Blood wrote:So Ehrman has finally come around to acknowledging the mythicist view.

or at least publicly acknowledging it.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus; believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood.

And, acknowledging that the Pauline texts may have had a different foundation & development to the Synoptics M,M & L (such as the Pauline texts being developed in or via a separate Gnostic-Messianic community); and that gJohn was an addition too.

The layering and elaborations during development of the stories are being better elucidated?

RealityRules wrote:The following points by dejuror, in his post just before this one, are significant;

to me, these points align with & support the conclusions of the Dutch Radicals; including the conclusions of AD Loman that two previously-adversarial communities were merged to form Christianity (see the quote from AD Loman above) -

My points are ALIGNED with the EVIDENCE from antiquity and may or may not be similar to the "Dutch Radicals".

Based on the abundance of Apologetic and Non-Apologetic writers in the 2nd-3rd century who did NOT acknowledge Paul, the Pauline Revealed Gospel and the Pauline Corpus it can be easily seen and deduced that Paul, the Pauline Revealed Gospel and the Pauline Corpus were LATE inventions.

It is ONLY from the 4th century or later that virtually ALL APOLOGETIC writers acknowledge Paul, the revealed Gospel and the Pauline Corpus.

The supposed early mention of Paul in an Anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome is a forgery and was unknown up to at least the 5th century or unknown AFTER the time of Augustine of Hippo.
The Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection of Jesus was completely unknown by the authors of the Gospels and many Apologetic writers in the 2nd-3rd century.

RealityRules wrote:

Blood wrote:So Ehrman has finally come around to acknowledging the mythicist view.

or at least publicly acknowledging it.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus; believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood.

And, acknowledging that the Pauline texts may have had a different foundation & development to the Synoptics M,M & L (such as the Pauline texts being developed in or via a separate Gnostic-Messianic community); and that gJohn was an addition too.

The layering and elaborations during development of the stories are being better elucidated?

It is virtually impossible or extremely unlikely that the Pauline Corpus is the earliest New Testament writing.

The Pauline authors are most likely the LAST authors in the NT Canon.

The earliest Canonised version of the story of Jesus is the short gMark found in the earliest Codices.

We know exactly what was LATER ADDED by examining the short gMark.

Please, go to the START of the short gMark---there is NO birth Narrative.

1. The BIRTH Narratives are LATER ADDITIONS to the Jesus story.

Birth Narratives are found in gMatthew 1 and gLuke 1.

Now, please go the END of the short gMark---there is NO post-resurrection visit by Jesus.

2. The Post-Resurrection visits by Jesus to the disciples and Apostles are LATER ADDITIONS to the Jesus story.

The Pauline Corpus, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Acts contain LATER Post-Resurrection visits by Jesus--NOT found in the short gMark.

Examine some of the EVIDENCE that the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the short gMark.

1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep .

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There is a lot more internal evidence that show the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN to the author of the short gMark.

Plus, it is completely flawed [a failure of logic] that Pauline letters are early because they do not mention anything about the life of Jesus when there are LATE Pauline letters that have been deduced to be forgeries which do NOT mention the life of Jesus.

The Epistles to the Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Titus and 1&2 Timothy do NOT mention the life of Jesus and are considered to be LATE writings.

In fact, ALL Epistles in the Canon hardly mention anything about the Life of Jesus even though they were ATTRIBUTED to the disciples and siblings of Jesus.

The Epistles of Peter, James Jude and John are considered LATE WRITINGS and they mention very little about the Life of Jesus.

The Evidence from antiquity ADDS up--the Entire Pauline Corpus is the very Last writing in the NT Canon.

The Apocalypse of John [Revelation] is mentioned by Justin Martyr c 150 CE but NOT the Revelation of Paul.

