1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Nakosis, Oct 26, 2020.

  1. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,096
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Christian
    The section there deals with God's requirements for the tabernacle to Moses, and the conversation was about the temple that was destroyed by the Romans in the first century. Since you don't believe in jesus how are you sticking with the topic?
     
  2. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    Of course, there were other forms of Christianity. I have been pointing are there being forms of Jesus followers prior to Paul that disagreed with things Paul said, such as the crucifixion being some kind of sacrifice, the reality of the resurrection, observance of Jewish Law. Although there was a Jesus movement(s) before Paul, it does not appear that there were any mythical elements to it. All of that got added on later.

    With the exception of some early traditions found in Mark and probably in Matthew, the Gospel stories are made up for particular purposes. It is not even certain that the Docetists Ignatius is arguing against gave any credence at all to the Gospels much less considered them allegories.


    As I said and you have not answered:

    As I have shown, Carrier’s interpretation of Romans 1:3 is incorrect in terms of the word used – not ‘made’ but ‘became’, the Greek grammar – an active voice as suits ‘became’ when ‘made; would require-a passive voice, the context of the expectation of the audience – that the messiah would come from the House of David, and even the sense of the very next verse.

    As I have said several times now, ‘born’ would focus on the mother but the intent is to focus in the whole lineage. Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is the word ‘born’ ever used with respect to the messiah. Carrier’s argument is wrong.

    ‘Made’ and ‘became’ are two different words with different meanings requiring different voices. We can know for sure that Paul used the word ‘became’ in the active voice (even Carrier admits it now) and that Paul’s usage is in line with all the other references to the messiah coming from the lineage of David and that his usage of the word ‘seed’ is in line with all other references to the seed of a person being that person’s descendants in the Jewish scriptures and the NT. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Paul means anything else than Jesus being of the lineage of David, which is exactly how his audience would understand it.

    For Carrier’s interpretation to possibly be the case would require that the well-known Jewish expectation then and now that the messiah would come from the House of David in the normal sense of being a descendent in the usual way, that this expectation had been so completely supplanted throughout all of Judaism by the belief that the messiah would be literally manufactured from the literal preserved sperm of David that the Jews in Rome would instantly recognize that this is what Paul meant despite him having used the wrong word in the wrong voice. And then that literal sperm belief, despite its total replacement of the House of David expectation, would vanish from history without a trace and the House of David belief magically reappear.

    It is 100% certain that Carrier made up a whopper of a story to go along with the mistranslation in the KJV which he used because he does not know Greek. If you think that the above two total replacements of belief really happened with no trace of the manufacture from sperm belief ever existed, please provide strong supporting evidence for that claim, not from Carrier.

    Where is the part about Osiris being a savior? The idea of resurrection at the end of days already appeared in Jewish thought in 1 Enoch long before Paul. Paul uses the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus story to ‘prove’ the reality of that popular hopeful expectation. It is not rising and dying that is the issue but being a savior god who rises and dies.

    There is no dying/rising god in Zoroastrianism. As I have previously documented, the savior Saoshyant who will be born near the end of the world does not appear until the Denkard text that is definitely dated to after the Muslim invasion of Iran. The reason for the appearance of the savior Saoshyant is the long history of oppression in Iran which is detailed in that book. It all sounds suspiciously like the Zoroastrians copied Christianity on this one. This idea would not have been a part of the Zoroastrian religion during the Persian era in Israel. Although Judaism definitely integrated a number of Persian beleifs.

    We can see that there are multiple schools of thought in Corinth about the meaning of Jesus

    1 Corinthians 1
    10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

    17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
    18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

    The word of the cross that Paul preaches is that is a sin atonement sacrifice. Clearly not everyone believes this.

    There are those who doubt Paul’s authority to speak on these matters since he was not an original apostle

    1 Corinthians 9
    Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

    Then there is the resurrection thing. Not everyone believe that.

    1 Corinthians 15
    1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain
    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

    [long witness list where Paul tacks himself onto the end, about which he gets called out and does a flimflam job in 2 Cor 12 trying to justify himself again]

    12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

    There were definitely differing opinions about key points about Paul’s Christology and the others do not consider him an apostle because he came along after them. Paul jumps through hoops in 1 Cor 15 to try to demonstrate that he should be considered an apostle even though he admits he came along after the real apostles. And as we see above, the points of disagreement with the earlier Jesus followers are exactly over the mythicist elements that Paul introduced. The original Jesus followers did not buy into the various things that the mythicists criticize. Sure sounds like there was a real Jesus but not the supernatural kind as later portrayed.
     
  3. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    I have previously criticized this in great detail. Please respond to those criticisms in detail before you post this again.

    As I have said earlier, in the Jewish scriptures, the word ‘born’ is never used about the messiah. It would focus on the mother. Instead he is always portrayed as a descendent of David which is what matters. And once more, as I have said multiple times now, the word seed referring to the seed of a persons is very clearly always referring to the descendants of that person.

    And as I have said earlier, since the descendent of David who would sit upon the throne sometime in the future after the throne has been created sometime in the future, later Jews were free to say this future king was the future messiah who would oust the foreigners and establish an everlasting kingdom. All that is required is that the messiah be descended from David, which was as I have documented was the belief at the time. That is by far the simplest and most reasonable re-casting of the meaning of 2 Samuel 7:13

    As I believe I may have said earlier, Philippians 2 definitely means ‘becoming’. Paul is urging the Philippians to imitate Jesus in humbling himself. Phil 2:7 uses two forms of the word ginomai.

    The first is in Jesus emptying himself of the divine identity (from verse 6) and becoming human. The active sense of emptying himself goes with the active sense of becoming human (Middle Deponent = active voice as usual. If Jesus was made to do those things, where is the voluntary humility?

    The second is in Jesus becoming obedient, Middle Deponent again. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was manufactured obedient? Obedience is an attribute of the mind not the body. Was the mind of Jesus also manufactured at the time he became human? Where is the voluntary humility in that?

    But the KJV mistranslates the word as ‘made’ and that is good enough for Carrier, who does not know Greek. Or apparently have much reading comprehension.

    What happened to Jesus not being born as Carrier claimed? Looks like he was born out of a woman after all instead of Carrier’s song and dance about Galatians 4:4 not meaning what it straightforwardly does mean. Carrier cannot link his ideas about Paul to the Gospels. They are contradicting Carrier.

    Read what I previously said about Matthew and respond to that in the linked thread, please.

    I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.

    The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

    It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

    Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

    The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion.
     
  4. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    Paul uses figures of speech often. Most writers did and do. He uses metaphors, which refer to one thing as if it were something else to make a point, but with the meaning being obvious. For example, Paul refers to the Law as slavery. Obvious and having a point. An allegory is a story without an immediately obvious meaning that requires explanation. The story in Galatians 4:21-31 is not immediately obvious and requires explanation, especially since it differs from the plain meaning of Jewish scripture, which is that it is Isaac who was born of the promise and his children are law observant Jews.

