The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: glend

yes...

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

Oh I’m sure you would have to be fluent in first century Judean history to be the premenant NT scholar on the planet lol..

So, you are saying The permenant NT scholar now become the permenant historical scholar?

Come on, don't make archeology and history scholars laugh.

You really should know theology and historical study are two different fields.

No secular academia in history study pay attention to any religion thesis.

That is just silly. And incorrect.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: glend

Then practices like vegetarianism might be a pre-requisite for salvation.

Actually that was clarified in the gospels...

Eating can not defile a man... ya?

The complete phrase in Mathew 15:20 is:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (KJV)

These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.(ESV)

These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.(NIV)

It is not about WHAT you eat; it is about HOW you eat.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness... ya?

And the three PREVIOUS sentences are:

Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.
For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Mathew 15:17-19 (NIV)

The discussion is about words and deeds, not diet.

I am not sure why you would do such a demeaning thing, but cherry picking phrases out of context, ESPECIALLY Bible verses, in order to justify your own personal misconceptions is one of things that defile you.

Jesus was an observant Jew. He would have adhered strictly to Jewish dietary laws. That is one of the things that Paul tried to get the elders to change in order to convert Gentiles, though circumcision was the deal breaker. It is unclear to me whether these sentences were inserted under Paul's influence, but each of the Gospel authors had different agendas, and each has been edited, added to, and probably deleted from, several times before the 'final' versions as we know them today.

Jesus personal mission was to renew Jewish religious faith that was in the process of being corrupted by Roman influence. He was at odds with both the Romans, who wanted Jews to worship Caesar as god, and the Priests who wanted to maintain power and enrich themselves by currying favor with the Romans.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow

Ehrman just mix up between procurator Gessius Florus and Pontius Pilate. Philo didn't mentioned temple raid in Flaccus. It was taken from Josephus's The Antiquities of the Jews. Lol.

Any links for that?

or direct quotations from said writers?

Actually it was from Josephus, War of Jewish Book 2 Chapter 14 Section 6. And here is what Josephus wrote:

Florus Takes Treasure from the Temple (66 CE)
W 2.14.6

Moreover, as to the citizens of Jerusalem, although they took this matter [the dealings in Caesarea] very ill, yet did they restrain their passion; but Florus acted herein as if he had been hired, and blew up the war into a flame, and sent some to take seventeen talents out of the sacred treasure, and pretended that Caesar wanted them. At this the people were in confusion immediately, and ran together to the Temple, with prodigious clamours, and called upon Caesar by name, and besought him to free them from the tyranny of Florus.

www.josephus.org...

Another link from difference source

FLORUS, GESSIUS (or, incorrectly, Cestius):

By: Richard Gottheil, M. Seligsohn

Last procurator of Judea (64-66). Florus was notorious for his cruelty and rapacity, and was so much detested by the Jews that in comparisonwith him Albinus was considered a just man. Florus, indeed, hastened the outbreak of the revolution by rendering the condition of the Jews unbearable. He protected the Sicarii in return for a share of their plunder, and during his administration many towns were sacked. When the Jews of Cæsarea opposed the obstruction of the entrance to their synagogue by the Greeks, they bribed Florus not to interfere. Florus accordingly went to Samaria. Finding themselves overpowered, the Jews sent to him an embassy of twelve, imploring his protection against the Greeks; but Florus, instead, threw the ambassadors into prison. Later he sent to Jerusalem, demanding from the warden of the Temple treasury seventeen talents of gold. His demand being refused and even ridiculed, he went to Jerusalem and ordered his soldiers to attack the upper market-place.

The Jews were killed, regardless of sex or age, and the houses plundered. On that day (16th of Iyyar, 66) more than 3,600 were slaughtered; many were scourged and crucified. Queen Berenice in vain implored him on her knees to stop the carnage. Florus even demanded a friendly reception for the troops appointed to seize the Temple. But the people opposed him with so much vigor and determination that he left Jerusalem with the larger number of his troops. When the insurrection had broken out, Florus gave full liberty to the Greeks of Cæsarea to attack the Jews. The majority of the latter were killed; the remainder, by the command of Florus, were sent to the galleys.

