Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

That is crackers. Paul describes contact with the James group. But we must reject any idea that he obtained information from them unless and until we find a written declaration by one of this group that they gave Paul such information. Eh? They go on a jaunt to Antioch. Paul with Barnabas, sent from Jerusalem, and "prophets" sent from Jerusalem, in the common task of preaching in Antioch; but unless we find a letter from Barnabas, or from one or more of the prophets, stating what they told Paul, we must assume that Paul received no information from them?

Your post has exposed your problem. You assume you know what happened, you assume you know when it happened and you assume you know how it happened.

It is totally illogical that the Pauline writers must have received information about Jesus the Last Adam, the Spirit, from people of Jerusalem when it is stated that he KNEW of gLuke.

Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul KNEW gLuke. See Church History 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew 1.

Your assumptions are worthless.

The Pauline Corpus is riddled with forgeries, fiction, discrepancies, historical problems and without corroboration in the NT itself.

How many times must you be shown that the very Church writers ADMITTED the Pauline writers KNEW the Gospel of Luke?

Christians today can learn about the Jesus stories from the Gospel of gLuke just like the Pauline writers.



[Church History 6

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' 1 Peter 5:13

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

 

[Craig B]

I never said Paul had “consulted” those people or anyone else to learn about Jesus.

Please quote where I ever said Paul had "consulted" anyone in Jerusalem in order to learn about them meeting Jesus.

You said he didn't consult anyone; then you said

Well of course he might have obtained information from them in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah

Now here is the task I am setting for you. Tell me the difference between "consulting" and "obtaining information in the sense of them all discussing".

"Did you consult the doctor about the pain in your neck?"
"No, I obtained information from him about the pain in my neck, in the sense of discussing it with him."

Mmm, well ...

 

[dejudge]

According to Acts, Paul received a commission from the High Priest in Jerusalem to persecute followers of the Cult. He apparently beat and tortured them. I'm guessing he might learn some of their Theology that way, if it ever happened.

Well, you are exposing that the Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible.

In Galatians 1 a Pauline writer claimed he did NOT consult with Flesh and Blood when God called him to reveal his Son.

Paul talks of spending time with Cephas and James in Jerusalem (several weeks in fact) early in his career. A new Convert with two of the heads of the Cult, and you don't think they talked about their recently executed friend "Jesus"? Really?

It is very good that say what you would expect Paul to do but there is a massive problem--Paul said no such thing.

Paul CERTIFIED that he was NOT taught the Gospel, that he did NOT get his Gospel from any man but from revelation of Jesus.

The Pauline writers did NOT need the supposed early Apostles.

The Pauline writers needed a non-historical resurrected character from the start of his career.

It was the resurrected Spirit that revealed the Gospel to the Pauline writers.

If it was not a resurrected Ghost then the Pauline writers are Liars.

What else did the Pauline writers lie about?

They lied about what they Saw and heard of Jesus when he was a Spirit.

 

[Brainache]

Well, you are exposing that the Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible.

In Galatians 1 a Pauline writer claimed he did NOT consult with Flesh and Blood when God called him to reveal his Son.



It is very good that say what you would expect Paul to do but there is a massive problem--Paul said no such thing.

Paul CERTIFIED that he was NOT taught the Gospel, that he did NOT get his Gospel from any man but from revelation of Jesus.

The Pauline writers did NOT need the supposed early Apostles.

The Pauline writers needed a non-historical resurrected character from the start of his career.

It was the resurrected Spirit that revealed the Gospel to the Pauline writers.

If it was not a resurrected Ghost then the Pauline writers are Liars.

What else did the Pauline writers lie about?

They lied about what they Saw and heard of Jesus when he was a Spirit.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

It isn't.

You keep repeating the same idiotic statements over and over. The result won't change, they are just as useless now as they ever were.

These objections appear to be based on a crazed need to deny.

How else can you explain this bizarre reasoning? It certainly won't convince me, who do you think it will convince?

 

[dejudge]

It is very good that you say what you would expect Paul to do but there is a massive problem--Paul said no such thing.

