PaulS

I'll answer this because you have asked, but I am finished with debating historical validity of any 'gist'. You've lost me. Are you agreeing that Luke in Acts isn't a good reference for claiming that Paul was known as a wonder worker, because Luke could be biased and there isn't multiple attestations to Paul the wonder worker in the NT?

I am only focused on evidence because you claimed it. You have consistently claimed that the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable. It simply isn't. You have finally acknowledged that in the post above when you state that any claims are only on the balance of probabilities. This is nowhere near the same as historically verifiable. For example, if 51% of people (the balance of probabilities) said that Donald Trump was the bestest President ever, is that historically verifiable? You are either misunderstanding english or you simply don't understand where 'evidence' sits on the scale of balance of probabilities. Either way, I am simply tired of this. It is going nowhere. I can not be bothered with the discussion any more. I just don't want to keep going on about our differences. Have your opinion. It is contrary to mine. I am fine with that. Ooroo.

So where does Paul say that Jesus was known as a wonder worker or as one who performed miracles? I am interested how you have established that Paul seemingly accepted the realities of miracles and wonder if you are deliberately avoiding that Paul didn't attribute any miracles to Jesus? Are you only talking about 'other' miracles to substantiate his belief, but of course not those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels? Paul was known by the author of Acts, and as far as we can tell the author of Acts alone, as a wonder worker, so I'm not sure on the balance of probabilities we can quote that Paul was known for this (except to one person) and even then, how do we substantiate that this isn't just storytelling to emphasise legitimacy?

This was an answer to Rom and so I didn't take it in the vein of establishing gist about Jesus. Wisdom can come from anywhere and it is largely in the eye of the beholder. "One man's wisdom is another's folly" - Emerson.

And finally it seems you come around to my point! We can well say on the balance of probabilities Jesus may have been this or that, but we cannot say that any of it is historically verifiable! This was my whole point about what Erhman has to say on the matter - he basis his expert opinion on what we have and 'best guesses' what it means. He acknowledges such. It seems like the past few pages have been trying to get to this point. In the absence of any other evidence, it is fact. It cannot be unless there is other references, which there are not.

You agree how? That Paul cites Jesus as a miracle worker, or that because the author of Acts attributes miracles to Paul that then demonstrates Paul thought of Jesus as a miracle worker? It was you who said that it seemed miracles and wonders and surprising deeds are basically the same. The fact that the Gospels highlight clear 'miracles' (e.g. Jesus raising somebody from the dead or walking on water, etc) which Paul fails to even consider, would indicate that the two parties understand Jesus differently on this point. Would you not agree?

It's not an excuse Burl - The accurate point that Rom makes is that the NT is self-referential.

Joseph, My point was relating to Thormas' earlier claim that the writings of Paul supports the 'gist' of Jesus found in the Gospels and that Josephus' claim of Jesus doing 'surprising deeds' was interpreted by Thormas to mean miracles. Paul makes no mention of Jesus performing any miracles - no walking on water, no water into wine, no raising dead people, etc. No miracle performed by Jesus is mentioned. This is quite contrary to what the Gospels portray about Jesus performing miracles. If you think the gifts of the spirit should be considered as a miracle performed by Jesus, then I will concede that one, but I think it's a stretch in the common understanding of Jesus performing miracles as told in the Gospels (but otherwise not supported by Paul). Paul simply makes no support whatsoever for a miracle-performing Jesus. Of course, he didn't write Acts either.

I guess I only felt it was worthy of discussion is because Thormas was stating that we 'know' things about Jesus because scholars tell us so. The reality is, apart from the barest of bare bones, there is very little in the way of what anybody could call evidence to substantiate these positions. As you point out, the NT is self referential. Personally, I don't think the bits of wisdom that some may take need to be verified, unless of course people are arguing for them being historically verifiable when they are not. I don't feel the need to do anything next about any gist or wisdom, other than take it in for my own benefit if I find it so and live life. But that's not what was being debated which indeed does seem to be a bit of a waste of time - I never expected it to be so prolonged.

