evidence, the characters called Paul wrote a Pack of Lies in the 2nd century or later about his revelations from a fiction character called Jesus the Son of God who was raised from the dead on the third day.

What evidence do you have that Paul wrote in the 2nd Century?

Look at the documented list of actual recovered and dated NT manuscripts.

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

What evidence do you have that letters in the Pauline Corpus was composed pre 70 CE?

Are you positive that what we have is everything that was ever written?

Are you positive that you have something from a pre 70 CE Paul?

All writings which attempted to place Paul pre 70 CE has turned out to be Fakes [forgeries, false attribution or fiction]

1. The Paul/Seneca letters--Fakes.

2. The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement--Fake or false attribution.

3. Paul's death under Nero before c 69 CE--Faked--Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed--AFTER c 70 CE.

4. Paul's preaching that Jesus was crucified since at least 37-41 CE--FAKED--Jesus was crucified c 50 CE according to Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church.

Who were the Christians in Tacitus and Pliny?

Again, you are using manipulated or questionable sources FROM around the 11th century or hundreds of years after c 70 CE under the guise that they were compose in the 2nd century.

Plus, neither Tacitus nor Pliny the younger mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and the Christians that were tortured did NOT mention Jesus.

Your "Theory" is not backed by any Scholarly opinions at all, not even Jewish or Atheist Scholars think Paul was invented in the 2nd Century.

You have now confirmed that you never knew how Ancient History is done.

The past is NOT reconstructed on opinion but on ACTUAL data. It is not what people IMAGINE that counts as History but what is Found in Archaeological, artifacts and textual evidence.

Your Theory is backed by Fundie and Christian Scholars some of whom worship the resurrected Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Ratzinger, a Scholar and former Bishop, backs your theory by FAITH that there are authentic Pauline letters.

Your theory is Faith based.

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Why don't you read the Ghost stories in the Pauline Corpus yourself and stop asking ridiculous questions?

Have you not read the NONSENSE that Paul claimed in Galatians 1.19 he met James the Lord's brother when Jesus was a Spirit?

If Jesus was a Spirit, the Last Adam, and God's Own Son what does it matter if he had a brother in the Ghost story?

You seem to have not ever realized that in Mythological fables that Gods and Myth characters can have Sons and siblings.

Do you still remember that Romulus the Son of a God and a Virgin had a human brother called Remus--See Plutarch's Romulus.

You Believe the Nonsense in Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

A resurrected Ghost had a human brother-what Nonsense .

 

[Brainache]

Look at the documented list of actual recovered and dated NT manuscripts.

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

What evidence do you have that letters in the Pauline Corpus was composed pre 70 CE?




Are you positive that you have something from a pre 70 CE Paul?

All writings which attempted to place Paul pre 70 CE has turned out to be Fakes [forgeries, false attribution or fiction]

1. The Paul/Seneca letters--Fakes.

2. The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement--Fake or false attribution.

3. Paul's death under Nero before c 69 CE--Faked--Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed--AFTER c 70 CE.

4. Paul's preaching that Jesus was crucified since at least 37-41 CE--FAKED--Jesus was crucified c 50 CE according to Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church.




Again, you are using manipulated or questionable sources FROM around the 11th century or hundreds of years after c 70 CE under the guise that they were compose in the 2nd century.

Plus, neither Tacitus nor Pliny the younger mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and the Christians that were tortured did NOT mention Jesus.




You have now confirmed that you never knew how Ancient History is done.

The past is NOT reconstructed on opinion but on ACTUAL data. It is not what people IMAGINE that counts as History but what is Found in Archaeological, artifacts and textual evidence.

Your Theory is backed by Fundie and Christian Scholars some of whom worship the resurrected Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Ratzinger, a Scholar and former Bishop, backs your theory by FAITH that there are authentic Pauline letters.

Your theory is Faith based.




Why don't you read the Ghost stories in the Pauline Corpus yourself and stop asking ridiculous questions?

Have you not read the NONSENSE that Paul claimed in Galatians 1.19 he met James the Lord's brother when Jesus was a Spirit?

If Jesus was a Spirit, the Last Adam, and God's Own Son what does it matter if he had a brother in the Ghost story?

You seem to have not ever realized that in Mythological fables that Gods and Myth characters can have Sons and siblings.

