The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

I have not read what dejudge has said about any of that, so I don't know what Carriers explanation does to anything dejudge has said.

It basically boils down to Paul didn't exist and all the epistles and Gospels were written no earlier then 70 CE. Repeat with the same abandon that Sheff did with his little challenge from 1999 to 2002 in usenet group sci.archaeology

But obviously the main point which Carrier makes as an actual fact is that Paul makes "no mention of an earthly ministry or Jesus choosing disciples in the epistles." In Paul's letters there are no "Super Apostles" who knew of the Lord in the flesh"; that's the factual point that Carrier explains.

Which is why I don't understand why there is this near (for lack of a better word) obsession with Paul being a fictional character. Paul doesn't bring anything really substantial to the historical Jesus table. So why in the name of sanity over complicate the Christ Myth theory by claiming Paul is a fictional character as well as Jesus?

But Craig in particular should say no more on this subject, and should not repeat any of the same claims he has been making as evidence of a human Jesus, until he has taken a very good look at that film and if necessary cross-checked that with Carriers book and the references he gives there.

Lots of luck there because in Craig's world Carrier is a "guru" ie on par the the kind of people who say they have a sure fire system for winning the lottery or that their diet is good while all other are garbage.

As for peer reviewed scholar publication? A minor detail not worth Craig's notice.

Because what Carrier answers in that film, are all the same main claims that Craig and other HJ people have made ... and in the film Carrier gives factual rebuttals to each of those claims, and he does that with what he says are full academic references published in a peer-reviewed book on the subject.

Doesn't matter as in Craig's world Carrier is a "guru".

Sound is not great. But you can hear it.

Not always. Take the point at 36:00 where the reverb is so bad I have no idea what the guy is saying. Sure I can hear him but if amounts to the blah blah blah of the adults in a Charlie Brown special it doesn't do much good does it? It is even worst (if that is possible) at 36:40.

And it is generally much better in the 2nd half of the film when we get to their extensive discussion stage, where the Christian side were actually humiliated and all their pro-HJ claims destroyed.

At 1:10:30 Carrier brings up Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE). The claim of Matthew writing in Hebrew is nonsense as even the 1990s A&E's Who Wrote the Bible knew the language of the Jews of that time was GREEK. It would be like a Catholic today writing something in Latin and about as nonsensical.

As I have pointed out before the actual work of Papias (who the Christians are citing) DOES NOT EXIST. All we have are quotes from Irenaeus and Eusebius and even these supposed quotes show us that "Papias was a very gullible fellow, so much that even Eusebius called him 'a man with very little intelligence'" (OHJ 324) Move over Papias rejected book references and relied only on hearsay. In short Papias was a con man's wet dream come true.

Also revealing was the final Q&A from audience members where Christians in the audience were losing their tempers and making quite absurd arguments which were nevertheless supported by the two Christian speakers on the stage, even though those arguments were again shown by Carrier to be childish nonsense as well as little more than the product of overt blind religious faith.

Sad really.

 

[Craig B]

It basically boils down to Paul didn't exist and all the epistles and Gospels were written no earlier then 70 CE.

You've not been studying dejudge with sufficient care. He says the entire NT was composed as a hoax by insane liars in the third century or later.

 

[IanS]

You've not been studying dejudge with sufficient care. He says the entire NT was composed as a hoax by insane liars in the third century or later.

Well whatever arguments you have here with dejudge, Carrier in that film and in his book, is taking the standard line which you also take about the date of Paul's letters preceding (coming before) the canonical gospels. And that's the position Carrier is arguing from in that film.

In that film Carrier shows that Paul's letters certainly do not make any mention of him saying he knew anything about a living human Jesus, but instead Carrier makes clear that in the letters the only sense in which Paul or any of the other witnesses had ever "seen" Jesus was after Jesus was dead.

