john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
There is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicate that he had employers. You may try to engage the more legendary Acts, but even here he suffers persecutions from his former “employers”.
John 76 said.
Ehrman is an average scholar. He is a former fundamentalist who still maintains certain conservative views, like there being a myriad of independent sources behind the gospels. Ehrman is popular and prolific, not profound. His opinions are mildly entertaining but are best taken with a grain of salt.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Really? If you think that, why bother paying to sign up to his blog/site?
I have heard and seen a lot of Professor Erhman and I think you are wrong and his testimony about his faith and academic career spanning many decades and in many eyes becoming a very well known authority on the NT who is quoted regularly over here in the UK. To say he is ‘average’ is really disingenuine and seems as though you really don’t know him at all and only here to rubbish him and possibly promote some others less capable?
I’m not sure he was a ‘fundamentalist’ though and evangelical conservative is not the same thing at all. I’m not sure what ‘conservative’ views he still holds though? I don’t think he has ever said there are a lot of ‘independent’ sources but I stand corrected on that if need be. I was an evangelical non conformist Christian who is married to a dedicated Christian lady who has a faith greater than I ever had and nothing but nothing I say will shake that belief. Professor Erhman is in the same boat and has many many friends and academic collegues with the same who remain staunch Christians too and whether that ‘impact’s on his thinking I don’t know? Or that he just concentrates on what he is brilliant at. NT Scholarship and critical analyses.
@mikeyS
I think you’re right about the whole “myriad sources” comment. My suspicion is that John76 has never read Ehrman. Has no idea what Ehrman believes, but is content to recite whatever he reads.
Further someone who graduates with distinction, co authors at least one book with his PHD advisor (the world renowned, Bruce Metzger) and holds a distinguished professership, can hardly be described as average.
It is, however, instructive that John76 doesn’t talk about the merits of Ehrman’s opinions, but decides he is wrong because his opinions are “conservative” Thus even if the evidence supports what Ehrman thinks, he’s wrong anyway.
As to his fundamentalism, I dont see why conservative evangelicals can not be fundamentalist. Either way, Ehrman says he was one. I’m sure he understands the distinction.
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
There is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicate that he had employers. You may try to engage the more legendary Acts, but even here he suffers persecutions from his former “employers”.
The punishment for desertion at that time was death – a punishment Paul never faced (since Paul was lying about his conversion experience).
spiker said
@mikeyS
I think you’re right about the whole “myriad sources” comment. My suspicion is that John76 has never read Ehrman. Has no idea what Ehrman believes, but is content to recite whatever he reads.
Further someone who graduates with distinction, co authors at least one book with his PHD advisor (the world renowned, Bruce Metzger) and holds a distinguished professership, can hardly be described as average.
It is, however, instructive that John76 doesn’t talk about the merits of Ehrman’s opinions, but decides he is wrong because his opinions are “conservative” Thus even if the evidence supports what Ehrman thinks, he’s wrong anyway.
As to his fundamentalism, I dont see why conservative evangelicals can not be fundamentalist. Either way, Ehrman says he was one. I’m sure he understands the distinction.
For example, in “Did Jesus Exist” Ehrman posits an ‘M’ source behind Matthew, on top of the gospel of Mark and Q. This is silly. Matthew’s gospel shows itself to be a Judaizing of the gentile gospel of Mark. The extra material beyond Mark and Q in Matthew is just invented out of whole cloth.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** opines
…since Paul was lying about his conversion experience…
And you know this how? You can have no access to Paul’s intentions.
For example, in “Did Jesus Exist” Ehrman posits an ‘M’ source behind Matthew, on top of the gospel of Mark and Q. This is silly. Matthew’s gospel shows itself to be a Judaizing of the gentile gospel of Mark. The extra material beyond Mark and Q in Matthew is just invented out of whole cloth.
“M” is simply scholarly shorthand for the portion of Matthew that is exclusive to him. How do you know it was “just invented out of whole cloth”? An assertion is not evidence.
@ John76
Perhaps, Mark is a Gentilization of Matthew. How does Matthew’s Gospel “show itself” to be doing what you claim?
