…Galileans were country bumpkins who were not in the same class of Jews as the bureaucracy in Judea.
It’s odd that this myth is still so resilient. There was certainly a lot of prejudice but the characterization of the Galilee as a cultural and religious backwater does not survive any sort of serious analysis. Aside from easily accessible online resources I invite anyone interested to investigate my thread about the Book of Enoch where I touch on some of the cultural and religious expressions in the Galilee during the Second Temple Period. It has become increasingly clear that the original Jesus movement did not spring into existence free from context.
I told you I already answered it.
Yes, you did say you answered it, but the problem is that you clearly didn’t.
I’m satisfied with the answer which is: Jerusalem bureaucracy did not consider Jesus sufficiently Jewish and Jesus inferred: alright, then I’m going to say “your law” instead of “our law.”
How is this an answer to any question that I asked you?
Can a person find more than one Jesus in the gospels, Paul’s letters, Josephus, and other valid research?
Yes, but I’m not counting them.
You still haven’t answered my question.
Can we find find more than one Jesus in individual works?
- “None of the responses directly engage the core conceptual questions.
- Two of the three answers are topic shifts or dismissals.
- The third gives background activity but not philosophical or methodological clarity.
- There is no sustained argument, explanation, or interpretive stance offered.
In short, Steefen’s replies function more as conversation-stoppers than answers. If BJH1960 was looking for clarity, engagement, or debate, those expectations were not met.”
They gave you a D- for responsiveness, a D for clarity (“answers rely on deflection rather than explanation, leaving the reader unclear about Steefen’s actual views”), a D- for argumentation (“There’s little to no argument presented. Assertions are made without support, and one response substitutes activity for reasoning.”), and an F for engagement with the questions.
I, for one, expect more from an argumentation specialist.
I trust the above is not meant to be an answer to the questions I’ve been asking you for over a week.
Getting blood from a stone is easier than getting an answer from you (Post 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 26, 31, 32, and 44).
Two simple yes and no questions:
Can we find more than one Jesus in individual works?
Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
I assume your persistent unwillingness to answer questions means you’re simply not interested in ** you do not have permission to see this link **with any of us. Is that true?
Why do you suppose AI (Post 44) gave you such low marks for your answers to my questions?
Jesus is too critical of Moses to be considered a true/orthodox Jew.
I tried to explain that to you.
That’s why our discussion ends with you having a different answer than mine.
Second, you do not recognize that Jesus says “YOUR” law instead of “OUR” law as the Gosp. of John clearly shows.
Jesus came from Galilee and some uppity Judeans (like at least some of the Temple bureaucracy) were prejudiced against Galilean itinerant preachers.
I can accept those facts.
Salvation of the Soul is partly based on being free from Archons and remembering being one with the Monad.
Read the following texts:
The Apocryphon of John (Nag Hammadi)
The Enneads (Plotinus)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Upanishads (especially Chandogya & Brihadaranyaka)
= = = =
Adding the Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi)
Steefen said
Bart D. Ehrman,
Just checking with you that you have no posts on the Apochryphon of John also known as the Secret Book of John: The Gnostic Gospel (Nag Hammadi). I also checked your YouTube channel, Bart D. Ehrman but did not see anything there. I did see a M. David Litwa video on Gnostic Informant.
But I wanted your take on the Nag Hammadi text. Can you say a little something about that text?
Steefen
Bart:
It’s a mind blower. It provides us with the most detailed account of a gnostic myth, and oh boy is it detailed. Not an easy text to follow. It, or something much like it, was known to Irenaeus. We have several manuscripts of it that have come down to us. If you’d like an introduction, look at Nicola Denzey Lewis’s book, An Introduction to Gnosticism. For most readers this kind of explanation of it makes better sense than the work itself!
Steefen:
$80.99
27 ratings averaging 4.7 stars
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.OifDsd7Kp7xeOaSfCYxn5w.-yS4eZtseeKVD1JKDhDK3AHpctkhlV7bRZOYxz7oyFE&dib_tag=se&keywords=an+introduction+to+gnosticism+by+nicola+denzy+lewis&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1767324582&sprefix=an+introduction+to+gnositicsm+by+nicola+denzy+lewis%2Caps%2C107&sr=8-1
Nicola Denzey Lewis (born 1966 in Toronto, Ontario) is a Canadian academic of lived religion, early Christians, material culture of late antique Roman Empire, and women studies. She is a professor at Claremont Graduate University as the Margo L. Goldsmith Chair in Women’s Studies in Religion.
bjh
For you, go with the answer that satisfies you.I have the answer that satisfies me.