    In Galatians 4:24, Paul is making sure his readers understand that he is taking liberties by saying that he is using an allegory. And note that Paul says this after mentioning anything about births. This is the only time Paul ever uses the word ἀλληγορέω. Which BTW is a verb, not a noun. And he says ‘allegorizing’ making this into an allegory and not ‘These things are an allegory’ as the KJV mistranslates it. (Once again Carrier relying on English translations and not the Greek) But Carrier has this

    Nowhere else does Paul tell a story whose meaning is not obvious to his audience and needs explaining. But Carrier has this word ‘allegory’ stuck in his head so he can use to have things literal or non-literal as he feels like. This is simply not the case and any use you or Carrier of the word ‘allegory’ other than in reference to Galatians 4:24 and following is wrong.

    If Romans 1:3 is not literal, then ‘seed’ does NOT mean ‘sperm’? Which way is it, literal or non-literal? In actuality the seed of David is another figure of speech, a euphemism. Seed of David means descendants of David. In the Jewish scriptures when a name of a generic person is mentioned in conjunction with his seed, it is always clearly about descendants of that person. This would instantly be understood by Paul’s Jewish audience in Rome.

    Niddah 15 (not 16) refers to an angel bringing a drop of semen to heaven. It is not stored because it will be needed to get the woman pregnant. This detail alone shows the story is not meant to be literal and therefore not indicative of any prior belief. The angel asks the Lord if this person will be mighty or weak, clever or stupid etc. But the angel never asks if the person will be righteous because the person has free will, this being the point of the story.

    As I will later be discussing in detail in a later post, the earliest mention of pregnancy by swimming in a lake is in a work not considered scripture and refers to the bad things that have happened to the Persian people at the hands of foreigners beginning with Alexander and continuing up to the Muslim invasion in the 7th century CE. Not a possible influence on Christianity and quite possibly the other way around.

    Carrier is quote mining again ignoring anything that could put it in context.

    I have already addressed that article and criticized it in detail but you have not responded to my criticisms. I am not going to continually repeat my arguments if you refuse to acknowledge they exist. You cannot use Carrier to ‘prove’ Carrier when his arguments are so poor. You have to do better than that, like maybe respond to my criticisms. I always respond to everything you say or link. Please do the same.

    I discuss this at greater length below. We have been through this already. At one point, Carrier did say that Ignatius wanted to change the scriptures when, as I have documented, Ignatius was clearly responding to Docetists that claimed that Jesus was only a spirit after all, despite what the scriptures actually indicate in many places.

    If Carrier really said at some point that the scriptures were changed – and as I said I cannot find that – that could explain the convoluted logic in trying to portray Ignatius as claiming that.

    As for the ‘world order’ claim: Utter nonsense. In Galatians 4:24, it is not the mothers that are supposedly ‘worlds’ but in Paul’s (one and only) declared use of allegorizing, it is not the mothers at all that are separated but the descendants of the two sons. And these are not some kind of future worlds but two groups of people currently existing.

    Galatians 4:4 that says Jesus became out of a woman and under the Law comes before the allegorizing section. The reader would have no reason to connect this with the two groups of people. If they somehow did, by having Jesus become under the Law would make him one of the children of Hagar and one of the sinful ‘bad guys’.

    There is also the problem that Carrier claims that Paul always means manufactured and not became. But in Galatians 4:4 that would mean that Jesus was manufactured out of a woman. I thought it was sperm. Oh, this one is not literal but an ‘allegory’? Became out of a woman sounds pretty clear to me. Also that he would become under the law at his bris 8 days later. And that is very obviously how Paul’s readers would understand it.

    A number of translations render the word γενομένου in Romans 1:3 as ‘born’. The KJV translates it as ‘made’ wrong. Both if these is incorrect. Carrier claims that manuscripts were doctored. Let us look at that in detail.

    Here is Romans 1:3 in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, beginning with the word outlined in red. While earlier manuscripts of parts of Romans have been found, this is the earliest of Romans 1.

    @@@ Codex Sinaiticus Romans 1 3.png

    At that early date, Greek was written in majuscule (upper case only) uncial (square letters) scriptio continua (no space between words).

    This is a clearer rendering
    ΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΥΙΟΥΑΥΤΟΥΤΟΥΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΕΚΣΠΕΡΜΑΤΟΣΔΑΥΙΔΚΑΤΑΣΑΡΚΑ

    Later on, Greek would be written in miniscule (upper and lower case) with spaces between words and diacritical marks like this
    περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,

    The root of the underlined word is γίνομαι (ginomai) which means ‘become’. It does not means ‘made’.

    This particular instance is γενομένου (genomenou) which is a participle (‘ing’ word) aorist tense (happened in past) middle deponent voice (active). The preceding definite article τοῦ (the) makes this into a substantive (noun equivalent). Therefore ‘one-becoming’.

    The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, presumably the ‘received text’ Carrier refers to. Here is Romans 1:3 from that.

    περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

    It is clear that the word was always ‘one-becoming’ in case anyone wants to argue that this got changed.

    Although it is the word that means ‘one-becoming’, the KJV incorrectly translates it as ‘made’. But Carrier did not know Greek so he thought it really meant ‘made’ and came up with this wacko idea about sperm.

    Now about Carrier’s claim that when Paul says ginomai which really means ‘become’ (as Carrier eventually admitted in one of his blog entries) he really means ‘make’. Let’s look at the places Carrier cites

    1 Corinthians 15:37

    καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον

    and what you-are-sowing not the body the shall-be-becoming you-are-sowing only bare kernel

    Paul is using the image of sowing plant seeds as a metaphor for burying a dead body. He is giving the Corinthians who are doubting the idea of resurrection something familiar to relate to. The kernel will in fact become a plant. The plant will not be manufactured (passive voice). It will grow (active voice). To think Paul meant ‘made’ would turn this familiar image into something odd and unfamiliar and lose the appeal. Paul would lose the doubting Corinthians.

    1 Corinthians 15:45

    οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

    this and it-has-been-written became the first human Adam into soul living the last Adam into spirit giving-life

    The word ψυχὴν (translated ‘soul’) does not refer to the body (which could be dead) but to the breath of life. Adam became alive.

    When did Jesus become a spirit that gives life? At his resurrection, which is the guarantee of the promise of resurrection.

    It is not manufactured bodies that are being discussed, it is that mortal life is not the only life.
     
  5. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    Paul uses figures of speech often. Most writers did and do. He uses metaphors, which refer to one thing as if it were something else to make a point, but with the meaning being obvious. For example, Paul refers to the Law as slavery. Obvious and having a point. An allegory is a story without an immediately obvious meaning that requires explanation. The story in Galatians 4:21-31 is not immediately obvious and requires explanation, especially since it differs from the plain meaning of Jewish scripture, which is that it is Isaac who was born of the promise and his children are law observant Jews.

