Atheistforums.com

Richard Carrier published a book a couple of years ago titled: On the Historicity of Jesus (Why we Might Have Reason for Doubt).  I read it when it was published and found it fascinating.  However, it is a long book (almost 700 pages) and very heavily footnoted--which I like.  Early on he established what is factually known about Christianity and Jesus broken down into units or elements of data.  There are 48 elements and each one is a statement of fact or knowledge that has been established and accepted as fact.  These may be disputed, but he indicates only by the most fanatical, but is generally accepted as established among most scholars.  So, I thought I'd list all these elements, one at a time and see if anyone has feedback about these elements. 

So, without much surprise, I'll start the listing with Element 1:

The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE.

Cavebear, I came to that belief somewhat later in life than you did.  For most of my life I regarded jesus as a man to whom legend and myth had become attached.   

I sort of had it in mind to list these one a day.  But some are so short that I will move on more quickly than that.

Element 2:
When Christianity began. Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.  There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.  We know of at least ten competing sects,  possibly more than 30 and there could have easily been more.  .......................... No argument, therefore, can proceed from an assumption of any universally normative Judaism.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:36:40 AM
Cavebear, I came to that belief somewhat later in life than you did.  For most of my life I regarded jesus as a man to whom legend and myth had become attached.

I read the bible as a child, like I read the family encyclopedia and the dictionaries.  I caught on to the "Jesus as Santa Clause for adults" pretty quick.  But I was never sure.  I can only guess my age, but I think it was about 12, and decided that religious claims made no sense.  My parents never admitted their uncertainty and I had to get through the religious nonsense on my own. 

In retrospect, I understand that my parents were being carefully neutral.  And had they chosen a "side" I might be a very different person.  But my questioning of religion as "illogical" helped me through all my years after.  I made up my own mind.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:43:22 AM
I sort of had it in mind to list these one a day.  But some are so short that I will move on more quickly than that.

Element 2:
When Christianity began. Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.  There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.  We know of at least ten competing sects, possibly possibly more than 30 and there could have easily been more.  .......................... No argument, therefore, can proceed from an assumption of any universally normative Judaism.

I knew there were many jewish sects, but not so many.  Please continue.  And thank you for this.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 11:50:50 AM
I knew there were many jewish sects, but not so many.  Please continue.  And thank you for this.

I will list all 48; the only consideration will be the pacing.  Some are short (like the first 2) and others are quite long.  But finish, I will.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:15:17 AM
Richard Carrier published a book a couple of years ago titled: On the Historicity of Jesus (Why we Might Have Reason for Doubt).  I read it when it was published and found it fascinating.  However, it is a long book (almost 700 pages) and very heavily footnoted--which I like.  Early on he established what is factually known about Christianity and Jesus broken down into units or elements of data.  There are 48 elements and each one is a statement of fact or knowledge that has been established and accepted as fact.  These may be disputed, but he indicates only by the most fanatical, but is generally accepted as established among most scholars.  So, I thought I'd list all these elements, one at a time and see if anyone has feedback about these elements. 

So, without much surprise, I'll start the listing with Element 1:

The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE.

Correct.  Begging the question.  But it wasn't Christianity as we know it, that happened in 325 CE in Nicea, under Constantine.  All Christianity before that, is mis-named as such.  Rome had a great oppressive politics and propaganda machine.  Constantine made up shit, and erased evidence.  His clergy were government employees, who did his bidding.  The Christian Bible was canonized by priests acting as political agents of the State ... over the next 100 years.  It is a fact, but irrelevant, that Armenia and Ethiopia established State churches around the same time.  There were some Gentile Christian groups that escaped State control, in Persia, where they were oppressed by the Sassanids because they were suspected as a Fifth Column.  But the making of Zoroastrianism into a State church in Sassanid Persia, preceded all this by about 75 years, so the others had a prototype to imitate.  Constantine replaced one State church (paganism) with another, for his own political goals as head of the Roman Mafia.  There was no separation of Church and State ever ... once the Church got going, until relatively recently.  There still isn't in Germany, GB etc.  Gentile Christians (135 CE forward) were only free because they were a criminal sedition against the Roman State church (paganism).

As far as the historical Jesus goes, I used to care, but have grown past that after I did my own research circa 1997.  We can't see thru the evidence because of the deep weeds of propaganda.  There is only history as entertainment, not as fact.

BTW - this kind of analysis is common to the Jesus Seminar and John Dominic Crossan ... who was part of the Jesus Seminar, but independent of it.  Even Crossan isn't skeptical enough, because he is still a Christian.  John Shelby Spong is another Jesus Seminar type ... and he comes closer, because he recognizes the Jewish aspect.  Orthodox Rabbis don't because they reject everything Gentile as non-kosher, including even Jewish Christians.  Just another failed messiah, if historical, or just another fake messiah, if ahistorical.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:36:40 AM
Cavebear, I came to that belief somewhat later in life than you did.  For most of my life I regarded jesus as a man to whom legend and myth had become attached.

That is a common Unitarian-Universalist POV ... not even Protestant.  But still religious.  I initially assumed that too, until I completed my own research.  Basically, the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, et al were trying to establish a non-orthodox view of a historical Jesus ... for me they failed, they demonstrated that Jesus was mythical.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:36:40 AM
Cavebear, I came to that belief somewhat later in life than you did.  For most of my life I regarded jesus as a man to whom legend and myth had become attached.

Correct again.  But after three Jewish-Roman wars, there were only two winners by 200 CE ... a slowly forming rabbinic Jewish sect, and a slowly forming gentile Christian sect.  They were still disunited.  That ends with political power.  Judaism both in Roman territory and in Persian territory, has to become normative to be licit under Roman or Persian law (order is required, thus uniformity).  Similarly that is what happened in Roman territory, Armenian territory and Ethiopian territory for the Christians.  Christians only remained freely associating and diverse, under non-State conditions (Nubia, Persia and India).  Bible Judaism itself (around 500 BCE), only became normative, because the Persian Empire made it so, when it sent quislings from Babylon to Jerusalem (see Ezra), under the first Zionism.  That is where most of the Jewish Bible comes from ... normative under that political domination.  Of course this was anachronistic after Alexander and Caesar.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 12:49:15 PM
Correct again.  But after three Jewish-Roman wars, there were only two winners by 200 CE ... a slowly forming rabbinic Jewish sect, and a slowly forming gentile Christian sect.  They were still disunited.  That ends with political power.  Judaism both in Roman territory and in Persian territory, has to become normative to be licit under Roman or Persian law (order is required, thus uniformity).  Similarly that is what happened in Roman territory, Armenian territory and Ethiopian territory for the Christians.  Christians only remained freely associating and diverse, under non-State conditions (Nubia, Persia and India).  Bible Judaism itself (around 500 BCE), only became normative, because the Persian Empire made it so, when it sent quislings from Babylon to Jerusalem (see Ezra), under the first Zionism.  That is where most of the Jewish Bible comes from ... normative under that political domination.  Of course this was anachronistic after Alexander and Caesar.

The jewish texts are really only a record of the change from nomadic life to a farming life ages before.  All the old testament rules were merely shamanic recordings of how people made sensible rules to manage the transition.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 01:02:19 PM
The jewish texts are really only a record of the change from nomadic life to a farming life ages before.  All the old testament rules were merely shamanic recordings of how people made sensible rules to manage the transition.

Yes ... but you are looking down from 30,000 feet.  You do see the forest.  But you don't have to bother with the trees unless you want to.  Stuff from 1000-3000 years ago ... is really old news, and mostly fake anyway.

Where we differ is ... you admire modern people and despise ancient people.  I don't admire people at all (I try not to despise them all).  But anthropologically, the ancient people are less annoying, because I have to live with the modern people, but not with the ancient people.  There are many ways of being human, both in space and time.  All are part of anthropology.  If I had to live in New Guinea, I would probably tire of it pretty quickly too.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 01:04:13 PM
Yes ... but you are looking down from 30,000 feet.  You do see the forest.  But you don't have to bother with the trees unless you want to.  Stuff from 1000-3000 years ago ... is really old news, and mostly fake anyway.

Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance.  Americans think 200 years is a long time.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 01:07:21 PM
Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance.  Americans think 200 years is a long time.

Shh ... don't tell the Europeans or the Americans.  They both think they are superior to the other.  To really get into it, you have to think in terms of 1000s of miles and 1000s of years.  And prior to writing, the people of old can't tell us much, unfortunately.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 01:08:59 PM
Shh ... don't tell the Europeans or the Americans.  They both think they are superior to the other.  To really get into it, you have to think in terms of 1000s of miles and 1000s of years.  And prior to writing, the people of old can't tell us much, unfortunately.

History is relentless.  Someday, the US will go the way of the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the French and the Brits. 

But not THIS century...  Ask the Germans and the Japanese.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 01:19:14 PM
History is relentless.  Someday, the US will go the way of the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the French and the Brits. 

But not THIS century...  Ask the Germans and the Japanese.

What about the POV ... history is moving faster now?  Future Shock?

I haven't yet come across this Richard Carrier book, but I look forward to reading it if I get the chance. In my case, though, he'd definitely be preaching to the choir, since I don't believe that any such person as the biblical Jesus ever existed. I have read some other books on the subject, so I'm not completely ignorant of the various arguments for and against a historical Jesus.

I subscribe to astro-theology (http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/astrotheology.html), which claims that Jesus is just another sun god for the new age that saw the sun leave the sign of Taurus the bull )Mithras), Aries, then the goat (Moses), and enters Pisces, the fish (Jesus). I guess we'll soon need a new sun god, though, as we enter the age of Aquarius. I wonder if that'll happen.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbkQjIeJFec

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
What about the POV ... history is moving faster now?  Future Shock?

Except in wars, history is tectonic...

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 12:41:07 PM
Correct.  Begging the question.  But it wasn't Christianity as we know it, that happened in 325 CE in Nicea, under Constantine.  All Christianity before that, is mis-named as such.  Rome had a great oppressive politics and propaganda machine.  Constantine made up shit, and erased evidence.  His clergy were government employees, who did his bidding.  The Christian Bible was canonized by priests acting as political agents of the State ... over the next 100 years.  It is a fact, but irrelevant, that Armenia and Ethiopia established State churches around the same time.  There were some Gentile Christian groups that escaped State control, in Persia, where they were oppressed by the Sassanids because they were suspected as a Fifth Column.  But the making of Zoroastrianism into a State church in Sassanid Persia, preceded all this by about 75 years, so the others had a prototype to imitate.  Constantine replaced one State church (paganism) with another, for his own political goals as head of the Roman Mafia.  There was no separation of Church and State ever ... once the Church got going, until relatively recently.  There still isn't in Germany, GB etc.  Gentile Christians (135 CE forward) were only free because they were a criminal sedition against the Roman State church (paganism).

As far as the historical Jesus goes, I used to care, but have grown past that after I did my own research circa 1997.  We can't see thru the evidence because of the deep weeds of propaganda.  There is only history as entertainment, not as fact.

BTW - this kind of analysis is common to the Jesus Seminar and John Dominic Crossan ... who was part of the Jesus Seminar, but independent of it.  Even Crossan isn't skeptical enough, because he is still a Christian.  John Shelby Spong is another Jesus Seminar type ... and he comes closer, because he recognizes the Jewish aspect.  Orthodox Rabbis don't because they reject everything Gentile as non-kosher, including even Jewish Christians.  Just another failed messiah, if historical, or just another fake messiah, if ahistorical.

I quite agree.  The 'finished' (although it is never finished and changes with the different generations) product came from Constantine's efforts. But with his elements, Carrier will tie in the prototype Christianity with the current one.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 12:43:00 PM
That is a common Unitarian-Universalist POV ... not even Protestant.  But still religious.  I initially assumed that too, until I completed my own research.  Basically, the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, et al were trying to establish a non-orthodox view of a historical Jesus ... for me they failed, they demonstrated that Jesus was mythical.

When the Jesus Seminar started I was deeply interested in it.  Went to a couple of their seminars in Santa Rosa, CA.  Those were interesting.  Karen Armstrong and Bishop Spong were featured speakers--liked them both.  I remember there was quite a bit of discussion of the Red Letter bible and attended a couple of discussions dealing with it.  But I don't remember hearing much about Jesus not being an actual historical figure.  I'm not sure Carrier would be a welcome guest at a seminar. 

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 04, 2017, 01:50:27 PM
I haven't yet come across this Richard Carrier book, but I look forward to reading it if I get the chance. In my case, though, he'd definitely be preaching to the choir, since I don't believe that any such person as the biblical Jesus ever existed. I have read some other books on the subject, so I'm not completely ignorant of the various arguments for and against a historical Jesus.

I subscribe to astro-theology (http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/astrotheology.html), which claims that Jesus is just another sun god for the new age that saw the sun leave the sign of Taurus the bull )Mithras), and enter Pisces, the fish (Jesus). I guess we'll soon need a new sun god, though, as we enter the age of Aquarius. I wonder if that'll happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbkQjIeJFec

By the time I had picked up Carrier's book, he was preaching to the choir in my case, as well.  But the historian in me wanted to see how Carrier handled the data and how he argued his case.  I was and am, impressed.

Like you, I think of Jesus as the Sun of God.  I think sun worshiping was strong in that region and time frame.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 02:04:24 PM
When the Jesus Seminar started I was deeply interested in it.  Went to a couple of their seminars in Santa Rosa, CA.  Those were interesting.  Karen Armstrong and Bishop Spong were featured speakers--liked them both.  I remember there was quite a bit of discussion of the Red Letter bible and attended a couple of discussions dealing with it.  But I don't remember hearing much about Jesus not being an actual historical figure.  I'm not sure Carrier would be a welcome guest at a seminar.

Politics beats religion eventually.  If Italy took over the Vatican and killed the Pope, do you think all of catholic SA could raises armies to invade Italy.  Do you think such an aramada would be permitted by the Rest Of The World?. 

Element 4:
a.  Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. 
b.  It is therefore no oddity or accident that this is exactly when Christianity arouse.  It was yet another messiah cult in the midst of a fad for just such cults.
c.  That it among them would alone survive and spread can therefore be the product of natural selection: so many variations of the same theme were being tried, odds are one of them would by
     chance be successful, hitting all the right notes and dodging all the right bullets.  The lucky winner in that contest just happened to be Christianity. 

Regardless, all the evidence is clear enough on the general fact of the matter:  the first century had exploded with messianic fervor, to the point that it's not at all surprising one of these countless new messianic cults would become more successful than the rest (the others being wiped out or not adopting the right mix of popular attributes), even standing a fair chance of becoming a world religion (as any successful cult has a shot of doing).  And Christianity is exactly such a messianic cult arising exactly when such cults were popular, and in the very same place.

If it hadn't been for the council of Nicea and Constantine, I doubt we'd ever have even heard of Judaism, much less Christianity. They'd simply have been ancient cults that anthropologists would study, and that's about it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 02:04:24 PM
When the Jesus Seminar started I was deeply interested in it.  Went to a couple of their seminars in Santa Rosa, CA.  Those were interesting.  Karen Armstrong and Bishop Spong were featured speakers--liked them both.  I remember there was quite a bit of discussion of the Red Letter bible and attended a couple of discussions dealing with it.  But I don't remember hearing much about Jesus not being an actual historical figure.  I'm not sure Carrier would be a welcome guest at a seminar.

Karen Armstrong was a very important part, and Elaine Pagels.  The women contributed a lot.  The "mythicists" are the ones who deny any historicity.  I would deny the importance of any historicity.  Not quite the same.  And yes, the Jesus Seminar was a kind of minimalist apologetic to the "G-d is dead" theology.  The only one I got to hear live was Spong.  One of the minor members, who was an expert in parables, was one of my wife's professors at seminary.  The dean of that school was an expert in Montanism.  When my wife was in seminary, all of this was very hot for me, I ate it up.  But in the end I had to dismiss the methodology used by the Jesus Seminar and the somewhat different method used by Crossan.  I admire their work, but they were apologists in any case.  It is very hard for one's theology not to be warped by the culture of one's own time.  Montanism was an early charismatic movement.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 02:08:57 PM
By the time I had picked up Carrier's book, he was preaching to the choir in my case, as well.  But the historian in me wanted to see how Carrier handled the data and how he argued his case.  I was and am, impressed.

Like you, I think of Jesus as the Sun of God.  I think sun worshiping was strong in that region and time frame.

Well given that Constantine was originally a worshipper of Sol Invictus ... it is pretty obvious for him.  What it meant to Paul, is maybe not quite the same, and Paul different markedly from the other apostles.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 07:56:00 PM
Karen Armstrong was a very important part, and Elaine Pagels.  The women contributed a lot.  The "mythicists" are the ones who deny any historicity.  I would deny the importance of any historicity.  Not quite the same.  And yes, the Jesus Seminar was a kind of minimalist apologetic to the "G-d is dead" theology.  The only one I got to hear live was Spong.  One of the minor members, who was an expert in parables, was one of my wife's professors at seminary.  The dean of that school was an expert in Montanism.  When my wife was in seminary, all of this was very hot for me, I ate it up.  But in the end I had to dismiss the methodology used by the Jesus Seminar and the somewhat different method used by Crossan.  I admire their work, but they were apologists in any case.  It is very hard for one's theology not to be warped by the culture of one's own time.  Montanism was an early charismatic movement.

I think the Jesus Seminar was an important step in the search for the historical Jesus that was begun in the 1800's.  And I think that that is an important search.  It seems important that establishing that Jesus was a fiction and how that could be, will make it easier to establish that god is also a fiction. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 06:02:31 PM
Element 4:
a.  Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. 
b.  It is therefore no oddity or accident that this is exactly when Christianity arouse.  It was yet another messiah cult in the midst of a fad for just such cults.
c.  That it among them would alone survive and spread can therefore be the product of natural selection: so many variations of the same theme were being tried, odds are one of them would by
     chance be successful, hitting all the right notes and dodging all the right bullets.  The lucky winner in that contest just happened to be Christianity. 

Regardless, all the evidence is clear enough on the general fact of the matter:  the first century had exploded with messianic fervor, to the point that it's not at all surprising one of these countless new messianic cults would become more successful than the rest (the others being wiped out or not adopting the right mix of popular attributes), even standing a fair chance of becoming a world religion (as any successful cult has a shot of doing).  And Christianity is exactly such a messianic cult arising exactly when such cults were popular, and in the very same place.

Correct again.  But where is point #3?

I would modify slightly ... Jewish pacifist cults survived because they were pacifist.  Jewish pro-Roman cults survived because they were pro-Roman.  Anti-Roman or violent Jewish cults only survived outside of the reach of the Romans (in Persia).  Gentile pacifist cults also survived (see Pauline churches).  Gentile being = pro-Roman.  So yes, there was a Darwinian selection going on, that led to a small set of cults that weren't targets of Roman legions.  One set of these developed into the limited spectrum of pre-Constantinian Christianity, and the other set developed into the limited spectrum of pre-Constantinian Judaism.  But even after Constantine, the new systems took awhile to settle down ... and then Rome fell to the Germans ... Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch fell to first the Persians, and then to the Muslims.  Leaving only Constantinople as the only orthodoxy under Imperial control.  The slow recovery, and non-submission of the Roman church, was decisive for its differences with Constantinople .. it wasn't just Latin vs Greek.

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 04, 2017, 06:53:26 PM
If it hadn't been for the council of Nicea and Constantine, I doubt we'd ever have even heard of Judaism, much less Christianity. They'd simply have been ancient cults that anthropologists would study, and that's about it.

If Alexander had lived longer, and had adopted Buddhism as had King Menander of Punjab (Indo-Greek) a bit later ... we would never have heard of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 02:14:22 PM
Politics beats religion eventually.  If Italy took over the Vatican and killed the Pope, do you think all of catholic SA could raises armies to invade Italy.  Do you think such an aramada would be permitted by the Rest Of The World?.

They already did under Mussolini.  The Concordat between Fascist Italy and the Vatican.  And without firing a single shot.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 08:04:52 PM
I think the Jesus Seminar was an important step in the search for the historical Jesus that was begun in the 1800's.  And I think that that is an important search.  It seems important that establishing that Jesus was a fiction and how that could be, will make it easier to establish that god is also a fiction.

Where we differ is .. you think a fiction is powerless.  I know it to be awesomely powerful.  As a myth, Jesus is far more powerful than as a historical figure.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 08:04:52 PM
I think the Jesus Seminar was an important step in the search for the historical Jesus that was begun in the 1800's.  And I think that that is an important search.  It seems important that establishing that Jesus was a fiction and how that could be, will make it easier to establish that god is also a fiction.

And I think we are in what is termed as the third quest for the historical Jesus.  The first quest was in the late 1800's; that was met with a flurry of refuting books.  So, it died out.  The second Quest began in the '50's.  And the third quest, which is still ongoing, picked up in the 90's.  Carrier and others, like Robert M. Price, are the torch barer of the current quest.  This means that this research is quite new, less than 200 yrs. old.   This quest is just in it's beginning.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 08:11:44 PM
And I think we are in what is termed as the third quest for the historical Jesus.  The first quest was in the late 1800's; that was met with a flurry of refuting books.  So, it died out.  The second Quest began in the '50's.  And the third quest, which is still ongoing, picked up in the 90's.  Carrier and others, like Robert M. Price, are the torch barer of the current quest.  This means that this research is quite new, less than 200 yrs. old.   This quest is just in it's beginning.

The most recent quest for Muhammad, says that he was created from reading between the lines of the Quran.  The Quran created him, not the other way around.  Try telling a Muslim that!  Of course Orthodox Jews believe in a historical, and even supernatural Moses ... but they are silly people.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
Where we differ is .. you think a fiction is powerless.  I know it to be awesomely powerful.  As a myth, Jesus is far more powerful than as a historical figure.

I have never said that fiction is powerless.  Never.  I do pay attention and appreciate Campbell's research in the power of, and the role myth and legends play in the lives of societies and individuals.  I really like The Hero's Journey and plays a part in every person's life; lessons to be learned if one studies what this is all about.  At times fiction can be as powerful or more powerful, than truth.  That is because symbols are very important in the lives of societies and individuals. 

I think with the establishment of the fact that Jesus is a fiction will help in the decline of the hierarchy of the christian organizations.  It will help deflate the political power of it's leaders.  But I realize that this will take time.  And I will not live to see much of this come to pass.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 08:13:51 PM
The most recent quest for Muhammad, says that he was created from reading between the lines of the Quran.  The Quran created him, not the other way around.  Try telling a Muslim that!  Of course Orthodox Jews believe in a historical, and even supernatural Moses ... but they are silly people.

I know little, to nothing, of the historical underpinnings of the Islam religion.  I'm sure that much of it--if not all of it--is fictional.  Except I have been told Mohammad is a historical person.  But I'm sure much of what he is said to have written and done are fictions.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
I have never said that fiction is powerless.  Never.  I do pay attention and appreciate Campbell's research in the power of, and the role myth and legends play in the lives of societies and individuals.  I really like The Hero's Journey and plays a part in every person's life; lessons to be learned if one studies what this is all about.  At times fiction can be as powerful or more powerful, than truth.  That is because symbols are very important in the lives of societies and individuals. 

I think with the establishment of the fact that Jesus is a fiction will help in the decline of the hierarchy of the christian organizations.  It will help deflate the political power of it's leaders.  But I realize that this will take time.  And I will not live to see much of this come to pass.

The power of the hierarchy depends on the power of the State (or if the Church is a state within the State).  I disagree with you political science.  If Stalin wanted the Georgian Orthodox Church to take over, it would have ... and it would have had the organization to accomplish this ... perhaps as a shadow branch of the KGB.

Element 5:
Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed, rather than be immediately victorious, and this would mark the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter.  Such a concept was therefore not a Christian novelty wholly against the grain of Jewish thinking, but already exactly what some Jews were thinking--or could easily have thought. 

[Carrier provides some examples of the above.]  I believe this amounts to ample evidence that at least some pre-Christian Jews were expecting a dying messiah to presage the end of the world;...............

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 04, 2017, 01:50:27 PM
I subscribe to astro-theology (http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/astrotheology.html), which claims that Jesus is just another sun god for the new age that saw the sun leave the sign of Taurus the bull )Mithras), Aries, then the goat (Moses), and enters Pisces, the fish (Jesus). I guess we'll soon need a new sun god, though, as we enter the age of Aquarius. I wonder if that'll happen.

Aquarius?  Well, if it's going to be a water god, I vote Cthulhu.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 05, 2017, 09:27:20 AM
Element 5:
Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed, rather than be immediately victorious, and this would mark the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter.  Such a concept was therefore not a Christian novelty wholly against the grain of Jewish thinking, but already exactly what some Jews were thinking--or could easily have thought. 

[Carrier provides some examples of the above.]  I believe this amounts to ample evidence that at least some pre-Christian Jews were expecting a dying messiah to presage the end of the world;...............

Partly true.  Different cults, different messiahs.  One cult expected two messiahs, a priestly one, followed by a kingly one.  I think that is the one you are referring to.  The priestly one might have been expected to be oppressed or killed.  The kingly one would be all powerful.  There was a High Priest Joshua not long after the initial Persian supported Zionism ... and he and Prince Zerubbabel might have been eliminated by the Persian authorities when they showed too much independence.  This is both a part of the background to the Homily to the Hebrews, and the Second Coming of Jesus (in kingly form the second time).  Muslims agree in some cases, to a Second Coming, with Jesus helping the Mahdi, not as the Mahdi.  Specifically the returned Jesus will take revenge on the Jews and Christians.  The Mahdi will exterminate all the non-Book people who aren't Muslim.

A more Maccabeen messiah would be a political and military leader who would magically defeat the Romans.  This was probably the most common version.  A spiritual messiah would bring about the end of human history (this is the only one I would accept).  The latter has never arrived, so all other messiahs are false.

Personally, I find the question of Jesus' historicity almost beside the point, mainly because most Christians are Paulists rather than Jesusists.

Is there independent evidence for the historicity of Paul?

Quote from: trdsf on October 05, 2017, 12:59:18 PM
Personally, I find the question of Jesus' historicity almost beside the point, mainly because most Christians are Paulists rather than Jesusists.

Is there independent evidence for the historicity of Paul?

If you subtract out the miracles, and the misattribution, and the editing, there is a core left that is plausible.  Of course Paul was wrong about most things ... just as Socrates was.  Most of the wise-guys of that time had Socrates in mind, if they had a death wish.  I am pretty sure the real Paul had a death wish.  In Search Of Paul by Crossan is a good book.  Misses stuff, but is good on the Gentile cultural notes.  Crossan isn't Jewish, he is Roman Catholic, so he misses the Jewish stuff.  He isn't a mystic, so he misses the Gnostic stuff too.

Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2017, 12:54:21 PM
Partly true.  Different cults, different messiahs.  One cult expected two messiahs, a priestly one, followed by a kingly one.  I think that is the one you are referring to.  The priestly one might have been expected to be oppressed or killed.  The kingly one would be all powerful.  There was a High Priest Joshua not long after the initial Persian supported Zionism ... and he and Prince Zerubbabel might have been eliminated by the Persian authorities when they showed too much independence.  This is both a part of the background to the Homily to the Hebrews, and the Second Coming of Jesus (in kingly form the second time).  Muslims agree in some cases, to a Second Coming, with Jesus helping the Mahdi, not as the Mahdi.  Specifically the returned Jesus will take revenge on the Jews and Christians.  The Mahdi will exterminate all the non-Book people who aren't Muslim.

A more Maccabeen messiah would be a political and military leader who would magically defeat the Romans.  This was probably the most common version.  A spiritual messiah would bring about the end of human history (this is the only one I would accept).  The latter has never arrived, so all other messiahs are false.

Some of these elements are 6 to 20 pages in length.  So, I try to pick out the salient points.  In this case, I'll list the other messiah's Carrier listed. 
--The Talmud explicitly says the suffering-dying servant who dies in Isaiah 53 is the messiah.
--The Talmud likewise has a dying-and-rising 'Christ son of Joseph' idology in it, even saying (Zech 12.10) that this messiah will be 'pierced' to death.
--The seventh century Apocalypse of Zerubbabel prophesies that there will be two messiahs, a Messiah ben David and a Messiah ben Joseph, and that latter messiah would come first and be killed by an evil tyrant named Armilus. 
--Book of Daniel explicitly says a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world.
--In a Dead Sea Scroll, the Melchizedek Scroll (designated 11Q13), which is an apocalyptic pesher (a document attempting to find secret links among disparate and previously unrelated verses, which together communicate God's plan, most commonly his plans for the coming messiah, the defeat of evil and the end of the world.).  There are many such pesherim at Qumran.  But this one tells us about the 'messenger' of Isaiah 52-53.

I prefer the other fact or fiction show.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VciNASBghQI/VMPTlzMbk_I/AAAAAAAABgY/4BwVhoMYqgk/s1600/beyond-belief-Frakes-595x347.png)

"Book of Daniel explicitly says a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world" ... a version of this is probably what Paul was peddling.  It was wrong.

Also people miss symbolic meanings.  Jews technically are sons of Jacob other than Joseph.  Joseph represented, in Hellenistic times, the Diaspora community.  The Jesus movement came out of the Diaspora community, not out of the Zionist community.  So "son of Joseph" says to me ... Diaspora.  Jesus = Joshua ... so those with Jesus will enter a Promised Land (but a burlesque of the Zionist version) ... because you cross vertically into Heaven from the Red Heifer altar on Mt of Olives, not horizontally across the Jordan river.  Of course this is even more mythical than the original Joshua version.

Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2017, 12:49:11 PM
"Book of Daniel explicitly says a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world" ... a version of this is probably what Paul was peddling.  It was wrong.

Also people miss symbolic meanings.  Jews technically are sons of Jacob other than Joseph.  Joseph represented, in Hellenistic times, the Diaspora community.  The Jesus movement came out of the Diaspora community, not out of the Zionist community.  So "son of Joseph" says to me ... Diaspora.  Jesus = Joshua ... so those with Jesus will enter a Promised Land (but a burlesque of the Zionist version) ... because you cross vertically into Heaven from the Red Heifer altar on Mt of Olives, not horizontally across the Jordan river.  Of course this is even more mythical than the original Joshua version.

Years and years ago, when I realized that Jesus and Joshua were the same names in different languages, and that they both meant 'savior', I linked that to the 'savior' cults in the 60's and 70's, in a hazy sort of way. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 06, 2017, 01:42:36 PM
Years and years ago, when I realized that Jesus and Joshua were the same names in different languages, and that they both meant 'savior', I linked that to the 'savior' cults in the 60's and 70's, in a hazy sort of way.

In one version of the story, Jesus ascended from the top of the Mt of Olives.  But there was something already there, the altar of the Red Heifer.  And what is that good for?  The ashes of that perpetual sacrifice, never to be cleaned up, go all the way back ... have magical powers to protect the High Priest, drunk with water, on Yom Kippur, when he utters the secret name of G-d, so he and the Jews aren't destroyed by strange fire from the Temple consuming bad ritual protocol ... now in Semitic languages, name=power=word aka Logos.  See the connection?  Kind of like ... licking an LSD stamp in the 70s.  Who knows what else they put into that magical drink.  Without knowing what is on the Mt of Olives, it looks like Jesus was sightseeing, or getting on a flying saucer.

Element 6:
The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with a man in Zechariah 3 and 6 named 'Jesus Rising' who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, given all of God's authority, holds the office of high priest, and will build up 'God's house (which is how Christians described their church).

In the Septuagint test, Zechariah is commanded in a vision to place the crown of kingship upon 'Jesus and to say immediately upon doing so that 'Jehovah declares' that this Jesus is 'the man named 'Rising' and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord. 

If this 'Jesus Rising' were connected to the dying servant who atones for all sins in Isaiah (and perhaps also with Daniel or 11Q13), it would be easy to read out of this almost the entire core Christian gospel.

The significance of this is that if such a connection had been made, the connector would have before him, in a simple pesher of Jewish scripture, a celestial being named Jesus Christ Rising, a high priest of God, in opposition to Satan, who is wrongly executed even though innocent, and dies to atone for all sins, is buried and subsequently 'rised', exalted to the highest station in heaven, appointed king with supreme heavenly power by God, and who will then build God's house (the church).  That sounds exactly like Christianity.

Yes ... early Christianity was Jewish ... but that "Jewish" wasn't rabbinic, the Pharisees were just one faction, the Taliban faction.  The rabbinical faction after 200 CE, is that part of the surviving Pharisee faction (with a few Sadducees thrown in) who were willing to kiss Roman ass, in order to survive at all.

In other words, the core of the gospel narrative, as a story, is an extended parable, it is as fictional as The Prodigal Son.  Jesus' parables are parables within a larger parable.  Johannine and Pauline Christianity, are much closer to the original Gnostic inspiration.  And Gnosticism is heterodox and hetero-praxis ... just as Sufism is within Islam.  It comes from Babylon, Persia and India.

Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2017, 12:10:44 PM
Yes ... early Christianity was Jewish ... but that "Jewish" wasn't rabbinic, the Pharisees were just one faction, the Taliban faction.  The rabbinical faction after 200 CE, is that part of the surviving Pharisee faction (with a few Sadducees thrown in) who were willing to kiss Roman ass, in order to survive at all.

In other words, the core of the gospel narrative, as a story, is an extended parable, it is as fictional as The Prodigal Son.  Jesus' parables are parables within a larger parable.  Johannine and Pauline Christianity, are much closer to the original Gnostic inspiration.  And Gnosticism is heterodox and hetero-praxis ... just as Sufism is within Islam.  It comes from Babylon, Persia and India.

In this section of Carrier's elements, he is making it clear that Christianity did not just spring up out of nowhere.  The Christians did not invent themselves or start at a ground zero.  The typical Christian seems to think that Jesus was born a Christian and that only through him did the religion start or was spread.  They also seem to think the bible appeared the same way; that a short time after Jesus was born, the Bible was prepared in heaven and then plopped down on Earth totally complete.  I know that many of my christian friends would search the NT for follow up when Paul mentions 'scripture' in one of his passages.  They have no idea that that Paul's scripture was the OT (because that's all there was); and they have no idea that there was more than one version of the OT.  He is establishing that all of the Christian concepts are/were Jewish concepts; that what was to be called Christian is simply a Jewish sect.

The rabbis have their own lies.  They were just one faction, and they only surviving orthopraxis faction.  They are not orthodox however ... their views veer from the Tanakh/OT.  In fact, they say that the Targums (Jewish translations of the Tanakh into Aramaic) were more authoritative than the original Hebrew version.  Everyone starts from somewhere, innovates, and then denies both.

Of course while Sunday School taught American adults to read ... that doesn't mean they understood what they read, either in 1817 or in 2017.

Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2017, 02:50:29 PM
The rabbis have their own lies.  They were just one faction, and they only surviving orthopraxis faction.  They are not orthodox however ... their views veer from the Tanakh/OT.  In fact, they say that the Targums (Jewish translations of the Tanakh into Aramaic) were more authoritative than the original Hebrew version.  Everyone starts from somewhere, innovates, and then denies both.

Of course while Sunday School taught American adults to read ... that doesn't mean they understood what they read, either in 1817 or in 2017.

Yeah, Carrier mentions in a footnote, the Jonathan ben Uzziel targum that deals with 'the suffering servant'.

