Yes, that exchange, re. Price, amused me too! Ehrman: "I don't really know him, no.. . why would I? . . what books has he published?" Infidel: "Deconstructing Jesus." Ehrman: Yeah he's actually communicated with me and he's told me some of his doubts and I've been puzzled by it because I don't really understand . . I haven't seen any evidence that he's produced". What a gem! All the same I like Ehrman; at least he's recognisably human unlike many of his usual adversaries in the apologetics camp!
im surprised that Dr Ehrman would merely argue that "no serious historical scholars doubt that there was ever a historical jesus" ..based apon what ? paul's letters are unimpeachable proof ? his rather rude dismissal of Dr Price ..first he never heard of him ,then he actually talked with him about this very subject ?
Thanks for your "brother of the Lord" contribution - this makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone happen to know the chapter and verse of the "off the cuff" and "disinterested remark" that Ehrman is referring to with regard to Paul in this part interview? I gather that it's probably from Galatians, lol, but even that isn't entirely certain . . or is it? I also agree with your comment about motivations being unimportant too btw - quality of argument does it for me every time, lol!
I totally agree that 'infidel guy' handles this interview appallingly badly - however the underlying objections that he is attempting to articulate are not without merit! I like Bart Ehrman but his methodology is not is not beyond criticism and I don't mean that either personally or professionally. It is simply that historians struggle with sparse material and are forced to use what is available! However, the conclusion that Jesus definitely existed is stretching things considerably!
My understanding is that Q is a speculative document, predicated on the assumption that everything common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark must have another prior source. Problem is, Ehrman further speculates M and L as prior sources for exclusive Matthew and Luke. He also identifies the problems of TF but then proceeds to treat Q, M, L and TF as good independent sources & concludes multiple attestations! Limitations of the historical method perhaps, but a stretch nonetheless.
Whilst proximity to events is good, it is not decisive when there are other considerations such as exclusivity and doctrinal bias. For example, no group was closer to events in 20th century Russia than the Bolsheviks, but who would trust their version exclusively? Jesus may be the most contemporaneously, but not necessarily the best attested figure in the ancient world! Finally, scholarly consensus is not evidence and in the field of Biblical research it may simply reflect deep theological bias!
Let's attempt to nail this Julius Caesar analogy! He was defined by momentous events which changed history. Rome changed from a Republic to an Empire. Fortunes changed hands, battles were fought and many people wrote about it independently. Somebody was in charge when all this happened so personal details aside, his existence is beyond dispute! Contrast with Jesus who was all personality, only attested by his followers, & had no historical impact in his own time; altogether a different problem!
Comparing the reliability of evidence for this Jesus to that of Caesar is absurd - hard to believe anyone could fall for that line.
There's a couple of centuries of development behind the Hellenization of Judaism which culminates in orthodox christianity - so there's not much room for the origin being one obscure man executed as a criminal by Pilate in Judea.
OK, so somebody whose identity we know as Paul, wrote Galatians. I accept that historians know that much, but how do they know he wasn't writing fiction or wasn't a deluded soul like Joseph Smith, for example? It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie in order to not be true! Much as I admire Ehrman, I do question this. A name in itself will not suffice. Surely, If you exclude the, arguably self serving, early Christian testimony, there is no more evidence for the historical Paul than for Jesus.
@NUAGESA Amateur authors (I use the word as these authors have no PhD in this or any field) such as Acharya S, Ken Humphreys, Frank Zindler and Joseph Atwill hold that Paul didn't exist and wrote NOTHING! All his letters are second century forgeries just as the hold the gospels are late second century forgeries. Atwill is really odd in that he finds Christianity to be an invention of Rome & Josephus helped them with the scam & wrote the "TF" just as it reads in extant copies of Josephus
@NUAGESA I've had the opportunity to discuss the "TF" with three Josephus experts. Louis Feldman, PhD, Alice Whealey, PhD & Gary Goldberg, PhD (Goldberg has researched Josephus for years but his PhD is in Physics) and all tell me that most experts including the three of them, hold that Josephus did not write the "TF" as it reads today. He wrote "was believed to be the Christ" & the TF contains a minor interpolation introduced by a later Christian copyist.
That "infidel guy" is being infantile, throwing anything he can against the wall to see if it sticks, while displaying a complete indifference to the subject of history itself.
@proudfootz Jesus isn't a "mythical character." so try again. If the evidence showed that Jesus was fiction rather than real, Ehrman would have every motivation to promote that idea in his writings. he's an agnostic. it's fundy atheists who can't handle the truth and stick to their skepticism as if it were dogma.
@proudfootz wrong! if you look at the context, it's quite easy to tell that Jesus has biological relatives in the New testament and they are clearly distinguished from the disciples. this argument fails. how do mythical people have flesh and blood families that can be interacted with? Jesus Mythers fail again. before they saw this video they were signing Ehrman's praises.
@proudfootz. Cain? What does he have to do with anything? listen here, Paul is a historical figure. that's beyond doubt. now that historical figure interacts with blood relatives of Jesus. so a real person, interacts with other real people, who are related by blood to a mythical person who never existed? please explain that.
@proudfootz it's quite clear when you look at those passages that there were physical followers of Jesus in Paul's time AND flesh and blood relatives of Jesus also living at that time, and the writers of the New Testament make distinctions between them. so this refutes the idea that there was this generic "brothers of the Lord" term that applied to anyone who believed in Jesus, making it possible to imagine that you could be 'Jesus' brother' and Jesus not actually exist.
The 'gospel' narratives come later than Paul - not written by eye-witnesses but just stories to promote their religion like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard wrote.
In the 'gospel' stories the alleged blood relatives of this Jesus think Jesus is insane and are not believers at all.
So yes, there is a big distinction between the 'blood brothers' who are definitely *not* christians and 'brother believers' who are.
@proudfootz now if you want to be like the Infidel guy and say that Paul was lying, or that Paul himself didn't exist, well that's just sophistry. it's fine to be skeptical of things, but once you have the evidence to make a decision, continuing to be obstinate in the face of facts really isn't a virtue.
Paul is certainly capable of lying, but he never says he met any blood relative of Jesus - he merely states he met another 'brother of the Lord' like the 500 'brothers' who also saw Jesus in a vision.
Those are the facts which you are living in denial of.
@proudfootz Even most of the critical scholars I have in my library hold the position that the James in Galatains Paul claims to have met along with Peter, was indeed Jesus' brother in the flesh and was head of the Jerusalem Jesus movement which seems to have held much different beliefs that Paul's version and Paul admits they fought. James is called Jesus brother in many early Christian writings as well as Josephus. Except Josephus calls James the brother of Jesus called Christ rather than Lord
@proudfootz All Bible scholars I have in my library, and being agnostic, I have a number of skeptical scholars, have no doubt Cephas is Peter. Cephas is Greek for rock and Peter was called "the rock". I don't know of any experts who would doubt Paul in Galatains is speaking of meeting Peter and Jesus' brother James in the flesh. And it is accepted by scholars that Paul and those in the original Jesus movement in Jerusalem didn't really get along (i. e. Peter, James and Paul).
For instance Paul uses the word 'brother' almost exclusively to mean a 'fellow believer' and when he talks of biological kinship uses the words rendered 'according to the flesh'.
There does seem to be an astonishing variety of beliefs among the early christian cults - to the point I doubt they have their source in the life of one man called Jesus.
@proudfootz The Jesus myth theory is rather dead with the experts. Only amateur authors such as Acharya S, Kenneth Humphreys, Frank Zindler and Earl Doherty insist Jesus never existed and they have NO PhD in this field or any field for that matter. Plus they are motivated by a huge dislike of religion in general and Christianity in particular. But their zeal is joined by Richard Carrier who has a PhD and is very interested in moving the experts over to the myth side to wound...
@proudfootz Well as an amateur or layperson, would you not find it more reasonable to make a decision on the matter of Josephus and what he wrote about Jesus using people with a PhD in the field than someone who has NO degree, can not teach the subject at a university etc. I find that odd but I do admit that those amateur authors such as Humphreys, Acharya S, Doherty, Zindler have readers who esteem them to be far superior to those who have the credentials to teach at Harvard etc.
@proudfootz to wound Christanity to the point that most educated people would abandon it. But Carrier wisely admits that it is possible that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was executed by Pilate about 30 CE just as most experts think. The Roman Catholic Church and protestant apologists such as William Lane Craig, PhD are fighting back and are also attacking skeptical experts who accept a HJ such as Bart Ehrman. I agree w/Ehrman & Mack that likely Jesus did utter 14% of his NT quotes
@proudfootz As to Paul, ancient Christian writings all agree with the majority view of even skeptical experts on Paul that James the Just WAS Jesus' brother in the flesh. The Roman Catholic Church dice the original languages to color the word used for brother as cousin due to their desire to have Mary eternally a virgin. But as we have discussed, it seems Paul had not heard of the VB doctrine. Josephus calles James the "brother of Jesus called Christ". Christians:"brother of the Lord
@proudfootz Well that is exactly what Alice Whealey, PhD claims. Josephus did NOT write Jesus was the Messiah but used a word that she has isolated in not Greek manuscripts that denotes a negative. Dr. Goldberg has the same stance. They believe Josephus wrote only MOST of what we read today (the TF) and he actually wrote "was believed to be the Christ/Messiah" Origen wrote "Josephus, while NOT believing Jesus was the Messiah..." So in Origen's time today's TF didn't exist I would say
Josephus known as a pious jew - of course he didn't accept Jesus as a messiah (assuming he ever heard of this Jesus).
I don't think you can find an 'authentic' TF by crossing out words any more than we can find the 'authentic' "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" by crossing out a few words.
Many PhDs may disagree - but still 25% of scholars in the field back up my opinion.
@proudfootz Several experts on Josephus I've contacted, Dr. Whealey, Dr. Feldman are convinced Josephus most likely did write the James brother of Jesus passage. Earl Doherty and Kenneth Humphreys say it's a forgery but they are NOT experts and have NO PhD in any subject so I can't really take them seriously. Maybe you can.One thing is Origen mentions the passage three times before Christian Rome had control of Josephus' writings making it unlikely it could have been forged.
I've examined the Origen mentions of Josephus carefully and am not convinced his 3rd century text had any mention of Jesus in it.
