Bart Ehrman defends belief in a historical Jesus.

[Jagella]

According to the Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist?, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has the following to say:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

What's so important about Ehrman's position on the historicity of Jesus to Christian apologists is that not only does Ehrman insist that Jesus did exist, but Ehrman is an atheist! Since he's an atheist, he cannot be biased toward a real Jesus or so apologists seem to believe. So here we have a distinguished professor of New Testament who believes in a historical Jesus and without a Christian bias, or so we are told.

Question for Debate: But how unbiased is Ehrman really?

Of course, we all have biases that can skew our thinking, but there are many different kinds of bias and different degrees of bias. Some biases can be overcome with sufficient evidence, and other kinds of bias will remain regardless of the evidence. I think it's safe to say that an atheist can indeed have a pro-historical-Jesus bias. After all, depending on your theology, a real Jesus doesn't necessitate a real God. So Ehrman might well have a real-Jesus bias, and his being an atheist does not preclude his having such a bias.

There's plenty more I can say about Ehrman's article, but I will save that for later in the discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #176]

What makes you think that Cephas, James, and Johns religious experience was any different than Paul's? Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself. Where do you get the idea that the Jerusalem group told Paul about an actual crucifixion taking place on earth? Oh yeah, the gospels, you're reading the epistles through a gospel lens again, just can't be helped I suppose.

No. You are trying to force the circular argument on me. I don't accept the gospel resurrection appearances at all; they are too contradictory and the appearances (I Corinthians) that Paul refers to don't match. Paul equates them with the visions in his own head. Thus I propose that they had 'visions' (imagination) of Jesus risen (in the spirit) to heaven and he would come again in their lifetimes.

That Paul apparently accepted the earthly Jesus and his crucifixion by Rome (not as you argued, demons in heaven) shows the fact was there and the messianic (and subversive) belief of the 'twelve' was the reason Paul at first opposed them. He got the basics from them, and he did not have to explain that to the Romans in his epistle, because they already knew it.

What he got 'not from men' but (it appears) from Jesus on his visit to the third heaven, was the argument that he does explain in Romans. I haven't done a detailed check, but I would expect that what is not explained and argued in Romans is what was already known and is what he got from the church pillars, James, John and Simon. Why else would he (initially) treat them with such respect?

I was not making reference to gospel resurrection appearances. What do you mean by returning to earth? According to Paul Christ has yet to come to earth.

But I was, in respect of your point "Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself." If anything, I'm agreeing with you that these do not refer to the gospel resurrection accounts. And 'returning to earth' refers to the expectation of the 2nd coming, which also something that Paul seems to have accepted as already an established claim . What else did you suppose i was referring to?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #176]

What makes you think that Cephas, James, and Johns religious experience was any different than Paul's? Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself. Where do you get the idea that the Jerusalem group told Paul about an actual crucifixion taking place on earth? Oh yeah, the gospels, you're reading the epistles through a gospel lens again, just can't be helped I suppose.

No. You are trying to force the circular argument on me. I don't accept the gospel resurrection appearances at all; they are too contradictory and the appearances (I Corinthians) that Paul refers to don't match. Paul equates them with the visions in his own head. Thus I propose that they had 'visions' (imagination) of Jesus risen (in the spirit) to heaven and he would come again in their lifetimes.

That Paul apparently accepted the earthly Jesus and his crucifixion by Rome (not as you argued, demons in heaven) shows the fact was there and the messianic (and subversive) belief of the 'twelve' was the reason Paul at first opposed them. He got the basics from them, and he did not have to explain that to the Romans in his epistle, because they already knew it.

What he got 'not from men' but (it appears) from Jesus on his visit to the third heaven, was the argument that he does explain in Romans. I haven't done a detailed check, but I would expect that what is not explained and argued in Romans is what was already known and is what he got from the church pillars, James, John and Simon. Why else would he (initially) treat them with such respect?

I was not making reference to gospel resurrection appearances. What do you mean by returning to earth? According to Paul Christ has yet to come to earth.

