Be sad again. I've shown no such thing. I am exposing to public mockery all this numerological stuff that you can measure probabilities like 33% and 1% that only total nutcases would argue, using irrelevant formulae dreamed up for other purposes. It makes idiots think the arguments are sound, cos they see numbers. Wow!
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Max,
I think the point is that noting the possibility of cargo cult origin doesn't bring anything closer to an historical narrative of how that happened specifically.
A portion of what satisfies historical propositions is the ability to produce some understandable sequence of events from the starting point to the ending point.
Our starting point is before, say, 10 BCE and our ending point is roughly 2nd c CE.
Between these ranges we have a giant blur needing clarity.
So accepting the cargo cult hypothesis, how did it specifically occur...where did it start, when, why, by whom (which culture or province), where do each of the texts fit along this timeline and what does the cargo cult hypothesis propositions regarding where, when, why, and who tell us about where, when, why and who regarding the production of the texts?
It doesn't mean the idea is wrong or right if this cannot be done; it just means that it is an incomplete historical hypothesis.
I think the point is that noting the possibility of cargo cult origin doesn't bring anything closer to an historical narrative of how that happened specifically.
A portion of what satisfies historical propositions is the ability to produce some understandable sequence of events from the starting point to the ending point.
Our starting point is before, say, 10 BCE and our ending point is roughly 2nd c CE.
Between these ranges we have a giant blur needing clarity.
So accepting the cargo cult hypothesis, how did it specifically occur...where did it start, when, why, by whom (which culture or province), where do each of the texts fit along this timeline and what does the cargo cult hypothesis propositions regarding where, when, why, and who tell us about where, when, why and who regarding the production of the texts?
It doesn't mean the idea is wrong or right if this cannot be done; it just means that it is an incomplete historical hypothesis.
Last edited:
Then Worsley is a fool for using such tendentious language. The point at issue is not any claims about a "Christ" but whether there was a really existing Jesus.Not It was Peter Worsley NOT Carrier who stated "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." Get your references right.
The Historical Christ hypothesis? Come off it. You think I am arguing "belief in Christ"? Balderdash. You know better!
Arrant nonsense, your quote from Worsley.
Yes, that was indeed my point. Thanks.
It's like trying to find the causes of WWI and being presented with the answer: "Guns" - It doesn't answer anything.
Again, you write fiction.
You do not understand Bayes theorem of probability at all.
I am extremely happy that you mention "idiots".
You claim your Paul had Auditory Hallucinations and may have been OFF his nut in reality [ a nut case in reality].
1. A writer of Galatians claimed he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT flesh and blood.
2. A writer of Galatians claimed he was a Witness that God was raised Jesus from the dead.
The writer appears to have been a LIAR or an IDIOT.
The Pauline writer appears to have been trying to impress IDIOTS.
Are you impressed by Galatians 1.19?
The Pauline writer was either a Liar or an IDIOT based on Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Eusebius and fragments of Papias.
Now, the very passage you referenced does mention "the underwhelming recent efforts of Casey and Ehrman (whose key arguments revolved around non-existing sources and illogically-derived and questionable early source dates)".
The HJ argument is dead out of the water.
The HJ argument is WITHOUT evidence.
Last edited:
Seriously, where is this style of debate effective?
Who do you think will be convinced by this aggressive obnoxiousness?
I know what Carrier is up to, and it's described here.
I'm very relieved to learn that, because when I describe the credulity of simpletons in face of transparent numerological tricks that give specious authority to flawed arguments, I mention "idiots" very often. So you're going to be in a state of ecstasy.
ETA Read also this very useful article. https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/probability-theory-introductio/
Last edited:
Many of these questions are answered in the some 48 elements Carrier presents in OHJ (Elements 1-22 are just on Christianity itself with Elements 23-48 regarding context) and which I have presented here. A recap of the Cliff notes of those Elements seems to be in order:
Element 2: "Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but countless array of different Jewish beliefs systems vying for popularity."
