ercatli

I think my answer to all your questions of this form is - some. What point did you wish to make?

No, otherwise I would never change anything I believe. What about you - do you believe only the experts that believe what you believe?

How would you suggest I look at the evidence except via reading the experts?

Thanks for commenting.

spin

You do know that that is the type of response one expects from a historical Jesusist. The "I won't put my cards on the table at least until you do" way of thinking.


spin

ercatli

G'day Gregg, thanks for getting involved. I don't actually feel all that afraid of either - big spiders which sometimes enter my house are much more scary! :devil1: What were you getting at with this comment?

But maybe we can discuss history without too many confusions???

Not sure what you're driving at here. My understanding of the predominance of scholarly opinion is that Mark was possibly the first of our present gospels written, and the four in the NT were written between about 70 and 95 CE. But of course all sorts of oral and perhaps written pre-gospels were around before that. And many other "gospels", or at least documents mentioning Jesus, were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and perhaps even later. What was the reason for your question?

Best wishes, and hope you had a happy mythical celebration!

ercatli

Hi Minimalist, I will try to be brief.

I have bolded a couple of your phrases. Can I ask you please, how we know these things as definitely as you infer. Also, I have not read much of Ehrman, but I know he is a respected textual scholar. I looked him up on Google and found a summary of the book at Religious Tolerance, and I can't say I saw much factual information there that was new to me. But I also didn't see anything there to justify your statement above. Are you able to give me a more exact summary of Ehrman's conclusions, perhaps even a quote please?

I also agree with your comments about Scarlet O'Hara. What did you think I should conclude from that for the present discussion?

Thanks.

Steven Carr

Well, Paul was around before then, claiming that the authorities never punished innocent people.

'Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.'

Paul clearly believed Roman soldiers killed Jesus, or else he would never have written that.

He claimed the reason Jews did not believe was that either they had not heard Christians preaching about Jesus, or they rejected Christian preaching about Jesus.

Or possibly the reason Jews did not believe was that they were demanding a religion that had miracles, and Christiainity was not that sort of religion.


Paul also was claiming the big advantage the Jews had was that they had been given the very words of God ie the Old Testament scriptures.

Who had Jesus spoken to, if not Jews?

And Paul was claiming that Jesus had now been revealed through a new understanding of scripture.

Romans 16
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation
of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ!

All of this is discussed in peer-reviewed journals, where the scholars you name discuss why Paul thinks Jews have never heard of Jesus, apart from Christians preaching about him.

What's this I hear you say? Scholars don't discuss that in their peer-reviewed journals at all?

What a surprise!

ercatli

Hi Spin. I can't think you would want me to answer every one of your 19 questions, so let me give a generic answer. In factual matters, I believe what the evidence says. If I don't know what the evidence is, I believe those most qualified to give information on the subject. Where possible, I get several viewpoints, to check if there is variability. And if they are matters of opinion as well as fact, I try to gather the facts as above and then form my opinion.

What do you do? And what do you learn from my answer?

What evidence are you basing that surmise on? Is that what you do??

Are you able to show me that this statement is true? (That's what this thread is about.)

At the moment, this discussion is not about my belief, but whatever you want to recommend to me. But I have seen many scholars outline facts about Jesus they think are almost certainly true. What is your conclusion, and on what basis do you state it?

Thanks.

ercatli

G'day Stephen, thanks for joining in.

Thanks, it's good that someone agrees with me on this.

What are you suggesting I should conclude, as in the OP?

In terms of the OP, what are you suggesting I conclude from this?

ercatli

Hi Doug,

Well I guess that's a start! And I think quite a few more things could be added.

I've already done that. But I thought it would be interesting to see what people here had to say. I'm sorry you don't have anything more to add.

Thanks for your interest.

ercatli

I've been called many things, but never a "historical Jesusist" before. I guess that's better than a hysterical Jesuit!

In my previous discussion, I argued a case and we went in circles. Here I invited others to present their case. If you don't wish to, I'm sorry, but c'est la vie!

Steven Carr

What do you conclude when experts can't agree on the identity of the second gunman who shot JFK?

What do you conclude when Biblical scholars never address what Paul actually says? Paul says Jesus was revealed in scripture, that the authorities never punish innocent people, and that Jews do not believe because they have either never heard of Jesus or reject Christian preaching about Jesus.

What should we conclude about the way your scholars never address the topic of the elephant in the room?