Paul CERTIFIED that he was NOT taught the Gospel, that he did NOT get his Gospel from any man but from revelation of Jesus.

The Pauline writers did NOT need the supposed early Apostles.

The Pauline writers needed a non-historical resurrected character from the start of his career.

It was the resurrected Spirit that revealed the Gospel to the Pauline writers.

If it was not a resurrected Ghost then the Pauline writers are Liars.

What else did the Pauline writers lie about?

They lied about what they Saw and heard of Jesus when he was a Spirit.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

It isn't.

Your question is not an argument. It does not make sense.

You keep repeating the same idiotic statements over and over. The result won't change, they are just as useless now as they ever were.

You keep repeating the same useless sentences which are void of logic and cannot present a shred of evidence from the 1st century for your obscure preacher.

We know the history of the Quest for an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ is an established disaster with multiple failures with multiple irreconcilable unevidenced versions of HJ.

These objections appear to be based on a crazed need to deny.

It is well established that NO HJ has ever been found. Up to recently it is speculated that Jesus was a Zealot based on imagination.

People who argue for an HJ MUST believe the Bible is an historical credible source for Jesus and must do so without corroborative evidence.

How else can you explain this bizarre reasoning? It certainly won't convince me, who do you think it will convince?

You have not even convinced yourself that Jesus of the NT was a real human being. In the last poll in this very forum you did NOT vote for an HJ.

The HJ argument is a well established did end argument which you cannot solve.

The Jesus character is just a Glorified Ghost invented in the 2nd century or later and spread by gullible illiterates.

 

[Brainache]

It is very good that you say what you would expect Paul to do but there is a massive problem--Paul said no such thing.

Paul CERTIFIED that he was NOT taught the Gospel, that he did NOT get his Gospel from any man but from revelation of Jesus.

The Pauline writers did NOT need the supposed early Apostles.

The Pauline writers needed a non-historical resurrected character from the start of his career.

It was the resurrected Spirit that revealed the Gospel to the Pauline writers.

If it was not a resurrected Ghost then the Pauline writers are Liars.

What else did the Pauline writers lie about?

They lied about what they Saw and heard of Jesus when he was a Spirit.





Your question is not an argument. It does not make sense.



You keep repeating the same useless sentences which are void of logic and cannot present a shred of evidence from the 1st century for your obscure preacher.

We know the history of the Quest for an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ is an established disaster with multiple failures with multiple irreconcilable unevidenced versions of HJ.




It is well established that NO HJ has ever been found. Up to recently it is speculated that Jesus was a Zealot based on imagination.

People who argue for an HJ MUST believe the Bible is an historical credible source for Jesus and must do so without corroborative evidence.



You have not even convinced yourself that Jesus of the NT was a real human being. In the last poll in this very forum you did NOT vote for an HJ.

The HJ argument is a well established did end argument which you cannot solve.

The Jesus character is just a Glorified Ghost invented in the 2nd century or later and spread by gullible illiterates.

Your opinion has been noted.

Your opinion has been disregarded for the ignorant posturing that it is.

Thank you for playing.

 

[dejudge]

It is well established that NO HJ has ever been found. Up to recently it is speculated that Jesus was a Zealot based on imagination.

People who argue for an HJ MUST believe the Bible is an historical credible source for Jesus and must do so without corroborative evidence.



You have not even convinced yourself that Jesus of the NT was a real human being. In the last poll in this very forum you did NOT vote for an HJ.

The HJ argument is a well established did end argument which you cannot solve.

The Jesus character is just a Glorified Ghost invented in the 2nd century or later and spread by gullible illiterates.

Your opinion has been noted.

Your opinion has been disregarded for the ignorant posturing that it is.

Thank you for playing.

Everybody knows what you are attempting to do. It won't work. Your logical fallacies and mis-representation of the NT has run its course.

The HJ argument has been exposed as baseless assumptions without a shred of actual supporting evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

ALL existing writings, every single manuscript, every codex, every apologetic text, about the Jesus story and cult are dated in the 2nd century or later.