IMO Origen uses the mentions of John the Baptist and of a James to extrapolate to a Jesus.
If Origen is correctly quoting his Josephus is is not the same as the one we have today - therefore indicating either his was spurious, ours is, or most likely both are.
Christians didn't need to control Rome to alter texts they possessed.
@proudfootz Well Louis Feldman, PhD, Alice Whealey, PhD and Gary Goldberg, PhD (actually Goldberg is an amateur Josephus scholar as his PhD is in physics) find compelling evidence that an ancient version of Josephus had to have existed in which the "TF" was negative about Jesus being the Messiah and this is likely what Origen read. They hold that the James the brother of Jesus called Christ is most likely exactly what Josephus wrote and Dr. Feldman noted to me that almost all agree.
@proudfootz My view is Origen doesn't mention the TF at ALL!! unless in it's original reading that is where Origen got the position on Josephus "while not believing Jesus was the Messiah". The Jesus myth crowd insists that Origen would have quoted the TF if it had existed. But would he in the form experts think existed during his day? And you can't be dogmatic that Origen would have quoted anything. He never seems to have quoted anything word for word as we do today.
I agree. Origen doesn't mention the TF at all. My explanation for this is that it hadn't been written yet.
It would be easy for anyone to know Josephus didn't accept Jesus even if Josephus never mentions him - Josephus was jew and by definition jews don't accept Jesus as a messiah.
Yes, Origen seems to make a lot of 'free paraphrasing' of his cites, which is why I thing it reasonable to doubt the whole 'brother of Jesus called Christ, namely James' bit.
@proudfootz I disagree. I think the TF HAD been written and it was written by Josephus. Had had serious doubts until I swapped Email with Dr. Gary Goldberg and read Alice Whealey, PhD and had the opportunity to speak with her on the phone at length. She wasn't really happy that I found her telephone number online but she did give me about an hour but insisted that any future questions concerning her positions on Josephus come from her book or that I Email her. But she seemed friendly
@proudfootz Indeed, scholars say Origen never seems to quote anything exactly and his quotes of the Old Testament seem to come straight from his memory which result in a paraphrase and at times Origen's quotes of the OT are in error. Even the NT quotes the OT loosely and incorrectly! I think both sides on this Josephus/Jesus debate are being TOO DOGMATIC. These ancient writings and people are too cloudy to be dogmatic. Just educated guess work is the best anybody can do to me.
@proudfootz And what is radically different about Origen stating that Josephus wrote about James the brother of Jesus called Christ than what we read in Josephus today? What is key to scholars and experts is Origen says Josephus wrote "brother of Jesus" rather than "brother of the Lord" which is the way it reads in ALL ancient Christian writing. Always James is admitted to be a blood brother but The Lord's!!Even Paul who didn't like James wrote "the Lord's brother" in Galatians.
What is radically different is that Origen says the Josephus blames the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD on the death of James.
This is not in present versions.
Origen had a different one, apparently.
Origen doesn't specifically say Josephus wrote 'brother of Jesus' - it's either one of Origen's badly mangled paraphrases (as scholars admit he was prone to do), or an editorial comment of his own and *not* what was in the text.
@proudfootz To be honest with you, the scholars I have in my library are not sure Origen even had a copy of Josephus as his work was preserved and controlled by Rome before it became converted to Christianity and Christian monks/scribes copied and perserved Josephus for centuries. The oldest extant copy from this stream only dates to the 11 century. Origen may have been operating from memory of what he read in a library or in a wealthy man's home or he may have had only excerpts.
If it's true Origen didn't have a copy of Josephus to refer to, then all of his 'evidence' concerning what Josephus may or may not have written is on shaky ground.
Still not convinced all copies of Josephus controlled by Roman government.
@proudfootz Some scholars think it likely Origen was writing from his memory of what he read and heard from those who had read and may have confused the small account of James the Just's stoning death in Josephus with that of Hegesippus who wrote about 170 CE that Jeruslaem's destruction followed immediately upon the death of James the Just. But from what I've read, most experts think Origen had a copy of Josephus or at least large portions of Josephus' work.
@proudfootz A scholar I've read holds that Origen insists that Josephus "ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of the calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ as they did James" Origen seems to presuppose Josephus knew about the death because Origen is confident Josephus knew a Jesus called Christ who was James' brother. If Origen had only observed that Josephus only mentioned Jesus called Christ as the brother of James...
Origen's citations are only loose paraphrases - it's difficult to say where the quote leaves off and the editorial begins.
I think there was a James, son of Damneus, mentioned by Josephus who Origen conflated with James the Just, whom he conflates with James 'Brother of the Lord'.
@proudfootz why does Origen seem most confident that Josephus knew more about Jesus? This scholar then goes on to explain WHY he holds a high degree of confidence that Origen DID read an original form of the testimonium which did not have the later Christian interpolation. This scholar also thinks it's likely Josephus was making fun of Christ when he wrote "if it be lawful to call him a man". But your view that the James passage is not in the text in not supported by many PhD's...
@proudfootz including Louis Feldman, PhD and Alice Whealey, PhD who claim they can tell when Josephus is using a different scribe as each scribe's personality is found in the text. So you are welcome to reject the James brother of Jesus called Christ passage as being from the pen of Josephus but you stand almost alone and out of step with men and women who clearly know far more about how Josephus operated and wrote than you or I. Have you written Gary Goldberg at Josephus dot org?
@proudfootz My lady just came home so I've got to get off. I'm enjoying talking with you. I don't mind if you do not agree with me or Ehrman. That makes it fun. You know, I think you and I have more in common than we think. I think we both know that the absolute truth about the origin of Christianity and the "TF" etc will never be know. It's all guess work and which guess you think is most likely to be right:-)
@proudfootz So you stand almost alone in NT critical scholarship holding your position. Paul very, very likely wrote he met a blood brother of Jesus. To me the odd thing about Galatains is Paul meets two men who knew and heard Jesus and yet Paul in his genuine letters NEVER mentioned the virgin birth. Did Peter and James fail to tell Paul such a fantastic event or did Paul not think it worth mentioning or did VB doctrine NOT exist at the time Paul wrote Galatains which usually is dated about 50
@proudfootz Well Kenneth Humphreys and Acharya S. two amateur critics of Christianity part with the skeptical experts and hold that Paul probably didn't exist either and rather than only 6 or 7 of his letters are genuine, Paul didn't write anything. ALL of his letters are second century forgeries. Experts such as Dr. Ehrman (Email to me) think these amateurs are NUTS! But Paul does mention the historical Jesus. On the night he was betrayed. Born under the law, born of a woman etc etc
As you might know even the letters thought to be genuine Paul have been redacted, and cut up, and rearranged. So it's difficult to be 100% sure what is Paul's original intention and what is an artifact of later meddling.
The things that Paul says of his Jesus are all matters of his theology and not matters of fact. When people are portrayed as trying to verify Paul's gospel they turn to scripture and not an investigation into what happened in Jerusalem years ago.
@proudfootz I beg to differ about Paul. No one is in agreement as to how much of Paul's letters have been redacted and cut up. The Catholic Church has a most scholarly site online that refutes all of that and even argues that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, three of his letters that 98 % of skeptical scholars hold as forgeries. And how many of Paul's letters are fakes is up in the air too. Generally 7 are accepted as genuine. But authors such as Humphreys&Acharya S hold all...
@proudfootz of Paul's letters are fakes, written in the second century, because like Jesus, St. Paul never existed either. Indeed Frank Zindler holds that Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist never existed and that the passages in Josephus about John the Baptist are also forgeries. But those with a PhD in the field find these people crazy and only trying to sell books and go to any length to embarrass Christianity. Having people like Zindler on his show is why this guy here wants to fuss
@proudfootz with Bart Ehrman. The Infidel Guy wants to challenge Ehrman with people such as Zindler, Humphreys, Acharya S and Earl Doherty but can't do it because, IMO, he knows Ehrman will laugh at him for trying to shoot him out of the water about Paul, Jesus, Galatains etc with amateurs so he goes to Robert Price who IS a PhD in the field and doubts Jesus existed. But Bob Price DOUBTS Jesus existed rather than REJECTS that Jesus existed as do people such as Humphreys. So!!
@proudfootz Well yeah Dr. Ehrman laughs at people such as Acharya S and Ken Humphreys who not only hold that Jesus never existed, never was crucified, never had a following but the gospels were written in the late 2nd century and that ALL of Paul's letters are forged because Paul never existed either. Indeed Acharya S makes it clear that outside of Christian writings there is not a shred of evidence Paul existed. He is not mentioned by any non Christian writer of his time.
@proudfootz Well what is happening in this interview is the Infidel Guy is really wanting to inject those he has had on his show and info from the books he has read from people such as Christian haters Acharya S, Earl Doherty, Ken Humphreys, Frank Zindler. You can hear him wanting to go there but he stops short because he knows Ehrman will laugh at him if he mentions people who have NO credentials in the field and are not qualified to teach the material as Ehrman is.
@proudfootz - Hey, you might be a smart atheist, I mean since you didn't panic and throw out the flying spaghetti monster or easter bunny, understand so far?
Here is a brief list of devout believers, please rank yourself intellectually in this group - Newton, Kepler, Dante, Shakespeare, Coperincus, Bach
@proudfootz Well wouldn't you expert a man with a PhD in this field who has been in deep research for over 30 years and thinks his is an expert to laugh at someone like Acharya S or Ken Humphreys or Earl Doherty or Frank Zindler. And for the average guy like myself, Ehrman's opinion carries more weight than these atheist amateurs who claim Jesus never lived, Paul is fake, the gospels written in 2nd century, Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus is claimed etc.It's bullshit to Ehrman.
@proudfootz And Ehrman is correct. There are NO known professors, experts, scholars with a PhD who are writing and teaching in the US or Europe today who hold that absolutely Jesus never existed, Paul never existed, Paul didn't write Galatians etc etc. Even Bob Price had a Jesus Seminar scholar on his show, Bob Miller,PhD who provided his position who Jesus really was and taught and Price, who doubts Jesus existed, never challenged him on the air. Maybe just being polite?
