The Historical Jesus (Page 3)

ghostgeek: Thus it can be confidently stated that the gospel is fiction. If you cannot accept that, as seems to be the case, I think you need to do some soul searching.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

The above is the original ending of Mark's Gospel, as is found in two important Greek manuscripts from the fourth century. These are codices Sinaiticus (ℵ01) and Vaticanus (B03). Nothing about the women later changing their minds and blabbing about what they'd seen and heard.
_________________________

Also nothing about what they ate for dinner. So therefore they did not eat dinner that night? You're assuming that no one ever did anything unless it's written in a document that they did it? It also doesn't say they kept on breathing -- so you think we can't assume they continued to breathe after they left the tomb or grave site?

That they visited that spot and then left is confirmed in all the other gospel accounts, including John which probably did not rely on the earlier 3 gospel accounts. So it's likely they did make this visit to the tomb as all the evidence indicates -- all 4 accounts. And the other accounts agree that they did tell the others what had happened, meaning they did not remain silent about what they saw. This means that the Mark account is either wrong or that Mark only meant that their silence was temporary, like for a day or two. Just because Mark says nothing about them finally telling the others, or about them continuing to breathe, does not mean they didn't tell the others or continue to breathe, as we can assume they did.

The very worst you can claim is that Mark was wrong to say they never told anyone, because they did, according to the other 3 accounts. And even if that's the case, it's just another example of an error in a written account, which occurred millions of times in ancient writings, by historians and other who reported the ancient events. Of course there are errors or discrepancies or inaccuracies, even some fiction, in the many ancient writings which we rely on to tell us what happened. Even if Mark contains some fiction, it doesn't mean that none of the events happened, or that all of Mark is fiction. Is all of Josephus fiction because there are some errors or fiction in Josephus, who even contradicts himself in some cases, in his two versions of some of the events? What is your point in showing a discrepancy between Mark and the other accounts? There are many such discrepancies. Where there is a real contradiction, then at least one writer is wrong on that particular detail. But the best explanation in this case is simply that Mark meant only that those Galilean women kept silent about it on that particular day, not that they remained silent about it forever for the rest of their lives.

But even if you insist Mark meant that they remained silent forever, so what? It doesn't prove anything except just that a Gospel writer could be in error about something.
_______________________

ghostgeek:

As for the empty tomb being discovered by others, that wouldn't explain how the writer of Mark knew about the young man in the white robe who told the women about Jesus going on ahead to Galilee.
__________________

All 4 accounts report someone else being there, 1 or 2 men or "angels" or whoever, encountered by the Galilean women. These reports in the 4 accounts are not consistent with each other, each one contradicting something in the others. Maybe they're fictional, though the best assumption is that there was some kind of encounter, as they all agree, but the details of it are lost, and each account tells something which promotes that Gospel writer's interpretation of what happened, or what that writer thought was important. So maybe the details of the encounter are fiction in each case, as each writer made up his own dialogue between the characters.

So, what's new here? The resurrection happened, the body was gone, and each Gospel writer gives his fictional version of what was said to the women, and their response.

What's the point? The part they agree on is probably correct, and where they contradict each other, there is fiction. So the agreed part is that the women went to the grave site and encountered someone there who said something to them about the missing body. Maybe the later writers wanted to make it more mysterious by having it be "angels" of some kind, and putting special words into their mouths. It's not important exactly what was said or who those men were.

The evidence is that the event happened -- those women went to the tomb or burial spot and discovered it empty, and someone else was there who said something.

ghostgeek: As I'm sure you already know, Mark's Gospel is nowadays considered the earliest of the Gospels by the massed ranks of biblical scholars, and Matthew and Luke, it's claimed, borrowed much of their material from him. Thus Mark's Gospel is surely the go to source. So, if Mark says somethings that cannot be reconciled with what is logically possible, this casts a grave doubt on the Gospel narrative in general. Thus we have to question the supposed miracles, not only because they also read like fiction but because Paul makes no mention of them.

ghostgeek: Why has Paul got so little to say about Jesus? Here's Bart Ehrman on the subject:

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven. But in terms of historical information, what I’ve listed above [ i.e., in the previous posts ] is about all that we can glean from his letters. Imagine what we wouldn’t know about Jesus if these letters were our only sources of information. We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc. The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus — or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself — will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul.

