Did Jesus Exist?

June 21, 2016

Thanks, qadeshet, interesting on the Esther story.

I never knew that Hamantaschen represent twats!

June 21, 2016

Thanks, qadeshet, interesting on the Esther story.

I never knew that Hamantaschen represent twats!

I'm afraid that we're going to have to add another disipline if we're going to get anywhere, Comparative Religion. Really, it all starts in Sumer and Babylon.

Christianity has retold the ancient Myths. "All roads lead to Rome"? Wrong, all roads lead to Sumer.

June 21, 2016

And after Comparative Religion, then what? Yeah, you knew that that wasn't all right? For those of you who just want our help with Deconversion, this should help you too. This will innoculate you against all Religious nonsense.

Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth".

The book

The Video

Why? Because all Religions are exploring the Human Unconscious.

June 21, 2016

Ep. 1: Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth — ‘The Hero’s Adventure’

TRANSCRIPT

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god. And where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves. And where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence. And where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.

Contra Celsum; Chap X

In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the multitude, we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons, who are unable to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to an examination of arguments; and our opponents, although they do not acknowledge it, yet practically do the same. For who is there that, on betaking himself to the study of philosophy, and throwing himself into the ranks of some sect, either by chance, or because he is provided with a teacher of that school, adopts such a course for any other reason, except that he believes his particular sect to be superior to any other?

Should we really teach men to believe without Reason? I don't think so.

Chap XI

Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or Barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all things, and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and that other things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship and reverence? And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but who contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of careful investigation.

I don't think that Origin understood Reason very well.

CHAP. XII.

In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived," etc.

Sounds like a fair request.

Has everyone seen the SF classic, Forbiden Planet? The Hero is Mobius, the explorer of the Id, where monsters dwell. It did not end well for him. Commander Adams(played by Leslie Nielsen) was clueless, but at least he got the girl.

June 21, 2016

As noted, the "general scholarly consensus" is that The Book of Daniel was 100% fictional, right down to the title character. This consensus is significant because it demonstrates two very important observations about Biblical authors: 1. They were capable of writing fiction, and 2. They were capable of writing fiction embedded with historical names, events, and real locations in order to make their fiction seem plausible and believable. Such an approach makes it very difficult for readers outside of the author's milieu to prove that the book isn't historical in some sense, especially if the author is anonymous, and the reader is hundreds or thousands of years removed from the author's milieu.

But perhaps The Book of Daniel was an outlier.

The Book of Judith was considered canonical in the West and was included in the Bible that the early Christians read (The Septuagint, not the Takakh). Is Judith historical? To answer this question, I consulted Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Carey A. Moore (Anchor Bible Series 40, 1985), which is the major modern commentary and analysis of this book.

"The book purports to be a historical account. Moreover, it has all the outward trappings of one, including various kinds of dates, numerous names of well-known persons and places, a most of all, a quite believable plot. Typical of genuine historical accounts, Judith includes a number of quite specific dates, and exact periods of time ... then, too, like many genuine historical accounts, Judith features a number of individuals whose names were those of well-known Gentiles ... Judith herself claims for herself the longest genealogy of any woman in the Bible ...

However:

"Since Martin Luther, who viewed Judith as a poem and an allegorical passion play, scholars have noted the book's shocking carelessness with well-established historical and geographical facts ..."

"Recently (and rightly) there has been a gradual shift toward a greater appreciation of chaps 1-7, especially as scholars view Judith more as a literary tale rather than a historical novel ..."

"Once scholars stopped regarding Judith as a purely historical account, they started looking for a more accurate characterization of its literary genre ... to say that the book is a fictional account where historical and geographical details serve a literary purpose, while somewhat helpful, is not precise enough. In other words, exactly what kind of fiction is it?"

So despite having all the "outward trappings" of a historical account, including a "quite believable" plot, Bible scholars have come around to admitting that The Book of Judith is "a literary tale," i.e. fiction. Judith never existed, and never did the things ascribed to her in the book. The only question left for the Bible scholar to ask is, "What kind of fiction is it?" A question that cannot ever be asked about the Gospels, despite the Gospels having every single point in common with the Book of Judith.

"...most scholars of the last one hundred years have agreed that the author of Judith was concerned more with theology than with history and that he did not intend that his account be taken as describing actual events ..."

