Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Have you actually read any of Ehrman's books? I ask because your statement gives the impression that you've read straw-man versions of what others claim he says,but are unfamiliar with the complexities of what he's actually argued.

I've read several of his books written at the layman's level, and I have no recollection of him ever stating that, "Jesus must have existed because the supposed Paul claimed he met his brother" . Perhaps you could cite a source for such a statement?

I do recall him mentioning the peculiarly of Paul going out of his way to argue as to why his readers should accept his account of Jesus's purpose over the contradictory accounts of people who actually knew him in life. And I recall him pointing out that you can read between the lines of his account of his meeting with Jesus's actual compatriots and see that they were probably happy to see the back of him after agreeing that he should concentrate his efforts on converting gentiles to his version of Jesus's message. But I have never seen him state anything like the argument that you've attributed to him.

Well, based on your post you have not read or have forgotten what is found in Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? -the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman argues that Jesus existed based on the claim in Galatians 1.18-19 that the so-called Paul stated he met James the Lord's brother.

 

[dejudge]

OK. The seven letters are in all probability by the same author because of the similarity of literary structure and style and the use of a common vocabulary, idioms, common phrases and sentence structure etc – as previously argued.

Again, the claim that seven letters were probably written by the same person is not evidence that they were actually written by Paul especially when there is no way it can be shown that the character Paul actually lived at anytime and anywhere.

The character called Paul is without historical corroboration and is found in either fiction stories, forgeries and false attribution.

I can only go by what scholars, who have greater expertise in higher criticism than I tell me. Who do you go by?

There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul.

 

[Senex]

I'm not going into the weeds and arguing this one. I'm just saying that some people who I believed to be non-religious people (not even necessarily Christians) have raised their voice at me over this topic (and they hadn't before). I was surprised.

The evidence is pretty underwhelming that Jesus was around. (in my opinion).

 

[abaddon]

I'm not going into the weeds and arguing this one. I'm just saying that some people who I believed to be non-religious people (not even necessarily Christians) have raised their voice at me over this topic (and they hadn't before). I was surprised.

The evidence is pretty underwhelming that Jesus was around. (in my opinion).

I believe that may be an irrational reaction to the simple fact that "jesus" has been embedded in culture for so long that it is ridiculously difficult to shake it off.

There could have been a historical jesus, or bunch of jesus's or no jesus at all.

There were plenty of candidates in that place and time. ben yair, kochba and so on all preaching the end times were imminent that we know actually existed for certain. I have no problem with the notion that "jesus" is a post hoc mash up of those, but I am certainly not emotionally invested in the idea beyond considering it plausible.

dejudge is quite amusing though. Anytime anyone disagrees with him, he has a little meltdown, stamps his feet and hurls insults. I find myself wondering why is it that he is so invested emotionally. It doesn't really matter why he is. As an atheist, none of it matters to me. But it sure is funny to observe.

 

[Senex]

I believe that may be an irrational reaction to the simple fact that "jesus" has been embedded in culture for so long that it is ridiculously difficult to shake it off.

There could have been a historical jesus, or bunch of jesus's or no jesus at all.

There were plenty of candidates in that place and time. ben yair, kochba and so on all preaching the end times were imminent that we know actually existed for certain. I have no problem with the notion that "jesus" is a post hoc mash up of those, but I am certainly not emotionally invested in the idea beyond considering it plausible.

dejudge is quite amusing though. Anytime anyone disagrees with him, he has a little meltdown, stamps his feet and hurls insults. I find myself wondering why is it that he is so invested emotionally. It doesn't really matter why he is. As an atheist, none of it matters to me. But it sure is funny to observe.

I can't speak for dejudge. However my friends who raised their voice at me are another matter. I ask them about the Exodus. The Exodus is clearly indefensible on a historical level and that doesn't stop them from regurgitating things that are historically bulloney.

What can you do?

 

[ahhell]

dejudge is quite amusing though. Anytime anyone disagrees with him, he has a little meltdown, stamps his feet and hurls insults. I find myself wondering why is it that he is so invested emotionally. It doesn't really matter why he is. As an atheist, none of it matters to me. But it sure is funny to observe.

I can't speak for dejudge. However my friends who raised their voice at me are another matter. I ask them about the Exodus. The Exodus is clearly indefensible on a historical level and that doesn't stop them from regurgitating things that are historically bulloney.

What can you do?

Its an interesting question to me. I kind of get why the religious get emotionally invested, and to some extent, why even the non-religious who have been raised in Judea Christian Muslim religions are somewhat invested in the historocity of the stories they were raised with. I really am perplexed why someone would be so invested in the non-existance.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, based on your post you have not read or have forgotten what is found in Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? -the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman argues that Jesus existed based on the claim in Galatians 1.18-19 that the so-called Paul stated he met James the Lord's brother.