@proudfootz I've had two historians tell me (and Ehrman even says the same in one of his lectures here on YouTube) that concerning things that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago one can only say what is very likely, likely, unlikely and very unlikely. Historians and scholars who are not Christians and hold that the gospels report historical facts are sure Jesus existed and claim to know some of his words and teachings but other than that, Jesus is not that well known.
@proudfootz But neither is Paul or Josephus or Pilate for example. Acharya S rejects a historical Paul on grounds that early Christians were liars and outside of the NT and Christian writings NOTHING is mentioned about Paul. Paul was not noticed by anyone including Josephus. If you dig deep, not much is known about Josephus. When did he die? Where is he buried? Before the Pilate stone was found in 1961, a number of historians doubted Pilate existed.
@proudfootz Or Joseph Atwill who has a new book that holds Jesus and Paul never existed and all of Paul's letters are forged but Josephus WROTE THE TF JUST AS IT READS TODAY!!! Why? Because Josephus was part of a Roman conspiracy to invent Christianity and Jesus. Atwill is attracting a lot of followers and has been on TV. But PhD level scholars like Ehrman LAUGH at that!! Probably not to belittle but in disbelief that the crazy theories are out there.
@proudfootz In recent years I began to think Josephus' "TF" was a forgery but after speaking with Alice Whealey, PhD, a Josephus expert and Dr. Gary Goldberg who runs the site wwwdotjosephusdotorg I've become convinced Josephus does mention Jesus and his execution by Pilate but some zealous Christian later added a minor interpolation to the TF to make it read Josephus accepted Jesus as Messiah. But Origen wrote he did NOT! Dr. Goldberg claims Josephus....
I'm inclined to think the whole TF is a forgery. I do not find the arguments for 'partial authenticity' to be persuasive. Even the most bland versions are too adulatory to be believed of Josephus IMO.
Good you have contacts with scholars you trust!
But even if Josephus mentions Jesus and crucifixion by Pilate it's most likely that information comes from christians - this all happened 60 years before Josephus wrote his book. Plenty of time for legends to grow.
@proudfootz You are welcome to hold the entire TF is a forgery. But after Emailing Gary Goldberg, PhD(Physics not NT or Josephus) and reading and speaking with Alice Whealey, PhD (her book "Josephus on Jesus" to me is excellent) and Emails between myself and Louis Feldman, PhD, I'm convinced without much doubt that Josephus DID pen the TF but some Christian made a minor change to it later. It's unlikely Origen had a copy that was faked because Pagan Rome had control of Josephus then.
@proudfootz No the argument is that during Origen's time the works of Josephus were in control of Pagan Rome for copying and preservation. Jesus myth supporters delight in reporting that Josephus was in the hands of Christian scribes for centuries for copying and preservation so they tampered with them. Atheist Frank Zindler has a book and article that holds the passage in Josephus about John the Baptist is also an interpolation and JtB never existed either.
@proudfootz Atheist amateur author Frank Zindler, who is a huge critic of and loves to trash Christianity insists in his book the John the Baptist passage, the Jesus passages are all Christian forgeries as is the Tacitus passage. He argues that Origen may have had Josephus confused with another or his Josephus info may have come from hearsay and Origen NEVER read one word from a Josephus manuscript. But that is the kind of extreme shit you get from someone who is motivated by hate.
@proudfootz Well Zindler, Acharya S, Earl Doherty etc just despise Christianity, God's plan of salvation through Jesus' death on the cross etc. As Paul wrote about the Jews and the Greeks. To the Jew Christ's death for our sins is a stumbling block and to the Greeks it is foolishness! To these atheist amateurs it is foolishness and for some reason that want to trash Christianity publicly and appeal to people to leave it if you're in it and laugh at it if you are not a Christian.
@proudfootz Atheists such as Burton L. Mack, PhD, author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" who is also a well known skeptical NT scholar and supposed expert on Christian origins and "Q" is like Ehrman, Crosson, Edwards etc. They are skeptics who are working to understand Christianity from the standpoint of a humanist who is agnostic about it's claims. Mack is trashed by Christians because he finds most of Christian dogma to be myth and legend.
@proudfootz But Dr. Mack certainly isn't a man who has an agenda to destroy Christianity like many of the Jesus myth authors. One skeptical scholar and claimed expert on who Jesus probably really was told me via Email that the Jesus myth crowd seems to think that if they can get most thinking people to see Jesus as mythical, then the foundation stone is cracked and the rest will fall like a house of cards and finally modern educated people will be rid of Christianity.
@proudfootz The Roman Catholic Church claims it's tradition proves the people in the New Testament existed and that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead. They claimed they put the New Testament together and that two of their early members studied under the Apostle John who claimed to have seen Jesus and heard him speak. They also have a spirited website to refute scholars such as Ehrman who hold that several of Paul's letters are second century forgeries.
@proudfootz When Dr. Loisey wrote his learned opinion of how the gospel of John came to read as it does today, he was kicked out of the Catholic Church. John's gospel was written in the late first century and contains a few historical details. Then on top of that we have additions that are myths and legends, redactions, interpolations and multiple authors to get to what we read in the NT today. The church holds John wrote it all at one time so Loisey was kicked out.
@proudfootz But what is interesting to me, even many modern study Bibles admit when you get to John 8 that the oldest copies of John do not contain these verses!! It's a wonderful story of forgiveness by Jesus of the woman who was caught in adultery and the Jews wanted her stoned to death and Jesus said "the one who is without sin cast the first stone". Well nobody is perfect so they left & Jesus forgave her. I would like to know why that famous story is missing in the oldest copies.
@proudfootz When it first appears in the manuscript stream, the verses are in brackets indicating the scribe wasn't sure it was suppose to be there. Also in an old copy of Luke, the story is at the end. As we move away in time from the oldest copies and the next oldest with the brackets, the story is merged into the narrative without any indication it is an addition. So Dr. Losey's keen eye and scholarship may have been right. If so, then that cuts into the position John is inspired.
@proudfootz As to the historical Jesus destroying Christianity...if more & more Christains take the position of Ehrman, Mack, Crosson, Edwards, Miller, Tabor, etc etc that Jesus was just a man who had a small band of followers in the early first century & taught "turn the other cheek", "the kingdom of God is within you" the sermon on the mount, the lord's prayer etc& he & his followers didn't expect him to get into trouble & get crucified by Pilate, then the faith would be damaged.
@proudfootz When you see yourself as lost, lonely, sinful and probably from a child who believed that at death you would either go to heaven or hell, the gospel of Jesus offers one pardon, atonement, forgiveness, love and eternal life. All you have to do is ask Jesus to be your savior and his grace will cleans and transform you and by his power you can live the Christian life. It sets people free. My problem is that I'm not sure it's real. I've been agnostic for years.
@proudfootz If guys such as Ehrman, Mack, Tabor etc are right, then the historical Jesus was just a man who never claimed any kind of deity or virgin birth but did offer teachings about God, his kingdom etc that attracted a small following. Also if these men are right, Paul somehow had his experience on the road to Damascus and tied the deity of Christ to the original Jesus movement & the Christian faith evolved from there. If Doherty is right, then Jesus didn't even live.
@proudfootz According to Burton L. Mack, who wrote "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth", Jesus' followers during his lifetime, when he spoke some of the teachings found in the gospels and in ancient Christian writings, were not called Christians and were stunned when Jesus was executed by Pilate. It was a small movement that largely went unnoticed until Paul & others began to develop the myths and legends and this movement eventually was adopted by Rome.
@proudfootz Mack is a well known liberal/critical New Testament scholar who is also said to be a leading expert on the missing document "Q" which is supposed to record the actual words of Jesus and is thought to have been source material for the gospels. Mack is not retired on the west coast but seems to be a nice guy. I think he is an atheist if I remember correctly. But writers such as Humphreys claim guys like Ehrman & Mack are only offering educated guesses that are wrong.
There's a great deal of subjectivity in this field - there's often the notion that this is 'likely' and that is 'unlikely' and so on. Well what does that mean? It comes down to the personal opinion of the individual.
This is one reason why based on the evidence we have today we'll probably never know for sure one way or the other.
@proudfootz Well the so called experts connect the dots of evidence such as Paul mentioning meeting Jesus' brother James, a few early second century Christians writing they met & knew John who knew Jesus and heard him teach etc etc that provide proof Jesus did exist. Then they strip away that which they find myths/legends that developed over time & due to Paul's visionary experience on the road to Damascus which skeptics hold Paul was mentally disturbed or struck by lightening.
@proudfootz Then you have radical atheist amateur authors such as Acharya S., Ken Humphreys, Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler, Josephs Atwill, that write the skeptical experts with a PhD in this field, even those with the skeptical Jesus Seminar, are not providing any real evidence at all and that baby should be thrown out with the bath water! Jesus never existed, Paul never existed & wrote nothing and the Jesus passages in Josephus&Tacitus are forgeries. It makes those in the field mad?
Those PhDs would be so embarrassed to find out they staked their professional reputations on the historicity of a man who turned out never to have existed except as a literary device.
But that could happen since they admit it's not ever going to be 100% sure there was a 'real Jesus'.
@proudfootz I heard Ehrman lecture on critical NT scholarship & the tools of being a historian and then Ehrman said something like "when working with events that happened hundreds & thousands of years ago (2 thousand years since Josephus wrote & Jesus lived) the historian can only measure what is very likely, likely, not likely & most unlikely. So I see you your point. It's similar to theories on the origin of the universe or life. Likely but could be wrong!
@proudfootz But I'm not impressed with the extreme skepticism and out right rejection of a historical Jesus, Paul, the "TF", the James passage, the Tacitus passage by amateurs such as Zindler & Humphreys. I've read these people and listened to them speak online & clearly they are motivated more by their intense dislike of religion & Christianity in particular. They actually are trying to damage Christianity to the extent that it will die out with educated people & disappear over time
@proudfootz They have two PhD holders, one in the field & the other kinda in the field who offer support for the Jesus myth position. Robert Price, PhD and Richard Carrier, PhD. Carrier is working to turn the tide of critical experts in the field to the position that a historical Jesus likely did not exist from the current position. But these two will only say they have serious doubts Jesus existed & we can't know for sure. & there are a couple others who have slight doubt of Jesus
@proudfootz Is your handle connected to an Indian name? My great grandmother on my father's side was half Indian. Or so they say but that could be a myth..I don't know:-) I've got to get a haircut and go to the bank (closes on Sat at noon) so I've got to run for now. Hope you have a good day and it's nice to see you again via this thread.