Element 7:
a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the very messianic fervor of the age, which by the most obvious interpretation predicted the messiah's arrival in the early first century, even the very year of 30 ce.  b) This text was popularly known and widely influential, and was known and regarded as scripture by the early Christians.

If Daniel was behind much or all of the first-century craze for messiahs, it could have inspired Christianity as well (with or without a historical Jesus), Christianity being just another messianic cult like all the others.  and we can verify this at least as far as the Gospels.  Mark quotes a passage from the Danielic timetable (MK 13.13), and Matthew provides the attribution (Mt. 24.15).  Thus the earliest texts that place Jesus's death in Palestine around 30 ce were clearly aware of the very prophetic text placing a messiah's appearance and death around 30 ce.  And that's a fact, whatever we decide to make of it. 

The irony in all of this is that Daniel 9 was an attempt to fix a failed prophecy in Jeremiah, yet this 'fix' also failed, prompting later Jews to try and salvage this double failure by 'reinterpreting' Daniel this time and thus doing to Daniel what Daniel had unsuccessfully attempted to do to Jeremiah.  Christianity was the most successful result.  Of course, then the Christians had to spoil it by creating their own prophesy that the end of the world would come within the lifetimes of those hearing the good new.  Which prophesy also failed.

................................'Yes, the world didn't end today as we thought, but at least we're still saved'.  That's the mantra Christians have sustained the faith with for two thousand years.

Daniel was created circa 140 BCE ... it was part of Maccabee propaganda, piety and written in the ever more important Aramaic.  By the time of Paul, it was about 200 years old ... old enough that common people would have forgotten where it came from.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 08:07:48 PM
If Alexander had lived longer, and had adopted Buddhism as had King Menander of Punjab (Indo-Greek) a bit later ... we would never have heard of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

And if Mithraism had taken hold, we would have an entirely different world.  So what?

Quote from: Cavebear on October 08, 2017, 03:00:03 AM
And if Mithraism had taken hold, we would have an entirely different world.  So what?

You love alternative history, as long as you are positing it ... hypocrite much?  Mithraism (Roman kind) was only popular with Roman officers/centurions.  Would have never gotten farther than say, Freemasonry (which is kind of based on Roman Mithraism).  Mithra as a Persian god, was subordinate to Ahura Mazda, and would have only caught on if the Persians had managed to conquer the Romans.

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2017, 05:30:00 PM
You love alternative history, as long as you are positing it ... hypocrite much?  Mithraism (Roman kind) was only popular with Roman officers/centurions.  Would have never gotten farther than say, Freemasonry (which is kind of based on Roman Mithraism).  Mithra as a Persian god, was subordinate to Ahura Mazda, and would have only caught on if the Persians had managed to conquer the Romans.

Mithraism appealed to Roman soldiers in the East.  But it pre-dated christianity with some common elements. 

Element 8:
a) Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from god about the coming messiah, both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.  The Christians were thus not engaging in novel activity when they did the same.  b) Since countless Jews were already doing this, and had been for a century or more, we must conclude the Jews who would become the first Christians had already been doing it long before they became Christians.

Indeed this was a fad of the time, evident throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmuds and Jewish literature elsewhere.  The whole pesher genre is devoted to this activity.

.......................And it is because of this that countless different sects and interpretations of God's plan arose, with Christianity among them.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2017, 09:50:45 AM
Element 8:
a) Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from god about the coming messiah, both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.  The Christians were thus not engaging in novel activity when they did the same.  b) Since countless Jews were already doing this, and had been for a century or more, we must conclude the Jews who would become the first Christians had already been doing it long before they became Christians.

Indeed this was a fad of the time, evident throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmuds and Jewish literature elsewhere.  The whole pesher genre is devoted to this activity.

.......................And it is because of this that countless different sects and interpretations of God's plan arose, with Christianity among them.

Correct ... an certain Kabbalists are still doing this, down to the present day.  See Rabbi Menachem Schneerson.  Christianity only became majority Gentile after 135 CE ... but from that time, Gentile Christians became obsessed with divining the End Times.  See Millerites.  All of them, including Paul, were wrong.  And were basing it on a mythical Christ to begin with.  Of course there are historical precedents even for fantasy ... but that doesn't mean that the Teacher of Truth 200 years before Paul, was the historical Jesus.

Element 9:
What in the early first century were considered the inspired scriptures of God consisted of a larger network of texts than are now collected in the OT, including texts outside the canon and texts that no longer exist and also variants of texts that do exist but which often said different things then than extant versions now do.  In other words anyone trying to construct their picture of the messiah from hidden messages in the 'Bible would have been using tests and variants not in any current Bible today, and Christianity can be understood only
in light of this fact.

The earliest Christians clearly held in their sacred collection books no longer inthe Bible, including the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Enoch, and others.  Codex Sinaiticus, for example, one of the earliest surviving Christian Bibles, includes in its OT 'canon' 2 Essdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach (Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira).  These and other texts influenced everything the earliest Christians said or believed about Jesus.

Another important scripture of the period was the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, which established many of the standard beliefs about the messiah, including his roles as king, judge and shepherd. Though Psalms describe this messiah in the manner of a military conqueror, it is still somewhat circumspect, saying 'he shall destroy the godless nations iwth the word of his mouth' and that he will use no weapons or armies.  It also says God will 'raise him up for the house of Israel to educate him' which could easily inspire proto-Christian thinking: for 'raise him up' is identical in wording to 'resurrect him', and can even be read as saying God will resurrect this messiah to educate Israel.  I am not arguing here that Christians got this idea of a spiritual dying-and -rising messiah from this scripture at the time, and Jews everywhere were searching their scriptures for hidden meanings just like this.

There were also evidently several scriptures early Christians were using that we don't have and don't even know the titles of.  Clement of Rome, for example, quotes as scripture texts we know nothing about, and yet which clearly influenced earliest Christianity. 

"Sirach (Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira)" ... the writings of Philo ... the book of Joshua ... the book of Zechariah ... the Dead Sea Scrolls ... the Nag Hammadi library ... there is a lot of it ... and the various Gentile sects picked what they liked, and edited as necessary.  An official canon and church history only comes from the Council of Nicaea, 300 years after Paul.  You have to study Kabbalah, to see what it was originally like before 135 CE.  Esoteric and occult.  Apologists simply stick to what was decided in the 4th century CE by Roman bureaucrats (aka Orthodox priests).  Good works done prior to the Council of Nicaea were banned (works of Origen, the first Gentile Bible scholar).

Element 10:
Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah.  This means that (a) sometime in the early first century at least one of the many diverse sects of Jews came to believe and preach that (b) a certain Jesus was an eschatological Christ, (c) despite his having been crucified and buried by the powers that be (whether temporal or supernatural), (d) because he had afterward appeared to certain favored people and convinced them he was this Christ and (e) had to die in atonement for all sins but (F) had risen from the dead to sit at the right hand of God in order to being the work (through the sect he was thus founding) of preparing for God's kingdom until (g) the time when this Christ would descend from heaven to complete his mission of destroying God's enemies, resurrecting the dead, and establishing an eternal paradise .  (h) At this time Jesus was already believed  to be a preexistent being but (i) was not believed to be identical to God, but to be his appointed emissary and subordinate, not God himself but given God's authority, being God's 'son' in the same sense as angels and kings traditionally were.

None of this should be controversial.  Some scholars might challenge the notion that the earliest Jesus cult regarded the death of Jesus to be an atonement sacrifice, but the fact of the matter is ur earliest Christian documents widely attest this was a standard, fundamental, and pervasive Christian belief, and affords no evidence of any prior version of Christianity.

I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always considered Jesus to be an archetypal good man.

That is why Christian tried to kill us all off and burn our scriptures the moment they were bought by Constantine.

This link speaks of that if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 10:11:45 AM
Element 10:
Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah.  This means that (a) sometime in the early first century at least one of the many diverse sects of Jews came to believe and preach that (b) a certain Jesus was an eschatological Christ, (c) despite his having been crucified and buried by the powers that be (whether temporal or supernatural), (d) because he had afterward appeared to certain favored people and convinced them he was this Christ and (e) had to die in atonement for all sins but (F) had risen from the dead to sit at the right hand of God in order to being the work (through the sect he was thus founding) of preparing for God's kingdom until (g) the time when this Christ would descend from heaven to complete his mission of destroying God's enemies, resurrecting the dead, and establishing an eternal paradise .  (h) At this time Jesus was already believed  to be a preexistent being but (i) was not believed to be identical to God, but to be his appointed emissary and subordinate, not God himself but given God's authority, being God's 'son' in the same sense as angels and kings traditionally were.

None of this should be controversial.  Some scholars might challenge the notion that the earliest Jesus cult regarded the death of Jesus to be an atonement sacrifice, but the fact of the matter is ur earliest Christian documents widely attest this was a standard, fundamental, and pervasive Christian belief, and affords no evidence of any prior version of Christianity.

Correct again, but technically there was no Christianity as we know it, before 135 CE at the earliest, 325 CE at the latest.  Later Christians wanted to paint themselves in to a falsified foundation myth created by Constantine's propagandists (see Eusebius of Caesarea).  But the original people were Jewish Messianic, not Christian.  And Christianoi would have originally referred to Messianic Hellenistic Jews, like Paul.  All proper Jews knew that the messiah wouldn't be Hellenistic, but properly Semitic ;-)  Messianic Semitic Jews, the majority of Messianic Jews, were wiped out by 135 CE.

The earlier ancestor of Constantine Christianity, was the Pauline Church (appropriately bowdlerized).  That mission was directed at Gentiles, not Jews, and became dominant only long after 135 CE.  Paul originated in the Jewish Gnostic movement ... aka Kabbalah ... but closer to Philo of Alexandria, since he was Hellenistic ... not like the Semitic messianics at Qumran.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 10, 2017, 12:44:13 PM
I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always considered Jesus to be an archetypal good man.

That is why Christian tried to kill us all off and burn our scriptures the moment they were bought by Constantine.

This link speaks of that if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

I have read The Jesus Mysteries, of which Freke is one of the co-authors.  It is a quick and easy read; a great introduction book. 

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 01:09:22 PM
Correct again, but technically there was no Christianity as we know it, before 135 CE at the earliest, 325 CE at the latest.  Later Christians wanted to paint themselves in to a falsified foundation myth created by Constantine's propagandists (see Eusebius of Caesarea).  But the original people were Jewish Messianic, not Christian.  And Christianoi would have originally referred to Messianic Hellenistic Jews, like Paul.  All proper Jews knew that the messiah wouldn't be Hellenistic, but properly Semitic ;-)  Messianic Semitic Jews, the majority of Messianic Jews, were wiped out by 135 CE.

The earlier ancestor of Constantine Christianity, was the Pauline Church (appropriately bowdlerized).  That mission was directed at Gentiles, not Jews, and became dominant only long after 135 CE.  Paul originated in the Jewish Gnostic movement ... aka Kabbalah ... but closer to Philo of Alexandria, since he was Hellenistic ... not like the Semitic messianics at Qumran.

I agree that Christianity was not 'Christianity' until 135 or later.  But there  were versions around before then.  What we see today are the victors in a very vicious and long fight.  And I am also posting all the 'elements' Carrier listed.  These are the 'facts' that he will deal with in the rest of his book.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 01:50:08 PM
I have read The Jesus Mysteries, of which Freke is one of the co-authors.  It is a quick and easy read; a great introduction book. 

I agree completely.

What do you think of the conclusions that Gnostic Christianity teaches that are spoken of in this link.

I do not like to just drop a link so let me quote you the punch line. Nothing supernatural, but all internal to you using meditation and an archetypal good man called Jesus as a simple guide or mantra.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 01:09:22 PM

Your pupil again.

In that link just above, he quote Jesus saying Is it not written in your law, ye are God.

I do not know and could not find where in the Jewish law this is written. I do not doubt that it is but I cannot find it in my Jewish bible.

Do they mean just the Psalms and is it exact to the Torah and you will note that in this Jewish bible, psalm 82 uses a capital G at the beginning of the verse and I thought that Jews did not use capitals and went by context.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2682.htm

I promise that this is it for my wish list.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 10, 2017, 02:30:26 PM
I agree completely.

What do you think of the conclusions that Gnostic Christianity teaches that are spoken of in this link.

I do not like to just drop a link so let me quote you the punch line. Nothing supernatural, but all internal to you using meditation and an archetypal good man called Jesus as a simple guide or mantra.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Greatest, I do not believe in anything unnatural or supernatural.  All that is, is natural.  Therefore, there is no Jesus--except in a fictional way.  All religion is based upon a fiction or fictions.  The bible is simply a compilation of fictional works and carries no more weight than any other fictional work.  Bibles abound; and they all have only one thing in common--none agree with the others.  In another post you indicated that I had mixed up belief and faith.  No, you have those two mixed up.  A believer does not need proof or evidence nor use critical thinking or reasoning.  A person of faith is even more blind than that.  They are simply degrees of one another.  An atheist (or this one at least) does not 'believe', but bases an opinion on facts and evidence and critical thinking. Atheist agree on only one thing--there are not god(s).  Period.  There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism.

Unity, as taught by Charles Fillmore, comes the closet to anything I may 'believe' in.  Google him--he is kind of a gnostic.  Anyway, he talks of the 'christ consciousness'  and using 'affirmations' to tap into that 'christ'.  I take that as a means of controlling your mind to reach positive goals.  Nothing supernatural there.  He uses religious terms for that was the most fertile group of minds he could touch.  Developing personal goals and using positive methods to reach them is what he is really about.  But Gnostic I am not.  Most have a 'knowing' of themselves that they probably have not tapped into.  But it does not take a real or fictitious jesus or any other fictitious god to get into touch with one's 'self'.  It takes time and effort--time to figure out what one wants and then how to achieve it.  And practice.  And thought.  Not easy, but it can be done. 

I rambled a bit--but I am not impressed by a christian with a 'knowing' from jesus in any form; it is still fiction based. 

GIA - "if therefore thine eye be single" ... or metaphorically the third eye of Shiva ;-)  I don't think he was thinking of the Cyclops.

Psalm 82:6 ... but we have argued before about the Psalms not being in the Torah, but in the Kethuvim.

Lately I have taken to calling myself a demigod ... because that is what the son of a god would be, like Heracles.  Heracles was a screw up himself, from a misbehaving king of the gods (Zeus).  The Greco-Roman view of deity is much more reasonable than the self contradicting virtue signaling of the Abrahamic god.

Quote

אֲ‍ֽנִי־אָ֭מַרְתִּי אֱלֹ×"ִ֣ים אַתֶּÖ'ם וּ×'Ö°× ÖµÖ–×™ עֶלְיֹ֣ון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃

What does the Hebrew say, not the f-ed up King James version?

It mentions "I (am)", "elohim" and "el-yon" ... as potential divine connections to each other.  The Johannine theology would include the "I (am)".  In Hebrew "to be" is implied.  The putative narrator is King David.  Jesus is the new King David, and the new Adam as well.  As the "demi-urgos" he is the demigod, a kind of arch-angel as Logos, who is the means thru which Creation occurs.  What is "elohim", what is "el-yon"?

The Bible interpreters make the Bible say what they want it to say.  "elohim" is clearly plural.  "el-yon" is clearly singular.  If we equate these, what is the author talking about?  IMHO ... the "elohim" is the collective microcosm aka humanity.  That is the image of "el-yon" which is "G-d Most High" aka the macrocosm.  Basically a humanistic "net of Indra" ... Indra being the Hindu god closest to Zeus ;-)  There are times when Jesus refers to himself as a fire starter ... and this is associated with world construction at a forge ... like you would expect if Agni in Hinduism, or Hephaestus in Greece.  This works out very ironically, since Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of Hephaestus.  Hephaestus was parthenogenic from Hera ... and rejected by her.  A pagan hearing the Christian story wouldn't have missed that implication.  And today, we view Vulcans as logical ... aka Logos.  But in Genesis, the metalworkers are descendants of Cain, the first murderer.  And then there is the connection between Bacchus and Jesus ... and Bacchus being the father of theater as well.  Passion plays anyone?  And Bacchus in his ME form as a dying-rising god, aka Ba'al.  There are layers upon layers.  Who was Ba'al's father?  El.  They even called Jesus ... Ba'al Zebub.  But were they calling his followers mere bugs?

Element 11:
The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.  This is also beyond any reasonable doubt, yet frequently denied in the field of Jesus research.................

Christianity also conforms to four universal trends distinctive of the Hellenistic mystery religions, and is therefore unmistakably a product of these same cultural trends:
--1.--Syncretism of a local or national system of religious ideas with distinctly Hellenistic ideas (and the ideas of other nations and localities whose diffusion was facilitated by Hellenism;
--2--a monotheistic trend, with every mystery religion evolving from polytheism (many competing gods) to henotheism (one supreme god reigning over subordinate deities), marking a trajectory toward monotheism (only one god);
--3--a shift to individualism, placing the religious focus on the eternal salvation of the individual rather than the welfare of the community as a whole;
--4--and cosmopolitanism, with membership being open and spanning all environments, provinces, races and social classes (and often genders).

That all four features were universal to all the known mystery religions has been abundantly demonstrated in current scholarship, as has the enormous popularity of these new religions, and the rise of these features and their popularity centuries before Christianity.  Christianity fits exactly within this trend and in that respect looks exactly like every other mystery religion developed during this period--indeed, it is a relative latecomer.  It is thus an expected phenomenon of its time and evinces an unmistakable transformation of the very different Jewish religion into something more palatially identical to popular pagan religious movements arising from every other 'foreign' culture under the Roman Empire.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 08:18:31 PM
Element 11:
The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.  This is also beyond any reasonable doubt, yet frequently denied in the field of Jesus research.................

Christianity also conforms to four universal trends distinctive of the Hellenistic mystery religions, and is therefore unmistakably a product of these same cultural trends:
--1.--Syncretism of a local or national system of religious ideas with distinctly Hellenistic ideas (and the ideas of other nations and localities whose diffusion was facilitated by Hellenism;
--2--a monotheistic trend, with every mystery religion evolving from polytheism (many competing gods) to henotheism (one supreme god reigning over subordinate deities), marking a trajectory toward monotheism (only one god);
--3--a shift to individualism, placing the religious focus on the eternal salvation of the individual rather than the welfare of the community as a whole;
--4--and cosmopolitanism, with membership being open and spanning all environments, provinces, races and social classes (and often genders).

That all four features were universal to all the known mystery religions has been abundantly demonstrated in current scholarship, as has the enormous popularity of these new religions, and the rise of these features and their popularity centuries before Christianity.  Christianity fits exactly within this trend and in that respect looks exactly like every other mystery religion developed during this period--indeed, it is a relative latecomer.  It is thus an expected phenomenon of its time and evinces an unmistakable transformation of the very different Jewish religion into something more palatially identical to popular pagan religious movements arising from every other 'foreign' culture under the Roman Empire.

Correct again.  Hence potentially much more popular than Pharisee/Sadducee Judaism.  Paul wasn't necessarily correct, but he was very bright ... the procurator Festus at his trial in Caesarea said so ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2017, 09:50:45 AM
Element 8:
a) Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from god about the coming messiah, both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.  The Christians were thus not engaging in novel activity when they did the same.  b) Since countless Jews were already doing this, and had been for a century or more, we must conclude the Jews who would become the first Christians had already been doing it long before they became Christians.

Indeed this was a fad of the time, evident throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmuds and Jewish literature elsewhere.  The whole pesher genre is devoted to this activity. 

.......................And it is because of this that countless different sects and interpretations of God's plan arose, with Christianity among them.

The early christians thought of themselves as jews receiving the long-awaited messiah.  There was nothing unusual about them then.  They just had the new idea among jews of being evangical.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 04:41:46 AM
The early christians thought of themselves as jews receiving the long-awaited messiah.  There was nothing unusual about them then.  They just had the new idea among jews of being evangical.

Correct, when the NT talks of Pharisees seeking converts ... that was converting other Jews to their puritanical sect.  They still do that.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 05:26:40 PM
Greatest, I do not believe in anything unnatural or supernatural.  All that is, is natural.  Therefore, there is no Jesus--except in a fictional way.  All religion is based upon a fiction or fictions.  The bible is simply a compilation of fictional works and carries no more weight than any other fictional work.  Bibles abound; and they all have only one thing in common--none agree with the others.  In another post you indicated that I had mixed up belief and faith.  No, you have those two mixed up.  A believer does not need proof or evidence nor use critical thinking or reasoning.  A person of faith is even more blind than that.  They are simply degrees of one another.  An atheist (or this one at least) does not 'believe', but bases an opinion on facts and evidence and critical thinking. Atheist agree on only one thing--there are not god(s).  Period.  There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism.

Unity, as taught by Charles Fillmore, comes the closet to anything I may 'believe' in.  Google him--he is kind of a gnostic.  Anyway, he talks of the 'christ consciousness'  and using 'affirmations' to tap into that 'christ'.  I take that as a means of controlling your mind to reach positive goals.  Nothing supernatural there.  He uses religious terms for that was the most fertile group of minds he could touch.  Developing personal goals and using positive methods to reach them is what he is really about.  But Gnostic I am not.  Most have a 'knowing' of themselves that they probably have not tapped into.  But it does not take a real or fictitious jesus or any other fictitious god to get into touch with one's 'self'.  It takes time and effort--time to figure out what one wants and then how to achieve it.  And practice.  And thought.  Not easy, but it can be done. 

I rambled a bit--but I am not impressed by a christian with a 'knowing' from jesus in any form; it is still fiction based. 

I agree that it is all fiction. We are on that same page. All Gnostic Christians do is use that fiction as a mantra to access our right hemisphere of the brain.

"There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism."

Ok.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/atheist-churches-for-real.515762/

You seem on the right mental path and I think the only issue is that I promote the non-supernatural Jesus myth as a mantra, while that seems to make you think it a mistake.

I will look up Charles Fillmore as we seem to advocate the same thing. I think targeting Christians is a good idea as they need enlightenment more than you or I.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 08:07:14 PM
GIA - "if therefore thine eye be single" ... or metaphorically the third eye of Shiva ;-)  I don't think he was thinking of the Cyclops.

Psalm 82:6 ... but we have argued before about the Psalms not being in the Torah, but in the Kethuvim.

Me be absent minded professor type. That is why I seek the gist of things.

I have reached the conclusion that all the myths and traditions show that we are all trying to be a hero of 1,000 faces as taught by some mythesists. We all wish to have that ideology that catches fire in the world and elevates ourselves to God like status.

I wonder if you, with your detail memory, have reached the same basic conclusion?

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 08:33:54 AM
I agree that it is all fiction. We are on that same page. All Gnostic Christians do is use that fiction as a mantra to access our right hemisphere of the brain.

"There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism."

Ok.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/atheist-churches-for-real.515762/

You seem on the right mental path and I think the only issue is that I promote the non-supernatural Jesus myth as a mantra, while that seems to make you think it a mistake.

I will look up Charles Fillmore as we seem to advocate the same thing. I think targeting Christians is a good idea as they need enlightenment more than you or I.

Regards
DL

This is a new one on me.  I'll have to look into it in more detail.  At first glance, it seems to fit the Barnum and Bailey saying--a sucker is born every minute.

Element 12:
From as early as we can ascertain, Christians believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism (Rom 6.3-10), which symbolized their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God', hence they became the brothers of the Lord, the son of God.  Thus Jesus was only 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom 8.29).

Element 13:
Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly only in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 10:03:28 AM
Element 12:
From as early as we can ascertain, Christians believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism (Rom 6.3-10), which symbolized their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God', hence they became the brothers of the Lord, the son of God.  Thus Jesus was only 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom 8.29).

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 09:56:23 AM
This is a new one on me.  I'll have to look into it in more detail.  At first glance, it seems to fit the Barnum and Bailey saying--a sucker is born every minute.

I like the quote that says that religion was born when the first con man met the first sucker.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 10:03:28 AM
Element 12:
From as early as we can ascertain, Christians believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism (Rom 6.3-10), which symbolized their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God', hence they became the brothers of the Lord, the son of God.  Thus Jesus was only 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom 8.29).

Yes. Quite elevating as compared to what Christianity has done by putting God out of reach for us.

That is why they never quote these, which show the way that the more sage like Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 10:05:20 AM
Element 13:
Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly only in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning.

I don't know if I would use the word disguise.

I see it more as Jesus trying to make the message meaningful to all, regardless of their religious tradition. He was trying to take it out of the context of a specific tradition because it is quite hard to have someone leave the comfort of their own tribal traditions.

It was that or use force the way Christianity and Islam did to grow their religions instead of good moral arguments.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 09:56:23 AM
This is a new one on me.  I'll have to look into it in more detail.  At first glance, it seems to fit the Barnum and Bailey saying--a sucker is born every minute.

I like the idea of regular atheist get-togethers, even if it's on a Sunday morning.  Having a sense of community is a good thing, especially in a minority like ours, where many of us have had the "ugh, I'm surrounded!!" mindset at various times.  It'd be a psychological 'safe space'.

I just wish people would resist the urge to call it an 'atheist church' since of all things, that's quite emphatically what it's not.

Heh.  I did just imagine an atheist 'church festival', though -- we could call the bingo/poker/gambling areas the Probability Studies Hands-On Activity Tents.

Wow!  I leave for a few hours and the train seems to go off the rails!

When did we atheists stop treating the alleged "Jesus" as a made-up being and start treating the idea as real?

Or have the theists taken over the site?  Do I have to be here 25/8?

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wow!  I leave for a few hours and the train seems to go off the rails!

When did we atheists stop treating the alleged "Jesus" as a made-up being and start treating the idea as real?

Or have the theists taken over the site?  Do I have to be here 25/8?

Oh, I dunno.  There may or may not have been a historical Jeshua bar-Joseph.  I think most of us here will agree if there was, he was not divine, of course.  I just don't think it's of much relevance since even if it were demonstrated that he did physically exist, that has no bearing on the merit of the claim of divinity.  If mere existence were enough, then we would be forced to consider the Roman emperors who were deified to be legitimate and real gods since we have evidence for their historicity.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 11:31:09 AM
Oh, I dunno.  There may or may not have been a historical Jeshua bar-Joseph.  I think most of us here will agree if there was, he was not divine, of course.  I just don't think it's of much relevance since even if it were demonstrated that he did physically exist, that has no bearing on the merit of the claim of divinity.  If mere existence were enough, then we would be forced to consider the Roman emperors who were deified to be legitimate and real gods since we have evidence for their historicity.

The roman emperors were mentioned by many people (as good or bad). in their lives and civic records.  There are monuments and statues to many.  The alleged Jesus wasn't.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
I like the idea of regular atheist get-togethers, even if it's on a Sunday morning.  Having a sense of community is a good thing, especially in a minority like ours, where many of us have had the "ugh, I'm surrounded!!" mindset at various times.  It'd be a psychological 'safe space'.

I just wish people would resist the urge to call it an 'atheist church' since of all things, that's quite emphatically what it's not.

Heh.  I did just imagine an atheist 'church festival', though -- we could call the bingo/poker/gambling areas the Probability Studies Hands-On Activity Tents.

The word church already has as a part of it's definition as a place of fellowship, which is what you are highlighting, and that fact is likely why atheists are using the term.

It is also easier than to try to have people recognize some new unknown word. There is a term for that but my English is too poor to recall what doing that is.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
  Do I have to be here 25/8?

Yes, yes you do.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
I don't know if I would use the word disguise.

I see it more as Jesus trying to make the message meaningful to all, regardless of their religious tradition. He was trying to take it out of the context of a specific tradition because it is quite hard to have someone leave the comfort of their own tribal traditions.

I hope you realize that the 'Elements' I am posting are from Richard Carrier?

As for Jesus trying to do anything; it would be difficult for a fictitious person to do that.  All the 'quotes' from Jesus are simply somebody else using 'him' as a mouthpiece.  It would be like me spouting philosophy through the mouth of Bugs Bunny.  It's all fiction.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 10:15:02 AM


That is why they never quote these, which show the way that the more sage like Jesus taught.
Regards
DL

'Jesus' never taught anything--he is a fiction.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
The roman emperors were mentioned by many people (as good or bad). in their lives and civic records.  There are monuments and statues to many.  The alleged Jesus wasn't.

That's not really the point I was trying to make.  My point is that even if the existence of Jeshua bar-Joseph were as well-attested as the existence of any of the Caesars, it would have absolutely no bearing on the claims of divinity attached to him or on the mythology based thereon.  The historicity of Siddhārtha Gautama and Muḥammad ibn Ê¿Abdullāh don't mean that Buddhist and Islamic mythology is true, after all.

I think it not unlikely that the biblical Jesus is probably based on at least one preacher active at that time, and may be an amalgamation of several.  Whether there was an actual, physical Jeshua bar-Joseph at the core of it, I don't know and I'm not much fussed either way.

Personally, I think the amalgamation theory is most likely, since that provides a reasonable basis for why 'Jesus' says and does contradictory or mutually-exclusive things, depending on which account one reads.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 12:02:10 PM
The word church already has as a part of it's definition as a place of fellowship, which is what you are highlighting, and that fact is likely why atheists are using the term.

It is also easier than to try to have people recognize some new unknown word. There is a term for that but my English is too poor to recall what doing that is.

The problem with 'church' as a term is that while it may have a technical secular secondary or tertiary meaning, if you say 'church' to 100 English-speakers, I'd lay money that all 100 of them would assume 'place of religious activity'.

The other problem with using the term is that it would only encourage those who try to claim that atheism is 'just another religion' -- they would latch on to that word with glee.

I don't mind a neologism -- I think that's the word you were looking for -- to be applied to an atheist meeting place, although the more I think about it, the more I like the term 'symposium'.  While today it's come to mean an academic conference, it was in classical Greece basically hanging out after dinner, drinking wine, with or without entertainment.

And really, that would be a lovely way to spend a Sunday afternoon: drop down to the local atheist symposium for coffee and conversation with like-minded people and a lecture, a formal debate, a poetry slam, a jam session, the showing of a documentary, or whatever.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 12:22:42 PM
I hope you realize that the 'Elements' I am posting are from Richard Carrier?

As for Jesus trying to do anything; it would be difficult for a fictitious person to do that.  All the 'quotes' from Jesus are simply somebody else using 'him' as a mouthpiece.  It would be like me spouting philosophy through the mouth of Bugs Bunny.  It's all fiction.

You wascally wabbit, you! - Elmer

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 10:03:28 AM
Element 12:
From as early as we can ascertain, Christians believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism (Rom 6.3-10), which symbolized their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God', hence they became the brothers of the Lord, the son of God.  Thus Jesus was only 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom 8.29).

Just like Hindus skinny dipping in the Ganges.  Christianity has many fathers and mothers.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 09:37:11 AM
Me be absent minded professor type. That is why I seek the gist of things.

I have reached the conclusion that all the myths and traditions show that we are all trying to be a hero of 1,000 faces as taught by some mythesists. We all wish to have that ideology that catches fire in the world and elevates ourselves to God like status.

I wonder if you, with your detail memory, have reached the same basic conclusion?

Regards
DL

Yes.  Actually a hero with over 7 billion faces.  I am democratic that way.  Joseph Campbell is a son (gender inclusive) of G-d, and so am I, so are you.  As Alan Watts says.  But the Church etc can't stand that.  The atheists of course can't stand that.  Neither the Sanhedrin nor Constantine can stand that.  Monotheists can't stand that G-d wears a polytheist face, and that the demigods are us.  I don't know about you, but I had satori almost 6 years ago.  So I get this.  Now the problem is, what to do with it ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 10:05:20 AM
Element 13:
Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly only in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning.

Clement of Alexandria mentions this in the context of early Gentile Christianity in Alexandria Egypt, in the late 2nd century CE.  The Jesus of the Gospels, and Paul of the Epistles, alludes to this.  But once the fight started over control of the congregations, and gnostics were the enemy, and eventually the losers ... then all gnosticism had to bw written out of or ignored in the canonical Christian foundation myth.  Paul was a Kabbalist, a gnostic.  So were the other disciples (see Gospel of Mary).  They originally produced anecdotal spiritual guides like the Gospel of Thomas and organizational guides like the Didache.  And no, we don't know the secrets.  Too many people died, meditation was too hard, and the officials of the churches suppressed it.  Same as Kabbalah was suppressed in the synagogue, and Sufism in the mosque.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 11:31:09 AM
Oh, I dunno.  There may or may not have been a historical Jeshua bar-Joseph.  I think most of us here will agree if there was, he was not divine, of course.  I just don't think it's of much relevance since even if it were demonstrated that he did physically exist, that has no bearing on the merit of the claim of divinity.  If mere existence were enough, then we would be forced to consider the Roman emperors who were deified to be legitimate and real gods since we have evidence for their historicity.

If you take the POV of ancient people, you would agree that the Emperors were gods, sometimes during, but often after their deaths.  You can't judge the past based on episodes of Start Trek NG (though the one were Data gets caught up in an alien myth, and Picard has to explain Gilgamesh, are good).

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
I don't know if I would use the word disguise.

I see it more as Jesus trying to make the message meaningful to all, regardless of their religious tradition. He was trying to take it out of the context of a specific tradition because it is quite hard to have someone leave the comfort of their own tribal traditions.

It was that or use force the way Christianity and Islam did to grow their religions instead of good moral arguments.

Regards
DL

In a class driven society, where almost every person is illiterate ... the literate were like gods.  Words were magical.  Julius Caesar could dictate, to male secretaries, two government communiques at the same time.  He was one of the few people in Rome who could read silently (most people had to read out-loud like a 2nd grader) ... and that is how most people heard books ... someone read it to them, same as preschool children today by their parents.

Of course governments can't tolerate something that is good for the sheeple.  If religion was ineffective, government would ignore it.  But it is very effective, particularly in per-modern times.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 12:02:10 PM
The word church already has as a part of it's definition as a place of fellowship, which is what you are highlighting, and that fact is likely why atheists are using the term.

It is also easier than to try to have people recognize some new unknown word. There is a term for that but my English is too poor to recall what doing that is.

Regards
DL

Modern readers are able to read, but as ignorant as ancient peasants.  You would have to explain what "ekklesia" means in that context.  It isn't Church as we know it now.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 12:30:01 PM
That's not really the point I was trying to make.  My point is that even if the existence of Jeshua bar-Joseph were as well-attested as the existence of any of the Caesars, it would have absolutely no bearing on the claims of divinity attached to him or on the mythology based thereon.  The historicity of Siddhārtha Gautama and Muḥammad ibn Ê¿Abdullāh don't mean that Buddhist and Islamic mythology is true, after all.

I think it not unlikely that the biblical Jesus is probably based on at least one preacher active at that time, and may be an amalgamation of several.  Whether there was an actual, physical Jeshua bar-Joseph at the core of it, I don't know and I'm not much fussed either way.

Personally, I think the amalgamation theory is most likely, since that provides a reasonable basis for why 'Jesus' says and does contradictory or mutually-exclusive things, depending on which account one reads.

My apologies.  You are completely correct.  Had there been such a person, the divinity claims would still be unlikely.  I should have emphasized the divinity claims. 

And I do know.  There is not a proven Jesus "son of god" ...

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 01:08:59 PM
Shh ... don't tell the Europeans or the Americans.  They both think they are superior to the other.  To really get into it, you have to think in terms of 1000s of miles and 1000s of years.  And prior to writing, the people of old can't tell us much, unfortunately.

