The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

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?

You have repeated your nonsense "a million times". We know that you have no credible and no contemporary historical evidence for your HJ.

You have ALREADY discredited the Pauline Corpus and admitted Paul was a Liar and conman.

The Pauline Corpus is historical GARBAGE--an ADMITTED compilation of forgery, false attribution, fiction and falsehood.

Please. please, please, stop wasting time.

All sources of antiquity which made references to the Pauline Corpus agree that the Pauline Jesus is the same Jesus who was born of a Ghost and a Virgin--the CREATOR heaven and earth.

It is presently IMPOSSIBLE to argue for an historical Jesus because there is NO historical data and it appears that there NEVER was.

Every single EXISTING manuscript with stories of Jesus AGREE with mythology and fiction.

Jesus was a fabricated figure of fiction and mythology just like Romulus, Remus and PAULUS.

 

[IanS]

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.

All of these discussions for the past few months are pointless anyway. Because the remaining rump of the HJ posters here have completely failed to produce any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone at all. None.

What is claimed as evidence of Jesus, as a couple of us pointed out years ago from the very first page of these threads, is only evidence of peoples religious beliefs written as preaching in the gospels and letters of the bible.

That is evidence of their beliefs. Not evidence of a human Jesus known to any of them.

In fact - Paul's letters have been very clearly shown here, and explained in detail in Carriers book (and other books etc.), to be describing only Paul's belief in a Jesus known to him from scripture and revelation, and definitely not from anything else.

And the gospels are so crammed full of miracle fiction and stories copied from OT scripture, that only a complete delusional moron could present them as credible sources of reliable historical fact.

And finally, as Carrier and numerous other authors have shown - none of the extra-biblical writing from the likes of Tacitus and Josephus etc. is independent of the gospels, letters and Christian preaching of the time. So those are not original sources for anything their later hearsay authors actually knew about Jesus (apart from the fact that extant copies are all a whopping 1000 years too late).

So there simply is no evidence of Jesus. And certainly none has been presented by any HJ believer here.

Unless and until HJ posters here find some actual genuine evidence of human Jesus known to anyone, there is nothing else left to say here. Certainly nothing new left to say (we have been over all of it literally hundreds of times on every imaginable point).

 

[Brainache]

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)

No, Carrier isn't in the right. At the very least he is misrepresenting the text.

"genomenos" of the "spermatos" of David... Was Paul saying that jesus was literally built from David's sperm? What bollocks!

http://biblehub.com/greek/spermatos_4690.htm

Here is a list of where "spermatos" appears in the NT:

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

2 Timothy 2:8 N-GNS
GRK: νεκρῶν ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ κατὰ
NAS: from the dead, descendant of David,
KJV: Christ of the seed of David was raised
INT: [the] dead of [the] seed of David according to

Hebrews 2:16 N-GNS
GRK: ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται
NAS: but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
KJV: he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
INT: he helps but of [the] seed of Abraham he helps

Hebrews 11:11 N-GNS
GRK: εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν καὶ
KJV: conceive seed, and
INT: for [the] conception of seed received and

Revelation 12:17 N-GNS
GRK: λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς τῶν
NAS: with the rest of her children, who keep
KJV: the remnant of her seed, which keep
INT: rest of the children of her who

Just taking this one example:
"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"

That is Paul describing himself. Is he saying that he wasn't a human being on earth?

As for why there is only CraigB and I left on the HJ side of this debate, I can't say for sure, but it might have something to do with the kind of dishonesty on display in the last few posts from the MJ crowd. I might also point out that there are only two MJ posters left ( I don't count dejudge, he's not debating anyone).

 

[Brainache]

All of these discussions for the past few months are pointless anyway. Because the remaining rump of the HJ posters here have completely failed to produce any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone at all. None.

What is claimed as evidence of Jesus, as a couple of us pointed out years ago from the very first page of these threads, is only evidence of peoples religious beliefs written as preaching in the gospels and letters of the bible.

That is evidence of their beliefs. Not evidence of a human Jesus known to any of them.

In fact - Paul's letters have been very clearly shown here, and explained in detail in Carriers book (and other books etc.), to be describing only Paul's belief in a Jesus known to him from scripture and revelation, and definitely not from anything else.