    In Galatians 4:24, Paul is making sure his readers understand that he is taking liberties by saying that he is using an allegory. And note that Paul says this after mentioning anything about births. This is the only time Paul ever uses the word ἀλληγορέω. Which BTW is a verb, not a noun. And he says ‘allegorizing’ making this into an allegory and not ‘These things are an allegory’ as the KJV mistranslates it. (Once again Carrier relying on English translations and not the Greek) But Carrier has this

    Nowhere else does Paul tell a story whose meaning is not obvious to his audience and needs explaining. But Carrier has this word ‘allegory’ stuck in his head so he can use to have things literal or non-literal as he feels like. This is simply not the case and any use you or Carrier of the word ‘allegory’ other than in reference to Galatians 4:24 and following is wrong.

    If Romans 1:3 is not literal, then ‘seed’ does NOT mean ‘sperm’? Which way is it, literal or non-literal? In actuality the seed of David is another figure of speech, a euphemism. Seed of David means descendants of David. In the Jewish scriptures when a name of a generic person is mentioned in conjunction with his seed, it is always clearly about descendants of that person. This would instantly be understood by Paul’s Jewish audience in Rome.

    Niddah 15 (not 16) refers to an angel bringing a drop of semen to heaven. It is not stored because it will be needed to get the woman pregnant. This detail alone shows the story is not meant to be literal and therefore not indicative of any prior belief. The angel asks the Lord if this person will be mighty or weak, clever or stupid etc. But the angel never asks if the person will be righteous because the person has free will, this being the point of the story.

    As I will later be discussing in detail in a later post, the earliest mention of pregnancy by swimming in a lake is in a work not considered scripture and refers to the bad things that have happened to the Persian people at the hands of foreigners beginning with Alexander and continuing up to the Muslim invasion in the 7th century CE. Not a possible influence on Christianity and quite possibly the other way around.

    Carrier is quote mining again ignoring anything that could put it in context.

    I have already addressed that article and criticized it in detail but you have not responded to my criticisms. I am not going to continually repeat my arguments if you refuse to acknowledge they exist. You cannot use Carrier to ‘prove’ Carrier when his arguments are so poor. You have to do better than that, like maybe respond to my criticisms. I always respond to everything you say or link. Please do the same.

    I discuss this at greater length below. We have been through this already. At one point, Carrier did say that Ignatius wanted to change the scriptures when, as I have documented, Ignatius was clearly responding to Docetists that claimed that Jesus was only a spirit after all, despite what the scriptures actually indicate in many places.

    If Carrier really said at some point that the scriptures were changed – and as I said I cannot find that – that could explain the convoluted logic in trying to portray Ignatius as claiming that.

    As for the ‘world order’ claim: Utter nonsense. In Galatians 4:24, it is not the mothers that are supposedly ‘worlds’ but in Paul’s (one and only) declared use of allegorizing, it is not the mothers at all that are separated but the descendants of the two sons. And these are not some kind of future worlds but two groups of people currently existing.

    Galatians 4:4 that says Jesus became out of a woman and under the Law comes before the allegorizing section. The reader would have no reason to connect this with the two groups of people. If they somehow did, by having Jesus become under the Law would make him one of the children of Hagar and one of the sinful ‘bad guys’.

    There is also the problem that Carrier claims that Paul always means manufactured and not became. But in Galatians 4:4 that would mean that Jesus was manufactured out of a woman. I thought it was sperm. Oh, this one is not literal but an ‘allegory’? Became out of a woman sounds pretty clear to me. Also that he would become under the law at his bris 8 days later. And that is very obviously how Paul’s readers would understand it.

    A number of translations render the word γενομένου in Romans 1:3 as ‘born’. The KJV translates it as ‘made’ wrong. Both if these is incorrect. Carrier claims that manuscripts were doctored. Let us look at that in detail.

    Here is Romans 1:3 in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, beginning with the word outlined in red. While earlier manuscripts of parts of Romans have been found, this is the earliest of Romans 1.

    @@@

    At that early date, Greek was written in majuscule (upper case only) uncial (square letters) scriptio continua (no space between words).

    This is a clearer rendering
    ΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΥΙΟΥΑΥΤΟΥΤΟΥΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΕΚΣΠΕΡΜΑΤΟΣΔΑΥΙΔΚΑΤΑΣΑΡΚΑ

    Later on, Greek would be written in miniscule (upper and lower case) with spaces between words and diacritical marks like this
    περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,

    The root of the underlined word is γίνομαι (ginomai) which means ‘become’. It does not means ‘made’.

    This particular instance is γενομένου (genomenou) which is a participle (‘ing’ word) aorist tense (happened in past) middle deponent voice (active). The preceding definite article τοῦ (the) makes this into a substantive (noun equivalent). Therefore ‘one-becoming’.

    The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, presumably the ‘received text’ Carrier refers to. Here is Romans 1:3 from that.

    περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

    It is clear that the word was always ‘one-becoming’ in case anyone wants to argue that this got changed.

    Although it is the word that means ‘one-becoming’, the KJV incorrectly translates it as ‘made’. But Carrier did not know Greek so he thought it really meant ‘made’ and came up with this wacko idea about sperm.

    Now about Carrier’s claim that when Paul says ginomai which really means ‘become’ (as Carrier eventually admitted in one of his blog entries) he really means ‘make’. Let’s look at the places Carrier cites

    1 Corinthians 15:37

    καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον

    and what you-are-sowing not the body the shall-be-becoming you-are-sowing only bare kernel

    Paul is using the image of sowing plant seeds as a metaphor for burying a dead body. He is giving the Corinthians who are doubting the idea of resurrection something familiar to relate to. The kernel will in fact become a plant. The plant will not be manufactured (passive voice). It will grow (active voice). To think Paul meant ‘made’ would turn this familiar image into something odd and unfamiliar and lose the appeal. Paul would lose the doubting Corinthians.

    1 Corinthians 15:45

    οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

    this and it-has-been-written became the first human Adam into soul living the last Adam into spirit giving-life

    The word ψυχὴν (translated ‘soul’) does not refer to the body (which could be dead) but to the breath of life. Adam became alive.

    When did Jesus become a spirit that gives life? At his resurrection, which is the guarantee of the promise of resurrection.

    It is not manufactured bodies that are being discussed, it is that mortal life is not the only life.
     
  6. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    The Saoshyant born of a virgin idea does not appear at all in Zoroastrianism until Book 10 of the Denkard. See verses 15-18. Book 7 of the Denkard refers to historical events in the history of the Persian people including
    the 7th century invasion of Persia by the Muslims See item 7 in the list.

    It is far easier to believe that Zoroastrianism copied from Christianity than the other way around.