Bibliography:
Josephus, Ant. xx. 11, § 1;
B. J. ii. 14, § 4;
Grätz, Gesch. 4th ed., iii. 445-450 et seq.;
Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 585, 601 et seq.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Good luck with Erhman' source ( Philo ) who was at Alexandria at that time. And no, despite Philo hate for Pontius Pilate, he had no idea what's going on Judea or Jerusalem.

Now if you mind, I would like to see the evidence of Pontius Pilate raided the temple, especially from Philo's account, since Erhman love third party's account.

a reply to: Akragon

Yea, I’m pretty sure those things go together too. Lol

In fact I bet quite a few historians will be fluent in the languages and religions of their topic of study.

a reply to: Ove38

In other words “I just make it up all by myself and claim it is divine inspiration!”

Lol

a reply to: EasternShadow

Boy that was a blantant attempt at a deflection and logical fallacy..


Who said he was the preeminent historian AND THE PREEMINENT NT SCHOLAR?!?!


Couldn’t he be the preeminent NT scholar AND a damn good first century historian as well???


Obviously..



Attempting word play to validate your point seems unnecessary for a thread that’s pretty cordial..

a reply to: EasternShadow

That Josephus said so...

Is it be all end all evidence??

No, but it is evidence.. obviously.


What are you even asking for besides the testimony of a contemporary historian lol???


A police report and fingerprint analysis??


All we have for anything ancient is the account of contemporary historians lol.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Couldn’t he be the preeminent NT scholar AND a damn good first century historian as well???

What "damn good first century historian as well"?
He make blantant mistakes in first century history. Any good historians could tell you the different period between Tiberius and Nero. And how Pontius Pilate despite his known cruelty, was restrained by Emperor Tiberius. If Erhman thesis was correct, the Jewish War could have erupted earlier, because one of the cause of war, was the Roman raided the temple.

Like I said, history is not biblical story you can play with faith and logic. History is not about faith. It's about evidence. No evidence, No History.

Get it?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

That Josephus said so...

Is it be all end all evidence??

No, but it is evidence.. obviously.


What are you even asking for besides the testimony of a contemporary historian lol???


A police report and fingerprint analysis??


All we have for anything ancient is the account of contemporary historians lol.

Is that the best you can argue?
Now stop fooling around and back up Erhman's claim. From Philo's account if you don't mind, since he used Philo to attack Pilate. And because you said Josephus was contemporary historian, then don't use his account. I bet you have better evidence from "true" historian like Philo.

Go ahead, back up the claim with evidence.

Here is interesting debate between Mike Licona and Barth Ehrman.

Licona:
– I think you are struggling with the theological implications of a historical conclusion

Ehrman:
– well when you do theology, you have to avoid grounding your theology on science or history
– theology has to be completely made up or it’s not good theology

Licona:
– I think you are letting your dislike of the implications of the resurrection determine your historical conclusions
– you have to use historical methods to gather the minimal facts that every scholar accepts, regardless of worldview
– then you weigh ALL the hypotheses, natural and supernatural, that could account for these minimal facts
– then you choose the hypothesis that best explains the minimal facts

winteryknight.com...

He said, "theology has to be completely made up or it’s not good theology."

Interesting. So lying is a good theology,huh?

Not to mention his bias historical view which are all there in the link above.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Here is another scholar with the same opinion..

Pontius Pilate poses a major problem for the historian. The three main sources present him rather differently. Philo’s comments about Pilate are extremely hostile [1]. Josephus is not so obviously biased as Philo. Nonetheless, his descriptions of the governor are quite negative. How, then are we able to reconcile the ruthless figure of Philo (who is negatively described by Josephus) with the governor of the gospels who is unable to discharge a prisoner whom he wishes to set free ?

paulbarnett.info...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Ove38

he probably just wanted some attention.