And the gospels are so crammed full of miracle fiction and stories copied from OT scripture, that only a complete delusional moron could present them as credible sources of reliable historical fact.

And finally, as Carrier and numerous other authors have shown - none of the extra-biblical writing from the likes of Tacitus and Josephus etc. is independent of the gospels, letters and Christian preaching of the time. So those are not original sources for anything their later hearsay authors actually knew about Jesus (apart from the fact that extant copies are all a whopping 1000 years too late).

So there simply is no evidence of Jesus. And certainly none has been presented by any HJ believer here.

Unless and until HJ posters here find some actual genuine evidence of human Jesus known to anyone, there is nothing else left to say here. Certainly nothing new left to say (we have been over all of it literally hundreds of times on every imaginable point).

Given the fact that you don't seem to understand the notion of Historical evidence, or the fact that the HJ is merely the most probable explanation for the origins of Christianity (there being zero evidence for a cult of ethereal sub-lunar Jesus worship in early 1st century Palestine), what would you consider to be "actual genuine evidence of (a) human Jesus known to anyone"?

What would you accept? Long form birth certificate? Medical records? Court transcripts from his trial? Newspaper articles? Fingerprints?

It is a real question: What do you imagine such "actual genuine evidence" could be?

 

[dejudge]

That is Paul describing himself. Is he saying that he wasn't a human being on earth?

The Pauline Jesus was God Incarnate which is in agreement with the Church which CANONISED the very Pauline Corpus.

This is the Pauline Corpus describing the origin of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:47--- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

This is the Pauline Corpus describing the parents of Jesus.

Galatians 4:4--- But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

This is the Pauline Corpus describing the nature of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:45--- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

This is the Pauline Corpus describing Jesus as God Creator.

Colossians 1---16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.

This is the Pauline Corpus describing Jesus as equal to God.

Philippians 2:5-6--- Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus is true GOD, true SPIRIT and true MAN.

The Pauline Jesus is TRUE MYTH.

The Pauline Jesus NEVER had any real existence.

The Pauline Jesus is the product of a fleshless bloodless conference.

This is the Pauline Corpus describing how Jesus was revealed to Paul.

Galatians 1----15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage or the product of forgeries, false attribution, fiction and falsehood.

As for why there is only CraigB and I left on the HJ side of this debate, I can't say for sure, but it might have something to do with the kind of dishonesty on display in the last few posts from the MJ crowd. I might also point out that there are only two MJ posters left ( I don't count dejudge, he's not debating anyone).

How fascinating!!! You just accused people here of dishonesty and then immediately made a statement that is void of veracity.

 

[maximara]

Given the fact that you don't seem to understand the notion of Historical evidence, or the fact that the HJ is merely the most probable explanation for the origins of Christianity (there being zero evidence for a cult of ethereal sub-lunar Jesus worship in early 1st century Palestine), what would you consider to be "actual genuine evidence of (a) human Jesus known to anyone"?

As John Frum and Ned Ludd shows you can have a founder formed out of apparently thin air. If either of these two people did exist they certainly left no contemporary record if the movements started when it is originally claimed they did. Strangely both John Furm and Ned Ludd have about a 30 year gap between when movement supposedly first founded and when outsiders take notice and this is about the time between when Jesus was supposedly preaching and Paul's letters.

When we look at moments with clear founders we don't see this generational+ gap. So why does it appear with Jesus?

As for the "zero evidence" song and dance is concerned we are working from what amounts to a stacked deck with Christians deciding through their copying what survived and what didn't. We would expect there to be dozens if not hundreds of Christian correspondence in the 1st century and yet all we have is three authors.

So we AGAIN hit the issue of what didn't the Christians preserves works that would given us a better picture of the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Why is there a gap in Cassius Dio's Roman History for the period of 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE?

Why is the section of Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) that based other works covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail only a fragmented mess?

Why is Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero missing?

Why has the section that covered 29-31 CE in Annals of Tacitus been removed entirely?

Why when it comes to anything that could support a HJ outside Christian records (as messed up as they are) we run into tampering or so vague it might as well be urban myth?