G'day John, Welcome to the Forum and I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

I'm not sure what more I can add for you Thormas. I have said and demonstrated numerous times that the 'gist' of Jesus you are arguing for relies solely upon the NT sources that we have. If there was any other element of gist that was incongruent or to any degree different to what we have surviving in today's NT, then it is lost to history (we get a peak from Paul that there were differing Christian views about things, but we can't really say what they were because Paul doesn't elaborate). It is also interesting to note that our earliest canonical source for Jesus (Paul) doesn't talk very much at all about how Jesus lived his life or what he said, but rather Paul takes a more theological view of Jesus and focuses on what a Jesus death and resurrection mean. Incidentally, Paul doesn't support gist material such as miracles.So my whole point is that everything we say today about the gist of Jesus relies upon what was written largely decades after he died (and not from eye witnesses but from others who conveyed oral stories, rightly or wrongly) and we simply have nothing to validate this against. It could be 100% accurate, it could be 10% accurate, or any shade in between for all we know. I don't disagree with Erhman's conclusions about what the Gospel authors are saying - are you seriously still missing my point? To the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly with him and you that the Gospel authors portray certain things about Jesus. My whole point since the beginning is that nothing they say can actually be verified, irrespective of how genuine they may have believed the stories they wrote to be. It can be understood as their stories of how they and maybe others understood Jesus. Can it be verified as an accurate portrayal of Jesus' life? - No. At best, we can say they are likely accounts because they survived, but it doesn't rule out misrepresentation or even creative alignment from future editors. At best, 'Did Jesus Exist' speculates aboiut historical information or facts about Jesus. If you have read all of 'Did Jesus Exist' you will have read several times over that Erhman says we cannot know for certain if things written in the Gospels are accurate of what Jesus said or did. Rather Erhman is making the point that because the Gospels exist, there is a strong likelihood (beyond all reasonable doubt for Erhman) that Jesus existed. I think you're stretching it a bit if you think 'Did Jesus Exist' argues well for the historicity of 'gist' material (outside of the barest of bare bones that aligns with Josephus). We probably WOULD be having the same discussion about other 1st century Gospels - so what? Frankly, I would judge other hypothetical gospels exactly how I, and scholars, are judging the existing Gospels that we do have. You confuse historicity of the writings with historicity of any verifiable evidence the Gospels accurately capture a broader gist of Jesus. Historicity of the gist of Jesus simply cannot be proved beyond assumptions that the Gospels (and to a lesser degree Paul when it comes to the gist list you provided) capture what some people believed about Jesus. As Erhman points out in 'Did Jesus Exist', the Gospel authors are largely only repeating other people's stories - none are eye witness accounts or personal experiences of Jesus themselves. Was it the majority of Christians, a minority of Christians, or some other % of Christians who held these views of Jesus that the Gospel authors picked up on? Who knows! But we do know this view dominated in the end and eventually became to be known as the orthodox view of Jesus - that still doesn't validate it necessarily. Show me any scholar that can base the gist on anything, anything at all outside of the NT sources that can substantiate the gist you outline, in the first century? Not hat there is anything wrong with considering the Gospels for their historicity in themselves, but how do scholars validate the Gospel gist outside of the only remaining sources we have today? Scholars openly base their assumptions about the gist on the only existing material we have. That doesn't mean it is 100% (in fact I'm sure you would agree it is not 100% as evidenced by their contradictions in stories and attributed words of Jesus) and possibly could be only correct to some other degree. We simply cannot know for certain - that is all I am arguing. As you are reading 'Did Jesus Exist', take what Bart writes about Papias in Chapter 4 (Evidence for Jesus from Outside the Gospels) as an example of my thinking. Here, Bart points out that an early 2nd century Church Father wrote a 5-volume work but which we only know of because other Christians refer to it later in life (e.g. Eusebius). Now Papias writings, although quoted by Eusebius as claimed by Papias to be directly from followers of the disciples, did not survive the day. Why? Bart states "...it appears that some of the views that Papias advanced were seen to be offensive or at least naive". Even though those views were claimed by Papias to be directly linked to followers of Jesus' disciples. For me, that is representative of what I am saying and how it can happen - somebody's alleged accurate understanding of Jesus got pushed aside because somebody else believed it didn't accurately represent Jesus. One could say fair enough, but what if that view was actually correct and it was the incorrect views that actually got advanced over the decades. And when I say 'incorrect views' I don't always mean direct opposite, but for instance could mean things like elements of the gist you are proposing (or that Bart apparently proposes) could be tweaked differently. I think that matters and so we can't ignore it, but unfortunately neither can we verify it because we simply can't get to it with what we have. This is a pretty baseless remark - I have provided considerably more than one liners. If you want to learn, then look into what I am arguing and counter it with evidence. As Erhman says - "Expert opinion is still only an opinion". A fitting remark I think for a discussion which is stating (my position) that we have no evidence to validate any gist of the Gospel (apart from the barest of bare bones) from anywhere except those Gospels themselves, which is not surprising because it is the view that became what we now know as orthodox. Was it orthodox in 34CE? Who knows! Again, this really is going nowhere as it seems unless I quote you a scholar verbatim, you can't consider what I am saying. Even when I don't think it is a topic that very many biblical scholars would bother investing in because it simply goes nowhere - what NT scholar would have a career saying "this is interesting stuff but of course we can't say it is a valid reflection of who Jesus really was (apart from the barest of bare bones gist - he lived, was a wise man who won over followers, upset the authorities, got executed. Oh, a did some surprising deeds along the way). There's not a very promising future in that approach I imagine - however I think Erhman has the integrity to say that although we can think we know the gist of Jesus, as some early Christians understood it, we can only base that gist on what we have - the NT sources. That's all we have, so as long as we're not betting our houses on it, we can run with it.

