The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

And just a bit more on the above, answering the question of why Carrier's description of a sub-lunar death of Jesus, as believed by Paul (in Carriers submission), is perfectly plausible, and explained by Carrier in his book with full academic references and academic peer-review publishing, and why it's absurdly ignorant for anyone here to claim that Carrier must be wrong because HJ believers here claim there is no history or example of Jews in that region having such beliefs about the gods and their messengers acting through the various levels of the heavens, here is a shorter YouTube film of a very recent talk by Carrier addressing precisely this point of how in that latest book he explains that there was in fact early Christian and pre-Christian Jewish belief of the gods acting in that way through their agents in the various sub-layers of heaven, and explaining how and why Paul's description of Jesus does in fact fit with that idea of Paul believing Jesus was a figure crucified in a sub-level of heaven and not actually crucified as a normal human preacher at any time on earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo

OK.
1. He points out at the start that he was funded by "fans" who wanted a book about a Mythical Jesus.

2. He assumes that people just go along with "The Consensus" without examining the arguments. He also says that this consensus is based on Christian bible study.

3. He argues by analogy with Islam where he equates Jesus to the archangel Gabriel.

4. He mentions the "Pesharim" of the DSS as looking for signs in the OT, but neglects to mention that the DSS community applied these "signs" to current people and events on earth, not some mystical heavenly realm.

5. He says later followers "Euhemerized" Jesus into an earthly figure. Except that this process must have started with Paul, because Paul does describe Jesus in an earthly setting with a Jewish human mother and Davidic ancestry.

6. He says that this "Euhemerization" was a deliberate attempt to control doctrine, ignoring that as far as we can tell, Paul's "revelation" of Jesus was heresy as far as the original followers were concerned. James was dead against Paul's version of Jesus.

7. He says this is typical because it happens with Abraham and Moses etc. Ignoring the fact that the bible stories of these people were written down centuries after their supposed lives, not within living memory.

8. John Frumm happened, so that's what happened in ancient Palestine... Not really convincing.

9. He says the Pauline epistles only speak of a pre-existent celestial being and a revealed gospel. Well that is obvious nonsense when you actually read them, they describe an earthly Jesus doing earthly things. The fact that Paul claims to have gotten this information from a "vision" doesn't change the nature of his descriptions of Jesus.

10. He says that all historicity claims are based on gospel stories, ALL OF THEM... er, no that's not true Mr Carrier. Much of what has been debated in this thread is based on the earthly Jesus of the Pauline epistles. Not to mention my own little hobby-horse the DSS Teacher Of Righteousness (also not a Celestial being).

11. "All other documentation of the first 80 years of christianity conveniently not preserved"... What's convenient about that? It's the opposite of convenient... Although it makes sense if the HJ is nothing like the "Christ Jesus" of Paul's "revelation". If the HJ was a law-abiding Jew who hated the Romans etc, it is no surprise that later Christians wanted to dismiss any descriptions of him like that as Heresy. It's what they said about the Ebionites who called Jesus an ordinary mortal man...

12. He talks about other syncretic religions, Persian, Egyptian etc... OK, Pauline Christianity is a syncretic religion. But he ignores the fact that Paul took an existing messianic cult of Jesus and added the mystical BS to it, he didn't come up with the whole thing, he just put his own mystical spin on Jewish Apocalyptic Messianism. The original Jewish cult leaders hated him for it.

That's about half-way and I've run out of patience with Mr Carrier. He misrepresents Paul's description of Jesus and other early Church chroniclers. If he ever mentions people like Papias and Clement etc I'm sure he misrepresents them too.

Here is just one example from the DSS of what I think is a description of Paul and his followers who were teaching his new version of "Jesus":
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

["Behold the nations and see, marvel and be astonished; for I accomplish a deed in your days, but you will not believe it when] told" [Hab 1.5].

[Interpreted, this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. And it concerns the unfaithful of the New [Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God [and have profaned] his holy name. And likewise,

this saying is to be interpreted [as concerning those who] will be unfaithful at the end of days. They, the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not believe when they hear all that [is to happen to] the final generation from the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom
he foretold all that would happen to his people and [his land]....