What would you accept? Long form birth certificate? Medical records? Court transcripts from his trial? Newspaper articles? Fingerprints?

It is a real question: What do you imagine such "actual genuine evidence" could be?

Which bring up the Devil Advocate position I have presented several times: based on how little Josephus give us on even major would be messiahs the idea that mans whose ministry may have not even lasted a year slipping through the cracks is quite reasonable.

Supposedly the John Frum movement started in the 1910s and only hit critical mass to where outsiders noticed anything in 1940 so a long gap between 'foundation' and notice is plausible.

The counter point is that means with regards to the popularity and scope of Christianity the Gospels and Acts are basically selling us snake oil.

Christianity as a movement noticeable by non believers doesn't hit critical mass until the early 2nd century. What we instead seems to have is a mystery orientated religion practiced in several localities by very small groups. Remember that Pliny in his letter talks about people being "denounced to me as Christians" meaning that the movement isn't out in the open but secret.

But this raises questions about Christianity in Paul's time if it was just as secret how did Paul known what to look for to persecute it? Or was Paul actually not persecuting Christianity as a whole but only certain sects of it that he was now trying to sway to his way of thinking?

 

[Brainache]

As John Frum and Ned Ludd shows you can have a founder formed out of apparently thin air. If either of these two people did exist they certainly left no contemporary record.

As for the "zero evidence" song and dance is concerned we are working from what amounts to a stacked deck with Christians deciding through their copying what survived and what didn't. We would expect there to be dozens if not hundreds of Christian correspondence in the 1st century and yet all we have is three authors.

So we AGAIN hit the issue of what didn't the Christians preserves works that would given us a better picture of the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Why is there a gap in Cassius Dio's Roman History for the period of 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE?

Why is the section of Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) that based other works covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail only a fragmented mess?

Why is Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero missing?

Why has the section that covered 29-31 CE in Annals of Tacitus been removed entirely?

Why when it comes to anything that could support a HJ outside Christian records (as messed up as they are) we run into tampering or so vague it might as well be urban myth?




Which bring up the Devil Advocate position I have presented several times: based on how little Josephus give us on even major would be messiahs the idea that mans whose ministry may have not even lasted a year slipping through the cracks is quite reasonable.

Supposedly the John Frum movement started in the 1910s and only hit critical mass to where outsiders noticed anything in 1940 so a long gap between 'foundation' and notice is plausible.

The counter point is that means with regards to the popularity and scope of Christianity the Gospels and Acts are basically selling us snake oil.

Christianity as a movement noticeable by non believers doesn't hit critical mass until the early 2nd century. What we instead seems to have is a mystery orientated religion practiced in several localities by very small groups. Remember that Pliny in his letter talks about people being "denounced to me as Christians" meaning that the movement isn't out int he open but secret.

But this raise questions about Christianity in Paul's time if it was just as secret how did Paul known what to look for to persecute it? Or was Paul actually not persecuting Christianity as a whole but only certain sects of it that he was now trying to sway to his way of thinking?

by largely isolated communities that

So we've moved on from Carrier's dishonesty? OK.

I'll just get back on my DSS hobbyhorse and point out this passage from the Community Rule:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

With those, however, that have chosen the right path everyone is indeed to discuss matters pertaining to the apprehension (knowledge) of God's truth and of His righteous judgments. The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community, to give them insight into God's inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. For this is the time when 'the way is being prepared in the wilderness', and it behooves them to understand all that is happening. It is also the time when they must needs keep apart from all other men and not turn aside from the way through any form of perversity.

The first rule of Jesus club is: Don't talk about Jesus club...

 

[maximara]

So we've moved on from Carrier's dishonesty?

There is no dishonesty on Carrier's part. Simply claiming there is doesn't magically make it true.

