Bart Ehrman on the existence of Christ

There are two [different] nativity stories in the Bible. They serve two distinct purposes. The messiah was supposed to be a king. The messiah was supposed to ght a battle to free the Jews from their oppressors. The messiah was supposed to usher in the kingdom of God. Jesus was just a teacher and a rebel who was executed as a political criminal of the Empire. So, can you imagine how some Jews might take offence when you run around proclaiming that he was the messiah? Mostly non-Jews, who had no idea what a messiah was supposed to be. Again, he was supposed to be the messiah; Jews following him around at the time believed he was the great king descendant of David. If they were going to make up anything, the last thing they would make up would be his execution by the one force that he was ultimately supposed to destroy. That was all made up after, by people who could not accept that the man they had followed as king was not much of a king afterall. There was nothing that would have made Jews expect Jesus (if he were the messiah) to be executed. When he was executed, some folks said "nope, just another in a long line of false claimants"; others said "there must be an explanation". The earliest Christian writings show that they had not made it up before hand; they say nothing about dying for sins. Yes. Click here. Note:

quote:

---

Crucified Man:

​

An ossuary bearing the name "Yehochanan" contained the full skeleton of a man crucified in the first century and buried with a bent crucifixion nail through his heel bone. It is the only physical evidence of crucifixion ever discovered.

---

Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Yep. It would be easier to convince people who had no idea what a messiah was than to convince people who knew damn-well that the messiah was not supposed to be executed by the enemy. Edited by Jon, : added the yes

Read Message 5The earliest Christian writings make no mention of Jesus being executed for the sake of all mankind. The theology only crops up as Paul tries, tirelessly, to explain away the questions and problems of the various Christian communities to which he is writing. And?Jon

Yep. And?

But Paul didn't become a Christian till well after Jesus was executed. Not all Paul's letters present the same notion of Jesus. But Paul didn't become a Christian till well after Jesus was executed. Tell me, which of Paul's rst writings do you see as being evidence that Jesus' death was believed to be an "atonement sacrice"? Not really what I am trying to say at all, no. By the way, when did John get dropped from the canon? There's not much to suggest that, in Paul's original theology, he cared much at all about the life of Jesus. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove though”still. What exactly is this evidence supposed to show?I think you'll have to start providing some references in support of all your claims.Jon

Your opinion's wrong. Or better yet, let's actually start with his rst writings... and then take it from there. Likely 'spiritualised' and 'mythied' before Paul was converted. Nah... I think his contention is rather well-founded.JonEdited by Jon, : Spelgn

Crucixion is what the Romans did to rebels”political criminals.
Gentiles know this.
If trying to get Gentiles to follow a particular religious leader, mentioning that he was executed as a political criminal of the Empire is crazy."Hey, let's say he was crucied" isn't a conclusion anyone would come to if they were trying to get converts”Jewish or Gentile”when there had never been a crucixion. There are so many ways to embellish the death of a religious leader; execution as political criminal is so unlikely to be one of them.I think you are too set in the modern Christian theology of there being some 'higher reason' for the death of Jesus. You need to imagine yourself as a follower of Jesus. Like any person, he died. Now, trying to get converts, what ferry-tale will you tell them about this Son of God? No one's claiming this cult ever attracted a lot of Gentiles, either.Jon

According to 'the story': part of the death includes the resurrection. Part of the resurrection includes Jesus' orders to spread the word. Christianity has always been a missionary-based religion.That is where your argument fails.

We've been placing some, perhaps undue, weight on the nature of conversion. One thing that I think we should also be reminded of is that the Jesus' followers were originally Jews. They had a preconceived idea as to what the Messiah was supposed to be, which was a king born from the line of David that was to overthrow the oppressors of the Jews (Roman Empire at the time), and usher in the kingdom of God.If that is your belief as to what a messiah is, then what would cause you to switch it all around, so abruptly, so suddenly, so that now a messiah is a king born from the line of David [an ordinary man that must rst be executed by the enemies of the Jews before being resurrected and taken up into heaven in order to return later] to overthrow the oppressors of the Jews (Roman Empire at the time), and usher in the kingdom of God?Something happened to cause these folks to change their denition of messiah. Looking at those denitions, what would you suppose it to have been?

Great. All completely irrelevant, though.

Read what I post, please, it will benet you.EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT EXPLAIN JESUS' CRUCIFIXION AS BEING A SACRIFICE/DESIRE TO BENEFIT ALL MANKINDAlso; Paul was only ONE of the Christians out there. There's evidence in his writing that the main core of Christians”direct followers of Jesus”likely thought he was nuts, and even moreso, probably thought he was completely wrong in most everything he said.There would have been others who developed beliefs similar to Paul, but there were some who did not. Some thought that his death was merely in order that he could be resurrected, thus demonstrating to have high standing with God. So, not all Christians agreed on the same meaning for the crucixion, but they ALL agreed that it happened.If it were the reasons that had begotten the story, then you would expect different groups to form different stories. Some might say, "the Messiah was supposed to die for sins"... "oh, let's say he did die... by crucixion." Or, "the Messiah was supposed to ght off the Romans..." "let's say he died in a struggle as a martyr"... etc.Instead, we see them with the same story, which likely indicates that it was different groups nding different meaning for the same story.For the large body of Christian converts later on, it may have been easier for people such as them to understand Jesus in those terms: the man who sacriced himself for all humanity as opposed to the king who didn't end up being much of a king. Especially, since it wasn't obvious that he actually was coming back from heaven any time soon.JonBy the way: did you not want to look at Paul's rst letters then?