Archaeology of the New Testament

[Cypress]

Jesus Was a Pharisee (Seriously. He Was)

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” Luke 13:31 A few years ago ...

thinkfaithfully.blogspot.com

The simple point is that jesus (not to mention His brother James and His apostle Paul) was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee. His theology, His hermeneutic, His parables, His argumentation, His conclusions and even His dinner invitations were Pharisaic in origin. While we cannot be overly dogmatic that jesus was a Pharisee, there is no other sect or form of faith in all of human history with which He shared a closer affinity. He conducted Himself as if He were one.

I think Jesus had a lot in common with the Pharisees.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I think Jesus had a lot in common with the Pharisees.

Thomas Aquinas
Jesus was either
1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. LORD
For once in your life get off the fence and chose!

 

[ZenMode]

Because those writings were widely circulating around the Mediterranean world, and if obscure random people who were ten steps removed from anybody in Jesus ministry were just making up lies and fake stories, the living apostles or their students would have objected.

They may have been widely circulated eventually, as the story of Jesus spread, but the limitations of creating copies and travel difficulties make it highly unlikely that they were spread soon after they were written.

You're being irrational.

Not at all.

Nobody benefited for evangelizing their faith in Jesus. They didn't get money, power, or chicks. Many of them were executed for their belief.
Paul could have kept his prestigious career as a Pharisee, but he chose to face beatings, lashings, prison, pirates, shipwrecks, and ultimately execution.

I didn't say they benefited. The people who were highly invested in Jesus clearly wanted to spread the story.

Sure you do. You repeatedly claimed the canonical gospel was written by obscure random people ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

I claimed that they were written by people who were not close to Jesus or those close to Jesus. I've also claimed, because it's true, that anyone who claims to know who they were written by is speculating.

You made the claim without a shred of evidence. Are you admitting you are just guessing?

Nope. What you are saying I claimed is not what I actually claimed.

I gave you multiple lines of evidence that the gospels were either written by eyewitnesses, or by people who interviewed the eyewitnesses.

you copied and pasted something with no source.

You just proved that the gospel accounts weren't some grand conspiracy to write fake stories in order to get money, power, and chicks.

They would have gotten their stories straight if it was a grand conspiracy.

Not a grand conspiracy, but each writer, whoever they were, had their own agenda and was working off of stories of stories of stories of stories.

You should watch the video I posted.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Jesus Was a Pharisee (Seriously. He Was)

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” Luke 13:31 A few years ago ...

thinkfaithfully.blogspot.com

The simple point is that jesus (not to mention His brother James and His apostle Paul) was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee. His theology, His hermeneutic, His parables, His argumentation, His conclusions and even His dinner invitations were Pharisaic in origin. While we cannot be overly dogmatic that jesus was a Pharisee, there is no other sect or form of faith in all of human history with which He shared a closer affinity. He conducted Himself as if He were one.

no they weren't.

the pharisess plotted to kill jesus.

take your Zionism and shove it up your shill-hole.

 

[Cypress]

They may have been widely circulated eventually, as the story of Jesus spread, but the limitations of creating copies and travel difficulties make it highly unlikely that they were spread soon after they were written.

Not at all.

I didn't say they benefited. The people who were highly invested in Jesus clearly wanted to spread the story.

I claimed that they were written by people who were not close to Jesus or those close to Jesus. I've also claimed, because it's true, that anyone who claims to know who they were written by is speculating.

Nope. What you are saying I claimed is not what I actually claimed.

you copied and pasted something with no source.

Not a grand conspiracy, but each writer, whoever they were, had their own agenda and was working off of stories of stories of stories of stories.

You should watch the video I posted.

I don't watch videos. I wait for people to make arguments on their own words.

Your entire argument throughout this thread is essentially based on the premise "everybody is lying!" and that they were all out just to get power and fame.

That's not an evidence based argument. It's an emotional tirade. It's also contradicted by the historical and canonical record.

Hollering that everyone is lying is about as good an argument as when MAGA morons howl that the mainstream media publishes nothing but lies.

I've provided multiple lines of overlapping evidence showing the best explanation is that the canonical corpus is based largely on first-hand or second hand witness accounts, though there are exceptions

We know with a high degree of certainty that Paul was providing information he received from the eyewitnesses James and Peter. So hollering that the canon is all based on the writings of random obscure people ten steps separated from Jesus' ministry is already contradicted by the authentic epistles of Paul.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't watch videos. I wait for people to make arguments on their own words.

Your entire argument throughout this thread is essentially based on the premise "everybody is lying!" and that they were all out just to get power and fame.

Not lying in all cases. In some cases, yes, they're lying or making things up. For example, only the Book of Matthew says that Mary was a virgin. He framed Jesus birth that way because it fulfilled OT prophecy. He had Jesus being born in Bethlehem because it fulfilled OT prophecy. He framed several of his stories so that they fulfilled OT prophecy. You can decide whether it's lying or not.

