The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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..

Yeah you can "made up" any theology you want, as many as you want. No secular scholars from any academia going to bother with anyone faith. But when it comes to history, your credibility is at stake. If you can't prove history with evidence, then you're out.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

You cannot weigh supernatural events..

What supernatural events are you talking about? I'm still waiting for your evidence and you give this as an answer?
What's supernatural events with Ehrman claiming Pilate raided the temple and "many people died and chaos ensured" BS? You said Erhman was "Damn good historian, as well" earlier. Damn good historian my as*. If he has certified PhD in History and working either as researcher or archeologist, I would has respected him more. But he has none of that. The only tag he wear is a NT scholar and a salesperson. His books are entertaining at least. Well received than Dan Brown's fairy tale.

Yes, you can't weigh supernatural events. I agree. Most secular history scholars ignore supernatural events, so I can understand Ehrman's view. However, I disagree with his assessment,

"- well when you do theology, you have to avoid grounding your theology on science or history"

If theology is not grounding on science or history, then what truth are you seeking? Earn money by selling books to the gullible?

a reply to: EasternShadow

Omg 2 different historians disagree about a topic.. lol


Besides it Tacitus could have meant “relatively quiet” since before and after we’re basi genocide and full blown rebellions..

Gallali was in revolt so often it became synonymous with rebellions..

a reply to: EasternShadow

Honestly I think that is probably a “way out” for erhman’s mostly Christian audiences. It is a way to still keep the doctrine even if it is not true.

I agree with you completely that if your dogma is the correct one. It should match the reality we see before us.

(I think) He is making the point that most doctrinal tales are like esops fables. They are stories meant to teach a moral.

The moral is (hypothetically) that the Jews were the bad guys, not the Romans. So it doesn’t matter if the conversation with Pilate is accurate. The point is the Jews are the bad guys, be glad your a Roman..


A better example that isn’t as horrible lol.. might be the prostitute jesus saved from being stoned.

Everyone agrees it is a later addition, even though it really is a beautiful and nuanced tale:


The Jewish people come to jesus with the issue of the prostitute and ask what they should do as a trap.

If jesus says to let her live he breaks Jewish law.

If jesus tells them to stone her he breaks the nonviolent things he has been preaching..

Then jesus flips the script and pickles them with his “let he who is without sin throw the first stone”.


The point of the story isn’t “this was a real life historical event!”

The point is “don’t judge others least you be judged”.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

Honestly I think that is probably a “way out” for erhman’s mostly Christian audiences. It is a way to still keep the doctrine even if it is not true.

I agree with you completely that if your dogma is the correct one. It should match the reality we see before us.

(I think) He is making the point that most doctrinal tales are like esops fables. They are stories meant to teach a moral.

The moral is (hypothetically) that the Jews were the bad guys, not the Romans. So it doesn’t matter if the conversation with Pilate is accurate. The point is the Jews are the bad guys, be glad your a Roman..


A better example that isn’t as horrible lol.. might be the prostitute jesus saved from being stoned.

Everyone agrees it is a later addition, even though it really is a beautiful and nuanced tale:


The Jewish people come to jesus with the issue of the prostitute and ask what they should do as a trap.

If jesus says to let her live he breaks Jewish law.

If jesus tells them to stone her he breaks the nonviolent things he has been preaching..

Then jesus flips the script and pickles them with his “let he who is without sin throw the first stone”.


The point of the story isn’t “this was a real life historical event!”

The point is “don’t judge others least you be judged”.

No, the point is the same as in "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

In other words: You yourself have sin! The Jews thought they did not!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

WHAT WAS WRITTEN AT THE TOP OF JESUS’s cross?? “King of the Jews” Not “The son of god”.. So now who has a childish view of that particular topic?? ANY history buff could have told you that. That said I didn’t say jesus was stoking rebellions, me might have been. That is the primary requirement to join the pantheon of messiahs who freed the Jews from bondage afterall. But the Romans didn’t crucify people for their religious beliefs. They did it for insurrection.. See that type of stuff is how the propagandists get you.. the truth is staring right in your face , but you believe the pool pit preacher instead.

Joshua, You are getting confused with the fact that Jesus had two accusations and two trials. The first trial was that of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin who charged Jesus with blasphemy by claiming that He (Jesus) was the son of their Most High El. That trail by the seventy judges of the Jewish court acquitted Jesus of that charge and Jesus escaped being stoned to death.

Then the left winger Jews petitioned Pilate to judge Jesus for sedition. The crime of usurping the throne of Caesar was death and even so this charge was found to be untrue. Pilate's primary job as procurator was to maintain peace and to maintain the tribute to Rome. If Pilate could not maintain peace then the tribute would likely be also affected and this would reflect on Pilate as a qualified overseer by the Roman courts. Pilate had only one choice left after he judged Jesus as being innocent of sedition. You must feed the lion by killing another for food. That is the sad rule of life.