As I pointed out before the "genomenos" thing predates Carrier by several decades and was presented by the Pro-HJ crowd. If any one was being "dishonest" it was the Pro-HJ crowd. Surprise, surprise, surprise (in Gomer Pyle voice)

"However, Paul's reference to Yeshua's birth (genomenos, the same term used in Romans 1:3, “descended from David..." Mark S. Kinzer Postmissionary Messianic Judaism 2005 Baker (We publish titles for lay Christians on topics such as discipleship, apologetics, spirituality, relationships, marriage, parenting, and the intersection of Christianity and culture. )

"..."avoids using 'o genomenos (the coming one) as unacceptable "because ginomai means 'to become' "..." Carl F. H. Henry 1999 God Who Stands and Stays Crossway (another Christian publisher)


The aforementioned Herbert Lockye 1964 All the Doctrines of the Bible is using genomenos as an argument for the virgin birth

Part of the Pro-HJ crowd was messing with the meaning genomenos before Carrier was even born so blaming him is being dishonest.

 

[Brainache]

There is no dishonesty on Carrier's part. Simply claiming there is doesn't magically make it true.

I've shown how he is misrepresenting the text, you chose to ignore that.

Oh well.

 

[maximara]

I've shown how he is misrepresenting the text, you chose to ignore that.

No it is YOU who is ignoring the FACT that the Pro-HJ crowd was "misrepresenting the text" before Carrier was even born to claim Paul was talking about the virgin birth. You can't cry foul when your fellow HJers are also "misrepresenting the text" in support of fantasies like the virgin birth.

 

[Brainache]

No it is YOU who is ignoring the FACT that the Pro-HJ crowd was "misrepresenting the text" before Carrier was even born to claim Paul was talking about the virgin birth. You can't cry foul when your fellow HJers are also "misrepresenting the text" in support of fantasies like the virgin birth.

What? Who has been arguing for the virgin birth, outside of Christian Apologists?

IanS said this:

...
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...

So Carrier is leaving out the rather important point that what Paul is saying is that Jesus was made ("genemenos") by God from the seed of ("spermatos") of David.

So either Paul is saying that there are tubs full of David's spunk up in heaven that God uses to make sub-lunar messiah mud pies... Or, Jesus was a descendant of David in the same way that Paul claims descent from Abraham... In the flesh, down here on the earth...

 

[maximara]

So either Paul is saying that there are tubs full of David's spunk up in heaven that God uses to make sub-lunar messiah mud pies... Or, Jesus was a descendant of David in the same way that Paul claims descent from Abraham... In the flesh, down here on the earth...

Carrier talks about the idea "that Jesus was indeed made from a celestial sperm that God snatched from David" on page 581 and the idea of "a cosmic sperm bank" appears on page 577. While taken out of context they come off goofy as all get out in the context of the 10 some pages they are with it actual makes some degree of sense.

We must remember the time we are talking about. This was a period where being claimed as the son of some deity was to lead credence to one's position; Augustus Caesar for example supposedly was the son of Apollo and impregnated his mother in the form of a snake. Let's just say old Sigmund Freud would have had a field day with some of these stories.

 

[Brainache]

Carrier talks about the idea "that Jesus was indeed made from a celestial sperm that God snatched from David" on page 581 and the idea of "a cosmic sperm bank" appears on page 577. While taken out of context they come off goofy as all get out in the context of the 10 some pages they are with it actual makes some degree of sense.

We must remember the time we are talking about. This was a period where being claimed as the son of some deity was to lead credence to one's position; Augustus Caesar for example supposedly was the son of Apollo and impregnated his mother in the form of a snake. Let's just say old Sigmund Freud would have had a field day with some of these stories.

Yes, but in Jewish tradition "Son of God" is a title conferred on Davidic Kings like David and Solomon, who were not thought to be Kings in some sub-lunar realm, they were Kings of the Jews down here on earth (at least as far as people in 1st century Palestine knew, modern Scholars may disagree).

But Carrier has definitely gone "goofy" if he thinks that Paul's audience would have heard "Made by God from the seed of David..." and thought it referred to God operating a sub-lunar sperm bank... It's just not a credible interpretation.

Does Carrier ever get around to providing evidence for a cult that believed in a sub-lunar Jesus for generations before the gospels were written down? Or, does he just mention various gnostic beliefs from the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

 

[dejudge]

Does Carrier ever get around to providing evidence for a cult that believed in a sub-lunar Jesus for generations before the gospels were written down? Or, does he just mention various gnostic beliefs from the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Will you ever get around to providing contemporary evidence from antiquity for your historical Jesus?