You're beating a strawman. He didn't say that Paul claiming to have met Jesus's brother was epistemological proof that Jesus existed. He stated that the fact that Paul mentioned meeting Jesus's compatriots and felt compelled to make excuses for why they were telling others within the Jewish communities that Paul had it all wrong was supporting evidence for them having been real people, because if Paul was fabricating these individuals why wouldn't he claim that they endorsed his interpretation? Paul basically says to his readers, "now I know the people who actually knew him when he was alive are telling you I'm full of ****, but bear with me...".

So, how many of Ehrman's works have you actually read?

 

[smartcooky]

There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul.

And there might also be Scholars who argue and have argued that the Pauline Epistles might not be forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul

He asked you "who do you go by", not "what do you think"!

Which scholars are arguing "that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul"?

Name them (state your source)

Explain why we should believe those scholars over other scholars who argue differently!

 

[dejudge]

You're beating a strawman. He didn't say that Paul claiming to have met Jesus's brother was epistemological proof that Jesus existed. He stated that the fact that Paul mentioned meeting Jesus's compatriots and felt compelled to make excuses for why they were telling others within the Jewish communities that Paul had it all wrong was supporting evidence for them having been real people, because if Paul was fabricating these individuals why wouldn't he claim that they endorsed his interpretation? Paul basically says to his readers, "now I know the people who actually knew him when he was alive are telling you I'm full of ****, but bear with me...".

So, how many of Ehrman's works have you actually read?

You don't know what you are talking about.

You have not read or cannot remember what is found in Ehrman's Did Jesus exist? Chapter 4" The evidence for Jesus from outside the Gospels" pages 94-141,

Ehrman argues that Jesus existed because Paul knew he had a family and that he had brothers one of whom was James.

 

[dejudge]

And there might also be Scholars who argue and have argued that the Pauline Epistles might not be forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul

He asked you "who do you go by", not "what do you think"!

Which scholars are arguing "that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul"?

Name them (state your source)

Explain why we should believe those scholars over other scholars who argue differently!

What absurd questions!!! I have stated "millions" of times that I do not deal with what plenty people believe!!!

Telling me that plenty plenty Scholars believe anything without evidence is completely worthless, wasting time.

I deal specifically with historical corroboration, historical evidence, for Jesus, the disciples and Paul and none can be found.

My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

Based on my sources, there is no historical evidence whatsoever anywhere that Jesus, the disciples and Paul ever existed but were invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

any one of the other letters (the “fakes”) is just as likely to be from Paul as any of the “authentic” ones.

In which case, if the “genuine” letters are actually “fakes”, then how can you decide that anything said in those letters about Jesus was reliable or historical at all?

You can't. But you can be sure that anything said in the fakes is not reliable. So if they are all fakes...

As for Biblical Scholars, the “fact” about that is that almost none of them can claim to be impartial. As lifelong Christian believers they are all very “partial” indeed, to put put it mildly.

Correct. Nobody who has been touched by Christianity can be totally impartial - even those of us who purport to be life-long atheists.

I can take it or leave it. If it was all made up, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

If it was an amalgam of various apocalytic preachers, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

If it was entirely made up out of whole cloth, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

But "demonstrating a god that I don't believe in" is not supposed to be the goal. A historical Jesus is by definition not a god. Perhaps you think theists would try to use it as a wedge, and you would be right. But it won't affect your belief so why worry?

A supernatural Jesus is impossible and therefore of little interest, but the existence (or not) of a historical Jesus could help us understand how some of the most popular and influential religions got going. You don't have to believe any of the religious mumbo jumbo to take an interest in that.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I deal specifically with historical corroboration, historical evidence, for Jesus, the disciples and Paul and none can be found.

My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

Based on my sources, there is no historical evidence whatsoever anywhere that Jesus, the disciples and Paul ever existed but were invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

Fair enough. Those who disagree should provide their own sources to refute your analysis, or shut up. Who's got something?

 

[smartcooky]

What absurd questions!!! I have stated "millions" of times that I do not deal with what plenty people believe!!!

Telling me that plenty plenty Scholars believe anything without evidence is completely worthless, wasting time.

I deal specifically with historical corroboration, historical evidence, for Jesus, the disciples and Paul and none can be found.

My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

Based on my sources, there is no historical evidence whatsoever anywhere that Jesus, the disciples and Paul ever existed but were invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

All irrelevant drivel which you are spouting to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions you have been asked.

It is not absurd to ask you cite your sources... not some airy fairy BS about the "the writings of antiquity" and then rattle off a few impressive sounding names from history

You said "There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul."