The Entire NT is a compilation of forgeries or falsely attributed writings with fake authors posing as pre 70 CE writers.

There was NEVER any pre 70 CE history of Jesus and the Jesus cult as the existing evidence shows.

After hundreds of years of SEARCHING for an HJ all the QUESTERS have are multiple irreconcilable unevidenced versions of HJ.

The HJ argument was dead in the water as soon as it was discovered that "Paul" was a LIAR.

The Pauline Corpus is fundamentally a Pack of Lies about a non-historical resurrection.

 

[IanS]

You said he didn't consult anyone; ...

You actually cannot tell the truth about anything in these HJ threads can you.

I never said he "consulted" anyone.

then you said

Well of course he might have obtained information from them in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah

Now here is the task I am setting for you. Tell me the difference between "consulting" and "obtaining information in the sense of them all discussing".

Where did you get that above highlighted quote from me? I did not say that at all.

You just invented that quote, didn’t you!

Now you are flat-out creating quotes that never existed. It was not my words to say “he obtained information” about Jesus from anyone. If you had honestly quoted what I said, then in that post I was only quoting where you had previously said that he might have “obtained information” about Jesus … that was a quote of your words, not mine! But you just quoted me above as if it was me who had said Paul “obtained information” about Jesus. You deliberately invented that quote.

Here is the actual exchange, which makes crystal clear that I was only quoting where you had just said he “obtained information”. And where I deliberately qualified that saying that it could only be as you had put it “obtaining information”, in the sense of them discussing their religious beliefs, but not in the sense of them informing Paul about personally meeting Jesus (which was what you had claimed).


The first post and reply was this -

But if his belief about revelations from God was false, why should his belief that he didn't receive information from any living people (which is grossly improbable) be true?

And it is not "grossly improbable" that Paul would not have "received information from any living people". He might have had all sorts of discussions with other people about his beliefs and about their beliefs. But that is, as I say, a million miles from you claiming that these other people must have personally known Jesus and told Paul about witnessing Jesus. Because there is zero evidence of anyone even ever credibly claiming to have met Jesus, let alone any evidence of any of them writing to say they had told Paul all about it. So as I said before, any suggestion of that sort is total non-starter anyway.

And then followed the post and reply below which you are now deliberately misrepresenting by trying to change the quote -

That is crackers. Paul describes contact with the James group. But we must reject any idea that he obtained information from them unless and until we find a written declaration by one of this group that they gave Paul such information. Eh? They go on a jaunt to Antioch. Paul with Barnabas, sent from Jerusalem, and "prophets" sent from Jerusalem, in the common task of preaching in Antioch; but unless we find a letter from Barnabas, or from one or more of the prophets, stating what they told Paul, we must assume that Paul received no information from them?

Of course it is not crackers. You are talking about Paul "obtaining information from them". Well of course he might have "obtained information from them" in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah. But there is precisely zero evidence that they could have ever discussed any more than their religious beliefs!

You are trying to claim that you have evidence to show that these people had much more than just their beliefs, and that in fact they had known Jesus and told Paul about it. But you have absolutely no evidence of any such thing. If you claim anything at all like that you are most certainly guilty of just making it up lol.

Why can’t you ever provide any evidence at all to support your claims about people meeting Jesus and telling Paul about it?

Where is your evidence please?

You have no credible evidence of anyone ever meeting a living Jesus at all do you! You have been asked countless times, and always come up entirely empty handed. No such evidence at all. Ever.

Can you quote anyone who ever wrote to credibly claim they had met Jesus, Yes or No?

Can you quote where Paul ever claimed that he had learned about Jesus because people in Jerusalem had met Jesus and told him about it, Yes or No?

 

[Craig B]

Where did you get that above highlighted quote from me? I did not say that at all.

You just invented that quote, didn’t you!

Now you are flat-out creating quotes that never existed.

It's in your post # 4974.

Of course it is not crackers. You are talking about Paul "obtaining information from them". Well of course he might have "obtained information from them" in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah. But there is precisely zero evidence that they could have ever discussed any more than their religious beliefs!

 

[IanS]

It's in your post # 4974.