@proudfootz To me and to experts such as Whealey, Feldman, Mack, Ehrman, Tabor, Edwards, Miller, Crosson etc (none of which are believers in the doctrines of Christianity) the position that Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother) had a Jewish cult going in Jerusalem in the early 1st century and we know some of Jesus' teachings and words and that Jesus was crucified (he and his followers were not expecting that) about 30 CE is close to historical FACT.
@proudfootz Josephus used a source that the unknown author of Luke also used for a small portion of his gospel. These Josephus experts even claim to be able to tell when Josephus changed scribes as their influence is seen in the narrative. Also a few scholars are convinced Tacitus used Josephus for his source when writing about Christ and Christians and the fire. They find the wording to be indication of what Josephus wrote at the TF. But the fact is we don't know absolutely th facts
True, we'll never absolutely know and just have to use our good sense to try and guide us.
Weird if Tacitus used Josephus as a source for the 'fire in Rome' story, because Josephus doesn't mention it AFAIK.
It may well be that the authors of the gospels were familiar with Josephus and lifted elements for their stories. Not sure what to make of the 'common source' shared with the author(s) of gLuke, though...
@proudfootz The two books I have where the scholar holds that it is likely Tacitus, who is thought to have always used sources, used Josephus for his info on Jesus and Christianity, hold that it was limited to Jesus (Christ) being the origin of the name Christian and that he was executed by Pilate. Not the fire in Rome. But Tacitus says Christianity vanished after Christ was killed but broke out again and spread to Rome. That is different from Josephus so Tacitus had multiple source?
@proudfootz If you would get Alice Whealey PhD's book "Josephus on Jesus, the Controversy" you would see that Dr. Whealey has uncovered proof that manuscripts do exist and have existed that read "was thought to be" or "was believed to be the Christ" rather than "was the Christ". Also Josephus was not a pious jew was he. The jews hold he sold out to the Romans. They refused to preserve his writings and only Christian monks/scribes are why we have his works extant today.
Supposedly in Medieval times Jews denied there were any such passages in Hebrew texts of Josephus.
I understand Whealey thinks Josephus might have actually made *positive* mentions of Jesus, against what most scholars hold. She's on the fringe too, apparently...
@proudfootz I've read that there is a record of someone who claimed Josephus in his copy said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity. But only that ONE account. But does this indicate Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus and Christianity or does it indicated someone REMOVED the TF and the James passage in this copy. Or did this copy ever exist? Whealey does not think Josephus made positive mentions of Jesus but negative as to being Christ. Also Whealey is in MAJORITY
@proudfootz I've read that there is a record of someone who claimed Josephus in his copy said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity. But only that ONE account. But does this indicate Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus and Christianity or does it indicated someone REMOVED the TF and the James passage in this copy. Or did this copy ever exist? Whealey does not think Josephus made positive mentions of Jesus but negative as to being Christ. Also Whealey is in MAJORITY
@proudfootz There is NO doubt about it. The TF has been altered. Even Christian scholars usually admit it. Dr. Craig, the famous Christian apologist who debates atheists holds the same view as Whealey and Feldman. He's William Lane Craig, PhD. Many of his debates with Frank Zindler, Christopher Hitchens who just died (R.I.P), Richard Carrier and many other atheists are here on YouTube. I'm an agnostic myself. I was raised Christian so I enjoy watching a Christian and atheist go at it
@proudfootz I had not heard of Dr. Whealey until Dr. Feldman, who is Jewish and is not friendly toward Christianity, suggested I get his book and her book on Josephus. Louis Feldman told me that the majority view and his view is that apparently Josephus did write the TF but some zealous Christian scribe later tampered with it. And Feldman can't find a reason to hold that the James passage is a forgery. Says its possible but not likely when one considers all the arguments.
We should certainly consider all the arguments, whoever makes them.
I find that since Josephus was an ardent jew that he would not very likely have written 'Jesus called Christ' a very good reason to doubt this passage.
@proudfootz Josephus most likely did write "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" but Josephus did NOT write the TF as it reads today. Drs. Whealey and Feldman both told me they have read what Jerome had in Greek and it reads "was believed to be Christ" rather than "was the Christ". This and other evidence is strong indication to them that Josephus did not write the TF as it reads today and somehow Origen knew it. It could well be that Origen read the original TF for his opinion.
@proudfootz Dr. Whealey book "Josephus on Jesus" came out in 2003 or 4 and that was when I was writing Dr. Feldman at New York University who is internationally known as one of the best authorities on Josephus, Tacitus etc. But I think Dr. Feldman, now in his 80's, is retired. I will try to find out so you can write him too. But Dr. Goldberg will get right back with you. I was a bit disappointed to learn he is an amateur on Josephus as his PhD is in physics.But he has 20 yrs study.
@proudfootz I just googled Feldman and found his page on Wikipedia with a picture of him. He is a practicing Jew and now 85. Probably retired. But a Josephus scholar and expert since 1956. Couldn't find his survey. But I think he found that most scholars found that the TF is either a forgery or more likely "glossed" by a later Christian scribe. And that is Feldman's position. That Josephus likely wrote the TF and it got altered.He is quoted on Goldberg's site.
@proudfootz I would imagine Goldberg probably is a little better qualified to speak on Josephus than Doherty. Doherty thinks the James passage only read James brother of Jesus and a later scribe put "called Christ" in the margin which later was moved into the text. Goldberg holds Josephus wrote it just as it is reads today. That is also my position and I have a good reasons for it. Goldberg has been a Josephus student for over 20 years and he IS a scientist who has a PhD in physics.
@proudfootz As to the "common source" theory of Dr. Goldberg, you need to Email him at the address at his site. That guy is absolutely convinced he is right and that he has solved the TF mystery and that Josephus wrote it but it was later changed to read like a Christian confessional later. I too and a bit skeptical about his position but Gary is dug in and will not let the slightest challenge to his view go without a stiff rebuke. He told me he could care less if Jesus existed but
Yes, that exchange, re. Price, amused me too! Ehrman: "I don't really know him, no.. . why would I? . . what books has he published?" Infidel: "Deconstructing Jesus." Ehrman: Yeah he's actually communicated with me and he's told me some of his doubts and I've been puzzled by it because I don't really understand . . I haven't seen any evidence that he's produced". What a gem! All the same I like Ehrman; at least he's recognisably human unlike many of his usual adversaries in the apologetics camp!
NUAGESA 4 days ago
im surprised that Dr Ehrman would merely argue that "no serious historical scholars doubt that there was ever a historical jesus" ..based apon what ? paul's letters are unimpeachable proof ? his rather rude dismissal of Dr Price ..first he never heard of him ,then he actually talked with him about this very subject ?
woodenmajor 6 days ago
I believe on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he love all mankind, he created everything. This is my testimony.
MrBabyMaddox 1 week ago
@prodfootz
Thanks for your "brother of the Lord" contribution - this makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone happen to know the chapter and verse of the "off the cuff" and "disinterested remark" that Ehrman is referring to with regard to Paul in this part interview? I gather that it's probably from Galatians, lol, but even that isn't entirely certain . . or is it? I also agree with your comment about motivations being unimportant too btw - quality of argument does it for me every time, lol!
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
@Dogsneeze
I totally agree that 'infidel guy' handles this interview appallingly badly - however the underlying objections that he is attempting to articulate are not without merit! I like Bart Ehrman but his methodology is not is not beyond criticism and I don't mean that either personally or professionally. It is simply that historians struggle with sparse material and are forced to use what is available! However, the conclusion that Jesus definitely existed is stretching things considerably!
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
@proudfoot
My understanding is that Q is a speculative document, predicated on the assumption that everything common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark must have another prior source. Problem is, Ehrman further speculates M and L as prior sources for exclusive Matthew and Luke. He also identifies the problems of TF but then proceeds to treat Q, M, L and TF as good independent sources & concludes multiple attestations! Limitations of the historical method perhaps, but a stretch nonetheless.
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
Whilst proximity to events is good, it is not decisive when there are other considerations such as exclusivity and doctrinal bias. For example, no group was closer to events in 20th century Russia than the Bolsheviks, but who would trust their version exclusively? Jesus may be the most contemporaneously, but not necessarily the best attested figure in the ancient world! Finally, scholarly consensus is not evidence and in the field of Biblical research it may simply reflect deep theological bias!
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
@NUAGESA
The consensus of bible scholars should be treated with the same skepticism we might reserve for the consensus of creation scientists.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
Let's attempt to nail this Julius Caesar analogy! He was defined by momentous events which changed history. Rome changed from a Republic to an Empire. Fortunes changed hands, battles were fought and many people wrote about it independently. Somebody was in charge when all this happened so personal details aside, his existence is beyond dispute! Contrast with Jesus who was all personality, only attested by his followers, & had no historical impact in his own time; altogether a different problem!
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
@NUAGESA
Comparing the reliability of evidence for this Jesus to that of Caesar is absurd - hard to believe anyone could fall for that line.
There's a couple of centuries of development behind the Hellenization of Judaism which culminates in orthodox christianity - so there's not much room for the origin being one obscure man executed as a criminal by Pilate in Judea.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
OK, so somebody whose identity we know as Paul, wrote Galatians. I accept that historians know that much, but how do they know he wasn't writing fiction or wasn't a deluded soul like Joseph Smith, for example? It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie in order to not be true! Much as I admire Ehrman, I do question this. A name in itself will not suffice. Surely, If you exclude the, arguably self serving, early Christian testimony, there is no more evidence for the historical Paul than for Jesus.
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
@NUAGESA Amateur authors (I use the word as these authors have no PhD in this or any field) such as Acharya S, Ken Humphreys, Frank Zindler and Joseph Atwill hold that Paul didn't exist and wrote NOTHING! All his letters are second century forgeries just as the hold the gospels are late second century forgeries. Atwill is really odd in that he finds Christianity to be an invention of Rome & Josephus helped them with the scam & wrote the "TF" just as it reads in extant copies of Josephus
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Wouldn't it be funny if the 'amateur authors' turned out to be correct after all?
