The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
"Largely" is not good enough. It is in Galatians 2
You don't see the forest for the trees because some of these very question are unknown for John Frum himself.
1. We don't where on Tanna John Frum was first followed assuming the original 1910s or current 1930s claim are valid.
2. Who (ie which Tribe) followed the 1910's or 1930's John Frum?
3. When was Frum actually first followed? 1910's as original claimed, 1930's as now claimed, or 1940's as actual independent history records? (Remember the Christians for whatever reason either neglected or active destroyed the majority of that material for Jesus)
4. This actually is answered. In Element 29: "For not only are their attributes remarkably similar, but so are the social-political situations that created them; an it this distinct parallel of both cause and effect that make the comparison illuminating." Carrier then followed up with references to IC Jarvie (The Revolution in Anthropology, Routledge, 1967, ISBN 978-0-7100-3440-3), Worsley, FE Williams, GW Trumpf, Peter Lawrence, Kenelm Burridge, and even provides a similarity with modern UFO cults via Christopher Partridge (ed). The majority of the five pages on this element comes from Jarvie and Worsley.
5. Carrier's Background Knowledge (Context) covers this in Elements 23 to 48 (pg 153-234 ie the whole chapter!
)The HJ position doesn't explain why there is this pattern of when something that could truly confirm of deny Jesus as an actual human being comes up it is either frangments to where is says nothing (as with Philo's detailed recording of the reign of Pontius Pilate, or Annals of Tacitus covering the years 29-31 CE, and Cassius Dio's Roman History - sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE) or total lost (Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero, Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year).
The HJ position in fact ignores the key point of why the Christians didn't preserve these works. What where the Christians afraid of that they either neglected to copy or outright destroyed works or portions of works that should have mentioned Jesus?
Last edited:
And let's not forget Galatians 5:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 5
An interesting contrast between the two bolded sentences...
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Keep in mind that I was mostly summarizing Carrier with add-in notes of my thoughts.
Imo, there are multiple issues with his specific hypothesis and outlines.
Perhaps that he was executed by the Romans for sedition? That wouldn't have been a very good example to the slaves... Better to have him meek and mild and blame those terrible Jews for killing God...
Yes. That's why I think interminable listings of references to his works, as if these were unchallengeable sources of truth, is a pointless way to conduct a discussion.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
We know it was in Tanna, though.
We don't know where in the entire mediterranean the first following arose.
Egypt? Anatolia? Judea? Athens? Rome? Syria?
That is a far shot better than we can say of Jesus.
The heck witj sub-groups, we don't even know which macro-culture of peoples got things started.
Again, a far shot better than a Frumian Jesus can achieve. We have an entire century in question for the Jesus following.
Again, that is the potential and motive background; not a specific outline.
For example, we can outline how the Hasmonean dynasty was formed, not just the background which permitted the potential and motive for it.
No, it covers background, not how it was done - they are very different ideas.. Carrier's Background Knowledge (Context) covers this in Elements 23 to 48 (pg 153-234 ie the whole chapter!
He is pretty open about that.
He "axioms" this, does he? Is that a proper procedure? Other scholars examine evidence, internal evidence, to determine the probability of Pauline authorship. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/epistles.html
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Here is the problem.
Others take Carrier beyond his intention, which of course, breaks the arguments quickly.
Carrier's out spoken purpose was, and is, to open an actual academic dialogue in academia regarding the fringe hypothesis of non-historicity Jesus instead of it being just laughed out by default, which it shouldn't be really.
To that aim, he adopts academic axioms he sees as not required to contest to get the conversation started, such as common dating and authentications of the 'standard fare' of the field...because to not do so would open an entirely different discussion than he's aiming for.
Carrier's point is basically that academia needs to take a second harder look, even when assuming standard axioms.
If that is his aim -- and that whole programme you have described looks intellectually absurd -- then it is pointless to set down interminable lists of his various statements as if they were question-settling passages of Holy Writ.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Of course it's pointless! lol
I've constantly said it is all pointless unless we can FIRST identify the authoring cultures.