But I was, in respect of your point "Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself." If anything, I'm agreeing with you that these do not refer to the gospel resurrection accounts. And 'returning to earth' refers to the expectation of the 2nd coming, which also something that Paul seems to have accepted as already an established claim . What else did you suppose i was referring to?

What second coming? The epistle writers are waiting for Christ to come to earth on a cloud of glory in their lifetime. What do you mean by a second coming? None of the pre-gospel epistle writers refer to a return or a second coming.

[neverknewyou]

According to the Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist?, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has the following to say:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

What's so important about Ehrman's position on the historicity of Jesus to Christian apologists is that not only does Ehrman insist that Jesus did exist, but Ehrman is an atheist! Since he's an atheist, he cannot be biased toward a real Jesus or so apologists seem to believe. So here we have a distinguished professor of New Testament who believes in a historical Jesus and without a Christian bias, or so we are told.

Question for Debate: But how unbiased is Ehrman really?

Of course, we all have biases that can skew our thinking, but there are many different kinds of bias and different degrees of bias. Some biases can be overcome with sufficient evidence, and other kinds of bias will remain regardless of the evidence. I think it's safe to say that an atheist can indeed have a pro-historical-Jesus bias. After all, depending on your theology, a real Jesus doesn't necessitate a real God. So Ehrman might well have a real-Jesus bias, and his being an atheist does not preclude his having such a bias.

There's plenty more I can say about Ehrman's article, but I will save that for later in the discussion.

"the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?"

People have killed in the name of God, and many more simply believe and glorify Him, billions in fact, so by Ehrman's logic...

[Mithrae]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #176]

What makes you think that Cephas, James, and Johns religious experience was any different than Paul's? Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself. Where do you get the idea that the Jerusalem group told Paul about an actual crucifixion taking place on earth? Oh yeah, the gospels, you're reading the epistles through a gospel lens again, just can't be helped I suppose.

Best to give that pseudo-objective posturing a rest, IMO.

For Paul and his readers, by whom was crucifixion most obviously practiced as a form of execution?
Where was the Law of Moses observed (Gal 4:4)?
Where would someone be a descendant of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3)?
Where would one be made in human likeness (Phil. 2:7)?
Where would one be born of a woman (Gal 4:4)?
Where would someone have human brothers (Gal. 1:19, 1 Cor. 9:5)?
Where would someone have a body and blood, eat bread and wine, and suffer betrayal (1 Cor. 11:23)?
Where do people usually get buried (1 Cor. 15:4)?
If humans live on earth, die and are resurrected, what would have been the process for the 'firstfruits' to whom Paul looked for assurance of his own future (1 Cor. 15:12ff)?

It's quite ridiculous how far folk like Doherty, Carrier etc. have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the obvious meaning of so many Pauline passages about Jesus - I doubt I've even mentioned them all above - several of which (notably Gal. 4 and 1 Cor. 15) are not mere passing trivia but are integral to his theology of redemption and transformation. But unfortunately - through their highly selective reading, tortured interpretations and not-uncommon appeals to deus ex redactor whenever they dislike the evidence enough - they then give that same sort of feeling to their followers that is common to all conspiracy theories: The "in the know" vibe, the feeling that they have seen past the smokescreen that most people can't, the sense of superiority over everyone else.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #176]

What makes you think that Cephas, James, and Johns religious experience was any different than Paul's? Paul claims that Christ appeared to them as well before he appeared to himself. Where do you get the idea that the Jerusalem group told Paul about an actual crucifixion taking place on earth? Oh yeah, the gospels, you're reading the epistles through a gospel lens again, just can't be helped I suppose.

Best to give that pseudo-objective posturing a rest, IMO.

For Paul and his readers, by whom was crucifixion most obviously practiced as a form of execution?
Where was the Law of Moses observed (Gal 4:4)?
Where would someone be a descendant of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3)?
Where would one be made in human likeness (Phil. 2:7)?
Where would one be born of a woman (Gal 4:4)?
Where would someone have human brothers (Gal. 1:19, 1 Cor. 9:5)?
Where would someone have a body and blood, eat bread and wine, and suffer betrayal (1 Cor. 11:23)?
Where do people usually get buried (1 Cor. 15:4)?
If humans live on earth, die and are resurrected, what would have been the process for the 'firstfruits' to whom Paul looked for assurance of his own future (1 Cor. 15:12ff)?