It was the TEACHINGS found in the Apocalypse of John that was used in the Churches--Not the Pauline Corpus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place

There is simply no evidence from antiquity whatsoever that the Pauline Revealed Gospel was composed before c 70 CE and no evidence that the Pauline Corpus was used in the early development of the Jesus cult.

willhud9 wrote:That's not the mythicist view, but okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Has Erhman any credibility left? I thought it all evaporated with his last book Did Jesus Exist? Is he now trying to salvage his career?

deleted

Blood wrote:

When it comes to John’s Gospel, Ehrman and some of his evangelical critics agree: The fourth Gospel should be understood as theological treatise and an imaginative re-enactment, not an eyewitness account containing verbatim quotes.

As has been observed here many times before, scholars admit that a "gospel" can be completely invented. But somehow, MM&L are not "theological treatises and imaginative re-enactments."

But wait, Ehrman's had a revelation!

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus, believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood.

So Ehrman has finally come around to acknowledging the mythicist view.

This may be an attempt to rescue his life's work from total irrelevance if the tide shifts in future toward a more 'mythicist' consensus.

It's interesting that Ehrman could be surprised by something everyone else has known for decades.

proudfootz wrote:

This may be an attempt to rescue his life's work from total irrelevance if the tide shifts in future toward a more 'mythicist' consensus.

It's interesting that Ehrman could be surprised by something everyone else has known for decades.

Ehrman cannot be rescued.

Ehrman has lost all credibility when he claimed he was an historian at page 6 of the introduction in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Why does Ehrman give the erroneous impression that he is an historian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Blood wrote:...But wait, Ehrman's had a revelation!

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus, believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood.

So Ehrman has finally come around to acknowledging the mythicist view.

That's my take as well.

In order to develop a theory one MUST have some facts or data.

Theories are not developed by imagination or speculation.

It is IMPERATIVE that FACTS--DATA be used. It is most fundamental.

My theory is that the Jesus story and cult most likely originated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

FACT #1--The Jewish Temple did Fall c 70 CE.

FACT#2--In writings attributed to Josephus it is claimed the Jews EXPECTED Messianic Rulers around c 70 CE.

FACT#3--In writings attributed to Tacitus it is claimed the Jews EXPECTED Messianic rulers around c 70 CE.

FACT#4--In writings attributed to Suetonius it is claimed the Jews EXPECTED Messianic rulers around c 70 CE.

FACT#5--In writings attributed to Justin Martyr it is claimed the Jews did NOT acknowledge the Advent of their Christ up to the c 138-161 CE.

FACT#6--In writings attributed to Tertullian it is claimed the Jews did NOT acknowledge the Advent of their Christ.

FACT#7--In writings attributed to Eusebius it is claimed the Jews did NOT acknowledge the Advent of their Christ up to c 325 CE.

FACT #8--In writings attributed to Josephus it is claimed Vespasian was regarded as the Messianic ruler predicted in Jewish Scripture.

FACT #9--In writings attributed to Tacitus it is claimed Vespasian was regarded as the Messianic ruler predicted in Jewish Scripture.

FACT#10--In writings attributed to Suetonius it is claimed Vespasian was regarded as the Messianic ruler in Jewish Scripture.

FACT #11--In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and Messianic ruler.

FACT #12--In writings attributed to Philo, a supposed Contemporary writer, there is NO mention of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ and Messianic ruler.

Theories are developed from DATA--FACTS.

The previous 12 FACTS support the theory that the story of Jesus the Christ--the Messianic ruler was most likely composed AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and AFTER Vespasian was regarded as the Predicted Messianic ruler.

There are much more FACTS to support the theory that the Jesus story and cult most likely started AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Besides Philo, there were many other writers of the first century that make no mention of any Jesus of Nazareth.

angelo wrote:Besides Philo, there were many other writers of the first century that make no mention of any Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you happen to know whether Philo mentions the 1st century BC Jesus ben Pandira?

Now, what are the Facts--the DATA to argue for an Historical Jesus?

Is there an actual manuscript dated to the time of Pilate which mentions Jesus of Nazareth?

Is the Shroud of Turin an actual artifact for Jesus of Nazareth?

Is there a non-apologetic writer who admits he saw Jesus of Nazareth or heard of him?