The author of Judith, like the authors of the Gospels, was "concerned more with theology than with history," and did not intend for his book to be taken literally. Such a preoccupation is yet another strike against the book's historicity, but the same preoccupation when used by the Gospel writers is not a strike against their historicity.

Anyone keeping track of all the double standards being applied here?

"By skillfully combining the seemingly incompatible (literary) motifs of the Faithful Wife/Widow and the Female Warrior, the author fashioned a heroine who looms larger than life."

Like Jesus, Judith, through skillful literary motifs, is made to appear "larger than life," but unlike Jesus, such a powerful portrayal cannot be used to establish historicity. In fact, the portrayal betrays its literary artificiality. You will note that the exact opposite case is typically made for Jesus: because his character is portrayed so vividly, the most natural inference to be drawn is that he was a real person.

To summarize, The Book of Judith is, like The Book of Daniel, 100% fictional, despite the author making every possible effort to make it appear historical. The consensus of modern Bible scholars is that these books' purposes were "more theological than historical," and in the case of Judith, was never intended by the author to be taken literally. The reader was supposed to simply know that when he included actual historical figures, events, dates, and places, that he was simply using these as plot devices in an otherwise fictional tale about a nonexistent heroine.

So why can't the reader simply "know" the same thing about the Gospels and the historical Jesus, since virtually everything this scholar says about Judith can also be said about Jesus?

June 21, 2016

Thanks, mwc. As I said before, I don't "work on" this stuff, but from what I've read, I understand that the Criteria have come under very heavy fire from other biblical scholars in the last decade or two. That's because the gospels are propaganda. So it is only assumptions on our part about what would or would not be taken as "embarrassing" to the propangandists. And so on.

Still, I can't make a strong alternative hypothesis. The "mythicist" case is made much better by others - our friend Blood, for example!

To clarify my motives, I'm not trying to make a "mythicist case." What I'm interested in is: first, distinguishing theology from history (and the concomitant distinction between professional theologians and historians); second, eliminating any cultural or regional biases from the study of history and/or religion (where and why exactly is it acceptable to question the existence of major religious figures?); third, asking how to resolve questions of whether certain purported historical figures became mythologized, or if purported mythological figures became historicized (not just Jesus but Romulus, Coriolanus, Socrates, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, Johnny Appleseed, and John Henry all apply here); and fourth, and most importantly, what is the literary genre and function of not just the Gospels, but all the books of the Bible?

June 21, 2016

I'll have to give this thread a more thorough read later on, but I must say, Blood, that your knowledge of Scripture and exegesis is pretty damn impressive. Fascinating stuff!

June 21, 2016

Thanks RJ. I actually don't know anything, I just quote scholars who do.

June 22, 2016

third, asking how to resolve questions of whether certain purported historical figures became mythologized, or if purported mythological figures became historicized (not just Jesus but Romulus, Coriolanus, Socrates, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, Johnny Appleseed, and John Henry all apply here); and fourth, and most importantly, what is the literary genre and function of not just the Gospels, but all the books of the Bible?

I actually publish an occasional piece about the historical Socrates. No one has seen through the racket yet, bwa ha ha!

With Socrates, we have hostile and contemporary witnesses. That goes a long way toward establishing historicity of the man, though we may not be able to pinpoint his "philosophy."

We don't have such in the case of Jesus. There are no contemporary witnesses, and I believe the earliest "hostile" witnesses are effects of the text of the narrative of the gospels themselves, i.e "the Jews" or whoever.

June 22, 2016

What about the Book of Job? Surely there's some oral history behind this book, right?

I have a copy of Job: The Anchor Bible Commentary by Marvin H. Pope (1965, 1973). Let's see what he says.

"A good deal of the considerable discussion of the literary form of the Book of Job has been unprofitable. The naive view that it represents sober history need not be taken seriously, but it may very well be that there was a historical personage behind the story. Rabbi Simeon ben-Laqish opined that Job never existed and that the story is simply a poetic composition or parable."

Anyone who thinks Job is historical "need not be taken seriously," even though it presents itself as a historical account.

So Job is also 100% fictional, and Rabbis and Bible scholars can freely admit, if they want, that the titular character never existed.

Thus, according to Bible scholars:

Daniel: 100% fiction about a mythical person

Judith: 100% fiction about a mythical person

Job: 100% fiction about a person who "may very well" have existed, but is probably also a mythical person

Now, what is noteworthy about this for the purpose of this thread is the way that today's Bible scholars write about and analyze these books. They quite freely and openly express their skepticism about the existence of the main character, something they never do with Jesus. Acknowledging that the author is more concerned with theology than history is a strike against the author's credibility and purpose, a conclusion they never reach with the gospel writers. A fully realized depiction of the main character is proof of the artificiality of the book's literary character, the exact opposite of what they say about the gospels. A mention in Josephus of these characters is not used as evidence for their actual existence, while the "Testimonium Flavianum" is constantly used to buttress a "historical Jesus."

Why the glaring double standard? Simple: Jesus is a sacred cow; Daniel, Judith, and Job are not. The latter books can be honestly appraised and found wanting; the gospels cannot. It is not a permissible thought. Applying the same analyses to the gospels that the scholars I've mentioned applied to other books in the Bible would be even more devastating to the historicity and credibility of the gospels.

June 22, 2016

As noted, the "general scholarly consensus" is that The Book of Daniel was 100% fictional, right down to the title character. This consensus is significant because it demonstrates two very important observations about Biblical authors: 1. They were capable of writing fiction, and 2. They were capable of writing fiction embedded with historical names, events, and real locations in order to make their fiction seem plausible and believable. Such an approach makes it very difficult for readers outside of the author's milieu to prove that the book isn't historical in some sense, especially if the author is anonymous, and the reader is hundreds or thousands of years removed from the author's milieu.

But perhaps The Book of Daniel was an outlier.

The Book of Judith was considered canonical in the West and was included in the Bible that the early Christians read (The Septuagint, not the Takakh). Is Judith historical? To answer this question, I consulted Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Carey A. Moore (Anchor Bible Series 40, 1985), which is the major modern commentary and analysis of this book.

"The book purports to be a historical account. Moreover, it has all the outward trappings of one, including various kinds of dates, numerous names of well-known persons and places, a most of all, a quite believable plot. Typical of genuine historical accounts, Judith includes a number of quite specific dates, and exact periods of time ... then, too, like many genuine historical accounts, Judith features a number of individuals whose names were those of well-known Gentiles ... Judith herself claims for herself the longest genealogy of any woman in the Bible ...

However:

"Since Martin Luther, who viewed Judith as a poem and an allegorical passion play, scholars have noted the book's shocking carelessness with well-established historical and geographical facts ..."

"Recently (and rightly) there has been a gradual shift toward a greater appreciation of chaps 1-7, especially as scholars view Judith more as a literary tale rather than a historical novel ..."

"Once scholars stopped regarding Judith as a purely historical account, they started looking for a more accurate characterization of its literary genre ... to say that the book is a fictional account where historical and geographical details serve a literary purpose, while somewhat helpful, is not precise enough. In other words, exactly what kind of fiction is it?"

So despite having all the "outward trappings" of a historical account, including a "quite believable" plot, Bible scholars have come around to admitting that The Book of Judith is "a literary tale," i.e. fiction. Judith never existed, and never did the things ascribed to her in the book. The only question left for the Bible scholar to ask is, "What kind of fiction is it?" A question that cannot ever be asked about the Gospels, despite the Gospels having every single point in common with the Book of Judith.

"...most scholars of the last one hundred years have agreed that the author of Judith was concerned more with theology than with history and that he did not intend that his account be taken as describing actual events ..."

The author of Judith, like the authors of the Gospels, was "concerned more with theology than with history," and did not intend for his book to be taken literally. Such a preoccupation is yet another strike against the book's historicity, but the same preoccupation when used by the Gospel writers is not a strike against their historicity.

Anyone keeping track of all the double standards being applied here?

"By skillfully combining the seemingly incompatible (literary) motifs of the Faithful Wife/Widow and the Female Warrior, the author fashioned a heroine who looms larger than life."

Like Jesus, Judith, through skillful literary motifs, is made to appear "larger than life," but unlike Jesus, such a powerful portrayal cannot be used to establish historicity. In fact, the portrayal betrays its literary artificiality. You will note that the exact opposite case is typically made for Jesus: because his character is portrayed so vividly, the most natural inference to be drawn is that he was a real person.

To summarize, The Book of Judith is, like The Book of Daniel, 100% fictional, despite the author making every possible effort to make it appear historical. The consensus of modern Bible scholars is that these books' purposes were "more theological than historical," and in the case of Judith, was never intended by the author to be taken literally. The reader was supposed to simply know that when he included actual historical figures, events, dates, and places, that he was simply using these as plot devices in an otherwise fictional tale about a nonexistent heroine.

So why can't the reader simply "know" the same thing about the Gospels and the historical Jesus, since virtually everything this scholar says about Judith can also be said about Jesus?

Really great post. Remember, Dr Thompson casued a paradigm shift in OT studies. If NT Scholars ever catch up, it won't be in our lifetimes. Dr Ehrman is our best shot.

June 22, 2016

Thanks, mwc. As I said before, I don't "work on" this stuff, but from what I've read, I understand that the Criteria have come under very heavy fire from other biblical scholars in the last decade or two. That's because the gospels are propaganda. So it is only assumptions on our part about what would or would not be taken as "embarrassing" to the propangandists. And so on.

Still, I can't make a strong alternative hypothesis. The "mythicist" case is made much better by others - our friend Blood, for example!

To clarify my motives, I'm not trying to make a "mythicist case." What I'm interested in is: first, distinguishing theology from history (and the concomitant distinction between professional theologians and historians); second, eliminating any cultural or regional biases from the study of history and/or religion (where and why exactly is it acceptable to question the existence of major religious figures?); third, asking how to resolve questions of whether certain purported historical figures became mythologized, or if purported mythological figures became historicized (not just Jesus but Romulus, Coriolanus, Socrates, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, Johnny Appleseed, and John Henry all apply here); and fourth, and most importantly, what is the literary genre and function of not just the Gospels, but all the books of the Bible?

The Literary Genre of The Bible Bible, Koran, and all the rest, should be labeled, I submit, as Myth. That means that "Jesus of Nazareth" ii no more "real" than Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter. This is Literature. Rhett Butler's Tara never existed, but Atlanta does. Atlantis served the same purpose for Plato. Atlantis was an allegory for the destruction of the island civilization of Thera, neighbor of Crete, and also the inspiration for the Exodus. We need to distinguish between between Jesus and "Jesus of Nazareth". "Jesus of Nazareth" is a literary creation.

June 22, 2016

I'll have to give this thread a more thorough read later on, but I must say, Blood, that your knowledge of Scripture and exegesis is pretty damn impressive. Fascinating stuff!

Agreed. Thanks again, Blood.

June 22, 2016

Thanks RJ. I actually don't know anything, I just quote scholars who do.

Even so, most of us don't share this understanding.

June 22, 2016

third, asking how to resolve questions of whether certain purported historical figures became mythologized, or if purported mythological figures became historicized (not just Jesus but Romulus, Coriolanus, Socrates, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, Johnny Appleseed, and John Henry all apply here); and fourth, and most importantly, what is the literary genre and function of not just the Gospels, but all the books of the Bible?

I actually publish an occasional piece about the historical Socrates. No one has seen through the racket yet, bwa ha ha!

With Socrates, we have hostile and contemporary witnesses. That goes a long way toward establishing historicity of the man, though we may not be able to pinpoint his "philosophy."

We don't have such in the case of Jesus. There are no contemporary witnesses, and I believe the earliest "hostile" witnesses are effects of the text of the narrative of the gospels themselves, i.e "the Jews" or whoever.

Ficino, can we access any of your material online? I would like to read it.

June 22, 2016

What about the Book of Job? Surely there's some oral history behind this book, right?

I have a copy of Job: The Anchor Bible Commentary by Marvin H. Pope (1965, 1973). Let's see what he says.

"A good deal of the considerable discussion of the literary form of the Book of Job has been unprofitable. The naive view that it represents sober history need not be taken seriously, but it may very well be that there was a historical personage behind the story. Rabbi Simeon ben-Laqish opined that Job never existed and that the story is simply a poetic composition or parable."

Anyone who thinks Job is historical "need not be taken seriously," even though it presents itself as a historical account.

So Job is also 100% fictional, and Rabbis and Bible scholars can freely admit, if they want, that the titular character never existed.