In Australia, homelessness can be caused by poverty, unemployment or by a shortage of affordable housing, or it can be triggered by family breakdown, mental illness, sexual assault, addiction, financial difficulty, gambling or social isolation. Domestic violence is the single biggest cause of homelessness in Australia. Solve those issues and you've got homelessness licked! If all of us here got involved and contributed some time or funding toward homlessness, then we'd make a small dent. If that caught on with our Christian brothers and sisters and the community in general, we may actually have a fuller impact on the issue. However, I expect that for most, this isn't a big enough issue for them to get involved with. Some may even think this is a problem that can't be solved and so they won't do anything at all. It's harsh, but true.

I know your initial comment was specific to the trial before Pilate - you have said that several times now. If you need to be right about this point then let me say that it is completely recognized and understood that your initial comment was only referring to Jesus trial before Pilate. So moving on, as I have said a couple of times now, I am referring to your broader incongruity concerning how you approach the matter of accuracy of gist vs accuracy of Jesus stories. But again, this is going nowhere so I am only answering to put you at rest that I recognize you were, in that particular comment, only referring to Jesus' trial before Pilate. I thought that WAS the conversation we were having. I always accepted the basics of Josephus, no issue. My point was concerning the leap you were making from Josephus to justify Erhman's gist - which Josephus clearly doesn't do on more than 2 or 3 points (the barest of bare bones remember). So because of the extreme shortcomings between Jospehus' points and Erhman's gist, I see no logical conclusion that one must accept Erhman's list of gist points, other than we can run with Jesus lived, preached at some point, had a following, did some surprising deeds and was executed. Nothing else is substantiated by Josephus. I've already countered all of the other Erhman gist points that are not substantiated by Jospehus (this is going nowhere comes to mind again). Do the work Thormas - it is there. But seriously, what scholarship do you need other than what is already presented by the likes of Erhman. Have you read what Erhman is basing his conclusions around gist on? Can you seriously not recognize that other than Mark and some small elements of Paul, that there is exactly NO other evidence for any gist of Jesus? I can't imagine any scholar writing a book on just how limiting any information about Jesus really is (Robert Price does a good job though), although Erhman does acknowledge such consistently in his writings. Erhman deduces his conclusions concerning the gist of Jesus based on what we have. He or any other scholar can not point to what we don't have (other than there being hints scattered in some of Paul's writings and some incongruities amongst the Gospels themselves, which indicate some differences). Add that to other traditions that developed about Jesus that we now consider not orthodox, and we can recognise that there were likely different understandings of the Jesus gist following the death of Jesus (unless you are only referring to the 'barest of bare bones gist' of Jesus that I have acknowledged a few times now) but that one particular view became established as the orthodox view. Again, you will now counter that this isn't accurate and demand I show you the proof about what we don't have. That's is why I said this is going nowhere and is becoming quite boring (to me).

I am talking about a broader incongruency concerning how you approach the matter of accuracy of gist vs accuracy of Jesus stories. You seem happy to accept that Jesus stories could be made up, but not happy to consider that gist stories could be invented/creative/or miss the actual mark. I should say, that if you are now restricting the gist of Jesus to that of Jospehus, I would agree with you - "A man named Jesus, preached and did suprising deeds, garnered followers, got killed by the authorities". That gist I can roll with based on my own personal opinion. As Erhman says in his book Did Jesus Exist - "Expert opinion is, at the end of the day, still opinion". This cuts to my points about you defending the 'gist' you have presented from others. Such can ONLY be based on current NT references, so in my opinion there is plenty pf room for error between what they present as the gist of Jesus and what actually happened. This is the end of the road for me Thormas - we are going nowhere.

