News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

Started by Mike Cl, October 04, 2017, 11:15:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

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).
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

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).
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

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).
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Mike Cl

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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?