Loomis

That’s what the author of Paul’s conversion story thought too.

It’s touching. And the gullible buy it hook line and sinker.

Ehrman’s conversion story is midrash on Paul.

Juststeve

aa5874:

Were I to agree that to show that Jesus was an historical figure it was necessary to show within reason each of the 10 things you set forth then I would agree that there was almost certainly no historical Jesus. I just don’t agree with the premise since I think many of the elements you think are essential to historicity are part of the legendary material that accreted to an historical person.

On the other hand, if you define the historical Jesus as an Jewish itinerant first century preacher with a small following who was crucified by the Romans about whom legends later grew I find nothing in that description that is improbable.

Steve

Juststeve

Loomis:

No, I don't think I'm begging the question. I'm jus6t pointing out that we already know there are no surviving Christian documents which are incontestably from before 70 C.E. If that is dispositive in your mind, the the issue is disposed of.

Steve

schriverja

Technically, I would consider this more an 'argument from expertise', which is a little different than the 'argument from authority'. Not quite the same problem, but assuming an expert to be infallible leaves one no better off than an argument from authority. We can and should appeal to experts in a field being discussed, but we should also beware of picking and choosing experts to support our own confirmation bias.

Argument from authority is more like 'The President thinks black cars are the best, therefore, black cars are the best'.

Steven Carr

Does Ehrman claim there was a Jesus Christ, or just a Jesus?

Steven Carr

Why did the Romans care about an apocalyptic prophet?

Doesn't Josephus mention an apocalyptic prophet called Jesus, who was killed?

'A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

This must be our historical Jesus.

An apocalyptic prophet, called Jesus, killed by the Romans.

What more do you want as proof that there was an apocalyptic prophet called Jesus?

Juststeve

Steven

From the Gospel accounts we can glean at least two plausible reasons why the Romans would have crucified the Jesus described in the Gospels. 1) Because he had agitated a disturbance in the Temple, perhaps being regarded as an insurrectionist by the Roman authorities; or 2) because he had set himself up as a King over the Jews as was the accusation on his cross. Either would have been enough to get a Jew crucified in that time and place. Blaspheming the Hebrew God would not.

I don’t follow your other point.

Steve

aa5874

You are NOT allowed to invent your own Jesus and then claim you have found Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth.

It is in the NT, the non-Canonised texts, and Church writings where Jesus of Nazareth was described and there are no external corroborative sources for Jesus the Messiah before the Fall of the Temple.

You MUST find corroborative sources of antiquity that can show that the Jesus called the Messiah was in fact NOT regarded as a Messiah and NOT considered equal to God, as a Pauline writer claimed, but was an itinerant preacher during the time of Pilate.

Please identify any credible source of antiquity that claimed Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY an itinerant preacher with a small following.

Your description of Jesus of Nazareth CANNOT be found in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Epistles, Revelation, the writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Tertullian, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the younger, Josephus and Philo.

It would appear that YOUR itinerant Jesus is FICTION, a product of your recent imagination or invention.

Juststeve

Were I to suggest that George Washington was an historical figure would you insist that I demonstrate that he chopped down a cherry tree or threw a silver dollar across the Delaware? I don’t think so. I think you would understand that these are legendary details that surround an historical fellow. You would not say that unless he did those things then he is not George Washington.

I think we ought to agree that there came a time when at least some people began to regard Jesus as an historical figure. That much should be something we can agree upon. I asked you before and I’ll ask again, when do you think was the earliest time when at least some people began to regard Jesus as an historical figure?

Steve

ziffel

Jonathon, you do realize that Ehrman lost his faith as a result of his NT studies, right?