No it is not in post #4974.

What I said in post #4974, is that your words had said quote “obtained information from them” … in that post I put quotes around those words to show I was quoting your words back to you, and said that it could only be “obtained information” (as you had put it) in the sense that of course they may have simply discussed their religious beliefs … but absolutely not in the sense you were claiming where you claimed they had met Jesus and were telling Paul about personally witnessing Jesus, because there is zero evidence for that. Here yet again is the actual quote, which you then re-quoted but taking off my quote marks showing that they were actually your words and not mine! -

Of course it is not crackers. You are talking about Paul "obtaining information from them". Well of course he might have "obtained information from them" in the sense of them all discussing what they believed about the messiah. But there is precisely zero evidence that they could have ever discussed any more than their religious beliefs!

It seems you simply cannot tell the truth in these HJ threads. And you keep repeatedly misquoting people, and now descending to a new “low” by actually altering peoples quotes.

You have been repeatedly asked to support your constant claims of people meeting Jesus and telling Paul about it, with any evidence of any of them credibly writing to say any such thing at all. And you have failed completely every time even to acknowledge that you are posting complete invented untruths for which you can never present any quoted evidence at all.


Where are your quotes showing, as you keep claiming, that any of those Jerusalem people ever wrote to credibly claim they had personally met Jesus?

Where is the evidence of Paul’s letters ever saying he obtained his knowledge of Jesus because people he met in Jerusalem had personally witnessed Jesus and told Paul about it? Where is that? Quote it!

You are trying to invent Jesus by making totally untrue claims with absolutely no evidence at all, whilst also now altering peoples quotes and claiming they said things which in fact you had said!

 

[Belz...]

It is well established that NO HJ has ever been found.

You mean they didn't find a body ? Don't hold your breath.

 

[dejudge]

You mean they didn't find a body ? Don't hold your breath.

Hold yours.

They found the Shroud of Turin.

Everything they find for Jesus is FAKE.

Truly, this "man" was a HOAX.

HJ means Hoax Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Hold yours.

They found the Shroud of Turin.

Everything they find for Jesus is FAKE.

Truly, this "man" was a HOAX.

HJ means Hoax Jesus.

We already know your opinion on this, Dejudge.

 

[Craig B]

... Can you quote where Paul ever claimed that he had learned about Jesus because people in Jerusalem had met Jesus and told him about it, Yes or No?

I keep telling you, on the contrary. I can quote Paul telling us he encountered a Jesus in the sky; that he received messages direct from god; and that he obtained inexpressible information in the third heaven. So that's where he really got his understanding, you believe? Fine.

On the way to sainthood, you are.

 

[dejudge]

I keep telling you, on the contrary. I can quote Paul telling us he encountered a Jesus in the sky; that he received messages direct from god; and that he obtained inexpressible information in the third heaven. So that's where he really got his understanding, you believe? Fine.

On the way to sainthood, you are.

You have been shown that Paul also claimed to have received information from SCRIPTURES about the death and resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day.

The SCRIPTURES that claim Jesus died for OUR SINS and Resurrected on the THIRD day is found in the Canonised Gospels including gLuke.

1 Corinthians 15

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

The Pauline writers knew gLuke.

If you think the Pauline writers did not know of the Scriptures in gLuke then you are NOT familiar with writings of antiquity.

The Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture do NOT contain the Blasphemy that a man died for the Sins of Jews and that he resurrected on the Third day.

Church History 6

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew............ The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter...... And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

 

[Brainache]

So IanS and Dejudge, can you show us where in SCRIPTURE it says anything about what Jesus teaches regarding marriage?

Can you show us the part of OT SCRIPTURE where Paul got the bit about Jesus passing around bread and wine, and making a little speech on the night he was "delivered up"?

Just those two will do for starters...

Chapter and verse please.

 

[IanS]

I keep telling you, on the contrary. I can quote Paul telling us he encountered a Jesus in the sky; that he received messages direct from god; and that he obtained inexpressible information in the third heaven. So that's where he really got his understanding, you believe? Fine.

On the way to sainthood, you are.