Paul is the Liar who preaches against the Law and leads people away from the Teacher of Righteousness.

 

[maximara]

Paul is the Liar who preaches against the Law and leads people away from the Teacher of Righteousness.

Note just Paul. Take a look at Dr. Richard Carrier on the Mythical Jesus especially the part 23:24 regarding the the Ascension of Isaiah gospel

Carrier also points to 2 Peter 1:16

"For we have not followed cunningly devised myths, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

which is presented as answering unknown Christians who were claiming that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth" ...and promptly forge an eyewitnesses account. (25:30)

 

[Brainache]

Note just Paul. Take a look at Dr. Richard Carrier on the Mythical Jesus especially the part 23:24 regarding the the Ascension of Isaiah gospel

Carrier also points to 2 Peter 1:16

"For we have not followed cunningly devised myths, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

which is presented as answering unknown Christians who were claiming that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth" ...and promptly forge an eyewitnesses account. (25:30)

Just more of the same. He is talking about later Christian beliefs and saying that they equate to the earliest beliefs. He assumes that 2 Peter was written to other Christians who claimed that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth", but isn't that more likely addressed to people like Celsus who were making such claims at the time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Celsus or his audience were ever accused of being Christians.

 

[maximara]

Just more of the same. He is talking about later Christian beliefs and saying that they equate to the earliest beliefs. He assumes that 2 Peter was written to other Christians who claimed that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth", but isn't that more likely addressed to people like Celsus who were making such claims at the time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Celsus or his audience were ever accused of being Christians.

Celsus wrote his work 248 CE but 2 Peter predates this by nearly a century clocking in around c 100–150 CE

Don't forget that Justin Martyr's (c. 100 – 165 AD) "Dialogue with Trypho" says "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.

So this invent Christs idea predated Celsus by well over a century so 2 Peter can NOT be in response to Celsus or his audience. If you are going to make claims like this pay attention to the timeline.

 

[dejudge]

Just more of the same. He is talking about later Christian beliefs and saying that they equate to the earliest beliefs. He assumes that 2 Peter was written to other Christians who claimed that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth", but isn't that more likely addressed to people like Celsus who were making such claims at the time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Celsus or his audience were ever accused of being Christians.

2 Peter was a known forgery since at least the 4th century.

Church History 3

But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon....

1 Peter is now also considered a forgery or falsely attributed to Peter.

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

Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous.

Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

How much longer can these bizarre arguments from Brainache continue?

It is ALREADY known that the Petrine epistles are not historical accounts.

 

[dejudge]

Celsus wrote his work 248 CE but 2 Peter predates this by nearly a century clocking in around c 100–150 CE

There is no evidence that 2nd Peter was composed c 100-150 CE.

Not even writings attributed to 2nd century apologetic writers acknowledge epistles attributed to Peter.

The author of "Against Heresies" appears to know nothing of epistles of Peter.

 

[maximara]

There is no evidence that 2nd Peter was composed c 100-150 CE.

Chester & Martin are the ones who put 2nd Peter at c 100-150 CE.

Chester, A & Martin, RP, (1994), The Theology of the letters of James, Peter & Jude, CUP, p.144

Not even writings attributed to 2nd century apologetic writers acknowledge epistles attributed to Peter.

The author of "Against Heresies" appears to know nothing of epistles of Peter.

BZZZ WRONG.

"Peter says in his Epistle: 'Whom, not seeing, you love; in whom, though now you see Him not, you have believed, you shall rejoice with joy unspeakable' "[1 Peter 1:8]; - Against Heresies, IV, ix. 2

You can't quote something you have no knowledge of.

So Irenaeus knew of a Peter epistle. The question is did he know of 2 Peter. Hard to tell. If he did he certainly didn't quote it. But he just rambles in places and it may have served his purposes.

Not that it doesn't matter as we still have Justin Martyr's (c. 100 – 165 AD) "Dialogue with Trypho" thing about people "having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves"

 

[Brainache]

2 Peter was a known forgery since at least the 4th century.

Church History 3

1 Peter is now also considered a forgery or falsely attributed to Peter.

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



How much longer can these bizarre arguments from Brainache continue?