In which respect - Paul's letter makes explicitly clear that Paul's theological message of the Last Supper as religious guidance to the faithful, was something he had "received from the Lord". It was a religious belief.

Craig - if you actually care about truth in this subject, then you should watch the film, and perhaps watch that film above all other such YouTube debates and discussions on this subject. Because it answers in explicit detail all of your claims about a HJ, and it does that with quotes and explanations which are described in even greater detail and with full academic references in his book On The Historicity of Jesus. So please at least watch the film.

Or better still, if you or others here doubt the accuracy of Carriers references or doubt the detail of his explanations, then you should read his book (if you don't want to pay for it then you can get it through the local library).

Anyway, as far as Paul's description of a last Supper is concerned, his letter is explicitly clear in saying that belief in a last supper is something he "received of the Lord" ... that is the non-living non-human spiritual "Lord" communicating to Paul from the heavens.

 

[Brainache]

Just on Paul's description of the Last Supper, and what Carrier says about that, which is something that has been explained here at least 50 times - the passage actually says this -


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor+11:23-26&version=ESV

1 Corinthians 11:23-26English Standard Version (ESV)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

As Carrier explained, and as is factually obvious and unarguable from that text (assuming, as always, that the translation is correct) - Paul says he knew about the Last Supper because he "received (it) from the Lord" that knowledge of a last supper. He did not get that idea from any human who ever said any such thing to him, instead he explicitly says he "received (it) from the Lord".

The only things that Paul ever "received form the Lord", were religious visions of a resurrected messiah that he knew "according to scripture".

Also notice in Wikipedia, it says this about Paul's description of that Last Supper -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians,[11:23-26] which was likely written before the Gospels, includes a reference to the Last Supper but emphasizes the theological basis rather than giving a detailed description of the event or its background.[5][6]


We have had this explanation at least 50 times before here. And the fact of what is actually said in those words of Paul's letter, is that he is describing a theological understanding which he has obtained from he thinks are his communications with the visionary resurrected "Lord" understood by him according to scripture. He is certainly not describing that as an actual event which he had witnessed or which anyone had told him about as witnesses, instead he very clearly says it was "received of the Lord".

But Carrier explained all of that perfectly clearly. And that is a factual commentary on what the text of the letter actually says ... it was a theological understanding "received from the (dead) Lord (in heaven)".

Yes, but he is still describing earthly activities with a group of people - Eating, drinking, breaking bread and handing it around to his followers while talking about some promise it symbolizes. That is Paul describing an earthly Jesus, no matter where he claims to have gotten this information from, the Jesus in the story about the bread and wine isn't a disembodied ghost up in the sky.

This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but he is still describing earthly activities with a group of people - Eating, drinking, breaking bread and handing it around to his followers while talking about some promise it symbolizes. That is Paul describing an earthly Jesus, no matter where he claims to have gotten this information from, the Jesus in the story about the bread and wine isn't a disembodied ghost up in the sky.

This is not a difficult concept.

Exactly so. Paul is receiving messages from on high; but these messages are saying, I, Jesus, was in such and such a place with physical people, eating bread and drinking wine. We know that that is a sign of physicality invoked as such in gLuke and gJohn.

So whether Jesus existed or not, Paul evidently and demonstrably thought of him as a physical human being (a descendant "in the flesh" of the house of David) who had lived recently upon Earth, before being resurrected, and raised to the sky, by God.

 

[dejudge]

Exactly so. Paul is receiving messages from on high; but these messages are saying, I, Jesus, was in such and such a place with physical people, eating bread and drinking wine. We know that that is a sign of physicality invoked as such in gLuke and gJohn.

Exactly what??

What messages are you talking about??

Paul received nothing from on high.

There is no such place except in mythology and fiction.

It is most amazing that people who claim they do not believe Bible Ghost stories are stating that "Paul is receiving messages from on high".