Could happen, since we don't know for sure.
All those PhDs would be so embarrassed!
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@NUAGESA I've had the opportunity to discuss the "TF" with three Josephus experts. Louis Feldman, PhD, Alice Whealey, PhD & Gary Goldberg, PhD (Goldberg has researched Josephus for years but his PhD is in Physics) and all tell me that most experts including the three of them, hold that Josephus did not write the "TF" as it reads today. He wrote "was believed to be the Christ" & the TF contains a minor interpolation introduced by a later Christian copyist.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Yes, some accept the whole TF, some reject only parts, and a good minority of scholars reject the whole thing.
I accept the arguments of the scholars who reject the whole passage - none of it seems like the sort of thing Josephus would write.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
That "infidel guy" is being infantile, throwing anything he can against the wall to see if it sticks, while displaying a complete indifference to the subject of history itself.
DogSneeze 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This host is HORRIBLE and is frig'n disgrace to all atheist's everywhere.
DidacticEno 2 weeks ago
In summary, Infidel Guy invited the wrong guy for the show and shoot his own foot. You can see from here atheist desperation.
tancheeken 4 weeks ago
At 7:40 Ehrman admits he makes his living off of touting Jesus - I guess that explains why he has such an interest in promoting Jesus...
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Argumentum ad hominem.
gugamilare 1 month ago
@gugamilare
Yes, Ehrman does indulge himself in that fallacy.
Sad, really.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz I was talking about you using that fallacy.
gugamilare 1 month ago
@proudfootz all historians have an interest in promoting history. next excuse?
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
History, sure.
Promoting mythical bible characters as if they were real? Not so much.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Jesus isn't a "mythical character." so try again. If the evidence showed that Jesus was fiction rather than real, Ehrman would have every motivation to promote that idea in his writings. he's an agnostic. it's fundy atheists who can't handle the truth and stick to their skepticism as if it were dogma.
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
There's just no good solid evidence for this Jesus who first makes his appearance as a vision to Paul.
proudfootz 1 month ago
Paul never says he met any relative of Jesus.
Why does Ehrman have to lie?
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz He did say, read Galatians 1:19.
gugamilare 1 month ago
@gugamilare
Paul consistently uses 'brother' to designate believers of some sort, not biological siblings.
Unless in Corinthians Paul is saying Jesus had 500 brothers...?
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz wrong! if you look at the context, it's quite easy to tell that Jesus has biological relatives in the New testament and they are clearly distinguished from the disciples. this argument fails. how do mythical people have flesh and blood families that can be interacted with? Jesus Mythers fail again. before they saw this video they were signing Ehrman's praises.
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
Cain had a brother named Abel, and parents too.
Obviously they're as real as Jesus. LOL!
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz. Cain? What does he have to do with anything? listen here, Paul is a historical figure. that's beyond doubt. now that historical figure interacts with blood relatives of Jesus. so a real person, interacts with other real people, who are related by blood to a mythical person who never existed? please explain that.
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
You made the absurd claim that mythical characters can't have siblings.
Cain is another character from the bible - like Jesus.
Paul never says he interacted with any 'blood relative' of this Jesus.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz it's quite clear when you look at those passages that there were physical followers of Jesus in Paul's time AND flesh and blood relatives of Jesus also living at that time, and the writers of the New Testament make distinctions between them. so this refutes the idea that there was this generic "brothers of the Lord" term that applied to anyone who believed in Jesus, making it possible to imagine that you could be 'Jesus' brother' and Jesus not actually exist.
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
The 'gospel' narratives come later than Paul - not written by eye-witnesses but just stories to promote their religion like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard wrote.
In the 'gospel' stories the alleged blood relatives of this Jesus think Jesus is insane and are not believers at all.
So yes, there is a big distinction between the 'blood brothers' who are definitely *not* christians and 'brother believers' who are.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz now if you want to be like the Infidel guy and say that Paul was lying, or that Paul himself didn't exist, well that's just sophistry. it's fine to be skeptical of things, but once you have the evidence to make a decision, continuing to be obstinate in the face of facts really isn't a virtue.
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
Paul is certainly capable of lying, but he never says he met any blood relative of Jesus - he merely states he met another 'brother of the Lord' like the 500 'brothers' who also saw Jesus in a vision.
Those are the facts which you are living in denial of.
proudfootz 1 month ago
@proudfootz Even most of the critical scholars I have in my library hold the position that the James in Galatains Paul claims to have met along with Peter, was indeed Jesus' brother in the flesh and was head of the Jerusalem Jesus movement which seems to have held much different beliefs that Paul's version and Paul admits they fought. James is called Jesus brother in many early Christian writings as well as Josephus. Except Josephus calls James the brother of Jesus called Christ rather than Lord
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Paul says he met someone called Cephas along with someone named James.
We don't know if the 'Jesus called Christ' references now found in texts of Josephus are authentic - some scholars think not.
Lots of Jameses in the New Testament - it's not clear that they all refer to the same person.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz All Bible scholars I have in my library, and being agnostic, I have a number of skeptical scholars, have no doubt Cephas is Peter. Cephas is Greek for rock and Peter was called "the rock". I don't know of any experts who would doubt Paul in Galatains is speaking of meeting Peter and Jesus' brother James in the flesh. And it is accepted by scholars that Paul and those in the original Jesus movement in Jerusalem didn't really get along (i. e. Peter, James and Paul).
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
That's fine that that's what they think.
I don't feel compelled to agree.
For instance Paul uses the word 'brother' almost exclusively to mean a 'fellow believer' and when he talks of biological kinship uses the words rendered 'according to the flesh'.
There does seem to be an astonishing variety of beliefs among the early christian cults - to the point I doubt they have their source in the life of one man called Jesus.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz The Jesus myth theory is rather dead with the experts. Only amateur authors such as Acharya S, Kenneth Humphreys, Frank Zindler and Earl Doherty insist Jesus never existed and they have NO PhD in this field or any field for that matter. Plus they are motivated by a huge dislike of religion in general and Christianity in particular. But their zeal is joined by Richard Carrier who has a PhD and is very interested in moving the experts over to the myth side to wound...
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I don't care who has a PhD.
I care about knowing the truth.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well as an amateur or layperson, would you not find it more reasonable to make a decision on the matter of Josephus and what he wrote about Jesus using people with a PhD in the field than someone who has NO degree, can not teach the subject at a university etc. I find that odd but I do admit that those amateur authors such as Humphreys, Acharya S, Doherty, Zindler have readers who esteem them to be far superior to those who have the credentials to teach at Harvard etc.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
It's not a matter of 'credentials' it's a matter of whether they put forward a good case.
Used to be most scholars rejected both the TF in total and the other bit about James.
A study of scholars shows that even modern scholars 25% reject the TF altogether.
I consider that any intelligent person should be able to decide for themselves which arguments are persuasive.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz to wound Christanity to the point that most educated people would abandon it. But Carrier wisely admits that it is possible that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was executed by Pilate about 30 CE just as most experts think. The Roman Catholic Church and protestant apologists such as William Lane Craig, PhD are fighting back and are also attacking skeptical experts who accept a HJ such as Bart Ehrman. I agree w/Ehrman & Mack that likely Jesus did utter 14% of his NT quotes
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
It would be impossible to rule anything out 100%
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz As to Paul, ancient Christian writings all agree with the majority view of even skeptical experts on Paul that James the Just WAS Jesus' brother in the flesh. The Roman Catholic Church dice the original languages to color the word used for brother as cousin due to their desire to have Mary eternally a virgin. But as we have discussed, it seems Paul had not heard of the VB doctrine. Josephus calles James the "brother of Jesus called Christ". Christians:"brother of the Lord
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Yes, there are a lot of people named James in the NT.
Are they all the same? All different? Some the same? Who knows for sure? Not me.
Many are skeptical of the Josephus reference - why would a pious jew call Jesus the Messiah? Makes more sense someone else wrote that part.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well that is exactly what Alice Whealey, PhD claims. Josephus did NOT write Jesus was the Messiah but used a word that she has isolated in not Greek manuscripts that denotes a negative. Dr. Goldberg has the same stance. They believe Josephus wrote only MOST of what we read today (the TF) and he actually wrote "was believed to be the Christ/Messiah" Origen wrote "Josephus, while NOT believing Jesus was the Messiah..." So in Origen's time today's TF didn't exist I would say
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Josephus known as a pious jew - of course he didn't accept Jesus as a messiah (assuming he ever heard of this Jesus).
I don't think you can find an 'authentic' TF by crossing out words any more than we can find the 'authentic' "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" by crossing out a few words.
Many PhDs may disagree - but still 25% of scholars in the field back up my opinion.
So this is not 'unscholarly' at all.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Several experts on Josephus I've contacted, Dr. Whealey, Dr. Feldman are convinced Josephus most likely did write the James brother of Jesus passage. Earl Doherty and Kenneth Humphreys say it's a forgery but they are NOT experts and have NO PhD in any subject so I can't really take them seriously. Maybe you can.One thing is Origen mentions the passage three times before Christian Rome had control of Josephus' writings making it unlikely it could have been forged.
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I've examined the Origen mentions of Josephus carefully and am not convinced his 3rd century text had any mention of Jesus in it.
IMO Origen uses the mentions of John the Baptist and of a James to extrapolate to a Jesus.
If Origen is correctly quoting his Josephus is is not the same as the one we have today - therefore indicating either his was spurious, ours is, or most likely both are.
Christians didn't need to control Rome to alter texts they possessed.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well Louis Feldman, PhD, Alice Whealey, PhD and Gary Goldberg, PhD (actually Goldberg is an amateur Josephus scholar as his PhD is in physics) find compelling evidence that an ancient version of Josephus had to have existed in which the "TF" was negative about Jesus being the Messiah and this is likely what Origen read. They hold that the James the brother of Jesus called Christ is most likely exactly what Josephus wrote and Dr. Feldman noted to me that almost all agree.
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Problem is Origen mentions nothing that even remotely resembles TF.
The version of the James story is radically different than versions we have today.