And apparently, you can'y either.  No one thinks in terms of "1000s of miles and 1000s of years".

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 12:22:42 PM
I hope you realize that the 'Elements' I am posting are from Richard Carrier?

As for Jesus trying to do anything; it would be difficult for a fictitious person to do that.  All the 'quotes' from Jesus are simply somebody else using 'him' as a mouthpiece.  It would be like me spouting philosophy through the mouth of Bugs Bunny.  It's all fiction.

True, but that does not take away why the scribes and others use parables and stories.

Note how this story/parable has a worthy message for all who say their ideologies, religion or political parties are the best of the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Regards
DL

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 12:24:08 PM
'Jesus' never taught anything--he is a fiction.

A statement you cannot prove.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:30:44 PM
True, but that does not take away why the scribes and others use parables and stories.

Note how this story/parable has a worthy message for all who say their ideologies, religion or political parties are the best of the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Regards
DL

I have neither stars nor not...  LOL!  Good reference though.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:33:21 PM
A statement you cannot prove.

Regards
DL

The proof resides on those who claim his existence.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 12:53:50 PM
The problem with 'church' as a term is that while it may have a technical secular secondary or tertiary meaning, if you say 'church' to 100 English-speakers, I'd lay money that all 100 of them would assume 'place of religious activity'.

The other problem with using the term is that it would only encourage those who try to claim that atheism is 'just another religion' -- they would latch on to that word with glee.

I don't mind a neologism -- I think that's the word you were looking for -- to be applied to an atheist meeting place, although the more I think about it, the more I like the term 'symposium'.  While today it's come to mean an academic conference, it was in classical Greece basically hanging out after dinner, drinking wine, with or without entertainment.

And really, that would be a lovely way to spend a Sunday afternoon: drop down to the local atheist symposium for coffee and conversation with like-minded people and a lecture, a formal debate, a poetry slam, a jam session, the showing of a documentary, or whatever.

I hear you, but not being an atheist, I see no other reason than what I stated for atheist leaders and thinkers to have decided to call their gathering places churches.

Perhaps the hope, and I pra, so to speak, that it is because they hope to be popular enough to take over all the churches presently staffed by perpetually lying priests, preachers and imams.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Baruch on October 11, 2017, 01:04:30 PM
Yes.  Actually a hero with over 7 billion faces.  I am democratic that way.  Joseph Campbell is a son (gender inclusive) of G-d, and so am I, so are you.  As Alan Watts says.  But the Church etc can't stand that.  The atheists of course can't stand that.  Neither the Sanhedrin nor Constantine can stand that.  Monotheists can't stand that G-d wears a polytheist face, and that the demigods are us.  I don't know about you, but I had satori almost 6 years ago.  So I get this.  Now the problem is, what to do with it ;-)

I can only recommend my poor method.

https://vimeo.com/41160615

Seriously though, if I had your I Q and linguistic skills and eloquence instead of my uneducated prose, I would be writing a book.

If you ever move to God's country where I am, I would hire you as a ghost writer. 

My kingdom for such skills.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
I hear you, but not being an atheist, I see no other reason than what I stated for atheist leaders and thinkers to have decided to call their gathering places churches.

Perhaps the hope, and I pra, so to speak, that it is because they hope to be popular enough to take over all the churches presently staffed by perpetually lying priests, preachers and imams.

Regards
DL

Thank you for stating you aren't an atheist.  That clarified everything for me.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
The proof resides on those who claim his existence.

True.

His statement is just as much of a lie without his proving his claim.

To apply a double standard is atheists following the believers in a poor use of language and logical fallacy.

Atheists and all of us should strive to be better than the liars.

That is why wiser atheist on bill boards say there is probably no God.

That way theists cannot accuse atheists of what atheists accuse theists of.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
I hear you, but not being an atheist, I see no other reason than what I stated for atheist leaders and thinkers to have decided to call their gathering places churches.

Yeah, I know it's being done and why they're using the term... I just don't like it and I think ultimately it's counterproductive.  I don't want to replace churches, I want humanity to grow up and put them aside as childish things (if I may borrow from 1 Corinthians).

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
Perhaps the hope, and I pra, so to speak, that it is because they hope to be popular enough to take over all the churches presently staffed by perpetually lying priests, preachers and imams.

I can get behind that.  :)

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:51:49 PM
True.

His statement is just as much of a lie without his proving his claim.

To apply a double standard is atheists following the believers in a poor use of language and logical fallacy.

Atheists and all of us should strive to be better than the liars.

That is why wiser atheist on bill boards say there is probably no God.

That way theists cannot accuse atheists of what atheists accuse theists of.

Regards
DL

Well, at least you can spell "atheist" correctly.  So many theists spell it "most ath".  ;)

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 01:55:02 PM
Yeah, I know it's being done and why they're using the term... I just don't like it and I think ultimately it's counterproductive.  I don't want to replace churches, I want humanity to grow up and put them aside as childish things (if I may borrow from 1 Corinthians).
I can get behind that.  :)

Hey, I am a religionist and you are an atheist.

Get the behind me Satan.

Just kidding buddy.

But perhaps, you will recognize, like John Lennon did, that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Christians tried to rid the world of us with their Inquisitions, and failed, and that should tell all people just who the good Christians were/are.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 01:55:40 PM
Well, at least you can spell "atheist" correctly.  So many theists spell it "most ath".  ;)

I respect atheists to a certain extent because I was one before my apotheosis.

Regards
DL

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 02:09:53 PM
I respect atheists to a certain extent because I was one before my apotheosis.

Regards
DL

Apotheiosis -  "the elevation or exaltation of a person to the rank of a god. "

Congrats on your divine status.  Please give me something so I may know your divinity...

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:33:21 PM
A statement you cannot prove.

Regards
DL

You very well may change your mind about that if you follow all of Carrier's elements to the end--48 of them.  For me, his book, On The Historicity of Jesus (Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt), pretty much convinces me that Jesus is a fiction.  I've only listed 13 and just those few raises serious doubt about Jesus being temporal or heavenly.  Keep on reading.........................

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 01:23:39 PM
And apparently, you can'y either.  No one thinks in terms of "1000s of miles and 1000s of years".

Geographers and historians do.

It took me longer to get "apotheosis" ... GIA got there before me.  I prefer "satori".

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:45:10 PM
I can only recommend my poor method.

https://vimeo.com/41160615

Seriously though, if I had your I Q and linguistic skills and eloquence instead of my uneducated prose, I would be writing a book.

If you ever move to God's country where I am, I would hire you as a ghost writer. 

My kingdom for such skills.

Regards
DL

Ha, wherever I stand is demi-god's country ;-)  But I ain't special.  I can't even play the fiddle or the banjo.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
The proof resides on those who claim his existence.

I exist.  And I don't have to prove anything.  College professors should be locked in their ivory towers, like Rapunzel.  Maybe the SJW princes can rescue them?  Of course, SJWs are actually ogres (see Shrek I).  The professors are too, after you kiss their ass (sorry Donkey).

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
I hear you, but not being an atheist, I see no other reason than what I stated for atheist leaders and thinkers to have decided to call their gathering places churches.

Perhaps the hope, and I pra, so to speak, that it is because they hope to be popular enough to take over all the churches presently staffed by perpetually lying priests, preachers and imams.

Regards
DL

There are no lies, just the results of creative imaginations.  But there are liars ... when the tellers of tall tales, fail to note that in the fine print.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 01:45:57 PM
Thank you for stating you aren't an atheist.  That clarified everything for me.

The paradox of "not a true atheist".  We all get hung from the same Jean Luc Picard.

Quote from: trdsf on October 11, 2017, 01:55:02 PM
Yeah, I know it's being done and why they're using the term... I just don't like it and I think ultimately it's counterproductive.  I don't want to replace churches, I want humanity to grow up and put them aside as childish things (if I may borrow from 1 Corinthians).
I can get behind that.  :)

If you want to become a Star Child, you have to find that alien monolith around Jupiter.

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 02:09:53 PM
I respect atheists to a certain extent because I was one before my apotheosis.

Regards
DL

And I respect some theists--to a certain point.  I can't say I ever was a theist--but it was not through lack of trying.  I tried most of my life to 'find' God; but to no avail.  Begging, critical thinking, meditation, prayer, asking theists, searching in every way I knew how.  Nothing.  I was even a church board president for a year and on the board for 6 years.  I tried.  I now fully realize why--both Jesus and God are fictions, clearly created by people to control other people; power and wealth the creators of religion and all of its trappings.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
And I respect some theists--to a certain point.  I can't say I ever was a theist--but it was not through lack of trying.  I tried most of my life to 'find' God; but to no avail.  Begging, critical thinking, meditation, prayer, asking theists, searching in every way I knew how.  Nothing.  I was even a church board president for a year and on the board for 6 years.  I tried.  I now fully realize why--both Jesus and God are fictions, clearly created by people to control other people; power and wealth the creators of religion and all of its trappings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9V8ypYSSE

Don't bother.  You won't like what you find!

Quote from: Baruch on October 11, 2017, 08:30:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9V8ypYSSE

Don't bother.  You won't like what you find!

You are right.  That clip is like what theists base their beliefs on--nothing there.

Element 14:
Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolized a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.  Therefore, as itself a mystery religion with secret doctrines, Christianity would have done the same.

As we saw before, in the early third century Clement of
Alexandria also referred approvingly to the letters of Plato in which he makes the same argument, that the common people aten't prepared to understand the truth and thus must be told a superficial lie to conceal it from them, and that it would be concealed within riddles and myths only symbolizing or pointing to the truth.  Centuries later Augustine would condemn this widely held principle (that 'it is expedient to deceive the people in matters of religion', a view he suggests was also endorsed by the Roman scholar Varro in the early first century bce), yet at the same time still defends allegorical readings of the Bible when the literal meaning clearly could not be true (as when, e.g., it contradicted established science, a specific problem Augustine was apologetically addressing).  Today we call that hypocrisy.  At any rate, even Augustine, for all his protests, only confirms that the view was entrenched and widely embraced--even by himself.

It is in this context that we might better understand Paul's claim that the gospel preached in public appeared to be 'foolishness' to outsiders, a 'stumbling block' to their understanding (1 Cor. 1.18-2.5), but was not such to those who understood its secret meaning--the gospel not preached in public, but only to insiders (1 Cor. 2.4-3.3).  This was quite th same in other mystery cults:  when in his own mythic narrative Dionysus speaks in riddles and is called foolish, he responds, 'One will seem to be foolish if he speaks wisely to an ignorant man'.  Paul is in effect saying the same thing.  So, too Origen.  Thus it is plausible that, like other mystery cults, Christianity also came to be packaged with a set of earthly tales of its savior that were not meant to be taken literally, except by outsiders--and insiders of insufficient rank, who were variously called even by their own leaders 'babes' or 'simpletons'.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 12, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
Element 14:
Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolized a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.  Therefore, as itself a mystery religion with secret doctrines, Christianity would have done the same.

As we saw before, in the early third century Clement of
Alexandria also referred approvingly to the letters of Plato in which he makes the same argument, that the common people aten't prepared to understand the truth and thus must be told a superficial lie to conceal it from them, and that it would be concealed within riddles and myths only symbolizing or pointing to the truth.  Centuries later Augustine would condemn this widely held principle (that 'it is expedient to deceive the people in matters of religion', a view he suggests was also endorsed by the Roman scholar Varro in the early first century bce), yet at the same time still defends allegorical readings of the Bible when the literal meaning clearly could not be true (as when, e.g., it contradicted established science, a specific problem Augustine was apologetically addressing).  Today we call that hypocrisy.  At any rate, even Augustine, for all his protests, only confirms that the view was entrenched and widely embraced--even by himself.

It is in this context that we might better understand Paul's claim that the gospel preached in public appeared to be 'foolishness' to outsiders, a 'stumbling block' to their understanding (1 Cor. 1.18-2.5), but was not such to those who understood its secret meaning--the gospel not preached in public, but only to insiders (1 Cor. 2.4-3.3).  This was quite th same in other mystery cults:  when in his own mythic narrative Dionysus speaks in riddles and is called foolish, he responds, 'One will seem to be foolish if he speaks wisely to an ignorant man'.  Paul is in effect saying the same thing.  So, too Origen.  Thus it is plausible that, like other mystery cults, Christianity also came to be packaged with a set of earthly tales of its savior that were not meant to be taken literally, except by outsiders--and insiders of insufficient rank, who were variously called even by their own leaders 'babes' or 'simpletons'.

Correct again, but adding ... the esoteric retreated into the early monastic movement (Desert Fathers and Mothers) once priests became government employees, seeking advancement in the Roman bureaucracy.  Early catechetical school (school for new believers in Alexandria circa 200 CE) were not conducive to philosophic nuance.  It was rote memorization, the pedagogy used for small children.  Early clergy were simply elders, they weren't necessarily educated men.  So the "higher catechism" didn't last, as the expanding number of congregations brought ignorant men into leadership.  Almost all people back then, were ignorant.  In the older, larger congregations, the episcopacy developed ... and for awhile, these leaders maintained a degree of gymnasium or lyceum education beyond the catechism for the laity.  Expansion of this cult was initially restricted by the requirements of Judaism (circumcision), then it was limited to Greek speakers.  It wasn't until the mid-3rd century CE that the Roman congregation moved from Greek to Latin, and started arguing over the date of Easter with the older Church.

Again given the persecutions before Constantine, and the destruction of the Western church with the fall of Rome, there was hardly any educated Roman Catholics left.  That is why re-education of W Europe came from Ireland, where early Christian converts and refugees from the Continent, were able to prevent complete civilization collapse.  This wasn't true in the Byzantine or E Roman Empire, they were battered, but not destroyed, until much later.

On Richard Carrier's book  ... I am enjoying the snippets you have been providing.  But now I have looked at the book itself.  Here is his presentation for those who are interested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

I don't agree with his used of Bayes Theorem .. to be a specious use of statistics.  Basically doing a statistical study of piles of crap, is beside the point.  One simply has to use one's nose.  Crossan had a semi-technical method, which was a rationalization of the conclusion he started from.  When I did my detailed study over 20 years ago, I did my own version of Crossan's method, but without his assumptions.  My conclusion was that there was no historicity to the acts of Jesus, and that the words of Jesus were a conflab of various gnostic sources.  So the question remained, what is gnosticism?  That is what I spent my time on learning, after that.  I agree with his conclusions, just not his faux technical methodology.

Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2017, 08:07:08 PM
On Richard Carrier's book  ... I am enjoying the snippets you have been providing.  But now I have looked at the book itself.  Here is his presentation for those who are interested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

I don't agree with his used of Bayes Theorem .. to be a specious use of statistics.  Basically doing a statistical study of piles of crap, is beside the point.  One simply has to use one's nose.  Crossan had a semi-technical method, which was a rationalization of the conclusion he started from.  When I did my detailed study over 20 years ago, I did my own version of Crossan's method, but without his assumptions.  My conclusion was that there was no historicity to the acts of Jesus, and that the words of Jesus were a conflab of various gnostic sources.  So the question remained, what is gnosticism?  That is what I spent my time on learning, after that.  I agree with his conclusions, just not his faux technical methodology.

When I read the book through, I did not quite get a good handle on what Bayes Theorem is.  I know it is a statistical way of looking at history.  I was a bit skeptical of that but did not think I knew enough to make a final decision.  I believe he has also written a book about Bayes Theorem and history.  I keep thinking I should read that; haven't yet.  So, I basically ignored his use of the theorem and looked at his facts.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 12, 2017, 08:30:45 PM
When I read the book through, I did not quite get a good handle on what Bayes Theorem is.  I know it is a statistical way of looking at history.  I was a bit skeptical of that but did not think I knew enough to make a final decision.  I believe he has also written a book about Bayes Theorem and history.  I keep thinking I should read that; haven't yet.  So, I basically ignored his use of the theorem and looked at his facts.

The video mentions Crossan's new book, which unknown to me, repeat what I have posted recently here, that the Gospels are parables themselves.

Element 15:
Christianity began as a charismatic cult in which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities.  They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices), often believed their dreams were divine communications, achieved trance states, practiced glossolalia, and were highly susceptible to psychosomatic illness (like 'possession' and hysterical blindness, muteness and paralysis).

Similarly, the fact that Christians regarded as inspired scripture such books as Daniel, which depict authoritative information coming from God through both visions and drams, entails that Christians believed authoritative information came from God through visions and dreams (otherwise they would not deem such books as honest or reliable, much less scripture). They could therefore see their own visions and dreams as communications from God, too.  .....................This is a radically different cultural contest then we live in now.

Earliest Christianity can be characterized as a revitalization movement.  It is thus notable that 'trance behavior', including the regular mission-oriented hallucination among leaders and members 'looms large in the descriptive data of most of the revitalization movements also frequently practice glossolalia, prophesy, 'faith healing', possession and exorcism.  Earliest Christianity thus perfectly aligns with known anthropological models, and can only be understood in that context.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
Element 15:
Christianity began as a charismatic cult in which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities.  They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices), often believed their dreams were divine communications, achieved trance states, practiced glossolalia, and were highly susceptible to psychosomatic illness (like 'possession' and hysterical blindness, muteness and paralysis).

Similarly, the fact that Christians regarded as inspired scripture such books as Daniel, which depict authoritative information coming from God through both visions and drams, entails that Christians believed authoritative information came from God through visions and dreams (otherwise they would not deem such books as honest or reliable, much less scripture). They could therefore see their own visions and dreams as communications from God, too.  .....................This is a radically different cultural contest then we live in now.

Earliest Christianity can be characterized as a revitalization movement.  It is thus notable that 'trance behavior', including the regular mission-oriented hallucination among leaders and members 'looms large in the descriptive data of most of the revitalization movements also frequently practice glossolalia, prophesy, 'faith healing', possession and exorcism.  Earliest Christianity thus perfectly aligns with known anthropological models, and can only be understood in that context.

Correct again.  But the Normies in ancient times and now, are the sick ones.  Though what is Normie now is different than in ancient times.  Modernity is a Western illness (channeling ME folks today) and subversive imperialism.  Basically recapitulating Crossan's recent book, what was considered normal to Greco-Romans 2000 years ago, not to mention what is considered normal to their Gentile descendants today, is bad culture, bad society, bad people.

Taking this up a notch, it will be the Kekistani revival that will restore what is left of modernity after The Great Reboot.  No electricity leads to no computers leads to no commerce or governance.  You can't run your iCrap by rubbing two sticks together.  Will life still be worth living?  Sure ... because people, however few or many, are what is of value.  Material goods are part of the sickness that distracts us from holy poverty.

A note on charismaticism .. this was dead in the Church more or less from the end of the 2nd century CE.  Without that, even the pre-Constantinian church, proto-orthodox or otherwise was spiritually dead.  No gnosis, no life.  Except for a few brave souls in the Egyptian and Syrian deserts (Desert Fathers and Mothers).  Once an Orthodox Church was formed, in full partnership with the Greco-Roman Mafia, it was worse than dead.

Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason - by Michel Foucault.  Madness is mostly a social construct, same as racism.

Element 16:
The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth (only many generations later did Christian views on this point noticeably change).  As Paul says in Rom. 16.25-26:  "My gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, but now is made visible through the prophetic scriptures and is made known to all nations according to the command of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith."
And in Galatians 1 he swears up and down, repeatedly, that he did not learn the gospel from oral tradition, but revelation alone, thus illustrating the order of values:  he and his congregations respected revelations far more than human traditions.

................................thus Paul appears to be saying that Jesus is made to say in Luke, that these facts are learned about Jesus from the scriptures, and that extracting that information from scriptures requires proper divine inspiration (Lk. 24.45) Thus Rom 16.25-26 could be saying that a hallucinated Jesus taught Paul (and other apostles) exactly what the risen Jesus teaches them in Luke 24:  that certain facts about him can be found in the scriptures, and how to find them.

The precedent is thus well established.  A living, earthly Jesus was simply not the only available source for receiving sayings and teachings from and about him.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2017, 09:00:13 AM
Element 16:
The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth (only many generations later did Christian views on this point noticeably change).  As Paul says in Rom. 16.25-26:  "My gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, but now is made visible through the prophetic scriptures and is made known to all nations according to the command of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith."
And in Galatians 1 he swears up and down, repeatedly, that he did not learn the gospel from oral tradition, but revelation alone, thus illustrating the order of values:  he and his congregations respected revelations far more than human traditions.

................................thus Paul appears to be saying that Jesus is made to say in Luke, that these facts are learned about Jesus from the scriptures, and that extracting that information from scriptures requires proper divine inspiration (Lk. 24.45) Thus Rom 16.25-26 could be saying that a hallucinated Jesus taught Paul (and other apostles) exactly what the risen Jesus teaches them in Luke 24:  that certain facts about him can be found in the scriptures, and how to find them.

The precedent is thus well established.  A living, earthly Jesus was simply not the only available source for receiving sayings and teachings from and about him.

Correct again.  Carrier however contends with mythicists as well, because he takes an atheist POV.  To him, any religious person is insane, and atheists are sane.  Therefore any myth making is BS, not a proper reaction to reality.  The "mythicists" per se, are trying to understand Jesus as myth, Carrier is trying to dismiss Jesus as myth.  Not the same thing at all.  But there is ars-verite in the stories, because they are based on things that did happen or could have happened, not just myth.  There was a Mecca and a Hajj, that was pagan.  There was a Jerusalem and a Passover, that was Jewish.  When apocalyptic types grasp that reality for their own purposes ... that is when you get the Jewish Messianics and the Arab Messianics going.  Jewish messianism was successfully suppressed, with great loss of life on both sides, by the Romans.  The Romans and the Persians were not sufficient to suppress the Arab messianism.

And like the Qumran movement of 2000 years ago, the Muhammad movement was apocalyptic, was in the desert, had a charismatic leader, was going to overturn the injustice of the world (in Arabic, religion is "din" or "justice").  And both were influenced by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) ... who believed in an apocalypse.  So Muslims today, in so far as they understand their own beliefs ... are an apocalyptic sect trying to bring about the destruction of the world, for justice.  And like the Qumran "sons of light" or their Persian equivalents ... there will be a purified community of survivors, who will restore purity in an impure world.  This is why Islam is uncompromising.  The Qumran movement, or the Zoroastrians, had they continued to grow, would have made the same theocratic threat.  And time rolls on ... Iran and Saudi Arabia are still out there, and the apocalypse awaits.  Of course the Vikings had the same POV ... may the Gotterdamerung commence!  They got valkyries instead of hoarse.

The Jesus movement spun this around ... the kingdom was in Heaven or here and now, not after revolution on Earth.  Ordinary Judaism and Islam and the Church each in their own way, are for a political kingdom on Earth ... they are coopted by power, money and fame.  That is why I am a heretic ... and why I agree with the Jesus movement, but am not a Christian.  Jesus is a myth, but Jewish, and gnostic.

Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2017, 09:17:08 AM
Correct again.  Carrier however contends with mythicists as well, because he takes an atheist POV.  To him, any religious person is insane, and atheists are sane.  Therefore any myth making is BS, not a proper reaction to reality.  The "mythicists" per se, are trying to understand Jesus as myth, Carrier is trying to dismiss Jesus as myth.  Not the same thing at all.  But there is ars-verite in the stories, because they are based on things that did happen or could have happened, not just myth.  There was a Mecca and a Hajj, that was pagan.  There was a Jerusalem and a Passover, that was Jewish.  When apocalyptic types grasp that reality for their own purposes ... that is when you get the Jewish Messianics and the Arab Messianics going.  Jewish messianism was successfully suppressed, with great loss of life on both sides, by the Romans.  The Romans and the Persians were not sufficient to suppress the Arab messianism.

And like the Qumran movement of 2000 years ago, the Muhammad movement was apocalyptic, was in the desert, had a charismatic leader, was going to overturn the injustice of the world (in Arabic, religion is "din" or "justice").  And both were influenced by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) ... who believed in an apocalypse.  So Muslims today, in so far as they understand their own beliefs ... are an apocalyptic sect trying to bring about the destruction of the world, for justice.  And like the Qumran "sons of light" or their Persian equivalents ... there will be a purified community of survivors, who will restore purity in an impure world.  This is why Islam is uncompromising.  The Qumran movement, or the Zoroastrians, had they continued to grow, would have made the same theocratic threat.  And time rolls on ... Iran and Saudi Arabia are still out there, and the apocalypse awaits.  Of course the Vikings had the same POV ... may the Gotterdamerung commence!  They got valkyries instead of hoarse.

The Jesus movement spun this around ... the kingdom was in Heaven or here and now, not after revolution on Earth.  Ordinary Judaism and Islam and the Church each in their own way, are for a political kingdom on Earth ... they are coopted by power, money and fame.  That is why I am a heretic ... and why I agree with the Jesus movement, but am not a Christian.  Jesus is a myth, but Jewish, and gnostic.

Yes, Jesus is a myth, Jewish and gnostic.  Paul makes that plain.  And he was the first Christian (of the stripe that survived) to write--and he says the same thing.  And Carrier is trying to establish that.

Element 17:
The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.  The influence of the OT on the NT has been much written on, but here I mean to say that this fact, in conjunction with the evidence of previous elements makes it plausible to ask whether the gospel was actually discovered and learned from the scriptures, rather than the scriptures being consulted after the fact as a merely defensive reinforcement for key claims Christians were making supposedly on other grounds.

All of this is not itself a proof that Christians did find every key element of their gospel by scouring scripture for secret messages, producing their gospel like a pesher (with assistance from 'revelations' and ecstatic 'inspiration').  But the evidence above is sufficient to establish that they could have.  The usual claim, of course, is that Christians sought out Isaiah 53 after the fact (and all scholars agree it was a key text employed by Christians as a prophecy of their Christ), and not as inspiration (i.e. finding the passage first, and then concocting a savior to match). But we don't really know it was the one and not the other.  Prior to any specific evidence either way, the one is as likely as the others.  The ease with which we can produce the Christian gospel solely by constructing a messianic pesher out to the OT scriptures (and other scriptures the Christians used) is therefore something we must include in our background knowledge.

Correct again ...

"rather than the scriptures being consulted after the fact as a merely defensive reinforcement for key claims Christians were making supposedly on other grounds." ... absolutely.  Not only esoteric exegesis of Genesis and Ezekiel (see Kabbalah of 2000 years ago) but also the I-Ching version of Judaism.  Basically taking a Torah, and finding a random passage as an answer to a petitioners question.  An early form of Practical Kabbalah, and then there is gematria (learned originally from the Greeks who did this in their language).  For instance "serpent" in Genesis is the same "number" as "messiah".  But the "serpent" of Genesis wasn't seen so much as a snake, as a dragon, like Apep in Egyptian mythology.

Element 18:
Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled (and thereby replacing) by his death the two greatest annual sacrifices in the Jewish religion, Passover and Yom Kippur, and thereby had replaced the temple as a relevant religious institution. 

Because God now dwelled in each person, then he did not dwell only in the holy of holies as mainstream Judaism held.  And if all one's sins were thereby cleansed, there was no need of further rituals or sacrifices.  There was therefore no need of priests or the temple.  Replacing not just Yom Kippur but also Passover, the two great temple sacrificial rituals, was essential to accomplish that end, and had the obvious connotation of not just procuring forgiveness of sins (the role of Yom Kippur) but procuring salvation from death (the role of Passover).  Which two facts completed the Christian system of salvation.

Element 19:
The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus but was converted by revelation some time after Jesus is said to have died, and did not begin writing anything we know of until many years after his conversion (Galatians, e.g., was written about seventeen years after: 1.18; 2.1).

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2017, 09:57:52 AM
Element 18:
Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled (and thereby replacing) by his death the two greatest annual sacrifices in the Jewish religion, Passover and Yom Kippur, and thereby had replaced the temple as a relevant religious institution. 

Because God now dwelled in each person, then he did not dwell only in the holy of holies as mainstream Judaism held.  And if all one's sins were thereby cleansed, there was no need of further rituals or sacrifices.  There was therefore no need of priests or the temple.  Replacing not just Yom Kippur but also Passover, the two great temple sacrificial rituals, was essential to accomplish that end, and had the obvious connotation of not just procuring forgiveness of sins (the role of Yom Kippur) but procuring salvation from death (the role of Passover).  Which two facts completed the Christian system of salvation.

Correct again.  Though the sense of it, before the destruction of Jerusalem, and after the destruction of Jerusalem ... is different.  But the notion of "inscribing the law on Jewish hearts" is older than Jesus, but is in the Tanakh.  Also the notion of the futility of the sacrificial system instituted by Solomon.  The prophetic tradition was ... divided ... on the value of the inner and outer life.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2017, 10:00:32 AM
Element 19:
The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus but was converted by revelation some time after Jesus is said to have died, and did not begin writing anything we know of until many years after his conversion (Galatians, e.g., was written about seventeen years after: 1.18; 2.1).

Correct again.  We don't have a clear picture of Paul's early revelation, or his training under Barnabas in Tarsus and Antioch and in "Arabia" ... aka Damascus or even Petra.  Damascus in his day was controlled from Petra.  With the grave of Aharon still there, this would be a natural alternative pilgrimage site for Jewish people who are alienated from the Jerusalem temple.  Some Jews at that time had rejected the Temple sacrifices (including vegetarian Jews) and responded in various ways, not just as alternative kohanim (Essenes).  Some had reverted to a bedouin lifestyle, to get closer to Abraham.  Vegetarianism was an attempt to revert to Adamic status (pre-sin).  People were deeply contemplating Genesis and Ezekiel in an attempt to understand the "out of joint" condition of their times.

Element 20:
(a) The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles but required them to convert to Judaism. (b) Paul is the first known Christian to discard that requirement (having received a special revelation instructing him to), and he had to fight the earliest known leaders of the cult for acceptance of that radical idea. (c) But some books in the NT are from the sect that did not adopt this innovation but remained thoroughly Jewish (most obviously Matthew, the letters of John and James, and Revelation).

Most scholars concede this.  The primary evidence is Galatians 1-2, and supporting that is the fact that in his extended defense of this novelty in Romans, Paul is unable to cite the authority of a historical Jesus even once (see, e.g., Rom. 14.14)  This entails that if Jesus lived, then he never taught anything other than a Jewish religion for Jews, and countenanced  admitting only those Gentiles who first became Jews through circumcision and adherence to Torah law, as such a procedure for converting Gentiles was already in accordance with Torah Law (Exod. 12.48).

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2017, 10:05:53 PM
Element 20:
(a) The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles but required them to convert to Judaism. (b) Paul is the first known Christian to discard that requirement (having received a special revelation instructing him to), and he had to fight the earliest known leaders of the cult for acceptance of that radical idea. (c) But some books in the NT are from the sect that did not adopt this innovation but remained thoroughly Jewish (most obviously Matthew, the letters of John and James, and Revelation).

Most scholars concede this.  The primary evidence is Galatians 1-2, and supporting that is the fact that in his extended defense of this novelty in Romans, Paul is unable to cite the authority of a historical Jesus even once (see, e.g., Rom. 14.14)  This entails that if Jesus lived, then he never taught anything other than a Jewish religion for Jews, and countenanced  admitting only those Gentiles who first became Jews through circumcision and adherence to Torah law, as such a procedure for converting Gentiles was already in accordance with Torah Law (Exod. 12.48).

Correct again.  Though missing a few points.  Paul was a heretic among heretics (from the Pharisee POV).  The Pharisees were heretics to the Sadducees.  The Pharisees were basically lay puritans.  The Sadducees were the actual Temple clergy (kohanim and leviim).  The apologetics notice this too, that Paul believed that the end of the world (not just the value eschaton of Crossan) was going to happen real soon.  So there was no time, given that you couldn't tell on the basis of Jew or Gentile who would be saved, to get Gentiles properly converted to Pharisee practice (as Paul had originally been).  Paul realized that this was unnecessary in any case, that it was heart conviction that mattered, not external practice (circumcision or eating meat offered to idols).

The Muslims went thru a similar process ... originally they discouraged conversion of non-Arabs to Islam, and when they allowed it, you had to be adopted into an existing Arab tribe.  Once the Caliphate was gigantic, and there were lots of kafir who wanted to join the new Elite, and there weren't enough Arabs to keep it running, and it was too hard to adopt so many people into existing Arabic tribes ... that they simplified it to a simple attestation.

Element 21:
(a) Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels through the first century.  In fact, evidence of such divisions and disagreements date as far back as extant records go.  Yet we know very little about these other versions of Christianity (and in some case nothing at all).  And(b)of these only a few amalgamated sects survived the process of competition to remain in the Middle Ages, and those sects controlled nearly all choices as to what texts to preserve into the present, and which texts to ignore or abandon; and for the former, they also had complete custody of those texts for over a thousand years of hand-copying and editing.

We therefore cannot simply assume surviving tests report what was normative for the original or earliest sects of Christianity.  There is a great deal we just don't know, and we have to factor that ignorance into our reasoning.  The epistles written during the first generation of Christians (from the 30s to the 60s ce) reveal a highly fragmented church already from the earliest recorded time, rife with fabricated new gospels and teachings effectively beyond the control of any central authority.  And if this much divergence had already occurred in Paul's generation, the amount of divergence in later generations would have been even greater.

Element 22:
(a) We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 ce (or possibly even as late as 110 ce).  And (b) unlike almost any other cult we might consider for comparison, we now the leadership of the Christian church had been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period. 

The significance of all this is that in that period  we have no clear idea who was in charge or which churches they controlled or what schisms developed or what disputes arose or who they were resolved or even whether they were resolved.  ..........................And with no clear authority in control for thirty years--an entire generation--there is no limit to what can happen to an institution and its teachings, especially one built on myths and secrets, two things that are the easiest to chance.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 16, 2017, 05:38:27 PM
Element 21:
(a) Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels through the first century.  In fact, evidence of such divisions and disagreements date as far back as extant records go.  Yet we know very little about these other versions of Christianity (and in some case nothing at all).  And(b)of these only a few amalgamated sects survived the process of competition to remain in the Middle Ages, and those sects controlled nearly all choices as to what texts to preserve into the present, and which texts to ignore or abandon; and for the former, they also had complete custody of those texts for over a thousand years of hand-copying and editing.

We therefore cannot simply assume surviving tests report what was normative for the original or earliest sects of Christianity.  There is a great deal we just don't know, and we have to factor that ignorance into our reasoning.  The epistles written during the first generation of Christians (from the 30s to the 60s ce) reveal a highly fragmented church already from the earliest recorded time, rife with fabricated new gospels and teachings effectively beyond the control of any central authority.  And if this much divergence had already occurred in Paul's generation, the amount of divergence in later generations would have been even greater.

Early Protestant reformers were simply nationalists (Lutheranism, Anglicanism).  They were anti-globalist.  The later Protestant reformers made the assumption that the Constantinian Church was wrong from the get-go, but that there was an original and valid Early Church that they could reconstruct.  I think they were just as wrong.  There never was an Early Church ... just some whacked out Jewish cults, one of which admitted Gentiles.

Quote from: Baruch on October 17, 2017, 12:54:58 PM
Early Protestant reformers were simply nationalists (Lutheranism, Anglicanism).  They were anti-globalist.  The later Protestant reformers made the assumption that the Constantinian Church was wrong from the get-go, but that there was an original and valid Early Church that they could reconstruct.  I think they were just as wrong.  There never was an Early Church ... just some whacked out Jewish cults, one of which admitted Gentiles.