So whether Jesus existed or not, Paul evidently and demonstrably thought of him as a physical human being (a descendant "in the flesh" of the house of David) who had lived recently upon Earth, before being resurrected, and raised to the sky, by God.

Your statement is rather pointless. The parents of the Pauline Jesus was God and a woman.

The Pauline Jesus was God in the Flesh [God Incarnate] so the author must claim Jesus the Lord from heaven was in the Flesh.

 

[Craig B]

Exactly what??

What messages are you talking about??

Paul received nothing from on high.

There is no such place except in mythology and fiction.

It is most amazing that people who claim they do not believe Bible Ghost stories are stating that "Paul is receiving messages from on high".

I don't mean that I think he was really receiving such messages. I mean: that is the assumption on which his writings are based. He believed it; or he wished his readers to believe it. I don't.

 

[IanS]

Exactly so. Paul is receiving messages from on high; but these messages are saying, I, Jesus, was in such and such a place with physical people, eating bread and drinking wine. We know that that is a sign of physicality invoked as such in gLuke and gJohn.

So whether Jesus existed or not, Paul evidently and demonstrably thought of him as a physical human being (a descendant "in the flesh" of the house of David) who had lived recently upon Earth, before being resurrected, and raised to the sky, by God.

What?? You actually believe that Paul received that message from a dead Jesus spirit in the sky lol. "Dear god in heaven".

Look, the idea that anyone here might be able to wriggle out of it by saying that the people that Paul seems to be describing at that last supper sound as if they are real, just won't wash. Because first of all it is supposed to be the dead Jesus who is telling Paul those details of the last supper! Paul got the story from someone who did not exist!

And secondly (as if the above were not enough) Paul did not know anything about anyone at any last supper, except for what he "received from the lord"! .... and that is a dead lord who is a talking spirit in the sky!!

Do you want to claim that Paul did know any humans at any last supper? Because if you do then you are completely contradicting what it actually says in Paul's letter. In respect of which, notice also that Paul’s readers apparently did not know anything about any last supper, because Paul has to tell them about it saying he "received it of the Lord" and that he is now "passing on to you" that supper story.

 

[Brainache]

What?? You actually believe that Paul received that message from a dead Jesus spirit in the sky lol. "Dear god in heaven".

Look, the idea that anyone here might be able to wriggle out of it by saying that the people that Paul seems to be describing at that last supper sound as if they are real, just won't wash. Because first of all it is supposed to be the dead Jesus who is telling Paul those details of the last supper! Paul got the story from someone who did not exist!

Does that mean that Paul was telling his audience a story about someone who he (and they) knew never existed as a flesh and blood man? A non-existent man who handled bread and wine? A non-existent man who was descended from an ancient king?

Because remember according to Carrier, Paul's Jesus was an incorporeal spirit and was understood as such by the early Christians, even in spite of the fact that Paul's letters contain stories of a physical Jesus.

And secondly (as if the above were not enough) Paul did not know anything about anyone at any last supper, except for what he "received from the lord"! .... and that is a dead lord who is a talking spirit in the sky!!

Now you believe Paul? Paul says he got a vision of Jesus, but why do you believe that, rather than the more mundane idea that he learned about this religion from humans, like maybe those members of the Church that he persecuted for years?

Do you want to claim that Paul did know any humans at any last supper? Because if you do then you are completely contradicting what it actually says in Paul's letter. In respect of which, notice also that Paul’s readers apparently did not know anything about any last supper, because Paul has to tell them about it saying he "received it of the Lord" and that he is now "passing on to you" that supper story.

Yes, OK, Paul is telling the story for the first time in that letter (for the sake of argument). Before that, people thought Jesus was just a disembodied voice in their heads or up in the sky... But now Jesus is breaking bread with his hands (what hands?) and drinking wine after a meal with his followers and making promises about the future... Wouldn't Paul's audience be a little confused, if prior to this story they thought Jesus was a spirit in the sky?