I've provided multiple lines of overlapping evidence showing the best explanation is that the canonical corpus is based largely on first-hand or second hand witness accounts, though there are exceptions

Unsourced copy/paste isn't convincing.

We know with a high degree of certainty that Paul was providing information he received from the eyewitnesses James and Peter. So hollering that the canon is all based on the writings of random obscure people ten steps separated from Jesus' ministry is already contradicted by the authentic epistles of Paul.

Like I said, the evidence doesn't support what you clearly want to believe. It's not reasonable to think that events in Galilee and written about 40-90 years later in Syria will involve first or second hand information.

You say that you read a lot of Ehrman. I don't know how that can be true and you still believe what you believe about the gospels.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

I think Jesus had a lot in common with the Pharisees.

he didn't.

the opposite is true.

they were fully opposed and the pharisees plotted to kill Jesus.

 

[Cypress]

Not lying in all cases. In some cases, yes, they're lying or making things up. For example, only the Book of Matthew says that Mary was a virgin. He framed Jesus birth that way because it fulfilled OT prophecy. He had Jesus being born in Bethlehem because it fulfilled OT prophecy. He framed several of his stories so that they fulfilled OT prophecy. You can decide whether it's lying or not.

I haven't said anything about the Virgin birth.
The reliable information based on multiple attestations in multiple accounts are that a Jewish rabbi named Jesus had a ministry in Galilee; he was arrested by the Sanhedrin; he was executed by the Romans; and his followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

Unsourced copy/paste isn't convincing.

I haven't copy pasted anything. I've read widely on the topic and have no need to frantically Google sources to copy.
Is that projection on your part? Are you keeping a second window open to frantically consult atheist sources?

Like I said, the evidence doesn't support what you clearly want to believe. It's not reasonable to think that events in Galilee and written about 40-90 years later in Syria will involve first or second hand information.

No, not 40 to 90 years later. Most likely between less than 5 years to 50 or 60 years after the crucifixion. Jesus died 30 or 33 AD.
Bishop Clement of Rome is already quoting the gospels in 95 AD, meaning they were widely known and had existed long before 95 AD. The source material for the gospels goes back to the generation of the apostles.

Paul wrote Corinthians around 50 AD, and in it he quotes older Christian creeds probably dating to the 30s AD describing the resurrection event; this creed goes back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem Church.

There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark was Peter's secretary, and his gospel is based on the testimony of Peter.

Luke was a companion of Paul in the 50s AD when witnesses were still alive, and Luke explained in his gospel that he investigated the witnesses and primary sources for his gospel.

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and be confirmed to Bishop Iraneus that John authored or dictated a gospel.

I could go on, but the point is your claim that the gospels were written by random obscure liars who were at least ten steps removed from anyone in Jesus' ministry is irrational and does not fit the existing evidence.

You say that you read a lot of Ehrman. I don't know how that can be true and you still believe what you believe about the gospels.

Ehrman isn't a prophet who has all the answers. He's a good scholar who has a certain perspective.

Unlike you, I don't just limit my sources to people I already know are going to confirm my preexisting opinions. That's confirmation bias. I read Ehrman, I read Richard Dawkins, but I also read Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic scholars.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I haven't said anything about the Virgin birth.
The reliable information based on multiple attestations in multiple accounts are that a Jewish rabbi named Jesus had a ministry in Galilee; he was arrested by the Sanhedrin; he was executed by the Romans; and his followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

I haven't copy pasted anything. I've read widely on the topic and have no need to frantically Google sources to copy.
Is that projection on your part? Are you keeping a second window open to frantically consult atheist sources?

No, not 40 to 90 years later. Most likely between less than 5 years to 50 or 60 years after the crucifixion.
Bishop Clement of Rome is already quoting the gospels in 95 AD, meaning they were widely known and had existed long before 95 AD. The source material for the gospels goes back to the generation of the apostles.

Paul wrote Corinthians around 50 AD, and in it he quotes older Christian creeds probably dating to the 30s AD describing the resurrection event; this creed goes back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem Church.

There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark was Peter's secretary, and his gospel is based on the testimony of Peter.

Luke was a companion of Paul in the 50s AD when witnesses were still alive, and Luke explained in his gospel that he investigated the witnesses and primary sources for his gospel.

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and be confirmed to Bishop Iraneus that John authored gospel.

I could go on, but the point is your claim that the gospels were written by random obscure liars who were at least ten steps removed from anyone in Jesus' ministry is irrational and does not fit the existing evidence.

Ehrman isn't a prophet who has all the answers.

Unlike you, I don't just limit my sources to people I already know are going to confirm my preexisting opinions. That's confirmation bias. I read Ehrman, I read Richard Dawkins, but I also read Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic scholars.

There's one scholar the Holy Spirit! The rest are men's opinions! You spinning your wheels

 

[Cypress]

he didn't!!

Both Jesus and the Pharisees believed in an immortal soul, resurrection of the dead, an afterlife, and a coming Kingdom of Heaven.

The Jewish priestly class (the Sadducees) did not believe that stuff.