It is ALREADY known that the Petrine epistles are not historical accounts.

Take it up with Richard Carrier, it's not my argument.

 

[Brainache]

Celsus wrote his work 248 CE but 2 Peter predates this by nearly a century clocking in around c 100–150 CE

Don't forget that Justin Martyr's (c. 100 – 165 AD) "Dialogue with Trypho" says "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.

So this invent Christs idea predated Celsus by well over a century so 2 Peter can NOT be in response to Celsus or his audience. If you are going to make claims like this pay attention to the timeline.

Yes' OK, but it wasn't Christians saying these things, that was my point. Carrier said that passage from 2 Peter was addressed to some unknown Christians who denied the existence of Jesus, I doubt that.
Looking at the relevant passage from 2 Peter, I'm not sure how Carrier honestly thinks this is addressed to Christians who believe in a "Spirit Jesus in the sky":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/2peter-asv.html

...Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance. 1:16For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty...

Looks to me like the author is trying to pre-empt critics from outside the Church, not some sect of Jesus-lived-only-in-the-sky Christians. Once again Carrier is fudging the evidence and twisting things out of context. The more I see of this guy's arguments, the less impressed I am.

Then you chime in with Justin's dialogue with Trypho, but again the people denying Jesus are not Christians who worship some celestial ethereal Jesus, as Carrier would have us believe, it is the circumcised Jewish straw-man in the "Dialogue...". Here it is in context:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

...When I had said this, my beloved friends those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."...

So again, this is not evidence of a Christian belief in a "Celestial Jesus".

 

[maximara]

Looks to me like the author is trying to pre-empt critics from outside the Church, not some sect of Jesus-lived-only-in-the-sky Christians.

Except hints of this keep popping up in the forge Epistles such as 1 Tim 1.3-4, 4.6-7, 2 Tim 4.3-4; 1 Jn 1.1-3, 2 Jn 7-11 and so on.

But "the Church" of this time also denied that Jesus was a normal man born of Joseph and Mary per Against Heresies.

Irenaeus also rails again the idea that "the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man" which sounds much like the idea of Jesus being a Celestial being who popped down to Earth to teach man something...unless you want to go the mass hallucination route ala Miracle of the Sun and the like.

Of course trying to read Irenaeus hurts the head after a while:

"But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured."

Uh ok. Ouch my head hurts.

 

[dejudge]

Not even writings attributed to 2nd century apologetic writers acknowledge epistles attributed to Peter.

The author of "Against Heresies" appears to know nothing of epistles of Peter.

BZZZ WRONG.

BZZZ WRONG. Don't you see the word EPISTLES.

The author of "Against Heresies appears to known nothing of EPISTLES of Peter.

The author of "Against Heresies" did NOT state Peter wrote EPISTLES.

The author of "Against Heresies" mentioned ONE Epistle of Peter.

You can't quote something you have no knowledge of.

So Irenaeus knew of a Peter epistle. The question is did he know of 2 Peter. Hard to tell. If he did he certainly didn't quote it. But he just rambles in places and it may have served his purposes.

You can't talk about something when you have no knowledge. Answer your own question!!! BZZZZZ

The author of "Against Heresies" appears to know nothing of EPISTLES of Peter.

The author of "Against Heresies" did not state that PETER wrote EPISTLES.

The author of "Against Hereseis" mentioned ONE Epistle of Peter.

Now, you forget that it is still claimed by Scholars that 1 Peter is a forgery or falsely attributed to Peter.

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

Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language

Nothing has changed. "Against Heresies" is not historically credible.

Virtually everything about the dating, authorship and chronology of NT writings in "Against Heresies" have been REJECTED by Scholars.

Essentially, "Against Heresies" introduced ALL FAKE authors of the NT in order to [falsely] give PRIMACY to the Church.

"Against Heresies" is still historical garbage.

 

[dejudge]

Take it up with Richard Carrier, it's not my argument.

