Bart Ehrman article

[Spotlite]

That is the crux of the matter though, isn't it Bullet? “about what Jesus may or may not have believed being raised Jewish in those times”.

As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.

I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.

Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.

 

[Israel]

As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.

I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.

Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.

I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible.

One has speculation.

But I cannot say that with any right of derision for I have allowed myself subject to it at various times.

Prophets came "on the scene" quite early on to address departures from the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The "not keeping" of matters entrusted; instead opting to trade that keeping for a self exaltation for having been among the chosen to keep them.

We hear the same in Paul's warnings and exhortations; his seeing of how soon "grievous wolves" would rise up in opposition to the Word of God (who is Jesus Christ Himself) even by that operation Jesus had previously described...what comes (and even must come) as result to the sowing of the Word. There is opposition, there is a spirit and matters that rise to the consuming.

The man who has experienced the truth of these matters knows it and becomes more and more grateful for the also promise that even as what would rise against; the Lord's victory in keeping what is His (and always has been) is sure.

The man hearing at first might easily assume himself to be "good ground" even as motivated by such desire to see himself thus...(call that wishful thinking)...but he learns...that in all, for the holding to that which is the good above all, Jesus Christ, he needs no less help than ever he has in all things...even were he to fall back on his appraisal as being one called. There can be no comfort in self identity "as a christian" if in any part or whole it diminishes by one iota the total necessity of dependence upon Jesus in person as salvation.

It is in all an inexplicable...but quite experiential, matter. How that as one is being conformed to a likeness by the hand of God to the man of Heaven, the more one is no less being convinced he (himself) is not Him! But this is where the preciousness of relationship shines in glory (that the man is being saved from the "not good" of being alone) that he is being kept as member and always being disabused of any messianic musings of himself he might entertain.

We must first admit the desire to be champion is strong...even so strong that only a true champion could overcome it. And we either come to see the joy of that sign "position filled" in our application(s)...or yet mistake the god that would provoke us to its filling...is no God at all.

No, we need not desire to be the villain of the piece (anymore!), just submit to the wonderful truth that the seat already taken is by the One who speaks on our behalf.
Who..."ever liveth to make intercession" for us. We will learn indelibly all treachery is accounted for.

This is too hard a saying for what believes it has the goods to make good for itself...who scorn the real need of one's death on their behalf...sure, they might admit they are not "perfect" but nothing so desperate as the death of an innocent is in all needed to set them straight. And since this cannot be received neither can they receive He is and was in all...the only innocent. And so a twist must be found in Him. He lies about his being.

Any and all pride of place of even being "the chosen" as even a Jew or christian might embrace to any pride is more than sufficiently accounted for in Jesus Christ...who no less says of Judas..."Have I not chosen you the 12, yet one of you is a devil".

Jesus has effectively removed any place of standing except in Himself...and this alone is life to, and in, the believer.

 

[bullethead]

That is the crux of the matter though, isn't it Bullet?



The assigning of Jesus to some sort of toeing the party line in regards to "general" beliefs of the Jews at any particular time.

Or that a Jew has the more accurate or refined understanding of the scriptures even today because they claim the Tanakh as their own. And many agree.
In essence the the thought that the "OT" is theirs, the NT is for the christian.

But we need not even look into the NT to see what by inclusion is glaringly contained in the old. (Though I am generally loathe to divide the scripture thus)

Quite frank tellings of those prophets sent most often to Jews "in general"/Israelites/Hebrews with the message "You folks are not really getting it at all. What you think you have in apprehension, you do not, what you mistake for meaning one thing means quite another in truth."

And we have in those accounts of how those prophets speaking thus were often treated by the "governing" Jews.

One needn't be a scholar to hear Isaiah's general reproval of misapprehended matters especially in regards to the significance of the sabbath, fasting and the observances thereof that had been inflated in great displays for religious declarations of self righteousness.

For reference one could read Is 58.

It is not without note Jesus most often quoted those prophets who "saw in part" what He is in substance. And He was quite unrelenting (even if one only reads casually) that He is the "it" of it all.

