Did the Jews really kill Jesus?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, why is it fair for you to ask about the background and training of others, but you're not so willing to be forthright? Just curious.

Anyone can read a book. I am not asking for someone's expertise/qualifications/day job.

[Cow Poke]

Anyone can read a book. I am not asking for someone's expertise/qualifications/day job.

Cute.

[DesertBerean]

Well to take a line from another contributor I have no first hand experience.

We have never been formally introduced!

More avoidance.

You tend to say "Oh that's just an OPINION!" Here's one opinion to consider. Death is inevitable one way and another. As Christians we have to carry out the Great Commission, striving to convince the world about Jesus NOW because death is too late to decide.

[mikewhitney]

Ha ha. My question was with reference to what reading you had done on the region in that period and what you have read about Roman provincial administration in the early years of the empire.

No reading specifically on the Roman Empire at that time. I know general points about the governance of that time and Jewish conflicts. The most specific one is Shaye Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. It was interesting see your focus of studies -- not too surprising though.

[DesertBerean]

That is entirely Ehrman's prerogative. There is no definitive position on these issues because the sources are very limited. All any historian can do is assess the evidence available and from it come to their own conclusions. Robert Eisenman would disagree with Ehrman on some issues and he is equally as well qualified as Ehrman [if you want to play the "my side is better than yours" game]. Likewise the late Hyam Maccoby held very pronounced opinions on Paul/Saul.

That's cool beans. It's fun tossing around other people's opinions...unfortunately it leaves one unable to conclude what is FACT. It's kinda important to know that. Here's one....we got to eat and drink so we don't die.

[mikewhitney]

More avoidance.

Sorry DB, I started that tone. But it was nice that she responded to your request for the areas of study she focuses on.

You tend to say "Oh that's just an OPINION!" Here's one opinion to consider. Death is inevitable one way and another. As Christians we have to carry out the Great Commission, striving to convince the world about Jesus NOW because death is too late to decide.

Indeed. CP noted he would not discuss stuff unless she is a serious inquirer about this topic toward the end you mention here.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed. CP noted he would not discuss stuff unless she is a serious inquirer about this topic toward the end you mention here.

I'll go further than that, and divulge some of my own background.

I took Greek AND Latin many years ago, along with Church History.
I was a young man, and UNFORTUNATELY, I took those subjects because they were part of my degree program, not because I wanted to learn Greek or Latin or Church History.

UNFORTUNATELY, I studied them to "pass tests" rather than to retain knowledge - I deeply regret that now.
I had an outstanding GPA, and "studied for the tests", and did quite well.
As I recall, I took most of these courses in the summer sessions, because they were shorter and I had to "retain facts" for shorter periods of time.

As my ministry has turned out to be far more "service" and much less "cerebral", I manage quite well without the grasp of the languages and history that many others in my shoes have.
I have staff members - one in particular - who is a master of the languages and church history, and I willingly defer to him for that.
(He seems to think I do quite well with what I know )

So, I really don't get much involved in these kinds of debates.

BUT, yes, I am MUCH more tolerant of "sincere seekers" than anti-Christian bigots - NOT saying that's what our new friend is.

[DesertBerean]

Sorry DB, I started that tone. But it was nice that she responded to your request for the areas of study she focuses on.




Indeed. CP noted he would not discuss stuff unless she is a serious inquirer about this topic toward the end you mention here.

No apologies needed, neighbor. I just wanted to cut to the chase.

[mikewhitney]

I'll go further than that, and divulge some of my own background.

I took Greek AND Latin many years ago, along with Church History.
I was a young man, and UNFORTUNATELY, I took those subjects because they were part of my degree program, not because I wanted to learn Greek or Latin or Church History.

UNFORTUNATELY, I studied them to "pass tests" rather than to retain knowledge - I deeply regret that now.
I had an outstanding GPA, and "studied for the tests", and did quite well.
As I recall, I took most of these courses in the summer sessions, because they were shorter and I had to "retain facts" for shorter periods of time.

As my ministry has turned out to be far more "service" and much less "cerebral", I manage quite well without the grasp of the languages and history that many others in my shoes have.
I have staff members - one in particular - who is a master of the languages and church history, and I willingly defer to him for that.
(He seems to think I do quite well with what I know )

So, I really don't get much involved in these kinds of debates.

BUT, yes, I am MUCH more tolerant of "sincere seekers" than anti-Christian bigots - NOT saying that's what our new friend is.

you are wiser than I.

[rogue06]

That's cute trite.

FIFY n/c

[JonathanL]

That is entirely Ehrman's prerogative. There is no definitive position on these issues because the sources are very limited. All any historian can do is assess the evidence available and from it come to their own conclusions. Robert Eisenman would disagree with Ehrman on some issues and he is equally as well qualified as Ehrman [if you want to play the "my side is better than yours" game]. Likewise the late Hyam Maccoby held very pronounced opinions on Paul/Saul.

As far as I can tell Eisenman's view on Paul is decidedly in the minority, and for good reasons. IMO the way he reasons in order to come to the conclusions he does is straight up conspiratorial and seriously strained.

[DesertBerean]

As far as I can tell Eisenman's view on Paul is decidedly in the minority, and for good reasons. IMO the way he reasons in order to come to the conclusions he does is straight up conspiratorial and seriously strained.

From what I've read he does consider Paul Jewish. Am I mistaken?

*****erg. Never mind, I misread that to mean Erhman, not Eisenman. *****

[rogue06]

More avoidance.

Speaking of which:

While he may not use the word "Jew" to describe himself, in Galatians (which I'll assume you accept is an example of "authentic writings" of Paul, he does say at 1:13

"For you have heard of my former life in Judaism"

How else would you take that but as his being Jewish? While he was now a Christian and no longer lived "in Judaism" he was still Jewish.

And in the very next verse he notes that he

"was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers."

Kinda hard to do if you weren't yourself Jewish, don't ya think?

Moreover, if Paul wasn't Jewish then why in the world would he have been so driven to hunt down and persecute early Christians for what he saw as violating Jewish law? Galatians 1:13-14 were in reference to this activity

Scripture Verse: Gal. 1:13

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers

© Copyright Original Source

He reaffirms this in Philippians 3:6 (another epistle everyone pretty much agrees is an "authentic writing" of Paul's) where he says while describing himself

"as to zeal, a persecutor of the church"

[JonathanL]

From what I've read he does consider Paul Jewish. Am I mistaken?

*****erg. Never mind, I misread that to mean Erhman, not Eisenman. *****

Eisenman is the person who draws connections between Paul and the Idumeans and Herodians, by taking circumstantial data and blowing it way out of proportion. Almost exactly in the same way adherents of conspiracy theories tend to latch on to the most minute and irrelevant details and make way too much of a deal out of them.

[rogue06]

Eisenman is the person who draws connections between Paul and the Idumeans and Herodians, by taking circumstantial data and blowing it way out of proportion. Almost exactly in the same way adherents of conspiracy theories tend to latch on to the most minute and irrelevant details and make way too much of a deal out of them.

Isn't he the guy who bases that conclusion on Paul's calling someone named Herodion his "kinsman" in Romans?