denarius

I believe Ehrman claims in his book that it was Jesus who taught the disciples that he was the messiah and that message was the reason for his death.

aa5874

Does Ehrman have a special NT Canon???

In the earliest Jesus story of gMark, the character Jesus did NOT teach his own disciples that he was the Messiah.

In gMark Jesus was supposedly performing Miracles, Instantly making the blind see, instantly making the dumb talk and the deaf hear but it was PETER who FIRST told the disciples that Jesus was the Messiah.

Peter supposedly Unmasked Jesus.

And after Peter supposedly "BLEW his cover"--revealed the supposed hidden Secret of Jesus--he immediately demanded that his Identity as the Messiah Remain hidden.

Mark 8:29 KJV Ehrman is dead wrong.

Jesus ASKED the question.

Peter gave the answer.

Immediately Jesus does NOT want any-one to know Peter's answer.

How could Ehrman be so wrong about Jesus of the Synoptics??

Is Ehrman inventing or forgetting???

Once people do NOT understand gMark then they wont understand that the gMark's story has destroyed the credibility of the Pauline writer.

When gMark was written some time AFTER the Fall of the Temple it was NOT known of any Messiah, any Messianic ruler called Jesus who was the Universal Savior of the world because of a Sacrificial crucifixion and resurrection.

In gMark, on the day Jesus was crucified the disciples had ALREADY either betrayed, abandoned or denied Jesus and later the women visitors did NOT tell anyone Jesus was resurrected.

The author of gMark tells the story of the Secret Messiah Jesus for the first time after the Fall of the Temple.

gMark's Secret Messiah story only makes sense if it was the very first story and before the Pauline writings.

denarius

Yes, Ehrman could be dead wrong. I think his hypothesis is plausible but conjecture.

Solo

On Bart's terms, if you are not convinced you are a naysayer, and he already knew it before you read his book.

Best,
Jiri

Toto

Please note that analogies to creationism are considered here to be base insults. Creationists deny the overwheliming evidence of evolution. There is no overwhelming evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus.

There are many other interest groups that are motivated by an agenda. You could compare mythicists to the Green Party or the Sierra Club, but you picked creationists.

And there are a variety of people who think that Jesus never existed, or that Christianity did not start with a single person who had some vague relationship to the Jesus of the gospels. Why should they all subscribe to the same explanation of Christianity? Some of them are even religious, either nominally Christian (Tom Harpur) or New Age (Freke and Gandy).

So drop the insults. Stick to the issues.

Do you think that anything in the Bible is clear? That the "brother of the Lord" is an unambiguous phrase? That "brother" always means biological brother??

We can agree on that.

Steven Carr

Did the disciples not notice that Jesus didn't have an army?

denarius

The comparison to creationism is not meant to be an insult. It is an observation about the similarities in the debates. The comparison is not a perfect analogy of course because, as you point out, the evidence and arguments for a historical person behind the Jesus stories is hardly overwhelming. I have no problem with comparing the debate to some other debate involving an agenda, but I have little familiarity with those debates. I am familiar with the debates over creationism and the global warming debate.

For example, in the global warming debate the skeptics claim that they are discriminated against by the publishers of scientific journals simply because their views conflict with those of the majority of scientists. Carrier makes the similar claim that mythicists are discriminated against in academia simply because their views conflict with the scholarly consensus. The creationist camp claims that it is discriminated against by academia for the very same reason that global warming skeptics claim. This kind of paranoia is typical of fringe groups and it raises my suspicions whenever I see it.

I not think that Paul uses the phrase "brother of the Lord" or "bretheren of the Lord" in the same way every time. In many passages it means what Carrier says it means, but in at least two passages in Paul (see Ehrman) it is a stretch to think it means anything except a sibling.

Mythicists do not necessarily have to have a single theory for how the Christ Myth was invented, but it would probably help them if they did and if they supported it with solid research.

It is no sweat off my nose if Jesus didn't exist, but I think it plausible that he did. I think Ehrman did a good job of presenting evidence and arguments in his favor, at least to me as a layperson. I am not averse to being convinced otherwise.

Toto

It is an insult, it is almost always intended as an insult, and you would have to be tone deaf not to realize that.

It's not paranoia. Anyone pushing a new paradigm or a new idea encounters resistance, whether the new idea is a truth that has not been appreciated or completely insane.

If there is any similarity in these debates, it is because creationists have dishonestly framed their claims as if they were pushing a minority position that might possibly be valid, when their position has been completely and utterly demolished.

If you want a more comparable debate, look at the debates over issues that are in fact unsettled, where a group proposing a new idea has to overcome resistance from the existing consensus. Look up the "lipid hypothesis" - the raging debate over the role of fat in human diet.

Paul only uses the term "brother of the Lord" once, and "bretheren of the Lord" once. But he uses the term "brother" frequently. It is not such a stretch, unless you mind is made up before you start.

What's the point of forcing everyone to agree on a subject like this? There is no real single theory of the Historical Jesus, and various scholars have completely incompatible ideas of whoever this person was.

I don't have any investment in convincing you that Jesus never existed. Just don't misrepresent the state of the debate.

Vorkosigan

Not to mention that "LORD" in Paul typically means "god" not "jesus" as spin was pointing out the other day.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

Ehrman used the Bible for his version of an historical Jesus and others use the same Bible to show Jesus was Mythological.

The Bible states clearly in gMatthew and gLuke that Jesus was Fathered by a Holy Ghost so it is PREFECTLY plausible that the Jesus story was just a story that people of antiquity BELIEVED to be true.

I am now thoroughly convinced that people who support an historical Jesus have very limited knowledge that the Greeks and Roman believed in Mythology.

It is for that very reason Marcion was able to create HAVOC in the Christian community in the 2nd century with his PHANTOM.

In antiquity there was ZERO requirement for Jesus to have been a real human being ONLY that he was BELIEVED to have existed.

Marcion PHANTOM was Believed to have existed just like Jesus was BELIEVED to have existed, who walked on water and transfigured and was the Child of a Ghost in the same Canon that was used by EHRMAN.

It is PLAUSIBLE that Jesus was Mythological like all the Hundreds of Myth characters in antiquity.