But to your point, yes, many try to use Carrier beyond his intention - I've even seen a few blog comments in the past where he has gone after someone for misrepresenting his position when they employed his work for their arguments.
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Oh, I'm sorry...
If anyone was wondering what Carrier thinks about Galations, James, et. al. it's his position that one cannot dismiss the possibility that the title of "brother" and "lord" are social titles of the cult and not biological references, which he considers redundant if it were so.
I disagree here and think this is his weakest point, for it is conjecture without reference.
We are effectively determining height of a space in outer space; there's no reference frame.
It impossible to know if the Title hypothesis is or is not possible without knowing the cult sociology, and it is impossible to know the cult sociology without knowing the culture who the cult applies to in the given relevant sections, or the author's culture and cult understanding.
He simply takes it on axiom that Paul wrote it, that Paul's letters deliver the hierarchy of the society, and that as such, whoever they were, they were using titles of "brother" and "lord".
I cannot rest on this without knowing the people and their way of thinking; only then could I understand their sympathy with such social behaviors.
If anyone was wondering what Carrier thinks about Galations, James, et. al. it's his position that one cannot dismiss the possibility that the title of "brother" and "lord" are social titles of the cult and not biological references, which he considers redundant if it were so.
I disagree here and think this is his weakest point, for it is conjecture without reference.
We are effectively determining height of a space in outer space; there's no reference frame.
It impossible to know if the Title hypothesis is or is not possible without knowing the cult sociology, and it is impossible to know the cult sociology without knowing the culture who the cult applies to in the given relevant sections, or the author's culture and cult understanding.
He simply takes it on axiom that Paul wrote it, that Paul's letters deliver the hierarchy of the society, and that as such, whoever they were, they were using titles of "brother" and "lord".
I cannot rest on this without knowing the people and their way of thinking; only then could I understand their sympathy with such social behaviors.
Last edited:
You are completely wasting your time and everyone else's time by complaining about what you think is pleasant or not in other peoples conversations. In using large bright red letters I am following the example repeated here many hundreds of times before by dejudge himself. So why are you complaining about that?
And what I am emphasising to dejudge with that big bold typeface is that he had already been asked numerous times in ordinary non-highlighted typeface, but apparently he never could admit his mistake and instead kept replying in post after post with all sorts of other things. All the while trying to avoid admitting that he was and is simply wrong in the central claim he had made.
You cannot expect people here to allow you or dejudge or anyone else here to get away with making completely untrue claims about Jesus, and to keep repeating and insisting on those untruths in post after post, without others eventually taking exception to you making Jesus claims that are manifestly and demonstrably untrue.
But if you also think Galatians 1;17 does say that others had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did, then by all means quote where Galatians 1:17 says that.
You continue to write fiction and logically fallacious arguments.
There is no claim in the Pauline Corpus that James "the Lord's brother" was all about "strict adherence to the Laws of Moses".
A writer under the name of Paul mentioned James the Lord's brother ONCE claiming that he met him in Jerusalem.
In fact, it is also claimed that a writer under the name of Paul PERSECUTED the FAITH that he NOW preached.
The same Pauline FAITH was ALREADY preached when the Pauline writer was a PERSECUTOR based on Galatians.
It is hopelessly void of logic to assume the Pauline writer PERSECUTED Jews who "were all about strict adherence to the Laws of Moses".
It must logically follow that if Paul, the Jew, the Hebrew of Hebrews, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin PERSECUTED Jews then he persecuted those who were NOT, NOT, NOT about strict adherence to the Laws of Moses.
Last edited:
Actually Carrier does give reference for the idea that "brother' means something other than biological brother as has been pointed out before.
Acts make NO reference to a actual biological brother of Jesus leading Christianity. Jesus entire family effectively disappears with the John brother of the Lord Paul is on about in Gal, 1.19, 2.9 or 1 Cor. 15.7 being the man who wasn't there if he was a biological brother.
What we do have is James son of Alphaeus (in Acts 21 assuming that isn't a time shifted James brother of John aka James the Pillar) Again NEITHER James referenced in Acts from 2 on is the biological brother of Jesus.