The Pharisees, the so called "keepers of the flame" (as no doubt some Jewish traditionalists/rabbis would even be called today) were those most often rebuked for their lack of understanding or willful disobedience.

Jesus having the boldness to tell one in regards to being born from above:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus was/is quite plain that in any dealings with Himself as He is, any stand upon traditions, previous assumptions and presumptions as to what constitutes abiding in the faith of God as true observance and practice must all be abandoned as shadows that, at best, only hint at His fullness. He touches all that might lend itself to idolatry as only He can.

His repeated phrasing of the "time is coming and now is" perhaps especially salient in regards to "exalting" earthly places:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

And this remains as scandalous today in its essence of rebuke against all those who would nail a placard, engrave a stone, hang a billboard or sign that such and such constructed building is the church...the "house" of God.
But we need not even go far into the "OT" to find the same sentiment expressed.

“Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?
For all those things My hand has made,
And all those things exist,”
Says the Lord.
“But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.

As (opposed) to what might have been "general apprehensions" and continued consciousness after the death of the body Jesus is not unknowing.



Jesus knew this when He spoke it to the enlightened thief on the cross of a continuing consciousness to be set at rest:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

No less in:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in he11. (Read Gehenna as needed, but there is no implication it is a "preferred" place)

Jesus also spoke (though often assumed in parable) of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man. Of conversations and continued consciousness...and one particularly consumed in regret and torment.

But saying this is "mere" parable (even if it was given as such) and not the truth of the matter is moot to me.
I suppose we could discuss what it might mean to be "carried to Abraham's side" but the matter of continuing consciousness as expressed, and whether Jesus would throw in a "red herring" of such obvious misinformation (if there is no continued consciousness) is, for me, the more pressing matter.

Would Jesus lie to express a truth?

That question has already been satisfactorily answered for me...and not apart from the many rebukes that have accompanied any excursions of my own into doubt regarding Jesus' credibility.

Jesus said he will return "in this Generation ". The Jews, Jesus being one of them, believed Heaven was here on Earth as a bodily resurrection.

But again and for the most part you are using NT verses which were written decades after Jesus was dead. You are using the same suspect material which Ehrman and the Jews use as examples of how and why the concept of H&H changed AFTER Jesus was dead. The material was written as more Pagan followers were being recruited into a new religion.
Jesus wasn't a Christian, he wasn't Catholic nor Protestant, he did not start a new religion. He was a Jew that practiced Judaism and followed the Torah until he took his last breath. All the embellishments to his life came after he was dead and was written by people who used him as the centerpiece for a new religion. The verses you quote above were written by anonymous people who Never Met Jesus and were Never beside him to hear him say a single word. The authors used him as inspiration to write their own feelings and versions of what they wanted told. No different that the magnificence of Hollywood fictional scripts or Literary fiction inspired by whatever or whoever inspired it.

 

[bullethead]

As far as writing / documentary - all we know and can know about Jesus is written in the New Testament. Everything written about him certainly indicated he believed and taught in a heaven, a place of eternal rest with the Father and, a place of eternal fire in some form.

I’m not sure what Erhman could possibly have other than assuming what Jesus thought / believed outside of what’s actually recorded as Jesus saying in the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t even know about Jesus. I mean he was missing from 12 to 30, no one wrote anything about him. Not much written prior to 12 after birth. Certainly not enough written anywhere to conclude that he thought opposite of what is written - without assumptions. Jews rejecting Jesus tells me he wasn’t all that “Jewishy” for them.

Just my opinion. And Jews today aren’t rejecting him for his heaven / hot place beliefs, they’re saying he isn’t the Messiah.

The Jews aren't saying that he did all those things in the NT but missed being Messiah by one or two points, he isn't their messiah because the Jews who lived among him, with him, right there when he was supposedly doing these things, didn't take note of anything miraculous or out of the ordinary other than he was a troublemaker and got killed for it.