And how was this spirit Jesus "Betrayed" and killed the day after these events supposedly took place?

Paul is quite obviously telling a story about a man who lived amongst people here on earth, whether he is telling the truth or not is another matter. The fact is the belief that Paul was spreading was of a man who was killed and then came back from the dead down here on earth, not up in the sky as Carrier says.

 

[dejudge]

Exactly what??

What messages are you talking about??

Paul received nothing from on high.

There is no such place except in mythology and fiction.

It is most amazing that people who claim they do not believe Bible Ghost stories are stating that "Paul is receiving messages from on high".

I don't mean that I think he was really receiving such messages. I mean: that is the assumption on which his writings are based. He believed it; or he wished his readers to believe it. I don't.

You don't know what Paul believed because you have no idea if there was an historical Paul and you don't have any manuscripts written by Paul if you argue that he lived in the time of Aretas.

You are just making assumptions.

The manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are products of multiple unknown authors from the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

Does that mean that Paul was telling his audience a story about someone who he (and they) knew never existed as a flesh and blood man? A non-existent man who handled bread and wine? A non-existent man who was descended from an ancient king?

What bizarre logic!!! The Jesus of the NT is GOD INCARNATE. Christians of antiquity BELIEVE God is a figure of history.

It is most amazing that you are attempting to mis-represent the Christian Canon.

We have hundreds of Christian writings which state the nature of their Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with teachings of the Church that Jesus was God from heaven and made flesh by a woman.

Paul is quite obviously telling a story about a man who lived amongst people here on earth, whether he is telling the truth or not is another matter. The fact is the belief that Paul was spreading was of a man who was killed and then came back from the dead down here on earth, not up in the sky as Carrier says.

Your statement is absolute fallacious nonsense. You mis-represent the teachings of the NT Canon.

The Pauline writer stated his Jesus the Son of God was REVEALED to him AFTER a bloodless fleshless conference.

The Pauline writer specifically stated his Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline Jesus is God of God.

The Pauline Corpus in the Canon are NOT HERESIES.

 

[Brainache]

What bizarre logic!!! The Jesus of the NT is GOD INCARNATE. Christians of antiquity BELIEVE God is a figure of history.

It is most amazing that you are attempting to mis-represent the Christian Canon.

We have hundreds of Christian writings which state the nature of their Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with teachings of the Church that Jesus was God from heaven and made flesh by a woman.



Your statement is absolute fallacious nonsense. You mis-represent the teachings of the NT Canon.

The Pauline writer stated his Jesus the Son of God was REVEALED to him AFTER a bloodless fleshless conference.

The Pauline writer specifically stated his Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline Jesus is God of God.

The Pauline Corpus in the Canon are NOT HERESIES.

At first these posts were just ignorant. Then they were repetitive. After a while they became boring. Now they just look insanely obsessive.

What they have never been is convincing.

 

[Peregrinus]

Paul & not-Paul

"The Pauline Corpus in the Canon are NOT HERESIES."

What of the Pauline writings which are now known to be forgeries?

 

[maximara]

You've not been studying dejudge with sufficient care. He says the entire NT was composed as a hoax by insane liars in the third century or later.

Oh I study dejudge with "sufficient care" (stopping before my brain cells start dying en mass in protest...which is usually after the first paragraph ) and remember how on several occasions he has banged his little drum on how there is no evidence of Paul or the Gospels before 70 CE. (which shows logic isn't one of his strong point as he should be arguing how there is no evidence before 200 CE)

I have commented several times on how his position makes even Joseph Wheless' 1930 Forgery in Christianity look sane. Even Wheless who saw Christianity as this Illuminati scale conspiracy (with all the problems that involves) accepted Paul as an actual person.

I have also pointed out several times that textual and historical criticism point to the idea of Paul and the Gospels being earlier then the third century (ie 200 CE at a minimum and yes I know that it should be 201 but the public is ignorant of how decades should work) being total nonsense.

