HI! Just joined as I am researching the historicity of Jesus

[hedrick]

And the point of this is?

I also agree with Ehrman in both those quotes.

Actually I wonder whether the second quote is a complete statement of Ehrman's view. It's pretty well accepted that Matthew and Luke used a common source. It's also obvious that Luke used Mark. So he can't have written all the speeches. It's reasonable to say that he edited them. That would have been typical of historians. People didn't carry iPhones capable of recording everything they heard. That led to a less literal concept of what it means to say what Jesus taught.

 

[Jezabella]

And the point of this is?

I also agree with Ehrman in both those quotes.

The point was that we don't really know what Ehrman believes because one minute he appears to be agnostic, the next he speaks like a Christian.

 

[JackRT]

The point was that we don't really know what Ehrman believes because one minute he appears to be agnostic, the next he speaks like a Christian.

I don't know his faith stance either but he is a first rate Bible scholar who is not afraid to state his opinions openly.

 

[hedrick]

The point was that we don't really know what Ehrman believes because one minute he appears to be agnostic, the next he speaks like a Christian.

Ehrman started out as a fundamentalist Christian. When he started studying the Bible he found that inerrancy isn't consistent with the evidence. He became a liberal Christian. He wrote a well-known textbook on the NT at that point.

However he later became an atheist. His popular books were all written as an atheist. The book that's relevant to this discussion is "Did Jesus Exist?" It was written as an atheist. He got tired of having people assume that because he's an atheist he didn't think Jesus existed. So the book describes the evidence we have about Jesus.

The main problem I have about the book is that he sees Jesus as saying that the world was about to end, which of course it didn't. That view was common among critics in the early 20th Cent, but is not so common now, even among critical scholars.

 

[Jezabella]

I don't know his faith stance either but he is a first rate Bible scholar who is not afraid to state his opinions openly.

Indeed, and he has openly shown us that despite his extensive research and knowledge on the Bible, both as a Christian and as an agnostic, he remains uncertain about Jesus.

BTW, I invited Jehovah's Witnesses in when they knocked on my door and from them, I learned that nowhere in the New Testament does it say Jesus died on a cross. The Greek word used as "staurus", which translates to "stake" or something upright like a tree. This astounded me considering the crucifix is the universal symbol of Christianity, recognized in every country, regardless of their own religion.

I come from a Catholic background and I wish I could turn back the clock to the daily Catechism classes .... armed with all these questions.

 

[Jezabella]

Ehrman started out as a fundamentalist Christian. When he started studying the Bible he found that inerrancy isn't consistent with the evidence. He became a liberal Christian. He wrote a well-known textbook on the NT at that point.

However he later became an atheist. His popular books were all written as an atheist. The book that's relevant to this discussion is "Did Jesus Exist?" It was written as an atheist. He got tired of having people assume that because he's an atheist he didn't think Jesus existed. So the book describes the evidence we have about Jesus.

Firstly - not sure but - I don't think he ever said he was an atheist. He did say he was agnostic, which is a marked difference.

I did feel that this verbatim quote from him implied Jesus never existed.

The main problem I have about the book is that he sees Jesus as saying that the world was about to end, which of course it didn't. That view was common among critics in the early 20th Cent, but is not so common now, even among critical scholars.

There are still a lot of Christians who believe the end is imminent. You'll find them on Facebook .. lol

 

[JackRT]

Indeed, and he has openly shown us that despite his extensive research and knowledge on the Bible, both as a Christian and as an agnostic, he remains uncertain about Jesus.

BTW, I invited Jehovah's Witnesses in when they knocked on my door and from them, I learned that nowhere in the New Testament does it say Jesus died on a cross. The Greek word used as "staurus", which translates to "stake" or something upright like a tree. This astounded me considering the crucifix is the universal symbol of Christianity, recognized in every country, regardless of their own religion.

I come from a Catholic background and I wish I could turn back the clock to the daily Catechism classes .... armed with all these questions.

Yes, the words stake or tree are frequently used. My understanding is that the stake was permanently set in the ground. The victim was then nailed or roped to the cross piece. The nails were through the wrists as the palms would tear through easily. There may have also been a wooden disk or washer to protect against tearing through. The cross piece was then hoisted and affixed to the top of the stake. The legs were moved to the sides of the stake and were nailed through the ankles. There probably would have been several variations on this depending on available materials. For example, Jaques DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was tortured by crucifying him on a heavy door.

 

[hedrick]

I did feel that this verbatim quote from him implied Jesus never existed. View attachment 268565

In his book he's quite scathing about people who think Jesus didn't exist. You'd need to see the context of that quote. Since I've never seen a reference to the source, that's hard to check.