But what are we to make of this? Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did? Does he think that these things are unimportant? Does he think that they are irrelevant? Does he assume that his readers already know them? Does he know them? How could he not know?

[ https://ehrmanblog.org/why-doesnt-paul-say-more-about-jesus-for-members/ ]

The problem, of course, stems from the existence of the Gospels. These four books mesmerise people. They think the information within their pages is, well, gospel. Thus they wonder why it never found its way into Paul's teaching. OK, so here's my answer to the conundrum. All the details of Jesus' life that you hold so dear were made up by the writers of the Gospels after 70 AD and thus could not find their way into the teachin of Paul.

katie26r: I think you've missed the point ghost, faith doesn't depend on evidence that's why it's called faith. Billions of people don't care about evidence, the fact a very religious people believed, suffered torture and death for their faith is evidence enough. I mean who suffers death for something they know is not true.

GeraldtheGnome: This should be as a religious forum.

Hi Margaret, I see that you have made yourself out to be at least 20 years younger than in your other account.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Bluster all you want, but there is no way the writer of Mark's Gospel could have received word about what the women discovered and were told.
_______________________

He received that information similarly as Matthew and Luke and John received it, and also the Apostle Paul who said Jesus was crucified and buried and raised again and then appeared bodily to a large number of witnesses, many of whom Paul names. And for Paul to be right about this, it means that Jesus' body left that grave site, after rising, so that the body then was absent from the burial place, just as some later witnesses discovered when they went there.

They all had information about these events from different sources. All of them add details not in Mark and exclude details in Mark. Just because Mt and Lk also quote Mark does not mean they knew only what was in Mark.

To say there "is no way the writer . . . could have received word about" what others knew or were told puts in place a rule by which you'd have to exclude at least half of all our known ancient history. This "there is no way" pronouncement is based on nothing other than simply your ignorance of the exact details of who Mark relied on and how they knew these facts. Which is something you could say about any ancient historian, such as Herodotus or Polybius and all the others. In most cases we do not know their source or how the original events were witnessed by someone who then passed it on to others and then to others until the final writer recorded it.

In most cases you cannot explain where the historian got his facts, traced back through earlier sources to the original witnesses. You don't know the names of those earliest witnesses or of the intermediate sources between those original witnesses and the final historian 100 years later who finally wrote it down for us to read today.

If you assume those women "said nothing to anyone" or were silent forever, then maybe it requires some extra speculation how the information got passed on, and thus maybe more speculation than in most cases where we're not told that the original witnesses were silent.

But that doesn't mean there's "no way" the later writer could have learned what happened, and it doesn't erase the fact that something happened -- there was a crucifixion, and the body was dead and buried and later rose back up and left the grave site. There are other sources for this than only Mark. It doesn't matter if the Mark version leaves open a question about how this later writer learned of the missing body or who visited the site.

And it also doesn't matter if there is a fictional element in Mark, anymore than it matters that there are fictional elements in Herodotus and Thucydides and Plutarch and Tacitus and all the others. At worst, you possibly found one fictional element in Mark, that the women told no one at all for the rest of their lives. And yet you really did not find that in Mark, because the text does not say that. But if you insist that this is in the text, even then it only means that Mark contains this one fictional element, like every ancient written account contains fiction, including every history work by every ancient historian contains some fictional elements.

Your logic holds up only if you mean that we must toss out of the historical record around half of all our known ancient history. So perhaps half of everything we know of the Egyptians and Greeks and Romans is fiction and must be eliminated from the historical record. And so all our history books and history classes must be purged of about half of what they tell us happened in antiquity, because there is too much uncertainty about how the eventual writer acquired the information.

So your finding is not about Mark only, but about ALL the ancient historical record, and what you're claiming is that a good percent, maybe half, of all our ancient history is likely fiction, due to the difficulty explaining how the original facts got to the writer 50-100 years later.
__________________________

ghostgeek:

. . . no way the writer of Mark's Gospel could have received word about what the women discovered and were told. The structure of the original ending precludes it.
____________________

There's no "structure" other than the words "They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Their saying nothing and their being afraid are inseparably connected, so that when the fear subsides, the saying nothing also subsides. To insist that they remained silent forever you have to assume that their fear persisted, forever, including any shock or confusion or bewilderment they experienced, meaning for the rest of their lives they continued to experience this same shock and fear and confusion and uncertainty of what had happened. We have plenty of other indications, in other accounts, the other Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts, that they did not continue to experience the same fear and confusion.