Seems to me that we can never know what the 'real actual church' was like since the later generations (from the early 1st cent) were the victors and ensured that the actual history reflected only what they said it was.  As much of the rest as they could manage was destroyed.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 17, 2017, 01:13:26 PM
Seems to me that we can never know what the 'real actual church' was like since the later generations (from the early 1st cent) were the victors and ensured that the actual history reflected only what they said it was.  As much of the rest as they could manage was destroyed.

This is why they call it a foundation myth.  Same with the American Founders.  BS all the way down.

Quote from: Baruch on October 17, 2017, 01:16:21 PM
This is why they call it a foundation myth.  Same with the American Founders.  BS all the way down.

I wonder how many times you can refer to foundation myths before you realize they are MYTHS!  The whole Jesus thing is a myth.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 18, 2017, 01:17:36 AM
I wonder how many times you can refer to foundation myths before you realize they are MYTHS!  The whole Jesus thing is a myth.

I agree.  But the Declaration of Independence was a myth created by Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.  We know who did it.  Not so much with older myths, which can pretend to be more mysterious.

Element 23:
The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 ce, bringing the center of the Holy Land under direct control of the Roman government, ending Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

In fact, God had promised that the Jews would not only rule their own land, city and temple, but subjugate all peoples and rule the whole world as the chosen people of God (Zech. 14.9-18; Psalm 2), which was also a common feature of messianic belief, one timetable for which predicted this outcome was imminent (Element 7).

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2017, 09:55:15 AM
Element 23:
The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 ce, bringing the center of the Holy Land under direct control of the Roman government, ending Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

In fact, God had promised that the Jews would not only rule their own land, city and temple, but subjugate all peoples and rule the whole world as the chosen people of God (Zech. 14.9-18; Psalm 2), which was also a common feature of messianic belief, one timetable for which predicted this outcome was imminent (Element 7).

Why do you refer to Isarel as "the holy land"?  All cultures have holy places.  None of which mean a dam thing.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 18, 2017, 10:15:25 AM
Why do you refer to Isarel as "the holy land"?  All cultures have holy places.  None of which mean a dam thing.

Cavebear, understand when I post the 'Elements' that I am just copying Carrier--those are not my words.

And understand Carrier is discussing the facts surrounding whether or not Jesus was a historical person.  When all 48 Elements are listed, these will be used as the basal facts he draws from when discussing in detail why he thinks Jesus is historical or not.  So, in Christianity there is only one Holy Land; and for Jews there is only one Holy Land.  Carrier is not discussing any other religion.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2017, 11:53:26 AM
Cavebear, understand when I post the 'Elements' that I am just copying Carrier--those are not my words.

And understand Carrier is discussing the facts surrounding whether or not Jesus was a historical person.  When all 48 Elements are listed, these will be used as the basal facts he draws from when discussing in detail why he thinks Jesus is historical or not.  So, in Christianity there is only one Holy Land; and for Jews there is only one Holy Land.  Carrier is not discussing any other religion.

My apologies Mike Cl. 

Quote from: Cavebear on October 18, 2017, 11:56:42 AM
My apologies Mike Cl.

Not a problem.

Element 24:
(a) Owing to their vastly greater resources (in material, money and manpower) and superior technical ability the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy. (b)This fact was so empirically evident and publicly tested and demonstrated on such a wide scale that it had to have been evident to al least some Jews, even while many either did not see it, denied it even when seen, or imagined celestial aid would redress the imbalance.

In other words, the traditional messianic hope (of a conclusive military victory over all of Israel's neighbors) was a doomed hope, and that would have been obvious to at least some Jews. 

........................................It would have been a simple matter to put two and two together:  Roman military might plus Jewish military messianism equals the inevitable destruction of the Jews.

Element 25:

The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of fractionalizing among Jewish sects.  This is evident throughout the narrative of Josephus regarding the causes and outcomes of the Jewish War, as well as in the literature recovered at Qumran (e.g. 4Q500), and in much of the apocryphal, apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical literature produced or popularized by first-century Jews.  It is also a persistent theme in the Christian Gospels, which in that context do not seem aberrant in this respect but in fact typical.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 19, 2017, 09:47:18 AM
Element 24:
(a) Owing to their vastly greater resources (in material, money and manpower) and superior technical ability the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy. (b)This fact was so empirically evident and publicly tested and demonstrated on such a wide scale that it had to have been evident to al least some Jews, even while many either did not see it, denied it even when seen, or imagined celestial aid would redress the imbalance.

In other words, the traditional messianic hope (of a conclusive military victory over all of Israel's neighbors) was a doomed hope, and that would have been obvious to at least some Jews. 

........................................It would have been a simple matter to put two and two together:  Roman military might plus Jewish military messianism equals the inevitable destruction of the Jews.

Correct.  Philo understood this, Caiaphas understood this, Josephus understood this .. but Judea was caught up in its own marketing (Hanukhah).  Never eat your own dog food, never kosher.  And this was four wars, not one.  The Maccabean period had been mythologized, and gave people unrealistic expectations.  The Greek Syrian government was divided against itself, and in decline.  Except for that, the Maccabean revolt would have been crushed.  As it is, it was less than it seemed, because the Maccabees formed a protectorate under Syrian domination, they weren't really independent, ever.  The Syrian domination moved over to the Roman domination smoothly, when Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 19, 2017, 09:53:09 AM
Element 25:

The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of fractionalizing among Jewish sects.  This is evident throughout the narrative of Josephus regarding the causes and outcomes of the Jewish War, as well as in the literature recovered at Qumran (e.g. 4Q500), and in much of the apocryphal, apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical literature produced or popularized by first-century Jews.  It is also a persistent theme in the Christian Gospels, which in that context do not seem aberrant in this respect but in fact typical.

Also correct.  There was a partial resolution under the Pharisees ... initially these lay puritans (like Muslim Brotherhood today) were oppressed and executed by the clergy/king .. crucified in their thousands in fact.  Once there was accommodation between the weakened elite and the lay puritans, then they were allowed to participate in controlling the Temple, at least indirectly.  It was a politically useful thing at some point, when it had initially been savagely suppressed (like Gen Sisi in Egypt recently).  The Maccabees had profaned the Temple, while saving it from the Greeks (they weren't in the blood line of the high priest) ... combining the kingship with the high priesthood.  Then lay puritans were oppressed and executed.  So there were some strong reasons to oppose the religious authorities in the 1st century ... that an accommodation between the Herodians, priesthood and the Romans.  This is why John the Baptist is probably historical, and was a popular figure of symbolic opposition.  But also definitely a heretic also.

Element 26:
For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24):  the reason God withheld their fulfillment (and instead all owed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g., Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7). God would come through only when all sin had ended and been atoned for (Dan. 9.5-24).

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, repeatedly denounce the Jewish civil and temple elite as responsible for the evil that has befallen the land, in terms similar to those found in the Christian Gospels.  And since the sins of the Jews are what kept God from holding back his promised judgement (as explained in Jeremiah 23 and 25, and Daniel 9), any plan that would cancel those sins would be seen as removing that obstacle and thus ushering in God's promise. The fact that Daniel and Isiah both connect the death of a messiah or savior with a final cancellation of Israel's since (see element 7) thus would have made those texts of primary interest to any apocalyptic Jew. 

Element 27:
(a) The temple at Jerusalem was the central focus of most Jewish messianic hopes (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26); and as long as the Romans remained in power, they would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple.  Accordingly, (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and its personnel. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 20, 2017, 09:18:55 AM
Element 26:
For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24):  the reason God withheld their fulfillment (and instead all owed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g., Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7). God would come through only when all sin had ended and been atoned for (Dan. 9.5-24).

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, repeatedly denounce the Jewish civil and temple elite as responsible for the evil that has befallen the land, in terms similar to those found in the Christian Gospels.  And since the sins of the Jews are what kept God from holding back his promised judgement (as explained in Jeremiah 23 and 25, and Daniel 9), any plan that would cancel those sins would be seen as removing that obstacle and thus ushering in God's promise. The fact that Daniel and Isiah both connect the death of a messiah or savior with a final cancellation of Israel's since (see element 7) thus would have made those texts of primary interest to any apocalyptic Jew.

Pre-70 CE.  Post-70 CE ... among rabbinic Jews (as they developed on toward 200 CE) the cause of evil was more democratic and humanistic ... not the Devil, not the Elite ... not the Gentiles ... but everyone.  It was labeled ... "mindless hatred".  Jew against Jew, Jew against Gentile, Gentile against Jew.  66-74 CE in particular was a war of everyone against everyone else.  A revolt against Rome, a revolution against the Elite, a messianic consummation of the People.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 20, 2017, 09:22:46 AM
Element 27:
(a) The temple at Jerusalem was the central focus of most Jewish messianic hopes (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26); and as long as the Romans remained in power, they would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple.  Accordingly, (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and its personnel.

Originally this was the Pharisees, against the corrupt Maccabees and Sadducees.  Eventually the surviving Pharisees temporized, and they became a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.  Since the Temple was rebuilt by the Herodians, it was seen in some circles as inherently treif (non-kosher).  It couldn't be redeemed, only destroyed.

Element 28:
A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum of the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.  Those Jews who believed they could physically retake control of the temple naturally pinned their hopes on military messianism (as exemplified by the Zealots and the Sicarii, and everyone who led actual rebellions against Rome, from Judas the Galilean to Bar Kochba).  But if any Jews had realized that such a reconquest was impossible (as some much, in accord with Element 24) but still sought a means to escape their cognitive dissonance (in accord with Element 23) without denying the evident facts or abandoning deep-seated religious beliefs (and it is reasonable to assume at least some Jews did seek such means without going to such ends), then for them only one solution remained:  to deny the physical importance of the temple at Jerusalem itself.

That would require replacing it, and not with another temple (as that would only recreate the same problem all over again and thus not in fact solve it, as was evident in the fate of the Samaritan messianic uprising at Gerizim), but with something intangible, which neither the Romans nor the corrupt Jewish elite could control and which required neither money nor material power to bring about or maintain and whose ruler was himself incapable of corruption.

This does not entail that anyone did think this, only that it would have been an easy and natural progression of thought from problem to solution and therefore not implausible.  It fits the political and religious context and our understanding of human nature and ingenuity. 

The basic Christian gospel--imagining that the death of a messiah had conclusively atoned for all sins (as the OT could already be understood to say, per Elements 5,6, and 17) and that by joining with him through adoption by baptism, in accord with Element 12:  and through symbolic consumption of his body and blood, in accord with Element 18) God would dwell in us (instead of the temple)--would thus be recognized by many Jews as an ingenious and attractive idea.  Especially since the end result would be that instead of taking orders from the Jewish elite, we would have as our sovereign no fallible men but Christ himself, God's appointed Lord speaking directly to his subject from the right had of God in heaven (by spirit and angelic communication, and secret messages planted in scripture in accord with Elements 8 and 15).   Thus the problem of elite corruption is seemingly removed without requiring violence or money or diplomacy or military victory.  God has his victory; and all cognitive dissonance is resolved.

The relevance of this observation is that the earliest Christian gospel makes far more sense as a product of its political context that it does when completely divorced from that context, and in consequence, theories of historicity that ignore that fact are unlikely to have any objective  merit. 

Correct again.  But Gentiles living 300 years later, who are anti-Semites ... are a different matter entirely.  This is why there is cognitive dissonance between the Church and Scripture, and why lay reading of scripture was forbidden for centuries.  However, the majority of Jews didn't want what the pacifists were offering, clever though it may be.  They were like Palestinians today.  And this is why, as a political/ethnic subject, original Messianic Judaism is a curiosity, it doesn't move us.  But gnosticism does, for those open to it.

Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2017, 11:26:02 AM
Correct again.  But Gentiles living 300 years later, who are anti-Semites ... are a different matter entirely.  This is why there is cognitive dissonance between the Church and Scripture, and why lay reading of scripture was forbidden for centuries.  However, the majority of Jews didn't want what the pacifists were offering, clever though it may be.  They were like Palestinians today.  And this is why, as a political/ethnic subject, original Messianic Judaism is a curiosity, it doesn't move us.  But gnosticism does, for those open to it.

Tell that to the Jewish fanatics who control Israel.  They are all nuts.

Element 29:
Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movements most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood i light of them.  For not only are their attributes remarkably similar, but so are the socio-political situations that created them; and it is this distinct parallel of both cause and effect that makes the comparison illuminating.  In the words of I.C. Jarvie:
     One of the most remarkable things about apocalyptic millennial movements [like cargo cults] is that, despite the fact that they crop up at all periods of history, in all parts of the world, and in all
     sorts of different social set-ups, we can find remarkable similarities between them.

Peter Worsley's study of cargo cults found that they arise in one of three conditions--though sometimes more than one condition is present, and notably all three were present at the origin of Christianity.

1.  First in racially and culturally fragmented societies; 'the main effect of the millenarian cult is to overcome these divisions and to weld previously hostile and separate groups together into a new unity' against the ruling power; and 'the social necessity which produces this drive toward integration is the subjection of all the separate units to a common authority'. like a foreign imperial power (and, of course the local elite who support it, who are then seen as in collusion with it.)  Christianity, too, arose in a racially and culturally fragmented society under the thumb of a foreign power.  The first Christians sought to resolve this tension by recruiting Gentiles to become Jews, but very soon Paul saw that Christianity had to relax that requirement to achieve its goal of unity, making this an almost inevitable development, since the need of it would have been all but obvious, while the alternative was certain to fail, as in fact it did.

2.  And 'the second major type of society in which millenarian cults develop is the agrarian and especially feudal, state' where 'the cults arise among the lower orders--peasants and urban plebeians--in opposition to the official regimes', because 'due to the material conditions of their lives, they lack any organization which could give [practical expression to their common interests, and they do not see their common interests except in times of social crisis', so they must then create such an organization.  Christianity likewise originated in an agrarian society,m with an effectively feudal structure (with powerful landholders controlling economic and political institutions and exploiting a peasantry), and among the lower orders in a condition of growing social crisis (see Elements 22-25 and Element 4), where no political organization for expressing their concerns was made available, thus necessitating that they create one.  This would explain Christianity's rapid organization into 'churches' with a hierarchy and rules of order (1 Cor. 11-14 and 6; Rom. 16.1; 1 Cor. 1.2; 12.28; 16.19; etc.) and its steady move toward control of orthodoxy through an increasingly organized political system independent of the imperial government. 

3.  .................'when a society with differentiated political institutions is fighting for its existence by quite secular military-political means, but is meeting with defeat after defeat', such that 'when the political structure of a society is smashed by war or other means, or fails to answer the needs of a people who wish to carry on the struggle, then a prophetic, often millenarian, leadership is likely to emerge'.  ................................Apocalyptiscism becomes a way to passively voice discontent with the ruling powers and re-envision a better society, proclaiming that God himself will bring it upon us soon--rather than taking up arms to bring it about directly, a solution already seen to be incapable of success;..........................

......................So the sociological situation that spawned Christianity had all three conditions for generating millenarian cults exactly like Christianity. 

Quote from: Cavebear on October 23, 2017, 04:46:44 AM
Tell that to the Jewish fanatics who control Israel.  They are all nuts.

I agree ... anyone who wants to immigrate to the Middle East, and piss off all the people already there ... are nuts.  But the British and French Empires guaranteed their safety.  Where are those empires now?

Element 29 - Apostle Paul couldn't have put it any different.  That was exactly what he was trying to do, to create a transcendent unity, and failed miserably.  His writings were then used centuries later, to justify something he would have have supported.

Element 30:
Early-first-century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Elements 2 and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies (Element 31 and 32).  The influence of the latter is sometimes denied, but cannot be, not only because pagans lived, traveled, and traded all throughout Judea (with significant populations in cities throughout the Holy Land, from the Pagan quarters of Caesarea, Gaza, Ptolemais, Tiberieas and Sepphoris to the ten likewise cities of the Decapolis and major port cites such as Tyre and Ashketon, but even more so because Jerusalem, and all Judea, was frequented by millions of pilgrims from the disaporea every year, many (such as Philo of Alexandria) thoroughly Hellenized, who brought with them ideas and teachings from the foreign communities they came from.  Act 2.5-11 and 6.9 are thus reflecting the reality, and that in Jerusalem itself. 

These latter ideas would have infiltrated Palestinian society in two ways.  Some would arrive by simple report:..................................................But others would arrive through prior syncretism;  diaspora Jews combined pagan religious and philosophical ideas with their own Jewish faith (as Philo of Alexandria did--and just as what were then 'mainstream'Palestinian Jews had done before when they adopted notions of hell and resurrection, and the Devil as a supernatural enemy of God, all from their pagan Zoroastrian overlords centuries before), and then came to Judea and promulgated their new ideas as Jewish ideas rather than pagan.  Paul himself is an example:  a diaspora Jew, from either Tarsus (Acts 9.11; 21.39; 22.3) or Damascus (Gal. 2.17; 2 Cor 11.26), whose own version of Christianity, ultimately accepted even by the founders (the 'pillars' of Gal. 2), was laden with ideas from pagan philosophy, literature and mystery cult.

Correct again.  Temple Judaism itself had evolved out of paganism.  Moses was a myth, even 2000 years ago.  There were Buddhists, Hindus and even Chinese who visited Antioch in Syria.  Petra and Damascus were under Arabic pagan cults.  And philosophers then called Cynics (not what it means now) but a kind of anti-social Hippie ... is a clear context for the ministry of Jesus.  A great deal of paganism came into Zionist Judaism, 500 years earlier, in Babylon.  Rabbinic argumentation owes a lot to Athens.

Element 31:
Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a gods who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worships were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea (again, Element 11).  For example, you won't find this trend in ancient China.  No such gods are found there.  If Christianity had begun in China its claims would indeed have been unique and astonishing.  Yet in its actual Greco-Roman context it was neither unique nor astonishing.  Thus it cannot be a coincidence that Christianity arose with an idea matching a ubiquitous pagan type unique to the very time and place it was born. 

The dying-and-rising son (sometimes daughter) of god 'mytheme' originated in the ancient Near East over a thousand years before Christianity and was spread across the Mediterranean principally by the Phoenicians (Canaanites) from their base at Tyre (and after that by the Carthaginians, the most successful Phoenician cultural diffusers in the early Greco-Roman period), and then fostered and modified by numerous native and Greco-Roman cults that adopted it. 

........................................The public ubiquity of dying-and-rising god myths, always the divine sons or daughters of a supreme god, and often being worshiped as personal saviors, is therefore beyond dispute, and cults not have failed to play a major role in the origins of Christianity.

Correct again.  But it goes deeper ... Baal of Tyre has a common local ancestor to Osiris of Egypt, Osiris being a form of Canaanite worship brought into Egypt 1000 years earlier (circa 2000 BCE to 1000 BCE) which democratized the afterlife.  When the pyramids were built, only the Pharaoh and his retainers merited an after-life.  The idea of Last Judgement also arises in Egypt (though commonly found elsewhere).  The idea of eating the body of a god, is a pre-historic African rite, present in the Pyramid Texts on the pyramid of Unas ... where divine cannibalism is described ... and that develops into the Temple cult in Judaism, and the Eucharist in Christianity.  The successor in Islam is the lamb eaten at the Hajj, rather than the Passover.

Yes, it does go much deeper.  I only copied about 1/4 of Carrier's entry for that element.  I tried to distill the most salient points since I did not want to be typing into tomorrow. :)  He does mention what you mentioned above.  But I must admit, that as you post replies to these elements Carrier establishes, my admiration for you depth of knowledge grows.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 08:45:22 PM
Yes, it does go much deeper.  I only copied about 1/4 of Carrier's entry for that element.  I tried to distill the most salient points since I did not want to be typing into tomorrow. :)  He does mention what you mentioned above.  But I must admit, that as you post replies to these elements Carrier establishes, my admiration for you depth of knowledge grows.

Ever read The Book Of The Dead?  Very informative, if you are open to how that influenced all future human culture.  And it wasn't completely democratic, but was more of a Middle Class thing.  Very popular in Middle Egypt for some reason ;-)

I simply refuse to despise our ancestors, however primitive they may seem to us.  Without their progress, we would be arguing over stone tools.

Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2017, 09:05:40 PM
Ever read The Book Of The Dead?  Very informative, if you are open to how that influenced all future human culture.  And it wasn't completely democratic, but was more of a Middle Class thing.  Very popular in Middle Egypt for some reason ;-)

I simply refuse to despise our ancestors, however primitive they may seem to us.  Without their progress, we would be arguing over stone tools.

No, I've not read that--yet.  Maybe I should; I've heard of it.  I don't despise our ancestors, either.  It is hard to judge them since I have not lived within their societies.  Or in those eras.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 09:18:18 PM
No, I've not read that--yet.  Maybe I should; I've heard of it.  I don't despise our ancestors, either.  It is hard to judge them since I have not lived within their societies.  Or in those eras.

I recommend, reading about contemporary people, different from oneself, or people of the past sufficiently different from oneself .. to get out of oneself.  Reading about pretend future people is too easy to corrupt to optimism or pessimism, there is no "control" to the self experiment.

Element 32
By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extend Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotellanism influenced Christian teachings.

.....................The first-century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, for example, shows clear signs of having been influenced by Cynicism, and in result taught things very similar to Jesus, concerning for example, charity, pacifism, forgiveness and brotherly love.  And if that can be so for him, it can be so for Jesus, or anyone in the Christian tradition after him, or the Jewish tradition before him.  And so, too, any other popular philosophy of the age.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2017, 09:49:00 AM
Element 32
By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extend Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotellanism influenced Christian teachings.

.....................The first-century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, for example, shows clear signs of having been influenced by Cynicism, and in result taught things very similar to Jesus, concerning for example, charity, pacifism, forgiveness and brotherly love.  And if that can be so for him, it can be so for Jesus, or anyone in the Christian tradition after him, or the Jewish tradition before him.  And so, too, any other popular philosophy of the age.

There were alternatives, including pagan alternatives like Apollonius of Tyana, who also reputed to raise the dead.

Quote from: Baruch on October 26, 2017, 12:21:38 PM
There were alternatives, including pagan alternatives like Apollonius of Tyana, who also reputed to raise the dead.

There were many, many alternatives with a bunch Carrier suggested.  I just omitted that part to save my old, tired, and slow fingers.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2017, 01:03:59 PM
There were many, many alternatives with a bunch Carrier suggested.  I just omitted that part to save my old, tired, and slow fingers.

Several alternatives were tried out, at least previewed.  Emperor Severus Alexander had several religions simultaneously, just in case one of them worked.  And Constantine really was a Sol Invictus guy, he was just LARPing Christianity, until he got to his death bed (back then, once you became a Christian, no more sinning).

Quote from: Baruch on October 26, 2017, 01:31:33 PM
Several alternatives were tried out, at least previewed.  Emperor Severus Alexander had several religions simultaneously, just in case one of them worked.  And Constantine really was a Sol Invictus guy, he was just LARPing Christianity, until he got to his death bed (back then, once you became a Christian, no more sinning).

So none of them really meant it about their religious believes.  I knew that.  That you did and continued the idea is not a big surprise.  You aren't anything without your beliefs.  Sensible people don't need them.  Or you.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 04:24:16 AM
So none of them really meant it about their religious believes.  I knew that.  That you did and continued the idea is not a big surprise.  You aren't anything without your beliefs.  Sensible people don't need them.  Or you.

Roman Emperors and I are demigods ... but then everyone is.  I can't speak for those Roman emperors, just observe what they do, and follow the money.  I would assume that in spite of political agendas, their beliefs were sincere.  Having more than one god, isn't a challenge to a polytheist.

Or are you assuming that in all times, including our own, you can tell when a politician is lying ... if you can see their mouth is open?  By all means, but apply that to modern people, not just ancient people who are in no position to defend themselves.

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2017, 07:31:22 AM
Roman Emperors and I are demigods ... but then everyone is.  I can't speak for those Roman emperors, just observe what they do, and follow the money.  I would assume that in spite of political agendas, their beliefs were sincere.  Having more than one god, isn't a challenge to a polytheist.

Or are you assuming that in all times, including our own, you can tell when a politician is lying ... if you can see their mouth is open?  By all means, but apply that to modern people, not just ancient people who are in no position to defend themselves.

I quit politics when I understood that.  And when I had to beg for money at even a local level.

Element 33:
In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also influenced by several Jewish sects and can be understood only in this contest, too.  This means the role must be considered not just the OT and many other Jewish scriptures then revered (Elements 6-9), but of specific Jewish sects and their distinctive ideologies  and innovations, many of which we do not in fact know much or anything about (such as the so-called Galilean sect, whose particular beliefs, apart from being somehow opposed to the Pharisees, are otherwise unknown).

Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology, and as such differs from each precisely in what it borrows from the other.  Therefore, both must be understood.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 09:25:05 AM
Element 33:
In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also influenced by several Jewish sects and can be understood only in this contest, too.  This means the role must be considered not just the OT and many other Jewish scriptures then revered (Elements 6-9), but of specific Jewish sects and their distinctive ideologies  and innovations, many of which we do not in fact know much or anything about (such as the so-called Galilean sect, whose particular beliefs, apart from being somehow opposed to the Pharisees, are otherwise unknown).

Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology, and as such differs from each precisely in what it borrows from the other.  Therefore, both must be understood.

Evey religion is derivative of an older one.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 09:31:49 AM
Evey religion is derivative of an older one.

True.  Carrier is trying to lay the ground work here to establish that this is true for Christianity.  Christians like to think that their religion is unique; that it did not spring from older religions.  Many Christians try to get around this fact (all religions spring from older ones) by saying that the Devil planted this false 'history' and that all these 'facts' are simply of the Devil's making.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 09:25:05 AM
Element 33:
In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also influenced by several Jewish sects and can be understood only in this contest, too.  This means the role must be considered not just the OT and many other Jewish scriptures then revered (Elements 6-9), but of specific Jewish sects and their distinctive ideologies  and innovations, many of which we do not in fact know much or anything about (such as the so-called Galilean sect, whose particular beliefs, apart from being somehow opposed to the Pharisees, are otherwise unknown).

Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology, and as such differs from each precisely in what it borrows from the other.  Therefore, both must be understood.

Yep.  But also influences from Egypt, Babylon, Persia and India.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 11:22:17 AM
True.  Carrier is trying to lay the ground work here to establish that this is true for Christianity.  Christians like to think that their religion is unique; that it did not spring from older religions.  Many Christians try to get around this fact (all religions spring from older ones) by saying that the Devil planted this false 'history' and that all these 'facts' are simply of the Devil's making.

This is common to all the Abrahamic religions ;-(  They are unique in that they are derived partly from unique tribal or historical circumstances, but there are broader influences as well.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 11:22:17 AM
True.  Carrier is trying to lay the ground work here to establish that this is true for Christianity.  Christians like to think that their religion is unique; that it did not spring from older religions.  Many Christians try to get around this fact (all religions spring from older ones) by saying that the Devil planted this false 'history' and that all these 'facts' are simply of the Devil's making.

Trump wasn't the first, LOL!  I love pointing out the similarities of Mithraism to the door-bangers...  They go away offended.

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
This is common to all the Abrahamic religions ;-(  They are unique in that they are derived partly from unique tribal or historical circumstances, but there are broader influences as well.

I've read (no evidence I can offer fast) that the Jews got mush of their earliest beliefs from OTHER nomadic tribes in the mid east.

LOL!  "mush" was a typo but it sure fits...  Coudn't have done that deliberately.

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
This is common to all the Abrahamic religions ;-(  They are unique in that they are derived partly from unique tribal or historical circumstances, but there are broader influences as well.

I sometimes suspect that the reason the jews christians and moslems hate each other so much is that they are all so similiar.

And forgive me some typos.  I need new reading glasses; I can barely see the screen as I type.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 01:33:45 PM
I've read (no evidence I can offer fast) that the Jews got mush of their earliest beliefs from OTHER nomadic tribes in the mid east.

Of course ... Midianites.  That is clear from the narrative.  But also Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Canaanites.  Israel was a crossroads.  And Solomon never met a wife he didn't like ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 01:43:49 PM
I sometimes suspect that the reason the jews christians and moslems hate each other so much is that they are all so similiar.

And forgive me some typos.  I need new reading glasses; I can barely see the screen as I type.

Forgiven.  Yes, they are similar (hence Abrahamic).  Though Judaism and Islam are closer than either are to Christianity.  Yes, get some glasses.

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2017, 01:47:18 PM
Forgiven.  Yes, they are similar (hence Abrahamic).  Though Judaism and Islam are closer than either are to Christianity.  Yes, get some glasses.

I have a prescription to be filled.  But narrow little glasses seem to be all the rage currently.  I like big ones.

Christianity and Islam seem to be more similar.  They found their messiahs.  And they want to kill the heretics more.

Element 34:
Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers, with the first layer of 'heaven' often consisting of all the air between the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere traveled by the moon).  This expanse was known even then to extend hundreds of thousands of miles.  Above that there were several more levels of heaven, the number varying depending on the scheme adopted, but the most commonplace view was that there were seven in all, one for each major celestial body: the region from the moon to Mercury being the first, then on to Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (not always in that order), and finally the sphere of the stars (astronomers tended to regard the stars as distant suns; theologians tended to favor the theory that the stars comprised a single layer of lights at the top of heaven).

So this notion of seven heavens, with the heavenly firmament at the bottom separating the earth from the higher heavens, had certainly become a fundamental Christian doctrine.  It was clearly a component of Christian belief even from earliest times.  Paul assumes Jesus will descend ' from heaven and then snatch us up 'into the clouds' to meet him in the 'air' (aer, meaning the terrestrial part of the atmosphere, i.e., the firmament):  thus he distinguishes heavens above from air below. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 28, 2017, 09:49:26 AM
Element 34:
Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers, with the first layer of 'heaven' often consisting of all the air between the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere traveled by the moon).  This expanse was known even then to extend hundreds of thousands of miles.  Above that there were several more levels of heaven, the number varying depending on the scheme adopted, but the most commonplace view was that there were seven in all, one for each major celestial body: the region from the moon to Mercury being the first, then on to Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (not always in that order), and finally the sphere of the stars (astronomers tended to regard the stars as distant suns; theologians tended to favor the theory that the stars comprised a single layer of lights at the top of heaven).

So this notion of seven heavens, with the heavenly firmament at the bottom separating the earth from the higher heavens, had certainly become a fundamental Christian doctrine.  It was clearly a component of Christian belief even from earliest times.  Paul assumes Jesus will descend ' from heaven and then snatch us up 'into the clouds' to meet him in the 'air' (aer, meaning the terrestrial part of the atmosphere, i.e., the firmament):  thus he distinguishes heavens above from air below.

Correct.  Astral cosmology comes from Babylon.  The Egyptian system was different.  Canaan was influenced by both.  In Egypt, salvation was to the West, not Above.  In the Johannine gospel, Jesus ascends from the altar of the Red Heifer, into outer space (which was thought to be breathable).  Each star in astral cosmology was in the care of an angel.  That is the vision of the shepherds at Bethlehem.  A rapture of theophanic astral cosmology.  I experienced this myself at 18 on a starry night at a DeMolay (Freemasonic) conference Greeley Colorado.  Named for Horace Greeley, who famously said "Go West young men" ... he was obviously a worshipper of Osiris aka Ba'al of Canaan.  From Sumeria, we get our notion of natural man vs civilized man, Enkidu vs Gilgamesh.  I recently purchased a cylinder seal from Iraq, that has Enkidu on it.

Element 35:
Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless. 

Paul clearly embraced this view himself, and assumed his Christian congregations did as well.  For example, in 1 Cor. 15.40-50, Paul divides the world into the region of decay (the 'terrestrial' world, the epigeia, the 'earthly'  places, meaning 'on or above the earth') and the region of indecay (the 'celestial' world, the epourania, the 'heavenly' places meaning 'in the heavens'), which distinction is also reflected in 2 Cor. 5.1-5.  This is the same division of worlds that Plato, Philo and Plutarch described.  As Philo attests, this notion had already been assimilated in pre-Christian Jewish thought.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 29, 2017, 10:02:12 AM
Element 35:
Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless. 

Paul clearly embraced this view himself, and assumed his Christian congregations did as well.  For example, in 1 Cor. 15.40-50, Paul divides the world into the region of decay (the 'terrestrial' world, the epigeia, the 'earthly'  places, meaning 'on or above the earth') and the region of indecay (the 'celestial' world, the epourania, the 'heavenly' places meaning 'in the heavens'), which distinction is also reflected in 2 Cor. 5.1-5.  This is the same division of worlds that Plato, Philo and Plutarch described.  As Philo attests, this notion had already been assimilated in pre-Christian Jewish thought.

Religions are usually the Tupperware for long spoiled cosmologies ;-)

Element 36:
Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sublunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need not descend and mingle with corruption.  This concept can already be seen in the cosmology of Plato.  It only became increasingly popular thereafter.  Thus, Plutarch tells us that there ar 'holy demons, guardians of men', which 'interpret and serve, being intermediary between gods and men, since they send up above the prayers and requests of men, and take back down to us revelations and gifts of blessings', and thus act as intermediaries, intercessory beings, between men and gods.

As Paul regarded Jesus to have been a preexistent being who humbled himself, died and then was exalted 'very high' (Phil. 2.6-8)), he clearly understood Jesus in the same sense as the intermediary beings common throughout  Jewish and pagan theology.  It was through Jesus that God accomplished all things, even creation itself (1 Cor. 8.6), and now our present salvation (see again Element 10).  Jesus is thus the intermediary agent of God's will from above.  And this was a common concept in both pagan and Jewish religious thought.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 30, 2017, 09:09:16 AM
Element 36:
Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sublunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need not descend and mingle with corruption.  This concept can already be seen in the cosmology of Plato.  It only became increasingly popular thereafter.  Thus, Plutarch tells us that there ar 'holy demons, guardians of men', which 'interpret and serve, being intermediary between gods and men, since they send up above the prayers and requests of men, and take back down to us revelations and gifts of blessings', and thus act as intermediaries, intercessory beings, between men and gods.

As Paul regarded Jesus to have been a preexistent being who humbled himself, died and then was exalted 'very high' (Phil. 2.6-8)), he clearly understood Jesus in the same sense as the intermediary beings common throughout  Jewish and pagan theology.  It was through Jesus that God accomplished all things, even creation itself (1 Cor. 8.6), and now our present salvation (see again Element 10).  Jesus is thus the intermediary agent of God's will from above.  And this was a common concept in both pagan and Jewish religious thought.

In angelology Jesus was likened to Metatron, and John the Baptists to Sandalphon.  But this had already been confabulated with Elijah being Sandalphon and Elisha being Metatron.  Notice the parallel between John and Jesus as the Jordan, and Elijah and Elisha at the Jordan.  In the imagination in Heaven, both of these beings are seraphim, fire angels.  The Holy Spirit could be a cherubim, one of the wind angels.  These were seen in nature as dust devils and fire devils ... who are Jinn to the Arabs.

Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
In angelology Jesus was likened to Metatron, and John the Baptists to Sandalphon.  But this had already been confabulated with Elijah being Sandalphon and Elisha being Metatron.  Notice the parallel between John and Jesus as the Jordan, and Elijah and Elisha at the Jordan.  In the imagination in Heaven, both of these beings are seraphim, fire angels.  The Holy Spirit could be a cherubim, one of the wind angels.  These were seen in nature as dust devils and fire devils ... who are Jinn to the Arabs.