    Considering that the Gospels use the phrase Son of David 15 times in referring to Jesus, I think that is pretty obvious.

    QUOTE="joelr, post: 6906574, member: 54426"]
    Cosmology of Paul in Ephesians - BcResources the cosmology of Paul
    [/QUOTE]

    Ephesians was not written by Paul. It starts off with lots of snippets from earlier Pauline works then slides into a discussion of church issues and situations that did not exist until well after Paul. Regardless of where you stand on authorship, we can see what was meant by the original use of the terms involved.

    A demonstration that the first part of Ephesians is snippets can be seen here.

    Ephesians 2
    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

    What Paul really said was.

    Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

    From Carrier: First Heaven (Material Cosmos) — Eph 1.10; 3.14-16; 4.9-10

    Ephesians 1:10 says “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

    Colossians 1
    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

    Heaven and earth are all of creation.

    Ephesians 3:14-16 simply repeats “in heaven and on earth”

    I do not know why Carrier chose to include Ephesians 4:9-10 in this category. Ephesians 4 is where the author departs from what Paul says.

    Ephesians 4
    8 Therefore it says,
    When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
    and he gave gifts to men.”
    9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

    The ‘When he ascended on high’ quote is from Psalm 68 and refers to climbing a mountain. The Ephesians reference to first descending is not there. Not the first time that scripture was misused in later scripture.

    The problem is that Paul makes no mention of an underworld. In Paul, and especially in 1 Cor 15, the dead are sleeping in the ground from which they will be raised. No separate Sheol other than its original sense of the grave. It is only ever the faithful who are resurrected. There is no mention at all of the fate of the unrighteous. This part of Ephesians is definitely not Paul writing. Which shows that Ephesians cannot demonstrate what Paul thought.

    From Carrier: “Second Heaven (Battle Zone with Spiritual Forces) — Eph 3.9-10; 6.10-12”

    Ephesians 3
    The key phrase Carrier refers to is:
    “the principalities and powers in heavenly places” Eph 3:10

    Carrier claims that:

    Referring to the Second and Third Heavens, Paul consistently uses the phrase “in the heavenlies” (cf. Greek; with prefixed preposition).
    From the Carrier link above.

    He never justifies this claim. Just repeats it. Yet it is demonstrably false.

    1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul uses the word ἐπουράνιος twice, once without a preposition prefix and once with a preposition prefix. Yet he is clearly talking about the same thing.

    1 Corinthians 15:41 makes it clear that by on-heavenlies Paul means the sun, the moon and the stars, that is, the material cosmos. So is on-heavenlies the material cosmos or the second or third heaven?

    In 1 Corinthians 15:48 again uses that word twice without a prefix preposition.

    As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

    If on-heavenly without a prefix preposition is not the second or third heaven, then who are these people who are supposedly of the material cosmos? What does that even mean?

    And again in 1 Corinthians 15:49 the same word this time with a prefix preposition in the Greek

    49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

    Is Paul now switching the meaning of the word to point to a different heaven?

    Carrier just made up a silly rule that does not work and for which he never had any justification in the first place.

    From Carrier: “Third Heaven (Throne of God; Paradise) — Eph 1.3; 1.20-21; 2.5-7”

    Ephesians 1:3, 1:20-21 and 2:5-7 all use ‘on-heavenlies’. As we have just seen, Carrier’s rule about that does not work.

    In his book, Carrier uses the Ascension of Isaiah as the basis of his claim for stacked heavens. In that work there are seven heavens. In 2 Enoch there are ten heavens. Carrier says Paul has three. Which is the Jewish cosmology Paul would have been aware of?

    I have previously shown that there were missionaries separate from Paul and arising earlier than him that did not believe Paul’s ‘gospel’, disagreeing with him about the meaning of the crucifixion and about the possibility of resurrection and of course about the necessity of Jewish law. In Romans, when speaking to Jews, Paul refers to Jesus as becoming the Son of God at the resurrection, i.e., he was not a pre-existent Son of God in the sense Philo meant the phrase. It was OK to present a divine Jesus to Gentiles who did not have a problem with polytheism. But the Jewish Christians would never buy it so Paul changes his tune. I see no reason to think that the original Jesus movement thought of Jesus as a pre-existent divine archangel and good reason to think they did not.

    In that section Carrier claims that the KJV accurately translates the word ginomai as made when he had earlier admitted that it really means became. As I have said several times, Carrier based his wacko ideas on thinking the KJV was the real deal and is still tap dancing trying to defend them when he can no longer deny that he was wrong. That section does not indicate that Carrier knows Greek. It strongly indicates that he does NOT know Greek.

    ZOMG what a brilliant comeback! I love the way you addressed my argument in such great detail and with such finely tuned counter-arguments!

    NOT!

    I provided good reasons why Paul would not provide much detail about the life of Jesus. He never knew Jesus and knew only what others might have told him plus whatever details he would have gotten from the Apostles would have portrayed Jesus as an observant Jew, screwing up Paul’s anti-Law mission. If you can address why this cannot be the case, provide your reasons now.
     
  7. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    “Scholarly estimates regarding the date of the Ascension of Isaiah range anywhere between the final decades of the first century to the early decades of the third century, though scholars prefer some time in the early 2nd century. The reason for this large range in dating is due to the fact that there is virtually no information that allows for a confident dating into any specific period.

    The earliest section, regarding chapters 3:13-4:22, was composed at about the end of the first century AD or perhaps early second century and is believed to be a text of Jewish origins which was later on redacted by Christian scribes”
    Ascension of Isaiah - Wikipedia

    If this started out as a Jewish work in the late 1st century or early 2nd century then any mention of Jesus, as in the second section, would have to come later. No support for it being written contemporaneously with the Gospels.

    I have OHJ online in a searchable form. I can find nothing in there that stands up to scrutiny and definitely nothing that demonstrates that he knows Greek.

    Being born would focus on the immediate mother rather than on the all-important lineage. Becoming from the line of David is the all-important thing. Paul needs to emphasize that when talking to Jews to justify him calling Jesus the messiah (Christ) immediately before that. Remember he is going to tell Jews to not only let Gentiles be Christians without following the Law but to give up the Law themselves.

    What Nathan really said was:

    2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
    From the Hebrew Tanach of course.

    It does not say that this throne already existed. It says that it will be established sometime in the future. Since it is tied to a particular future event, building a house for God’s name, it does not refer to a line of kings but to an individual.

    Want the Septuagint?

    αὐτὸς οἰκοδομήσει μοι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ ἀνορθώσω τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

    he will-build-up for-me house for name of-me and I-will-set-up the throne of-him until into the eon

    Same thing.

    The person is never named nor does it say that he will be David’s immediate successor. Only that at some time in the future the throne will be set up for someone and that the throne will last forever.