What are the FACTS--the Data to develop a theory for an Historical Jesus of Nazareth?

There are NO FACTS!!

There is NO DATA!!

No theory can be developed without FACTS or DATA.

There can be No theory for an Historical Jesus WITHOUT historical Facts of his historicity.

I don't believe Philo mentioned a Yeshua ben Pandira, but don't quote me on that.

This is interesting...............................http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/i ... 147.0;wap2

angelo wrote:I don't believe Philo mentioned a Yeshua ben Pandira, but don't quote me on that.

This is interesting...............................http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/i ... 147.0;wap2

The Quest is for Jesus of Nazareth who supposedly lived in the time of Pilate the governor of Judea under Tiberius.

One would not look for an historical Pilate or Tiberius in writings c100 BCE.

Pilate and Tiberius are found in writings attributed to writers of the 1st century or later.

Jesus of Nazareth cannot be found at all in any non-apologetic writings and no manuscript of Jesus of Nazareth is dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.

A character called Jesus who may or may not have existed 100 years before Pilate cannot be the HJ of Nazareth.

The supposed HJ of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist, was on trial by the Sanhedrin when Caiaphas was High Priest, was crucified under Pilate in the time of Tiberius.

Essentially, the supposed HJ of Nazareth should have been ALIVE no later than c 37 CE.

There is NO evidence at all outside of Apologetics that such a character called Jesus of Nazareth was ever living.

A theory is developed from Facts and Data --not imagination, speculation and logical fallacies.

My theory is that the Jesus story and cult most likely originated AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

My theory was developed from Facts and Data provided by WITNESSES of antiquity.

Examine another set of FACTS and Data.

Facts 1--In Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" it is claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

Fact 2. In Eusebius' Church History it is also claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

Fact 3. In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

Fact 4. Justin Martyr mentions the Apocalypse of John but NOT the Revelation of Paul.

Fact 5. In Origen's "Against Celsus" the author admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.

Fact 6. In Origen's "Against Celsus" there is NO reference to the Pauline Corpus in all the direct quotes from Celsus' "True Discourse".

Fact 7. In Origen's "Against Celsus" the Post-Resurrection Narratives in the Pauline Corpus are UNKNOWN or not acknowledge by Celsus.

Fact 8. Celsus in Origen's "Against Celsus" claimed Jesus appeared to his disciples and ONE woman but Paul claimed Jesus appeared to OVER 500 persons at ONCE.

Fact 9. The author of the short gMark did not know or did not acknowledge Post-Resurrection Narratives.

Fact 10. The Post-Resurrection Narratives are found in LATER Gospel stories of Jesus , Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus..

Based on the FACTS in writings from the WITNESSES of antiquity I have developed the theory that the Jesus story and cult most likely originated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The ENTIRE NT was composed AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and it was for the fact that the Temple Fell why it was necessary to invent a reason for its destruction.

A most vicious lie was propagated that the Temple Fell because the Jews Killed the Son of their Own God.

People who believed the Lie called themselves Christians.

Aristides' Apoology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called....... But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried..

The Pauline writers believed the Lie or wanted people to believe it.

1 Thessalonians 2.

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us.

Justin Martyr repeats the Lie.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him

Hippolytus repeats the Lie.

Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews" 7.

But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? ...... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

These are the FACTS.

1. The Jewish Temple did FALL c 70 CE.

2. The earliest manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult are ALL 2nd century or later.

The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

A theory is developed from Facts--Data,

At no time can a valid theory be logically unsound or without support evidence.

My theory that the Jesus story and cult started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE is extremely sound and fully supported by the existing evidence from antiquity.

Logically, if Jesus did exist and preached the Gospel then the Gospel of Jesus PREDATED the Revealed Gospel of Paul if Paul preached his revealed Gospel AFTER Jesus was already dead.

In other words, it logically follows that the Gospel of the supposed Living Jesus PREDATED the Gospel of Paul as soon as Paul claimed he got revealed Gospel from Jesus AFTER he was dead.