It's quite ridiculous how far folk like Doherty, Carrier etc. have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the obvious meaning of so many Pauline passages about Jesus - I doubt I've even mentioned them all above - several of which (notably Gal. 4 and 1 Cor. 15) are not mere passing trivia but are integral to his theology of redemption and transformation. But unfortunately - through their highly selective reading, tortured interpretations and not-uncommon appeals to deus ex redactor whenever they dislike the evidence enough - they then give that same sort of feeling to their followers that is common to all conspiracy theories: The "in the know" vibe, the feeling that they have seen past the smokescreen that most people can't, the sense of superiority over everyone else.

A gish gallop of red herrings

Priceless.

[Mithrae]

As I said, and as you've quoted, Paul said that his gospel of grace (v6) was received by revelation; he did not say that he hadn't learned anything about the Lord Jesus Christ from humans and, quite the opposite, said that prior to receiving any revelation he had persecuted the church of Christ (therefore obviously knowing something about the central figure). He also says in that very same chapter that he met with the brother of the Lord... though of course mythicists do their best to ignore the most obvious meaning of that! Later in Galatians Paul further explains that in order to redeem those under the Law, Christ had to be born of a woman, born under the Law himself. Again, obviously not a heavenly figure. Half a dozen other verses about Jesus being descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1), setting aside his glory and being found in human form (Philippians 2) and so on all further confirm the obvious.

I have a Theory that Paul initially slobbered over the disciples/apostles/the twelve or pillars of the Church in Jerusalem, and tried to ingratiate himself after he had originally opposed them. The Judean famine of 45 saw him collecting round his churches for 'The Saints' in Jerusalem. But he says himself that it went a bit sour. He was required to go to Jerusalem to explain what he was doing and at some time got into a wrangle with Cephas. We hear only his side, and we only hear his take on what James said he should do, though broadly they may reflect the minimum Noahide restrictions for Gentile God -believers.

It is in the light of this that we get Paul slamming anyone who teaches a 'gospel'other than his and snarking at what he calls 'super -apostles'. Now, there were other apostles including this mysterious Appollos, but I got the feeling that it was Jews teaching that Paul was going too far and the hints that such men were coming from James makes me think that Paul and the Pillars had parted ways and he saw them as trying to undermine his work.

This is all very hypothetical, but it is at least an explanation for some of the odd stuff in the Letters which other apologists and Bible critics appear to ignore.

I think that's broadly accepted as an outline by many (most?) NT scholars; there was obviously some kind of disagreement and tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church, the question is simply how deep and far-reaching it was, where various folk (particularly Cephas and Jesus himself) stood on those issues, and whether those 'super-apostles' were the original ones or a new lot entirely. Paul obviously believed and preached that not only Gentiles but even Jews were no longer obliged to follow the Law of Moses, whereas he hints that the Jerusalem church were strictly law-abiding - even Luke is forced to acknowledge that fact, implicitly slandering Paul himself in the process (Acts 21:17ff). However Paul, Luke and later church tradition are all in agreement that Cephas left the locality of the Jerusalem church for Gentile regions, placing him variously in Antioch, Caesaria and eventually even Rome. Does that suggest that Peter may have stood somewhere between Paul and James, as Paul himself implies with his story of Peter first eating with Gentiles but then withdrawing from them out of concern for the "men from James"? Perhaps Paul merely overplayed his hand with his public rebuke of that 'hypocrisy,' creating unnecessary tension between himself and Peter rather than winning him over.