Note that the quote says Greek or Roman. That would exclude Josephus, which has one undisputed mention, in the late 1st Cent. So as far as I know, the quote is accurate. You'd need to see context to know whether he mentions Josephus.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, the words stake or tree are frequently used. My understanding is that the stake was permanently set in the ground. The victim was then nailed or roped to the cross piece. The nails were through the wrists as the palms would tear through easily. There may have also been a wooden disk or washer to protect against tearing through. The cross piece was then hoisted and affixed to the top of the stake. The legs were moved to the sides of the stake and were nailed through the ankles. There probably would have been several variations on this depending on available materials. For example, Jaques DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was tortured by crucifying him on a heavy door.

According to TDNT there were three different forms used: a stake, the crossbeam you refer to, and two equal beams like an X. There are technical terms in Latin for each, but I believe stauros was used for all of it. Actually the 2nd has two forms, a T and a form in which the vertical goes above the crossbeam (the usual Christian cross). Early Christian writers describe both forms. There are also additional forms, some used in mass crucifixions.

Seneca states (De consolatione ad Marciam 20.3): “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but fashioned in many different ways: Some have their victims with head down toward the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the crossbeam.” (Brown, R. E. (1994). The death of the Messiah) This supports the idea that the same term was used for all forms, though I assume Seneca wrote in Latin.

The usual cross (or a T) seems to be the only case where Jesus would have carried something (the cross-beam, not the whole cross), so if the Gospel accounts are valid, it would seem that it was the usual Christian cross, or possibly a T.

 

[Jezabella]

In his book he's quite scathing about people who think Jesus didn't exist. You'd need to see the context of that quote. Since I've never seen a reference to the source, that's hard to check.

Note that the quote says Greek or Roman. That would exclude Josephus, which has one undisputed mention, in the late 1st Cent. So as far as I know, the quote is accurate. You'd need to see context to know whether he mentions Josephus.

It bothers me that Jesus had so many followers, yet not one of them wrote anything down.

Jesus never wrote anything down either. If Jesus was god or god's son, surely he would have known that humanity would need concrete evidence of his existence that future generations could refer to without any dispute. As it is, I believe there are over 40K denominations/branches/cults of Christianity, each one claiming to have the correct interpretation of the Bible. Of course, it's just a matter to creating one's own version of Christianity that services one's desires, be it multiple wives or ... bacon lol

 

[hedrick]

It bothers me that Jesus had so many followers, yet not one of them wrote anything down.

Jesus never wrote anything down either. If Jesus was god or god's son, surely he would have known that humanity would need concrete evidence of his existence that future generations could refer to without any dispute. As it is, I believe there are over 40K denominations/branches/cults of Christianity, each one claiming to have the correct interpretation of the Bible. Of course, it's just a matter to creating one's own version of Christianity that services one's desires, be it multiple wives or ... bacon lol

I understand. But remember, this was not a culture where everyone wrote. Even those who could often didn't write long documents, but had secretaries do it. For example, Paul was obviously well educated. He could write, but he had someone else write for him. In Rom 16:22 the secretary identifies himself. In 1 Cor 16:21 Paul writes a couple of sentences himself.

Early church tradition says that Mark was by someone who wrote down Peter's preaching. Critical scholars take this particular tradition seriously, though they don't accept all of them. That may be the most direct you can reasonably expect. Matthew and Luke pretty clearly use a source of Jesus' sayings. They use it pretty closely, though not verbatim. That could have been written by one of Jesus' followers or someone like Mark writing for him. There's also an early tradition that Matthew wrote down Jesus' sayings. For various reasons we don't think the Gospel of Matthew is that work, but it could have been a source. Of course Matthew might not have written it personally, but had someone write it for him.

 

[Jezabella]

I understand. But remember, this was not a culture where everyone wrote. Even those who could often didn't write long documents, but had secretaries do it. For example, Paul was obviously well educated. He could write, but he had someone else write for him. In Rom 16:22 the secretary identifies himself. In 1 Cor 16:21 Paul writes a couple of sentences himself.

Early church tradition says that Mark was by someone who wrote down Peter's preaching. Critical scholars take this particular tradition seriously, though they don't accept all of them. That may be the most direct you can reasonably expect. Matthew and Luke pretty clearly use a source of Jesus' sayings. They use it pretty closely, though not verbatim. That could have been written by one of Jesus' followers or someone like Mark writing for him. There's also an early tradition that Matthew wrote down Jesus' sayings. For various reasons we don't think the Gospel of Matthew is that work, but it could have been a source. Of course Matthew might not have written it personally, but had someone write it for him.