Tassman said "I can only go by what scholars, who have greater expertise in higher criticism than I tell me"

Then Tassman asked "Who do you go by?"

Answer the bloody question - don't dodge!

 

[dejudge]

All irrelevant drivel which you are spouting to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions you have been asked.

It is not absurd to ask you cite your sources... not some airy fairy BS about the "the writings of antiquity" and then rattle off a few impressive sounding names from history

You said "There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul."

Tassman said "I can only go by what scholars, who have greater expertise in higher criticism than I tell me"

Then Tassman asked "Who do you go by?"

Answer the bloody question - don't dodge!

Don't you understand English?? Can't you read??/

I GO BY EVIDENCE not by WHO!!!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Don't you understand English?? Can't you read??/

I GO BY EVIDENCE not by WHO!!!

You should try posting a numbered list of assertions pretending to be facts. You know, change things up a little. That'll show 'em.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't you understand English?? Can't you read??/

I can read just fine, but your ability to do so is at least questionabe

I GO BY EVIDENCE not by WHO!!!

Does that include any old evidence from any old source?

How do you determine the veracity of this evidence?

Do you check to see if the evidence is coming from a reliable source?

Most people look at WHO is providing this evidence to determine whether he/she is a credible source.

So again, I ask WHO is providing the evidence for your claim that "There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul."

Who are these scholars? Name them and show us where they said "all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul", and this time, no dodging. I am prepared to keep asking you this question until you run out of dodges. If you keep dodging, and keep refusing to answer, I will be forced to conclude that the reason you don't answer is because you can't.

 

[Tassman]

Don't you understand English?? Can't you read??/

I GO BY EVIDENCE not by WHO!!!

I too go by evidence. But, I am untrained in Historical/Critical methodology and Higher Criticism so my evidence can only be from those are are so trained. And the majority consensus among scholars is that the seven Pauline epistles considered authentic are by the same author and that there is no good reason to think they were not written by Paul.

So, what evidence do you go by when you insist that the "authentic epistles" are NOT authentic and that Paul was not the author of any of them - indeed that Paul did not even exist.

 

[dejudge]

Does that include any old evidence from any old source?

How do you determine the veracity of this evidence?

Do you check to see if the evidence is coming from a reliable source?

I have already listed some of my sources from antiquity which are also used by Scholars.

Most people look at WHO is providing this evidence to determine whether he/she is a credible source.

Again, I have listed some of my sources of antiquity if you know that they are not credible then you can simply show which ones are not.

So again, I ask WHO is providing the evidence for your claim that "There are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul."

My statement is true!!

Who are these scholars? Name them and show us where they said "all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul", and this time, no dodging. I am prepared to keep asking you this question until you run out of dodges. If you keep dodging, and keep refusing to answer, I will be forced to conclude that the reason you don't answer is because you can't.

You don't know what you are talking about. Please do some research instead of asking the same questions over and over.

 

[dejudge]

I too go by evidence. But, I am untrained in Historical/Critical methodology and Higher Criticism so my evidence can only be from those are are so trained. And the majority consensus among scholars is that the seven Pauline epistles considered authentic are by the same author and that there is no good reason to think they were not written by Paul.

No, No, No!!!! You have never provided any historical evidence for your claims about Jesus and Paul. There is none.

You rely on the opinions of plenty people.

What plenty people believe is not evidence. .

You very well know that there is no mention, no historical evidence, whatsoever of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul in any non-apologetic writing in the 1st century.

There is nothing at all in the supposed Pauline Epistles to show that any of them were written in the 50's and actually written by a real person named Paul.

There is nothing at all even in the entire NT to corroborate a single Pauline Epistle.

So, what evidence do you go by when you insist that the "authentic epistles" are NOT authentic and that Paul was not the author of any of them - indeed that Paul did not even exist.

I have already listed some of my sources from antiquity which were used to support my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed.

 

[smartcooky]

I have already listed some of my sources from antiquity which are also used by Scholars.

Again, I have listed some of my sources of antiquity if you know that they are not credible then you can simply show which ones are not.

OK, well I think there are Scholars who argue and have argued that all the Pauline Epistles are not forgeries and are correctly ttributed to Paul.

Those sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

See how that doesn't work?

My statement is true!!

Si its true just because you say its true?

You don't know what you are talking about. Please do some research instead of asking the same questions over and over.

Another dodge!

Its not a matter of "knowing what I am talking about"!

I am asking you a question. Can you, or can you not, provide a scholarly source (other than your own personal belief) which states that "all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul" or something similar to that. Just one will do for a start - a link to a scholarly source, or even a book, chapter & page with the name of the author?