The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Ove38

Says a guy who probably doesn’t know Greek.. doesn’t know arameic.. has never even read the entire bible ..Has no idea of the life and times historically of jesus and in fact only knows what his pool pit preacher and KJV has told him...

Lol

What's important is that I understand Jesus Christ.

Bart Ehrman doesn't, he just think he does, but he doesn't. He even thinks he was a Christian

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Akragon

I really like Erhman..
Do you believe Jesus Christ existed Ak?

Absolutely... And i believe he was the messiah

Just not what christianity believes...

What i do get a kick out of is when "christians" say things like the above poster... Lol

Bart Ehrman was a pastor, and is one of the best NT scholars on the planet

The man was a straight up fundamentalist preacher... Even believed the bible had no errors at one point... But he knows nothing about Jesus right

LMAO.... Hilarious

a reply to: Ove38

You think you do. Because you just choose to believe what makes you feel good.


If actually had evidence to support your claim it would be different.

a reply to: Akragon

Reading some of the posts rearding the
What Jesus said at his trial. Claiming
to be God falsely accused of blasphemy?

How much importance would you give to
the historicity of this verse in Mathew?

Now when the centurion, and those who were with him watching Jesus, saw the earthquake and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

a reply to: randyvs
According to Erhman:

Less than marks, since mark is considered an earlier source and contradicts Matthews account.

Mark has jesus freaked out about the whole thing and go to his crucifixion in silence.

ehrmanblog.org...


Bart Ehrman on pilot

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The significance of that entry IMO can not be
understated or overstated as it were. IMO

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The significance of that entry IMO can not be
understated or overstated as it were. IMO

Which one?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
ehrmanblog.org...


Bart Ehrman on pilot

Ehrman wrote,

"Pilate showed, in that incident itself, that he did not care a twit about Jewish sensitivities – he was offensive, intransigent, and brutal."

If Pontius Pilate did not care a twit about Jewish sensitivities, he would have released Jesus. But he didn't. He was troubled by the possibility of Jewish rebellion. And it did happen in 66 CE, after Pontius Pilate was removed.

Ehrman also wrote,
"Pilate wanted to provide fresh water for Jerusalem and so arranged to have an aqueduct built (a noble idea) – but he paid for it by raiding the treasury in the Jewish Temple (not a noble idea)."

It was Roman Procurator, Gessius Florus, who raided the Jewish Temple and incited the Jewish Rebellion.

And what is this?

Instead of backing down (we have no record of Pilate *ever* backing down: remember the golden shields, the standards, and now the aqueduct), Pilate had his soldier disguise themselves in local dress with clubs under their outer garments and mingle among the crowds. And then when the crowds refused to disperse, he gave the signal, the soldiers broke out their weapons, and started pounding people left and right. Chaos ensued, and many people died.

No one died and no chaos ensured under Roman Emperor Tiberius and Pontius Pilate. Chaos ensured, under Emperor Nero and Procurator Gessius Florus.

Pilate was strictly warned by Emperor Tiberius not to cause trouble and he did exactly that. He backed away many times, unlike Gessius Floris and subsequent Roman procurator.

Seriously, where did Erhman get his historical facts?

a reply to: EasternShadow

Ehrman is saying that the conversation with pilot never happened and was part of how the story evolved. Mainly because no follower of jesus would have reasonably been present at the alleged conversation.

That in reality jesus was crucified for insurrection.

NOW, THAT DOESNT MEAN JESUS WAS GUILTY OF INSURRECTION. Just that was the motivation for the Romans crucifying him.


That would still leave room for a group of rabbi’s to have told the Romans that jesus was stoking rebellions.



Bart thinks the “redemption of pilot” came with the shift in Christian demographics at the time.,

In Mark the Romans are the bad guys because it is written by converted Jews.


In Matthew pilot was repentanant and the Jews become the bad guys. Mainly because Christianity had shifted to a majority of Roman/pagan converts.

a reply to: EasternShadow

He didnt raid the temple THAT TIME..

Your assuming the temple was only raided once. I bet the temple was raided multiple times but only destroyed once.

I have seen Ehrman debate apologist Christian scholars and no one ever argues the base facts. Just his interpretation of them.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Referring to Mathew. Sorry

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

He didnt raid the temple THAT TIME..

Your assuming the temple was only raided once. I bet the temple was raided multiple times but only destroyed once.

I have seen Ehrman debate apologist Christian scholars and no one ever argues the base facts. Just his interpretation of them.