My concerns are based on the fact that we aren't talking about a regular person in history.

We are talking about divinity, about someone with supernatural abilities… Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence

Therefore, why would Jesus/god have allowed for a situation like the conversation in this thread, where there is very little evidence and the story of Jesus is based on speculation. I mean, over ninety percent of the life of Jesus is a mystery?

It is one thing to speculate about historical events that were not properly recorded, but we are talking about something that God is in charge of. The Bible was written by men, which is why it is so flawed. I mean, education and literacy was limited. Scribes would copy from one another and change details they felt necessary. It is full of so many contradictions, which is why it has been so hotly debated for hundreds of years.

How did an all-knowing god not know Adam and Eve would be disobedient? How did an all-knowing god not know that committing genocide via a global flood would not solve the issue of original sin committed by Adam and Eve, keeping in mind their sin was merely the desire for education, hence eating from the tree of knowledge about good and evil. How would they know what good and evil would be if they had not acquired that knowledge?

If god was a superpower, why he did allow other religious beliefs to become established, and then condemn those who follow what he enabled… to hell?

 

[hedrick]

My concerns are based on the fact that we aren't talking about a regular person in history.

This raises lots of additional questions. It depends upon what you think about how God works, and also about the Bible.

It seems obvious to me that God works by persuasion, whether by choice or necessity. Since the Bible doesn’t really tell us specifics of how God makes decisions, we can only speculate. But everything about the Bible suggests that God is slowly educating the Jews. He also appears to leave telling Jesus’ story to his followers, and he gives them great latitude in the way the early Church operates.

Even the nature of Jesus’ teaching follows this pattern. He certainly gives some commands. But mostly he gives principles and stories that offer examples, some of them hard to understand.

Indeed the whole idea of Christ dying indicates an indirect way of God working with us.

If you think God would necessarily use thunderbolts and write textbooks that describe the answer to all questions, this is all going to seem unsatisfactory. Indeed many Christians want that kind of God, and in my view misrepresent Scripture in an attempt to turn it into that. But perhaps God knows better what approach best achieves his goals.

 

[Jezabella]

This raises lots of additional questions. It depends upon what you think about how God works, and also about the Bible.

It seems obvious to me that God works by persuasion, whether by choice or necessity. Since the Bible doesn’t really tell us specifics of how God makes decisions, we can only speculate. But everything about the Bible suggests that God is slowly educating the Jews. He also appears to leave telling Jesus’ story to his followers, and he gives them great latitude in the way the early Church operates.

Even the nature of Jesus’ teaching follows this pattern. He certainly gives some commands. But mostly he gives principles and stories that offer examples, some of them hard to understand.

Indeed the whole idea of Christ dying indicates an indirect way of God working with us.

If you think God would necessarily use thunderbolts and write textbooks that describe the answer to all questions, this is all going to seem unsatisfactory. Indeed many Christians want that kind of God, and in my view misrepresent Scripture in an attempt to turn it into that. But perhaps God knows better what approach best achieves his goals.

In what way does god know better when he failed in his first attempt at guiding his original creations, then again when he wiped out humanity in a global flood (which included innocent children and babies, and of course unborn fetuses).

His second attempt at creation was to save 8 people from the same family (Noah's) and use their contaminated DNA to breed from (incest).

Then, when his 2nd attempt did not work, he again resorted to human sacrifice (Jesus) as a way to fix humanity.

What bothers me is that god was not able to come up with a more civilized way to save humanity. Indeed (and depending on which Christian denomination one follows), god loves us so unconditionally that he created hell in case we don't love him back.

My analysis is genuine. I am not here to argue for the sake of it but to make sense of something that once meant so much to me.

 

[Jezabella]

Early Christian writers describe both forms. There are also additional forms, some used in mass crucifixions.

Seneca states (De consolatione ad Marciam 20.3): “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but fashioned in many different ways: Some have their victims with head down toward the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the crossbeam.” (Brown, R. E. (1994). The death of the Messiah) This supports the idea that the same term was used for all forms, though I assume Seneca wrote in Latin.

Who are the early Christian writers you refer to?