You have no argument because you have no evidence for an historical Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Except hints of this keep popping up in the forge Epistles such as 1 Tim 1.3-4, 4.6-7, 2 Tim 4.3-4; 1 Jn 1.1-3, 2 Jn 7-11 and so on.

But "the Church" of this time also denied that Jesus was a normal man born of Joseph and Mary per Against Heresies.

Irenaeus also rails again the idea that "the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man" which sounds much like the idea of Jesus being a Celestial being who popped down to Earth to teach man something...unless you want to go the mass hallucination route ala Miracle of the Sun and the like.

Of course trying to read Irenaeus hurts the head after a while:

"But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured."

Uh ok. Ouch my head hurts.

So this whole Docetic heresy is something that only crops up later. All the earliest sources have Jesus as a human with a human family. It's only later, after people are calling Jesus a "god" that we start seeing all these weird mumbo-jumbo ideas appearing.

 

[dejudge]

So this whole Docetic heresy is something that only crops up later. All the earliest sources have Jesus as a human with a human family. It's only later, after people are calling Jesus a "god" that we start seeing all these weird mumbo-jumbo ideas appearing.

Again, what nonsense you write!! What early sources are you talking about?

We already know that you are making known fallacious claims.

The earliest Gospels show that Jesus could WALK on Water and TRANSFIGURE.

The earliest manuscripts with stories of Jesus and Paul are dated no earlier than the late 2nd century and they describe Jesus of Nazareth as an Ascending Resurrecting, Transfiguring, water walking son of a God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

Fiction stories about a character called Jesus from the 2nd century are useless to argue that Jesus was a figure of history in the time of Augustus and Tiberius.

Please, please, please!!!!

We cannot go over your fallacious arguments.

Fiction stories about Satan and the Angel Gabriel in the NT cannot be used to argue as history regardless of the time they were composed.

The very same thing applies to the fiction stories about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Brainache]

Again, what nonsense you write!! What early sources are you talking about?

We already know that you are making known fallacious claims.

The earliest Gospels show that Jesus could WALK on Water and TRANSFIGURE.

The earliest manuscripts with stories of Jesus and Paul are dated no earlier than the late 2nd century and they describe Jesus of Nazareth as an Ascending Resurrecting, Transfiguring, water walking son of a God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

Fiction stories about a character called Jesus from the 2nd century are useless to argue that Jesus was a figure of history in the time of Augustus and Tiberius.

Please, please, please!!!!

We cannot go over your fallacious arguments.

Fiction stories about Satan and the Angel Gabriel in the NT cannot be used to argue as history regardless of the time they were composed.

The very same thing applies to the fiction stories about Jesus of Nazareth.

You have said all of this many times before, but it has had zero effect on the debate. Do you really think that if you keep saying it, it will somehow spontaneously transform into a useful argument?

I really don't know what you expect to happen. You haven't convinced anyone and you aren't going to convince anyone, so why do you bother?

 

[IanS]

Note just Paul. Take a look at Dr. Richard Carrier on the Mythical Jesus especially the part 23:24 regarding the the Ascension of Isaiah gospel

Carrier also points to 2 Peter 1:16

"For we have not followed cunningly devised myths, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

which is presented as answering unknown Christians who were claiming that Jesus was a "cunningly devised myth" ...and promptly forge an eyewitnesses account. (25:30)

Just using your above post as a spring board for further comment on HJ people here making such silly remarks as to claim Carrier produced that book because he was funded to do it by mythicists etc. -

- in that film (linked above) Carrier simply explained to begin with, that after he first completed his PhD, he was looking for funding to do further research in ancient history, and the only people that wanted to fund that were those who wanted further research into the history of HJ claims from the bible scholar establishment.

But that was immediately after his PhD when Carrier was first trying to forge a writing carrier in aspects of ancient history and ancient Christian writing. That has nothing to do with the recent peer-reviewed book. That book is published through a peer-review process from a university press because it meets those academic standards for historical accuracy and cogent argument. It's not a private publication paid for by the "American Atheist Society of Jesus Deniers".