1.) Ehrman didn’t just come up with this off the top of his head. M is part of longstanding scholarship (That is it was already “posited” and is an accepted classification of the material that is unique to Matthew): If you walked into a room full of NT scholars and started talking about M, they would understand what you were referring to. 2.)Even if the “extra material beyond Mark and Q in Matthew is just “invented out of whole cloth”, it doesn’t cease to be a source or unique to Matthew. That is, it doesn’t cease to be M. 3.) Aren’t parables by definition, made up? Do you have evidence that the parables unique to Matthew are falsely attributed to Jesus (This must be what you mean by “made up out of whole cloth”) Is it your argument that unique material is made up, while the sources they have in common are authentic? 4.) How is it that inclusion of various parables “judaizes” Mark? Why is the Parable of the weeds among the wheat, Judaic but the The parable of the sower is not?Maybe it’s the quantity of parables that draws the distinction between Jewish and Gentile characterization?
Lastly, how is the 3 or four source hypothesis myriad sources? You do know what myriad means, don’t you?
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
There is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicate that he had employers. You may try to engage the more legendary Acts, but even here he suffers persecutions from his former “employers”.
The punishment for desertion at that time was death – a punishment Paul never faced (since Paul was lying about his conversion experience).
In his own words, he suffered the “forty lashes” several times. This is a well documented Jewish community punishment, administered by either the Sanhedrin or a larger diaspora community, and was the severest of the corporeal punishments. You still go on using the concept of “desertion”, but there is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicates that he held some formal position , commissioned by higher Jewish authorities. This is more likely a Lukan invention. On the contrary, he claims that he was unknown to the Christian communities in Judea. It is much more likely that he actively, in his own diaspora community acted in favor of expelling or punishing members of the new sect, encouraging those in power to do so. The Jewish Christians persisted as a sect within Judaism and as such it was barely tolerated, for many decades. A conversion from some strict or conservative Judaism into this sect would not have qualified for capital punishment.
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
There is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicate that he had employers. You may try to engage the more legendary Acts, but even here he suffers persecutions from his former “employers”.
The punishment for desertion at that time was death – a punishment Paul never faced (since Paul was lying about his conversion experience).
In his own words, he suffered the “forty lashes” several times. This is a well documented Jewish community punishment, administered by either the Sanhedrin or a larger diaspora community, and was the severest of the corporeal punishments. You still go on using the concept of “desertion”, but there is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicates that he held some formal position , commissioned by higher Jewish authorities. This is more likely a Lukan invention. On the contrary, he claims that he was unknown to the Christian communities in Judea. It is much more likely that he actively, in his own diaspora community acted in favor of expelling or punishing members of the new sect, encouraging those in power to do so. The Jewish Christians persisted as a sect within Judaism and as such it was barely tolerated, for many decades. A conversion from some strict or conservative Judaism into this sect would not have qualified for capital punishment.
I notice that you don’t give any real substantial reason for denying the Lukan portrait of Paul on this issue, except that it disagrees with your position. You might want to try reading this book, “Operation Messiah,” which makes an argument that Paul faked his conversion experience and was in fact a Roman spy: qid=1424808826&sr=8-1&keywords=operation+messiah
Other than that, let’s just agree to disagree.
john76 said
[quote history omitted]
I notice that you don’t give any real substantial reason for denying the Lukan portrait of Paul on this issue, except that it disagrees with your position. You might want to try reading this book, “Operation Messiah,” which makes an argument that Paul faked his conversion experience and was in fact a Roman spy: qid=1424808826&sr=8-1&keywords=operation+messiah
Other than that, let’s just agree to disagree.
Scholars have spent ages on Paul and Acts.
1. When they conflict or differ on some issue, scholars prefer the Pauline version, for obvious reasons
2. When they agree, it tells us that Luke at least to some degree is reliable. He had sources.
3. Because of 2, when Luke has additional material about Paul that cannot be checked against Paul’s letters, it cannot be ruled out.
A basic objection against Luke/Acts is that it is a harmonization work destined to smooth out the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians, which is apparent in Paul’s letters. Peter and Paul are buddies in Acts.
If you like the kind of speculative stuff you refer to, I suggest you do some basic reading first. Bart has an entertaining “trade book” called “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene”. Another good read is E.P.Sanders: Paul: A brief insight.
It is great fun to read about CIA in speculative books like the one you cite or let’s say J.D.Tabors’s “The Jesus Dynasty”. I have been there myself, once. Its funny and stimulates the appetite for more serious reading.
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
There is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicate that he had employers. You may try to engage the more legendary Acts, but even here he suffers persecutions from his former “employers”.
The punishment for desertion at that time was death – a punishment Paul never faced (since Paul was lying about his conversion experience).