Thus, according to Bible scholars:

Daniel: 100% fiction about a mythical person

Judith: 100% fiction about a mythical person

Job: 100% fiction about a person who "may very well" have existed, but is probably also a mythical person

Now, what is noteworthy about this for the purpose of this thread is the way that today's Bible scholars write about and analyze these books. They quite freely and openly express their skepticism about the existence of the main character, something they never do with Jesus. Acknowledging that the author is more concerned with theology than history is a strike against the author's credibility and purpose, a conclusion they never reach with the gospel writers. A fully realized depiction of the main character is proof of the artificiality of the book's literary character, the exact opposite of what they say about the gospels. A mention in Josephus of these characters is not used as evidence for their actual existence, while the "Tetimonium Flavianum" is constantly used to buttress a "historical Jesus."

Why the glaring double standard? Simple: Jesus is a sacred cow; Daniel, Judith, and Job are not. They latter books can be honestly appraised and found wanting; the gospels cannot. It is not a permissible thought. Applying the same analyses to the gospels that the scholars I've mentioned applied to other books in the Bible would be even more devastating to the historicity and credibility of the gospels.

Bible Scholars are, first and foremost, fierce defenders of Christianity, not unbiased Truth Seekers. If Dr Ehrman ever crossed that "line in the sand" and admit that the Historical Jesus might possibly never evisted, then he might as well run for the jungle.

June 22, 2016

YouTube Video

exerpt: "The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist -- not literary, not archaeological, and..."

The Lost City

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

So, what is the first mention of Nazareth outside the Christian documents themselves? After Christianity had already been declared the official Religion of the Roman Empire.

The Lost City

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios' (see below). More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.

The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'

– Gospel of Philip, 47.

Shouldn't we at least show the existence of Nazareth before we claim that "Jesus of Nazareth' certainly existed? Should we ask Bible Scholars?

Contra Celsum Book 1-CHAP. XII.

And what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant among the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians; among whom there are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the learned among them, but understood in a symbolical sense by the more superficial of the multitude. And the same remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who have a literature and a mythology.

Yes, the ancient Mysteries do matter. In the Mysteries, there were 3 Stages, or Degrees, of Initiation.

1. The Outer Courtyard

Here, Initiates were taught the literal interpretation of the Mythic Cycle.

2. The Inner Courtyard

Now, Initiates were taught the Mythical understanding.

3. The inner Sanctuary

Ask Joseph Campbell.

June 23, 2016

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

Really. these are statements I have have problems with:

"'Jesus of Nazareth' certainly existed."

"You must respect the Authority of Bible Scholars!"

"Christianity isn't really all that bad."

'You must respect the Beliefs of Christians!"

I do not respect the Authority of the Bible Scholars' consensus.

The 75% consensus of Bible Scholars is that the Resurrection is either all or partly true!

I would like to see Religion, which been a bane to Mankind, replaced by Philosophy.

Go Philosophy! Go Plato!

Sufis, Cabalists, Qaballalists, Cabalists, Gnostics, and others easily converse, because they know that only the outward shells of their Religions are different, but the inward Myths are virtually the same. We are all exploring the same Unconsious..Here They Be Monsters!

Here it is!

Muhammad and the Winged Horse.

According to Islam, the Night Journey took place ten years after Muhammad became a prophet, during the 7th century. Muhammad had been in his home city of Mecca, at his cousin's home (the house of Ummu Hani' binti Abu Talib). Afterwards, Prophet Muhammad went to the Masjid al-Haram. While he was resting at the Kaaba, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) appeared to him followed by Buraq. Muhammad mounted Buraq, and in the company of Gabriel, they traveled to the "farthest mosque". The location of this mosque was not explicitly stated but is generally accepted to mean Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem.^{[by whom?]} At this location, he dismounted from Buraq, prayed, and mounted Buraq, who took him to the various heavens, to meet first the earlier prophets and then God (Allah). God instructed Muhammad to tell his followers that they were to offer prayers fifty times a day. At the urging of Moses (Musa), Muhammad returns to God and eventually reduces it to ten times, and then five times a day as this was the destiny of Muhammad and his people. Buraq then transported Muhammad back to Mecca.^[4]

Who else do we know that had a Winged Horse? All Religions are Mythical!

The question: Did Jesus Exist? Perhaps I should have phrased it differently? Remember, more details lessens the Probability.

1. Did some fellow, who may or may not have been named Jesus, who might have preached the coming Apocalypse, had some followers, died, and stayed dead?

Discussion over.

2. "Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to."

Here we have room for discussion! I don't have much problem with friend TrueScotsman's statment. But this is more specific, and begs the question. For example, why should we assume that Paul was even talking about Peter. Paul only mentions Cephas.