What happened later also matters and cannot be dismissed, and yet for this we must consult other accounts than Mark, which ends abruptly at the point that the women left the grave site. You can't throw out everything other than Mark. None of our sources tells the whole story -- not the earliest, Paul, and not the last, John and the Acts, nor any in between. To hysterically throw out everything except one source you are obsessing on is not the way to fit together the different pieces of evidence or facts to determine what happened.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Thus it can be confidently stated that the gospel is fiction.
_________________________

Yes, if you mean that half of all our ancient history is fiction. We have basically the same uncertainty of all the ancient writers as we have of Mark, with differing degrees of doubt depending on each case. Plus, we might impose the additional standard that miracles or supernatural claims require extra evidence, beyond the norm, and so our Gospel accounts must meet this higher standard, because of the excess miracle content.

And we do have this higher standard met by the Gospel accounts. We have extra sources -- 4 for the miracle healing acts, and 5 for the Resurrection. No such extra sources are required for normal events reported, and so we believe the ancient writings, even ONE SOURCE ONLY, for almost all history events, as long as the source is not contradicted by other sources, and if it's reasonably close in time to the reported events.

This latter, the chronological proximity to the reported events, varies widely over the many sources and many centuries, so maybe a good rule is that the reliability of the sources slowly declines as the centuries pass and the time gap increases. So, maybe some of Plutarch's reports about the Spartans many centuries earlier have to be considered more doubtful, perhaps put in the "exaggeration" category somewhat. So there's much room for conjecture, and historians disagree very much on the reliability of the doubtful sources.
__________________________

ghostgeek:

If you cannot accept that [the gospel is fiction], as seems to be the case, I think you . . .
_____________________

I've agreed that the 4 gospel accounts contain both fact and fiction, like all the ancient writings, such as the sources we rely on for our standard historical facts. And, since the gospels contain an extra element of miracle, we need more than only one source for corroboration of the reported events, and sources near to when these events happened -- and this extra standard is met by our 4 gospel accounts plus the Paul epistles, so that the Resurrection event is well documented or supported by the evidence, similarly to other ancient history events for which we rely on sources which contain some fiction.

The simplistic outburst that the gospels are fiction ignores that they're also fact. Just as all our history sources are both, rather than fact only. But you are ignoring that all ancient history sources contain fact and fiction, and demanding that only the gospel writings be subject to critical standards not imposed onto other literature. And you give no explanation why the Gospel writings must be dismissed as fiction only even though they also contain fact.
______________________

ghostgeek:

. . . cannot accept that [the gospel is fiction] . . . I think you need to do some soul searching.
_________________

No, it's facts we need to find, not souls. What we need primarily is fact-searching, or establishing what the facts are and how we get to them. For the history facts we rely on the ancient written accounts, and we generally believe them where they agree and doubt or disbelieve them where they contradict each other.

The demand to know how the writer obtained the facts is not required for most of our (ancient) historical facts. How the writer knew it, or what his sources were, is an added luxury for historians in some cases, where the information is provided, as it usually is not, for our ancient history facts.

There's an abundance of history for which the original writer's sources are unknown and for which we must accept whatever facts are provided regardless how the writer knew of it. Hardly ever can we dismiss it as fiction only because there's an unanswered question about the sources used. Our lacking such answers is so often the case that if this were required possibly most of our ancient history would have to be wiped clean from the record, due to our not knowing the source and the transmission process from the original witnesses down through 50-100 years to the later source whose written account we rely on.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

As I'm sure you already know, Mark's Gospel is nowadays considered the earliest of the Gospels by the massed ranks of biblical scholars, and Matthew and Luke, it's claimed, borrowed much of their material from him. Thus Mark's Gospel is surely the go to source.
_________________________

It's more correct to say that Mark takes priority if there's a clear contradiction with the others. But also there are omissions in Mark, leaving something unexplained, and the Mt or Lk version might fill in the gap, thus giving a more accurate total picture, or extra information Mark didn't know. Just because Mt and Lk quote Mark does not mean they didn't have still others sources unknown to Mk.
______________________

ghostgeek:

So, if Mark says somethings that cannot be reconciled with what is logically possible, this casts a grave doubt on the Gospel narrative in general.
______________________

No, it casts doubt onto the inerrancy of scripture doctrine, which claims that every verse and every phrase throughout the Bible has to be true. Once we understand that these writings are not an infallible unified Holy Book, but are a collection of different writings with each giving its version or interpretation of what happened, then we can understand that one part might be mistaken while another is credible. We can separate fact from fiction and figure out what the truth is even though some of the writings contain error, including very serious error in some cases, or distortion of the real facts. And of course it's not necessary that we get 100% of the truth 100% figured out down to the last detail.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

Thus we have to question the supposed miracles, not only . . .
_______________________

Of course we have to question all miracle claims, from any source. But when we look at the facts in this case, we're unable to explain how these reports could have been fabricated, as we can in other cases. For the ancient pagan myth miracles we have stories which evolved over many centuries, during which they had time to emerge in storytelling. There are no other examples of any instant miracle-workers such as Jesus, who appears suddenly in the literature as a recent historical person rather than an ancient hero from centuries earlier, like Elijah or Moses, or 1000 or million years earlier, like Asclepius or Prometheus. And in Jesus we have an unknown person with no status in his lifetime, such as Alexander the Great or Vespasian were fantastic celebrities of great fame and power over millions of subjects, which can explain why miracle myths might occur during their lifetimes as part of their vast popularity.

So of course we obviously question any miracle claims. But when we do, we see in the Jesus person of 30 AD that nothing explains his reputation as a miracle-worker such as we see in all the other reputed cases, and we see no miracle-worker trend whatever, in the culture, leading up to his time of about 30 AD. He's the ONLY one who pops into history -- very suddenly, with no precedent -- with no others earlier leading up to his time. The closest similarities are several cases AFTER him, mostly after 100 AD, which are mostly copycat stories inspired by the case of Jesus in about 30 AD.
__________________________

ghostgeek:

. . . question the supposed miracles, not only because they also read like fiction but because . . .
___________________________

They don't read like fiction anymore than the rest of the narrative in the accounts -- except from our instinct that any miracle claim is likely to be fiction. It's because of this normal instinct we have that we're skeptical, not that they "read like fiction" but because such claims usually are fiction and so we suspect these are also. And we should be skeptical and question and analyze them and determine what caused them.
____________________

ghostgeek:

. . . but because Paul makes no mention of them.
______________________

But this is explained by 2 facts, which have already been pointed out but which you're ignoring:

1) Paul mentions nothing biographical about Jesus prior to the night he was arrested, because nothing earlier mattered to Paul, whose only interest was to give his Christology, or theology, regarding the risen and exalted Christ, or the Cosmic Christ ascended up to the "right hand of God." And --

2) All the Christian writers, virtually 100% of them, downplay the miracle healings of Jesus, on into the future, even though they knew of these miracle stories in the Gospel accounts. Many of them completely ignored the miracle acts of Jesus, not mentioning them even once (other than the Resurrection).

Among the early examples of this are Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp who both knew of the Gospel accounts telling the miracle stories. Also the writer of 2 Peter omits them. All these are late enough that the writers absolutely must have known of the miracle stories (even if some earlier writers might not have known of them), and yet they omit any mention of them. And the more prolific and famous writers -- Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and Tertullian and Cyprian etc. -- appearing later, do mention the miracles of Jesus, but these mentions are so rare in their writings, so few, that you have to spend hours searching and scanning through their writings to be able to find the place where they finally mention them. And many other writers omit any mention at all.

A classic example of omitting the miracles of Jesus is St. Augustine, who omits them entirely in his "Confessions" and notes them only once in his "City of God" -- his 2 most famous writings. The omission of this in his "City of God" is peculiar because he does include a huge list of miracles, about 70 total, on page after page of this famous book, and these are all miracles he claims to have witnessed personally, in his time. So obviously he presumes that the miracles of Jesus are to be downplayed and replaced by miracle claims a believer experiences in his/her own life as more important. This ideological bias seems to explain the omission and downplay of the Jesus miracles in so many of the great Christian writings through the centuries, and beginning with Paul at the beginning. And even Paul himself claimed to have done some miracles, though he says little about it.