Really what should be evident to any neutral reader over the past few pages, is that the remaining two HJ people here cannot accept the truth about this subject at all, and appear to be in precisely the same boat as the barking mad Christian fanatics who can never be dissuaded form their beliefs for faith reasons.

As Carrier has shown, and Ellegard and others have shown this long before Carrier - there is nothing at all in Paul's letters describing a human Jesus known to anyone on the earth. Instead, as they have all shown, Paul is most definitely describing a figure of his religious belief drawn from scripture and revelation. And the author of Paul even says that, repeatedly.

There was no Last Supper (or "lords supper"). Paul specifically insists that the idea came to him as a revelation from the spirit of Jesus in the heavens, complete with the verbatim words of Jesus! It was a "vision". Not an event that actually occurred on earth (or at least, not in any account that Paul gives).

Similarly as Ellegard pointed out decades before Carriers' latest book, and as I have emphasised here many times - in all of Paul's writing, the two or three occasions on which he appears to tell stories as if Jesus was with people on earth, those stories are always said to be either "according to scripture", or "revealed to me from the lord" or "received by me from the lord" etc. They are never stated by Paul as if he knew such details from any source other than scripture and divine revelation where "God was pleased to reveal his son in me". He is not talking about knowledge of a real Jesus ... he only ever talks about revealed knowledge of a messiah understood from scripture and heavenly visions.

And that really is the sum total evidence for a HJ, i.e. Paul's letters (the gospels are laughably absurd as historical sources). The sum total is Paul's visions of a spiritual contact from the heavens.

And on a separate final point - if Craig and other HJ people who commented above had actually watched either of those latest two films of Carrier, they would see that he says the Greek word that was actually used in the texts referring to Jesus as the “seed” of David, is a word meaning something more like “made from” or “made by” or "the product of", not a word meaning “descended” from in any human sense. And that is, according to Carrier, the same word used for the appearance on earth of Adam as “made from” God.

 

[Brainache]

Just using your above post as a spring board for further comment on HJ people here making such silly remarks as to claim Carrier produced that book because he was funded to do it by mythicists etc. -

- in that film (linked above) Carrier simply explained to begin with, that after he first completed his PhD, he was looking for funding to do further research in ancient history, and the only people that wanted to fund that were those who wanted further research into the history of HJ claims from the bible scholar establishment.

But that was immediately after his PhD when Carrier was first trying to forge a writing carrier in aspects of ancient history and ancient Christian writing. That has nothing to do with the recent peer-reviewed book. That book is published through a peer-review process from a university press because it meets those academic standards for historical accuracy and cogent argument. It's not a private publication paid for by the "American Atheist Society of Jesus Deniers".

Really what should be evident to any neutral reader over the past few pages, is that the remaining two HJ people here cannot accept the truth about this subject at all, and appear to be in precisely the same boat as the barking mad Christian fanatics who can never be dissuaded form their beliefs for faith reasons.

As Carrier has shown, and Ellegard and others have shown this long before Carrier - there is nothing at all in Paul's letters describing a human Jesus known to anyone on the earth. Instead, as they have all shown, Paul is most definitely describing a figure of his religious belief drawn from scripture and revelation. And the author of Paul even says that, repeatedly.

I'm aware that you keep repeating this, even though the relevant passages have been quoted and they do indeed show Paul describing a human earthly Jesus. Paul claims to have gotten his "Gospel" from a vision. That "Gospel" is all the malarkey about resurrection and atonement.

There was no Last Supper (or "lords supper"). Paul specifically insists that the idea came to him as a revelation from the spirit of Jesus in the heavens, complete with the verbatim words of Jesus! It was a "vision". Not an event that actually occurred on earth (or at least, not in any account that Paul gives).

So who do you imagine Paul's Jesus was talking to in this passage?:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11:23-29&version=NIV;AMP

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Was Paul's Jesus talking to other Celestial beings up in the sub-lunar heaven, or was he down on earth telling people to say a little prayer with their food and drink?

If Paul's Jesus was supposed to be living up in the sky, how does this little ceremony make any sense?