This is compelling evidence both are forgeries.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz My view is Origen doesn't mention the TF at ALL!! unless in it's original reading that is where Origen got the position on Josephus "while not believing Jesus was the Messiah". The Jesus myth crowd insists that Origen would have quoted the TF if it had existed. But would he in the form experts think existed during his day? And you can't be dogmatic that Origen would have quoted anything. He never seems to have quoted anything word for word as we do today.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I agree. Origen doesn't mention the TF at all. My explanation for this is that it hadn't been written yet.
It would be easy for anyone to know Josephus didn't accept Jesus even if Josephus never mentions him - Josephus was jew and by definition jews don't accept Jesus as a messiah.
Yes, Origen seems to make a lot of 'free paraphrasing' of his cites, which is why I thing it reasonable to doubt the whole 'brother of Jesus called Christ, namely James' bit.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I disagree. I think the TF HAD been written and it was written by Josephus. Had had serious doubts until I swapped Email with Dr. Gary Goldberg and read Alice Whealey, PhD and had the opportunity to speak with her on the phone at length. She wasn't really happy that I found her telephone number online but she did give me about an hour but insisted that any future questions concerning her positions on Josephus come from her book or that I Email her. But she seemed friendly
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Cool that you were able to speak with Whealey at length about her views.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Indeed, scholars say Origen never seems to quote anything exactly and his quotes of the Old Testament seem to come straight from his memory which result in a paraphrase and at times Origen's quotes of the OT are in error. Even the NT quotes the OT loosely and incorrectly! I think both sides on this Josephus/Jesus debate are being TOO DOGMATIC. These ancient writings and people are too cloudy to be dogmatic. Just educated guess work is the best anybody can do to me.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I agree.
We just do the best we can trying to use our intelligence and knowledge of human nature.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz And what is radically different about Origen stating that Josephus wrote about James the brother of Jesus called Christ than what we read in Josephus today? What is key to scholars and experts is Origen says Josephus wrote "brother of Jesus" rather than "brother of the Lord" which is the way it reads in ALL ancient Christian writing. Always James is admitted to be a blood brother but The Lord's!!Even Paul who didn't like James wrote "the Lord's brother" in Galatians.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
What is radically different is that Origen says the Josephus blames the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD on the death of James.
This is not in present versions.
Origen had a different one, apparently.
Origen doesn't specifically say Josephus wrote 'brother of Jesus' - it's either one of Origen's badly mangled paraphrases (as scholars admit he was prone to do), or an editorial comment of his own and *not* what was in the text.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz To be honest with you, the scholars I have in my library are not sure Origen even had a copy of Josephus as his work was preserved and controlled by Rome before it became converted to Christianity and Christian monks/scribes copied and perserved Josephus for centuries. The oldest extant copy from this stream only dates to the 11 century. Origen may have been operating from memory of what he read in a library or in a wealthy man's home or he may have had only excerpts.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
If it's true Origen didn't have a copy of Josephus to refer to, then all of his 'evidence' concerning what Josephus may or may not have written is on shaky ground.
Still not convinced all copies of Josephus controlled by Roman government.
Any source for this claim?
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Some scholars think it likely Origen was writing from his memory of what he read and heard from those who had read and may have confused the small account of James the Just's stoning death in Josephus with that of Hegesippus who wrote about 170 CE that Jeruslaem's destruction followed immediately upon the death of James the Just. But from what I've read, most experts think Origen had a copy of Josephus or at least large portions of Josephus' work.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz A scholar I've read holds that Origen insists that Josephus "ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of the calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ as they did James" Origen seems to presuppose Josephus knew about the death because Origen is confident Josephus knew a Jesus called Christ who was James' brother. If Origen had only observed that Josephus only mentioned Jesus called Christ as the brother of James...
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Origen's citations are only loose paraphrases - it's difficult to say where the quote leaves off and the editorial begins.
I think there was a James, son of Damneus, mentioned by Josephus who Origen conflated with James the Just, whom he conflates with James 'Brother of the Lord'.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz why does Origen seem most confident that Josephus knew more about Jesus? This scholar then goes on to explain WHY he holds a high degree of confidence that Origen DID read an original form of the testimonium which did not have the later Christian interpolation. This scholar also thinks it's likely Josephus was making fun of Christ when he wrote "if it be lawful to call him a man". But your view that the James passage is not in the text in not supported by many PhD's...
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I've read Origen and does not seem so 'confident' as all that.
He says Celsus accepts existence of John the Baptist. Well, we say John baptized Jesus.
Since you accept the existence of John, whom Josephus writes of, you should accept James - who we say is the brother of Jesus.
But Origen never explicitly says Josephus mentioned Jesus, just these two that christians associate with Jesus.
Any number of PhDs can be wrong - they are only humans not gods.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz including Louis Feldman, PhD and Alice Whealey, PhD who claim they can tell when Josephus is using a different scribe as each scribe's personality is found in the text. So you are welcome to reject the James brother of Jesus called Christ passage as being from the pen of Josephus but you stand almost alone and out of step with men and women who clearly know far more about how Josephus operated and wrote than you or I. Have you written Gary Goldberg at Josephus dot org?
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Haven't tried to contact anyone personally, no.
The passage concerning James just doesn't scan right to me. But even if I stand alone that does not make my view wrong.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz My lady just came home so I've got to get off. I'm enjoying talking with you. I don't mind if you do not agree with me or Ehrman. That makes it fun. You know, I think you and I have more in common than we think. I think we both know that the absolute truth about the origin of Christianity and the "TF" etc will never be know. It's all guess work and which guess you think is most likely to be right:-)
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
You're quite correct.
Good to have a little difference of opinion to keep things sharp!
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz So you stand almost alone in NT critical scholarship holding your position. Paul very, very likely wrote he met a blood brother of Jesus. To me the odd thing about Galatains is Paul meets two men who knew and heard Jesus and yet Paul in his genuine letters NEVER mentioned the virgin birth. Did Peter and James fail to tell Paul such a fantastic event or did Paul not think it worth mentioning or did VB doctrine NOT exist at the time Paul wrote Galatains which usually is dated about 50
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Nothing wrong with being a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. That many are on a bandwagon doesn't mean they are correct.
Whoever Paul met, he says he didn't get his gospel from them nor does he say where they got their ideas.
I'm inclined to think the Virgin Birth story was a later invention - Paul has no interest in any supposed ministry of his Jesus anyway.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well Kenneth Humphreys and Acharya S. two amateur critics of Christianity part with the skeptical experts and hold that Paul probably didn't exist either and rather than only 6 or 7 of his letters are genuine, Paul didn't write anything. ALL of his letters are second century forgeries. Experts such as Dr. Ehrman (Email to me) think these amateurs are NUTS! But Paul does mention the historical Jesus. On the night he was betrayed. Born under the law, born of a woman etc etc
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
As you might know even the letters thought to be genuine Paul have been redacted, and cut up, and rearranged. So it's difficult to be 100% sure what is Paul's original intention and what is an artifact of later meddling.
The things that Paul says of his Jesus are all matters of his theology and not matters of fact. When people are portrayed as trying to verify Paul's gospel they turn to scripture and not an investigation into what happened in Jerusalem years ago.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz I beg to differ about Paul. No one is in agreement as to how much of Paul's letters have been redacted and cut up. The Catholic Church has a most scholarly site online that refutes all of that and even argues that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, three of his letters that 98 % of skeptical scholars hold as forgeries. And how many of Paul's letters are fakes is up in the air too. Generally 7 are accepted as genuine. But authors such as Humphreys&Acharya S hold all...
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz of Paul's letters are fakes, written in the second century, because like Jesus, St. Paul never existed either. Indeed Frank Zindler holds that Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist never existed and that the passages in Josephus about John the Baptist are also forgeries. But those with a PhD in the field find these people crazy and only trying to sell books and go to any length to embarrass Christianity. Having people like Zindler on his show is why this guy here wants to fuss
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Not doubting existence of Paul, but his writings are a mess.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz with Bart Ehrman. The Infidel Guy wants to challenge Ehrman with people such as Zindler, Humphreys, Acharya S and Earl Doherty but can't do it because, IMO, he knows Ehrman will laugh at him for trying to shoot him out of the water about Paul, Jesus, Galatains etc with amateurs so he goes to Robert Price who IS a PhD in the field and doubts Jesus existed. But Bob Price DOUBTS Jesus existed rather than REJECTS that Jesus existed as do people such as Humphreys. So!!
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Who cares who Erhman laughs at?
It's the truth that I am after.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well yeah Dr. Ehrman laughs at people such as Acharya S and Ken Humphreys who not only hold that Jesus never existed, never was crucified, never had a following but the gospels were written in the late 2nd century and that ALL of Paul's letters are forged because Paul never existed either. Indeed Acharya S makes it clear that outside of Christian writings there is not a shred of evidence Paul existed. He is not mentioned by any non Christian writer of his time.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Who cares who Ehrmen laughs at?
Ehrman reveals himself as a bit of a fool in this interview.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well what is happening in this interview is the Infidel Guy is really wanting to inject those he has had on his show and info from the books he has read from people such as Christian haters Acharya S, Earl Doherty, Ken Humphreys, Frank Zindler. You can hear him wanting to go there but he stops short because he knows Ehrman will laugh at him if he mentions people who have NO credentials in the field and are not qualified to teach the material as Ehrman is.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Who cares who Ehrman laughs at?
I laugh at Ehrman's absurdly overstated arrogance.
The question is about what is true, not what Ehrman believes.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Ehrman better change his ways and quick, or this is his eternal future - attempting to have serious conversations with dumb atheists!
That will be his hell, locked onto the grounds of a junior college, surrounded by morons like the host blurting half sentences dripping with dumb.
Do you think the host is smart enough to realize how not smart he is?
mollkatless 2 weeks ago
@mollkatless
There is no 'eternal future' - that's a dumb story made up to fool children.
Sadly, some still believe it when they get older.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz - Hey, you might be a smart atheist, I mean since you didn't panic and throw out the flying spaghetti monster or easter bunny, understand so far?
Here is a brief list of devout believers, please rank yourself intellectually in this group - Newton, Kepler, Dante, Shakespeare, Coperincus, Bach
mollkatless 2 weeks ago
@mollkatless
What's the point?
Many smart people may have said they believed in gods.
many smart people don't.
