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.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

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.

he was not a pharisee.
the pharisees were the priestly class.

 

[Cypress]

the pharisees were the priestly class!

"The Sadducees were an elite, aristocratic, and priestly party in first-century Judea (2nd century BCE–70 CE) that controlled the Temple and dominated the Sanhedrin." - AI summary.

The Pharisees were rabbis, teachers, scholars.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

"The Sadducees were an elite, aristocratic, and priestly party in first-century Judea (2nd century BCE–70 CE) that controlled the Temple and dominated the Sanhedrin." - AI summary.

The Pharisees were rabbis, teachers, scholars.

they both wanted to kill Jesus.

John 11:45-57
​

The Plot to Kill Jesus​

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

 

[Into the Night]

You know what I'm saying,

You aren't saying anything. You aren't presenting any arguments.

so either keep avoiding or attempt to have a discussion. I'm not changingy my wording.

Gonna stick with chanting meaningless buzzwords, eh?

 

[Into the Night]

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.

Gospel	Evidence for authorship by apostle or evangelist	Alternative explanation​	Probability the gospel was written or dictated by the person the gospel is named after​
Gospel of Mark	Mark is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as a secretary to the apostle Peter and the author of a gospel. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	Pappias was confused about what he was told by people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Pappias was referring to a different Mark, not the Mark of the canonical gospel.	More probable than not​
Gospel of Luke	Luke is identified by Bishop Iranaeus in mid to late second century as author of the gospel of Luke. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	First surviving attestation for the authorship of Gospel of Luke is about 100 years after it was written, reducing the reliability of this attestation.	As probable as not​
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as an author of an Aramaic-version of a gospel.	Even if Matthew wrote an Aramaic-version of a gospel, Greek translators in the late first century or second century could have completely re-worked it.	As probable as not​
Gospel of John	Bishop Iranaeus in mid-second century was told by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) that John authored a gospel. That makes Iranaeus only one person removed from a disciple of Jesus.	Iranaeus could have been confused about what Polycarp told him, or it could have been a different John, not the apostle John, who authored the canonical gospel.	Probable​

So you deny the Bible.

 

[Into the Night]

That's an opinion! Don't write it as fact! You don't have a theology degree.

So you agree it's an opinion. That itself makes it a fact. No degree required.

Go learn what 'fact' means.

 

[Into the Night]

low ranking Christians?

wtf.

his kingdom is not of this world.

So God has abandoned this world entirely? Why send Jesus Christ??

 

[Into the Night]

The better question is how they would get caught? If Luke writes a book in Syria, it would seem to be incredibly lucky if a hand-copied version ever get into Mark's hands in Jerusalem?

Based on what? Despite his parents supposedly knowing that he was the son of God, and the Bible claiming he was performing miracles as a child, there's basically no documentation of his childhood or really any part of his life until he jumps onto the scene in his 30s.

BTW, The writings about his childhood are widely believed to be made up because people asked "If he was born to a virgin and people knew that he was the son of God, why isn't there any information on his childhood? Seems like something people would be talking about!"

It's not on me to prove anything. The person making the claims, in this case about a human coming back from the dead, needs to prove their claim.

You've provided speculation that even Ehrman says are just guesses. What evidence you've provided shows how distant Jesus disciples likely were from the gospel writers.

Oh sure.....

They absolutely would, and did, if it benefitted their cause.

The gospels themselves have 100 contradictions because they were written by people working from 10th person information!

View: https://youtu.be/rhM5lbVBgkk?si=1hyu5fkrqZDkWWIN

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

So God has abandoned this world entirely? Why send Jesus Christ??

yeah, that's what I said, dumbass.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

So you agree it's an opinion. That itself makes it a fact. No degree required.

Go learn what 'fact' means.

Lots of opinions aren't facts! Most of Cypress's opinions aren't theology