In his own words, he suffered the “forty lashes” several times. This is a well documented Jewish community punishment, administered by either the Sanhedrin or a larger diaspora community, and was the severest of the corporeal punishments. You still go on using the concept of “desertion”, but there is nothing in Paul’s letters that indicates that he held some formal position , commissioned by higher Jewish authorities. This is more likely a Lukan invention. On the contrary, he claims that he was unknown to the Christian communities in Judea. It is much more likely that he actively, in his own diaspora community acted in favor of expelling or punishing members of the new sect, encouraging those in power to do so. The Jewish Christians persisted as a sect within Judaism and as such it was barely tolerated, for many decades. A conversion from some strict or conservative Judaism into this sect would not have qualified for capital punishment.
interesting- thanks for posting- that’s a practice i was unaware of. Can you say a little more about it? Would Paul be practicing his new understanding of his faith and trying to convert others (after his conversion) in order to be subject to this discipline? If he’d tried recruting new converts and been lashed for it once, why would he keep trying to convert fellow Jews (if as he says, the gospel is also for the gentiles)? thanks-
SWerdal said
interesting- thanks for posting- that’s a practice i was unaware of. Can you say a little more about it? Would Paul be practicing his new understanding of his faith and trying to convert others (after his conversion) in order to be subject to this discipline? If he’d tried recruting new converts and been lashed for it once, why would he keep trying to convert fellow Jews (if as he says, the gospel is also for the gentiles)? thanks-
There is an article covering the forty lashes minus one here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Paul talks about the five occasions in the compound letter 2. Corinth (11:24ff), written during the last part of the 50’ties. I would assume he refers to a period not long after his conversion period (33-36 AD), when there was no formal or clear agreement between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders as expounded in Gal 2:1-10. So there may have been a period where he did not feel sure about targeting the Gentiles only, or it may be that he simply was persecuted for joining the new movement, like other Jews did. Since the forty lashes was a pretty hard punishment, he must have done something rather offensive in the eyes of the local community leaders. It should indicate that in his early career, when traveling, he used the local Jewish communities as a starting point.
@john76
Were the Romans Morons?
ms. Sheldon and Mr. Voskuilen must believe the answer is yes. They offer us that Saul of Tarsus was an agent provacetur and a spy who infiltrated the early Christian movement by attacking and persecuting Christians then faking a conversion.
Mr. Voskuilen argues that ridiculing a new idea is an ancient impulse and has been scientifically studied by the estimable Mr. Hans Kuhn (the chemist?) Maybe he means the theologian Hans Kung or maybe he was thinking of Thomas Kuhn… At any rate, ridiculing a ridiculous idea -new or not- is an effective way of showing it to be, well, ridiculous.
we are supposed accept that the Romans in an effort to infiltrate the early (negligible) Christian movement decided to have their mole engender mistrust and acrimony by having him first persecute the movement then faking a conversion.
Moles in contrast infiltrate by encouraging trust. Agent provocateurs don’t try to get themselves attacked. That’s sort of like telling everyone your a plant. (their effectiveness is based on trust), they try to provoke the group into untimely or dangerous action, get the group to turn against each other, but never on you since that would be rather stupid The authors wish us to believe that Rome felt threatened by a group who’s leader had just been crushed by the Roman Governor, a group that was in disarray and could be easily rounded up.
It was no accident that the disciples fled. If the bible is to be believed the disciples were there when Jesus was arrested, why not Scoop them up at the same time? A perfect time to get rid of “the threat”. Instead Rome hires a guy to expand the movement in order to get rid of it!??
It was no accident that the disciples fled. If the bible is to be believed the disciples were there when Jesus was arrested, why not Scoop them up at the same time? A perfect time to get rid of “the threat”. Instead Rome hires a guy to expand the movement in order to get rid of it!??
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
This is the where the story falls apart. Jesus was supposedly confronted by the pharisees on a number of occasions and he was preaching for 2 or 3 years and yet the Sanhedrin needed Judas to identify him? Then as you rightly say, they just arrest him and allow all the others to stay there knowing there was a chance someone else would take over as they did eventually. Odd they wanted Jesus killed and yet allowed Peter and James to build their church in Jerusalem for years afterwards? How come Paul didn’t go and seek them out when he was in persecution mode? Also as someone asked, Jesus main preaching area was Nazereth and yet no mention asaik of any Christian Church growing there? Why no disciple running things?
The Greek writers seemed to make stuff up as they went along. Indeed as Paul seemed to. IF Jesus was instructing him. how was that done? Did he ask clarification about anything as any pupil would? Surely something about needing to die for the sins of the world, yet Jesus never preached that and Zaccheus was told Salvation had that day come to his house when he was going to give half his money away.