    To later Jews, Nathan’s prophecy has not failed. It has not come about yet. Notice the possible inference that it will be the same king forever. It is an indisputable fact that the easiest way to rescue Nathan’s prophecy from being false is to read Nathan’s prophecy about seed in exactly the way that references to the seed of someone in the Jewish scripture always unmistakably means that person’s descendants. In that context, it very clearly never means ‘sperm’. Carrier is totally unjustified in using the word ‘sperm’ except that the more controversy the more books he sells.

    Jeremiah 23:5-6 (Tanach)
    Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign a king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land.
    In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.

    The word צֶ֣מַח translated as ‘shoot’, means that in the sense of a branch or similar growth. The word used in 2 Samuel 7:12 is זַרְעֲךָ֙ which is ‘seed’. A shoot grows ultimately from a seed. The image of stored sperm suddenly being manufactured into the messiah does not fit here at all. Growth over time does, Post-exilic Judaism, before which the line of kings died out, had no concept of sperm being stored. Especially laying on a throne.

    Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.

    Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah.
    MESSIAH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

    The idea is that the messiah would come from the House of David not manufactured from his literal sperm. I previously posted from the Aramaic Pe****ta whose translators from the Greek also took it as totally obvious that Paul the House of David to be understood.

    For ‘seed’ in Romans 1:3 to mean literal would require that the Jewish Christians in Rome to be so familiar with the idea that literal sperm was meant that it would instantly and totally replace the well-known idea of the messiah coming from the House of David, that is being a descendant of David in the perfectly ordinary sense. Where is there any evidence of that? Without convincing evidence that this sperm idea was so widely known that Paul could count on Jewish strangers in Rome to instantly understand it, Carrier’s claim is dead in the water. “Carrier says so” is not evidence.

    Of course I have. I have been quoting from them and criticizing them all along. I also read OHJ and criticized it. Try providing counter-arguments beyond throwing at me exactly the things I just severely criticized.

    It is not merely weird. It is not merely improbable. It requires gigantic ad hoc assumptions for which there is no support whatsoever and which run contrary to what we do know of beliefs in that era. I have already addressed the Zoroastrianism virgin story in a previous post. It is absolutely of much later provenance than Paul and cannot have been an influence on Paul or his predecessors, which makes it irrelevant. In any case, Carrier’s argument is nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. Maybe Carrier invented his story after reading about the Denkard, which would totally remove it from any consideration.
     
  8. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,096
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Christian
    But it was destroyed and does your Bible say it would be? Apparently not, according to you. So then how do you figure if Jesus started christianity. Did he say anything about following him? Apparently also not in your Bible.
     
  9. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    The Gospels of Matthew and Luke depict Jesus as not descended from the seed of David but directly manufactured by God (this time in the womb of Mary). Though they both give a Davidic genealogy for Joseph, they both explicitly say Jesus was not born of the seed of Joseph.

    Therefore even the authors of the Gospels believed either that Jesus’s body was manufactured by God directly out of the seed of David or the “seed of David” prophecy was only meant allegorically. They cannot have understood it figuratively (as meaning biological descent), because they explicitly exclude that in their chosen description of Jesus’s origins.

    What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

    Carrier is wrong. If Matthew and Luke did not want to present Jesus as a descendant of David, why do they call him Son of David multiple times? Why would Matthew even bother with an elaborate genealogy if he is going to deny Davidic descent? Matthew needs to have Jesus be of Davidic descent in order to claim Jesus to be the messiah, which his Rabbinic Judaism rival denies. At the same time, he needs to remove the taint of polytheism from Paul’s divine Son of God by making Jesus a human person blessed by God to be the messiah as his Jewish Christian audience requires.

    Just as Paul used Philo to make Jesus divine, Matthew uses Philo to make Jesus human. Philo writes of multiple pregnancies inspired by God with no human involvement and even states that virgins are the most proper recipient. However because God needs nothing (a big point with Philo), the nominal father is in fact the true father and the offspring is his legitimate child. In short the child is not divine but human and a proper member of the house from which his nominal father descended.

    For more details
    If you wish to argue with this, do so in that thread.

    There is no way that Matthew would want to use anything from Paul, his other rival who wants Jewish Christians to stop being Jews.

    Matthew’s story (and Luke’s) are made up to sell their individual agendas. They don’t agree on any NT Big Picture. Oh and BTW, since both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born from a mother, aren’t they contradicting Paul on that point? :)

    Carrier is a con artist out to sell books. He says the wildest and totally unsupported things to generate controversy and trap Bible believers into saying unsupported things that he can criticize and generate publicity.

    I have not speculated anything. I have presented detailed arguments that not only have you never addressed but even denied that I made any arguments by claiming I never even read Carrier’s blogs.

    You have to do better than that.

    Of course, there were other forms of Christianity. I have been pointing are there being forms of Jesus followers prior to Paul that disagreed with things Paul said, such as the crucifixion being some kind of sacrifice, the reality of the resurrection, observance of Jewish Law. Although there was a Jesus movement(s) before Paul, it does not appear that there were any mythical elements to it. All of that got added on later.

    With the exception of some early traditions found in Mark and probably in Matthew, the Gospel stories are made up for particular purposes. It is not even certain that the Docetists Ignatius is arguing against gave any credence at all to the Gospels much less considered them allegories.


    As I said and you have not answered:

    As I have shown, Carrier’s interpretation of Romans 1:3 is incorrect in terms of the word used – not ‘made’ but ‘became’, the Greek grammar – an active voice as suits ‘became’ when ‘made; would require-a passive voice, the context of the expectation of the audience – that the messiah would come from the House of David, and even the sense of the very next verse.

    As I have said several times now, ‘born’ would focus on the mother but the intent is to focus in the whole lineage. Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is the word ‘born’ ever used with respect to the messiah. Carrier’s argument is wrong.


    ‘Made’ and ‘became’ are two different words with different meanings requiring different voices. We can know for sure that Paul used the word ‘became’ in the active voice (even Carrier admits it now) and that Paul’s usage is in line with all the other references to the messiah coming from the lineage of David and that his usage of the word ‘seed’ is in line with all other references to the seed of a person being that person’s descendants in the Jewish scriptures and the NT. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Paul means anything else than Jesus being of the lineage of David, which is exactly how his audience would understand it.

    For Carrier’s interpretation to possibly be the case would require that the well-known Jewish expectation then and now that the messiah would come from the House of David in the normal sense of being a descendent in the usual way, that this expectation had been so completely supplanted throughout all of Judaism by the belief that the messiah would be literally manufactured from the literal preserved sperm of David that the Jews in Rome would instantly recognize that this is what Paul meant despite him having used the wrong word in the wrong voice. And then that literal sperm belief, despite its total replacement of the House of David expectation, would vanish from history without a trace and the House of David belief magically reappear.