Even if we assume James the Pillar was the brother of Jesus Paul was on about he cannot be James in Josephus because there is about 20 years between their deaths.
Even an examination of Paul's letters shows he used 'brother' (as well as sister) outside biological reference. compare Galatians 1:18 with 1 Corinthians 3:1)
Last edited:
For my part, yes I can, and you have no occasion to take exception, or tell people how to manage their own arguments. I do not insist on making untruthful claims; I make statements with which you disagree, and if you insist on imputing dishonesty to me, as you have done before too, then there is no point in my troubling you, and I will return to that policy.
[/quote]Ians said:
You are the one who have been using 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices by ANONYMOUS authors under the assumption that there were written c 50-60 CE by Paul.
I cannot allow you or anyone else to continue to use ANONYMOUS 2nd century or later manuscripts under the pretense that there are authentic.
You have ALREADY admitted that you don't know when the Pauline Corpus was composed so it is impossible to claim that your Paul was the first to name Jesus the messiah when in Galatians 1 and 1.17 there were APOSTLES in Christ BEFORE Paul. and Churches in CHRIST who did NOT even know who Paul was.
You will no longer be able to put forward the fallacious claims that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE and that Paul was the first to name Jesus the messiah.
It is KNOWN that you have ZERO evidence that the PAULINE Corpus was composed before gLuke and gJohn.
It is KNOWN that you have zero evidence that the Pauline writers named Jesus the Christ BEFORE the authors of gLuke or gJohn.
Apologetic writers even ADMITTED the Pauline writer knew gLuke and COMMENDED it.
The Pauline writer claimed there were APOSTLES before him in Galatians 1.17.
You cannot show a passage in the ENTIRE NT where the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.
You cannot show a passage in the ENTIRE NT where a Pauline writer claimed he was the first to name Jesus the messiah.
Precisely; on it’s own, a reference to "apostles before me" really does not mean much ... it is not very convincing (and especially not since as always, we only have these words from much later Christian devotional copyists). It certainly does not necessarily follow that earlier apostles in a Church of God had named Jesus as the Christ.
Of course it would be no kind of evidence for a living Jesus anyway, if Paul had actually said that a Church of God had named Jesus before he did. None of it is any kind of evidence of a human Jesus known to any of them.
But you may recall that about a year ago in this thread I had a lengthy dispute with Craig who at the time actually kept insisting that not only had these earlier people in the “Church of God” preached about Jesus before Paul ever did, but that they must surely have actually known Jesus! Craig may care not to remember that exchange now, and he might ask me to look back through countless pages of posts here to find and quote all of that all over again, which is something I am certainly not going to waste yet more time on. But the point is that some people do try to argue that Paul’s letters make clear that Jesus would have been personally known to people like the founders of the Church of God, e.g. people such as “James” who they claim must have been the actual and quite certain blood brother of Jesus ... Bart Ehrman says precisely that for example (i.e. in respect of James).
So I think we have to be very careful not to go down that slippery slope of saying that anywhere in Galatians-1:10 to 1:24, Paul actually says that any earlier Church of God had identified Jesus as the messiah before he himself wrote saying such things as “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, and “I learned this from no Man” and “nor was I taught it by anyone” etc.
I think it's safer to stick to the known facts rather than speculating about who might have known or might have said things. And if for the sake of argument we accept the dates given by bible scholars and HJ posters here for Paul's letters, where they are universally said to pre-date the gospels and to originate circa. 50-60AD, the fact is that Paul would be the first person we know of to name Jesus as the messiah in those letters.
Last edited:
I'm sorry Craig but you have claimed that one of the James in Acts is James the [biological] brother of Jesus and have yet to provide proof of that. In fact as Carrier relates Acts itself expressly NEITHER James is the brother of Jesus.
If Acts is anyway historical (hopefully a lot of people didn't fall out of their chairs on that one
) then James biological brother of the lord simply disappears with James brother of John taking over and then James son of Alphaeus taking over when James the Pillar gets killed in 42-44 CE.Interstingly James son of Alphaeus supposedly died c 62 CE now where do you think they got...oh wait the James in Josephus died c62 CE, never mind.
- Status