This is the most total nonsense I have ever read.  It sounds like something between the Smurfs and Transformers...

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 01:27:30 AM
This is the most total nonsense I have ever read.  It sounds like something between the Smurfs and Transformers...

You have no imagination yourself, nor can you appreciate the imagination of others?  I am just reporting, I don't think like this.  But I do have an imagination, and I can appreciate the imagination of others.  If you have no appreciation for literature ... then you are like an Arab, who hates all stories and poetry, because he is a literalist.  The Arab then goes on to accept the Quran and Hadith ... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 06:44:25 AM
You have no imagination yourself, nor can you appreciate the imagination of others?  I am just reporting, I don't think like this.  But I do have an imagination, and I can appreciate the imagination of others.  If you have no appreciation for literature ... then you are like an Arab, who hates all stories and poetry, because he is a literalist.  The Arab then goes on to accept the Quran and Hadith ... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel ;-)

I love comic strips, comic books, science fiction, speculative fiction and sometimes falsifiable science, write fictional short stories, have vivid dreams, and you suggest I lack "imagination"? Oh you poor fool!

There is SUCH a difference between the willing suspension of disbelief I CAN engage in and the rational logical world of thought I choose to engage in.  I have more sci-fi book shelves than textbook shelves, but not many much more.  I am comfortable in both worlds.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 01:27:30 AM
This is the most total nonsense I have ever read.  It sounds like something between the Smurfs and Transformers...

I quite agree, Cavebear.  But what Carrier is referring to and Baruch is commenting on, is what was believed in those days.  We think of it as superstition or fiction; they thought of it as real and not allegorical.  Christians of today want to turn the superstition and fiction of the early christian teachings as purely allegory.  Remember, facts and religion don't mix.  Carrier, and Baruch, take on an important task when setting the record straight and demonstrate what the early church believed and taught.

Element 37:
The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change, was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits and demons, throughout the whole space, who control the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.  In pagan conception some of these demons were evil and some were good, and the good demons were often intermediary deities.  In Jewish conception all the demons were evil, defying the will of God; and they did the bidding of fallen angels who also set up residence in the firmament, who were once intermediary deities serving God but who were cast down and took up residence in the lower realm.  And the leader of these fallen angels was Satan, also known by many other names (e.g. the Devil, Belial, Beelzbul, Lucifer, Sammael, or just the Adversary, the literal meaning of the work Satan.)

The same follows for archon, 'principal, prince, headman'.  This is evident in Eph. 2.2, which was forged in Paul's name by clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church.  There we have the statement that before baptism each Christian 'once walked according to the fashion of this world, according to the prince of the domain, the spirit who is now working in the sons of disobedience'.  Here, just as 'authority' is clearly being used of a supernatural dominion and not a human office, so also the word achon is used to refer to a celestial being, Satan.  Thus it, too, could be used of nonhuman authorities without need of explanation.  And here we also have a clear expression of common Judeo-Christian demonology:  Satan rules over the firmament, the entire 'domain of the air', which was considered 'this world' (as opposed to the other, heavenly world above).

Learning all of this [What you see copied here is just a small taste of the detail Carrier goes into--it takes up 6 pages in his book for this element alone.] was once a component of the secret teaching given to Christians of varying ranks (Element 13).  It's unlikely that Paul came to be completely reinterpreted by all later Christians.  We have seen enough evidence that Paul does in fact mean supernatural powers and princes when he speaks thereof, inhabiting and traversing the firmament, and all later Christian interpreters understood him to mean that.  It was clearly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in all document post-dating Paul.  And from the preponderance of evidence here, we should conclude it was certainly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in Paul--and therefore in the original Christian church as a whole, as he clearly felt it required no defense or explanation in his correspondence.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 31, 2017, 10:56:08 AM
Element 37:
The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change, was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits and demons, throughout the whole space, who control the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.  In pagan conception some of these demons were evil and some were good, and the good demons were often intermediary deities.  In Jewish conception all the demons were evil, defying the will of God; and they did the bidding of fallen angels who also set up residence in the firmament, who were once intermediary deities serving God but who were cast down and took up residence in the lower realm.  And the leader of these fallen angels was Satan, also known by many other names (e.g. the Devil, Belial, Beelzbul, Lucifer, Sammael, or just the Adversary, the literal meaning of the work Satan.)

The same follows for archon, 'principal, prince, headman'.  This is evident in Eph. 2.2, which was forged in Paul's name by clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church.  There we have the statement that before baptism each Christian 'once walked according to the fashion of this world, according to the prince of the domain, the spirit who is now working in the sons of disobedience'.  Here, just as 'authority' is clearly being used of a supernatural dominion and not a human office, so also the word achon is used to refer to a celestial being, Satan.  Thus it, too, could be used of nonhuman authorities without need of explanation.  And here we also have a clear expression of common Judeo-Christian demonology:  Satan rules over the firmament, the entire 'domain of the air', which was considered 'this world' (as opposed to the other, heavenly world above).

Learning all of this [What you see copied here is just a small taste of the detail Carrier goes into--it takes up 6 pages in his book for this element alone.] was once a component of the secret teaching given to Christians of varying ranks (Element 13).  It's unlikely that Paul came to be completely reinterpreted by all later Christians.  We have seen enough evidence that Paul does in fact mean supernatural powers and princes when he speaks thereof, inhabiting and traversing the firmament, and all later Christian interpreters understood him to mean that.  It was clearly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in all document post-dating Paul.  And from the preponderance of evidence here, we should conclude it was certainly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in Paul--and therefore in the original Christian church as a whole, as he clearly felt it required no defense or explanation in his correspondence.

I am perfectly happy to just ignore all the "elements" entirely.  Well, "someone" has to and I voted for myself.  1-0

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 11:38:15 AM
I am perfectly happy to just ignore all the "elements" entirely.  Well, "someone" has to and I voted for myself.  1-0

That's just it, Cavebear, these elements have been ignored far too long.  Each element is a 'fact' about Christianity.  Add these 48 basic facts about Christianity and one gets a clear picture of what it was from its inception.  Make these facts known and it will hasten the end of that particular religion.  Remember, the search for the historical Jesus is a new enterprise.  I think it is only 200 years or so old.  This study is really in it's infancy; Carrier has added a clear set of facts to this study.  I find these facts to be fascinating.  Which is why I want to share these with the board.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 31, 2017, 12:36:39 PM
That's just it, Cavebear, these elements have been ignored far too long.  Each element is a 'fact' about Christianity.  Add these 48 basic facts about Christianity and one gets a clear picture of what it was from its inception.  Make these facts known and it will hasten the end of that particular religion.  Remember, the search for the historical Jesus is a new enterprise.  I think it is only 200 years or so old.  This study is really in it's infancy; Carrier has added a clear set of facts to this study.  If find these facts to be fascinating.  Which is why I want to share these with the board.

I was seeing these as almost an explanation or christian apologetics, but OK. I'll try to look at the idea with fresh eyes and some space between the ears. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 31, 2017, 10:29:20 AM
I quite agree, Cavebear.  But what Carrier is referring to and Baruch is commenting on, is what was believed in those days.  We think of it as superstition or fiction; they thought of it as real and not allegorical.  Christians of today want to turn the superstition and fiction of the early christian teachings as purely allegory.  Remember, facts and religion don't mix.  Carrier, and Baruch, take on an important task when setting the record straight and demonstrate what the early church believed and taught.

The Church, Synagogue and Mosque have all had their foundation myths accepted as fact, depending on your ethnic group ... so yes, honesty requires that the record be set straight.  One can't think straight about religion, without honesty.  Then realizing that we are dealing with psychology, sociology and anthropology, we can dot "i"s and cross "t"s if one is so inclined.

I don't mind myth.  But you have to say "this is a myth I am going to tell you" before you start.  Same thing with legends and much of history.  History should be prefaced with "this is propaganda by party X".  There are a few facts we can agree to in history, but the meat of it is the interpretation, and that is where the ideology comes in.  Something isn't scientific, just because it isn't theological ... ideology is bull shit too.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 31, 2017, 10:56:08 AM
Element 37:
The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change, was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits and demons, throughout the whole space, who control the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.  In pagan conception some of these demons were evil and some were good, and the good demons were often intermediary deities.  In Jewish conception all the demons were evil, defying the will of God; and they did the bidding of fallen angels who also set up residence in the firmament, who were once intermediary deities serving God but who were cast down and took up residence in the lower realm.  And the leader of these fallen angels was Satan, also known by many other names (e.g. the Devil, Belial, Beelzbul, Lucifer, Sammael, or just the Adversary, the literal meaning of the work Satan.)

The same follows for archon, 'principal, prince, headman'.  This is evident in Eph. 2.2, which was forged in Paul's name by clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church.  There we have the statement that before baptism each Christian 'once walked according to the fashion of this world, according to the prince of the domain, the spirit who is now working in the sons of disobedience'.  Here, just as 'authority' is clearly being used of a supernatural dominion and not a human office, so also the word achon is used to refer to a celestial being, Satan.  Thus it, too, could be used of nonhuman authorities without need of explanation.  And here we also have a clear expression of common Judeo-Christian demonology:  Satan rules over the firmament, the entire 'domain of the air', which was considered 'this world' (as opposed to the other, heavenly world above).

Learning all of this [What you see copied here is just a small taste of the detail Carrier goes into--it takes up 6 pages in his book for this element alone.] was once a component of the secret teaching given to Christians of varying ranks (Element 13).  It's unlikely that Paul came to be completely reinterpreted by all later Christians.  We have seen enough evidence that Paul does in fact mean supernatural powers and princes when he speaks thereof, inhabiting and traversing the firmament, and all later Christian interpreters understood him to mean that.  It was clearly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in all document post-dating Paul.  And from the preponderance of evidence here, we should conclude it was certainly a fundamental component of Christian teaching in Paul--and therefore in the original Christian church as a whole, as he clearly felt it required no defense or explanation in his correspondence.

Paul was pro-Roman, in fact pro-human-authority in general.  He was no anarchist.  He was a deluded apocalypticist.  Perhaps if there was a Jesus, Jesus was selling a "here now" eschatology.  Mohammad was clearly like Paul, very much hellfire and brimstone, very soon now.  So the Romans weren't entirely opposed to his preaching (as opposed to the death-to-the-Romans messianics).  He was guilty of operating a "society" without government license.  You had to have a license, because the paranoid Romans thought that un-licensed "societies" were ... criminal by implication.  Initially the Roman officials considered this a Jewish problem to be handled by their Jewish leadership.  But when Gentiles gained membership, thanks to Paul, that changed everything.  The Jewish community was an example of a licensed society.  The Jewish community excluded some people from fellowship, for various reasons, and the early Jewish Christians didn't have Cavebear there to help them file the proper Gentile paperwork ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 01:18:32 PM
The Church, Synagogue and Mosque have all had their foundation myths accepted as fact, depending on your ethnic group ... so yes, honesty requires that the record be set straight.  One can't think straight about religion, without honesty.  Then realizing that we are dealing with psychology, sociology and anthropology, we can dot "i"s and cross "t"s if one is so inclined.

I don't mind myth.  But you have to say "this is a myth I am going to tell you" before you start.  Same thing with legends and much of history.  History should be prefaced with "this is propaganda by party X".  There are a few facts we can agree to in history, but the meat of it is the interpretation, and that is where the ideology comes in.  Something isn't scientific, just because it isn't theological ... ideology is bull shit too.

You are being unusually thoughtful and factual lately.  I credit you entirely of course.

I agree completely that it is helpful when discussing religious beliefs to state that you stand one way or the other.  It lets later readers know what is a belief vs what is merely being discussed.

I have long supported teaching ABOUT religion in school, by people trained i the history and causes of religion.  Sadly, where it has been tried always seems to end up a clss in some particular religion.  Atheists are not generally allowed to teach ABOUT religion except obliquely through history.

I COULD discuss christianity as a book and some might think I was a christian.  Given a few months, I could do the same with the old testament or the koran  (my easy spelling).  And Hinduism etc.  I often read a few books I have on world religions.

I actually find it all very interesting.  Everything from Norse to Native Amerind to Eurasian.  I love the psychology of it all.

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 01:27:20 PM
Paul was pro-Roman, in fact pro-human-authority in general.  He was no anarchist.  He was a deluded apocalypticist.  Perhaps if there was a Jesus, Jesus was selling a "here now" eschatology.  Mohammad was clearly like Paul, very much hellfire and brimstone, very soon now.  So the Romans weren't entirely opposed to his preaching (as opposed to the death-to-the-Romans messianics).  He was guilty of operating a "society" without government license.  You had to have a license, because the paranoid Romans thought that un-licensed "societies" were ... criminal by implication.  Initially the Roman officials considered this a Jewish problem to be handled by their Jewish leadership.  But when Gentiles gained membership, thanks to Paul, that changed everything.  The Jewish community was an example of a licensed society.  The Jewish community excluded some people from fellowship, for various reasons, and the early Jewish Christians didn't have Cavebear there to help them file the proper Gentile paperwork ;-)

I am honored.  Had I been there, the western world might well have been a millennia advanced.  Alas... 

The Romans basically "blew it"  by suppressing the christians.  If they hadn't created martyrs, we might well be arguing about Mithraism vs Hinduism today.

Well at least in Babylon, you would have had them fill out the clay tablets in triplicate ;-)

Element 38:
a)In this same popular cosmology, the havens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.  b) In this worldview everything on earth was thought to be a mere imperfect copy of their truer forms in heaven, which were not abstract Platonic forms but actual physical objects in outer space.

This cosmological view is explicit in Hebrews:  "According to the laws almost everything is cleansed by blood, and apart from the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  So it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these[i.e. Jewish blood rites]:  but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.  For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands built to look like the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God on our behalf (9.22-24).

Here we have multiple heavens (plural) in which reside the true versions of everything (including the temple itself), and of which the things on earth are only imperfect copies.  The celestial temple is 'not made with hands' because it was made by God, just like our celestial bodies will be (2 Cor. 5.1).  We see this already in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the 'Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe seven ascending levels of heaven, several of which have more perfect copies of the temple and the holy of holies , and in yet higher ones 'angels offer pure and perfect sacrifices'.  There are even versions of earthly things in the firmament, as we learn in the Ascension of Isaiah 7.10, which says, 'as it is above, so is it also on earth'.  Although those things would not be the perfect models, which resided only in the perfect heavens above, but half-corrupt imitations, in between the models above and their earthly copies below.

Basically Kabbalah of 2000 years ago.  It continued to develop in limited circles, in spite of rabbinic opposition.  The most recent version, Lurianic Kabbalah, from the 1500s, dispenses with the more anthropic angelology and demonology, becoming a more abstract vision and agenda.  Basically to free what is good, trapped now in evil, so it can ascend.  Like letting the fizz out of carbonated water.  Basically gnostic.  I relate well to Kabbalah, and gnosticism, because it takes the ordinary human experience as mostly evil, with little chance of redemption .. the theology of the Books of Job, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations.

Element 39:
(a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.  And (b) the first Christians appear to have connected their Jesus Christ to that original celestial Adam.

In Philo's scheme, the first Adam was an invisible perfect man, having no gender and being immortal and imperishable, and this is what explains there being two creation accounts in Genesis (Gen. 1-2.3 vs Gen 2.4-25): the first related to the creation of the true man, and the second related to the creation of his mortal copy.

We have already seen that Paul's Jesus was a preexistent celestial being (Element 10).  And here we see that this idea of a preexistent heavenly man predates even Christianity.  ...........................
Paul flat out says Christ 'is the image of God' (2 Cor. 4.4); and another Pauline author says Christ 'is the image of the invisible God' and 'the firstborn of all creation' (Col 1.15), which explicitly connects Paul's Christ with Philo's primordial Adam, the celestial one, who was in that the understood Jesus to be the first created being: as it is through Jesus that God created everything else (1 Cor. 8.6), and Paul explicitly calls Jesus God's firstborn (in Rom 8.29).

................................What distinguishes Christianity's talk of the 'two Adams' from Philo's talk of the 'two Adams', apart from Philo's own Platonizing tendencies, is that Christianity claimed a special fate for the celestial Adam (he descended from the heavens to die and rise from the dead), and placed it as a historical event--presumably a recent historical event, portending that the 'end was nigh' (since Christ's resurrection was imagined by Paul to be the 'firstfruits' of the general eschatological resurrection: 1 Cor. 15.20).  But apart from that, the Christians appear to have been working from the same core Jewish doctrine that there was a perfect celestial Adam, firstborn of all creation, and (somehow) that man turned out to be Jesus.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 02, 2017, 09:59:30 AM
Element 39:
(a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.  And (b) the first Christians appear to have connected their Jesus Christ to that original celestial Adam.

In Philo's scheme, the first Adam was an invisible perfect man, having no gender and being immortal and imperishable, and this is what explains there being two creation accounts in Genesis (Gen. 1-2.3 vs Gen 2.4-25): the first related to the creation of the true man, and the second related to the creation of his mortal copy.

We have already seen that Paul's Jesus was a preexistent celestial being (Element 10).  And here we see that this idea of a preexistent heavenly man predates even Christianity.  ...........................
Paul flat out says Christ 'is the image of God' (2 Cor. 4.4); and another Pauline author says Christ 'is the image of the invisible God' and 'the firstborn of all creation' (Col 1.15), which explicitly connects Paul's Christ with Philo's primordial Adam, the celestial one, who was in that the understood Jesus to be the first created being: as it is through Jesus that God created everything else (1 Cor. 8.6), and Paul explicitly calls Jesus God's firstborn (in Rom 8.29).

................................What distinguishes Christianity's talk of the 'two Adams' from Philo's talk of the 'two Adams', apart from Philo's own Platonizing tendencies, is that Christianity claimed a special fate for the celestial Adam (he descended from the heavens to die and rise from the dead), and placed it as a historical event--presumably a recent historical event, portending that the 'end was nigh' (since Christ's resurrection was imagined by Paul to be the 'firstfruits' of the general eschatological resurrection: 1 Cor. 15.20).  But apart from that, the Christians appear to have been working from the same core Jewish doctrine that there was a perfect celestial Adam, firstborn of all creation, and (somehow) that man turned out to be Jesus.

Part of Kabbalah a long time now ... Primordial Man/Logos is called Adam Kadmon.  If you assume that Adam Kadmon is the angel Metatron, and Metatron can incarnate same as Sandalphon (as John the Baptist) then this isn't extraordinary in context.  The latter rabbis were very much against this, for obvious reasons.

Element 40:
In fact, the Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT ( discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such a way.  This is the prophecy about a high priest crowned king in heaven named 'Jesus Rising', God's 'servant', who will 'rise' from below and be given godly authority and somehow he involved in cleansing the world of sin. 

.....................................Philo's remarks prove that some Jews already believed that God had a firstborn son in heaven, a preexistent being through whom God created the universe, the very image of God, the supreme of all beings next to God whose name could already be identified as Jesus (per Philo's explanation of Zech. 6), and who advocates on our behalf to procure forgiveness of sins, and that all earthly priests were but a copy of him.  Not only is this clearly the same deity as Jesus in Christian documents such as the canonical book of Hebrews (see Chapter 11), but it is clearly the same deity worshiped by Paul and all Christians he had any communication with.  It is therefore, so far as we can tell, the same deity Christianity began with.  Any theory of the origins of Christianity must take this into account.

I had a few Jehovah's Witnesses visit last year.  Since I had been up all night on the computer (here actually), and I saw them coming, I put on my atheist hat and waited.  We had an interestesting discussion after I pointed to my hat.

They were a bit shocked.  Never mind that about 10-14% of the people they talked to were atheists, I was possibly one of the few declared ones.

So we talked on my front steps.  After giving them about 3 minutes, I asked them how they know that "Jesus" actually existed.

Complete silence for 15 seconds.  Then they said it was in the bible.  So I said that was just a book and and I had books about Hobbits and were THEY real?   I pointed out books are books and suggested they offer proof.

They left.  3 months later, they returned.  To my house only.  They were focussed on ME!  I wasn't available to discuss it, so they left a pamphlet of claims of the existence of Jesus. 

I read it.  It was mostly hearsay, claims from a century later, and Josephus.  Ah Josephus, the pathological liar about Masada...  Who could pay attention to HIM?

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:50:40 PM
I had a few Jehovah's Witnesses visit last year.  Since I had been up all night on the computer (here actually), and I saw them coming, I put on my atheist hat and waited.  We had an interestesting discussion after I pointed to my hat.

They were a bit shocked.  Never mind that about 10-14% of the people they talked to were atheists, I was possibly one of the few declared ones.

So we talked on my front steps.  After giving them about 3 minutes, I asked them how they know that "Jesus" actually existed.

Complete silence for 15 seconds.  Then they said it was in the bible.  So I said that was just a book and and I had books about Hobbits and were THEY real?   I pointed out books are books and suggested they offer proof.

They left.  3 months later, they returned.  To my house only.  They were focussed on ME!  I wasn't available to discuss it, so they left a pamphlet of claims of the existence of Jesus. 

I read it.  It was mostly hearsay, claims from a century later, and Josephus.  Ah Josephus, the pathological liar about Masada...  Who could pay attention to HIM?

My Ex did the same.   At the time she was an ex Catholic nun, and a choir director.  JW folk only know a sales pitch, but they don't know what they are saying, it is memorized.  Same with Mormon missionaries.  We had some visit our synagogue once.  They stayed for service.  It put them in tears (since they think they are Jewish).  An overdone of chutzpah perhaps?

Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 11:57:23 PM
My Ex did the same.   At the time she was an ex Catholic nun, and a choir director.  JW folk only know a sales pitch, but they don't know what they are saying, it is memorized.  Same with Mormon missionaries.  We had some visit our synagogue once.  They stayed for service.  It put them in tears (since they think they are Jewish).  An overdone of chutzpah perhaps?

I agree the JW can't actually discuss much.  *I* baffled them and I wasn't at my best being up 36 hours.  I have never had any Mormons visit, but if some did, I have a few questions to annoy them too.

Element 41:
(a) The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture ( 1 Enoch).  (b) According to that scripture, this 'Son of Man' will in the appointed day reveal divine secrets to mankind, when also his name will be revealed; and it is implied that he may be the Christ (Jesus likewise was regarded as holding the divine secrets and revealing them).  (c) But his identity has been kept secret so evildoers will not know him when the time comes (just like Jesus).  (d) Yet he already sounds in many respects like the same being as the primordial Adam (Element 39) and Logos (Element 40).  The fact that at Qumran he was already fully equated with Melchizedek only confirms all these figures were at times thought to be the same.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 04, 2017, 10:08:04 AM
Element 41:
(a) The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture ( 1 Enoch).  (b) According to that scripture, this 'Son of Man' will in the appointed day reveal divine secrets to mankind, when also his name will be revealed; and it is implied that he may be the Christ (Jesus likewise was regarded as holding the divine secrets and revealing them).  (c) But his identity has been kept secret so evildoers will not know him when the time comes (just like Jesus).  (d) Yet he already sounds in many respects like the same being as the primordial Adam (Element 39) and Logos (Element 40).  The fact that at Qumran he was already fully equated with Melchizedek only confirms all these figures were at times thought to be the same.

Melchizedek means "righteous king".  Something we are still lacking.  I see "son of man" differently ... it refers to everyone being "jesus aka godly salvation".  But in particular, see how this mythology plays out in post-Christian Germany.  Hitler was seen by his followers as the Messiah/Mahdi of the Aryans.  Both are false messiahs, but unfortunately Hitler was real.

Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2017, 10:39:18 AM
Melchizedek means "righteous king".  Something we are still lacking.  I see "son of man" differently ... it refers to everyone being "jesus aka godly salvation".  But in particular, see how this mythology plays out in post-Christian Germany.  Hitler was seen by his followers as the Messiah/Mahdi of the Aryans.  Both are false messiahs, but unfortunately Hitler was real.

Melchizedek is element 42--the next element.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 04, 2017, 11:53:49 AM
Melchizedek is element 42--the next element.

The Homily to the Hebrews, isn't an epistle and isn't by Paul.  But it does reflect yet another faction in the false messiah business.

Element 42
There is a parallel tradition of a perfect and eternal celestial high priest named Melchizedek, which means in Hebrew 'Righteous King'.  We have already seen that a celestial Jesus was already called Righteous and King by some pre-Christian Jews.  And a connection between the Christ and the Melchizedek figure was probably made before Christianity, as the very Dead Sea scroll that appears to link the dying Christ of Daniel 9 to the dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 is specifically a pesher on this Melchizedek figure, and by most obvious interpretation it states that its dying Christ (the Anointed in the Spirit) is Melchizedek. 

Of course, in Jewish understanding, all kings (e.g. 1 Sam. 15.17) and all high priests were Christs (Lev. 4.5, 16; 6.22), thus, being both, Melchizedek would be understood as a Christ, and thus passages about 'the' Christ could easily be connected to him in the pesherim, particularly once he evolved into a salvific, apocalyptic figure, as he clearly had become by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Once you see him as having the attributes of the Christ, the fact that he was already a Christ would automatically warrant linking him to messianic passages in the scriptures, and this is exactly what the scribes at Qumran appear to be doing.  And the Christians seem to have done so as well.  Crispin Fletches-Louis, for example, argues that there is evidence in the Gospel of mark indicating that 'Jesus' thought he was the high priest Melchizedek.  Yet we could just as easily use all his same evidence to argue that Mark is depicting Jesus as such, in his characteristically veiled way. 

Righteous King theology was hijacked by the Maccabees, which seriously disrupted the High Priesthood and led to the Pharisee movement, to put lay people in charge of the Temple.  The original Righteous King/false messiah was King Josiah of Judah, circa 620 BCE, 500 years earlier.

Element 43
(a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as thew most powerful salivation and atonement magic available. (b) Accordingly, any sacred story involving a voluntary human sacrifice would be readily understood and fit perfectly within both Jewish and pagan worldviews of the time.

Of course, Jews and pagans both embraced a value for martyrdom as a morally praiseworthy end of a just man.  The most beloved martyr in pagan imagination was Socrates, unjustly executed by the state on a false charge of challenging state religion (but in reality, for preaching wisdom that would lead to the salvation of the community as well as individual souls); and he voluntarily went to his death, to prove he was a just man. 

Even more importantly, 'substitutionary sacrifice; was also a well known religious concept within both pagan and Jewish theology.  The idea of a hero standing in for his nation or people (and thus 'substituting' for it or them) and voluntarily exchanging his death for their salvation (he dies so they may live) was a common motif in Greco-Roman culture.  A prominent example in Roman patriotic history was the legendary general Publius Decius Mus, who fulfilled a formal religious ritual in Roman culture called devotio, in which a hero is anointed to sacrifice himself in a battle in exchange for the victory for his army (and hence, in consequence, the victory, liberty and survival of the Roman people collectively), which is basically what Jesus does (or was understood to have done).  .............................The Jews embraced the same value system--the Maccabean literature, for example, includes a tale of the seven martyrs who, bu giving their lives, save the land, literally atoning for the sins of Israel, and thus becoming a 'ransom for the sin of our nation'. In fact, Jewish use of human sacrifice as atonement magic appears several times in the OT.

In this system of understanding, the more awful and shameful the manner of death, the more heroic and powerful it was.  This thinkinhg dates at least as far back as Plato, who confronts the logic of the Nihilist Glaucon in relating  the legend of Gyges, who upon acquiring a ring of invisibility was able to do anything without detection and thus seized supreme power by murder and other sins.  And so, Glaucon argued, no one is really just; they only wish to seem just, because that's all that is useful.  Glaucon then argues that the only way to know if a man is truly just is to take everything away from him and treat him completely as an unjust man, despised by everyone, and punished to the utmost, including torments and, finally, crucifixion (the Jewish model for the very same notion appears in the book of Job).  If a man, after all this, remains just to the end, only then will we know he was a just man--although Glaucon argues that such a man would by the end conclude justice was something not worth all that he suffered, and there fore one aught to be nu-just, and, like Gyges, merely conceal one's crimes.

...........................the  Jesus sacrifice reverses the Isaac sacrifice.  In the Isaac story, in the place of the singular sacrifice of Abraham's beloved firstborn son, animals must be slain every year in perpetuity.  The one equals the other.  Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity.  Therefore, if you wanted to be rid of those animal sacrifices (in other words, if you wanted to be rid of the otherwise divinely ordained temple cult and all the corrupt political and economic  powers that controlled it, as many Jews did: Element 28), logic would compel you to look for a singular human sacrifice to accomplish that, and it would have to be the most powerful sacrifice imaginable, which to any Jew would be the sacrifice of God's firstborn son, which we've already seen some Jews already believe existed (Element 40) and was already named Jesus (Element 6).  The problem of the temple cult that the Jews faced therefore entailed a solution that is essentially the core teaching of Christianity.  It would therefore not be a wholly radical step for any Jew to propose that solution, but in fact entirely in accord with much Jewish thinking at the time.

A lot happened between 150 BCE and 100 CE ... roughly the same time as from when George Washington inherited Mt Vernon from his older brother, until now.  Jewish martyrdom didn't become prominent until the Maccabean period.  Before that, salvation was collective, not individual.  There was a point to partial sacrifice of the community, not that of particular individuals.  Sacrifice of particular individuals, came from Greco-Roman culture.  Socrates would have been thinking about the legendary last king of Athens (before oligarchy) ... in order to fulfill a prophecy, this king sacrificed his life in order to save Athens.  Just as Leonidas had sacrificed his life per prophecy, to save Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus

On not counting your chickens until they roost ... and heroism ...

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/08/14/count-no-man-happy-until-the-end-is-known/

Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2017, 07:13:05 PM
A lot happened between 150 BCE and 100 CE ... roughly the same time as from when George Washington inherited Mt Vernon from his older brother, until now.  Jewish martyrdom didn't become prominent until the Maccabean period.  Before that, salvation was collective, not individual.  There was a point to partial sacrifice of the community, not that of particular individuals.  Sacrifice of particular individuals, came from Greco-Roman culture.  Socrates would have been thinking about the legendary last king of Athens (before oligarchy) ... in order to fulfill a prophecy, this king sacrificed his life in order to save Athens.  Just as Leonidas had sacrificed his life per prophecy, to save Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus

On not counting your chickens until they roost ... and heroism ...

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/08/14/count-no-man-happy-until-the-end-is-known/

Amazing knowledge, Baruch, amazing!

Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 02:49:47 AM
Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

It didn't get serious, until the Temple was destroyed, first by the Babylonians and later by the Romans.  Hope still existed, and still exists to rebuild and resume.  But I hope not.  There were problems with the Temple cult at every period.  But people who think they are dependent on it, are in a pickle, if Gentiles have removed their tool for atonement.  That is why also, in Babylon, and in Rome, Jews came up with the idea that prayer is atonement enough.  Animal sacrifice isn't necessary anymore.  I happen to agree with the rabbis on this, I don't need a divine sacrifice to atone.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 02:49:47 AM
Mike CL:  "Logically, therefore, a singular sacrifice of God's believed firstborn son would be sufficient substitute for all animal sacrifices in perpetuity."

While I don't have much interest in specific biblical arguments, that seems to be a singularly interesting explanation of the transitition from the Old Testament nomadic tribes to the New Testament city-dwellers.

Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.) 

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 09:00:00 AM
Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.)

Well, one can also look at the differences between the old and new testaments as an allegory for the transition from hunter-gathering societies to agricultural ones.  And that the jews were among the last to catch on. 

The old "conquer thy neighbors" and take from them the promised lands (full of milk and honey - cattle and beekeeping) to the new "have peace and prosper" of the settled farmers. 

Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 10:04:45 AM
Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

"In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true."

Isn't that sort of behavior allowed only for children these days?

"Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust"

Gee, you would think SOME group of people might have been saying that for years.  Oh wait, there are...  ;)

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 10:14:54 AM
"In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true."

Isn't that sort of behavior allowed only for children these days?

"Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust"

Gee, you would think SOME group of people might have been saying that for years.  Oh wait, there are...  ;)

It has been constantly astounding to me that most Christians believe the bible plopped to the earth,  totally complete and error free; and written in all the languages of the earth, then and now. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 09:00:00 AM
Remember, Cavebear, I am channeling Carrier here. :)))  But this too, caught my attention.  I had often thought that the 'sacrifice' Jesus is supposed to have made was modeled after the OT practice of scapegoating.  And it all reverts back to 'sacrificing' something to appease one god or another.  Why is it that the Aztec's are condemned so soundly for their form of human sacrifice when Christianity is modeled after the same thing?  (And no, I did not forget that Christian are, if nothing else, hypocrites of the highest order.)

There was a strange symmetry between the Aztecs and the Conquistadores.  Both were violent warrior cultures, both had a system of human sacrifice.  For the Conquistadores, this was symbolic (except to Moors and Jews).  For Aztecs it was literal.  Both priesthoods dressed in black.  Christians drank blood (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  Christians ate human flesh (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  For the Conquistadores, it mattered if you got to heaven or not.  For the Aztecs, it mattered if the sun came up or not.  And Cortez did look a bit like Quetzalcoatl both literally and symbolically.  Both drank alcohol for instance, outside of medicinal purposes.  Both were wind gods (Ehecatl as a form of Quetzalcoatl) and Cortez and his wind born ships.  Cortez came from the East, from which Quetzalcoatl left.  Both had  beard in some depictions.  Both Madrid and Tenochtitlan were empires.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 09:19:23 AM
Well, one can also look at the differences between the old and new testaments as an allegory for the transition from hunter-gathering societies to agricultural ones.  And that the jews were among the last to catch on. 

The old "conquer thy neighbors" and take from them the promised lands (full of milk and honey - cattle and beekeeping) to the new "have peace and prosper" of the settled farmers.

Partly true.  Jews converted to farming circa 1000 BCE.  They had been civilized for 1000 years by Jesus' time.  Is America civilized yet?  But this wasn't without controversy ... since in Genesis Canaanite farming, technology, and city life were considered evil (by both pastoralists and hunter/gatherers).  Jesus didn't say, blessed are the farmers and damned are the pastoralists.  He compared himself to the good shepherd, not the good farmer or good householder.  Now Muslim Arabs ... they were a bit wilder, and didn't settle down until around 750 CE.  But per Paul, early Gentile Christianity was pro-city and pro-Roman.  Rabbinic Judaism that formed at that time, was pro-farmer.  The rabbis betrayed the OT while claiming to save it.  After 135 CE, the Christians were mostly Gentiles.  The OT didn't matter to them in the least, they were urban proletariat.  Hence ... "pagani" means country bumpkin.

Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 12:49:29 PM
There was a strange symmetry between the Aztecs and the Conquistadores.  Both were violent warrior cultures, both had a system of human sacrifice.  For the Conquistadores, this was symbolic (except to Moors and Jews).  For Aztecs it was literal.  Both priesthoods dressed in black.  Christians drank blood (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  Christians ate human flesh (symbolically, literally for the Aztecs).  For the Conquistadores, it mattered if you got to heaven or not.  For the Aztecs, it mattered if the sun came up or not.  And Cortez did look a bit like Quetzalcoatl both literally and symbolically.  Both drank alcohol for instance, outside of medicinal purposes.  Both were wind gods (Ehecatl as a form of Quetzalcoatl) and Cortez and his wind born ships.  Cortez came from the East, from which Quetzalcoatl left.  Both had  beard in some depictions.