"Element 5: Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one other messiahs heralding the end time would actually be killed, rather then be immediately victorious, and this would mare the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon after." - Carrier OHJ pg 73
Element 8: "(a) Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from God about the coming messiah, in both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint (and beyond see Element 9)"
Element 9: "What in the early first century were considered the inspired scriptures of God consisted of a larger network of texts then we have in the OT, including tests outside the canon and texts that no longer exist and also variants of texts that no longer exist... Jewish authorities did no establish a canon until the second century CE, so no actual 'Old Testament' existed at the dawn of Christianity, just a sea of scriptures, from which different sect selected their own collections."
Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.
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 one in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning (see Element 14)
Elements 13 and 14 are ridiculously long (108-124) but Carrier provides a lot of evidence for these two.
"Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult in which many of its leaders and members displayer evidence of schizotypal personalities."
Stepping away from Carrier for a moment as I pointed out before what we have of other movements form the this period and region indicates the level of detail we can expect to find. For some of these would be Messiahs we don't even have names even when they led armies.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
I'm sorry if I am not grasping correctly, but where in those elements is the description of how the group of element 11 formed, how they formed around a "Frumian" Jesus, how the "Frumian" Jesus came to be, and how the following group or culture came to ingest their belief?
Again, you write fiction.
You do not understand Bayes theorem of probability at all.
I am extremely happy that you mention "idiots".
You claim your Paul had Auditory Hallucinations and may have been OFF his nut in reality [ a nut case in reality].
1. A writer of Galatians claimed he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT flesh and blood.
2. A writer of Galatians claimed he was a Witness that God was raised Jesus from the dead.
The writer appears to have been a LIAR or an IDIOT.
The Pauline writer appears to have been trying to impress IDIOTS.
Are you impressed by Galatians 1.19?
The Pauline writer was either a Liar or an IDIOT based on Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Eusebius and fragments of Papias.
Your statement actually refers to you. You repeat the same blatant obnoxious fiction although it can be seen that my style of debate have seriously affected you.
You must read my post.
Now, just as I expected you cannot present a shred of credible contemporary evidence for Jesus and Paul whom you call a Liar or a Con-man.
http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/review-richard-carrier2014.html
Well, Raphael Lataster has vindicated me.
It is now known that Ehrman's argument for an HJ is substandard which is based on Non-Existing evidence [fiction] and ILLOGICALLY derived dating of questionable sources.
It is INEVITABLE.
The HJ argument will be rejected as baseless, a "crank theory", a theory for which it was known that there was no known contemporary evidence from the very start.
Up to this day, NO-ONE can present credible contemporary historical data for Jesus and Paul.
All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus and Paul riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, FAITH and Falsehood.
You do not understand Bayes theorem of probability at all.
I am extremely happy that you mention "idiots".
You claim your Paul had Auditory Hallucinations and may have been OFF his nut in reality [ a nut case in reality].
1. A writer of Galatians claimed he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT flesh and blood.
2. A writer of Galatians claimed he was a Witness that God was raised Jesus from the dead.
The writer appears to have been a LIAR or an IDIOT.
The Pauline writer appears to have been trying to impress IDIOTS.
Are you impressed by Galatians 1.19?
The Pauline writer was either a Liar or an IDIOT based on Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Eusebius and fragments of Papias.
Your statement actually refers to you. You repeat the same blatant obnoxious fiction although it can be seen that my style of debate have seriously affected you.
You must read my post.
Now, just as I expected you cannot present a shred of credible contemporary evidence for Jesus and Paul whom you call a Liar or a Con-man.
http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/review-richard-carrier2014.html
Well, Raphael Lataster has vindicated me.
It is now known that Ehrman's argument for an HJ is substandard which is based on Non-Existing evidence [fiction] and ILLOGICALLY derived dating of questionable sources.
It is INEVITABLE.
The HJ argument will be rejected as baseless, a "crank theory", a theory for which it was known that there was no known contemporary evidence from the very start.
Up to this day, NO-ONE can present credible contemporary historical data for Jesus and Paul.
All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus and Paul riddled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, FAITH and Falsehood.