So we can easily explain why Paul omitted mention of the Jesus miracles even though they did happen -- it was for the same reason that all the other Christian writers played them down or omitted them, with possibly one or two rare exceptions where a writer did choose to give attention to this subject matter.

katie26r: I see you delete anyone who disagrees with you faceless one. I am not margaret sorry and dont post again on my profile or you will be reported and faceless or not Wire have IPs.

GeraldtheGnome: It's most likely that even Margaret is not Margaret, you obviously go by many names. You have already been reported for having multiple accounts so do not concern yourself with what I have done, concern yourself with what you have done. Two people with different names, most likely neither are using their real names, then again I haven't used my real name on here either, with at least some of the same photos and both emergency nurses is an odd similarity. Either you have the real photos of yourself and the other stole some off that one or you have more than one account.

It's at least the second time that you have used at least two accounts at the same time if you are Margaret and since you seem to use the same kind of words as 'Margaret' has, who has used two different ages in the past and the same photos in both of them it's either an odd coincidence or you are whoever she really is. Your blanket statement that I delete anyone who disagrees with me is a false one and the same kind of crap accusation that 'Margaret' has made about me in the past. Don't threaten me, it's not me who has done the wrong thing. Another thing, whether it's completely off subject and I have only deleted some things from some people. The reasons were valid and your complaints about me amount to nothing. I have a face so anything about me not having a face does not make sense. I left a note that you have a younger age than 'Margaret' has by at least 20 years and yet have a lot of the same photos as her, also that they are most likely stolen. That was not a crime, it was stating a fact. If you are not the other one, which is very doubtful, then she is pretending to be a nurse and she is using your photos and the same kind of words that you use. Unless you are both identical twins, she must be the 'evil' one. It's like a damn soapie.

To Lump. On here I am note going to tell you if I am for or against what you have mentioned in regards to this 'Historical Jesus' forum. It is however like putting a forum in the religious forum that really should be a science forum. This forum really is a religious forum, not an 'Off Topic' forum. So why is it here ? There are many people for and many people against that a historical Jesus existed. I know that a historical Jesus existed. To understand what I mean by that depends on the way that you think and if you know what I mean by that. I am being extremely cryptic here.

To Katie. This is Lump's forum, at least Lump has made it about the subject matter. That is admirable. Don't reply to this, feel free to reply to Ghostgeek and Lump on here at any time though about the subject matter. You are not the subject matter and I am not the subject matter.

katie26r: I bet other people cant wait for your posts or are you other people. I am who I am, not your margaret. You are a facless bore, nothing more.

katie26r: I just checked your profile, seriously, stick to what you dont know anything about. Deleting people who dont agree with you is no more than talking to yourself or are you.

GeraldtheGnome: Margaret/Katie/any other name maybe or whatever the truth about you really is, you are being a Troll. This is Lump's forum, not yours. Quit making false accusations about me. I really wouldn't go on about deleting people when you deleted one message you didn't want anyone to see about yourself. These are text messages so I never talked to myself. Sure, you are not Margaret, she's probably made up. I'm no one faceless and I am not a bore. Your feelings are hurt and now you are using attack as a form of defence because I brought up that you share some of the same stuff as another on here. One who has in the past had two accounts at the same time with different ages and the same photos with both accounts.

I at least certainly have only one account, not everyone likes what I put, not everyone likes what you put, some people are rude to me and others are not. That's where it lies. So yes, I have been sticking to what I know nothing about, that is that I can't work on here why there are two people on this forum with similar accounts with similar behaviour too. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So let's agree to disagree and get back to the subject. I mean there is another possibility but I only vaguely wonder if you are her, one a bit more known to me lately, I doubt it though because that one is against certain things. Now bring up what you can about the historical Jesus or just let the other two on here bring up the subject and just watch rather than reply. I'm sure billions of people are fond of using the word the when they can.

ghostgeek: Katie, if faith doesn't depend on evidence, what does it depend on? Is it sufficient that a man stands in the market place shouting that he's God's messenger and must be obeyed, or should people ask him to prove what he says before following his every whim?