Perhaps...

that doesn't mean that he was not a "true christian" at one point... or a pastor... professor... Fundy?

LOL... He happened to find issues with his beliefs... and got rich from writing about his findings...

that does not take anything away from his credentials in the least

Bart Ehrmans incorrect belief was that he thought the bible had no errors and that the bible creators thought likewise.

a reply to: EasternShadow

You cannot weigh supernatural events..

History is a collection of the most probable conclusions.

For example : is it possible Lincoln did not give the Gettysburg address and it was all some later conspiracy??

Well yea it’s possible, but it is highly unlikely because we have countless sources on the event.

BY DEFINITION A SUPERNATURAL EVENT CANNOT BE THE MOST PROBABLE EVENT... EVER..

Because there is always a real world explanation that is more likely..


For example: the tomb was empty...

Is “god did it” the most probable assumption??

No..

Grave robbers, he wasn’t really dead and it was the wrong tomb are FAR more likely than “god did it”.


There is not one critical scholar or historian who would EVER disagree with that.

For ANY supernatural event you can name. My trailerpark @$$ can think yo a more likely scenerio that doesn’t require breaking the laws of physics..


There ARE NO supernatural events that are considered recorded history period.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Theology is the “made up” set of docrine religious institutions set..

By definition theology is made up..

You can say jesus made it up, that’s fine, but someone still made it up.

His point is that you cannot ascribe the supernatural to history.. since the supernatural is the least likely assumption..

Here is a documentary on Pilate if anyone is interested.

youtu.be...

a reply to: rnaa

The discussion is about words and deeds, not diet.

I am not sure why you would do such a demeaning thing, but cherry picking phrases out of context, ESPECIALLY Bible verses, in order to justify your own personal misconceptions is one of things that defile you.

Try Mark 7 chief... earlier gospel by the way... most scholars believe matthew relies on Mark

SO ya... it was about dietary laws that were not necessary....

but thanks for coming out

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man

a reply to: Akragon

I do t know if you are familiar with the “Noahtide laws”, which are the laws for gentiles to follow to be righteous in gods eyes from a Jewish pov, but I wonder if it has anything to do with..

“Tho shalt not eat the flesh of a still living animal”

a reply to: Akragon

The words in Mark are saying the exact same thing:

"it is not your diet that makes you holy, because food just passes through you. It is how you live your life that is important."

Both versions seek to make Judaism more 'palatable' to Gentiles, while maintaining the dietary laws for those who wish to keep them. It doesn't condemn Jewish tradition, it just restores the focus to words and deeds rather than strict adherence to the Priestly restrictions. This is a necessary adjustment to make in order to promote the new faith into the Gentile world.

Remember Jesus mission was to restore the essentials of Jewish faith which was being usurped by the Priests. Jesus himself would have been a strict follower of the dietary law. This passage seeks to expand his message to include Gentiles in a way that Jesus would not have considered. His mission was to the Jews. It was Paul that saw a more universal value in that message and sought a wider audience.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

Here is another scholar with the same opinion..

Pontius Pilate poses a major problem for the historian. The three main sources present him rather differently. Philo’s comments about Pilate are extremely hostile [1]. Josephus is not so obviously biased as Philo. Nonetheless, his descriptions of the governor are quite negative. How, then are we able to reconcile the ruthless figure of Philo (who is negatively described by Josephus) with the governor of the gospels who is unable to discharge a prisoner whom he wishes to set free ?

paulbarnett.info...

Still no evidence. Not even from Philo. So Erhman made it up to fit his theology. Good try. It's not going to fool any secular historian tho.

From your link, let's hear what Tacitus said about the reign of Tiberius.

In his brief chronological survey of Jewish history from the arrival of Pompey in 63 B.C. to the outbreak of the war with Rome in A.D. 66 Tacitus was to comment, sub Tiberio ques, “under Tiberius all was quiet

See? Under Tiberius all was quiet. No temple raid BS. No Jewish War. No riots. That because we know who Tiberius was. He wasn't a confrontatial Emperor, unlike Nero.