If gMark was written by a follower of Peter, which seems plausible, it would further lend credence to that view by suggesting that even Jesus' own attitude towards the Law was equivocal at best - perhaps influenced by and going beyond the relatively liberal Beit Hillel. My own pet theory is that growing up in Galilee, hearing of the rebellion and grisly fate of the likes of Judas of Galilee, and reading in Daniel 9 a prophecy that the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed by "the people of the prince to come," Jesus may have concluded that Jewish nationalism would eventually and inevitably bring down the wrath of Rome and the destruction of the temple. Therefore he sought to mitigate the likelihood or at least the impact of that existential danger to his people by preaching a kingdom of God rather than a kingdom of men; if he imagined himself to be Messiah at all, he definitively did not want to be a conquering king! Since one of the biggest parts of the problem of Jewish nationalism was their perceived holiness and separateness from the Gentiles, the fairly consistent thrust of Jesus' message of this kingdom of God seems to be not so much rejecting as radically expanding the principles of the Law of Moses:
- Don't just think that one day is holy, treat every day as holy; work for God on every day, and for money on none (Mark 2/3, Matthew 7)
- Don't just love/honour your parents, neighbours or righteous people; show love for everyone alike (Mark 2/3, Matthew 5)
- Don't just give your tithes to God and the rest to yourself or to Caesar; give everything to God's work (Mark 10, 12)
- Don't just protect your wife's dignity with a certificate of divorce; protect and provide for her always (Mark 10)

It's possible that Jesus deliberately provoked his own death with his disturbance at the temple, intending to become a martyr, the anointed one "cut off" in Daniel 9; a dramatic alternative to the notion of a conquering Messiah and a powerful symbol of this kingdom of God, this new covenant. I'm not certain how well all the pieces fit, but in this view it would actually be the case that Jesus sacrificed his life to save his people... just not quite in the spiritual/redemptive sense that Paul and later Christians came to imagine. He may have wanted to save them from nationalism, self-righteousness and earthly aspirations, or at the very least have an alternative, more universal theology in place for them to turn to if and when Rome's wrath finally destroyed their localized center of worship.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I said, and as you've quoted, Paul said that his gospel of grace (v6) was received by revelation; he did not say that he hadn't learned anything about the Lord Jesus Christ from humans and, quite the opposite, said that prior to receiving any revelation he had persecuted the church of Christ (therefore obviously knowing something about the central figure). He also says in that very same chapter that he met with the brother of the Lord... though of course mythicists do their best to ignore the most obvious meaning of that! Later in Galatians Paul further explains that in order to redeem those under the Law, Christ had to be born of a woman, born under the Law himself. Again, obviously not a heavenly figure. Half a dozen other verses about Jesus being descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1), setting aside his glory and being found in human form (Philippians 2) and so on all further confirm the obvious.

I have a Theory that Paul initially slobbered over the disciples/apostles/the twelve or pillars of the Church in Jerusalem, and tried to ingratiate himself after he had originally opposed them. The Judean famine of 45 saw him collecting round his churches for 'The Saints' in Jerusalem. But he says himself that it went a bit sour. He was required to go to Jerusalem to explain what he was doing and at some time got into a wrangle with Cephas. We hear only his side, and we only hear his take on what James said he should do, though broadly they may reflect the minimum Noahide restrictions for Gentile God -believers.

It is in the light of this that we get Paul slamming anyone who teaches a 'gospel'other than his and snarking at what he calls 'super -apostles'. Now, there were other apostles including this mysterious Appollos, but I got the feeling that it was Jews teaching that Paul was going too far and the hints that such men were coming from James makes me think that Paul and the Pillars had parted ways and he saw them as trying to undermine his work.

This is all very hypothetical, but it is at least an explanation for some of the odd stuff in the Letters which other apologists and Bible critics appear to ignore.

I think that's broadly accepted as an outline by many (most?) NT scholars; there was obviously some kind of disagreement and tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church, the question is simply how deep and far-reaching it was, where various folk (particularly Cephas and Jesus himself) stood on those issues, and whether those 'super-apostles' were the original ones or a new lot entirely. Paul obviously believed and preached that not only Gentiles but even Jews were no longer obliged to follow the Law of Moses, whereas he hints that the Jerusalem church were strictly law-abiding - even Luke is forced to acknowledge that fact, implicitly slandering Paul himself in the process (Acts 21:17ff). However Paul, Luke and later church tradition are all in agreement that Cephas left the locality of the Jerusalem church for Gentile regions, placing him variously in Antioch, Caesaria and eventually even Rome. Does that suggest that Peter may have stood somewhere between Paul and James, as Paul himself implies with his story of Peter first eating with Gentiles but then withdrawing from them out of concern for the "men from James"? Perhaps Paul merely overplayed his hand with his public rebuke of that 'hypocrisy,' creating unnecessary tension between himself and Peter rather than winning him over.