ghostgeek: Lumpenproletariat, once you admit that there could be a fictional element in the Gospels why stop there? Why not go the whole hog and concede that the Gospels could be pure fiction? People, after all, don't normally walk on water or turn a few fish into a meal for thousands, though possible explanations for both those scenarios do exist. Nor is it usual for people to heal others by the laying on of hands, though again the art is still practiced and reportedly can achieve results. But when we come to those pesky demons, that's where there's a real problem. Put simply, is there any evidence that talkative demons even exist? If there isn't, and I know of none, then Jesus couldn't have cast them out as it's claimed he did in the Gospels.

ghostgeek: So, Lumpenproletariat, can you, against the odds, show that demons exist? Are there some in a zoo near you? Do some regularly appear on YouTube? Is there one running a country somewhere? If demons prove to be rarer than hen's teeth, then your claim that the Gospels aren't fiction is looking mighty suspect.

ghostgeek: The Sherlock Holmes stories contain plenty of factual material. London is there in all its grimy splendour, steam trains are puffing east, west, north and south, and hansom cabs rattle in the dingiest streets. Yet for all this these stories will be found in the fiction section of any library, thus proving that the inclusion of factual material doesn't in itself guarantee the bona fides of a narrative.

ghostgeek: Why would Paul ignore the teachings of Jesus if he knew of them, or his supposed acts of healing? Such details would surely add substance to Jesus' story without in any way devaluing the resurrection, yet it is only from the Gospels that we hear of them? The simplist answer that I can think of is that Paul knew nothing of this material. That can be simply explained by the material not existing, as I say is the case, or by some very convoluted process that I'm sure you'll try to provide. Just remember though, before you start, that Paul claims to have joined the Jesus Movement, so it's hard to see how this material could hav failed to come to his notice if it existed.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Why has Paul got so little to say about Jesus? Here's Bart Ehrman on the subject:
________________________

Ehrman in a second, but note: the answer I've already given twice to your question here is totally in agreement with your Ehrman quote. And there are 2 simple answers "Why" Paul does this, explained earlier:

1) PAUL TOTALLY IGNORES EVERYTHING BIOGRAPHICAL about Jesus except what he did prior to the night when he was arrested, at the very end. Because Paul is not interested in the earlier biography of Jesus, but only in explaining the importance of the death and Resurrection of Jesus, at the very end of his life. He also preaches the Risen or Cosmic Christ having ascended up to the "Right Hand" of God.

2) LIKE ALL THE CHRISTIAN WRITERS WHO IGNORE OR DOWNPLAY THE JESUS MIRACLE ACTS, Paul ignores them, except the Resurrection. There are several Christian writers who also emphasize the virgin birth, the Star of Bethlehem, etc., and also the prophecy-fulfillment (Jesus born in Bethlehem, etc.), but none who emphasize the miracle healing stories in the gospel accounts, which most of them think are less important for some reason. So Paul thinks the Jesus healing miracles are not important, just as virtually all the later Christian writers think, which also explains why he omits them. So this omission of it doesn't mean they were unaware of these miracle stories, because all the writers after 100 AD were certainly aware of them.
_____________________


Now the Ehrman quote:

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven. But in terms of historical information, what I’ve listed above [ i.e., in the previous posts ] is about all that we can glean from his letters. Imagine what we wouldn’t know about Jesus if these letters were our only sources of information. We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc. The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus — or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself — will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul.

But what are we to make of this? Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did? Does he think that these things are unimportant? Does he think that they are irrelevant? Does he assume that his readers already know them? Does he know them? How could he not know?

[ https://ehrmanblog.org/why-doesnt-paul-say-more-about-jesus-for-members/ ]
__________________

Note that nothing in the Ehrman quote says the Gospel accounts are fiction, though he of course disbelieves some of it, but still assumes some of it is likely factual, like we assume of any ancient reporting of events in historical and other writings. Ehrman is not a simplistic black-and-white scoffer-Denier who claims to debunk the Gospel accounts as entirely fiction. The simplistic urge to debunk the whole "Bible" as fiction or to worship it entirely as the Inerrant Infallible Word of God has nothing to do with truth-seeking and critical historical inquiry, which is the best approach for learning the truth.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

The problem, of course, stems from the existence of the Gospels. These four books mesmerise people. They think the information within their pages is, well, gospel. Thus they wonder why it never found its way into Paul's teaching.
______________________

But some of that information DID FIND ITS WAY INTO Paul, even though it's so little and takes up so little space in his epistles. He confirms the night of the arrest and the quoted words of Jesus at the Passover meal event ("Lord's Supper" ). He confirms the general crucifixion event, including the burial and Resurrection, or that Jesus was raised from the grave, coming back to life and appearing to several people who he names. Paul names at least two of the main characters in the Gospel accounts, Peter and John, and also James, though there is confusion about the "James" characters. And he mentions some conflicts he had with Peter and possibly James.