 

[Craig B]

You don't know what Paul believed because you have no idea if there was an historical Paul and you don't have any manuscripts written by Paul if you argue that he lived in the time of Aretas.

You are just making assumptions.

The manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are products of multiple unknown authors from the 2nd century or later.

The manuscripts of The Caesarian Corpus are products of multiple unknown authors from the tenth century or later

Florence, Laur. 68.8, basically 10-11th century, probably Italian, once the property of Niccolo Niccoli (=W)
Vatican latinus 3324, 11-12th century, possibly French (=U)
Paris lat. 5764, 3rd quarter of the 11th century, French (=T)
Vienna 95, 1st quarter of the 12th century, probably from Trier (=V)

 

[maximara]

Yes, but he is still describing earthly activities with a group of people - Eating, drinking, breaking bread and handing it around to his followers while talking about some promise it symbolizes. That is Paul describing an earthly Jesus, no matter where he claims to have gotten this information from, the Jesus in the story about the bread and wine isn't a disembodied ghost up in the sky.

This is not a difficult concept.

Which as I pointed out in post 2829 these supposed earthly events don't mean squadoo.

If we suggested that Zeus, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, or Hercules were real people we'd be laughed out of the room but with Jesus things are different. But Why? Toned down Hercules' twelve labors are somewhat plausible and yet he is dismissed as never have existed while Jesus who is popping off miracles like crazy is said to be an actual human being. Does this position make any degree of sense by a logical point?

I would like to point out that in Egyptian mythology Osiris was killed and his body disposed of on Earth (the chopped up pieces were thrown into the Nile)!

In fact, you could visit many of the places in Greek and Roman mythology but that doesn't mean any of those stories are real. One story about a temple you could visit was that Zeus and one of the other deities had come in disguise to this valley and were ill treated except for a couple who lived at the top of a hill. The two gods were fed and sheltered and the next day they revealed that the valley was flooded sparing only the couple. The couple were then granted their wish to life together and in their later years built a temple. On the day one of them was fated to die were both turned into intertwining trees. This all supposedly occurred on Earth!

Another story that occurs on Earth comes from one of the Native American tribes where an indian brave defeated the god of maize and learned the secret of corn.

There are literally dozens of stories involving celestial beings that supposedly occurred on Earth...that doesn't mean these stories are describing "earthly" versions of those beings. As I said before celestial beings don't need food or shelter therefore Zeus and that other Greek deity must have been living people using the goofy logic you have presented.

Also since Osiris was killed on Earth he must have had an "earthly" presence as well.

Do you see how silly bordering on insane this position is?

 

[Brainache]

Which as I pointed out in post 2829 these supposed earthly events don't mean squadoo.

If we suggested that Zeus, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, or Hercules were real people we'd be laughed out of the room but with Jesus things are different. But Why? Toned down Hercules' twelve labors are somewhat plausible and yet he is dismissed as never have existed while Jesus who is popping off miracles like crazy is said to be an actual human being. Does this position make any degree of sense by a logical point?

I would like to point out that in Egyptian mythology Osiris was killed and his body disposed of on Earth (the chopped up pieces were thrown into the Nile)!

In fact, you could visit many of the places in Greek and Roman mythology but that doesn't mean any of those stories are real. One story about a temple you could visit was that Zeus and one of the other deities had come in disguise to this valley and were ill treated except for a couple who lived at the top of a hill. The two gods were fed and sheltered and the next day they revealed that the valley was flooded sparing only the couple. The couple were then granted their wish to life together and in their later years built a temple. On the day one of them was fated to die were both turned into intertwining trees. This all supposedly occurred on Earth!

Another story that occurs on Earth comes from one of the Native American tribes where an indian brave defeated the god of maize and learned the secret of corn.

There are literally dozens of stories involving celestial beings that supposedly occurred on Earth...that doesn't mean these stories are describing "earthly" versions of those beings. As I said before celestial beings don't need food or shelter therefore Zeus and that other Greek deity must have been living people using the goofy logic you have presented.