This very same thing is happening today in the U.S.A. and is called mob rule. Even though circumstances are somewhat different, the pattern is always the same and this has been repeated many times in history. Jesus was found innocent twice by two judgments of two sources. Tradition tells us that Pilate was punished, by Rome, shortly after the death of Jesus on several charges of overstepping the Roman courts. One charge was that of killing a man without the proper Roman approval.

a reply to: Akragon
If you care to know a true Christian biblical scholar then I invite you to look at Dr. Michael Heiser's credentials. I certainly would not go to a dentist for a foot problem and I am truly confused why anyone would go to a atheist to learn Christianity.
drmsh.com...

I did watch the video and it is amateurish and full of errors as in his other lectures that I have watched. The man is a good book salesman but not well qualified as a biblical scholar. He is on the level of Zechariah Sitchin. Sitchin can teach foolishness and sell it to tens of millions of people and die rich but that does not make it true. Bart is a confused and fearful filled atheist.

a reply to: Ove38

That is literally ridiculous..

The Jews didn’t think they were above sinning...

That is just laughable.

a reply to: Seede

What trash...

I running so unable to debunk that garbage, but what trash..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Ove38

That is literally ridiculous..

The Jews didn’t think they were above sinning...

That is just laughable.

The Jews most definitely thought they did not have sin, that they were clean.

a reply to: Seede

If you care to know a true Christian biblical scholar then I invite you to look at Dr. Michael Heiser's credentials. I certainly would not go to a dentist for a foot problem and I am truly confused why anyone would go to a atheist to learn Christianity.

Is this similar to people that say "you weren't ever a TRUE Christian"?

He is a scholar of the NT... and no longer a Christian... And by the way i don't need to learn anything about Christianity... i just found this video very interesting

I don't bother with "christian" Scholars because every single one of them has their biases... and back peddle towards their own personal views and their faith in lectures as opposed to reality and what the texts actually say

a perfect example would be Dr. Ehrmans debate with William Lane Craig... I've had Christians tell me that Craig actually won that debate, but thats complete nonsense.... Ehrman destroyed him in every point in the debate, and craig fell back on his faith to debate his points which the audience loved (Christian audience obviously)

AS far as flaws in the video.... please feel free to point said flaws out

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

We have no idea what the people who were there said lol...

That’s the point..

Jesus’s lifetime followers were poor uneducated Jews in gallalie..

The books of the Bible were written 30-150 years later in HIGHLY educated Greek..

Aka the Bible is not eye witness accounts.. obviously.

By 12 years old, when their schooling finished, 1st Century Jewish boys were expected to recite, from memory, an entire book of the Bible (the book of Isaiah being a popular favorite, weighing in at 25,608 words). They were usually proficient in four languages; Aramaic (the common spoken language), Hebrew (the liturgical language), Greek (the predominant 'international' written language) and Latin (the language of the upper class and government).

After Alexander the Great, 300 years before Christ, conquered most of the world, Greek became the default common language for most of Europe and the Middle East. Even though different regions had their own languages, Greek was the standard language of trade and politics and was a great 'enabler' of the Roman Empire.

Compared to our education, their standards were quite high and because they didn't have the vastness of knowledge topics that we now have, they could concentrate on specific knowledge that we rarely go into in our schooling.

Here's a Wikipedia link that explains some of it (although language use is a complex issue)

a reply to: chr0naut

Then why do none of the critical New Testament scholars think jesus or his diciples spoke Greek??


Because you have to assume the Bible being written in Greek means jesus spoke Greek. Because there isn’t any other evidence of that.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

Then why do none of the critical New Testament scholars think jesus or his diciples spoke Greek??

Because you have to assume the Bible being written in Greek means jesus spoke Greek. Because there isn’t any other evidence of that.

There is much in Jesus words that reflect Hellenistic paradigms, especially in the Gospel of John; References to Hell/Hades, His use of Greek wordplay in speaking to Nicodemus (John 3), the words "Rhema" and"Logos" used in forms compatible with Aristotolean and Platonic philosophy. 'Light and darkness' paradigms. Being 'born again through the Spirit'. Even "the water that springs up to eternal life", used with the Samaritan woman at the well, is a Platonic allusion.

Also, Jesus quotes exclusively from the Septuagint translation (in all Gospels), which was Greek.

With the weight of words and concepts which have an exclusive Greek source, and which it is recorded that Jesus used, I find it hard to believe that any reputable expert denies that Jesus and His disciples spoke some degree of Greek.

a reply to: Ove38

Whatever.. they thought it was possible to.. not that everyone did..

a reply to: chr0naut

Every other scholar on the planet thinks that is proof the Bible was written by Greek Christians 50+ years later.. rather than eye witnesses in Judea.

a reply to: Akragon

this is like discussing the early origins of mickey mouse. JESUS and MICKEY are FICTIONAL!

a reply to: richapau

This is your opinion, and while you are welcome to have it... said view is not shared by the majority of scholars or historians

a reply to: richapau

The man-god jesus may be fictional. Most scholars agree there was probably a first century rabbi crucified for insurrection, named Jesus.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

it was actually for sedition... there is a slight difference...