Your mention of Seneca reminds me of this:
Roughly 2,000 years ago, a child was born in a province of the Roman empire. He would go on to be one of the great philosophers who ever lived—teaching people about the importance of kindness, mercy, forgiveness, on doing one’s duty, on the corruptive influence of wealth and the redemptive power of poverty and adversity. He would, over the course of his life and legacy, teach millions of people how to live and how to die, how to better themselves and how to treat their neighbors. Eventually his teachings would become controversial and a threat to the state and so he would be painfully put to death by the Romans. Yet even as he experienced the agony and humiliation of that death sentence, he found the compassion to use it all as an opportunity to embody his philosophy—asking his loved ones and followers to stay strong, to forgive the excesses of an emperor who did not know what he was doing. In those brave, final moments he immortalized himself forever.

So who was this man whose birthday we recognize? It was Jesus right? Today is Christmas, so obviously the answer is Jesus. But what if the answer was Seneca? It just as easily could be. Because not only do both Jesus and Seneca share the same story, but both were born—according to many sources—in the same year. No one can confirm for certain the exact birth date for either, but it is indisputable that these two men walked the earth at the same time and lived roughly parallel lives.

More incredible is just how much their teachings overlap:

“It is a petty and sorry person who will bite back when he is bitten.” Seneca

“If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus

“You look at the pimples of others when you yourselves are covered with a mass of sores.” Seneca

“And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” Jesus

“If my wealth should melt away it would deprive me of nothing but itself, but if yours were to depart you would be stunned and feel you were deprived of what makes you yourself. With me, wealth has a certain place; in your case it has the highest place. In short, I own my wealth, your wealth owns you.” Seneca

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal…No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Jesus

“It’s in keeping with Nature to show our friends affection and to celebrate their advancement, as if it were our very own.” Seneca

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” Jesus

Now Seneca was obviously just a man—a flawed and contradictory man at that—while Jesus—depending on your beliefs—was both a man and God. But both lived these magnificent lives, leaving behind much for us to follow, to consider and to question. We don’t know what Jesus would have said about Seneca’s teachings, but we know what Seneca would have told the Stoics about Jesus’s because he said it about philosophies he disagreed with all the time: If there is good stuff in there, use it.

It would come to be over the centuries after their deaths, that culturally and historically, Christianity would replace Stoicism as the dominant philosophy in Rome and then the world. But for quite some time, their two modes of living mimicked the relationship of Jesus and Seneca—close, but never quite touching. Seneca’s brother Novatus (renamed Gallio) is mentioned in the Bible. There are purportedly letters between Seneca and St. Paul (mostly thought to be fake). The term the logos appears nearly as often in the writings of Marcus Aurelius as it does in the Bible. And there were persecutions going both directions—Stoics executing Christians, Christians banning and erasing Stoic texts (as well as preservations going in both directions too). It was, at times, a bloody and violent war of ideas.

Today, we can put all that conflict behind us. On this day right here, on Christmas Day, we can simply marvel at this near-miracle—that two wise men were alive at the same time, and through their suffering and teachings, a great legacy has been passed down to us. Which one of them we choose to rely on most heavily is an individual decision—but that we should do something with their teachings? That’s what Christmas can be a reminder of.
SOURCE: A Star Was Born

 

[hedrick]

In what way does god know better when he failed in his first attempt at guiding his original creations, then again when he wiped out humanity in a global flood (which included innocent children and babies, and of course unborn fetuses).

His second attempt at creation was to save 8 people from the same family (Noah's) and use their contaminated DNA to breed from (incest).

Then, when his 2nd attempt did not work, he again resorted to human sacrifice (Jesus) as a way to fix humanity.

The position I was describing isn't consistent with conservative Christianity, which believes that the Bible comes directly from God. I believe it's a human description of God's attempts to work with humans. As such, I accept generally-accepted science, archaeology, and history. That makes it clear that he Bible has little historical content up to the time of the Kings. Hence most of the questions you ask don't really make sense, because you're asking about things that never happened.

What bothers me is that god was not able to come up with a more civilized way to save humanity. Indeed (and depending on which Christian denomination one follows), god loves us so unconditionally that he created hell in case we don't love him back.

While you're not stating it explicitly, this makes various assumptions that I don't agree with. But the basic question is reasonable. Why does God not simply make everything right, using his authority? I don't know, because I don't know how God makes decisions. My only response is that the nature of Jesus' teaching, and the way God works in the OT, all suggests that he works only by persuasion. That leaves lots up to us, and inevitably things sometimes go wrong. But some of the things in the Bible surely didn't happen. E.g. the genocidal wars in the early books are from periods when there's not much historical content to the Bible. Archaeologists say that Israel moved into the Holy Land slowly and largely peacefully. On the other hand, there's plenty wrong, even today. Why doesn't God simply fix it? The best answer I know is that the kinds of people he wants to produce need real challenges and real consequences in order to develop. (This assumes that he's omnipotent, an assumption that can't be discussed in this forum.) I don't believe, however, that he consigns most people to hell. Discussions about hell aren't really permitted in this forum, so I'll simply say that in my view it's not likely that very many people end up destroyed. (Take a look at discussions in Controversial Christian Theology if you're interested in what CF readers believe about hell.)