Do you still remember that Romulus the Son of a God and a Virgin had a human brother called Remus--See Plutarch's Romulus.

You Believe the Nonsense in Galatians 1.19 is an historical account.

A resurrected Ghost had a human brother-what Nonsense .

Keep using all of these arguments please.

They are hilarious.

Especially after everyone has explained to you why they are so stupid so many times.

How do you manage to do it?

 

[IanS]

Very ingenious. I'm showing that Paul could not by any standard of reasonableness have been correctly reporting the sources of his beliefs about Jesus, and that he reports contacts from which it is inconceivable that he obtained no information.

Your response? Redefine the question by saying the "prior claim" is the existence of Jesus, so you don't need to defend your absurd thesis about Paul. And you declare the issue to be "easily answered". Well it is if you "answer" it that way. Good show!

Not at all. Completely untrue. I have, since page one in all these threads, said very clearly where Paul claims that he obtained his Jesus beliefs.

Apart from believing that God had granted him the gift of witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul very clearly says that what he believed about Jesus was according to his understanding of scripture.

Paul believed that the true meaning of various passages in the ancient scriptures were actually revealing a messiah of the past called Jesus.

Paul thought God had revealed to him the true messiah by granting to him both a religious vision and the true understanding “hidden so long” in the scriptures.

Nobody needs to interpret any of that. Because it’s very clearly stated in the actual words of Paul's letters.

It does not mean Paul ever really saw a messiah risen from the dead. It does not mean God ever revealed anything to him. It does not mean that various passages in the obscurely and vaguely written ancient scripture really ever did pertain to a messiah named “Yehoshua”. It means that Paul simply believed those things - he believed that God had specially chosen him to reveal both the visions and the true messianic meaning “hidden so long” in the scriptures.


So, .... where is this evidence of Jesus then?

Who was it that ever credibly claimed to have met a living Jesus?

Who was it who reliably claimed to have seen the crucifixion and told Paul about it?

Where does Paul ever claim that other people had been the ones who told him about Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

A resurrected Ghost had a human brother-what Nonsense .

Yes it IS complete nonsense. So Jesus is depicted as a human being, as well as a supernatural entity. This is not a ghost.

Mark 6:6 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

So Jesus is not a pure supernatural being, in spite of what you have said a million times. He is, to a high degree of probability, a human being, to whom supernatural myths have attached themselves.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Do we have evidence anyone witnessed Jesus' crucifixion?

If you mean eyewitness testimony, then no, we have none. If you mean evidence, then yes, we observe traces of writing from an author who appears satisfied that Jesus was killed by some form of public "staking" shortly before the author launched a personal-service business to promote his views about the religious significance of the supposed event. The traces are from the late-career survivng correspondence of that business.

Some people will estimate that the business was more likely to flourish in possible worlds where the staking happened than in possible worlds where the staking did not happen. As with all evidence, estimate of bearing is subjective and will vary among persons.


Craig B

Very ingenious. I'm showing that Paul could not by any standard of reasonableness have been correctly reporting the sources of his beliefs about Jesus, ...

You have shown no such thing. Paul says he reflected about the meaning of events he believes actually to have occurred. His methods of reflection parallel how many people, from many different epochs and cultures, have found meaning in having survived other people's deaths.

Paul does not say plainly how he first learned about the alleged death whose meaning he pondered, however your hypothesis

...and that he reports contacts from which it is inconceivable that he obtained no information.

does, unlike your first statement, both correctly summarize Paul's reports of his own activities and also states a reasonable inference to be drawn from them.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha
If you mean eyewitness testimony, then no, we have none. If you mean evidence, then yes, we observe traces of writing from an author who appears satisfied that Jesus was killed by some form of public "staking" shortly before the author launched a personal-service business to promote his views about the religious significance of the supposed event. The traces are from the late-career survivng correspondence of that business.

Some people will estimate that the business was more likely to flourish in possible worlds where the staking happened than in possible worlds where the staking did not happen. As with all evidence, estimate of bearing is subjective and will vary among persons. ...

That was fun and I'll "stake" a virtual case of Dom that I'm not the only one who caught the reference!
I'm reading at another discussion group and came across references to the Epistles of John

In II John (apparently written in the late 1st century) there's this curious little passage:
"7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete."