Paul notes that the risen Jesus appeared to Peter (Kephas) and to "the Twelve" as well as to others, including to James. These mentions harmonize with the Gospel accounts, basically confirming them, though differing in details which are not significant. There's no contradictions to the Gospel accounts on any of this, just differing versions of the same events.

So he omits everything earlier, yes. But what's the point of making an issue out of such a minor point? The Book of Acts also omits virtually everything earlier. But we know the Acts author is also the author of Luke, so the events are continuous, earlier to later, and the later period is separated from the earlier, the pre-crucifixion events from the post-crucifixion events.

Much in Acts does agree with the Paul epistles, while also contradicting them, because these are 2 different sources for the same period of events, and it's normal for alternate versions of the same events to contradict each other. And we have the job of trying to separate fact from fiction, just as with the Gospel accounts there are contradictions needing to be resolved. And yet we have the agreement on the major points: Jesus did the miracle acts, was arrested and condemned, killed and then raised back to life and appeared to the disciples. This general story is not undermined by the several discrepancies and omissions and differing interpretations of what had happened.
___________________________

ghostgeek:

OK, so here's my answer to the conundrum. All the details of Jesus' life that you hold so dear were made up by the writers of the Gospels after 70 AD and . . .
_________________________

No, the crucifixion and Resurrection were not "made up by" them because those events were already told earlier by Paul. How could the later writers fabricate something already told much earlier? And that resurrection event is arguably the most important detail of all. And there are some other details also confirmed earlier by Paul, so none of that could be "made up" by writers 20 years later than Paul. Rather, we have proof that at least some of the Gospel account details were true events that happened much earlier and could not have been "made up" by the later Gospel writers.
__________________________

ghostgeek:

. . . by the writers of the Gospels after 70 AD and thus could not find their way into the teaching of Paul.
______________________

No it's not that they "could not find their way into" Paul, but rather that Paul selected what he wanted to include in his writings, and he excluded most of the earlier Jesus events.

This is like the writings of Cicero which exclude most of the life of Julius Caesar and yet mention some important points about the Caesar assassination. This one important event or time period is most of what Cicero cares to discuss, while the much later writers give far more detail about Caesar's biography in general. That Cicero excludes that biographical matter doesn't mean Caesar had no earlier life than the period of the plot against him. It doesn't mean the later Tacitus and Suetonius "made up" all their biographical information about Caesar's life. When we seek information about the historical character, we have to consider ALL the written record about him, not just that of one writer closer to the events and knowing some of it much closer. It's OK to be more critical or doubtful about the later Gospel accounts, on this or that point, but not OK to just brand all their reports as "made up" by someone because they "could not find their way into" something written earlier. Following this rule we'd have to omit most of the life of Caesar as being fiction.

ghostgeek: I see you didn't get round to talking about loquacious demons, Lumpenproletariat. I wonder why? Could it be the fact that the pesky critters don't exist, or have you taken a vow of silence where they're concerned?

ghostgeek: You have much to say about Paul and what he chose to ignore but it doesn't convince. Why would the lad not tell his followers about Jesus' divine birth? It's certainly something that's much touted nowadays, so why not in the first century AD?

ghostgeek: As for what's in both Paul's Epistles and the Gospels, that's easy to explain. The later writers of the Gospels took what Paul had to offer, about the betrayal for example, and incorporated it into their own work.

Lumpenproletariat:

katie26r:

I think you've missed the point ghost, faith doesn't depend on evidence that's why it's called faith.
______________________

Whatever this means, it still is the case that if one's "faith" is contradicted by evidence or facts, then it is a false or fraudulent faith, and it's wrong to have such belief. If "God" really does exist, then he does not require us to believe anything contradicted by the evidence, or by the facts, because he gave us reason and critical judgment, which he wants us to use and not disregard.