You are overlooking the fact that NOTHING was written about Jesus until he was dead for at least 30 years, and more was written 70+ years later.
30 years AFTER he was dead someone wrote about his years that you mentioned above. What was written about him "at birth" was written 63 years *AT THE EARLIEST * later!!!
You guys are using THE very writings that are suspect. You are using the book to source the book. You are telling us the equivalent that Sam I Am likes Green Eggs and Ham which yes he does but ONLY within the pages of the book. You are quoting dialog from Saving Private Ryan as if it is historical fact because you saw it on screen. In reality it is a story written 50+ years later that mixes real events in with fictional characters and dialog to tell the story the author wants told which was inspired by his father's time in WWII. Your counter to me saying that is "but in scene 48 when Captain Miller announces what his profession at home was before the war is proof that the story is real because that is what he said in the movie" YEAH! THERE IS ONLY ONE PLACE THAT "HAPPENED" which is within the confines of Spielberg's script and movie. NO different than what you are trying to pass off above by using similar writings in the NT. Which IS why Ehrman and the Jews make great points as to why the Jesus portrayed in the NT is not the same Jesus that was put to death at least 30 to 70 years prior to when the stories were written.

 

[bullethead]

It isn't like the Jews gave Jesus the Messiah runner up trophy, they didn't even acknowledge his so called accomplishments. He was one of many men that had followers throughout Jewish history. The Jews take on him is the equivalent of "next".

 

[hummerpoo]

And the Weatherman always reports how wrong yesterday's forecast was.

 

[bullethead]

Ehrman is not saying that there is no evidence in the NT that says Jesus mentioned H&H. You guys clearly give those verses.
What Ehrman is saying is that Jesus was a Torah practicing Jew and followed the Torah which did not contain verses about H&H. Judaism did not preach about H&H. It wasn't discussed. Therefore, Ehrman is saying that all that is written in the NT (which is the exact stuff you guys are using as examples) was added to, given to, tied to and associated with Jesus decades and decades after Jesus was already dead by writers who were not anywhere near Jesus ever to hear what he did or did not say.
Ehrman is saying that Jesus being a follower of the Torah (which has the clout to Jews as the NT does to Christians) would have adhered to it's teachings.

 

[bullethead]

And the Weatherman always reports how wrong yesterday's forecast was.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

I am not sure what you are eluding to with your statement.

 

[bullethead]

To any and all that have participated in this thread:
How accurate of a story do you think it will likely to be if in 30 to 70 years from now(with no records to use) the Son or Daughter of a person who has lurked on here reading our conversations writes a book about us and those conversations based off of what their lurker Father has told them?
How many details would the author who has never met us get right about our time spent away from this site?
How precise would our quotes be?
What do you place the percentage of accuracy regarding what would be written about what our private PM's contained?
Could that author, or heck lets let a few more authors in on it also, get our exact individual beliefs down thought for thought?
What would the likelihood be that for many of those unknowns that the author(s) may be inclined to add in their own personal best guesses to fill the blanks?
Are such authors capable of spinning a story one way or the other depending upon which person more inspired them?
Is it human nature to tell the story the way they want it told in order to align with their personal beliefs?

Conversely would it be a little more accurate if they knew of our religious affiliation and based their stories off of what we most likely believed based from the general beliefs and teachings of the popular religion of the time period?

 

[bullethead]

Which one of you here could accurately write a story about my life right now? Many of you could write multiple stories about me all with a similar theme regarding our conversations we've had among each other in here but how accurate would one story be from memory let alone including three years of conversations had almost daily at times?
Put that into perspective using 30 years from now, 50 years from now, 70 years from now as starting points by authors who were not part of the conversations at all, who never met me or any one of us. Lets say the new authors have extreme left wing ideals and are wanting to "teach" new readers about us. What spin may be placed on it in order to sway their stories a certain way? Which one of us would they align to fit their beliefs?

I hope you all see the points I am making here.

 

[Spotlite]

The Jews aren't saying that he did all those things in the NT but missed being Messiah by one or two points, he isn't their messiah because the Jews who lived among him, with him, right there when he was supposedly doing these things, didn't take note of anything miraculous or out of the ordinary other than he was a troublemaker and got killed for it.