There is incongruity. You quite rightly say we can't know if the words of Jesus are accurate in the Gospels (or even if whole stories came from Jesus or not), but we can know that the gist of Jesus is accurate. Why? Because Mark could be wrong about Jesus' words and messages, but can only be right about Jesus' gist? Anyway, this is really going nowhere. I was just pointing out that I don't believe Rom was trolling and thought he was making a valid point. Surrogate? Maybe so, I could well be misunderstanding Rom. I'm open to that. I'm amazed that you're amazed. I have said several times now that I believe Erhman is speaking in a different context than what you are claiming. I completely appreciate what Erhman is saying - but for what I think it is and not for what you keep claiming it to be. I don't think Erhman is claiming any gist of Jesus to be based on actual connection to Jesus but rather, he points out that it comes from the only material we have and so this is currently the only way we know of to view Jesus. It is the only gist available to us because there simply is nothing else surviving. From other articles, blog posts and books I I have read of Erhman I think he would say that that gist could be off the mark or there could be more to it or there could be less to it - but we simply don't know because we don't have anything more. From what we do have it is clear there were differing views about Jesus and his teachings, but precisely what those were is difficult to guess because although they may be referenced in say Paul's letters, we don't actually have those difference spelt out for us anywhere.

I disagree with your opinion that Rom has a tendency to let others do the work, or that he likes to troll. Yes you and Burl have made statements about it before (I'm not aware of any others claiming this), and you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't agree (either as an Administrator or simply a member of this forum). In this case I think Rom is trying to make a point to you, which you have perhaps too eagerly dismissed because of your view he is trolling, and provides a challenge to you to consider that what we have about the gist of Jesus, could be, on any number of issues, incorrect about Jesus. Your response "Tell us something we don't know" seems incongruous with your claims that we have a very good understanding of Jesus because of what is written in the Gospels and to a much lesser degree, claimed by the historian Josephus. So, to me anyhow, you seem to be agreeing that nobody can know if what the Gospels say Jesus said actually occurred or not, but somehow the rest of the stuff you draw from the Gospels which gives you your 'gist' about Jesus, can be verified and/or relied upon as reasonably accurate, based on nothing more, again as it seems to me, than because the Gospels say so. Rom can speak for himself, but that's how I read what he was doing and your response.

It was clear that you weren't answering Rom's question which was - "So, you agree that we don't know if Jesus actually said anything that was attributed to him?"

That was clear - that's why I pointed it out.

Even though they can't demonstrate it either. They can only make best guesses based on the limited material available. They could be off the mark in major ways and we couldn'tt know, at this point.

The barest of bare bones, so bare you couldn't even make a Gospel soup from them - "There was a guy named Jesus, who was a teacher & attracted followers, he did surprising deeds, he was executed". So considering Erhman further - Nothing about coming from Nazareth, nothing about being baptized by John, nothing about an apocalyptic message, nothing about teaching in parables, nothing about his ethical teachings, and nothing about controversies with other teachers (not to mention miracles but we'll leave that one alone). So when you say that you think 6 or 7 of Erhman's 'gist' points are pretty bare bones, and Jospehus fails to meet more than half of even those, I think it's a stretch to put Josephus forward as a historical record demonstrating the gist of Jesus (other than he lived, he died, he taught, he attracted followers). It may be a minor issue but clearly there are some that care about the %'s enough to continue to argue that they support one's view. Maybe you use a different dictionary to me. Of course I am - that's why I added to my statement - "but of course we can't know what Josephus actually meant". I don't have the right to twist his words into something else such as 'miracles' because the evidence is not there. I disagree. Citing Josephus as a historical record to support your arguments when it doesn't, is a reasonable point to discuss. As our discussion was about how we can verify if what we have in the NT more or less accurately captures who Jesus was and what he did and what he believed and what he preached, to pretend that somehow Josephus legitimizes that 'gist' seems worthy of debate. That said - I think we have both made out points and for me, I've made enough.

Indeed, and my point is that we don't know if Apollos, or Cephas, or 'Christ' may have been the carriers of a more accurate gist of Jesus but that they didn't win the day so their voice was drowned out by the likes of Paul and later followers for what we have today. To me, drilling down to that level of evidence is currently unavailable to us and we have ultimately only been left with a certain presentation of Jesus. Is it accurate - who knows!

