Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious loon?

[SometimesFactsAreUnpopular]

Of course he was. If he existed.

It's not obvious, and there is no "of course" about it, from the Christian POV but it's obvious to literally everybody else. Even foolish theists from other religions who fail to recognize the nonsensicality and nutcaseness of their own religious leaders still manage to recognize that Jesus was a loon.

[Vicki Q]

The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"! The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition

Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!

Yes- I've read that book and other writings by Ehrman, and I thoroughly agree with the recommendation.
Note that he did say:

Despite its wide-ranging differences from the Synoptics, the Gospel of John clearly belongs in the same Greco-Roman genre. It too would be perceived by an ancient reader as a biography of a religious leader: it is a prose narrative that portrays an individual’s life within a chronological framework, focusing on his inspired teachings and miraculous deeds and leading up to his death and divine vindication. (Ehrman, 2004, p. 155)

---

Still there is not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching. In fact, in Romans 15:3-4 Paul all but tells us there are no stories about Jesus to draw upon – nothing but what we read about in the Jewish scriptures.

But then again it seems that Paul wrote those scriptures by looking at "secret" messages in the old Jewish writings and thus Paul himself invented Jesus(?)

Galatians 1:11-12   I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-16  But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Some left field interpretations of Paul here.

Romans 15:3-4
3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Not sure how v3 supports your case and v4 simply means that the Kingdom of God was promised in the OT, and now that God has delivered, the (much under pressure) Early Church should look to the future for hope and encourage .

Gal 1:11-12 Simply refers to Paul's conversion on the Damascus road, emphasising it was direct from Jesus rather than evangelism. Gal 1:15-16 He mentions his immediate response, yes, but read on to Gal 1:18 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. So he got directly from Peter what Jesus said.

As for Paul not mentioning Jesus sayings, start with- 1 Cor 7:10-11 (cf e.g. Mark 10:11-12, Matt 5:32 note Paul differentiates his teaching from the teaching of Jesus), 1 Cor 9:14 (cf Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7), 1 Cor 11:23-26 (last supper).

Also note that Paul can mention sayings of Jesus, expect the Corinthians to recognise them and regard them as normative, can appeal to precise teaching Paul received after his conversion and imparted to the Corinthians after theirs (1 Cor 11:23, 15:3); all this argues for a fund of material from and about Jesus circulating amongst Gen1 Pauline churches.

[Fake Messiah]

So he got directly from Peter what Jesus said.

If Cephas is Peter, but it was some other guy that gospel writers turned into Peter.

I had this conversation many times on this forum, you can look up topic "First century void"

note Paul differentiates his teaching from the teaching of Jesus),

Sure, Paul's teachings are different if not opposite than Jesus's, that's why some Christians consider Paul to be the antichrist.

1 Cor 9:14 (cf Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7), 1 Cor 11:23-26 (last supper).

The first thing to notice is how Paul claims to know this information: he says he received it “from the Lord,” not from anyone who was actually there. Then we go back to Galatians 1. 11-12.

So why did Paul have to tell his flock as though he was the only one who knew this story?
Paul’s Lord’s Supper does not look like a historical account of a “last supper” (a term he never uses), but a celestial vision of ritual instructions from his Lord, directed to future generations and not to any disciples at dinner.

[Jehanne]

The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"! The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition

Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!

Yes- I've read that book and other writings by Ehrman, and I thoroughly agree with the recommendation.
Note that he did say:

Despite its wide-ranging differences from the Synoptics, the Gospel of John clearly belongs in the same Greco-Roman genre. It too would be perceived by an ancient reader as a biography of a religious leader: it is a prose narrative that portrays an individual’s life within a chronological framework, focusing on his inspired teachings and miraculous deeds and leading up to his death and divine vindication. (Ehrman, 2004, p. 155)

---

The Jesus Seminar coded the entire Gospel of John as being black, indicating that not a single phrase as recorded in that Gospel was spoken by the historical Jesus.  Do you agree with their conclusions?  If so, how can John be an "ancient biography" of Jesus if it did not record anything that he said??

P.S.  I think that you are quote-mining from Professor Ehrman.

[Vicki Q]

The Jesus Seminar coded the entire Gospel of John as being black, indicating that not a single phrase as recorded in that Gospel was spoken by the historical Jesus.  Do you agree with their conclusions?  If so, how can John be an "ancient biography" of Jesus if it did not record anything that he said??

No, I don't agree with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. They are representative only of one radical strand of thinking within academia, and did their work mostly last century. Their methodologies are highly questionable. The widely available criticisms of their methods are multiple and deep.

(also see below)

P.S. I think that you are quote-mining from Professor Ehrman.

How am I quote-mining? I mean, what is the context which means it doesn't mean what it seems to mean?

---

If Cephas is Peter, but it was some other guy that gospel writers turned into Peter.

We all have our opinions, and that is good. Cephas is Peter, that's a given in academia.  Similar to earlier in the thread, the reader can choose whether to agree with the consensus of the large number of experts in their field (who individually know more about this stuff than the sum total of all of us on the forum), or to agree with some bloke on an internet thread.

Sure, Paul's teachings are different if not opposite than Jesus's, that's why some Christians consider Paul to be the antichrist.

Paul's teachings are fully in line with Jesus's.

I'm sure these people exist, and no doubt you have links, but I've yet to come across any of them in any way. They're hardly mainstream or even tiny tributary.

The first thing to notice is how Paul claims to know this information: he says he received it “from the Lord,” not from anyone who was actually there. Then we go back to Galatians 1. 11-12.