Last edited:
You statement is completely erroneous. You have NO known Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion which mentions any character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Hellenistic Jews pre 70 CE.
We have the writings attributed to Philo and Josephus which covers the 1ST century and they do NOT mention any Judeo-Hellentistic mystry religion.
Please name the cult leader of any Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion?
Please identify the DEFINITE known Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion?
The Jesus cult of Christians started AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple or after c 70 CE by NON-Jews.
The Jesus cult of Christians were people who believed the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE because the Jews KILLED the Son of their OWN God.
Essentially, the supposed prophecy in Daniel MUST first come to pass BEFORE it is claimed the Messiah had already come.
This prophecy of Daniel is explained by many Apologetic writers like Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian.
The Fall of the Jewish Temple MUST precede the stories of Jesus and the Jesus cult of Christians.
This is EXACTLY what has happened.
At this present moment, 9th December 2014, ALL manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus and Paul are INDEED dated to the 2nd century or later and writings attributed to NON-Apologetics of the 1st century do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus.
I'm not asking for his "opinion". He was stating as a fact in capital letters, repeatedly insisting on it in post after post, that Galatians 1:17 says that others had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did. I asked him to just quote those two lines of Galatians 1:17 showing where it says that ... apparently he cannot do that. He had to be asked 6 or 7 times, and still he can't quote Galatians 1:17 at all.
As I have said here in the past - it may well be the case that elsewhere in the biblical writing it says that others had identified Jesus as the messiah before Paul. I don't know if it does or not. But if it does then that's fine, dejudge or anyone can just quote it.
So dejudge can quote any passage he likes because you don't know whether elsewhere it says or doesn't say that others had identified Jesus as the messiah before Paul. That's reasonable; but your previous message wasn't very pleasant, was it?
Vridar comments onCarrier's first 10 elements (Ten Elements of Christian Origin):
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. (pp. 65-6)
2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66)
3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.
(b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.
(c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)
4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.
(b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist.
(c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)
5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)
6. The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)
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 messianic fervour of the age.
(b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)
8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
(b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)
9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)
10. Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)
I should note I promoted the flip side of your question some time ago: Given all the possible candidates for a possible founder already out there that other Cargo Cults used (Johnson and Roosevelt for example) why did the natives of Tanna 'create' this John Frum character?
The same can be asked of the Luddites. Given how many people of that time felt their jobs were threatened by the new technology why was this need to create Ned Ludd rather then using some actual worker that lashed out?
Carrier touches on this very early on in OHJ: to help provide a focus of what were original various diverse but similar minded groups. In essence this mythical leader became a flag to rally around. The examples he gives are John Frum, Ned Ludd, and interestingly King Arthur.
Price called the Christ Jesus "a synthetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam". That comparison to Uncle Sam is key because despite the legend we know that Uncle Sam was NOT based on Samuel Wilson who became well known during the War of 1812 (March 24, 1810 journal entry by Isaac Mayo makes a reference to Uncle Sam as a name of the United States). So we know Samuel Wilson was plugged into and already existing Uncle Sam mythos which itself was a variation of the older "Brother Jonathan" mythology
Last edited:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. - Galatians 1:17 KJV
The closest thing I can see here is the "to them which were apostles before me" part and as a 1949 letter stating "origin of the [John Frum] movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago" shows that doesn't mean much. Also we need to remember that Paul is writing some 20 to 30 years after these events and his memories are likely colored by time.
Again, you confirm your hopeless illogical argument.
You give the baseless popular opinion that the existing 2nd century or later Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and that the Pauline writers were the the first to name Jesus the messiah WITHOUT quoting the passages that make such a statement in the Pauline Corpus.
You don't know if the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and do NOT have any Pauline letter dated to the 1st century yet is claiming that Paul was the first to name Jesus the messiah.
You don't know if gLuke or gJohn was composed before the Pauline Corpus yet is using 2nd century or later manuscripts for your illogically derived argument that those very 2nd century or later manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus were the first to name Jesus the messiah.
How bizarre!!!