It would be absurd to totally dismiss any similarity, but of course, that's not what I've done. I simply pointed out that of the 12 or so 'Erhman gist points' you listed, Josephus can at best meet 3, maybe 4 of the 12 (including the assumption that Jesus was a Jew which Josephus doesn't actually mention, but let's count it). That's about 20-33% similarity, to which I was saying isn't 'strong' when you were making the point that independent historical sources verify the gist of Jesus you cited. By the way, it may seem pedantic to you but Josephus does not actually say that Jesus was a wonder worker or that Jesus did miraculous deeds, but rather Josephus says that Jesus performed 'surprising deeds'. Some versions I read says that he did 'wondrous deeds'. Nothing I read actually says 'miracles' though, so I think you are applying some personal interpretation here which isn't supported by the text alone. Surprising deeds or wondrous deeds could possibly refer to him behaving differently and treating people in a way contrary to social norms, but of course we can't know what Josephus actually meant. So indeed, maybe it still is a similarity - I just don't think you can draw 'miraculous' from it which I think gives it a different connotation.

I don't think this discussion is about that point, although I understand your concern. Certainly for many people there is much inspiration from the bible and for that matter it really matters not who wrote things that provide such inspiration. But this discussion is strictly around the merits of arguing whether what is represented in the Gospels is an accurate representation of Jesus, his messages, his actions, his deeds, etc and what evidence we may or may not have to support any claims for or against. I would view it as a healthy debate around stuff that at the end of the day matters very little for PC's.

I still can't see how you can draw the conclusion that Josephus' bare bones in any way supports what you quote Erhman as calling the gist of Jesus. Josephus: "About this time there lived Jesus. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” The gist you outlined: Jesus was born and raised a Jew (no mention of this by Josephus) He came from Nazareth in rural Galilee (no mention of this by Josephus) As an adult he was baptized by an apocalyptic prophet named John the Baptist, who was preaching the imminent judgment of God and baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins in preparation for this climactic moment in history (no mention of this by Josephus) Afterward Jesus engaged in his own itinerate teaching preaching ministry (no mention of this by Josephus other than to say Jesus was a teacher) Like John, he proclaimed an apocalyptic message of the coming Kingdom of God (no mention of this by Josephus) Much of his teaching was delivered in parables and in thoughtful and memorable aphorisms that explained the Kingdom of God and what people should do in preparation for it (no mention of this by Josephus) As a distinctively Jewish teacher, much of Jesus’ ethical teaching was rooted in an interpretation of the Torah, the Law of Moses, as found in the Hebrew Bible (no mention of this by Josephus) Jesus’ teachings about the Torah led to controversies with other Jewish teachers, especially Pharisees (no mention of this by Josephus) Jesus had a number of followers, from whom he chose twelve to accompany him on his preaching ministry (no mention of any 12 by Josephus but he does say Jesus won over many Jews and many of the Greeks) Jesus was occasionally opposed by members of his own family and by people from his hometown of Nazareth (no mention of this by Josephus) His followers, however, maintained that he spoke the truth, and they may also have claimed that his words were vindicated by the miraculous deeds he performed (Josephus does not mention miraculous deeds). Hurtado relies on Paul's letters to support Paul's view that he is representing the correct gist of Jesus. I think that is circular reasoning. Just to put it simply, don't you find it incredulous that we have no other documents pertaining to Jesus outside of only those few that made it into the canon eventually? One can take the view that there was no other alternative way of looking at Jesus and that this gist survived through to canonisation because it was the only correct view (starting in Paul's time and through to Marks). Maybe I'm a cynic, but I just find that a little too convenient, particularly in the face of evidence we know 'conquerors' have a habit of writing history in their favour. Paul wrote letters to how many communities? Ho many more communities were there that could have believed other things about Jesus that they believed accurately represented the gist? Who knows? I don't dismiss the probability of any earlier sources - I'm just saying until we have those one can't say they fully support the Gospels. It simply has to be a 'who knows' scenario. I don't think you can cite any scholar who can tell you what these earlier sources contain in their entirety. I'm not surprised that there is consistency with Paul and the Gospels if a particular version of Christianity prided those as their leading documents.In fact it stands to reason. I'm just saying, that argument is not evidence they were accurate. Maybe there was a 'B version' of Christianity that was more accurate but because their version didn't thrive they simply lost out to the other version (Paul et al). I'm just saying they are possibilities and no scholar worth his salt can rule that out because we simply do not have the evidence either way.

I'm not sure that all the study in the world in ancient literature will answer the question that if within the Jewish community in the early decades following Jesus' death there may have been different views of the gist of Jesus and his message, as the only surviving manuscripts we have from that time portray only one view. They may be accurate, indeed many believe they are, I'm just saying that that alone is not evidence they are accurate representations of everything Jesus.