Proves nothing.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz smart atheists?
mollkatless 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well wouldn't you expert a man with a PhD in this field who has been in deep research for over 30 years and thinks his is an expert to laugh at someone like Acharya S or Ken Humphreys or Earl Doherty or Frank Zindler. And for the average guy like myself, Ehrman's opinion carries more weight than these atheist amateurs who claim Jesus never lived, Paul is fake, the gospels written in 2nd century, Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus is claimed etc.It's bullshit to Ehrman.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Sure, no reason not to think Ehrman might be right.
I just dig a little deeper and try to see if there's any convincing arguments.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz And Ehrman is correct. There are NO known professors, experts, scholars with a PhD who are writing and teaching in the US or Europe today who hold that absolutely Jesus never existed, Paul never existed, Paul didn't write Galatians etc etc. Even Bob Price had a Jesus Seminar scholar on his show, Bob Miller,PhD who provided his position who Jesus really was and taught and Price, who doubts Jesus existed, never challenged him on the air. Maybe just being polite?
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
So? Historians cannot hold that 'absolutely' Jesus existed - it is a matter of probability.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I've had two historians tell me (and Ehrman even says the same in one of his lectures here on YouTube) that concerning things that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago one can only say what is very likely, likely, unlikely and very unlikely. Historians and scholars who are not Christians and hold that the gospels report historical facts are sure Jesus existed and claim to know some of his words and teachings but other than that, Jesus is not that well known.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Based on what we have now it can't be ruled out either way.
Maybe there was such a guy, maybe not.
Until recently historians thought Moses existed too. The world didn't come to an end because they decided maybe he didn't.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz But neither is Paul or Josephus or Pilate for example. Acharya S rejects a historical Paul on grounds that early Christians were liars and outside of the NT and Christian writings NOTHING is mentioned about Paul. Paul was not noticed by anyone including Josephus. If you dig deep, not much is known about Josephus. When did he die? Where is he buried? Before the Pilate stone was found in 1961, a number of historians doubted Pilate existed.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Or Joseph Atwill who has a new book that holds Jesus and Paul never existed and all of Paul's letters are forged but Josephus WROTE THE TF JUST AS IT READS TODAY!!! Why? Because Josephus was part of a Roman conspiracy to invent Christianity and Jesus. Atwill is attracting a lot of followers and has been on TV. But PhD level scholars like Ehrman LAUGH at that!! Probably not to belittle but in disbelief that the crazy theories are out there.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Yes, there are many crazy beliefs.
That Josephus wrote any part of the TF may be one of them.
We don't know for certain.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz In recent years I began to think Josephus' "TF" was a forgery but after speaking with Alice Whealey, PhD, a Josephus expert and Dr. Gary Goldberg who runs the site wwwdotjosephusdotorg I've become convinced Josephus does mention Jesus and his execution by Pilate but some zealous Christian later added a minor interpolation to the TF to make it read Josephus accepted Jesus as Messiah. But Origen wrote he did NOT! Dr. Goldberg claims Josephus....
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I'm inclined to think the whole TF is a forgery. I do not find the arguments for 'partial authenticity' to be persuasive. Even the most bland versions are too adulatory to be believed of Josephus IMO.
Good you have contacts with scholars you trust!
But even if Josephus mentions Jesus and crucifixion by Pilate it's most likely that information comes from christians - this all happened 60 years before Josephus wrote his book. Plenty of time for legends to grow.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz You are welcome to hold the entire TF is a forgery. But after Emailing Gary Goldberg, PhD(Physics not NT or Josephus) and reading and speaking with Alice Whealey, PhD (her book "Josephus on Jesus" to me is excellent) and Emails between myself and Louis Feldman, PhD, I'm convinced without much doubt that Josephus DID pen the TF but some Christian made a minor change to it later. It's unlikely Origen had a copy that was faked because Pagan Rome had control of Josephus then.
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
If Origen had a copy of Josephus, then how could Rome even know this?
This is just absurd to imagine that only the government had any books.
The TF is not in Origen's copy. It must have got there later.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz No the argument is that during Origen's time the works of Josephus were in control of Pagan Rome for copying and preservation. Jesus myth supporters delight in reporting that Josephus was in the hands of Christian scribes for centuries for copying and preservation so they tampered with them. Atheist Frank Zindler has a book and article that holds the passage in Josephus about John the Baptist is also an interpolation and JtB never existed either.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I'd be very interested to see whether in the time of Origen all copies of Josephus's works were controlled by the Roman government.
Any of the scholars make this specific claim?
I know some doubt the Baptist mention. Not sure what to make of it as Origen *does* say Josephus mentions John.
So if it *was* added, it was added early.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Atheist amateur author Frank Zindler, who is a huge critic of and loves to trash Christianity insists in his book the John the Baptist passage, the Jesus passages are all Christian forgeries as is the Tacitus passage. He argues that Origen may have had Josephus confused with another or his Josephus info may have come from hearsay and Origen NEVER read one word from a Josephus manuscript. But that is the kind of extreme shit you get from someone who is motivated by hate.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Zindler may be motivated by hate, as you guess by reading your Tarot cards.
But it remains to be seen what the truth of the matter is.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well Zindler, Acharya S, Earl Doherty etc just despise Christianity, God's plan of salvation through Jesus' death on the cross etc. As Paul wrote about the Jews and the Greeks. To the Jew Christ's death for our sins is a stumbling block and to the Greeks it is foolishness! To these atheist amateurs it is foolishness and for some reason that want to trash Christianity publicly and appeal to people to leave it if you're in it and laugh at it if you are not a Christian.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
All that matters is the validity of the arguments and the strength of the evidence.
The 'motive' of the scholars shouldn't enter into it.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Atheists such as Burton L. Mack, PhD, author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" who is also a well known skeptical NT scholar and supposed expert on Christian origins and "Q" is like Ehrman, Crosson, Edwards etc. They are skeptics who are working to understand Christianity from the standpoint of a humanist who is agnostic about it's claims. Mack is trashed by Christians because he finds most of Christian dogma to be myth and legend.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz But Dr. Mack certainly isn't a man who has an agenda to destroy Christianity like many of the Jesus myth authors. One skeptical scholar and claimed expert on who Jesus probably really was told me via Email that the Jesus myth crowd seems to think that if they can get most thinking people to see Jesus as mythical, then the foundation stone is cracked and the rest will fall like a house of cards and finally modern educated people will be rid of Christianity.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Doesn't matter what scholars say, people will still be christians of some kind or another no matter if Jesus walked the earth or not.
Some think the 'historical Jesus' will destroy christianity.
I don't care either way, just interested in the truth.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz The Roman Catholic Church claims it's tradition proves the people in the New Testament existed and that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead. They claimed they put the New Testament together and that two of their early members studied under the Apostle John who claimed to have seen Jesus and heard him speak. They also have a spirited website to refute scholars such as Ehrman who hold that several of Paul's letters are second century forgeries.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Many people are skeptical of claims by institutions like the Catholic Church.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz When Dr. Loisey wrote his learned opinion of how the gospel of John came to read as it does today, he was kicked out of the Catholic Church. John's gospel was written in the late first century and contains a few historical details. Then on top of that we have additions that are myths and legends, redactions, interpolations and multiple authors to get to what we read in the NT today. The church holds John wrote it all at one time so Loisey was kicked out.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
As I understand it some scholars think there's at least two layers of writing in gJohn.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz But what is interesting to me, even many modern study Bibles admit when you get to John 8 that the oldest copies of John do not contain these verses!! It's a wonderful story of forgiveness by Jesus of the woman who was caught in adultery and the Jews wanted her stoned to death and Jesus said "the one who is without sin cast the first stone". Well nobody is perfect so they left & Jesus forgave her. I would like to know why that famous story is missing in the oldest copies.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
It's one of the best stories in the bible.
Glad somebody thought it up and got it passed along...
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz When it first appears in the manuscript stream, the verses are in brackets indicating the scribe wasn't sure it was suppose to be there. Also in an old copy of Luke, the story is at the end. As we move away in time from the oldest copies and the next oldest with the brackets, the story is merged into the narrative without any indication it is an addition. So Dr. Losey's keen eye and scholarship may have been right. If so, then that cuts into the position John is inspired.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz As to the historical Jesus destroying Christianity...if more & more Christains take the position of Ehrman, Mack, Crosson, Edwards, Miller, Tabor, etc etc that Jesus was just a man who had a small band of followers in the early first century & taught "turn the other cheek", "the kingdom of God is within you" the sermon on the mount, the lord's prayer etc& he & his followers didn't expect him to get into trouble & get crucified by Pilate, then the faith would be damaged.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I'm not sure how many christians really pay attention to these 'real Jesus' scholars - they want a personal savior like a guardian angel to pray to.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz When you see yourself as lost, lonely, sinful and probably from a child who believed that at death you would either go to heaven or hell, the gospel of Jesus offers one pardon, atonement, forgiveness, love and eternal life. All you have to do is ask Jesus to be your savior and his grace will cleans and transform you and by his power you can live the Christian life. It sets people free. My problem is that I'm not sure it's real. I've been agnostic for years.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I've heard it all.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz If guys such as Ehrman, Mack, Tabor etc are right, then the historical Jesus was just a man who never claimed any kind of deity or virgin birth but did offer teachings about God, his kingdom etc that attracted a small following. Also if these men are right, Paul somehow had his experience on the road to Damascus and tied the deity of Christ to the original Jesus movement & the Christian faith evolved from there. If Doherty is right, then Jesus didn't even live.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
There's so much we'll never know.
If there ever was a man like Ehrman describes, the christians had zero interest in him.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz According to Burton L. Mack, who wrote "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth", Jesus' followers during his lifetime, when he spoke some of the teachings found in the gospels and in ancient Christian writings, were not called Christians and were stunned when Jesus was executed by Pilate. It was a small movement that largely went unnoticed until Paul & others began to develop the myths and legends and this movement eventually was adopted by Rome.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Yes, one wonders how much of any 'historical Jesus', if there was one, is in christianity as it became known.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Mack is a well known liberal/critical New Testament scholar who is also said to be a leading expert on the missing document "Q" which is supposed to record the actual words of Jesus and is thought to have been source material for the gospels. Mack is not retired on the west coast but seems to be a nice guy. I think he is an atheist if I remember correctly. But writers such as Humphreys claim guys like Ehrman & Mack are only offering educated guesses that are wrong.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
There's a great deal of subjectivity in this field - there's often the notion that this is 'likely' and that is 'unlikely' and so on. Well what does that mean? It comes down to the personal opinion of the individual.