    It is 100% certain that Carrier made up a whopper of a story to go along with the mistranslation in the KJV which he used because he does not know Greek. If you think that the above two total replacements of belief really happened with no trace of the manufacture from sperm belief ever existed, please provide strong supporting evidence for that claim, not from Carrier.


    Where is the part about Osiris being a savior? The idea of resurrection at the end of days already appeared in Jewish thought in 1 Enoch long before Paul. Paul uses the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus story to ‘prove’ the reality of that popular hopeful expectation. It is not rising and dying that is the issue but being a savior god who rises and dies.

    I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.
     
  10. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

    It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

    Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

    The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion

    I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.

    The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

    It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

    Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

    The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion.
     
  11. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    There is no dying/rising god in Zoroastrianism. As I have previously documented, the savior Saoshyant who will be born near the end of the world does not appear until the Denkard text that is definitely dated to after the Muslim invasion of Iran. The reason for the appearance of the savior Saoshyant is the long history of oppression in Iran which is detailed in that book. It all sounds suspiciously like the Zoroastrians copied Christianity on this one. This idea would not have been a part of the Zoroastrian religion during the Persian era in Israel. Although Judaism definitely integrated a number of Persian beleifs.

    We can see that there are multiple schools of thought in Corinth about the meaning of Jesus

    1 Corinthians 1
    10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

    17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
    18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

    The word of the cross that Paul preaches is that is a sin atonement sacrifice. Clearly not everyone believes this.

    There are those who doubt Paul’s authority to speak on these matters since he was not an original apostle

    1 Corinthians 9
    Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

    Then there is the resurrection thing. Not everyone believe that.

    1 Corinthians 15
    1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain
    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

    [long witness list where Paul tacks himself onto the end, about which he gets called out and does a flimflam job in 2 Cor 12 trying to justify himself again]

    12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

    There were definitely differing opinions about key points about Paul’s Christology and the others do not consider him an apostle because he came along after them. Paul jumps through hoops in 1 Cor 15 to try to demonstrate that he should be considered an apostle even though he admits he came along after the real apostles. And as we see above, the points of disagreement with the earlier Jesus followers are exactly over the mythicist elements that Paul introduced. The original Jesus followers did not buy into the various things that the mythicists criticize. Sure sounds like there was a real Jesus but not the supernatural kind as later portrayed.

    I have previously criticized this in great detail. Please respond to those criticisms in detail before you post this again.

    As I have said earlier, in the Jewish scriptures, the word ‘born’ is never used about the messiah. It would focus on the mother. Instead he is always portrayed as a descendent of David which is what matters. And once more, as I have said multiple times now, the word seed referring to the seed of a persons is very clearly always referring to the descendants of that person.

    And as I have said earlier, since the descendent of David who would sit upon the throne sometime in the future after the throne has been created sometime in the future, later Jews were free to say this future king was the future messiah who would oust the foreigners and establish an everlasting kingdom. All that is required is that the messiah be descended from David, which was as I have documented was the belief at the time. That is by far the simplest and most reasonable re-casting of the meaning of 2 Samuel 7:13

    As I believe I may have said earlier, Philippians 2 definitely means ‘becoming’. Paul is urging the Philippians to imitate Jesus in humbling himself. Phil 2:7 uses two forms of the word ginomai.

    The first is in Jesus emptying himself of the divine identity (from verse 6) and becoming human. The active sense of emptying himself goes with the active sense of becoming human (Middle Deponent = active voice as usual. If Jesus was made to do those things, where is the voluntary humility?

    The second is in Jesus becoming obedient, Middle Deponent again. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was manufactured obedient? Obedience is an attribute of the mind not the body. Was the mind of Jesus also manufactured at the time he became human? Where is the voluntary humility in that?

    But the KJV mistranslates the word as ‘made’ and that is good enough for Carrier, who does not know Greek. Or apparently have much reading comprehension.

    What happened to Jesus not being born as Carrier claimed? Looks like he was born out of a woman after all instead of Carrier’s song and dance about Galatians 4:4 not meaning what it straightforwardly does mean. Carrier cannot link his ideas about Paul to the Gospels. They are contradicting Carrier.

    Read what I previously said about Matthew and respond to that in the linked thread, please.
     
  12. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    Yes, that is what I said. Genesis 1 is very cleverly constructed to undo the Babylonian ideas of the Enuma Elish and replace them with Hebrew ideas, even beyond what is stated in Wiki. Lots of different references to older mythologies in the second (Eden) creation story as well. And the Flood narrative is a very skillful interleaving of the wording of two different Hebrew versions of the Flood. In the original Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (2000 BCE?) is presented as already being an old story and may itself be sourced from Atra-Hasis, probably not easily available in separate form to the Genesis writers. Other elements of Genesis can be seen to have come from Gilgamesh.

    In the section of the book immediately prior to page 41 you will see a discussion of the evolution of Zoroastrianism over time. Zoroastrianism today has all those beliefs but they were not all present when Israel was under Persian rule. The Yasht is part of the Younger Avesta, not written down until the 5th century and known from comparing different versions to have undergone changes by different oral sources along the way. That Yasht 19 has been changed considerably can be seen that although nominally dedicated to the earth, it has virtually nothing to do with that dedication. Other Yasht do follow the topic of their dedication. A really telling feature is that the evolution of Jewish thought in the post-Persian era starts from only those Jews left alive when God comes to fix everything will participate in the renewed world to a human messiah will accomplish the renewal and that the dead will also be resurrected. Yet Yasht 19 has all of those at once.

    Yasht 19:89. That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;

    The Saoshyant story in the Denkard, which elaborates on this including for the first time in Zoroastrian literature that the mother of the Saoshyant will be a virgin, definitely came about after the Islamic invasion since it refers to that. We can see the reuse and extensive elaboration of Yasht 19 story coming about as the result of the long sufferings of the Persians under foreign rule, which did not even start until Alexander and continuing in identifiable phases until the Muslims. It is this same history of oppression that the Jews suffered that led to a personal messiah idea being developed and the detail parallels with much older Christianity in the Denkard suggest that this was the direct inspiration for that later Zoroastrian idea.

    Also, in Zoroastrianism Zoroaster propagated the idea that everyone is responsible for their own actions. This does not mean that Judaism (and other cultures) did not already have that understanding. However, the notion of heaven/hell after death based on one’s actions in life does not seem to appear in Judaism until the Persian era, although it is not expressed in religious writings until after Alexander. Not that surprising, since those writings are often about God saving the Jewish people from the oppressors.

    Some things on Carrier’s display that are not correct.