I love a good historical  comparison.  I consider Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' an explanation of civilization development 2nd only to Darwin's 'Natural Selection'.

But did you notice in your post that the Aztecs did everything literally and the Spaniards did everything symbolically?  It pains me to defend any theism, but eating a wafer and sipping wine is not quite the same are cutting a living victim open and ripping his still-beating heart out.

Not a sermon, just a thought...

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 10:04:45 AM
Element 44:
In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.  In fact, the persuasive power of representing a story as true was precisely why fabricated stories were often represented as true.  We therefore must approach all ancient religious literature from an assumption of doubt, and must work to confirm any given story or account as true, not the other way around.  Because prior probability always favors fabrication in that genre.

...................for when we look at all faith literature together, most of it by far was fabricated to a great extent, and most was fabricated in its entirety.  This leaves us with a very high prior probability that Christian literature will be the same.

And we can confirm this to be the case.  If we exclude devotional and analytical literature (e.g. apologies, commentaries, instructionals, hymnals) and only focus on primary source documents'  about earliest Christianity, we find that most Christian faith literature in its first three centuries is fabricated--indeed, most by far. 

There were in fact over forty different Gospels written, of which even fundamentalists agree only the canonical four are in any way authentic (while most mainstream scholars entertain the possibility that only one of two of those are, at best), plus over half a dozen different acts.  Examples of this fabricatory activity in early Christian faith literature are vast in quantity.  This was clearly the norm, not the exception.  Most of what Christians wrote were lies.  We therefore should approach everything they wrote with distrust.

Applying modern standards to ancient people?  Sorry, invalid.  This is where Carrier leaves scholarship and does special pleading for atheism.  Pagan sources were fanciful, monotheist sources were fanciful, and secular sources (see Socratic dialogs) were fanciful.  None of it is true.  You can't apply a 1700 CE standard of truth to them, any of them (and in 1700 CE this was hypocrisy too).  To me, the ideology of the Enlightenment is a brief flash in the pan of historical dramas ... it was over with the enthronement of Napoleon as Emperor of France.  The French Revolution aka secularism ... had failed.  New myths replaced old ones (invincibility of the Old Guarde).  The new French Revolution in Russia ... has failed also.  Because New French Man and New Soviet Man are chimeras.  You had better stick to your little red book of Mao ... China is still a comer.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 12:59:19 PM
I love a good historical  comparison.  I consider Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' an explanation of civilization development 2nd only to Darwin's 'Natural Selection'.

But did you notice in your post that the Aztecs did everything literally and the Spaniards did everything symbolically?  It pains me to defend any theism, but eating a wafer and sipping wine is not quite the same are cutting a living victim open and ripping his still-beating heart out.

Not a sermon, just a thought...

The Aztecs were sincere literalists, like you.  They were wrong about what it took to keep the sun rising.  But you would cut the hearts out of the well to do, to satisfy your Robespierre tendencies. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" mon cherie.  Not a sermon, just a diatribe ...

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 12:09:33 PM
It has been constantly astounding to me that most Christians believe the bible plopped to the earth,  totally complete and error free; and written in all the languages of the earth, then and now.

Goes back to the epic of Gilgamesh (inscribed on a tablet of lapis lazuli (not clay) in the Heaven of Anu).  Anu, Enlil and Enki made up a trinity ;-)

This was claimed by extremists for the Bible, but especially by the general believers in Islam.  There is a imperishable gold Quran in Heaven.  Some Protestants have picked up on this.  The question for a Christian is ... what is Logos?  Is it word, or man.  For me it is man.  For those other people, it is word.  Bibliolatry, which religious Jews do practice.

Baruch, I do see your point.  But you see it because you have learned what literature of that time was for.  You have learned that the standards of today don't hold up well back in that time period.  I appreciate that.  But the fact that literature was a blend of fancy and fact needs to be brought up and looked at when studying the bible and christian origins--because both happened in that time period.  To accept that periods literature as totally factual would not be right; it needs to be demonstrated that that would be inaccurate.  That does not mean that that literature did not serve a legitimate function--only that it is not possible to use it as a basis for the historicity of Jesus.   

Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 01:04:27 PM
The Aztecs were sincere literalists, like you.  They were wrong about what it took to keep the sun rising.  But you would cut the hearts out of the well to do, to satisfy your Robespierre tendencies. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" mon cherie.  Not a sermon, just a diatribe ...

No.  But the billionaires don't need a bigger yacht or 10 more rooms on the house while some waitress is deciding whether to buy food or pay the rent.  Given the choice, I side with the waitress. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 02:16:59 PM
Baruch, I do see your point.  But you see it because you have learned what literature of that time was for.  You have learned that the standards of today don't hold up well back in that time period.  I appreciate that.  But the fact that literature was a blend of fancy and fact needs to be brought up and looked at when studying the bible and christian origins--because both happened in that time period.  To accept that periods literature as totally factual would not be right; it needs to be demonstrated that that would be inaccurate.  That does not mean that that literature did not serve a legitimate function--only that it is not possible to use it as a basis for the historicity of Jesus.

I agree ... historicity of Jesus is mere apologetic.  So yes, I analyze this as literature as well, and I appreciate literary criticism as good as Collier's.  Accuracy has nothing to do with art, that is just a dodge by the philistine or the religious apologist (or both if the same person).

If you let lay people read anything, they get it wrong.  It takes great scholarship like Collier to get it right, almost (perfect scholarship is neutral).  But lay people won't pay attention to Collier (just another egghead).  And clergy have a conflict of interest.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
No.  But the billionaires don't need a bigger yacht or 10 more rooms on the house while some waitress is deciding whether to buy food or pay the rent.  Given the choice, I side with the waitress.

If you are sans culottes ... then you are without pants ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:28:10 PM
I agree ... historicity of Jesus is mere apologetic.  So yes, I analyze this as literature as well, and I appreciate literary criticism as good as Collier's.  Accuracy has nothing to do with art, that is just a dodge by the philistine or the religious apologist (or both if the same person).

If you let lay people read anything, they get it wrong.  It takes great scholarship like Collier to get it right, almost (perfect scholarship is neutral).  But lay people won't pay attention to Collier (just another egghead).  And clergy have a conflict of interest.

I see where literature of that time period could be called art.  I do appreciate art.  And, as it happens, the art of the work we would call a novel was alive and well in those days.  Art speaks to a person and good art speaks to a great many people.  Fiction (good fiction---art) can purvey real lessons that can apply to one's life.  And I'm sure the good literature of that time period fits that bill well.  But the problem with art is that it is not a 'fact' based mode of communication.  And when it is used as fact it always fails.  The theists of today try to use the art of that time period as fact and proof of the historicity of quite a few things from that period.  Carrier is pointing that out; and I think doing a great job of it.  I see what the theists are trying to do as a misuse of that literature.  If used as it was intended it would still be of interest and still have lessons to share with us.  When misused it is or can be, destructive.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 08:07:09 PM
I see where literature of that time period could be called art.  I do appreciate art.  And, as it happens, the art of the work we would call a novel was alive and well in those days.  Art speaks to a person and good art speaks to a great many people.  Fiction (good fiction---art) can purvey real lessons that can apply to one's life.  And I'm sure the good literature of that time period fits that bill well.  But the problem with art is that it is not a 'fact' based mode of communication.  And when it is used as fact it always fails.  The theists of today try to use the art of that time period as fact and proof of the historicity of quite a few things from that period.  Carrier is pointing that out; and I think doing a great job of it.  I see what the theists are trying to do as a misuse of that literature.  If used as it was intended it would still be of interest and still have lessons to share with us.  When misused it is or can be, destructive.

The Mona Lisa is a fact.  The woman Leonardo is probably a fact, as he also probably is.  If Leonardo had used a photograph, then given the artistry of photography, and Photoshop, you would still not know if that photo of La Gioconda was a real person or not.  Why the obsession with unobtainable truths?

Of course humans misuse literature.  They even plagiarize.  This isn't limited to theists.  Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  You and I both hate humanity, do we not?  Because it won't behave the way we want it to.  Which means we both channel Caligula, et tu?  Or is Cassius right, that our faults don't lie in our stars, but in ourselves.

Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 08:31:39 PM
The Mona Lisa is a fact.  The woman Leonardo is probably a fact, as he also probably is.  If Leonardo had used a photograph, then given the artistry of photography, and Photoshop, you would still not know if that photo of La Gioconda was a real person or not.  Why the obsession with unobtainable truths?

Of course humans misuse literature.  They even plagiarize.  This isn't limited to theists.  Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  You and I both hate humanity, do we not?  Because it won't behave the way we want it to.  Which means we both channel Caligula, et tu?  Or is Cassius right, that our faults don't lie in our stars, but in ourselves.

The object, Mona Lisa, is a fact.  The painting is real.  But what does it mean?  That is truly in the eye of the beholder.  And it matters not what the painter had in mind.  Did Mona Lisa in fact exist?  It doesn't matter for nobody is trying to prove that one way or the other.  Did Jesus exist?  Look at all the paintings of him--he must of since those paintings are a fact.  And those paintings are powerful, if you think they are.  Or simply personification of somebodies fictional idea.  From the paintings we don't know.  The literature of his (Jesus') era can be fact or art, or both.  Carrier is exploring both of those options.   I suppose I could use fictional literature to try and determine where Bugs Bunny was born.  If I pro-port that that literature (art or not) is factual then, I could use it to show that Bugs was born in whatever place I say the literature indicated.  If that literature is fictional it then matter not where it says he was born; it's fictional.  Carrier is showing that the literature (art or not) cannot demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person, because that literature is mostly fictional or fake.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 07, 2017, 09:13:33 PM
The object, Mona Lisa, is a fact.  The painting is real.  But what does it mean?  That is truly in the eye of the beholder.  And it matters not what the painter had in mind.  Did Mona Lisa in fact exist?  It doesn't matter for nobody is trying to prove that one way or the other.  Did Jesus exist?  Look at all the paintings of him--he must of since those paintings are a fact.  And those paintings are powerful, if you think they are.  Or simply personification of somebodies fictional idea.  From the paintings we don't know.  The literature of his (Jesus') era can be fact or art, or both.  Carrier is exploring both of those options.   I suppose I could use fictional literature to try and determine where Bugs Bunny was born.  If I pro-port that that literature (art or not) is factual then, I could use it to show that Bugs was born in whatever place I say the literature indicated.  If that literature is fictional it then matter not where it says he was born; it's fictional.  Carrier is showing that the literature (art or not) cannot demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person, because that literature is mostly fictional or fake.

Again, you want facts.  But facts you cannot have.  At best the past is a biased reconstruction.  The future is a waking dream.  My hand typing this is a fact, because it is here and now.  You ask what does the Mona Lisa mean?  People always think they see an enigmatic smile.  That is the question of the art critic and the lay viewer.  Is she smiling at Leonardo?  We don't know, we project.  That is what a crystal ball is good for, you can project visions into it.  But visions only you can see.  In your quest for truth, you are asking, what can two people agree to?  Not much.

Yes, Carrier is mostly telling the truth, mostly because he is sincere and mostly neutral.  His scholarship projects us out of the present and into a well reconstructed past.  But what is truth?  That is what Pontius Pilate asks Jesus.  Are you Pontius Pilate?  If you look (into the story), what do you see?  What do I see?  A Jewish hagiography, not unlike the story of Socrates.  Jesus asks Peter ... who do you say I am?  The centurion says ... "surely this is the son of a god" ... but at that time, that meant, Jesus wasn't just a minor king of the Jews, he was the Emperor of the world.

We post for whoever cares to read, not just for ourselves or the immediate target.  So I know you aren't trying to convince me of what I already know.  Are you throwing punches at Christians in your past?  I doubt many visit here, so you box with shadows in your own mind then.

Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 10:34:24 PM
Again, you want facts.  But facts you cannot have.  At best the past is a biased reconstruction.  The future is a waking dream.  My hand typing this is a fact, because it is here and now.  You ask what does the Mona Lisa mean?  People always think they see an enigmatic smile.  That is the question of the art critic and the lay viewer.  Is she smiling at Leonardo?  We don't know, we project.  That is what a crystal ball is good for, you can project visions into it.  But visions only you can see.  In your quest for truth, you are asking, what can two people agree to?  Not much.

Yes, Carrier is mostly telling the truth, mostly because he is sincere and mostly neutral.  His scholarship projects us out of the present and into a well reconstructed past.  But what is truth?  That is what Pontius Pilate asks Jesus.  Are you Pontius Pilate?  If you look (into the story), what do you see?  What do I see?  A Jewish hagiography, not unlike the story of Socrates.  Jesus asks Peter ... who do you say I am?  The centurion says ... "surely this is the son of a god" ... but at that time, that meant, Jesus wasn't just a minor king of the Jews, he was the Emperor of the world.

We post for whoever cares to read, not just for ourselves or the immediate target.  So I know you aren't trying to convince me of what I already know.  Are you throwing punches at Christians in your past?  I doubt many visit here, so you box with shadows in your own mind then.

Mona Lisa isn't smiling--she is suffering gas pains. 

I always throw punches at christians.  Of course who knows if any will read any of this.  So, I most post for myself.  That is why I read Carrier.  To see if I can prove it for myself.  And when posting to explain things to others on this board, I often clarify points for myself.  So, being a good self-centered human, I do this mainly for myself.

I have been counting.  Have you not done Carrier #3?

Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2017, 06:14:34 AM
I have been counting.  Have you not done Carrier #3?

Yeah, I did:  Element 2:
When Christianity began. Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.  There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.  We know of at least ten competing sects,  possibly more than 30 and there could have easily been more.  .......................... No argument, therefore, can proceed from an assumption of any universally normative Judaism.

And.......................

Element 45:
A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization:  the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.  We already noted Plutrach's criticism of the trend (which he frowns upon, but in so doing concedes its popularity) in Element 14.

Euhemerus was a Greek writer of the early third century bce, who wrote a book called The Sacred Scriptures in which he depicted an imaginary scholar discovering that Zeus and Uranus were once actual kings.  In the process Euhemerus invents a history for these 'god kings', even though we know there is no plausible case to be made that either Zeus or Uranus was ever a real person.  Yet the idea caught on; biographies and histories of non-existent people proliferated, and ancient literature flowered with attempts to assign mythic heroes and gods to real historical periods and places.  .....................And many other uses were found for the procedure, as we saw for inventing King Arthur, Ned Ludd, Abraham, Moses, and other national heroes I explored in Chapter 1.  There is nothing at all unusual about doing this.

Well WWJD now?  Hire a public relations firm..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 08, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
Well WWJD now?  Hire a public relations firm..

He already has one of the best in the history of the world!

Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 09:04:13 AM
Righteous King theology was hijacked by the Maccabees, which seriously disrupted the High Priesthood and led to the Pharisee movement, to put lay people in charge of the Temple.  The original Righteous King/false messiah was King Josiah of Judah, circa 620 BCE, 500 years earlier.

And it was during Josiah's reign that the "book of the Law" was "discovered" while renovations of the Temple were under way.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 08, 2017, 09:17:36 AM
Element 45:
A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization:  the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.  We already noted Plutrach's criticism of the trend (which he frowns upon, but in so doing concedes its popularity) in Element 14.

Euhemerus was a Greek writer of the early third century bce, who wrote a book called The Sacred Scriptures in which he depicted an imaginary scholar discovering that Zeus and Uranus were once actual kings.  In the process Euhemerus invents a history for these 'god kings', even though we know there is no plausible case to be made that either Zeus or Uranus was ever a real person.  Yet the idea caught on; biographies and histories of non-existent people proliferated, and ancient literature flowered with attempts to assign mythic heroes and gods to real historical periods and places.  .....................And many other uses were found for the procedure, as we saw for inventing King Arthur, Ned Ludd, Abraham, Moses, and other national heroes I explored in Chapter 1.  There is nothing at all unusual about doing this.

Chronos, not Uranus ;-)  Are you a Vulcan, or a Hephaestus?

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 08, 2017, 10:03:45 AM
He already has one of the best in the history of the world!

Religion, new and improved!  Same old marketing.

Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2017, 06:56:33 PM
Chronos, not Uranus ;-)  Are you a Vulcan, or a Hephaestus?

Since I'm copying Carrier at this point, I don't really know.

Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2017, 06:57:11 PM
Religion, new and improved!  Same old marketing.

Get your Miracle Spring Water--call this number. 

Yeah, isn't it always new and improved.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 08, 2017, 07:57:56 PM
Get your Miracle Spring Water--call this number. 

Yeah, isn't it always new and improved.

Worked for Ponce De Leone ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 05:34:23 AM
Worked for Ponce De Leone ;-)

As it does for most 'faith' leaders, their particular scam works for them because the flock of sheeple don't care about facts, only beliefs and the blinder the better.  Popoff has been revealed as a scam artist several times, yet he still makes millions from his Miracle Spring Water scam.  But then, Jesus as a real person is a scam that has been working for much, much longer.

Element 46:
Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well.........................

The fact that this [hero narrative] was a recognized and widely revered hero narrative puts the lie to any claim that Christians were in any way radical in conforming their Jesus to it.  In fact, even if Jesus existed, we still must worry about how much of his narrative is being forced into this model for that very reason and therefore still not historically true.

We can add to all of this that Socrates, like Jesus, turned the other cheek and forgave the enemies who had caused his death.  We can likewise add that Aesop and Jesus were both itinerant preachers in a peripheral region who ended up in a central holy city, and were both plotted against and executed by its priests (Delphi for Aesop; Jerusalem for Jesus).  Likewise, for Aesop a 'gospel' was written about his birth, life, teachings and death, and many different redactions were then made of it, just as happened for Jesus. 

Socrates we can be certain was a historical person.  But Aesop is not likely to have been.  There is no strong evidence that Aesop ever actually lived (he is supposed to have flourished in the seventh century bce), much less wrote the fables attributed to him.  But even if either is true, the biographies written about him are still unlikely to have any basis in fact, and no historian today believes they are.  Aesop was more likely invented to place a name to a growing collection of fables passed down from numerous oral sources.  Historical facts were then invented about him, and then detailed biographies were written, in some respects similar to the Gospels.  If that's what happened, then Aesop would be an example of a mythical person who 'became' the historical author of a collection of parables he didn't in fact write (which are often similar in moral and symbolic purpose to the parables of Jesus), and then about whom fictional biographies were written, which were then passed off as fact.  It's easy to see how this could happen for Aesop.  So in principle the same could have happened for Jesus.

As a sort of guide of the ancient hero type, I've cut and pasted this list from a non-Carrier site.  I do so, since Elements 46, 47, and 48 deal with model; and expands upon it.  But his is a good place to start.  Jesus' life could easily fit this model.


The hero’s mother is a royal virgin;
His father is a king, and
Often a near relative of his mother, but
The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
At birth, an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
He is spirited away, and
Reared by foster parents in a far country.
We are told nothing of his childhood, but
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
He marries a princess, often the daughter of a predecessor, and
Becomes king.
For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
Prescribes laws, but
Later loses favour with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Is driven from the throne and city, after which
He meets with a mysterious death
Often at the top of a hill
His body is not buried, but nevertheless
He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 09, 2017, 09:38:54 AM
Element 46:
Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well.........................

The fact that this [hero narrative] was a recognized and widely revered hero narrative puts the lie to any claim that Christians were in any way radical in conforming their Jesus to it.  In fact, even if Jesus existed, we still must worry about how much of his narrative is being forced into this model for that very reason and therefore still not historically true.

We can add to all of this that Socrates, like Jesus, turned the other cheek and forgave the enemies who had caused his death.  We can likewise add that Aesop and Jesus were both itinerant preachers in a peripheral region who ended up in a central holy city, and were both plotted against and executed by its priests (Delphi for Aesop; Jerusalem for Jesus).  Likewise, for Aesop a 'gospel' was written about his birth, life, teachings and death, and many different redactions were then made of it, just as happened for Jesus. 

Socrates we can be certain was a historical person.  But Aesop is not likely to have been.  There is no strong evidence that Aesop ever actually lived (he is supposed to have flourished in the seventh century bce), much less wrote the fables attributed to him.  But even if either is true, the biographies written about him are still unlikely to have any basis in fact, and no historian today believes they are.  Aesop was more likely invented to place a name to a growing collection of fables passed down from numerous oral sources.  Historical facts were then invented about him, and then detailed biographies were written, in some respects similar to the Gospels.  If that's what happened, then Aesop would be an example of a mythical person who 'became' the historical author of a collection of parables he didn't in fact write (which are often similar in moral and symbolic purpose to the parables of Jesus), and then about whom fictional biographies were written, which were then passed off as fact.  It's easy to see how this could happen for Aesop.  So in principle the same could have happened for Jesus.

The same is probably true for Homer as well.  People from legendary times are usually ... legendary.

Even if there was a historical Jesus, we can ask how much of his self understanding was conditioned by all the stuff that Carrier brings forward?

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 09, 2017, 09:42:07 AM
As a sort of guide of the ancient hero type, I've cut and pasted this list from a non-Carrier site.  I do so, since Elements 46, 47, and 48 deal with model; and expands upon it.  But his is a good place to start.  Jesus' life could easily fit this model.


The hero’s mother is a royal virgin;
His father is a king, and
Often a near relative of his mother, but
The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
At birth, an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
He is spirited away, and
Reared by foster parents in a far country.
We are told nothing of his childhood, but
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
He marries a princess, often the daughter of a predecessor, and
Becomes king.
For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
Prescribes laws, but
Later loses favour with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Is driven from the throne and city, after which
He meets with a mysterious death
Often at the top of a hill
His body is not buried, but nevertheless
He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Fits many of them, in fact.  Some with minor modifications.  Let's see.  Mom's alleged to be a virgin, dad's a powerful figure (we can broaden 'king' to include 'deity', I think), circumstances of conception are unusual, reputedly son of a god, attempt on his life at birth, spirited away, raised in another country, virtually no details about childhood, makes laws, loses favor with the locals, meets his death, it's on a hill, entombed rather than buried, multiple sites identified in the records.  That's fourteen out of twenty-one, and I was being picky

Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 12:52:43 PM
The same is probably true for Homer as well.  People from legendary times are usually ... legendary.

Even if there was a historical Jesus, we can ask how much of his self understanding was conditioned by all the stuff that Carrier brings forward?

I would say that if Jesus were historical that we would be asking how much of his 'message' was borrowed from those that came before.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 09, 2017, 02:37:14 PM
I would say that if Jesus were historical that we would be asking how much of his 'message' was borrowed from those that came before.

Very few people are really original ... except me ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 07:48:13 PM
Very few people are really original ... except me ;-)

Yeah--that's true.

Element 47:
Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the apotheosis, or 'ascension to godhood' tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus. 

The more general point is that this narrative concept of a 'translation to heaven' for a hero (often but not always a divine son of god) was very commonplace, and always centered around a peculiar fable about the disappearance of their body.  And when it comes to the Romulus fable in particular, the evidence is unmistakable that Christianity conformed itself to it relatively quickly--even if all these attributes were accumulated over time and not all at once.

Romulus, of course, did not exist.  He was invented from previous Greek and Etruscan mythology) much later in Roman history than he is supposed to have lived.

The Gospels conform to the Romulus model most specifically.  There are twenty parallels, although not every story contained every one.  In some cases that may simply be the result of selection or abbreviation ibn the sources we have (and therefore the silence of one source does not entail the element did not then exist or was not known to that author):  and in some cases elements might have been deliberately removed (or even reversed) by an author who wanted to promote a different message. 


But when taken altogether the Romulus and Jesus death-and-resurrection narratives contain all of the following parallels;
1 . The hero is the son of God.
2. His death is accompanied by prodigies.
3. The land is covered in darkness.
4. The hero's corpse goes missing.
5. The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had.
6. His resurrection body has on occasion a bright and shining appearance.
7. After his resurrection he meets with a follower on a road from the city.
8. A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending.
9. An inspired message of resurrection or 'translation to heaven' is delivered to a witness.
10. There is a 'great commission' (an instruction to future followers).
11 . The hero physically ascends to heaven in his new divine body.
12. He is taken up into a cloud.
13. There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses).
14. Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and/or disappearance.
15. Some witnesses flee.
16. Claims are made of 'dubious alternative accounts' (which claims were obviously fabricated for Romulus, there never having been a true
account to begin with).
17. All of this occurs outside of a nearby (but central) city.
18. His followers are initially in sorrow over the hero's death.
19. But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and
rejoicing.
20. The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a god).

Romulus, of course, was also unjustly killed by the authorities (and came from a humble background, beginning his career as an orphan and shepherd, a nobody from the hill country), and thus also overlaps the Aesop-Socratic type (Element 46), and it's easy to see that by combining the two, we end up with pretty much the Christian Gospel in outline.

Yes, there were two kinds of fate for Romulus.  And briefly, Augustus thought of renaming himself Romulus, instead of Augustus.  But those two fates ... ascent into a cloud of Jupiter (heavenly father in Latin) and assassination by the Senate (re-created by the conspirators against Julius Caesar) ... didn't sound so good as prototypes.  So Augustus treated his adopted father as a kind of Romulus ... and himself as something else ... a son of a god.  And I have pointed out, in the writings of Virgil. how the encomium on the potential son of Mark Anthony, by the sister of Augustus (his wife at the time) matches the birth narrative of Jesus.  Jesus does the ascent thing ... from the Mt of Olives, off of the altar of the Red Heifer.  So yes, the notion of "scapegoat" is there, but it is just one element of the overlapping metaphors that would be understood by educated contemporaries of Paul.

Also the Johannine theology ... of love.  The secret name of Roma is the word reversed, Amor.

The return of the supposed dead, was first applied to Nero, before it was applied to Jesus.  So in that way, it is a kind of burlesque.  Nero had his detractors, but also his supporters.  And of course, this reappears in the legend of King Arthur.

Element 48:
Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine'king', which I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type, based on the two scholars who discovered and described it, Otto Rank and Lord Raglan.  This is a hero-type found repeated across at least fifteen known mythic heroes (including Jesus)--if w count only those who clearly meet more than half of the designated parallels (which means twelve or more matches out of 22 elements.

The twenty-two features distinctive of this hero-type are:
1.Mother is a royal virgin
2.Father is a king
3.Father often a near relative to mother
4.Unusual conception
5.Hero reputed to be son of god
6.Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7.Hero spirited away as a child
8.Reared by foster parents in a far country
9.No details of childhood
10.Returns or goes to future kingdom
11.Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12.Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13.Becomes king
14.For a time he reigns uneventfully
15.He prescribes laws
16.Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17.Driven from throne and city
18.Meets with mysterious death
19.Often at the top of a hill
20.His children, if any, do not succeed him
21.His body is not buried
22.Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

Jesus scores 20 our of 22, according to Matthew's Gospel.............................................That is a stunning fact, which must be considered, and accounted for.

Carrier's Conclusion

The point of this [the 48 Elements] and the previous chapter has been to summarize all the facts we must take into account, as being in our total background knowledge, when assigning all probabilities going forward.  In my experience, a great deal of what has been surveyed up to this point remains unknown even to many experts in the study of Jesus.  This is why I took the trouble to survey so much.  Because all of it must be taken into account by anyone who wishes to reconstruct the historical Jesus or the origins of Christianity.  .............................

He then uses over 400 more pages exploring in detail all 48 elements and what they mean for the historicity of Jesus.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 11, 2017, 10:06:44 AM
Element 48:
Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine'king', which I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type, based on the two scholars who discovered and described it, Otto Rank and Lord Raglan.  This is a hero-type found repeated across at least fifteen known mythic heroes (including Jesus)--if w count only those who clearly meet more than half of the designated parallels (which means twelve or more matches out of 22 elements.

The twenty-two features distinctive of this hero-type are:
1.Mother is a royal virgin
2.Father is a king
3.Father often a near relative to mother
4.Unusual conception
5.Hero reputed to be son of god
6.Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7.Hero spirited away as a child
8.Reared by foster parents in a far country
9.No details of childhood
10.Returns or goes to future kingdom
11.Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12.Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13.Becomes king
14.For a time he reigns uneventfully
15.He prescribes laws
16.Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17.Driven from throne and city
18.Meets with mysterious death
19.Often at the top of a hill
20.His children, if any, do not succeed him
21.His body is not buried
22.Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

Jesus scores 20 our of 22, according to Matthew's Gospel.............................................That is a stunning fact, which must be considered, and accounted for.

"Hero With A Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 11, 2017, 10:06:44 AM
Element 48:

Jesus scores 20 our of 22, according to Matthew's Gospel.............................................That is a stunning fact, which must be considered, and accounted for.

Thank you for that.  I tried to explain something similar on another site (non-religious) years ago but did not have my ideas so organized or based, and got laughed at. 

I understand most of the ideas.  They have to be unusual situations or no one would notice or care.   

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 10:20:30 AM
Thank you for that.  I tried to explain something similar on another site (non-religious) years ago but did not have my ideas so organized or based, and got laughed at. 

I understand most of the ideas.  They have to be unusual situations or no one would notice or care.   

Our sense of heroes now derives from scifi.  So the outline is a bit different now.  Divine kings are not popular, except in Saudi Arabia.  Cyrano De Bergerac was the first modern science fiction writer, long before Jules Verne.

Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 10:24:12 AM
Our sense of heroes now derives from scifi. 

Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, John McCain, Neil Armstrong, that chinese guy standing front of the tank...

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 10:24:12 AM
Our sense of heroes now derives from scifi. 

Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, John McCain, Neil Armstrong, that chinese guy standing front of the tank...

The Chinese guy was probably shot along with many of the other protestors.  China is your friend.  Sorry, John McCain was a screw-up, a near-do-well of an admiral's son.  But I sympathize with that.  Other captives said he .. broke under pressure.  Neil Armstrong was a hero, with about a million NASA people etc behind him, same with the other astronauts and cosmonauts.  I used to believe in the space program, I participated in it ... but understand it now to be a distraction from political dirty tricks .... like Hitler and the Volkswagen.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 10:20:30 AM
Thank you for that.  I tried to explain something similar on another site (non-religious) years ago but did not have my ideas so organized or based, and got laughed at. 

I understand most of the ideas.  They have to be unusual situations or no one would notice or care.   

Feel free to cut and paste to your heart's content.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 10:20:30 AM
Thank you for that.  I tried to explain something similar on another site (non-religious) years ago but did not have my ideas so organized or based, and got laughed at. 

I understand most of the ideas.  They have to be unusual situations or no one would notice or care.   

Cavebear, I think you would like Carrier's book.  Not only does he write in great detail, but highly footnotes everything.  One can easily go to his sources and branch out as one wishes.  It is a great reference book to have if nothing else.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 11, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Cavebear, I think you would like Carrier's book.  Not only does he write in great detail, but highly footnotes everything.  One can easily go to his sources and branch out as one wishes.  It is a great reference book to have if nothing else.

On The Historicity Of Jesus?  Amazon wants $35 for a paperback?  I already doubt the historiosity of jesus.  Convince me to spend $35.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:57:46 PM
On The Historicity Of Jesus?  Amazon wants $35 for a paperback?  I already doubt the historiosity of jesus.  Convince me to spend $35.

It will make your wallet more hole-y ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:00:21 PM
It will make your wallet more hole-y ;-)

Have YOU read it?

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:01:54 PM
Have YOU read it?

When I get a competent summary from MikeCL?  Why?  But I buy other books all the time, and read them.  Sometimes more than once.  That is in addition to my Internet addiction.  I have a whole library on Christianity, from then I was married to my pastor.

Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:04:52 PM
When I get a competent summary from MikeCL?  Why? 

Thank you.  I just ordered it.  LOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:11:35 PM
Thank you.  I just ordered it.  LOL!

What will your order it to do?  You meanie!

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:57:46 PM
On The Historicity Of Jesus?  Amazon wants $35 for a paperback?  I already doubt the historiosity of jesus.  Convince me to spend $35.

Not able to do that.  But keep checking and I'm sure that sooner or later it will go on sale.  And if you ever get to a big bookstore look it up and scan it.  That will convince you to get it. :)

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:11:35 PM
Thank you.  I just ordered it.  LOL!

I guess I did not try hard enough.  :)))  I know you will love it.  I'd be interested in any comments you have about it as you read it. 

Thanks MikeCL ... good thread for realistic history.

Quote from: Baruch on November 12, 2017, 04:42:01 AM
Thanks MikeCL ... good thread for realistic history.

You're welcome, Baruch.  Helps me keep things straight when I put them in writing.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 12, 2017, 10:52:21 AM
You're welcome, Baruch.  Helps me keep things straight when I put them in writing.

I enjoyed this, and the video by Carrier.  But the further details for me, are been there, done that.  But I can do heavy books, with lots of footnotes.  I am working The Sufi Jewish Dialog by Diana Lobel.  11th century CE Iberian mysticism in the Convivencia of the three Abrahamic faiths, 78 pages of footnotes, in five languages ... Hebrew, Arabic, English, French and German.

I hope that Cavebear enjoys your book (Carrier) and will share some more details that strike him as interesting.  The 1st century CE was a very dynamic period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQXVghEjl4

We are Greco-Roman ... and Judeo-Christian ... even for those 2000 years ago, who were secular.  The 21st century is a modernized version of the 1st century.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 11, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
I guess I did not try hard enough.  :)))  I know you will love it.  I'd be interested in any comments you have about it as you read it.

I'm not going to read it tonight.  But here is why I ordered it...

The JWs knocked on my door early this year when I had been up all night (here) and I decided to talk to them.  I challengd them to prove there was actually a "jesus".  I pointed out the Romans never referred to him, etc. 

They took my argument to heart.  They left a brochure claiming to prove Jesus did exist.  It was weak evidence at best, of course, being mostly hearsay after the time.  But it apparently mattered to them. 

They beat on my door while I slept late a couple times after that.  Bad timing.  I would have talked to them about the claim if I had been up and dressed.

But I kind of know their schedule now, so I will use the book (I hope) to make a list of arguments about it.  I don't have any special doubts, but I love to plant doubts in THEM.  LOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 05:30:30 AM
I'm not going to read it tonight.  But here is why I ordered it...

The JWs knocked on my door early this year when I had been up all night (here) and I decided to talk to them.  I challengd them to prove there was actually a "jesus".  I pointed out the Romans never referred to him, etc. 

They took my argument to heart.  They left a brochure claiming to prove Jesus did exist.  It was weak evidence at best, of course, being mostly hearsay after the time.  But it apparently mattered to them. 

They beat on my door while I slept late a couple times after that.  Bad timing.  I would have talked to them about the claim if I had been up and dressed.

But I kind of know their schedule now, so I will use the book (I hope) to make a list of arguments about it.  I don't have any special doubts, but I love to plant doubts in THEM.  LOL!

This book addresses each and every argument that the JW's could possibly use.  I don't know what was on that list--but I am confident that Carrier will have detailed arguments about what is on that list.  This book is that good.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 15, 2017, 09:07:35 AM
This book addresses each and every argument that the JW's could possibly use.  I don't know what was on that list--but I am confident that Carrier will have detailed arguments about what is on that list.  This book is that good.

Well, I was going screaming nuts trying to figure out how to attach a turntable between 2 boards earlier while doing some laundry and thawing out some homemade spaghetti sauce, so I I am just catching up.  I WILL be reading the book soon.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 09:19:16 AM
Well, I was going screaming nuts trying to figure out how to attach a turntable between 2 boards earlier while doing some laundry and thawing out some homemade spaghetti sauce, so I I am just catching up.  I WILL be reading the book soon.