Seriously, Steefen, what are you talking about?
I want an answer from you on the following:
Can we find more than one Jesus in individual works?
Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
Jesus is too critical of Moses to be considered a true/orthodox Jew.
I tried to explain that to you.
Of course, I understood your point of view because if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have asked the second question.
That’s why our discussion ends with you having a different answer than mine.
Second, you do not recognize that Jesus says “YOUR” law instead of “OUR” law as the Gosp. of John clearly shows.
Jesus came from Galilee and some uppity Judeans (like at least some of the Temple bureaucracy) were prejudiced against Galilean itinerant preachers.I can accept those facts.
I find it very interesting that the so-called answer is, if I understand correctly, to your question.
But I suppose that shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. For years you’ve engaged in incessant monologues and refused to engage with any of us in meaningful discussions. Is there some reason you think you shouldn’t have to abide by the rules that were agreed on?
Dialogue: The purpose of this forum is to foster general discussion of the Bible and early Christianity from an historical perspective. Engage respectfully and thoughtfully. If you start a thread, be prepared to engage in dialogue with other members. Threads should be a conversation, not a monologue. Critical reflection upon one’s own ideas should be welcomed.
Robert said:
I continue to gain respect for AI …
Indeed. It can be very effective.
I put the latest exchange (Post 44 on) I had with Steefen and asked, “Is Steefen engaging in a dialogue with BJH1960? Is it a conversation and not a monologue? Is he critically reflecting on his own ideas?”
The answer to all three questions was no.
Here are a few snippets:
“Dialogue requires responding directly to the questions posed and allowing one’s position to be examined. Steefen consistently refuses to answer the explicit yes/no questions and instead redirects the discussion to points he prefers to make. That pattern shows avoidance rather than engagement.”
“Steefen’s contributions function as monologic rather than conversational. He repeats his own assertions, declares the discussion over (‘I have the answer that satisfies me’), and does not adapt or respond to the actual concerns raised by others. A conversation involves reciprocal exchange; this does not.”
That Nicola Denzey Lewis book looks very interesting. But $80 for the paperback?!? Doesn’t the OUP realize they are driving me to wander down dark avenues I would be happy to avoid otherwise? Generally they have been aware of a non-specialist audience for their publications. Disappointing.
Jesus is too critical of Moses to be considered a true/orthodox Jew.
But don’t you see, Steefen, in the first century the concept of “orthodox Judaism” simply didn’t exist! Second Temple Judaism was a mess. Other than a common font of Torah observance, and even that was disputed, there were divers groups with varying agendas.
I continue to gain respect for AI …
Yeah but would you let your daughter marry one of them?
Stephen
But don’t you see, Steefen, in the first century the concept of “orthodox Judaism” simply didn’t exist! Second Temple Judaism was a mess. Other than a common font of Torah observance, and even that was disputed, there were divers groups with varying agendas.
Steefen
A significant number of pharisees were united against Jesus.
A significant number of sadducees were united against Jesus.
In the Bible, a significant number of Temple bureaucracy members united to get Jesus crucified.
A significant number of senators stabbed Julius Caesar.
Steefen wrote:
BJH
I want an answer from you on the following:
Can we find more than one Jesus in individual works?
Steefen:
Yes
Thanks, Steefen.
Also, I’d appreciate if you’d answer the other question as well:
Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
bjh
Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
Steefen
Yes
In the United States, there was a time when people did not consider Catholics to be Christians.
Same prejudice:
Some uppity Judeans did not consider Galileans to be Jews.
Some Zionists do not consider Gazans to be human.
Biden did not consider Blacks who wouldn’t vote for him to be Black people.
Common sense. You should not need this explained to you.
Steefen said
Every time I go to google, the search engine gives me an AI sourced answer. That is what I mean.
If you have a problem with that. Fine.
The AI engine gives you an AI sourced answer. Below that comes the search engine result. If you use duck duck go, you can turn off the AI engine result and just get a search engine result.
I don’t have a problem with that, I was just pointing out that there is no justification for treating it as if it was browsing for actual information.
If you ask AI who are the top scholars on a certain subject, it will tell you and the books those scholars have written.
If you have a problem with that. Fine.
Just pointing out that, unlike finding a good source from a search engine result, that list of top scholars is a predictive model about what a description of the top scholars looks like and a predictive model about the books that those scholars have written. If the question involves going beyond the information base or the information base includes substantially divergent information, the likelihood of AI generated pseudo-information containing delusions increases substantially.
By contrast, a search engine returns search results that actually exist somewhere, unless you fall into a page that contains AI slop.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)