The Gospel of Jesus PREDATED the Revealed Gospel of Raul [IF Jesus did exist and died Before the conversion of Paul].

Now, if Jesus did NOT really exist then there were STORIES made up about the Life of Jesus..

Who made up the Stories about the Life of Jesus if he did NOT exist?

In the Pauline Corpus, Acts of the Apostles and Apologetic writings it is ADMITTED that Paul PERSECUTED those who believed the STORIES of the Life of Jesus.

Logically, Paul as Persecutor of those who believed the STORIES of Jesus could NOT also be the originator of the Stories of Jesus while he was NOT a believer.

Logically, in order for Paul to PERSECUTE the Believers of the STORIES of Jesus then Paul MUST know the EXISTING STORIES of Jesus at the time of his PERSECUTION of believers.

1. The Gospel of an Historical Jesus would have PREDATED the Revealed Gospel of PAUL.

2. The Stories of a non-historical Jesus would have PREDATED the Revealed Gospel of Paul when he was a PERSECUTOR of believers.

Logically the Pauline Corpus MUST have been or most likely was composed AFTER the Gospel of Jesus himself or AFTER the Stories of Jesus were INVENTED.

Whether or NOT there was an HJ THE Pauline Corpus is NOT the earliest story of the resurrected Jesus.

The Gospels, the Stories of Jesus PREDATED the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus BEGINS EXACTLY where the Gospels END.

The Pauline writers claimed they were WITNESSES that God RAISED Jesus from the dead.

The Pauline writers are claiming to CORROBORATE the Gospels--that Jesus was Killed and that he DID Resurrect.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

Galatians 1.1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

Philippians 3:10 KJV

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was fabricated in an attempt to HISTORICISE the STORIES of the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Gospels--the Stories of the resurrected Jesus were all composed AFTER c 70 CE.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was fabricated AFTER c 70 CE.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Entire Pauline Corpus does not help the HJ argument.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a figure of history but one of FAITH invented AFTER c 70 CE.

The Pauline writers believed or wanted his audience to believe the Gospels that Jesus was Raised from the Dead.

For my first entry, please allow me to present my outlook, dejuror.

The Gospel of Paul (perhaps the first Christian gospel written), the Oracles of Christ, and the Gospel of Peter (essentially identical to the Harmony of Tatian), are believed to hail from around 50 AD; Paul’s Epistles (ten of which were accepted as genuine by Marcion) from sometime between 50 to 70 AD.

The first was incorporated into Marcion’s compilation (145 AD, or thereabouts), the Gospel of Marcion, and subsequently (either separately or directly by way of Marcion’s work) into the Gospel of Luke. The Oracles formed the germ for the Gospel of the Hebrews, and thence the Gospel of Matthew, - whereas the Gospel of Peter laid the foundation for the Gospel of Mark. None of these gospels, however, can in any sense be considered the same, containing in many respects very different material. Marcion, a follower of Paul, claimed the sanction of that apostle in respect of his compilation.

Paul, rejected by most of the Jewish Christians, the Ebionites claiming he was an imposter, knew of course nothing of the canonical gospels, nor ever saw a gospel in which Jesus denied being merely a spiritual agent, after the resurrection. His idea of the resurrection, like that of Clement of Rome, was that the spiritual body arose from the decay of the material body. Paul thus saw Jesus solely as a spirit, since it was now subsequent to the time when Christ had ascended in the body.

Originally compiled for the Jewish Christians from the gospels (including the Gospel of Peter) and other scriptural documents then in circulation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, penned some time before 125 AD, author unknown, is perhaps the most celebrated of the ancient gospels, the one most in use among second century Christians (and for some time thereafter), and then in various forms and under different names. For the first quarter of that century though, the Jewish Christians generally did not believe in the doctrine of immaculate conception, resurrection, Jesus having performed miracles, etc.

The spiritualism Of Paul and Clement was generally far too refined for the gross conceptions of the second century, which needed the resurrection of the very crucified body of Jesus, together with immaculate conception (how else could he undergo deification?), together with a range of other embellishments - culminating in the canonical gospels (in expedient conjunction with the establishment of universal Church authority) during the last quarter of that century.