Similarly as Ellegard pointed out decades before Carriers' latest book, and as I have emphasised here many times - in all of Paul's writing, the two or three occasions on which he appears to tell stories as if Jesus was with people on earth, those stories are always said to be either "according to scripture", or "revealed to me from the lord" or "received by me from the lord" etc. They are never stated by Paul as if he knew such details from any source other than scripture and divine revelation where "God was pleased to reveal his son in me". He is not talking about knowledge of a real Jesus ... he only ever talks about revealed knowledge of a messiah understood from scripture and heavenly visions.

Paul claims to have met the spirit of the risen Jesus. You know the Jesus who suffered and died on the cross, then supposedly came BACK TO LIFE!!! Not back to his home in the sky, but back to the earthly world where all these people saw him. None of those people, James, Peter, the 500 were up in the clouds, were they?

Now, I don't believe for a second that Paul actually met the risen Jesus. I don't believe he got his knowledge from a vision from God. I'm a skeptic, I think he learned about Jesus from those who were followers before him, you know those Jewish guys like James who seem to have a real problem with the shinola Paul is selling.

And that really is the sum total evidence for a HJ, i.e. Paul's letters (the gospels are laughably absurd as historical sources). The sum total is Paul's visions of a spiritual contact from the heavens.

And on a separate final point - if Craig and other HJ people who commented above had actually watched either of those latest two films of Carrier, they would see that he says the Greek word that was actually used in the texts referring to Jesus as the “seed” of David, is a word meaning something more like “made from” or “made by” or "the product of", not a word meaning “descended” from in any human sense. And that is, according to Carrier, the same word used for the appearance on earth of Adam as “made from” God.

The word used is spermatos which occurs eight times in the NT, and is translated by the various versions as shown here:
http://biblehub.com/greek/spermatos_4690.htm

Englishman's Concordance
σπέρματος (spermatos) — 8 Occurrences
John 7:42 N-GNS
GRK: ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαυίδ καὶ
NAS: comes from the descendants of David,
KJV: cometh of the seed of David, and
INT: out of the seed of David and

Acts 13:23 N-GNS
GRK: ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος κατ' ἐπαγγελίαν
NAS: From the descendants of this man,
KJV: Of this man's seed hath God
INT: of the seed according to promise

Romans 1:3 N-GNS
GRK: γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ
NAS: who was born of a descendant of David
KJV: of the seed of David
INT: having come of [the] seed of David according to

Romans 11:1 N-GNS
GRK: εἰμί ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ φυλῆς
NAS: an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,
KJV: of the seed of Abraham,
INT: am of [the] seed of Abraham of [the] tribe
...

Carrier is lying again.

Seriously, why do you believe that guy?

 

[IanS]

OK, on the subject of what word Paul used to describe Jesus as the descendent of David -


Go to 30min 30sec in that video (linked before, but I will link it again below), and listen from there as Carrier explains what word was actually used for the "seed" of David and what those references actually meant .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo


As you will see at 32.51 in that film, in both his slide and his explanation, the word that Paul actually used is not spermatos (that may appear elsewhere, I don't know if it does), but in the passage that Carrier is referring to the word Paul uses is "genomenos"., meaning "to happen", or "to become", or "to be made" .... according to Carrier that word means "manufactured" by God. And he further says that Paul uses the same word "genomenos" when talking of the Christ as "born of a woman", where he (Carrier) explains that the sentence from Paul is almost certainly allegorical and actually said to be that by Paul, i.e. he is not talking about the woman as a biological mother.

Further Carrier also says the exact same word is used in the OT to describe the appearance on earth of Adam, who was of course not ever a real human person. The word is intended to describe an allegorical or mythical figure, Adam, who is manufactured or made or produced by God.

Next - Carrier says that Paul never uses that word to refer to actual human births, "despite using it hundreds of times ... he typically uses it to mean "being" or "becoming" into existence. His preferred word for a human birth is actually "gennao" ".

Further, Carrier says that the early Christians actually realised there was a problem in the way Paul had originally written with those two different uses of two different words, and they "doctored" the later texts to convert one word into the other. And he says we know that, because "we actually caught them doing it (i.e. changing the words in those passages)" , because he says we actually have the early manuscripts and then later versions where the word has been changed.