Its difficult to separate fact and fiction and so why not treat it all as fiction? Paul was waiting for Jesus to return then, he would be still waiting 2000 years on.
@MikeS. I’m pretty sure Roman soldiers (not the Sanhedrin) were credited with arresting Jesus in the garden. Were there members of the Sanhedrin there?
Perhaps Paul didn’t seek the disciples after his conversion because he had been persecuting them. Perhaps he needed time to wrap his head around his experience.
Not sure you can really say whether the Gospel writers made stuff up or things were “made up” earlier in the oral tradition they inherited. On the other hand Matthew strikes me as prophecy shopping.
I dont see a conflict betweeen Jesus telling someone they achieved salvation and his death being seen as bringing salvation; particularly if he was, in deed the messiah. I think he might have believed he was, which again makes his assertion consistent with how his death is interpreted.
MikeyS said
It was no accident that the disciples fled. If the bible is to be believed the disciples were there when Jesus was arrested, why not Scoop them up at the same time? A perfect time to get rid of “the threat”. Instead Rome hires a guy to expand the movement in order to get rid of it!??—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
This is the where the story falls apart. Jesus was supposedly confronted by the pharisees on a number of occasions and he was preaching for 2 or 3 years and yet the Sanhedrin needed Judas to identify him? Then as you rightly say, they just arrest him and allow all the others to stay there knowing there was a chance someone else would take over as they did eventually. Odd they wanted Jesus killed and yet allowed Peter and James to build their church in Jerusalem for years afterwards? How come Paul didn’t go and seek them out when he was in persecution mode? Also as someone asked, Jesus main preaching area was Nazereth and yet no mention asaik of any Christian Church growing there? Why no disciple running things?
The Greek writers seemed to make stuff up as they went along. Indeed as Paul seemed to. IF Jesus was instructing him. how was that done? Did he ask clarification about anything as any pupil would? Surely something about needing to die for the sins of the world, yet Jesus never preached that and Zaccheus was told Salvation had that day come to his house when he was going to give half his money away.
Its difficult to separate fact and fiction and so why not treat it all as fiction? Paul was waiting for Jesus to return then, he would be still waiting 2000 years on.
The problem of understanding why Jesus alone was seized has been dealt with by critical scholars long ago. You need to address those explanations. Basically, the Romans showed a harsher reaction to larger organized groups. In minor cases they would go for the leader. But most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards. Would it be possible for 20-30 guardsmen to seize 50 disciples? I’m guessing about the numbers. If he had been seized by Roman soldiers, he would have been transferred to Pilate directly. The decision to seize the leader and hand him over to the Romans proved effective: The disciples were scared out of the city and the agitation in the temple area came to an abrupt stop.
My understanding of the arrest is that it was directly caused by the acts of Jesus in the temple area, legendary embellished into “the cleansing”. My guess is that in the cool afterthought in that evening Jesus sensed the realities of his actions and that he was a marked man. He noticed that the disciples were scared and that Judas had disappeared (he judged the “cleansing” offensive or senseless) and that time was running out. Should they flee, or put their trust in God to continue the festival? That is why the gospels report on Jesus’ prayer and anxieties. When the guards arrived, the disciples understood the plot immediately and fled like young boys caught in scrumping.
Spiker wrote:
I dont see a conflict betweeen Jesus telling someone they achieved salvation and his death being seen as bringing salvation; particularly if he was, in deed the messiah. I think he might have believed he was, which again makes his assertion consistent with how his death is interpreted.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
This is where it all really falls apart..
Every Jew knew what the Messiah was prophised to do when he comes. It was an ‘earthly’ kingdom not an heavenly one. Salvation to them meant freedom from oppression not forgivness of sins or entry to heaven. Why would any Jew believe differently unless they were simple minded and illiterate. Indeed the same type of people all these religious cults get to have. Joseph Smith was no different. Muhammad no different. There was nobody to say to Jesus, well move that mountain and we will believe you! Or Smith to take his gold plates to the President etc.
Jesus probably thought he was the Messiah. People do much the same today. “Who do they say that I am” was his continous bleat. What person in his right mind would ask such a question as that? When it was obvious he wasn’t the Messiah to deliver his people from Roman Oppression, his message changed to one that his Kingdom was not of this world and the biggest shock of all to him was being crucified. “My God why have thou forsaken me”!
CS Lewis is always quoted about Jesus was either mad or he was what he claimed to be..But I would have asked CSL there was an alternative. Self delusion.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert