The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Fiction AKA education, is what stands between you and reality...

a reply to: rnaa

Your right about me taking a single source for it.. well atleast partly.

I have seen Ehrman debate apologist NT scholars on this very point. His opponent will list a few quotes of people saying contrary and then erhman replies

“ just about everyone you named agrees with me. I know x,y and z personally and can promise you that quote is out of context.”

Which is par for the course for Christian apologists. Taking a quote out of context and twisting its meaning to fit their beliefs..


The “best” rebuttal lionca had was to say he thought the study I mentioned before was a little low..


I’ve just watched Bart shut up multiple scholars on this very topic.

originally posted by: Akragon
Paul did not ever meet Jesus

1. Saul of Tarsus had some followers who heard voice but saw no one. But they witnessed the light, the conversation and Saul became blinded. So something did happen to Saul. ACT 9:7-8

2. Ananias of Damascus also witnessed Saul being blinded and was instructed by Jesus to heal him. He could have testified that Saul had met Jesus. There was no way for Ananias to fake it because he was the one who heal Saul's eyesight. Refer to ACT 9:10-18

3. The apostle Barnabas vouched for Saul's account.

a reply to: EasternShadow

The argument was not over if Paul and others believed he had a vision of jesus.

The argument is over if Paul had met jesus before the crucifixion.



B) this is a legit question not a trap, but how do we know barnabus vouched for Paul??


Is it other books written by Paul ???? Because of so I doubt I need to point out how little evidence that is ..

Obviously, most of Paul’s letters are him arguing with new chapters of Christians about dogma. So that would obviously elude to the fact not everyone agreed.


Paul’s version just won.. and maybe only because his letters survived..

Atleast Ehrman doesn’t think Paul knew his letters would become cannon.

a reply to: Murgatroid

You do know that you have to make a counterpoint. To have made a counterpoint right???


Otherwise if you can’t back up your claim with you lose ..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rnaa

How could There not be one single example of a Jewish author in Judea who wrote in Greek, and yet your claiming plenty of them wrote Greek????

Here's a Google search of images of inscriptions in first Century Jerusalem. Find any that aren't in Greek (yeah, I know, there are some but the practical evidence far outweighs the assumption).

www.google.com... urce=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSxaHWnOPaAhUIV7wKHYppAgcQ_AUICigB&biw=1344&bih=676

Your idea that hardly anyone of the time read or wrote Greek is obviously unhistoric.

A similar modern equivalent of the fallacy would be to assume that people from Ireland could not read or write in English because their native language is Gaelic.

There are no examples of a first century Jewish author who wrote in Greek.. except Josephus..

Not quite.

Except for questions about the "Jewishness" of the following authors, they were from roughly the right place at the right time and all in Greek:

The Book of Judith was arguably first written in Greek, as was the Psalms of Solomon, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Pseudo-Phocylides, Testament of Job, the Assumption of Moses, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, Mark the Evangelist, Matthew the Apostle, Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, Thomas the Apostle, Memnon of Heraclea, Philo of Alexandria, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, John the Evangelist, Epistle of Eugnostos, Testament of Abraham, Nicomachus and Apollodorus of Damascus

But from the top of Turkey, to the Arabian Gulf, to the limits of Roman Spain, by far the default written language was Greek.

And I have seen Erhman corner multiple apologist scholars on this very point..

They all claim “it’s not that weird the Bible was first written in Greek. Even though all Jesus’s Followers were lower class Jews”

The Erhman replies “please name one Jewish author who wrote in Greek from the time of Jesus..”

Then they sit there and grumble as they admit there are no examples..

I’m guessing you are referring to later writings.. or writings that were not written by Jews.

Apparently there is a big study done concerning first century literacy and the number they care up with was 3% could read ARAMAIC , and less than one percent could write Aramaic. There are no examples of any Jews writing in Greek to even begin to compare it to.

You gotta watch debates. They go right to the contentious points so you get to see both sides arguments.

You get your education from YouTube? Hmmm?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

The argument was not over if Paul and others believed he had a vision of jesus.

The argument is over if Paul had met jesus before the crucifixion.

What does it matter? Paul's teaching is what most people concern. John of Patmos never met Jesus before crucifixion either, but it doesnt stop his Book of Revelation to be accepted as one of 27 cannons.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
B) this is a legit question not a trap, but how do we know barnabus vouched for Paul??


Is it other books written by Paul ???? Because of so I doubt I need to point out how little evidence that is ..

Obviously, most of Paul’s letters are him arguing with new chapters of Christians about dogma. So that would obviously elude to the fact not everyone agreed.


Paul’s version just won.. and maybe only because his letters survived..

The Act of Apostles was Luke's account. Not Paul.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Atleast Ehrman doesn’t think Paul knew his letters would become cannon.

And how doea Ehrman know what Paul's know and whatnot? He never meet Paul.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How is “when did the apostles thought jesus was god? ” not a historical question????

Ehrman could not have even been awake when he asked that question. Actually its grade school academia to realize that historicity is verified history and if not it is opinionated theology. The question is moot simply because it never occurred. If it had been in the literature and verified as accepted, only then could it have been historical. Show me the literature that historically relates that the followers of Jesus regarded Him as The Most High God El.

a reply to: Seede

Here he says that he is not going to get into whether Jesus was God because that is a theological opinion and not a historical opinion. He then says he wants to know the historical question of when the apostles started to believe that Jesus was God. This guy has always been confused and he still drives most scholars bonkers with his double mindedness.

Well, he may drive Christian scholars nuts because he almost always flattens their arguments, for obvious reasons which i've stated earlier... Most Christian scholars fall back on their own faith and beliefs rather then what the texts actually say... Dr. Ehrman doesn't...

Said question is theological because IF one reads the four gospels as they are... One may come to the idea that Jesus was God because the final gospel is John... (also the only gospel that attempts to make such a claim)

its also an historical question because John is also the latest written... before which there is no sign of anyone claiming he was God... So when did they start to make the claim...

Im starting to think you didn't actually watch the video...

Also saying his knowledge on the god of the OT is almost moot is just ridiculous... Theres no other word for it

Naturally he did not source his lecture with the first Jesus movement of Jacob [James the Just] but then jumped to a novelist author named Dan Brown. Can you imagine a top notch guy like Bart Ehrman using a 54 year old novelist in a scholarly lecture as a source?

no... and that isn't what he did... in the least



Dan brown was briefly mentioned... and he was mocking the glaring errors of his "fiction"

And what is very disturbing is that his so called historical question is actually a theoretical question that any graduate from most all seminaries should be able to answer with a resounding - Quote “Jesus Was Never God The Most High nor has His literature ever insinuated that He was The Most High El.” Unquote.

No seminary would NEVER teach such a thing.... Christianity believes Jesus was God in the flesh...

That would pretty much ruin all of their trainees...

And i've had many discussions with Ministers and pastors... Sorry brother they DO NOT teach that Jesus wasn't God

Though since you said you're not really a mainstream Christian anyways... i have no idea where you would get such a radical notion.... opinion i suppose...

Unfortunately your "opinion" is absolutely wrong

That should not even be a scholarly so called historical question. It is a theoretical opinion based upon one’s religious opinions based upon the literature of the first Jesus movement. How could any person know when another person was first convinced of any matter unless one has that autograph of the mind in question?

That would depend on scholar... my former "Pastor" did not know about the Q document theory... and he was lost on any and all gnostic literature

Christians tend to look for proofs of their beliefs so they can reiterate their findings to their flock... Critical scholars do not... They look for the truth of the texts... even going to base languages to find it

Historically speaking.... John attempts to make the claim that Jesus is God... Im sure you know the passages, so theres no need to quote them... the rest of the gospels do not make such claims

Ehrman is almost insane in his self grandeur and his lectures are peppered with inconsistencies. In fact that is the reason I quit listening to this man. I started to mark all of the errors but found it too time consuming effort on my part. Your call but really feel for you – My own opinion of course.

Well you can feel for me all you want.. lol

It looks to me like you have a good amount of unfounded contempt for the man... Probably because he abandoned Christianty... as most Christians feel the exact same way about him...

I've heard him called "anti-Christ"... the devil himself... and a good number of other names

Still doesn't matter to me though... I've read his books, and i've watched most, IF not all of his lectures

You have your issues with him... thats your problem not mine...

Personally i didn't see any "errors" in his lectures... and it kinda looks like you wanted to... but actually didn't either

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Akragon
Paul did not ever meet Jesus

1. Saul of Tarsus had some followers who heard voice but saw no one. But they witnessed the light, the conversation and Saul became blinded. So something did happen to Saul. ACT 9:7-8

2. Ananias of Damascus also witnessed Saul being blinded and was instructed by Jesus to heal him. He could have testified that Saul had met Jesus. There was no way for Ananias to fake it because he was the one who heal Saul's eyesight. Refer to ACT 9:10-18

3. The apostle Barnabas vouched for Saul's account.

Well you are welcome to believe Paul...

You may notice there is a few accounts of his conversion... and they don't agree with each other

SO... believe him if you wish...

his letters mean nothing to me...

Notice also Jesus said "there will be people claiming to be Christ"...

How do you know whatever Paul claims to have seen wasn't one of those people?

In any case... while alive, Paul Never met Jesus...

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Fiction AKA education, is what stands between you and reality...

John Carroll: Education is the strongest weapon available for restricting the questions people ask, controlling what they think, and ensuring that they get their thoughts ‘from above’.

This appears to be a quote from Carroll's book: Break-Out from the Crystal Palace: The Anarcho-Psychological Critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky which was published in 1974. Carroll is a living academic working at Latrobe University in Australia.

Since I have not read the book (have you?) and cannot find any critiques of it online, I must distrust the context. Is he commenting on the thoughts of Stirner, Nietzche, or Dostoevsky? Or is he asserting his own thoughts? Is he remarking ironically or straightforwardly. Personally, I suspect he is describing one of those guys thoughts on the Church's education system - but I don't know.

It is intellectually dishonest to assert a cherry picked phrase that no one has reasonable access to determine the context. Especially by accompanying the quote with an portrait which is absolutely not of the claimed author of the quote. You imply that the quote's author is a some historical cleric of some sort, when he is a living, breathing, secular academic actively writing today.

I judge your meme as lame, misleading, meaningless, intellectually dishonest, and ultimately worthless. Not to mention offensive to the very much alive Dr. Carroll.

CIA Director William Casey: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"?

It appears that Casey did say exactly that, the source being Barbara Honegger who was in the meeting with him when he said it. As always there is context around what he was saying that is not conveyed in a bumper sticker meme quote.

According to Matt Egan, former Army/CIA/NIC intel officer source here

It does appear he said something very much along those lines, though I doubt it meant what it appears to mean absent the context. He made the statement not long after he became the Director of Central Intelligence, during a discussion of the fact that, to his amazement, about 80 percent of the contents of typical CIA intelligence publications was based on information from open, unclassified sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Apparently, and reasonably, he judged that about the same proportion of Soviet intelligence products was probably based on open sources, as well. That meant that CIA disinformation programs directed at the USSR wouldn't work unless what was being disseminated by US magazines and newspapers on the same subjects comported with what the CIA was trying to sell the Soviets. Given that the CIA could not possibly control the access to open sources of all US publications, the subjects of CIA disinformation operations had to be limited to topics not being covered by US public media. To be sure, some items of disinformation planted by the CIA in foreign publications might subsequently be discovered and republished by US media. I’m guessing the CIA would not leap to correct those items.

But that is a far cry from concluding that the CIA would (or even could) arrange that “everything the American public believes is false.”

I judge your meme as misleading, lacking context, and attributing intellectual authority to a backwards political figure who never earned any such authority.

Yuri bezmanov, KGB Propagandist "...You cannot change their mind, even if you exposed them to authentic information"

Well, one would have to challenge what a KGB Propagandist view of what is 'authentic information', of course. While that last sentence that I copied probably has merit, I challenge his assertion that Soviet Propaganda was not 'balanced' by 'American values'. It is a ludicrous charge, and I suggest his intent was to through a cat amongst the pigeons. That you can fall for it tells a whole lot about your own education and American values.

According to Sergey Zelvenskiy, who grew up in Russia, answering the question on Quora: Is Yuri Bezmanov a fraud?

Not really, just very good story teller. I can’t judge if he overblown the actual KGB tactics, but it takes simple logic and understanding of the human nature to realize that he is overblowing the impact. Yes some people went to USSR and got nice treatment. And yes, most likely they came as best friends of USSR. Same way as many tourists go to foreign country and come back with full belief that it’s a paradise. It does not mean that these tourists pack bags and move to the last destination they visited. The “spells”, even made by KGB, have a tendency to quickly dissolve. So the idea that KGB prepared a whole generation of long term zombies, who now run pro USSR propaganda is comical at best. He definitely lied about certain aspects of life in USSR. I lived in USSR. I don’t recommend it to anyone, but it was not a utopian world from 1984 and was not North Korea. People there had vast range of opinions and no, not everybody who had negative opinion went to jail in 1970–80s. I personally went to very real kinder garden, which was pretty descent and it was not fake. I do like him coining a term “useful idiot”. Pretty relevant especially in Trump era. He goes complete bananas with his predictions of communist take over of USA. Yet, I believe he is a smart guy, who wanted to make some money. He was saying what they wanted to hear.

I judge your meme as misleading, lacking intellectual depth, and totally absent of understanding the 'Americanism' it is trying to undermine.

Ezra Taft Benson: I mean to warn you...

As President of the LDS, Benson clearly had a particular view of American institutions. However that view did not prevent him from doing his job as Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower when he was of the opinion that price supports for farmers was 'unacceptably Socialist'. In fact, those price supports were unabashedly American and Mormon farmers benefited from that program just as non-Mormons did. Likewise his disdain for education didn't stop him from attending BYU (a Church run institution, of course), Iowa State University (a State run institution), and UC Berkeley (an institution famously known for its 'leftist' student body and faculty). Perhaps is was at Cal that he was turned off the American education system because he didn't finish his PhD work there.

At any rate, Benson's opinion don't really have much relevance outside the LDS church except where they impinge on secular policy making. His view of the American education system is just wrong, and the opposite of reality. Public Education gives people the tools to recognize untruths before they take root, and helps poor American families escape the cycle of poverty. At least the American education system used to do that before people like Benson poisoned it by strangulation.

I judge your meme snide, bigoted, and unredeemably unAmerican.

originally posted by: Akragon
Well you are welcome to believe Paul...

I believe he was genuine with his meeting with ressurection Jesus. It would take a miracle for someone known as anti Jesus movement suddenly turn around to support and willing to die for his faith.

originally posted by: Akragon
You may notice there is a few accounts of his conversion... and they don't agree with each other


SO... believe him if you wish...

his letters mean nothing to me...

I never said I believe in his theology. In fact, I rarely read Paul's letters. I don't subscribe to his salvation through faith only and I disagree with how he dealt with the gentiles.

But I do believe Luke's Act of Apostles had some merit.

originally posted by: Akragon
Notice also Jesus said "there will be people claiming to be Christ"...

How do you know whatever Paul claims to have seen wasn't one of those people?

There will always people claiming to be Jesus or God, even to this day.

But, No one could have possibly blinded Saul with a seal that only Ananias of Damascus could heal. The event ( Saul became blind ) was not experienced by Saul alone. It was witnessed by other people and was written by Luke. Therefore, it's not some dream that people always claim on youtube bs.

originally posted by: Akragon
In any case... while alive, Paul Never met Jesus...

Paul did asked permission from Peter and the apostles to teach the Gentiles. Therefore he had the authority to teach on behalf of the apostles. Whatever Paul encountered with Jesus, no scholars can argue that Paul's testimony prove the existence of the apostles, and thus Jesus.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I believe he was genuine with his meeting with ressurection Jesus. It would take a miracle for someone known as anti Jesus movement suddenly turn around to support and willing to die for his faith.

See i agree it would take something... but we don't know what that something is... we only have Pauls word... which isn't something i would personally trust...

Though i can't take away from Paul... without him Christianity would not have gathered as much weight as it did, and still does... i just question the motives of Paul...

I never said I believe in his theology. In fact, I rarely read Paul's letters. I don't subscribe to his salvation through faith only and I disagree with how he dealt with the gentiles.

But I do believe Luke's Act of Apostles had some merit.

I agree... and he wasn't supposed to go to the gentiles... God sent peter... Paul went...

There will always people claiming to be Jesus or God, even to this day.

But, No one could have possibly blinded Saul with a seal that only Ananias of Damascus could heal.

right... perhaps it didn't actually happen

The event ( Saul became blind ) was not experienced by Saul alone. It was witnessed by other people and was written by Luke. Therefore, it's not some dream that people always claim on youtube bs.

No... it was told by Paul... the only witness... and his witnesses were also Pauls word... no one elses...

Luke was his companion apparently... so again... Pauls word

And just so you know i don't use or need Youtube for biblical info... i know the book

Lectures and debates are interesting though

Paul did asked permission from Peter and the apostles to teach the Gentiles. Therefore he had the authority to teach on behalf of the apostles.

Read acts 15

It pleased God that Peter should go to the gentiles

Then Paul spoke up...

Whatever Paul encountered with Jesus, no scholars can argue that Paul's testimony prove the existence of the apostles, and thus Jesus.

this is true...

Except his proving the existence of them has nothing to do with his conversion...

it has to do with who Paul actually met...

a reply to: chr0naut

Beats Bronze Age goat herders lol...

a reply to: Akragon

TextHistorically speaking.... John attempts to make the claim that Jesus is God... Im sure you know the passages, so theres no need to quote them... the rest of the gospels do not make such claims

You misunderstand what I have said. I have no problem with Ehrman whatsoever and my mind does not dwell on him or his elk. I simply saw the thread and your post and voiced my opinion. Simple as that.

You are also misunderstanding what the gospel of John teaches. John 1:1-14 makes no claim that Jesus created or was God. You should read the entire thought and then realize that you have misunderstood substance change. Most all who are critics, such as Ehrman, have the same opinion such as atheists have. Jesus created nothing nor was He The Most High. Jesus was terrestrial in flesh. Terrestrial flesh cannot enter the celestial realm and in fact all terrestrial substance must, by law, return to its source eventually. The NT does not teach otherwise.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So what, another opinion from another person
Why should we care

Why do you pretend like you've never been on a message board before? People post opinions, you included.

a reply to: Seede

That's good, I was hoping we could throw the silly idea of a Trinity out the window!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

Beats Bronze Age goat herders lol...

'Sheep herders' (big issue with Abraham offending Pharaoh's religious prejudice, points this out, in Exodus).

a reply to: Seede

I simply saw the thread and your post and voiced my opinion. Simple as that.

And your replies are always welcome and appreciated...

You are also misunderstanding what the gospel of John teaches. John 1:1-14 makes no claim that Jesus created or was God. You should read the entire thought and then realize that you have misunderstood substance change.

I don't believe i could even count how many times i've read John, and all the gospels for that matter...

There are many statements that quite clearly allude to him being God... or at the very least a divine being

Some that are so blatant i can't help but question if the statements were actually said or just written in to give weight to trinitarian doctrine... Just as revelation was added to the canon for that very reason IMHO

Most all who are critics, such as Ehrman, have the same opinion such as atheists have. Jesus created nothing nor was He The Most High. Jesus was terrestrial in flesh. Terrestrial flesh cannot enter the celestial realm and in fact all terrestrial substance must, by law, return to its source eventually. The NT does not teach otherwise.

Yes i realize this... but before said transition he was a creator, or the creator according to John...

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

bold statements like this do not exist outside of Johns book... Though one must also keep in mind the author of this book used A LOT of narrative... Jesus himself never claims to be God... Though again, in johns book even he makes allusions to it... which again, i can't help but question IF he actually said some of these statements

originally posted by: Seede
Jesus created nothing nor was He The Most High.

The video below convinced me otherwise.

I highly recommend watching it if you haven't seen it already...

God was made manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ~ John 1:1

...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. ~ Heb. 1:2

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ~ 1 Corinthians 8:6

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ ~ Ephesians 3:9

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. ~ Colossians 1:16-17