    War of Good God versus Evil God

    The idea of Ahura Mazda (God) and Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit) were present in Zoroastrianism during the Persian rule over the Jews. However, Angra Mainyu does not appear as an actual individual other than a tendency to evil until the Younger Avesta, an oral tradition in the very uncommon Avestan language not written down until the 5th or 6th century CE, well after Christianity began. In the early Gathas, there are angels of a sort but they are good and none of them fall, being extensions of Ahura Mazda (God). The concept of devils (daevas) also first appears in the Younger Avesta. Whether the idea of evil fallen angels (the daevas just exist, they are not fallen) entered Jewish thought from Zoroastrianism may or may not be the case. It should be kept in mind not only that the Younger Avesta were an oral tradition in an exotic language but that, unlike the central Zoroastrian Gathas, the Younger Avesta was changed over time as seemed suitable by the separate relators. How close the ideas finally written down in the 5th century CE may have been to the ideas of a thousand years earlier that the Jews were exposed to, if they were exposed to those ideas at all, is a matter of speculation.

    In the Jewish scriptures, specifically Job, we see Satan as a personification of opposition, which is what the word literally means. But Satan is the one who tests the individual and operates with permission of God. We see rebellious angels having been imprisoned already in 1 Enoch but there is no single leader loose in the world. An individual Satan who is evil and opposed to God does not appear in the Jewish apocrypha until the Book of Jubilees from the late 2nd century BCE as can be seen by its reference to the Maccabees. While Satan existed in the Jewish popular imagination sometime before the 1st century CE, it was not then and is still not a part of the formal Jewish religion.

    The world will end, and God’s justice realized.

    The Frashokereti (renewal of the world) is not described in any detail until the Bundahishn, written in the 9th century CE. Although its ideas are in the Zoroastrian popular mind, the Bundahishn is not considered actual scripture. because it varies very considerably from the older Younger Avesta and the much older Gathas.

    The renewal of the world in Jewish literature is not about destroying Persian gods as Carrier claims. It is about God stepping in to defeat the Gentile oppressors, establishing a permanent Jewish kingdom to which all nations will pay allegiance. The broader idea of a battle with Satan instead of the Gentiles does not appear until the Book of Revelation, written no earlier than the end of the 1st century CE.

    A river of fire sent by God will flow over the universe burning everything up

    A similar idea appears only in the 9th century CE Bundahishn, not considered scripture. Gochihir (some celestial object) falls to earth causing molten meal to flow all over the earth. The righteous will experience this as a pleasant sensation. The unrighteous will suffer terribly. In this way everything is purified. It is not the molten metal that renews the world but an act of God afterward.

    This idea comes from LDS quote mining snippets from here and there. There are no references to the end of days in Jewish or Christian literature that involve burning everything up or everyone waking through molten metal.
    A new better world will be created in its place

    This idea does not appear in any significant detail in Zoroastrian thought until the 9th century CE in Bundahishn, not considered scripture.

    Whether the Jews will simply live in peace in their homeland or the world will actually get changed and in what way is an evolving thought. It appears in Jewish thought after the end of the rather benign and tolerant Persian rule when foreign oppressors make the idea of God defeating them and making things better an attractive one.

    All the good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after

    There is no clear reference to the resurrection of the dead until Yashti 19 described earlier. Yashti 19 describes the final evolved form of the thought ca. 1st century CE and not the earliest post-Persian Jewish writings.

    Did the Persians influence Judaism? Sure, that was well known before Carrier came along. But Carrier has to do everything possible to denigrate Christianity because that sells books. He does not bother to research the ongoing evolution of Zoroastrianism (as referred to by Boyce in her book), as he does the ongoing evolution of Judaism.
     
  13. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    Professor Stravopolou says nothing about Zoroastrianism. She talks about Persian influence on the evolution of Judaism which is certainly the case. Keep in mind that there were Persian religions older than Zoroastrianism, which was not yet dominant. The idea of angels may have come from the lesser deities of Persian polytheism getting incorporated into an increasing Jewish monotheism, this being a very practical matter as previously discussed and with which Stravopolou also discusses.

    Persian influences on Judaism, including very possibly ones unique to Zoroastrian. Definitely.
    Judaism and Christianity deriving from Zoroastrian writings from centuries after the advent of Christianity as Carrier wants. No.

    If 6 or 7 dying/rising savior demigods are so agreed on by the historicity field, it should be a cinch to name them. Remember that they have to be dying/rising savior demigods with definite pre-Christian stories that would be accessible to people in the general mid-East / Mediterranean world.

    In particular please reference a dying/rising god that was part of Zoroastrianism before 332 BCE when the Jews were no longer in contact with Persia.

    And of course the fact that the earliest Jesus followers had a problem with this upstart Paul who never really saw Jesus and who preached the resurrection of Jesus.


    Here is some fun reading.

    “DYING AND RISING GODS . The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”
    Dying and Rising Gods | Encyclopedia.com

    That is just the intro. Lots more after it.

    No, not apologetic. You are being evasive. Show me anywhere in the Bible where it says the world will end in fire. If you cannot do that, admit it.

    Rewards and punishments yes, but immediately after death. Resurrection of the dead? Not until the post Christian Yasht 19 do we see that.

    The quotes from Campbell do not mention anything about linear time. In Zoroastrianism, individual responsibility for one’s actions is an important precept. That is what will determine the nature of the world. But that is also an idea found in the old Greek classics. It is also found in the Akkadian myths from before 2000 BCE that Genesis 2-4. What constitutes linear time is a matter of definition, What definition are we using?

    None of the citations point to a book by Campbell, just his name. Therefore, I cannot look at the context of the quotes.

    What about my comment that the apparently pre-Persian parts of Jewish scriptures are obsessed with chronologies and genealogies? And the creation stories (2 of them) in Genesis are related to really old Sumerian or Akkadian myths, not Persian.

    Judaism at that time had many different forms of sin atonement. Only sometimes was blood involved. It was connected with blood as atonement for the sins of the people only on Yom Kippur. However Paul connects the death of Jesus with Pesach. He also sometimes connects the blood with bread, which would not be allowed on Yom Kippur, this being forbidden on a strict fast day. Also, as I have previously shown, other Jesus missionaries had problems with this Jesus was a sacrifice thing. So no, Yom Kippur does not work.

    All forms of literature – histories, biographies, in addition to religious works – used these literary techniques. Not at all unique to myth.

    For specific purposes.

    Mark was seeking to deal with the destruction of the Temple and its impact on Jewish Christians (obvious) and on Gentile Christians put off by the apparent association of the terrible war with messianic movements. His use of legitimate sounding anecdotes from the world as it was around 30 CE and almost incomprehensible to a later audience points to a movement that had been around some time.

    Matthew is strengthening the walls around Jewish Christianity against the new Rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity. He goes to great lengths to identify Jesus as the Messiah against Jewish denial of that. On the other side, he pushes back at the Pauline abandonment of Jewish Law.

    Luke is concerned that Matthew sounds too much like trying to revive the nearly dead ashes of a revolutionary messianic movement and turns much of Matthew upside down to refocus the story.