Christ faith is confirmed by the facts of history, and is based on those facts, not contradicted by them. Christ-belief centers on the fact or reality of his power, demonstrated in his miracle acts and Resurrection as facts of history having happened in the 1st century, about 30 AD, according to 1st-century written accounts, which are the evidence for what happened. Without those facts as the basis of Christ-belief, there would be no Christ "faith," even if there are some religious beliefs that are contrary to the known facts. This contradiction with the facts or evidence does not apply in the case of Christ belief, regardless if it's the case for other beliefs.

To say "faith doesn't depend on evidence" cannot mean that the Christ faith exists even if those facts are incorrect, or if those 1st-century events did not happen. No, in that case, the Christ faith could not exist -- or rather, if those facts of history really could be disproved, or did not really happen, then it would nullify or debunk the Christ faith, turning it into fraud or fiction or false teaching such as belief in a flat earth or unicorns or other fictions.

Even if some of the Bible stories are false, such as the Star of Bethlehem or other stories, that is not the basic Christ belief, i.e., belief in the power he demonstrated in history, but is a fiction which became added to the basic facts of Jesus who did perform acts demonstrating his connection to the power which makes eternal life possible. This basic power demonstrated in history could possibly become mixed in with various symbols or traditions which also evolved over time, either developing over the generations later, or also having been borrowed from some of the earlier Jewish and pagan legends. So Christ belief doesn't necessarily include such legends or symbols which became attached to it.

So the essential Christ faith is not based on the various doubtful and secondary traditions but only on the historical events or facts -- about the power he demonstrated -- known from the evidence, like all our historical facts known from the written record of their respective time. That evidence for Christ faith is the written record of the period, i.e., the accounts recorded in the 1st century, mainly the Gospel accounts and Paul epistles, or most of the New Testament accounts -- these are evidence just as any other writings are evidence for the events of their time, to be believed as long as they are consistent with other evidence, or not contradicted by other accounts of the time.
_______________________

katie26r:

Billions of people don't care about evidence, . . .
___________________

Everyone really does care about evidence, though it's true that most people don't have time to study all the facts of the period.

But even if in some cases evidence is disregarded, this doesn't change the fact that Christ belief is based on the evidence, or the facts of history, regardless whether someone cares. And without those facts and evidence (or written accounts which have come down to us) there would be no Christ belief, because it's only from this record passed along to us that we know the facts about Jesus and are able to believe what they tell us happened. Without knowledge that he demonstrated the life-giving power, there would be nothing to believe and thus no Christ faith.

So whether someone cares or not, what matters is the belief based on the evidence or the written record about those important events which happened and without which no Christ belief is possible. And a Christ-believer does not say their beliefs about Christ's power are true even if Jesus never really existed or never had that power.
_____________________

katie26r:

. . . don't care about evidence, the fact a very religious people believed, suffered torture and death for their faith is evidence enough.
_____________________

No, the fact that disciples of Jim Jones or David Koresh and other cultists chose death is not evidence for their faith. Nor is a suicide-bomber's choice to die evidence for anything, nor is the suffering of an ascetic who tortures himself evidence for his belief. Nor is the fact of the 1st-century zealots committing suicide at Masada any proof of their faith. Strong commitment and sincerity of the believer, in their acts of suicide or terrorism or sadism or masochism etc. is not evidence to support their faith.

In all these cases of choosing suicide or torture, there may or may not be a true cause or "faith" to promote, depending on the facts or the evidence for their cause, outside the believer's choice to suffer or die. This choosing to suffer or to commit suicide is not itself evidence for their belief, which might still be false or fraudulent if there's no evidence for it or its beliefs are contrary to the facts.

Just because you might admire their dedication and sincerity doesn't mean their belief is true or right or just.
______________________

katie26r:

I mean who suffers death for something they know is not true.
________________________

Maybe they believed it was true, you could argue. But this is no evidence to others that their cause or faith was true.

Most Christ believers are impressed with the stories of martyrs and others who were dedicated. Nevertheless, this alone cannot be the basis of their belief, however impressed they are. They still could not believe without including as part of it the facts of those 1st-century events, of the power Christ demonstrated, which are the main object of the belief, and without which there is no Christ belief.

ghostgeek: God bless all those little demons who unflinchingly allowed Jesus Christ to cast them out of their secure abodes. Where would we be without their heroic sacrifice? Probably a lot wiser if truth be told.