So why did Paul have to tell his flock as though he was the only one who knew this story?
Paul’s Lord’s Supper does not look like a historical account of a “last supper” (a term he never uses), but a celestial vision of ritual instructions from his Lord, directed to future generations and not to any disciples at dinner.

Received from the Lord in Gal 1:11-12 simply refers to Paul's conversion on the Damascus road, emphasising it was direct from Jesus rather than evangelism.

The word in Greek is parelabon which has the meaning of handing on a tradition. Paul is dealing with misuse of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, and is reminding his readers that it has a meaning and purpose, which was given by Jesus Himself and passed on through the Early Church. Thus he's saying, 'This institution was started by Jesus, and I told it to you just as it was told to me'. 

The theology of that meal, later given the name Last Supper, is rich and deep, and very different to your portrayal. The actual historicity is confirmed by the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of coherence. Indeed Wikipedia states about the last supper “Jesus having a final meal with his disciples is almost* beyond dispute among scholars, and belongs to the framework of the narrative of Jesus's life”.

In fact it's a good example of how history was preserved, despite going through minor mutations in retelling. We may not have the Jesus-cam exact words, but we do have a very clear image of what happened.



(*The 'almost' bit being some Jesus Seminar members, of course, and this merely illustrates their slot towards the end of the spectrum. See above)

[The Grand Nudger]

Do the large number of experts in the field that you're referring to also think that the zombie apocalypse must have happened?

[Abaddon_ire]

The Jesus Seminar coded the entire Gospel of John as being black, indicating that not a single phrase as recorded in that Gospel was spoken by the historical Jesus.  Do you agree with their conclusions?  If so, how can John be an "ancient biography" of Jesus if it did not record anything that he said??

No, I don't agree with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. They are representative only of one radical strand of thinking within academia, and did their work mostly last century. Their methodologies are highly questionable. The widely available criticisms of their methods are multiple and deep.

(also see below)

P.S. I think that you are quote-mining from Professor Ehrman.

How am I quote-mining? I mean, what is the context which means it doesn't mean what it seems to mean?

---

If Cephas is Peter, but it was some other guy that gospel writers turned into Peter.

We all have our opinions, and that is good. Cephas is Peter, that's a given in academia.  Similar to earlier in the thread, the reader can choose whether to agree with the consensus of the large number of experts in their field (who individually know more about this stuff than the sum total of all of us on the forum), or to agree with some bloke on an internet thread.

Sure, Paul's teachings are different if not opposite than Jesus's, that's why some Christians consider Paul to be the antichrist.

Paul's teachings are fully in line with Jesus's.

I'm sure these people exist, and no doubt you have links, but I've yet to come across any of them in any way. They're hardly mainstream or even tiny tributary.

The first thing to notice is how Paul claims to know this information: he says he received it “from the Lord,” not from anyone who was actually there. Then we go back to Galatians 1. 11-12.

So why did Paul have to tell his flock as though he was the only one who knew this story?
Paul’s Lord’s Supper does not look like a historical account of a “last supper” (a term he never uses), but a celestial vision of ritual instructions from his Lord, directed to future generations and not to any disciples at dinner.

Received from the Lord in Gal 1:11-12 simply refers to Paul's conversion on the Damascus road, emphasising it was direct from Jesus rather than evangelism.

The word in Greek is parelabon which has the meaning of handing on a tradition. Paul is dealing with misuse of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, and is reminding his readers that it has a meaning and purpose, which was given by Jesus Himself and passed on through the Early Church. Thus he's saying, 'This institution was started by Jesus, and I told it to you just as it was told to me'. 

The theology of that meal, later given the name Last Supper, is rich and deep, and very different to your portrayal. The actual historicity is confirmed by the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of coherence. Indeed Wikipedia states about the last supper “Jesus having a final meal with his disciples is almost* beyond dispute among scholars, and belongs to the framework of the narrative of Jesus's life”.

In fact it's a good example of how history was preserved, despite going through minor mutations in retelling. We may not have the Jesus-cam exact words, but we do have a very clear image of what happened.



(*The 'almost' bit being some Jesus Seminar members, of course, and this merely illustrates their slot towards the end of the spectrum. See above)

And that is baloney. There are no eye-witnesses nor any attestations.

[Jehanne]

The Jesus Seminar coded the entire Gospel of John as being black, indicating that not a single phrase as recorded in that Gospel was spoken by the historical Jesus.  Do you agree with their conclusions?  If so, how can John be an "ancient biography" of Jesus if it did not record anything that he said??

No, I don't agree with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. They are representative only of one radical strand of thinking within academia, and did their work mostly last century. Their methodologies are highly questionable. The widely available criticisms of their methods are multiple and deep.

Last century?  The Jesus Seminar is still active:

The Jesus Seminar

[Vicki Q]

They have a website, but you'll notice from your link the last phase ended in 1998.  Individuals, groups and some approaches continue, but not the formal organisation as it did; and if it ever had any weight through collectivity, it's long gone.

The question put to me was whether I accepted their results about GJohn, and my (one-amongst-many) counter-argument that their significant work on things was over 20 years ago remains valid.

[Abaddon_ire]

They have a website, but you'll notice from your link the last phase ended in 1998.  Individuals, groups and some approaches continue, but not the formal organisation as it did; and if it ever had any weight through collectivity, it's long gone.

The question put to me was whether I accepted their results about GJohn, and my (one-amongst-many) counter-argument that their significant work on things was over 20 years ago remains valid.

Was new evidence uncovered in the interim? Did jesus do anything in the interim? Nope. 

Fail.