If you can suggest a few impressive pages, I would appreciate it.  650 pages is a lot!  LOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 09:20:50 AM
If you can suggest a few impressive pages, I would appreciate it.  650 pages is a lot!  LOL!

It really depends upon what your most driving question is.  If there is one, just use the index and look it up. The Table of Contents is well constructed--easy to find most any specific issue.  If still at a loss, read The Conclusion first.  Then branch out.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 15, 2017, 02:45:50 PM
It really depends upon what your most driving question is.  If there is one, just use the index and look it up. The Table of Contents is well constructed--easy to find most any specific issue.  If still at a loss, read The Conclusion first.  Then branch out.

You are right, I should look at the structure of the book first.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 15, 2017, 02:45:50 PM
It really depends upon what your most driving question is.  If there is one, just use the index and look it up. The Table of Contents is well constructed--easy to find most any specific issue.  If still at a loss, read The Conclusion first.  Then branch out.

I like to read the last chapter of a book first.

Quote from: Baruch on November 15, 2017, 06:47:50 PM
I like to read the last chapter of a book first.

I tend to do the same--except when it is fictional book.

I like to read the index first in any non-fiction book that has one.

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 02:59:57 PM
I like to read the index first in any non-fiction book that has one.

A glossary is even more informative, if there is one.

Mike and Baruch I think you got me inspired to read the book. I dont know anything about this stuff. ðŸ¤" I guess the short story is that the majority of the Bible was foisted on the world without any Fact Checking involved.

Cavebear The idea of transformer smurfs is entertaining. If there were any they would be playing tricks on other smurfs like the Weasely brothers in Harry Potter.

Mike you mispelled a word in Element 43. The resulting phrase was quite amusing. Human sacrifice was widely regarded as the most powerful salivation magic available.
Are there any vampires around?

Quote from: fencerider on December 09, 2017, 02:38:58 PM
Mike and Baruch I think you got me inspired to read the book. I dont know anything about this stuff. ðŸ¤" I guess the short story is that the majority of the Bible was foisted on the world without any Fact Checking involved.

Cavebear The idea of transformer smurfs is entertaining. If there were any they would be playing tricks on other smurfs like the Weasely brothers in Harry Potter.

Mike you mispelled a word in Element 43. The resulting phrase was quite amusing. Human sacrifice was widely regarded as the most powerful salivation magic available.
Are there any vampires around?

There is a cultural context to Gentile Christianity, in addition to the Jewish context.  One of the most popular Greco-Roman novels of the time was Damon & Pythias.  These were boy-friends.  One was accused of a capital crime, and the other stood as hostage, while the accused went to settle his affairs, promising to return.  Contrary to audience expectations, the accused returned, thus freeing the hostage.  The tyrant was so impressed (and he was an actual evil dude in history) he freed both men.  Think of dramatizations of this as early Passion Plays.  Dionysius worship is the origin of theater.

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1200901;topic=12026.300

This was a Pythagorean story, and probably gay as well.  Some early Christian baptism may have involved an older man with a younger man (as is common in pagan Greek culture).  Kabbalah is linked the Pythagorean mysticism ... and part of the roots of Christianity are in Kabbalah.  Another origin is a martyrdom cult that started during the Maccabean period.

Educated Latins knew Virgil's 4th Eclogue ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpretations_of_Virgil%27s_Eclogue_4

Which is part of the poetic background to the Christ nativity.  The promised child of Mark Anthony and Octavia (Augustus' sister) didn't pan out as hoped ... and it would have been a pagan messiah, anyway.

Quote from: fencerider on December 09, 2017, 02:38:58 PM
Mike and Baruch I think you got me inspired to read the book. I dont know anything about this stuff. ðŸ¤" I guess the short story is that the majority of the Bible was foisted on the world without any Fact Checking involved.

Cavebear The idea of transformer smurfs is entertaining. If there were any they would be playing tricks on other smurfs like the Weasely brothers in Harry Potter.

Mike you mispelled a word in Element 43. The resulting phrase was quite amusing. Human sacrifice was widely regarded as the most powerful salivation magic available.
Are there any vampires around?

In my view, the book is quite well done.  I have read it through once, but have returned to it time and again reading this part and that.  It is a great research book, if nothing else.  I am very interested in view and comments about it, if you wish to share.

And that would not be 'vampire', but zombie. 

None of this answers the question of the factuality of the alledged Jesus.  The Romans never mentioned him, and they kept the best records of the times.  Never mentioned Masada either, for that matter...

Quote from: Cavebear on December 12, 2017, 02:40:22 AM
None of this answers the question of the factuality of the alledged Jesus.  The Romans never mentioned him, and they kept the best records of the times.  Never mentioned Masada either, for that matter...

Correct.  Only what the Romans wrote at the time is relevant.  And the Romans always tell the truth (and not Josephus, he isn't Roman).  But why limit to Roman historians.  As I posted above, the writings of the Augustan age are quite relevant.  Their poetry was fiction, but so was their histories.  History was propaganda, still is .. and entertainment of the elites (who wanted their reputations burnished).

I agree that there was no Jesus.  Also no Moses, and apparently, no Muhammad.  So what?  The ideas of them are more powerful than facts ... because humans aren't Vulcans.  Future historians of our time, will only be putting their own spin on our conspiracy theories of Obama or Trump.  Mary Beard makes this quite clear in her book on Roman history, SPQR.

We have Cicero's private letters, and not much else ... and I wouldn't trust his correspondence ... the man was a politician, and so was Caesar and Brutus he wrote to.  And the opus of his works was culled and edited after his death.

Quote from: Cavebear on December 12, 2017, 02:40:22 AM
None of this answers the question of the factuality of the alledged Jesus.  The Romans never mentioned him, and they kept the best records of the times.  Never mentioned Masada either, for that matter...

I remember reading that an author researched all of the historians that would have been able to mention the 'actual' Jesus if he were alive at that time and place.  He uncovered something like 110 historians that fit the bill.  None of them mentioned Jesus---None!

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 08:32:08 AM
I remember reading that an author researched all of the historians that would have been able to mention the 'actual' Jesus if he were alive at that time and place.  He uncovered something like 110 historians that fit the bill.  None of them mentioned Jesus---None!

I had a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses visit a year ago.  Since they knocked on my door while I had been up all night til 10 am (here, probably) I wasn't at my best but did answer the door (knowing who they were, and wearing my bright yellow atheist hat). 

They were shocked when I pointed at my hat.  Probably never met an avowed atheist before.  We had a great discussion.  I listened to their presentation and then asked them a lot of questions.  Questions they weren't prepared to answer.  Typical stuff like why "Christmas" when everything in the bible suggested a Springtime birth due to the shepards etc.

The one that really got them was asking for proof that there even was a Jesus when there was no evidence of his existence.  Everything they said was assuming he existed and I explained about "circular reasoning". 

They were baffled!

They haven't bothered me since...

No atheist hat.  But I do have a Disney authorized Chicken Little hat I wear at work sometimes ;-)  It is bright yellow, with a red comb.  I also have a little girl's magic wand (battery powered with sound) that I can use to work computer problems ;-))

Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2017, 04:55:38 AM
No atheist hat.  But I do have a Disney authorized Chicken Little hat I wear at work sometimes ;-)  It is bright yellow, with a red comb.  I also have a little girl's magic wand (battery powered with sound) that I can use to work computer problems ;-))

Enjoy your silly hat while being also irrelevant.

Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 03:12:30 PM
Enjoy your silly hat while being also irrelevant.

My hat and my wand, when I use them, do what I want them to do.  That is what relevant means.

Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
My hat and my wand, when I use them, do what I want them to do.  That is what relevant means.

Mine never do.  They must be the contrarian peltsish type.

Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2017, 12:19:49 PM
Mine never do.  They must be the contrarian peltsish type.

You cast un-do magic ... not do magic.  That seems self defeating,, if the un-do applies also to the undoing.

Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2017, 01:18:10 PM
You cast un-do magic ... not do magic.  That seems self defeating,, if the un-do applies also to the undoing.

Using the "undo" button on the computer is wonderful.  Especially when you want to undo the "undo".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Thanks for raising this thread from the dead.  Carrier's 48 elements from his book, are foundational for any who want to study the subject of Jesus, real or myth.  If you want even more detail, read all the footnotes attached to those 48 elements---there are many of those. 

Element 2 provided a little surprise for me when I read it--it states that early Jewish beliefs were not uniform nor universally accepted--there was at least 10 mainstream beliefs, with as many as 30 or more possible.  I had thought from what most bible-thumpers said, that there was only one Jewish belief system in Jesus' time and that he pretty much upset the apple cart.  But that is clearly not the case; yet most christians of today believe like I did.  As usual, they are wrong. 

People love to oversimplify.

And sometimes it is worth undersimplifying.  The basic idea shown in the video above was something I understood as a matter of mere rational thought as a teenager, noting that most people had demonstrably "imaginations" about reality. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could ever have presented it as well as he did.  But I didn't need to.  I was only concerned with my own conclusions about reality and how some people misunderstood it through fears and hopes and social-teachings.

I came to my own conclusions as a teen and I've never seen any evidence that did or should have changed my mind.  No originator or scribe writing down what became religious texts had any rational or inspired basis for doing so, and none ever will.  The whole idea is complete nonsense.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 09, 2019, 10:43:31 AM
And sometimes it is worth undersimplifying.  The basic idea shown in the video above was something I understood as a matter of mere rational thought as a teenager, noting that most people had demonstrably "imaginations" about reality. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could ever have presented it as well as he did.  But I didn't need to.  I was only concerned with my own conclusions about reality and how some people misunderstood it through fears and hopes and social-teachings.

I came to my own conclusions as a teen and I've never seen any evidence that did or should have changed my mind.  No originator or scribe writing down what became religious texts had any rational or inspired basis for doing so, and none ever will.  The whole idea is complete nonsense.

1+1=2 per Pythagoras, that is all the maths you need to know ;-)

Well, in my case, Carrier's preaching to the choir - I sing bass, by the way.

Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 01:52:38 PM
1+1=2 per Pythagoras, that is all the maths you need to know ;-)

I seriously doubt that Pythagoras was the first to realize that 1+1=2.  I don't know how far back we go though when that was intuited and then sort of proven when some hominid handed a fellow 1 nut (gra) and a second (gra) and pointed to both (grat). 

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Well, in my case, Carrier's preaching to the choir - I sing bass, by the way.

You don't want hear me sing in any fashion.  I'm one of those convinced I had a good voice until I heard myself on a tape recorder.  Compared to what I heard internally through my skull and ear canal, dying rabbits are musical.  Even recording a voice mail message, I have to forcibly drop my pitch a couple octaves to avoid offending sensitive ears.  Let's just say I could ratttle a tin can...

  I would like to recommend two books by former Christian biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman

"Misquoting Jesus" which explains why claiming inerrancy  for the New Testament is not supportable. Hint:  until the fifteenth century and Gutenberg's printing press, all books were 'published' by being copied by hand. Simple errors occurred, plus some scribes would deliberately leave out bits or insert bits. I was astounded to learn, that in those times, it was common that a scribe would be illiterate.IE he could copy what  he saw, but could not read or understand it.

The other is " Did Jesus Exist?" . I've only just started reading this book, but it's promising. Ehrman argues the affirmative .

My own position is;   First century Judea was neck deep in wandering Rabbis. The Romans crucified literally thousands of Jews during Roman occupation. So, it's possible, even likely, that there was a rabbi called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf, that he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified for sedition. For the sake of argument I accept that Jesus existed.

What became the New Testament, and the religion called "Christianity" has little or nothing to do with poor Yeshua bar Yusuf . The book is the mythology of Christianity. Virtually all revered holy books are mythology, not history, imo.

Reference ; "Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bÉ'ːrt ˈɜːrmÉ™n/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Quote from: fredd47 on August 06, 2019, 07:55:20 PM
  I would like to recommend two books by former Christian biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman

"Misquoting Jesus" which explains why claiming inerrancy  for the New Testament is not supportable. Hint:  until the fifteenth century and Gutenberg's printing press, all books were 'published' by being copied by hand. Simple errors occurred, plus some scribes would deliberately leave out bits or insert bits. I was astounded to learn, that in those times, it was common that a scribe would be illiterate.IE he could copy what  he saw, but could not read or understand it.

The other is " Did Jesus Exist?" . I've only just started reading this book, but it's promising. Ehrman argues the affirmative .

My own position is;   First century Judea was neck deep in wandering Rabbis. The Romans crucified literally thousands of Jews during Roman occupation. So, it's possible, even likely, that there was a rabbi called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf, that he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified for sedition. For the sake of argument I accept that Jesus existed.

What became the New Testament, and the religion called "Christianity" has little or nothing to do with poor Yeshua bar Yusuf . The book is the mythology of Christianity. Virtually all revered holy books are mythology, not history, imo.

Reference ; "Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bÉ'ːrt ˈɜːrmÉ™n/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

I actually have read a couple of Ehrman's books--its been awhile since I've read them and I'd have to look the titles up in my library.  Jesus was a very common name during the first 2 centuries; in Hebrew and Aramaic, Jesus and Joshua mean the same--saviour.  And that was what the Jews were desperately searching for.  Remember Moses (likely a fiction as well) led them into the promised land, but never set foot in it.  Joshua was the one who conquered the promised land.  So, the search was on for Jesus/Joshua to be a saviour once again--they were hoping for a messiah.  They actually found one in 132 ad, Bar Kokbah.  He defeated the Romans and even had coins minted with his likeness and labeled as messiah.  That lasted 3 years until the Romans became tired of it and smashed him.  Anyway, Jesus as a name was very common.  I find it telling that there was not one single writer nor historian alive in the first 1/3 of the AD's who mentioned him or anything he did.  It is only much later that Paul wrote his material (50's at the earliest) and he mixes in the title of Christ quite a bit along with the name of Jesus.  Christ is not a name, but a title, so he was referring to the title Jesus was to have held.  And I think it is clear that Paul indicated that Christ was not of this world. Anyway, I hold that the Jesus of the bible is a construct of much later writers who drew from many many writings most of which have since been destroyed. 

One of my first books on this subject was Robert M. Price's, The Incredible Shrinking Man.  Daughtery--don't remember the title off hand, also published a very good book dealing with the historicity of Jesus.  I have several more books on my shelves, just can't recall their titles.  My current favorite is Richard Carrier, who published, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.  It is a huge book, well documented and footnoted.  It makes it clear to me that Jesus is a myth and not real. 

While I have a decent library, with books from all camps, I kind of look a little askance at those who are ministers or christians or teachers of christianity because they have a heavy stake in making sure Jesus was real.  I like to read material from all camps, though, so I can make up my own mind and I think I've done well with that.  So, I for the sake of argument, as accept that Jesus was a myth.

Textual criticism I find of interest.  At one point I read all I could get my hands on---years and years ago.  Anyway, my two favorite sites were:

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism.
http://jbtc.org/#page=home

And a huge one:
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/
The Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism

My computer skills are not the best--hope these links work for you.

My biggest issue with On The Historicity of Jesus was Carrier's constant use of that Bayes Theorem nonsense.  It may work in math but trying to apply it to history is just silly.  First off, he freely admits that when he assigns an arbitrary probability score to historicist bullshit he bends over backwards to give them the highest possible score.  This gives away the game in the first inning. 

Forgetting the math nonsense the rest of it is a well reasoned and researched effort which examines ALL of the evidence for jesus  and finds much of it wanting.

Watched a good Ehrman lecture in the past year.  But he is a liberal Christian apologist.  He is not as objective as Dr Carrier.

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=13403.0

Quote from: Minimalist on August 06, 2019, 09:40:59 PM
My biggest issue with On The Historicity of Jesus was Carrier's constant use of that Bayes Theorem nonsense.  It may work in math but trying to apply it to history is just silly.  First off, he freely admits that when he assigns an arbitrary probability score to historicist bullshit he bends over backwards to give them the highest possible score.  This gives away the game in the first inning. 

Forgetting the math nonsense the rest of it is a well reasoned and researched effort which examines ALL of the evidence for jesus  and finds much of it wanting.

Yes, the Bayes Theorem did puzzle me.  He wrote an earlier book dealing only with that--I promised myself that I would circle back, later, a read it.  I guess I don't always keep promises to myself, for I've not read it yet.  So, early on, I ignored it.  The rest of the book is very solid.  And his footnotes are so extensive one can use this book as the center of a deep study of the issue from all sides, if one wanted to.  I find much of the Jesus was real evidence wanting.  I am convinced Jesus was a myth.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 06, 2019, 11:08:23 PM
Yes, the Bayes Theorem did puzzle me.  He wrote an earlier book dealing only with that--I promised myself that I would circle back, later, a read it.  I guess I don't always keep promises to myself, for I've not read it yet.  So, early on, I ignored it.  The rest of the book is very solid.  And his footnotes are so extensive one can use this book as the center of a deep study of the issue from all sides, if one wanted to.  I find much of the Jesus was real evidence wanting.  I am convinced Jesus was a myth.

Post hoc analysis.  Beysian analysis, gives him a method, other than Hercule Poirot twisting his mustache.  Crossan had the same problem with the Jesus Seminar.  He felt their method wasn't defined enough.  So he did his own analysis, using his own defined method, consistently aka it is reproducible.  Jesus Seminar meetings are not easily reproducible.  One can argue one definite method or other, but at least there is a definite method.

The Historical Jesus and ...

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus is were he outlines his method in detail.  The results ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Yf6a4rzK0

Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 01:04:56 AM
Post hoc analysis.  Beysian analysis, gives him a method, other than Hercule Poirot twisting his mustache.  Crossan had the same problem with the Jesus Seminar.  He felt their method wasn't defined enough.  So he did his own analysis, using his own defined method, consistently aka it is reproducible.  Jesus Seminar meetings are not easily reproducible.  One can argue one definite method or other, but at least there is a definite method.

The Historical Jesus and ...

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus is were he outlines his method in detail.  The results ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Yf6a4rzK0

One day I really will have to read Carrier's description of it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 07, 2019, 09:19:20 AM
One day I really will have to read Carrier's description of it.

Description of The Historical Jesus by Crossan?  He didn't agree with, but cooperated with, The Jesus Seminar

[/quote]

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 06, 2019, 11:08:23 PM
Yes, the Bayes Theorem did puzzle me.  He wrote an earlier book dealing only with that--I promised myself that I would circle back, later, a read it.  I guess I don't always keep promises to myself, for I've not read it yet.  So, early on, I ignored it.  The rest of the book is very solid.  And his footnotes are so extensive one can use this book as the center of a deep study of the issue from all sides, if one wanted to.  I find much of the Jesus was real evidence wanting.  I am convinced Jesus was a myth.

The problem with Carrier is that he assigns probabilities to historical events out of his ass. For Bayes theorem to work you need to know the probability of an outcome. Example: the probability of getting heads on tossing a fair coin is one-half. That's not a guess but a fact. In the case of Carrier, he takes a guess of what is the probability that Jesus resurrected. No matter what number you use, already Bayes theorem will give you a false result. It's a total misuse of the theorem if the input is not back by research, observation or a study of a large group giving you a meaningful stats - example: % of non-believers in the US is 22.8, from the latest survey. What you get is William Lane Craig doing the same as Carrier and comes up with a high probability that Jesus did resurrect.   Both Carrier and Craig are just playing a game of bullshit.

Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 10:26:44 AM
Description of The Historical Jesus by Crossan?  He didn't agree with, but cooperated with, The Jesus Seminar

No, the book Carrier wrote abut the Bayes Theorum.

I've already read Crossan.

I didn't read the books or watched the videos. But I don't get why people keep looking into history as a discipline; historical events, historical evidence for this. Invalid. It's ridiculous. It's like 'lets play Indiana Jones without the guns'. Anthropology would provide the best approach.

Humans created gods and religions for many reasons -which anthropology explains- and also created middlemen.

When people think about the questions of 'Did Moses or Jesus really exist?' they start with an accumulation of a specific information provided by some sources, first religious text and then try to find historcial ones to support them.

To me the most important problem is that when belief is the subject, they start with already defined characters.

However, if you start with the idea that we actually have zero information about these figures, the evolutions of societies humans created throughout history, would only leave blanks for collective characters of a certain type. That's why Moses is a collective version of hundreds of clan chiefs and ancient deities. When that figure expired, you get Jesus, another figure who is a collective figure of different gods and characters.

There is only a few human characters and a certain set of parables -imagined as their lives- to go around. Abrahamic prophets are all different veersions of few male characters.

You know that how people who believe in horoscopes keep insisting, how good their sign fits them or not exactly because of some effect or this and that? Every one of these people count some human characteristics with different combinations, as if they are uniquely different from each other and talk about how true it is.

And then when you tell them that there are only several basic human characteristics to go around and all these signs are the same bullshit with expressions of different aspects and that of course every body fits in them because there is nothing else to fit in!

Anyway, you get what I mean. So these characters are like horoscopes signs a bit. They are all like each other, but different aspects of a male human roles, -some times deity parts added- is emphasized in each one. 

But trying to look for 'historical' Moses or Jesus, asking if they really existed is like asking an atheist 'Could "the real god" convert you?' Because that 'historical' actually means what kind of a man was the real Jesus, did he really said that, did these...? It's not a valid, reasonable question. It's a quest for faith, not for history.

Why don't you ask the real god?

Anthropology?  Yes.  Psychology?  Yes.  But not as castrated and communized by European scholarship.

Psychology? No!

Why do we need psychology for the Real Jesus Quest?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 07, 2019, 12:13:51 PM
I didn't read the books or watched the videos. But I don't get why people keep looking into history as a discipline; historical events, historical evidence for this. Invalid. It's ridiculous. It's like 'lets play Indiana Jones without the guns'. Anthropology would provide the best approach.

Humans created gods and religions for many reasons -which anthropology explains- and also a created middlemen.

When people think about the questions of 'Did Moses or Jesus really exist?' they start with an accumulation of a specific information provided by some sources, first religious text and then try to find historcial ones to support them.

To me the most important problem is that when belief is the subject, they start with already defined characters.

However, if you start with the idea that we actually have zero information about these figures, the evolutions of societies humans created throughout history, would only leave blanks for collective characters of a certain type. That's why Moses is a collective version of hundreds of clan chiefs and ancient deities. When that figure expired, you get Jesus, another figure who is a collective figure of different gods and characters.

There is only a few human characters and a certain set of parables -imagined as their lives- to go around. Abrahamic prophets are all different veersions of few male characters.

You know that how people who believe in horoscopes keep insisting, how good their sign fits them or not exactly because of some effect or this and that? Every one of these people count some human characteristics with different combinations, as if they are uniquely different from each other and talk about how true it is.

And then when you tell them that there are only several basic human characteristics to go around and all these signs are the same bullshit with expressions of different aspects and that of course every body fits in them because there is nothing else to fit in!

Anyway, you get what I mean. So these characters are like horoscopes signs a bit. They are all like each other, but different aspects of a male human roles, -some times deity parts added- is emphasized in each one. 

But trying to look for 'historical' Moses or Jesus, asking if they really existed is like asking an atheist 'Could "the real god" convert you?' Because that 'historical' actually means what kind of a man was the real Jesus, did he really said that, did these...? It's not a valid, reasonable question. It's a quest for faith, not for history.

Why don't you as the real god?

I asked myself those questions; read those books because I'm curious.  I simply want to know.  Plus, I did not fully appreciate what you mention above until I started doing actual research and began delving into those questions beyond the surface stuff.  And I learned to appreciate the roles fairy tales, myth, legends, stories, rites of passage play in societies.  And I grew to really appreciate Joseph Campbell and his explanation of the role of myth.  Stories and myth have power even if all understand they are just that--stories and myth; for we all experience those feeling and thoughts at one time or another.  When one adds the 'historical' layer, then those things (fairy tales, myth, legends, stories and rites of passage) become even more compelling--almost compulsive in that nobody questions them anymore or tries to evaluate what they mean.  The just accept whatever their designated expert tells them.  One does not have to be an expert to understand what a fairy tale means; but one does(or so everybody says) to explain what Jesus means in the bible because he is real and the fairy tale is not.  So, basically, I  just wanted to untangle all that stuff for myself.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 07, 2019, 12:59:35 PM
I asked myself those questions; read those books because I'm curious.  I simply want to know.  Plus, I did not fully appreciate what you mention above until I started doing actual research and began delving into those questions beyond the surface stuff.  And I learned to appreciate the roles fairy tales, myth, legends, stories, rites of passage play in societies.  And I grew to really appreciate Joseph Campbell and his explanation of the role of myth.  Stories and myth have power even if all understand they are just that--stories and myth; for we all experience those feeling and thoughts at one time or another.  When one adds the 'historical' layer, then those things (fairy tales, myth, legends, stories and rites of passage) become even more compelling--almost compulsive in that nobody questions them anymore or tries to evaluate what they mean.  The just accept whatever their designated expert tells them.  One does not have to be an expert to understand what a fairy tale means; but one does(or so everybody says) to explain what Jesus means in the bible because he is real and the fairy tale is not.  So, basically, I  just wanted to untangle all that stuff for myself.

Yeah that makes sense. You are curious to learn the source of something that big. (When I was a kid, I had mom to pester about all this stuff, she  was a philosophy teacher) Stories and myths are very very powerful. But they are very few. Same deal. Most of them are the different versions of the few major ones or their parts. Gılgamesh... then down there, heeere we go. They are also all we have about most of the accumulation we call history. Starting back from a much closer point than anyone thinks.

Have you ever heard a historical concept called 'secret history'?  In 17th century Europe, some scholars, writers... start to write about 'secret history' of any figures they can. Popes, Cardinals, Kings, Queens, Generals, Dukes...etc.

They first start to do this to show the people that some events -be it a war, invasion, a decree...etc- that have impact on people's lives are actually based on personal ambitions, relationships, goals and power hunger. They get killed, jailed, tortured... (The modern understanfing of secret history, wiki leaks even papparazi is coming from here.)

So what did the scholars do? They used characters and events in myths, ancient history to disguise a current event by telling it via something of the past. They also knew that Kings and Queens and Popes and Cardinals had their own 'history makers'. What these men did was to act like an image maker for their masters and mistresses and define them and their reigns by myths and mythical characters. Even cities. Every big city they are proud of is a Rome (2nd Rome, 3rd Rome etc), every city they fight for is a Jearusalem and of course every reign that changes hand between sects are delivered, an Exodus for the winning side. You wouldn't believe how many Romes, Jerusalems and Exoduses we have. Kings became ancient Commanders...etc. (Think like first triumvirate and the second one, you can find depictions, made up ones with generals and commander hundreds of years after Roman Empire collapsed.) Pretty much like the horoscope thing. Collective characters of fiction and history. What happening in courts, whose sleeping with whom... What was the real reason of the 30 year wars. Popes, oh Popes. Do I even need to get there?     

Well, at some point this gets out of hand. And this has some bad and good consequences. Scholars and writers produce a crazy kind of scepticism.  For example every thing about Ancient Roman History gets dismissed. One by one everything. Starting with 'what would Vercingetorix say about the war, if he had written a journal' to 'did Caesar even exist?' 

For 200 years it is a mess. (Until Ranke) History is just seen as 'Romans' and written as 'Romans'. (Romance) For the first time in history, history gets into a real crisis, I mean one that close to what we understand as a crisis in the field today. Because during that period all that made up bullshit showed people that everything could be made up and how would they know? It also provided them a different view of the world and they learned to look at sovereigns and monarchs from distance and see their deeds differently. It's also when people start to question biblical texts or lives of Saints.

And this^ is a fraction of history making. Early modern Europe is soo fucked up and really good, lol.

Something called 'criticism' was born. And it was born from revealing forgery as in created historical documents. Oh the mess. Well, the French! LOL Descartes did collapse the grand narrative of humanist history. And then after him, Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard did a similar thing for us.

Long story short, there is no way of knowing some thing real, healthy about a historical figure we surely know that existed and left tons of stuff a few  hundred years ago, let alone a real human inspiration for a god figure who is supposedly lived 2000 years ago, in a land of thounsands of gods and beliefs where every corner has/had some sort of a legend of a coming saviour at the time. It's just not possible imo.


Modern history is very good at filtering them, yes. But it is also very harsh about what is defined as historical and mythical, exactly because of those myths, legends and crisis' they constantly created in different periods between history and fiction. The question alone can't pass in a modern field, it is not a question of history. It is a matter of faith. Because it doesn't matter if he existed or not. It's belief. I don't want to sound like an ass, I get your curiosity, but the kind of historians after these kind of quests are one step away from Dan Brown. 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 07, 2019, 12:55:59 PM
Psychology? No!

Why do we need psychology for the Real Jesus Quest?

No real Jesus of course.  The idea of having a Real Jesus Quest ... is circular logic, it presupposes what it wants to demonstrate.  This is the central weakness of the Jesus Seminar, though that group and their associates are more "realist" than regular Christian apologetics.  The very basis of early Christian experience, we have the Didache.  Crossan gives a good description, in one of his books, of what the Pauline community was like in context.

There can be no anthropology without psychology, it is collective psychology.  The beginning of a whole section of scholarship ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

Without an academic knowledge of folk medicine and shamanism how can one understand the healing stories?  It isn't enough to simply dismiss anything other than JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).  One has to understand ancient people from within their own Zeitgeist.  Without Kabbalah/Gnosis ... how can one understand the NT?  Well, for some people, they have no desire to understand the NT.  That is fine.  But then they go on and attack those who do.  This is anti-theism.

Quote from: fredd47 on August 06, 2019, 07:55:20 PM
  I would like to recommend two books by former Christian biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman

"Misquoting Jesus" which explains why claiming inerrancy  for the New Testament is not supportable. Hint:  until the fifteenth century and Gutenberg's printing press, all books were 'published' by being copied by hand. Simple errors occurred, plus some scribes would deliberately leave out bits or insert bits. I was astounded to learn, that in those times, it was common that a scribe would be illiterate.IE he could copy what  he saw, but could not read or understand it.

The other is " Did Jesus Exist?" . I've only just started reading this book, but it's promising. Ehrman argues the affirmative .

My own position is;   First century Judea was neck deep in wandering Rabbis. The Romans crucified literally thousands of Jews during Roman occupation. So, it's possible, even likely, that there was a rabbi called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf, that he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified for sedition. For the sake of argument I accept that Jesus existed.

What became the New Testament, and the religion called "Christianity" has little or nothing to do with poor Yeshua bar Yusuf . The book is the mythology of Christianity. Virtually all revered holy books are mythology, not history, imo.

Reference ; "Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bÉ'ːrt ˈɜːrmÉ™n/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Somewhere on YouTube there's a debate between Carrier and Ehrman on the historicity question.  I can't say Carrier convinced me there wasn't a Jesus, but Ehrman definitely failed to convince me there was.  The entire basis for Ehrman's argument was essentially, "Well, we have the bible, therefore there was some sort of Jesus about whom the New Testament was written," which is about on par with saying, "Well, we have the entire Rowling collection, therefore there was some teenaged wizard about whom they were written."

Actually, you could make a better case for Harry Potter on those terms -- those books are a lot more internally consistent.

In any case, I'm not convinced there was no historical Jesus... but neither am I convinced there was, and I'm not sure how much it matters anyway since most churches actually follow the (purported) writings of Paul than the (purported) teachings of Jesus.

Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2019, 03:56:18 PM
No real Jesus of course.  The idea of having a Real Jesus Quest ... is circular logic, it presupposes what it wants to demonstrate.  This is the central weakness of the Jesus Seminar, though that group and their associates are more "realist" than regular Christian apologetics.  The very basis of early Christian experience, we have the Didache.  Crossan gives a good description, in one of his books, of what the Pauline community was like in context.

There can be no anthropology without psychology, it is collective psychology.  The beginning of a whole section of scholarship ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

Without an academic knowledge of folk medicine and shamanism how can one understand the healing stories?  It isn't enough to simply dismiss anything other than JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).  One has to understand ancient people from within their own Zeitgeist.  Without Kabbalah/Gnosis ... how can one understand the NT?  Well, for some people, they have no desire to understand the NT.  That is fine.  But then they go on and attack those who do.  This is anti-theism.

NO. Anthropology is based on facts. Understanding 'varities of religious experience' and its effects on people does not require 'psychology'. If you mean social psychology that deals ends with the individual.

Anthropology doesn't work that way. Archeology doesn't work that way. History doesn't work that way.

Understanding a belief does not require to believe in it; support or attack it. On the contrary, anthropologists often get attacked by ignorant people because the field does not define ANY culture, as 'good or bad' does not matter how abhorrent practices they have according to our understanding. E: By the way this is the exact reason why right wingers keep attacking specifically cultural history, anthropology in general. They hate it with a vengeance. Because it puts them and all those savages in the same place as a culture. LOL 

The scientific method, rationality, basic reasoning do not need psychology to work. That's why they work.

Apart from all that, I do not accept psychology as a scientific discipline. Because there isn't such definition of a scientific field that in 'some ways' scientific and in 'some ways' not. That doesn't mean people don't need it or that accomplishes nothing once in a while. It's human mind and activity which means countless variables... it is bound to get it right more than it actually is. It's Homo Sapiens... ffs.   

     

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 07, 2019, 12:13:51 PM
I didn't read the books or watched the videos. But I don't get why people keep looking into history as a discipline; historical events, historical evidence for this. Invalid. It's ridiculous. It's like 'lets play Indiana Jones without the guns'. Anthropology would provide the best approach.

Humans created gods and religions for many reasons -which anthropology explains- and also created middlemen.

When people think about the questions of 'Did Moses or Jesus really exist?' they start with an accumulation of a specific information provided by some sources, first religious text and then try to find historcial ones to support them.

To me the most important problem is that when belief is the subject, they start with already defined characters.

However, if you start with the idea that we actually have zero information about these figures, the evolutions of societies humans created throughout history, would only leave blanks for collective characters of a certain type. That's why Moses is a collective version of hundreds of clan chiefs and ancient deities. When that figure expired, you get Jesus, another figure who is a collective figure of different gods and characters.

There is only a few human characters and a certain set of parables -imagined as their lives- to go around. Abrahamic prophets are all different veersions of few male characters.

You know that how people who believe in horoscopes keep insisting, how good their sign fits them or not exactly because of some effect or this and that? Every one of these people count some human characteristics with different combinations, as if they are uniquely different from each other and talk about how true it is.

And then when you tell them that there are only several basic human characteristics to go around and all these signs are the same bullshit with expressions of different aspects and that of course every body fits in them because there is nothing else to fit in!

Anyway, you get what I mean. So these characters are like horoscopes signs a bit. They are all like each other, but different aspects of a male human roles, -some times deity parts added- is emphasized in each one. 

But trying to look for 'historical' Moses or Jesus, asking if they really existed is like asking an atheist 'Could "the real god" convert you?' Because that 'historical' actually means what kind of a man was the real Jesus, did he really said that, did these...? It's not a valid, reasonable question. It's a quest for faith, not for history.

Why don't you ask the real god?

I repeat your entire post because it is so good...

I would not have explained it that way (because you are you and I am I), but I appreciated it completely.  And so much of it (and maybe all) is true to what we know about human cultural developement.