This is one reason why based on the evidence we have today we'll probably never know for sure one way or the other.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Well the so called experts connect the dots of evidence such as Paul mentioning meeting Jesus' brother James, a few early second century Christians writing they met & knew John who knew Jesus and heard him teach etc etc that provide proof Jesus did exist. Then they strip away that which they find myths/legends that developed over time & due to Paul's visionary experience on the road to Damascus which skeptics hold Paul was mentally disturbed or struck by lightening.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
No, Paul says he met someone known as Brother of the Lord. Paul never says he met anyone who met Jesus on earth.
Paul frequently talks of 'brothers' in his letters (500 brothers in one passage!). Paul generally uses 'brother' to mean a fellow believer.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Then you have radical atheist amateur authors such as Acharya S., Ken Humphreys, Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler, Josephs Atwill, that write the skeptical experts with a PhD in this field, even those with the skeptical Jesus Seminar, are not providing any real evidence at all and that baby should be thrown out with the bath water! Jesus never existed, Paul never existed & wrote nothing and the Jesus passages in Josephus&Tacitus are forgeries. It makes those in the field mad?
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Those PhDs would be so embarrassed to find out they staked their professional reputations on the historicity of a man who turned out never to have existed except as a literary device.
But that could happen since they admit it's not ever going to be 100% sure there was a 'real Jesus'.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I heard Ehrman lecture on critical NT scholarship & the tools of being a historian and then Ehrman said something like "when working with events that happened hundreds & thousands of years ago (2 thousand years since Josephus wrote & Jesus lived) the historian can only measure what is very likely, likely, not likely & most unlikely. So I see you your point. It's similar to theories on the origin of the universe or life. Likely but could be wrong!
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
In any kind of science there has to be an awareness that new information might make our current theories obsolete.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz But I'm not impressed with the extreme skepticism and out right rejection of a historical Jesus, Paul, the "TF", the James passage, the Tacitus passage by amateurs such as Zindler & Humphreys. I've read these people and listened to them speak online & clearly they are motivated more by their intense dislike of religion & Christianity in particular. They actually are trying to damage Christianity to the extent that it will die out with educated people & disappear over time
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I don't care about alleged 'motivations' attributed to scholars, or how many scholars jumped on this or that bandwagon.
More interested in the quality of the arguments.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz They have two PhD holders, one in the field & the other kinda in the field who offer support for the Jesus myth position. Robert Price, PhD and Richard Carrier, PhD. Carrier is working to turn the tide of critical experts in the field to the position that a historical Jesus likely did not exist from the current position. But these two will only say they have serious doubts Jesus existed & we can't know for sure. & there are a couple others who have slight doubt of Jesus
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Yes, scholars on all sides of the issue.
No consensus.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Is your handle connected to an Indian name? My great grandmother on my father's side was half Indian. Or so they say but that could be a myth..I don't know:-) I've got to get a haircut and go to the bank (closes on Sat at noon) so I've got to run for now. Hope you have a good day and it's nice to see you again via this thread.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
No, took the name for Tolkien's novel.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz To me and to experts such as Whealey, Feldman, Mack, Ehrman, Tabor, Edwards, Miller, Crosson etc (none of which are believers in the doctrines of Christianity) the position that Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother) had a Jewish cult going in Jerusalem in the early 1st century and we know some of Jesus' teachings and words and that Jesus was crucified (he and his followers were not expecting that) about 30 CE is close to historical FACT.
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I know a lot of people believe that.
I don't find their arguments 100% convincing.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz Josephus used a source that the unknown author of Luke also used for a small portion of his gospel. These Josephus experts even claim to be able to tell when Josephus changed scribes as their influence is seen in the narrative. Also a few scholars are convinced Tacitus used Josephus for his source when writing about Christ and Christians and the fire. They find the wording to be indication of what Josephus wrote at the TF. But the fact is we don't know absolutely th facts
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
True, we'll never absolutely know and just have to use our good sense to try and guide us.
Weird if Tacitus used Josephus as a source for the 'fire in Rome' story, because Josephus doesn't mention it AFAIK.
It may well be that the authors of the gospels were familiar with Josephus and lifted elements for their stories. Not sure what to make of the 'common source' shared with the author(s) of gLuke, though...
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
Checking up on a possible 'common source' for both Josephus and the authors of gLuke I found this interesting article:
Luke and Josephus by Richard Carrier
This theory, if true:
"... Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history...
...[this] provides support for the view that Luke is *creating* history, not recording it."
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz The two books I have where the scholar holds that it is likely Tacitus, who is thought to have always used sources, used Josephus for his info on Jesus and Christianity, hold that it was limited to Jesus (Christ) being the origin of the name Christian and that he was executed by Pilate. Not the fire in Rome. But Tacitus says Christianity vanished after Christ was killed but broke out again and spread to Rome. That is different from Josephus so Tacitus had multiple source?
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Many hold that even if parts of the Josephus references to Jesus are authentic there's no way he'd write that this man was 'Christ'.
Josephus was a pious jew with no respect for these wandering trouble-makers as the 'historical Jesus' is represented.
If Tacitus got info from Josephus - then he should have said name was 'Jesus' and not 'Chrestus'.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago
@proudfootz If you would get Alice Whealey PhD's book "Josephus on Jesus, the Controversy" you would see that Dr. Whealey has uncovered proof that manuscripts do exist and have existed that read "was thought to be" or "was believed to be the Christ" rather than "was the Christ". Also Josephus was not a pious jew was he. The jews hold he sold out to the Romans. They refused to preserve his writings and only Christian monks/scribes are why we have his works extant today.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Hm. That's not what I've read.
Supposedly in Medieval times Jews denied there were any such passages in Hebrew texts of Josephus.
I understand Whealey thinks Josephus might have actually made *positive* mentions of Jesus, against what most scholars hold. She's on the fringe too, apparently...
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I've read that there is a record of someone who claimed Josephus in his copy said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity. But only that ONE account. But does this indicate Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus and Christianity or does it indicated someone REMOVED the TF and the James passage in this copy. Or did this copy ever exist? Whealey does not think Josephus made positive mentions of Jesus but negative as to being Christ. Also Whealey is in MAJORITY
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I've read that there is a record of someone who claimed Josephus in his copy said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth or Christianity. But only that ONE account. But does this indicate Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus and Christianity or does it indicated someone REMOVED the TF and the James passage in this copy. Or did this copy ever exist? Whealey does not think Josephus made positive mentions of Jesus but negative as to being Christ. Also Whealey is in MAJORITY
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
Being in the majority is very nice in picking what's is popular...
For deciding on matters of fact? Not so trustworthy.
Yes, hard to tell when a text has been so manhandled as this one little paragraph has been what - if anything - Josephus might have written.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz There is NO doubt about it. The TF has been altered. Even Christian scholars usually admit it. Dr. Craig, the famous Christian apologist who debates atheists holds the same view as Whealey and Feldman. He's William Lane Craig, PhD. Many of his debates with Frank Zindler, Christopher Hitchens who just died (R.I.P), Richard Carrier and many other atheists are here on YouTube. I'm an agnostic myself. I was raised Christian so I enjoy watching a Christian and atheist go at it
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I had not heard of Dr. Whealey until Dr. Feldman, who is Jewish and is not friendly toward Christianity, suggested I get his book and her book on Josephus. Louis Feldman told me that the majority view and his view is that apparently Josephus did write the TF but some zealous Christian scribe later tampered with it. And Feldman can't find a reason to hold that the James passage is a forgery. Says its possible but not likely when one considers all the arguments.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
We should certainly consider all the arguments, whoever makes them.
I find that since Josephus was an ardent jew that he would not very likely have written 'Jesus called Christ' a very good reason to doubt this passage.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Josephus most likely did write "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" but Josephus did NOT write the TF as it reads today. Drs. Whealey and Feldman both told me they have read what Jerome had in Greek and it reads "was believed to be Christ" rather than "was the Christ". This and other evidence is strong indication to them that Josephus did not write the TF as it reads today and somehow Origen knew it. It could well be that Origen read the original TF for his opinion.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz Dr. Whealey book "Josephus on Jesus" came out in 2003 or 4 and that was when I was writing Dr. Feldman at New York University who is internationally known as one of the best authorities on Josephus, Tacitus etc. But I think Dr. Feldman, now in his 80's, is retired. I will try to find out so you can write him too. But Dr. Goldberg will get right back with you. I was a bit disappointed to learn he is an amateur on Josephus as his PhD is in physics.But he has 20 yrs study.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I don't despise Goldberg because he is a totally unqualified scholar no better than Doherty.
What matters is whether his arguments hold water.
I think it was Feldman whose study showed 25% of modern scholars reject the TF completely.
proudfootz 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I just googled Feldman and found his page on Wikipedia with a picture of him. He is a practicing Jew and now 85. Probably retired. But a Josephus scholar and expert since 1956. Couldn't find his survey. But I think he found that most scholars found that the TF is either a forgery or more likely "glossed" by a later Christian scribe. And that is Feldman's position. That Josephus likely wrote the TF and it got altered.He is quoted on Goldberg's site.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz I would imagine Goldberg probably is a little better qualified to speak on Josephus than Doherty. Doherty thinks the James passage only read James brother of Jesus and a later scribe put "called Christ" in the margin which later was moved into the text. Goldberg holds Josephus wrote it just as it is reads today. That is also my position and I have a good reasons for it. Goldberg has been a Josephus student for over 20 years and he IS a scientist who has a PhD in physics.
boblackey1 2 weeks ago
@proudfootz As to the "common source" theory of Dr. Goldberg, you need to Email him at the address at his site. That guy is absolutely convinced he is right and that he has solved the TF mystery and that Josephus wrote it but it was later changed to read like a Christian confessional later. I too and a bit skeptical about his position but Gary is dug in and will not let the slightest challenge to his view go without a stiff rebuke. He told me he could care less if Jesus existed but
boblackey1 3 weeks ago
@boblackey1
I'll look into it.
For the time being I find it likely the authors of gLuke copied Josephus in places.
proudfootz 3 weeks ago