The temple was raided many times but it never occur from the time Pontius Pilate moved in 26 CE until his removal from office in 64 CE. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest Pontius Pilate raided the temple.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
He is a NT scholar not a historian. Sorry, but theology is different than history.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

Ehrman is saying that the conversation with pilot never happened and was part of how the story evolved. Mainly because no follower of jesus would have reasonably been present at the alleged conversation.

That in reality jesus was crucified for insurrection.

NOW, THAT DOESNT MEAN JESUS WAS GUILTY OF INSURRECTION. Just that was the motivation for the Romans crucifying him.


That would still leave room for a group of rabbi’s to have told the Romans that jesus was stoking rebellions.

No apostles witness "the king of Jews" incidents either. Erhman is cherry picking anything that suit his thesis.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Bart thinks the “redemption of pilot” came with the shift in Christian demographics at the time.,

In Mark the Romans are the bad guys because it is written by converted Jews.


In Matthew pilot was repentanant and the Jews become the bad guys. Mainly because Christianity had shifted to a majority of Roman/pagan converts.

That is why we need not to be bias. To find objective truth, we have to be neutral. Both Jews and Roman point of views need to be investigated accordingly.

a reply to: EasternShadow

The significant difference being history can lie
and be accepted as truth. Scripture can't lie or
It isn't scripture.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: EasternShadow

The significant difference being history can lie
and be accepted as truth. Scripture can't lie or
It isn't scripture.

Thank you.

As You probably know from my previous post, I don't believe any scripture is immune from human errors. Especially, when we consider how notoriously difficult it is to transform oral verses into written form.

a reply to: EasternShadow

A fair assessment.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again we disagree, how bizarre
Ak, I don't care what you think of me
Think about that
Like why don't I care what you think of me, that's the question

AS per usual your assessment is wrong... I said nothing about what i think of you... i just doubt you've studied anything due to the fact that your posts usually reflect your lack of reading comprehension

You area gnostic or whatever, it's not important to me, what I do know is your hate, that's sad

Case in point... I've told you numerous times i am not a gnostic... which as you've shown many times, is a word you don't understand anyways... i have no religious affiliations...period

And i don't hate anything...

I also know you can't stand my theology, I have a voice, I use it, that makes you a fundamentalist.

No...

I simply dislike your theology, and it does not make me a fundamentalist... yet another word you clearly don't understand

And in fact in your posts in the religion forums you are usually one who says things like "who cares about this and that, its all about Jesus"... which i have no issues with

Fact is i couldn't care less about your theology... and i accept whatever you believe in... whatever floats your boat... but it doesn't mean i have to agree with said beliefs

See, I can live, accept and understand your opinion, you hate mine, that's what a fundie is
Someone who hates others opinions

no... Here i'll do you this one favor

fun·da·men·tal·ist
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)ələst/
noun
noun: fundamentalist; plural noun: fundamentalists

1. a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
"religious fundamentalists"
a person who adheres strictly to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.
"a free-market fundamentalist"

adjective
adjective: fundamentalist

1. relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

Congrats, you just learned something...

What i "dislike" is how immature and belligerent you are with people that disagree with you...

What i "dislike" is how you ignore peoples posts and then claim to have read them what everyone knows you haven't by demonstrating your ignorance on certain subjects

In any case i don't Hate you, or your issues...

though im not a big fan of stupidity

I and the Father are one

Sure... One essence...

Not one and the same... Just as when two people are married they become ONE... they don't become the same person

a reply to: randyvs

Reading some of the posts rearding the
What Jesus said at his trial. Claiming
to be God falsely accused of blasphemy?

How much importance would you give to
the historicity of this verse in Mathew?

Well he wasn't falsely accused... according to the pharisees he was guilty, and they made the laws... though they didn't understand who he was... Blasphemy is pretty easy to commit in Judaism.... anything relating yourself to God is blasphemy... they can't even write the word God because of it

So claiming to be the son of God would be blasphemy to them

as far as historical importance is concerned... he said many times he was the son of God... one more person making the claim wouldn't make much of a difference

I find the whole subject fascinating. As stated in Clementine Homilies "For the Scriptures say all manner of things, that no one of those who inquire ungratefully may find the truth, but simply what he wishes to find".

So it should be of prime interest for Christianis to identify the original teachings.

The trinity matters not because the true nature of GOD is unfathomable, But if Jesus did not come from Nazareth but was a Nazarene. Then practices like vegetarianism might be a pre-requisite for salvation.

For example .... "James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.” (Epistulae ad Faustum XXII, 3)

So If Paul and latter leaders of the Roman Church cut corners for popularity. Todays version of Christianity might be the false doctrine warned by the apostles.