Also since Osiris was killed on Earth he must have had an "earthly" presence as well.

Do you see how silly bordering on insane this position is?

But Paul was talking about the recent past. He says he met the Lord's brother. He mentions this meeting as part of his credentials to preach what he is preaching to his audience. His audience already know about James and his title and his pre-eminence in their Church, that's why Paul says he met James and had his blessing to teach what he does.

The Jesus that Paul is talking about wasn't a character from the age of Heroes long ago, but a man of the recent past whose contemporaries were still alive. So it is very different to Zeus, Osiris, Herakles etc who were legends of the ancient past.

 

[maximara]

At first these posts were just ignorant. Then they were repetitive. After a while they became boring. Now they just look insanely obsessive.

What they have never been is convincing.

Which is why I compare them to Sheff's ramblings as those had the same four problems.

As I have said before I could at least understand the drive to claim Paul was fictional if he actually brought something to the historical Jesus table but he doesn't.

Paul's Jesus is this visionary being with any earthly actions also being visions.

These supposedly earthly events Paul relates have no more relevance to Jesus being an "earthly" (ie historical) person then any of the stories involving pagan celestial beings that supposedly happened on earth.

 

[dejudge]

What bizarre logic!!! The Jesus of the NT is GOD INCARNATE. Christians of antiquity BELIEVE God is a figure of history.

It is most amazing that you are attempting to mis-represent the Christian Canon.

We have hundreds of Christian writings which state the nature of their Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with teachings of the Church that Jesus was God from heaven and made flesh by a woman.



Your statement is absolute fallacious nonsense. You mis-represent the teachings of the NT Canon.

The Pauline writer stated his Jesus the Son of God was REVEALED to him AFTER a bloodless fleshless conference.

The Pauline writer specifically stated his Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

The Pauline Jesus is God of God.

The Pauline Corpus in the Canon are NOT HERESIES.

At first these posts were just ignorant. Then they were repetitive. After a while they became boring. Now they just look insanely obsessive.

What they have never been is convincing.

Your posts never made any logical sense from the start. You appear to be nothing but a modern mutilator of the NT.

We have no interests in your modern fallacious Heretical teachings of the NT.

We are interested in what Christian/Non-Christian writers or apologetic/non-apologetic sources of antiquity stated or argued about.

People of antiquity who used the NT including the Pauline Corpus claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning.

There are hundreds of writings from antiquity which fully explain the teachings of the Church with regard to the nature of their Jesus for at least 1800 years.

We are interested in the writings attributed to Ignatius, Aristides, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras of Athens, Optatus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Chrysostom, Severus, Josephus, Philo, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Tacitus, Suetonius, Julian the Emperor, Celsus, Macarius Magnes, Hierocles and other writers of antiquity.

We already know who Jesus of Nazareth was.

We have at least 1800 years of evidence.

Jesus of Nazareth was an Ascending, Resurrecting, Water walking Son of a God born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

Jesus of Nazareth was a myth/fiction character fabricated in the 2nd century or later.

 

[Craig B]

Which as I pointed out in post 2829 these supposed earthly events don't mean squadoo.

They mean plenty squadoo. Here is the squadoo they mean.

Here is a tenet of Carrier's mythicist doctrine:

Carrier holds the view that it is more likely that the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person.

The squadoo is that by attributing the consumption of bread and wine to Jesus, Paul is ipso facto asserting a belief in a recent physical Jesus. Thus, whether Paul was right or wrong in making that assumption the fact that he did manifestly make it refutes Carrier's prime thesis, namely that, as above

the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person.

Paul considered him to have been a real person, elevated after death to a heavenly status, and in that state known through revelation; and Paul expresses that belief whether the belief is right or wrong in Romans 1.

Therein resides the squadoo.