This is a demon haunted planet we live on. The moment superstition is brought into the equation one can safely say the tale is fiction. A different story 2000 years ago, hell, even 200 hundred years ago superstition reigned supreme. Think some tale of a hobo preaching about some god in down town Chicago today would not be placed in a straight jacket and institutionalised?
Well 2000 years ago there were hundreds of these hobos roaming around the countryside of Palestine.

Agrippas wrote:For my first entry, please allow me to present my outlook, dejuror.

The Gospel of Paul (perhaps the first Christian gospel written), the Oracles of Christ, and the Gospel of Peter (essentially identical to the Harmony of Tatian), are believed to hail from around 50 AD; Paul’s Epistles (ten of which were accepted as genuine by Marcion) from sometime between 50 to 70 AD.

You have NO facts. There is NO Gospel of Paul, Orcacles of Christ, Gospel of Peter and Pauline letters that have been found and dated to any time before c 70 CE.

I no longer accept belief and imagination as evidence.

Now, I am dealing with actual existing evidence. The earliest manuscripts and Codices with the Jesus story are from the 2nd century or later.

I expected that there would be NO existing evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE about Jesus, the disciples and Paul and that is EXACTLY what has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_uncial_codices

I can only develop a theory that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on the ACTUAL existing manuscripts and Codices.

If actual NEW evidence from the 1st century or earlier is found then I will REVIEW my theory.

You may not realize that Scholars have deduced that all the Gospels in the NT, all the Non-Pauline Epistles and some Pauline letters are forgeries or falsely attributed, and that writings attributed to Apologetics in the 2nd century and later do NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

These findings are completely compatible with the dating of the Actual existing manuscripts and Codices.

There was no 1st century pre 70 CE story and cult of Jesus of Nazareth.

No need to review any theories on my account, dejuror.

I think we all agree that much of the great body of Christian literature from both the first and second century – right up to the time of Eusebius, in fact – has been destroyed or lost, where not outright fraudulent from the start.

The Gospel of Peter was far better known than that of Paul. In 190 AD a large number thereof were found to be still in use by the Church of Rhossus, in Cilicia. So much so that Bishop Serapion found it necessary to suppress them, substituting the canonical gospels in their place.

Eusebius mentions the Gospel of Peter (book 3, chapter 25) as one of those “adduced by the heretics, under the name of the apostles.” (This gospel favoured the views of the Docetae, who held that that Christ and Jesus were different: Jesus really suffered, but Christ only so in appearance.)

Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs or Recollections of Peter, which can only refer to the Gospel of Peter.

Tertullian, similar to the way Irenaeus strives elsewhere to confound the Gospel of Paul with that of Luke (likewise aiming to boost the credence of the canonical gospels), endeavors to identify the Gospel of Peter with that of Mark: “The gospel which Mark published, is affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was.”

It’s generally acknowledged that there’s a distinct trace of the Gospel of Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch.11, v.23 to 25 – which he had “delivered” to the Church at Corinth, with a like mention in Galatians 2.2.

A passage by Tertullian in his work against Marcion (207 t0 210 AD) also reveals the prior existence of such a gospel. It’s the passage that opens with: “Had Marcion ever published his gospel in the name of Paul himself, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, it would not be sufficient basis for our faith. There would be wanting that gospel which Paul found in existence…”

Irenaeus (190 AD) would have us believe that Paul’s Gospel was written by Luke: “Luke, also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book, the gospel preached by him."

For the Oracles or Sayings of Christ we only have the words of Eusebius, with Papias represented as saying, “Matthew set forth the Oracles in the Hebrew dialect, which every one interpreted as he was able."

Eusebius furthermore asserts that Papias wrote five books of Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord - part of the multitude of lost or destroyed writings of those times. Some scholars hold that the Oracles were a compilation of different manuscripts, a number of which eventually found their way into the Gospel of Matthew.