Proponents of an HJ ask for evidence of an early belief in an MJ. I think I may have found traces of references to such a belief here:
"This was accomplished in the thinking of some by supposing that his divine nature or messiahship descended upon him at his baptism and left him just before his death upon the cross. They held that his sufferings were only seeming and not real, and hence were known as Docetists or "Seemists." Their views found expression some years later in the Gospel of Peter, A.D. 125-50, and in the Acts of John, ca. A.D. 160. In the Gospel of Peter, Jesus on the cross "held his peace, as though he felt no pain." His last cry was, "My power, my Power, you have forsaken me!" In the Acts of John, John says: "Sometimes when I would lay hold of him, I met with a material and solid body, and at other times again when I felt him, the substance was immaterial and as if it existed not at all." His feet left no footprints on the ground, chapter 93. He seemed sometimes tall, sometimes short. His breast was sometimes hard, sometimes tender, chapter 89. While he was apparently being crucified down in Jerusalem, John saw him and talked with him in a cave high above the city, and Jesus said to him, "John, unto the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am being crucified, and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar are given to me to drink. But I am speaking to you, and listen to what I say," chapter 97. "Nothing therefore of the things they will say of me have I suffered," chapter 101.

It was one of the purposes of the Gospel of John as it was of the Letters of Ignatius to repel such views. Ignatius writes to the Trallians, A.D. 107-17, "But if, as some affirm who are without God, that is, are unbelievers, his suffering was only a semblance (though it is they who are merely a semblance), why am I a prisoner?" Trallians, chapter 10."

www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch20.html

It seems there were people who believed in a mythical Jesus, even back in the day.
I daresay these snippets are well-known to everyone here, but they rather took me aback on a lazy Sunday.

Off to read more on the subject.

 

[Brainache]

That was fun and I'll "stake" a virtual case of Dom that I'm not the only one who caught the reference!
I'm reading at another discussion group and came across references to the Epistles of John

In II John (apparently written in the late 1st century) there's this curious little passage:
"7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete."


Proponents of an HJ ask for evidence of an early belief in an MJ. I think I may have found traces of references to such a belief here:
"This was accomplished in the thinking of some by supposing that his divine nature or messiahship descended upon him at his baptism and left him just before his death upon the cross. They held that his sufferings were only seeming and not real, and hence were known as Docetists or "Seemists." Their views found expression some years later in the Gospel of Peter, A.D. 125-50, and in the Acts of John, ca. A.D. 160. In the Gospel of Peter, Jesus on the cross "held his peace, as though he felt no pain." His last cry was, "My power, my Power, you have forsaken me!" In the Acts of John, John says: "Sometimes when I would lay hold of him, I met with a material and solid body, and at other times again when I felt him, the substance was immaterial and as if it existed not at all." His feet left no footprints on the ground, chapter 93. He seemed sometimes tall, sometimes short. His breast was sometimes hard, sometimes tender, chapter 89. While he was apparently being crucified down in Jerusalem, John saw him and talked with him in a cave high above the city, and Jesus said to him, "John, unto the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am being crucified, and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar are given to me to drink. But I am speaking to you, and listen to what I say," chapter 97. "Nothing therefore of the things they will say of me have I suffered," chapter 101.

It was one of the purposes of the Gospel of John as it was of the Letters of Ignatius to repel such views. Ignatius writes to the Trallians, A.D. 107-17, "But if, as some affirm who are without God, that is, are unbelievers, his suffering was only a semblance (though it is they who are merely a semblance), why am I a prisoner?" Trallians, chapter 10."

www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch20.html

It seems there were people who believed in a mythical Jesus, even back in the day.
I daresay these snippets are well-known to everyone here, but they rather took me aback on a lazy Sunday.

Off to read more on the subject.

Isn't this part of that "Evolving Christology" that we talked about earlier?

The Synoptics show no sign of this "Myth Jesus", it is only later in the 2nd and third century stuff that he starts showing up.

That's generations after the Jesus story had been introduced to Greco-Roman culture.

If you can find evidence of this Myth Jesus before the late 2nd Century, you will give a huge boost to the MJ crowd, they haven't found any so far.