As I understood it, the original question was whether there were/still are 1st century accounts of Jesus… The Roman Catholic Church (to which I have no particular tie) indicates 5 popes by the year 100 starting with Peter.
The degree to which it was adequately organized or unified seems a different road?
ETA: Some interesting reading on this…
“The most significant historical doubt affects Peter´s second successor. After Linus, Cletus (80-92) or Clement could have been Pope, either between 68 and 76; or between 92 and 99. Therefore, one could have been Pope before the other.”
Is it possible to respond to this “or maybe none of them existed at all or the dates are all off or fudged”? Sure. But that might also be just being obstinate for its own sake?
If you read the thread, this came from a debate with someone who is claiming that the New Testament is historical. It is clearly not. Likewise, there is no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. That is tradition and not supported historically.
Obviously, the Jesus followers were telling accounts of Jesus. The four canonized gospels and others which were not canonized are dated to the first century, and are centered around Jesus. So Ehrman’s claim could not be that “there were (not) 1st century accounts of Jesus.” Ehrman is a one of the most eminent New Testament scholars. Trust me, he has read Mathew at least once.
Likewise, his point in specifying “Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet” is to demonstrate that there were not any outside accounts. Claiming that Peter may possibly have been to Rome and possible been there long enough to qualify as a Roman is far too much of a stretch, not the least of which is that Peter would not have fallen into any of the above categories.
As was mentioned upstream, some may say that he is overselling this statement because so little private correspondence remains that Jesus not being mentioned in what little is left is not unusual.
The greater point, though, is that for contemporaries what was more important than the individual was the movement which eventually became a large religion.
Judea was the backwater of the Roman empire, and the historic Jesus was one of many who claimed or were claimed to be the messiah, which the Judeans were looking for temporal salvation from foreign rule. He wasn’t particularly noteworthy from the outside world.
His movement, however, did take off and much later gained widespread recognition.
Actually, this does explain a lot. We always wondered why there wasn’t any more contemporary records. The fact that he was half alien proves that this is the reason. Just think. Do we have any other record of half alien? Nope! They were suppressed as well. It’s obvious when you think about it, and there’s nothing which can disprove this.
(1) I’m reasonably sure that you knew that you were joking.
(2) I’m reasonable sure that I knew that you knew that you were joking, and hence my reply.
(3) Your response to my response convinced me that not only was I correct in assuming you knew that you were joking and also that I was correct in my assessment about your assumption, but that I could be reasonably sure that you understood that I had assumed correctly about your intent and that my response was not only in line with your original intent but also, perhaps played along with it.
(4) I wasn’t reasonable sure that DrDeth understood either that you knew that you were joking in your post, that I had been reasonably sure that you were joking and so I had replied as such. I also wasn’t reasonably sure that he understood that you then understood that I understood that both posts were not as serious as other posts.
(5) At this point, in a state where I could not be reasonably sure that DrDeth did not understand what I was reasonably sure you understood what I understood, it probably would have been best to clarify that I actually reasonably understood that your understood what I understood. However, I not really a nice guy at times, and hence my reply.
(6) Your post in reply further convinced me that you understood what I understood about your understanding and also you understood my reply to DrDeth was not to be taken at face value. Hence my reply to you, which should be noted was in line with the little joke about impossible to disprove theories.
(7) DrDeth’s follow up comment further convince me that he didn’t understand that I understood . . .
At this point, I’m just going to have to give up on explaining the joke and say you had to be there.
That noise you hear is not the sound of the joke whizzing over your head, but the noise your head made when it hit the floor after that post clipped it off your body.