To be honest with you Craig, I really think you should quit trying misquote people, and particularly where you even feel you have to alter their posts.

That combined with you attempting maintain the argument that people in Jerusalem had actually met Jesus, just makes your position look sad and delusional to put it kindly.

But I have no wish to rub that in by extending this cringe-worthy spectacle any further at your expense.

The plain and unarguable fact of the matter is that you very obviously cannot quote anyone in support of your claims, nobody who ever wrote to say they had met Jesus and told Paul all about it. Far less can you find Paul ever saying any such thing.

If HJ people here wanted to be at all honest with themselves, one thing they should have noticed from those last cringe-worthy exchanges, is that far from you ever trying to look objectively for any evidence of a human Jesus, what you are very clearly doing is simply assuming that Jesus did exist, and then saying to yourself that people in Jerusalem must therefore have surely met him and must have then told Paul about meeting him. That can only be based on your prior assumption that Jesus existed … for which you have no credible evidence at all (e.g. you cannot cite a single person who ever credibly claimed to have met Jesus).

As I said about 50 pages back (and indeed about half way through the old Piggy thread), there is actually nothing left to say in any of these threads for the simple reason that the HJ side can never produce even the most microscopic spec of evidence for anyone credibly claiming ever to have met a human Jesus.

There simply is no genuine evidence. And after so many thousands of pages, it’s probably a pretty safe bet that nobody here is ever going to honestly post any such evidence.

 

[The Norseman]

You mean they didn't find a body ? Don't hold your breath.

Right, no body but strangely enough, three foreskins have been recovered and promptly put on display. Go figure.

 

[Brainache]

To be honest with you Craig, I really think you should quit trying misquote people, and particularly where you even feel you have to alter their posts.

That combined with you attempting maintain the argument that people in Jerusalem had actually met Jesus, just makes your position look sad and delusional to put it kindly.

But I have no wish to rub that in by extending this cringe-worthy spectacle any further at your expense.

The plain and unarguable fact of the matter is that you very obviously cannot quote anyone in support of your claims, nobody who ever wrote to say they had met Jesus and told Paul all about it. Far less can you find Paul ever saying any such thing.

If HJ people here wanted to be at all honest with themselves, one thing they should have noticed from those last cringe-worthy exchanges, is that far from you ever trying to look objectively for any evidence of a human Jesus, what you are very clearly doing is simply assuming that Jesus did exist, and then saying to yourself that people in Jerusalem must therefore have surely met him and must have then told Paul about meeting him. That can only be based on your prior assumption that Jesus existed … for which you have no credible evidence at all (e.g. you cannot cite a single person who ever credibly claimed to have met Jesus).

As I said about 50 pages back (and indeed about half way through the old Piggy thread), there is actually nothing left to say in any of these threads for the simple reason that the HJ side can never produce even the most microscopic spec of evidence for anyone credibly claiming ever to have met a human Jesus.

There simply is no genuine evidence. And after so many thousands of pages, it’s probably a pretty safe bet that nobody here is ever going to honestly post any such evidence.

So you've decided that Pythagoras and all of the pre-socratic Greek Philosophers didn't exist.

You've decided that any person in Ancient History not directly attested by original manuscript or archaeological artifact didn't exist.

You have decided the standard of evidence acceptable in the study of Ancient History.

You'd better get on the phone and inform all of the Ancient Historians in the entire world that you have just radically altered their Profession.

Maybe then some Historians can sort out Theoretical Physics for you.

That would be fair.

 

[Elagabalus]

To be honest with you Craig, I really think you should quit trying misquote people, and particularly where you even feel you have to alter their posts.

That combined with you attempting maintain the argument that people in Jerusalem had actually met Jesus, just makes your position look sad and delusional to put it kindly.

But I have no wish to rub that in by extending this cringe-worthy spectacle any further at your expense....

Actually, what's cringe-worthy is your absolute lack of knowledge about any of the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (19) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

I think that at some point of time in those fifteen days the topic of Jesus probably came up.

As an aside, if I told you that I had a brother would you then ask me if I had met him?