I am very skeptical about the idea of the Fall, and the typical Christian concept of what salvation is about. What we know about history and the origins of humanity make Genesis 3 impossible as a literal account. Humans evolved to be creatures that learn from mistakes. We were never perfect, and weren't intended to be. As long as we accept that fact, and admit our errors, I think we're OK with God. Jesus' teachings on judgement suggest that the people who are rejected are those who blatantly reject the good of others, or reject Jesus' message. I hope there are few of those.

 

[faroukfarouk]

In what way does god know better when he failed in his first attempt at guiding his original creations, then again when he wiped out humanity in a global flood (which included innocent children and babies, and of course unborn fetuses).

His second attempt at creation was to save 8 people from the same family (Noah's) and use their contaminated DNA to breed from (incest).

Then, when his 2nd attempt did not work, he again resorted to human sacrifice (Jesus) as a way to fix humanity.

What bothers me is that god was not able to come up with a more civilized way to save humanity. Indeed (and depending on which Christian denomination one follows), god loves us so unconditionally that he created hell in case we don't love him back.

My analysis is genuine. I am not here to argue for the sake of it but to make sense of something that once meant so much to me.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11.6)

 

[Jezabella]

While you're not stating it explicitly, this makes various assumptions that I don't agree with. But the basic question is reasonable. Why does God not simply make everything right, using his authority? I don't know, because I don't know how God makes decisions. My only response is that the nature of Jesus' teaching, and the way God works in the OT, all suggests that he works only by persuasion. That leaves lots up to us, and inevitably things sometimes go wrong. But some of the things in the Bible surely didn't happen. E.g. the genocidal wars in the early books are from periods when there's not much historical content to the Bible. Archaeologists say that Israel moved into the Holy Land slowly and largely peacefully. On the other hand, there's plenty wrong, even today. Why doesn't God simply fix it? The best answer I know is that the kinds of people he wants to produce need real challenges and real consequences in order to develop. (This assumes that he's omnipotent, an assumption that can't be discussed in this forum.) I don't believe, however, that he consigns most people to hell. Discussions about hell aren't really permitted in this forum, so I'll simply say that in my view it's not likely that very many people end up destroyed. (Take a look at discussions in Controversial Christian Theology if you're interested in what CF readers believe about hell.)

I am very skeptical about the idea of the Fall, and the typical Christian concept of what salvation is about. What we know about history and the origins of humanity make Genesis 3 impossible as a literal account. Humans evolved to be creatures that learn from mistakes. We were never perfect, and weren't intended to be. As long as we accept that fact, and admit our errors, I think we're OK with God. Jesus' teachings on judgement suggest that the people who are rejected are those who blatantly reject the good of others, or reject Jesus' message. I hope there are few of those.

As a thinking albeit mere human, my idea of solution would never be murder, which is what god resorted to with the global flood and then Jesus - the irony is that the 10 commandments tell us not to kill.

If I have a big problem with someone, I do not seek to kill them nor do I seek to commit suicide in order to "fix" it - the latter being what god did for those who believe in the trinity.

I am told that I do not know god's mind and that my problem is that I do not have faith, I have to say that I do not have blind faith. Things have to make sense to me. It makes no sense to me to worship an entity that is abusive and cruel, and who seems to favor those that use his name to gain wealth and power, an ignores the plight of children who are viciously abused by his representatives on earth, in his holy house on earth.

 

[Jezabella]

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11.6)

I've responded to this in my post #38.

I cannot accept blind faith to please an entity that is so cruel to those most vulnerable and at his mercy. I need it to make sense.

 

[Jezabella]

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11.6)

What does "faith" mean?

If faith in god is everything, why is it that those who support the NRA and the military are overwhelmingly Christians?

Why on earth would they want the means to break the sixth commandment by killing another human being in order to DELAY THEIR OWN MEETING WITH JESUS/GOD I HEAVEN? Why not leave it to god's will?

I am not impressed by the number of interpretations of "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" so that KILL becomes MURDER, so that it can be used in numerous situations to justify killing human beings.

I mean, while the attack on Iraq was pending, those who protested against it were abused and threatened by military personnel in locations heavily populated by Christians. The threats included death threats.

George W Bush, the president who prayed, is responsible for the death and devastation of millions of human lives.