    John reverts back to Paul’s divine Son of God, neglected in the Synoptic Gospels and also quietly debunks the ‘Jesus is coming back very soon’ notion found in the other Gospels. As part of his divine Jesus program, John separates Christianity from its Jewish roots, being the first to lump all Jews together as ‘the Jews’.

    Referring to existing scriptures was common. Paul also indulged in it as did Luke. Matthew went over the top with it. We can see the Jewish Mishnah and Gemara written years later doing it very often. So?
     
  14. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,096
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Christian
    Did jesus start christianity? Yes, it has a lot to do with Leviticus, the temple, sin AND Christianity.
     
  15. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,096
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Christian
    Does your Bible say that Christianity would start?
     
  16. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    387
    Ratings:
    +213
    Religion:
    None
    So Carrier picks out two sets of five miracles in Mark, leaving out others so he can say Ten Miracles! Must be the Ten Commandments! Jesus must be Moses! There is no relationship in the passages mentioned to any of the Ten Commandments. Nor are the Ten Commandments divided into five pairs.

    Carrier then stops talking about the Ten Commandments before he has to try to explain the connection.

    Instead he claims that Jesus calming the storm at sea twice, including walking on the water one time, is the same as Moses parting the Red Sea. The walking on water story is very strange. Jesus sends the disciples by boat across the Sea of Galilee. They run into trouble in a storm. They spot Jesus in the distance walking on the water but he did not intend to stop for them. He was just walking and was going to pass them by. Why exactly was he walking on the water in the middle of the night in the middle of a storm in the first place instead of some easier miraculous mode of transportation? This sounds like some earlier story old enough to spawn two versions as with the two feeding of the multitudes. It does not sound like an intentionally invented story.

    And despite Charlton Heston, Moses had to wait all night for the wind to blow the waters away. He did not perform that miracle himself.

    Several stories that involve healing have Jesus speaking Aramaic, including the two that involve spit. Really? Mark is going make up stories about Jesus using spit to perform miracles? Especially since in one of them, Jesus has to do it twice because it flopped the first try. These are old stories that Mark incorporated. In these and some others that Carrier mentions Jesus speaks Aramaic. Mark is writing for a mixed Jewish/Gentile Christian audience. The Jews would recognize Mark’s subtle identification of John the Baptist with Elijah via scriptural references. But he needs to explain Jewish customs for the Gentiles. However both groups know Koine Greek. This is not Judea or any Aramaic speaking area. Why would Mark invent stories using Aramaic? Similarly, the connection between Jesus on the cross, reciting Psalm 22 in Aramaic and being thought to be calling Elijah only works if you can speak Aramaic and see the similarity of pronunciation. These are old stories Mark inherited not anything he invented.

    Carrier does not understand the Gerasene demoniac story. It is a revenge fantasy against the Tenth Legion, whose emblem was a pig that they loved to show to the Jews. The Tenth and two other legions has sent some elements to the siege of Gamla in 67 CE during the opening of the Jewish War. Many insurgents and refugees had fled to Gamla, a fortified city up in the mountains. But the Romans got to them anyway and many people were forced over a steep cliff and died. The 2000 demons had begged to be allowed to leave the country before they were sent into the pigs who fell down a cliff. The purpose of the revolt was to force the Romans out of the country.

    Someone reading Mark shortly after 70 CE when he wrote would get the meaning of the story. They would never see a connection with Moses.

    If Carrier wanted to see a connection with Moses he would be better off using Matthew who makes that image quite explicit as part of his program of making Jesus he culmination of Law observant Jewish history. Which is opposed to anti-Law Paul. Luke then campaigns against Matthew’s image to disassociate Jesus from Matthew’s frequent subtext of still wanting to throw out the Romans.

    As usual, Carrier is way off the mark.

    Speaking of which, Carrier’s later discussion of fig trees shows that he does not fully understand Mark’s very clever imagery about the fig tree and the Temple and having faith, which ties into Mark’s Olivet Discourse. It is not about the Temple cult. It is about the destruction of the physical Temple. Mark does not have Jesus talk about prayer but about having a whole lot of faith. In the Olivet Discourse, Mark has the fig tree blooming as a metaphor for seeing the signs of the return of Jesus beginning with the destruction of the Temple. But you have to have a lot of faith that it is really going to happen. You can’t just quote mine one liners and expect to understand the Big Picture.

    Carrier’s presentation is about proving that the Gospels are not literally true in every word. That’s right. They are all about pushing individual agendas sometimes in opposition with each other. They use some really great techniques and imagery in that pursuit. But what has this to do with Jesus being mythical? The Gospels were written 40 and more years after Jesus. What they say has no bearing on what really happened. They did not invent Jesus as we can see from Paul and from Paul’s predecessors who had other ideas about Jesus before Paul and from Mark’s use of clearly old stories. Who is going to understand the arguments between Shammai Pharisees and Hillel Pharisees when there are no more Shammai Pharisees?

    That is referring to the 5th century CE when the Younger Vesta was finally written down. There are some writings later but they are not considered scripture,

    Carrier’s ‘odds’ are dishonestly rigged as I have previously shown. Give me evidence that an unforgivingly monotheistic religion like Judaism ever included a belief in a dying/rising demigod. Quote scripture, canonial or non-canonical, But not 'Carrier said so'.

    Where is this quote from?

    The tenets of Zoroastrianism that can be seen in Jewish scriptures are valid and can be found in the Gathas. But the tenets that are claimed to be the source of Christian belief come much much later in Zoroastrian writings, after the Christian era had begun.

    Also, please learn the difference between 6 BC and 6th century BC.

    And I have no quarrel with Boyce. Show me something she said that contradicts what I have said.

    Daniel never refers to the one “looking like a son of man” as the Anointed One or anything near that. The anointed one in 9:26 is a king (an anointed one) who is killed and will be no more. End of story. The Messiah will be no more? This is trying to retrofit Christian claims about meaning into Daniel’s intended meaning. Nor can I find any reference to Anointed One in Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda is God and Ahriman is the evil one. Why would Daniel think that the two good archangels that he names are God and the evil one? It is perfectly obvious that good archangels Gabriel and Michael are neither God nor the evil one.

    This person may source Boyce but definitely not with respect to anything Boyce said.
     
  17. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,293
    Ratings:
    +4,393
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, I agree the 2 versions are not copying each other. But which seems more accurate? The one that provides the most seaworthy vessel! The Bible's Ark has ratios in its design -- 30(L):5(W): 3(H) -- that compare to modern ships.
    No '90-cubit sq. x 120-cubit high' box, which would be so unstable!!

     
  18. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,229
    Ratings:
    +1,299
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe your imagination exceeds anyone else's in this regard.
     
  19. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,229
    Ratings:
    +1,299
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe you could add to that the concept that Jesus , as God is the word of God as stated in John 1:1.
     
  20. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    18,229
    Ratings:
    +1,299
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe you will find that God doesn't pay much attention to the traditions of men
     
Loading...