Apologetic writers have ADMITTED that the Pauline writers knew gLuke .
In Galatians 1.17 it is claimed there were Apostles of Christ BEFORE a character Paul who also claimed to be an Apostle of Christ.
In Galatians 1 it is claimed that Paul PERSECUTED the Faith he now preached.
In Galatians 1 it is claimed that there were Churches in Christ who had NOT seen Paul.
Only a person who is void of logic will not ever be able to understand that Galatians 1.17 does show that it is claimed that there were Apostles in CHRIST BEFORE the Pauline writer.
The Apostles BEFORE Paul preached about CHRIST in Jerusalem for at least 3 years BEFORE Paul based on Galatians 1.18
Galatians 1
QUOTE the passage in the ENTIRE NT where the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.
Quote the passage in the ENTIRE NT where it is claimed the Pauline writer was the first to name Jesus the messiah.
You cannot do so.
In the Pauline Corpus and Galatians 1.17
1. There were Apostles in Christ BEFORE the Pauline writer.
2. There were Churches in Christ BEFORE the Pauline writer.
3. There were Scriptures of the CHRIST Before the Pauline writer.
4.The Pauline writer was the LAST to be seen of the Resurrected CHRIST AFTER over 500 persons.
In Galatians, Peter, James and John were the PILLARS of the Churches IN CHRIST of Jerusalem.
In Galatians, the Churches in CHRIST of Judea did NOT ever see the Pauline writer until at least THREE years after his Revelation.
There is no story at all in any manuscript or Codex where it is claimed Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin was the first to name Jesus the Messian.
It is the complete opposite.
All stories of Paul in or out the Canon show that he was not the first to name Jesus the Christ.
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
This doesn't answer the question asked; it rephrases the same elements (largely because it's from a website of someone responding to those elements).
I asked for the description of:
1: How the group of element 11 formed (not how mystery religions and messianic followings culturally existed)?
2: How they formed around a "Frumian" Jesus (not how mystery religions and messianic followings are defined by their belief structures)?
3: How the "Frumian" Jesus came to be (not addressed at all)?
4: How the following group or culture came to ingest their belief (not addressed; just taken for granted in the survey of Element 11 that because they existed in the Roman Empire; therefore, acquired into Roman culture - not shown; At one point Carrier stated "Christianity was simply the result of this trend finally befalling the Jews." - and leaves the matter there; it just happened because it happened and no explanation as to how it happened, where it happened, or who by)?
Element 11 is the only assertion which in full detail may possibly answer these questions.
The rest of the elements are not applicable to the question.
I am well aware of the cultural background and context of Judea [see post]; that background is helpful in understanding Messianic culture in general, but does not rest as evidence of one such cult in specific.
Since your information is pulled from Carrier in this regard, I decided to purchase the book and go to the section in question and read directly.
There is nothing in Element 11 which answers the questions outlined (or Elements before or after it, either).
Carrier's Element 11 contains a reasonably good quality survey, of relatively decent thoroughness, regarding the general attribute of Christianity as that belonging to the Roman Empire's various mystery religions.
This is not what was in question.
For the Frumian Jesus to be Historically satisfying; it cannot simply survive as a possibility (motive and opportunity) - just as I cannot propose that my own Composite Jesus Hypothesis is Historically satisfying.
I cannot, with either of the above, overtake the Historical Jesus timeline in detail and replace it with parallel blocking of events.
Further; Carrier is accepting some axioms in dating (openly stated in the book in fact) which draw issue with Element 11 (but that's a lesser point to our tangent).
Again; we are still absent of:
1: Where Frumian Jesus was first followed.
2: Who Frumian Jesus was first followed by.
3: When Frumian Jesus was first followed (Carrier proposes a time, but it's based off of dating Paul's letters; not identifying the physical presence of a group - like Qumran archaeologically is evidence of a group who believed a given array of ideas and performed certain actions, and therefore we can date their crafts and strata for "when" information; we have no such presented group for the Frumian Christian hypothesis).
4: How Frumian Jesus was first formed.