I've now spent most of my life trying to explain that religions follow human advancement rather than the reverse.  IOW,  in tribes, it was very important not to "covet".  Early humans had to have lived in groups that shared all food and skills.  Any leader would have been only slightly more skilled than the others and more of a first among equals.  A ribal member who took what was used by others would have been a problem.

As humans collected to larger groups, the conflicts would have been greater, so more rules were needed.  We can't say exactly where religion first developed,.  Thunder, lightening, fires, and earthquakes are good possibilities for spirits to perform.  But those wouldn't have initially connected to ethical group rules.  Local disasters would suggest that you had to fear things, but not especially perform any rituals.

I do think that, at some point, pre-scientific peoples, did conclude there were Powers to be propitiated.  "FEAR ME, THE SKY POWER SAID, maybe.  But that doesn't explain why some male leader wouldn't want the fertile women for himself, why you shouldn't take the neighbors crops, or why you should care for your decrepit elders.   Those aren't really religious concerns.

But those ARE matters that would concern any large collection of people living together whether they had a religion or not.  A large group of ancient atheists in one village would have had the same concerns as a village of profoundly religious people across the valley.

6 of the 10 generally judeo-christian commandments have little to do with a deity and much to do with getting alonh in human societies...

5. “Honor your father and your mother.
6. “You shall not murder.
7. “You shall not commit adultery.
8. “You shall not steal.
9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

I think it is obvious, for that reason alone, that religious texts follow rather than precede human ideas of how to get along.  We humans developed those ideas on our own as we advanced.  I'll add that since they make sense to the religious and non-religious alike they are (by definition) "not religious".

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 10:45:26 AM

The problem with Carrier is that he assigns probabilities to historical events out of his ass. For Bayes theorem to work you need to know the probability of an outcome. Example: the probability of getting heads on tossing a fair coin is one-half. That's not a guess but a fact. In the case of Carrier, he takes a guess of what is the probability that Jesus resurrected. No matter what number you use, already Bayes theorem will give you a false result. It's a total misuse of the theorem if the input is not back by research, observation or a study of a large group giving you a meaningful stats - example: % of non-believers in the US is 22.8, from the latest survey. What you get is William Lane Craig doing the same as Carrier and comes up with a high probability that Jesus did resurrect.   Both Carrier and Craig are just playing a game of bullshit.

I had to read up on Bayes theorem, and I don't see how his testing ideas apply to religion.  Of all matters of human thought, religion surely has the fewest facts to consider. 

Quote from: trdsf on August 08, 2019, 02:24:27 AM
Somewhere on YouTube there's a debate between Carrier and Ehrman on the historicity question.  I can't say Carrier convinced me there wasn't a Jesus, but Ehrman definitely failed to convince me there was.  The entire basis for Ehrman's argument was essentially, "Well, we have the bible, therefore there was some sort of Jesus about whom the New Testament was written," which is about on par with saying, "Well, we have the entire Rowling collection, therefore there was some teenaged wizard about whom they were written."

Actually, you could make a better case for Harry Potter on those terms -- those books are a lot more internally consistent.

In any case, I'm not convinced there was no historical Jesus... but neither am I convinced there was, and I'm not sure how much it matters anyway since most churches actually follow the (purported) writings of Paul than the (purported) teachings of Jesus.

I like the basic thrust of your post, but given that the burden of proof is with those who claim a deity, I would say that the logical debate conclusion is very in favor of there not being one.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 08, 2019, 03:56:25 AM
NO. Anthropology is based on facts. Understanding 'varities of religious experience' and its effects on people does not require 'psychology'. If you mean social psychology that deals ends with the individual.

Anthropology doesn't work that way. Archeology doesn't work that way. History doesn't work that way.

Understanding a belief does not require to believe in it; support or attack it. On the contrary, anthropologists often get attacked by ignorant people because the field does not define ANY culture, as 'good or bad' does not matter how abhorrent practices they have according to our understanding. E: By the way this is the exact reason why right wingers keep attacking specifically cultural history, anthropology in general. They hate it with a vengeance. Because it puts them and all those savages in the same place as a culture. LOL 

The scientific method, rationality, basic reasoning do not need psychology to work. That's why they work.

Apart from all that, I do not accept psychology as a scientific discipline. Because there isn't such definition of a scientific field that in 'some ways' scientific and in 'some ways' not. That doesn't mean people don't need it or that accomplishes nothing once in a while. It's human mind and activity which means countless variables... it is bound to get it right more than it actually is. It's Homo Sapiens... ffs.   

   

Unfortunately this is incoherent, as I find many of your posts.  I suggest you outline next time, or don't write while drinking ;-)

You seem to have a political-economic ideology and work backward from that to rationalize your conclusions.  Whatever names one gives it.

Your commitment to Plato seems total.  And that much is consistent with your Plato's Republic version of society, so popular with intellectuals and authoritarians of all types.

Quote from: trdsf on August 08, 2019, 02:24:27 AM
Actually, you could make a better case for Harry Potter on those terms -- those books are a lot more internally consistent.

Are you sure? I've never seen textual criticism of Harry Potter, but you're probably right...



:-P

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:26:24 PM
Are you sure? I've never seen textual criticism of Harry Potter, but you're probably right...



:-P

We can interview J K Rowling, one of the richest women in the world.  If you can't believe her then ... EXPELIESMUS!

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:26:24 PM
Are you sure? I've never seen textual criticism of Harry Potter, but you're probably right...
:-P

There were "BOOKS"?  j/k

But there probably is a college course on the books somewhere.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 02:29:29 PM
There were "BOOKS"?  j/k

But there probably is a college course on the books somewhere.

It is called the English Literature department

Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 06:19:45 AM
Unfortunately this is incoherent, as I find many of your posts.  I suggest you outline next time, or don't write while drinking ;-)

You seem to have a political-economic ideology and work backward from that to rationalize your conclusions.  Whatever names one gives it.

Your commitment to Plato seems total.  And that much is consistent with your Plato's Republic version of society, so popular with intellectuals and authoritarians of all types.

Baruch, if you want communication, move forward. Stop throwing remarks out of your ass on nationality, ideology or 'we are about to declare war on you, do you know that', 'are you drunk' remarks. You are babbling in the worst way.

I get that you are forced to retire and you feel useless. It's life, get over it.   

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 08, 2019, 03:15:58 PM
Baruch, if you want communication, move forward. Stop throwing remarks out of your ass on nationality, ideology or 'we are about to declare war on you, do you know that', 'are you drunk' remarks. You are babbling in the worst way.

I get that you are forced to retire and you feel useless. It's life, get over it.

You mostly aren't communicating ... you are stating Cultural Marxist positions.  Which is fine.

You aren't my Mommy either.

You yourself have admitted in the recent past, to "drunk posting".  If you are sober now, good for you.  I'll drink to that!

Yes, it may be necessary, for the US to remove Erdogan, since your military failed to do so.  I hope not.

Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 04:06:23 PM
You mostly aren't communicating ... you are stating Cultural Marxist positions.  Which is fine.

You aren't my Mommy either.

You yourself have admitted in the recent past, to "drunk posting".  If you are sober now, good for you.  I'll drink to that!

Yes, it may be necessary, for the US to remove Erdogan, since your military failed to do so.  I hope not.

Doesn't change that my statement is correct. You changed dramatically. What a cliché, Baruch? An old man gets bitter because he retires and feels useles. 

I am OK with your right wing bullshit, all your thorah prophecies, mumbo jumbo. Not with that. Don't be that ordinary. That's irritating me to no end. That would rot a man. It's worse than death. 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 08, 2019, 04:49:12 PM
Doesn't change that my statement is correct. You changed dramatically. What a cliché, Baruch? An old man gets bitter because he retires and feels useles. 

I am OK with your right wing bullshit, all your thorah prophecies, mumbo jumbo. Not with that. Don't be that ordinary. That's irritating me to no end. That would rot a man. It's worse than death.

I don't get the "Your not my Mommy/Daddy" stuff either.  I think we have a Board Member struggling with a problem...  He's not even who he was last year.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
I don't get the "Your not my Mommy/Daddy" stuff either.  I think we have a Board Member struggling with a problem...  He's not even who he was last year.

Nagging patriarchal people.  You don't have an argument, you have a carbuncle.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:26:24 PM
Are you sure? I've never seen textual criticism of Harry Potter, but you're probably right...

Well, there is Harry Potter and the Sacred Text (https://www.harrypottersacredtext.com), where they apply the same sort of study methods to the Potter books that religious scholars do to the bible and other religious texts, hosted by three people from/with the Harvard Divinity School...

Quote from: trdsf on August 11, 2019, 07:28:05 PM
Well, there is Harry Potter and the Sacred Text (https://www.harrypottersacredtext.com), where they apply the same sort of study methods to the Potter books that religious scholars do to the bible and other religious texts, hosted by three people from/with the Harvard Divinity School...

I once had to explain to my aging becoming-demented Dad that there were "archeologists" who lookied for information to form some ideas about what they found (where ever it took them) and "biblical archeologists" who searched for any evidence they could make support the christian bible.

And even in his diminished state, he generally grasped that idea.  So what amazes me is that more compos mentos people don't.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 04:50:51 AM
So what amazes me is that more compos mentos people don't.

They just ignore or explain away any information that doesn't fit their preferred worldview.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 03:05:18 PM
They just ignore or explain away any information that doesn't fit their preferred worldview.

Univ of Cali at Berkeley?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 03:05:18 PM
They just ignore or explain away any information that doesn't fit their preferred worldview.

That's the non compos mentos part.  Rather standard for theists.  ;)

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 05:49:06 PM
I don't get the "Your not my Mommy/Daddy" stuff either.  I think we have a Board Member struggling with a problem...  He's not even who he was last year.

He was an accident waiting to happen.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 05:46:09 AM
He was an accident waiting to happen.

"Was" is tricky since he is still around.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 08, 2019, 04:49:12 PM
Doesn't change that my statement is correct. You changed dramatically. What a cliché, Baruch? An old man gets bitter because he retires and feels useles. 

I am OK with your right wing bullshit, all your thorah prophecies, mumbo jumbo. Not with that. Don't be that ordinary. That's irritating me to no end. That would rot a man. It's worse than death.

Actually, starting on a whole new phase of life.  I will let the curmudgeons here curmudgeon.

Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2019, 12:02:28 AM
Actually, starting on a whole new phase of life.  I will let the curmudgeons here curmudgeon.

If you are rearranging your life, I think that would be a Good Thing for you!  I think you need a new start.

I actually want you to have a better life.  I just don't think it is here.  I've told you several times I think you have more to offer to the world than you typically show.  But if you want to discuss it as you change it, you know how to reach me.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 12:10:15 AM
If you are rearranging your life, I think that would be a Good Thing for you!  I think you need a new start.

I actually want you to have a better life.  I just don't think it is here.  I've told you several times I think you have more to offer to the world than you typically show.  But if you want to discuss it as you change it, you know how to reach me.

Sorry Uncle Donald, you quack me up.

Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2019, 12:13:37 AM
Sorry Uncle Donald, you quack me up.

Well, you said it yourself.  I offerred a friendly shoulder to talk to.  And still do.  I like you better than you think I do.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 12:18:00 AM
Well, you said it yourself.  I offerred a friendly shoulder to talk to.  And still do.  I like you better than you think I do.

We are similar, even if you don't like that.  Differences are not as big as you think.

Trust a person?  Hahaha ... but I hope you are doing well too.

Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2019, 12:33:32 AM
We are similar, even if you don't like that.  Differences are not as big as you think.

Trust a person?  Hahaha ... but I hope you are doing well too.

I understand our similarities.  And dissimilarities.  But you can always talk to me.  I'm kinder by email.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2019, 12:40:40 AM
I understand our similarities.  And dissimilarities.  But you can always talk to me.  I'm kinder by email.

Dear Abby? ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2019, 12:54:21 AM
Dear Abby? ;-)

More like "Hey Cavebear"

Jesus is a myth, and myths just never die.

Quote from: Gregory on March 05, 2020, 09:37:59 PM
Jesus is a myth, and myths just never die.

That is why truth is greater than fact.  Truth is always mythical.

Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2020, 09:25:11 AM
That is why truth is greater than fact.  Truth is always mythical.

Myths are just more lies in reality.

Quote from: Gregory on March 06, 2020, 10:28:54 PM
Myths are just more lies in reality.

Lies are the most truthful things you can say.

Very Orwellian!  LOL

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 07, 2020, 01:36:59 PM
Very Orwellian!  LOL

We are all either Yahoos or Whynyms.

Take it to Rupert Murdoch.  He will give you a fair hearing.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:15:17 AM
Richard Carrier published a book a couple of years ago titled: On the Historicity of Jesus (Why we Might Have Reason for Doubt).  I read it when it was published and found it fascinating.  However, it is a long book (almost 700 pages) and very heavily footnoted--which I like.  Early on he established what is factually known about Christianity and Jesus broken down into units or elements of data.  There are 48 elements and each one is a statement of fact or knowledge that has been established and accepted as fact.  These may be disputed, but he indicates only by the most fanatical, but is generally accepted as established among most scholars.  So, I thought I'd list all these elements, one at a time and see if anyone has feedback about these elements. 

So, without much surprise, I'll start the listing with Element 1:

The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE.

Actually Jesus was a faithful Jew - he accepted the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures but rejected man-made traditions of groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees.  For example, from the Bible quoting Jesus:

Matthew 15:3-9 (new edition of NW) -

In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?+
4
For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’+ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of* his father or mother be put to death.’*
5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,”+
6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.+
7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said:+
8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me.
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”+

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 11:48:36 AM
I read the bible as a child, like I read the family encyclopedia and the dictionaries.  I caught on to the "Jesus as Santa Clause for adults" pretty quick.  But I was never sure.  I can only guess my age, but I think it was about 12, and decided that religious claims made no sense.  My parents never admitted their uncertainty and I had to get through the religious nonsense on my own. 

In retrospect, I understand that my parents were being carefully neutral.  And had they chosen a "side" I might be a very different person.  But my questioning of religion as "illogical" helped me through all my years after.  I made up my own mind.

Yes, most religions are illogical.  Like for example so-called Christians who go to war and yet are aware of Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew chapters 5 - 7) that we (true Christians) should love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) and are to learn war no more (Isaiah 2:2-4 -partially quoted on the 'Isaiah wall' of the U.N.).

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:43:22 AM
I sort of had it in mind to list these one a day.  But some are so short that I will move on more quickly than that.

Element 2:
When Christianity began. Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.  There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.  We know of at least ten competing sects,  possibly more than 30 and there could have easily been more.  .......................... No argument, therefore, can proceed from an assumption of any universally normative Judaism.

True Christianity started with Jesus Christ.   He followed what the Bible (only the Hebrew Scriptures were written before Jesus died) actually teaches and rejected the various traditions in various apostate Jewish groups like the Essenes (etc.).

Ironically, Gandhi (a Hindu) understood Jesus direction to love our enemies better than most so-called Christian religions,

Newtonian ... your apologetics are conventional.  I am affirmative of religion (uniquely here) because I see religion as a part of general culture, and I am humanist.  The epistemological objection (rationalization) to theism is a water tight argument.  People here helped me sharpen my theism, but didn't dissuade me from it.  Very frustrating for them.  But conventional apologetics won't make any headway.

What are your personal spiritual/religious experiences?  That is empirical.  The empirical trumps the pseudo-rational.  Theology is a weak defense of religion, as St Thomas Aquinas realized at the end of his life (when he finally had a genuine religious experience).  Of course St Francis of Assisi could of told him ... "hold my beer".

BTW time and experience have made me a mystic.  I would rather see the burning bush myself, than hear a story of a story of Moses seeing the burning bush.

Scriptural argument is common, and weak.  A book proves nothing.  Spiritual and religious experience may be dismissed, may be subjective ... but they are at least genuine.  I love books, including the Bible in the original languages, but that isn't what convinces me.  That is a hobby.

On this specific OP ... the historicity of Jesus is both an apologetic of Abrahamic religions (historical justification) and it is irrelevant to me.  Inspiring stories, but not hard justifications.  One has to recognize the indwelling of deity first, then the out-dwelling of deity is obvious.  But anti-humanism cuts that off at the root.  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-humanism in the ancient religious/political literature we call the Bible.  So no inerrency or infallibility for me.  And W Asian religious literature is too narrow, neglects the many other advanced cultures.

Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2020, 06:33:02 AM
Newtonian ... your apologetics are conventional.  I am affirmative of religion (uniquely here) because I see religion as a part of general culture, and I am humanist.  The epistemological objection (rationalization) to theism is a water tight argument.  People here helped me sharpen my theism, but didn't dissuade me from it.  Very frustrating for them.  But conventional apologetics won't make any headway.

What are your personal spiritual/religious experiences?  That is empirical.  The empirical trumps the pseudo-rational.  Theology is a weak defense of religion, as St Thomas Aquinas realized at the end of his life (when he finally had a genuine religious experience).  Of course St Francis of Assisi could of told him ... "hold my beer".

BTW time and experience have made me a mystic.  I would rather see the burning bush myself, than hear a story of a story of Moses seeing the burning bush.

Scriptural argument is common, and weak.  A book proves nothing.  Spiritual and religious experience may be dismissed, may be subjective ... but they are at least genuine.  I love books, including the Bible in the original languages, but that isn't what convinces me.  That is a hobby.

On this specific OP ... the historicity of Jesus is both an apologetic of Abrahamic religions (historical justification) and it is irrelevant to me.  Inspiring stories, but not hard justifications.  One has to recognize the indwelling of deity first, then the out-dwelling of deity is obvious.  But anti-humanism cuts that off at the root.  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-humanism in the ancient religious/political literature we call the Bible.  So no inerrency or infallibility for me.  And W Asian religious literature is too narrow, neglects the many other advanced cultures.

We believe the Bible is God's Word.   No human author could have known earth is hung in empty space upon nothing as Job 26:7 indicates, Job 26:10 that the terminator on earth is a circle, Isaiah 40:22 that earth is round and the heavens are expanding'

But more important - God is love (1 John 4:8) and the 2 greatest commandments in the Bible according to Jesus involve love (Matthew 22:37-40).   As does the new commandment in John 13:34.   Not to mention love for our enemies in Matthew 5:44.
What is life without love?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept Christendom's conventional beliefs.  (Of course, almost all human groups get some things correct)

We consider truth to be sacred, as in Jesus' prayer to Jehovah in John 17:17.

Go beyond that.  Don't just parrot a sect founder.  Seek to have your own genuine experiences.  Let them guide you.  You might not be ready for that yet.  You will either become a better JW, or travel beyond JW.  Either way you and the Holy Spirit win.

Quote from: Newtonian on March 16, 2020, 05:16:29 AM
Actually Jesus was a faithful Jew - he accepted the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures but rejected man-made traditions of groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees.  For example, from the Bible quoting Jesus:

Matthew 15:3-9 (new edition of NW) -

In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?+
4
For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’+ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of* his father or mother be put to death.’*
5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,”+
6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.+
7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said:+
8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me.
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”+

If you had read the entire thread dealing with the historicity of jesus, you'd see there is no proof (no proof, in case you can't figure that out, means none, zip, zero, not a shred of evidence that he existed) of his existence outside the bible.  And the bible, of course, is also a work of fiction.  There were over 100 writers of history working during his supposed time of life and not one mentioned him.  Not one!  You believe in a fiction--it would be like me insisting that Bugs Bunny was an actual creature and spouting his quotes as proof of his existence.  You, my friend, have been and are being mislead and lied to.   

The literary Jesus is the only Jesus we know from the Bible.  His orthodoxy or heterodoxy, orthopraxis or heteropraxis are debatable, because there is disagreement on what Judaism is.  Josephus reports there were 24 kinds of Judaism n the 1st century CE.  But I would support, that the idea that Jesus was anti-Jewish, or Gentile, are false narratives.

Quote from: Newtonian on March 16, 2020, 06:56:22 AM
We believe the Bible is God's Word.   No human author could have known earth is hung in empty space upon nothing as Job 26:7 indicates, Job 26:10 that the terminator on earth is a circle, Isaiah 40:22 that earth is round and the heavens are expanding'

That's cherry picking.  You then have to explain why the bible also claims that the Earth and plants were created before the sun, that pi is exactly 3, that the Earth has four corners and is covered by a hard ceiling called the firmament, and that if you go up a high enough tree (OT) or mountain (NT) you can see the entire Earth at once.

Alternately, why do you not revere H.G. Wells as a prophet for accurately predicting (deep breath) audiobooks, airplanes, television, email, nuclear proliferation, lasers and directed energy weapons, and genetic engineering.  In 1865, Jules Verne predicted lunar landings with surprising accuracy -- his lander was called the Columbiad (the actual first Lunar Command Module was the Columbia), weighed 20,000 pounds (the actual lander weighed 26,000) and cost $5.5 million in 1865 money -- worth $13 billion in 1969, and the cost of the Apollo XI mission was $16 billion.  Arthur C. Clarke reeled off a surprisingly accurate description of the Internet... in 1964.  Hell, in a story I myself wrote in 2002, I predicted the Higgs boson would be confirmed in 2012 -- and it was.

The reason is multifold.

First, there is the 'stopped clock' phenomenon, wherein if you make enough statements, some small number of them will happen to be correct simply by chance.

Second, there is 'confirmation bias': you can (and did) pick and choose events and knowledge that just happen to fit certain select passages -- and can choose to ignore factually inaccurate passages.

Third, you attribute this to the one thing that you wish to be true -- and as I've demonstrated, it's not the only source for predictions (aka "guesses") that happen to come true.

The practical upshot is that you cannot pick one source, trumpet its alleged accuracies, and ignore both its demonstrated inaccuracies, and other sources that had equal or even better predictive power.

It is as easy to shoot fish in a barrel, as to fish there in the first place.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 16, 2020, 09:03:24 AM
If you had read the entire thread dealing with the historicity of jesus, you'd see there is no proof (no proof, in case you can't figure that out, means none, zip, zero, not a shred of evidence that he existed) of his existence outside the bible.  And the bible, of course, is also a work of fiction.  There were over 100 writers of history working during his supposed time of life and not one mentioned him.  Not one!  You believe in a fiction--it would be like me insisting that Bugs Bunny was an actual creature and spouting his quotes as proof of his existence.  You, my friend, have been and are being mislead and lied to.

Why did you reject the historical evidence I posted about?   Please be specific.   For example Tacitus and Josephus.

Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2020, 09:44:00 AM
The literary Jesus is the only Jesus we know from the Bible.  His orthodoxy or heterodoxy, orthopraxis or heteropraxis are debatable, because there is disagreement on what Judaism is.  Josephus reports there were 24 kinds of Judaism n the 1st century CE.  But I would support, that the idea that Jesus was anti-Jewish, or Gentile, are false narratives.

Pretty simple really - Jesus accepted and followed what was/is written in the canon (39 books from Genesis to Malachi in KJV) of the Hebrew Scriptures but rejected man-made traditions and doctrines (as I quoted Jesus above) of many divisions of the Jewish religion which were practiced and taught as Jesus' time.

The Hebrew Scriptures teach the Jewish religion - the groups that violated Bible teachings with man-made traditions and doctrines were apostate Jews.   See Matthew 15:3-9 quoted above.

One of the apostate teachings that is still present in modern day Judaism is the failure to pronounce the Divine Name (H3068/Jehovah in English) and it has spread to Christendom in their Bible translations that remove God's name (found nearly 7,000 times in the original Hebrew Scriptures) and replaced it with Lord/LORD which is H113/adon & H136/adonay in Hebrew.

If you want to see the nearly 7,000 times KJV reads Lord from the above 3 Hebrew words, see Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as well as Strong's Hebrew dictionary which defines each word by Strong's numbers.

Quote from: Newtonian on March 17, 2020, 07:04:08 PM
Why did you reject the historical evidence I posted about?   Please be specific.   For example Tacitus and Josephus.

I didn't see that post--I'll have to look it up.  and then I'll reject it. :)

Newton, I still did not find your post regarding the 'facts' of Jesus.  But pushing forward, here is a snippet about Tacitus and his Annuals.

He gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 CE. He gives no source for his material. He says:

“”Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Chrestians. Their founder, one Chrstus had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.
Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[2]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.

Nowhere does the name "Jesus" appear.  Jesus' name was not Jesus Christ--Christ is not a name of a person but a designation to indicate a person was anointed into a particular office or position.  Tacitus wrote this long after your Jesus had died, anyway, and was probably simply repeating myth--at least part of what we now call the bible was in circulation then.  Tacitus was simply reporting rumors.

Newton, for your fun and edification--Josephus and his Testimonium:

Passage 1: the "Testimonium Flavianum"
In Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of the Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 93-94 CE), Josephus writes (Whiston’s translation):[2][3]

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works â€" a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]

Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger than 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 â€" ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 â€" ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 â€" ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 â€" ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 â€" ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 â€" 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 â€" 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 â€" 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth â€" both sets of accounts cannot be true.

Mike - appreciate you posts - I will respond another time (likely tomorrow) - please be patient.

trdf- On to the 3rd creative day - Genesis 1:9 (NW) -

Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”

So when dry land first appeared there was only one ocean.   Some scientists think at this time (whenever that was) most or all of earth's land were in one continent which later separated according to continental drift models.

The account then says land plants are created.   Note that the star we call Sun is a part of the heavens created initially in Genesis 1:1 but that earth was initially dark (Genesis 1:2) and then the terminator (a circular line - which means earth must be a sphere) was formed (likely first fuzzy).   

Some who read snippets from Genesis 1 without studying it Biblically and scientifically [remember my user name] think the sun was created after this - however, clearly the sun was created in the beginning.   (Note: the Hebrew definite article is not present in Genesis 1:1 - it can also be translated "in a beginning."

We do not know how the early earth's waters were being accreted for those milleniums or much longer.   But it may be that the 'belts' did not cover the entire earth but may have been somewhere between Venus and Saturn - i.e. belts but more massive than Saturn's rings.   At any rate, these belts either became more transparent or separated so that a clear disc of the sun began to appear - enough solar radiation for some plants.

[note this is abbreviated]

The 4th creative day - Genesis 1:14-19

Genesis 1:16,17 -

(NW) And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day+ and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.+ 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth

Note the preceding context refers to earth's atmosphere as 'heaven."   Simply, the sun, moon and stars appeared (gradually) in the sky - they had been created billions of years earlier.    Also note that the Hebrew imperfect verb state is being used = action in progress, not yet complete.

1984 NW reference edition for Gen.1:16 -

And God proceeded to make* the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.

"proceeded to make" is in the Hebrew imperfect verb state.   Also the Hebrew word for "make" is different than the Hebrew word for "created" in Genesis 1:1 - see our NW ref. footnote here:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060004/6

"Footnote
“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state. See App 3C."

OK, there is MUCH more, but I am tired (congestive heart failure = fatigue).   Please be patient, I will respond to your other 'cherries" later!

And all of which was beside the point anyway.  A historical Jeshua bar-Joseph is only that.  It proves nothing about his alleged divinity.  Roman, Chinese and Japanese emperors, Inca rulers, and Egyptian pharaohs were all worshiped as gods -- and there's a lot more historical evidence for most of them than there is for Jesus.  For that matter, Prince Philip of England is worshiped as a god by a cargo cult in Vanuatu and Mother Theresa is worshiped as a Hindu goddess by some people in Kolkata -- and I know she exists, I shook hands with her.

Mere existence is not proof of divinity.

Wow, what epic nonsense.  Genesis 1:16 clearly states that's when the sun and moon were supposedly created; Genesis 1:10-12 clearly talks about the creation of the earth and plants.

You are not a literalist, you are engaged in interpretation.

Another aspect to this bibical interpretation and trying to divine the first author's intent or words.  Is that not a strange way for a Creator of the Universe to be acting?  I mean, he creates the universe and then this world and it's people.  Since he knows all and can see all, surely he knows the languages of his creation.  Why, it would be such an easy thing for him to create his 'word' in all the languages that are and will be and to then sprinkle them around the areas those people would be.  And to word his 'word' in such a way as to be obvious his intent.  Yet that did not happen.  If, for example, a bible was found in say, Brazil written in the native language and another in China written in their native language and another in Germany written in their native language all dating to roughly the same time frame, I would believe there was/is a god and would follow that 'word' to the letter. 

But what do we have now?  If one were to assign a different color to each and every religion of the world and then reflect that on a globe, we would have a globe of patches of different colors.  So, the geographical place of birth is the greatest determiner of one's religion--not the content or message of the religions of the world.  It is easy to see that religion is a product of ones geography and not any particular message.  It is clearly man made. 

If Jesus was a real person, what of it?  He's dead now.

Quote from: Gregory on March 18, 2020, 12:21:14 AM
If Jesus was a real person, what of it?  He's dead now.

No he's not--he's alive in heaven. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 18, 2020, 10:36:24 AM
No he's not--he's alive in heaven.

Scottsdale AZ ... damn!

Quote from: Newtonian on March 17, 2020, 09:06:22 PM


Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”

and then states there was water above the firmament and water below.
Fact is the babble says the sky is water. No two ways about it.
Once the first bullshit is exposed the rest is ignored as the same. The babble is exactly that....babble.

Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2020, 11:15:53 AM
and then states there was water above the firmament and water below.
Fact is the babble says the sky is water. No two ways about it.
Once the first bullshit is exposed the rest is ignored as the same. The babble is exactly that....babble.

Humpty Dumpty was an English-Irish lord, not an egg.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 17, 2020, 08:27:58 PM
Newton, for your fun and edification--Josephus and his Testimonium:

Passage 1: the "Testimonium Flavianum"
In Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of the Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 93-94 CE), Josephus writes (Whiston’s translation):[2][3]

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works â€" a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]

Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph, cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Duke University Professor E.P. Sanders, a New Testament scholar, argues that the uninterpolated Josephus said that Jesus died by crucifixion[11]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[12][13][14] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[15] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger than 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[16]
Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[17]
Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 â€" ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 â€" ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 â€" ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 â€" ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 â€" ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 â€" 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 â€" 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 â€" 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[18]
Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[19][20] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[21]
Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[22][23]
"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]
Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[25] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth â€" both sets of accounts cannot be true.

This is why I said one of the Josephus quotes is considered spurious by some - as our literature pointed out.   I posted other evidence on this.  What do you think of those points and why?

A good link summarizing some of the historical evidence is found in our article entitled "Did Jesus really exist?" - here:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102016164?q=Tacitus&p=par

This includes Tacitus; Suetonius, Pliny the younger, a different quote of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200.), and the Talmud.

I hope to post more research from the Jewish (anti-Jesus) toledot Yeshu.  Here is one link I will be studying:

https://judaic.princeton.edu/about-us/resources/toledot-yeshu

An excerpt:

"The Book of the Life of Jesus (in Hebrew Sefer Toledot Yeshu) presents a chronicle of Jesus from a negative and anti-Christian perspective. It ascribes to Jesus an illegitimate birth, a theft of the Ineffable Name, heretic activities, and finally, a disgraceful death. Perhaps for centuries, the Toledot Yeshu circulated orally until it coalesced into various literary forms. Although the dates of these written compositions remain obscure, some early hints of a Jewish counter history of Jesus can be found in the works of Christian authors of Late Antiquity, such as Justin, Celsus, and Tertullian. Around 600 CE, some fragments of Jesus’ biography made their way into the Babylonian Talmud; and in 827, the archbishop Agobard of Lyon attests to a sacrilegious story of Jesus that circulated among Jews."

One of the charges of Jesus' Jewish enemies was that Jesus uttered the "ineffable name."   This charge is true, as attested to in John 17:6,26.   The Divine Name is found nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures including the Psalms which were sacred songs sung by faithful Jews - clearly faithful Jews uttered the Divine Name - but apostate Jews considered this to be blasphemous!

This is a Jewish thing, arguing over copies of old books, that are copies of copies, not originals.  The Christians and Muslims took it up from them.  But direct experience of G-d is the thing.  When you meet a poor person, a prisoner, the indigent .. do you react with courtesy and support?  Jesus clearly states this principle. Jesus didn't argue over texts.  When you treat those people well, people who don't deserve it (social stigma) then you are god-like to them.

Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2020, 11:15:53 AM
and then states there was water above the firmament and water below.
Fact is the babble says the sky is water. No two ways about it.
Once the first bullshit is exposed the rest is ignored as the same. The babble is exactly that....babble.

The sky is water?   Who teaches that?  The visible sky involves earth's atmosphere which was between the waters above and below.

Not anymore, btw.   This was in earlier stages of the accretion of water by planet earth. 

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2020, 06:07:52 PM
This is a Jewish thing, arguing over copies of old books, that are copies of copies, not originals.  The Christians and Muslims took it up from them.  But direct experience of G-d is the thing.  When you meet a poor person, a prisoner, the indigent .. do you react with courtesy and support?  Jesus clearly states this principle. Jesus didn't argue over texts.  When you treat those people well, people who don't deserve it (social stigma) then you are god-like to them.

First of all, there are more ancient manuscripts of the Bible than for any other ancient book.

Secondly - have you researched manuscript family genealogy?   Or how careful the copyists were?   There are specific minor errors which carried down to copies of those copies.   By studying these we can trace the origin/original. 

When all of the thousands of manuscripts agree, we can be sure of the original.  it does help, btw, that Jesus and his followers quoted the Hebrew Scriptures in the Christian Greek Scriptures but usually from the Greek Septuagint translation which was made in the 2nd century BCE.

An example is the removal of the Divine name which is found in the original Hebrew nearly 7,000 times.   The Septuagint after the 3rd century CE have Greek kyrios/lord substituting for the Divine Name.   However, all manuscripts of the LXX (= Septuagint) from before and during Jesus' time have the Divine Name - usually written in Hebrew.

Note: many Bible names contain the Divine Name in either the prefix or suffix.   The long form prefix Jeho (e.g. Jehoshua) and the shorter forms Je (In Jesus, Jeshua) and Jo (in Joshua and John) are examples.   The last letters of Jehovah are in many Bible names ending in "ah" like Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Bible is irrelevant for religion.  Same as the Quran and other scriptures.  If G-d is alive, here and now, well and good.  If G-d was alive in the past or will be alive in the future, then G-d is irrelevant.  Really religious people make this common mistake.  Scripture can inspire, particularly for the bibliolaters.  But giving water to a man with thirst ... that is G-d in person.  And anyone can do this, even the atheists.

Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 06:58:20 PM
The sky is water?   Who teaches that?  The visible sky involves earth's atmosphere which was between the waters above and below.

Not anymore, btw.   This was in earlier stages of the accretion of water by planet earth. 

LOL. More bullshit “interpretation. The babble says what it says no matter what you “think” it says. More proof of the incompetence of you “almighty god. At least find a god that that is...you know...a real god.

Myth is fiction.  History is fact.  (The postmodern might dispute this point, even though, together, they make a mess.)

Jesus preached this, but it is often overlooked.  You are God.

Quote from: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 10:50:57 AM
Myth is fiction.  History is fact.  (The postmodern might dispute this point, even though, together, they make a mess.)

As a post-post modern everything is a fact ;-)  For example, that James Joyce wrote Ulysses is a fact, but the content is fiction.  Fact and fiction sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G ...

Quote from: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 10:55:10 AM
Jesus preached this, but it is often overlooked.  You are God.

Y'all are divine ... not the same.  But you have to be a mystic to get this.

You don't really have to be a mystic to get it.

Quote from: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 11:23:57 AM
You don't really have to be a mystic to get it.

G-d gets it ... but that is cheating ;-))