If gMark was written by a follower of Peter, which seems plausible, it would further lend credence to that view by suggesting that even Jesus' own attitude towards the Law was equivocal at best - perhaps influenced by and going beyond the relatively liberal Beit Hillel. My own pet theory is that growing up in Galilee, hearing of the rebellion and grisly fate of the likes of Judas of Galilee, and reading in Daniel 9 a prophecy that the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed by "the people of the prince to come," Jesus may have concluded that Jewish nationalism would eventually and inevitably bring down the wrath of Rome and the destruction of the temple. Therefore he sought to mitigate the likelihood or at least the impact of that existential danger to his people by preaching a kingdom of God rather than a kingdom of men; if he imagined himself to be Messiah at all, he definitively did not want to be a conquering king! Since one of the biggest parts of the problem of Jewish nationalism was their perceived holiness and separateness from the Gentiles, the fairly consistent thrust of Jesus' message of this kingdom of God seems to be not so much rejecting as radically expanding the principles of the Law of Moses:
- Don't just think that one day is holy, treat every day as holy; work for God on every day, and for money on none (Mark 2/3, Matthew 7)
- Don't just love/honour your parents, neighbours or righteous people; show love for everyone alike (Mark 2/3, Matthew 5)
- Don't just give your tithes to God and the rest to yourself or to Caesar; give everything to God's work (Mark 10, 12)
- Don't just protect your wife's dignity with a certificate of divorce; protect and provide for her always (Mark 10)

It's possible that Jesus deliberately provoked his own death with his disturbance at the temple, intending to become a martyr, the anointed one "cut off" in Daniel 9; a dramatic alternative to the notion of a conquering Messiah and a powerful symbol of this kingdom of God, this new covenant. I'm not certain how well all the pieces fit, but in this view it would actually be the case that Jesus sacrificed his life to save his people... just not quite in the spiritual/redemptive sense that Paul and later Christians came to imagine. He may have wanted to save them from nationalism, self-righteousness and earthly aspirations, or at the very least have an alternative, more universal theology in place for them to turn to if and when Rome's wrath finally destroyed their localized center of worship.

Yes, aside from what the Experts agree on, the 'super apostles' being the 12 (with whom Paul was now in disagreement) or some other bunch is a question. But I might suggest that the Greek Apollos might have had his own 'Gospel', but only the Jerusalem church would be a serious challenge to Paul's Gentile - friendly Judaism. The passage where various 'Gospels' are contrasted, Apollos, Cephas, Paul, look to me like he is trying to pretend that there are various apostles all under one truth so his is as valid as that of Cephas. In other words, Apollos is used to dilute Nazorene Christianity down to the level of individual sects, not the basics that Jesus taught.

Now, each has to make up their own minds but I reckon gMark is the follower of none of the 12. The synoptic original (of which gMark is a provable adaptation, and don't ask me why nobody has recognised this over 2,000 years) was itself (so I theorize) a Christianised version of Jesus' original story which Mark or some other might have passed on, but we have a couple of transformations before we get to Biblical gMark.

I thought I'd proposed this before but maybe not - I suspect (pet theory ) that Jesus at least tried to fulfil the prophecy of the king riding in on a donkey, but I question whether he intended to die as a result. I don't believe he saw himself as a martyr, suffering servant or Passover sacrifice and it is entirely a Christian take on the events (1) through the reinvention of the messianists, Paul and the Gentile church.

(1) for example, it explains the oddity about when 'Passover' was eaten (I know JW says it was all week, but my understanding is that it is one day for everyone) and why the donkey ride looks like it was at Tabernacles, not Passover. Sukkhot is more appropriate for a messianic attempt but a sacrifice for sins has to be switched to Passover.