5: How Frumian Jesus was acquired into the second culture after the forming culture.
The Historical Jesus timeline has its versions of these answers.
The Frumian and Composite Jesus hypotheses do not, to my knowledge, have any such detail outlined.
Last edited:
One of my main problems with Carrier's thesis as stated by Maximara is that of all of those Jewish Messianic sects/cults he mentions, none of them preached a purely "Spiritual Messiah". Being a flesh and blood man was a prerequisite for being a Messiah. Being God's anointed leader is not a job for a ghost.
Paul claimed a vision of Jesus and started the new religion with his "Spirit Christ Jesus", but before Paul started selling this idea to non-Jews, there were Jews following James "The Lord's Brother" in Jerusalem. Those guys were all about strict adherence to the "Laws of Moses", unlike Paul.
Paul claimed a vision of Jesus and started the new religion with his "Spirit Christ Jesus", but before Paul started selling this idea to non-Jews, there were Jews following James "The Lord's Brother" in Jerusalem. Those guys were all about strict adherence to the "Laws of Moses", unlike Paul.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
That's because you are looking in the wrong cultural direction.
Here is where I wish Carrier would take more time to be a bit more clear.
It's not a Judeo-Hellenistic religion; it's a Hellenist-Judaist religion.
Meaning: for the proposition Carrier is supplying, we don't look at Judah and try to figure out the motive of the origin from the Judaic culture, but instead look at the Hellenist culture and look at the motive for a new mystery religion being created by borrowing the backdrop of Judaism.
This is a reasonable proposition as the Hellenist society had already done this with Iran, Phoenicia, Phrygia, Persia, Anatolia and Egypt.
These are understood fashions of the time and define the "Mystery Cult" movement.
The human requirement was indeed a Hebrew structure for the Messiah prophecies, but again, we shouldn't be looking inside of Judea for the origin of this religion - even if one proposes to accept a small set of Pauline texts as authentic; as Carrier does.
Carrier's basic rundown is that it started as a Hellenist Mystery Cult much like Paul outlines in the "authentic" (or commonly accepted as authentic) letters attributed to him, and that later around the time of the 2nd c CE ranges texts like the Gospels began to create euhemeristic stories which conflated actual settings with allegorical values.
That is to say that they took the purely mystical and supernatural Mystery Cult version and then reasoned a more rationally historical interpretation of the same tangent.
To a degree; here I can sympathize for this is my take on the events in hypothesis as well - what I call a "Composite Jesus".
The issue is only that we cannot then, and Carrier even admits this in multiple lectures on his own hypothesis, superimpose this non-Historicity Jesus (Frumian, Composite, Forgery, etc...) over the Historical Jesus and claim to have proven a new more rational historical narrative of events.
That is simply not possible largely because we FIRST need to recognize that we have no actual recognition of cultural origin of the following or texts at all.
As such, there is no means for the non-Historicity Jesus to outline an historical narrative in specific detail akin to the minimalist Historical Jesus narrative.
It's a huge issue, and one which I think should (even by Carrier) be remarked upon far more often than it is!!
Carrier does a decent job of opening up the conversation academically and that was his goal, so I do not hold it against him for accepting academic dating axioms for the texts or not really discussing the paleographic evidence for cultural values in the texts, or highlighting our entire lack of officially recognized identify of who valued these constructions and where they existed against which cultural backdrop.
Once we can identify this, THEN we can begin to build the historical narrative timeline to superimpose over the minimalist Historical Jesus.
Until then we can only hold, as Carrier does, an hypothesis of potential and motive which (as he notes often) should give plenty of rational motive to consider doubting the minimalist Historical Jesus and reason for further inquiry into the non-historicity Jesus.
Last edited:
But if we accept those Pauline texts, don't we also have to accept the priority of James and those others who were "Apostles" before Paul? The ones who sent "False Brothers" amongst Paul's flock to spy out who was circumcised etc?
If Paul's religion was his own purely Hellenic invention, why would those "from James" be concerning themselves with it at all?
- Status