You are overlooking the fact that NOTHING was written about Jesus until he was dead for at least 30 years, and more was written 70+ years later.
30 years AFTER he was dead someone wrote about his years that you mentioned above. What was written about him "at birth" was written 63 years *AT THE EARLIEST * later!!!
You guys are using THE very writings that are suspect. You are using the book to source the book. You are telling us the equivalent that Sam I Am likes Green Eggs and Ham which yes he does but ONLY within the pages of the book. You are quoting dialog from Saving Private Ryan as if it is historical fact because you saw it on screen. In reality it is a story written 50+ years later that mixes real events in with fictional characters and dialog to tell the story the author wants told which was inspired by his father's time in WWII. Your counter to me saying that is "but in scene 48 when Captain Miller announces what his profession at home was before the war is proof that the story is real because that is what he said in the movie" YEAH! THERE IS ONLY ONE PLACE THAT "HAPPENED" which is within the confines of Spielberg's script and movie. NO different than what you are trying to pass off above by using similar writings in the NT. Which IS why Ehrman and the Jews make great points as to why the Jesus portrayed in the NT is not the same Jesus that was put to death at least 30 to 70 years prior to when the stories were written.

I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.

To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.

I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,

 

[bullethead]

I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.

To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.

I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,

Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.
https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-bible/

Don't you find it odd if not disturbing that the only thing you know about Jesus was written decades after he was dead, nothing...literally NOTHING written about the supposed son of god while he was on the planet for 33 years and especially silent while for three of those years he was being "Jesus"?

 

[bullethead]

I was just saying that I’d like to get to the bottom of Erhman’s conclusion of the “great irony” of what Jesus believed / disbelieved. Everything we know about Jesus is written in the Bible. There’s nothing else out there on him. They make great points but Erhman is telling us what Jesus didn’t believe, and the only thing we know written says differently.

To me it sounds like he has something else he’s using to determine that. For the rest, I am currently researching history.

I’m ok with someone saying most likely, but that isn’t the way it appears in Erhmans end result.,

This is the best analogy I can think of:

You are a Christian, you believe, follow and share what is written in the Bible and especially the New Testament. You were raised by a family who used it, attended religious services that use it, you adhere to its practices and teachings and by all accounts your denomination is Christian.

You die tomorrow.

In 30 years from now would it be accurate for an author to say that you followed the contents of the NT and believed in H&H?
Or
30 years from now would it be accurate for an author who believed in H&H plus an additional after death realm (because that is where a new part of the Christian religion has gone in the 30 years after your death)to say that you followed the contents of the NT, believed in H&H but also believed in the new after death realm as the author does? Especially if the author was trying to recruit new members with his writings..

Which of those two above would be a more accurate description of you given that neither of the two ever met you?

 

[hummerpoo]

Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.

Ehrman uses an empirical approach. Do you think Jesus did the same?

 

[bullethead]

Ehrman uses an empirical approach. Do you think Jesus did the same?

I truly do not know for sure one single thing that an actual Jesus did, thought or said as there is absolutely zero evidence left for us to take into consideration by him personally.

Considering which wouldbe a more likely than not scenario based off of the religion that Jesus practiced at the time he lived, OR the new spin off religion which did not exist when Jesus was alive that centered around Jesus which was first written about decades after he was dead.....
I would say the Ehrman can use direct and indirect observation by following past and current Jewish religion history because he is alive and has the means to research the past and present. He can see what was added after Jesus's death and weigh the options.
On the other hand Jesus indirectly/directly observed the past (through the Torah and teachings) and his present 33 years worth (2,021 to 1,988 years ago) but never saw/knew/observed what direction it took 30+++ years after he was dead.

I can't use what is written about Jesus all those years after his death as accurate evidence of anything regarding Jesus. And neither could he.

Edit to add:
Ehrman and Jesus both have the Torah to use as an example, Ehrman can go one further and use the NT also.