Now, the question is - is Carrier right in what he says about all of that?

The answer is that I do not know, and nobody posting in this thread knows either. Because I have not checked, and nobody here has checked, the actual original earliest manuscripts themselves to see what the correct and true translations of their words actually said, and what the best experts actually say about the true original meaning of those words in the 1st century (not to mention the source of the information supporting any such experts who claim any certain meaning for any such words in any such truly earliest manuscripts).

So the best that I or anyone else here can possibly do, is to trust (with reservation) the most recent and in-depth peer-reviewed publications that have investigated those particular passages and those particular words. And in the case of current HJ disputes, that DOES mean the book by Carrier in which he explains in detail with full and complete academic references (inc. papers that he has published himself in the biblical research journals) why the claims of earlier biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan and the rest are actually WRONG when they conclude that Paul was talking about real people in a supper with Jesus, when they conclude that Paul says Jesus was a human in the descended line of King David, when they conclude that Paul says Jesus was literally born to a biological mother, when they say that "James" was truly known to Paul as the biological family brother of Jesus etc etc., ... what Carrier shows in that book, is those bible scholars are completely wrong to claim any of that. And he (Carrier) shows why they are wrong in microscopic detail in a 700 page peer-reviewed treatise on the subject.

It's really not credible for any naive HJ belief to dismiss that saying that bible scholars have always claimed that the texts use different words and say different things. Because Carrier has just shown that bible scholars are definitely wrong when they make such claims about the original texts.

 

[maximara]

Carrier is lying again.

No he isn't. As noted before in this thread the supposed Earthly appearances of Jesus are visions. Paul is quite clear on this as pointed out by one of the other posters to this thread (IanS IIRC).

Also as I have pointed out the long before Carrier's book came out the presentation of John Frum as the biological brother Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh a man who only has biological sisters shoots the idea that Jesus was born of the house of David as proof of him being an actual person down real fast.

King David is thought to have lived 1040 to 970 BC ie over 1000 years before Jesus supposedly lived. Even with our modern record keeping only some very important people like the Kings of England can reliable trace their family to the 11th century (ie William the Conqueror).

It should be noted that various Kings from Plantagenet line (ie Henry II - Richard II 1154-1399) on have claiming decent from King Arthur a king we are not sure even existed. In fact, in the 12th century King Arthur supposed coat of arms was three golden leopards...which was a variant of the coat of arms Richard I used near the end of his life.

As Carrier pointed out the Psalms of Solomon (dated to 1st or 2nd century BCE) sets the criteria for the believed coming messiah with his roles as as king, judge, and shepherd outlined and that this messiah would be a 'Son of David' (OHJ pg 89) Therefore any would be messiah real or imagined was going to be a 'Son of David' so that is no proof any more then Prince Philip is proof of John Frum.

 

[maximara]

OK, on the subject of what word Paul used to describe Jesus as the descendent of David -


Go to 30min 30sec in that video (linked before, but I will link it again below), and listen from there as Carrier explains what word was actually used for the "seed" of David and what those references actually meant .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo


As you will see at 32.51 in that film, in both his slide and his explanation, the word that Paul actually used is not spermatos (that may appear elsewhere, I don't know if it does), but in the passage that Carrier is referring to the word Paul uses is "genomenos"., meaning "to happen", or "to become", or "to be made" .... according to Carrier that word means "manufactured" by God

I have been using the Greekbible as a reference and for Romans 1:3 it says

ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥ ΕΚ ΣΠΕΡΜΑΤΟΣ ΔΑΥΙΔ ΚΑΤΑ ΣΑΡΚΑ

Here we have BOTH "genomenos" and "spermatos" occurring together.

A cross check with Strong's Concordance confirms that Carrier is in the right here. Some move digging in google books gave me Herbert Lockyer (1964) All the Doctrines of the Bible; Page 43 in the 1988 reprint as the earliest reference to this I could find.

Rechecking OHJ confirms that Carrier does make this argument (pg 575-77, 579-82)