 

[Spotlite]

Ehrman used the Torah which is what Jesus used.
https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-bible/

Don't you find it odd if not disturbing that the only thing you know about Jesus was written decades after he was dead, nothing...literally NOTHING written about the supposed son of god while he was on the planet for 33 years and especially silent while for three of those years he was being "Jesus"?

I guess that’s what I’m looking at but I probably haven’t expressed it clearly, or at least muddied up my attempt at what I’m wanting to say when I question what does Ehrman know that he concludes with what Jesus didn’t believe.

My reasoning for saying that is everything we (including Erhman) do know about Jesus that’s written, is in the New Testament, and according to what’s written Jesus most certainly believed in heaven and the hot place.

 

[hummerpoo]

I truly do not know for sure one single thing that an actual Jesus did, thought or said as there is absolutely zero evidence left for us to take into consideration by him personally.

Considering which wouldbe a more likely than not scenario based off of the religion that Jesus practiced at the time he lived, OR the new spin off religion which did not exist when Jesus was alive that centered around Jesus which was first written about decades after he was dead.....
I would say the Ehrman can use direct and indirect observation by following past and current Jewish religion history because he is alive and has the means to research the past and present. He can see what was added after Jesus's death and weigh the options.
On the other hand Jesus indirectly/directly observed the past (through the Torah and teachings) and his present 33 years worth (2,021 to 1,988 years ago) but never saw/knew/observed what direction it took 30+++ years after he was dead.

I can't use what is written about Jesus all those years after his death as accurate evidence of anything regarding Jesus. And neither could he.

Edit to add:
Ehrman and Jesus both have the Torah to use as an example, Ehrman can go one further and use the NT also.

So the answer to my question is "yes"?

 

[bullethead]

I guess that’s what I’m looking at but I probably haven’t expressed it clearly, or at least muddied up my attempt at what I’m wanting to say when I question what does Ehrman know that he concludes with what Jesus didn’t believe.

My reasoning for saying that is everything we (including Erhman) do know about Jesus that’s written, is in the New Testament, and according to what’s written Jesus most certainly believed in heaven and the hot place.

The difference is that Ehrman realizes and accepts the pitfalls with the authors, dates and contents of the NT where you do not.
None of those Gospels say "according to Jesus " They do say according to someone else and then were not even written by that specific someone else .
Ehrman knows that, accepts that and accounts for that and is why he uses the information available pre-Jesus (which is the same Jesus would use) because there is absolutely nothing available written about Jesus for 33 years of his life nor is there anything written shortly after his death which would give any indication of what Jesus did or did not believe in.
The information you keep wanting to interject into this IS the reason why Ehrman wrote his book about Jesus's beliefs in H&H and that reason is because 30, 40 50 60 70 + years later after Jesus is dead and gone we hear about what Jesus said according to them....not according to Jesus.

 

[bullethead]

So the answer to my question is "yes"?

Yes with an asterisk.
*Jesus had less empirical evidence to go by than Ehrman.

 

[Spotlite]

This is the best analogy I can think of:

You are a Christian, you believe, follow and share what is written in the Bible and especially the New Testament. You were raised by a family who used it, attended religious services that use it, you adhere to its practices and teachings and by all accounts your denomination is Christian.

You die tomorrow.

In 30 years from now would it be accurate for an author to say that you followed the contents of the NT and believed in H&H?
Or
30 years from now would it be accurate for an author who believed in H&H plus an additional after death realm (because that is where a new part of the Christian religion has gone in the 30 years after your death)to say that you followed the contents of the NT, believed in H&H but also believed in the new after death realm as the author does? Especially if the author was trying to recruit new members with his writings..

Which of those two above would be a more accurate description of you given that neither of the two ever met you?

I think for accuracy, I think you almost have to go with what’s written closer to that era of time by people who claimed to have been there as most accurate.

I know more about the unwritten history of my Father............

So if write a book about him in 50 years after his death and some dude 2,000 years later says I’m wrong, which one would be more accurate?