Or do you just use manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century or later?

After all, even if Carrier is wrong about the sub-lunar Jesus you will still have to present your EVIDENCE for your HJ.

 

[dejudge]

I've shown how he is misrepresenting the text, you chose to ignore that.

Oh well.

Your post is most fascinating. You accuse people of misrepresenting text while you are presently doing the very same thing.

Multiple Christians of antiquity argued that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus from heaven.

In addition you misrepresent the teachings of the Church when you argue that the Pauline Jesus was a mere man.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven, and God Creator.

 

[Brainache]

Your post is most fascinating. You accuse people of misrepresenting text while you are presently doing the very same thing.

Multiple Christians of antiquity argued that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus from heaven.

In addition you misrepresent the teachings of the Church when you argue that the Pauline Jesus was a mere man.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven, and God Creator.

Well, since god doesn't exist, and Paul describes an earthly Jesus, I think the most likely explanation is that Jesus was a human being.

You can believe in all the supernatural entities you like, but don't expect me to agree with that.

 

[Craig B]

Carrier talks about the idea "that Jesus was indeed made from a celestial sperm that God snatched from David" on page 581 and the idea of "a cosmic sperm bank" appears on page 577. While taken out of context they come off goofy as all get out in the context of the 10 some pages they are with it actual makes some degree of sense.

Now I know why you've been so reluctant to give us a résumé of the content of the Ten Pages of Wisdom! It has literally never occurred to me that "made of the seed of David" could be taken by anyone to mean being a sublunar spiritual entity manufactured from sublunarised semen filched by God from David's testes. This is completely mad.

Goofy? Freud would have had a "field day" not with anything else more than this. He'd have thrown away his notebook in despair if Carrier has uttered such ideas in his presence, and telephoned the men who have straitjackets and padded cells at their disposal.

We must remember the time we are talking about. This was a period where being claimed as the son of some deity was to lead credence to one's position; Augustus Caesar for example supposedly was the son of Apollo and impregnated his mother in the form of a snake. Let's just say old Sigmund Freud would have had a field day with some of these stories.

He'd have taken them in his stride after hearing the Carrier version of events. At the risk of boring you with repetition, I will restate some things.

The expression Son of God is a regnal title of the anointed monarchs of the Davidic dynasties. It is given even where the physical father is specified as not God, e.g. Jesse for David and David for Solomon. God even says to David: after you die (and your son Solomon is anointed) I will make Solomon my son.

This is the original sense of Son of God. It is a messianic human title and does NOT imply that its bearer is divine. For David was not divine, for example. Paul says, Jesus belongs to this lineage. Paul is thereby saying Jesus is a human messianic figure. After his death, God hoisted him into the sky to show that all faithful people will be raised to eternal life after their deaths. I have seen him there, says Paul; he has spoken to me, and we will soon all go up to meet him.

Later, pagan ideas about gods impregnating women, along with misunderstood and even mistranslated expressions from the Tanakh, got mixed up with the original ideas and produced the Virgin Birth stories. These are contradicted by earlier material in the Gospels, and by John, and are unknown in the general epistles or in Revelation: so they are rejected by the HJ proponents as evident mythical accretions.

But the original Son of God idea is perfectly compatible with a human Jesus on Earth, in which Paul evidently believed. It is all the more certain that he believed it, if the alternative is buckets of preserved sperm floating in the sky somewhere south of the Moon.

 

[Brainache]

Now I know why you've been so reluctant to give us a résumé of the content of the Ten Pages of Wisdom! It has literally never occurred to me that "made of the seed of David" could be taken by anyone to mean being a sublunar spiritual entity manufactured from sublunarised semen filched by God from David's testes. This is completely mad.

Goofy? Freud would have had a "field day" not with anything else more than this. He'd have thrown away his notebook in despair if Carrier has uttered such ideas in his presence, and telephoned the men who have straitjackets and padded cells at their disposal. He'd have taken them in his stride after hearing the Carrier version of events. At the risk of boring you with repetition, I will restate some things.

The expression Son of God is a regnal title of the anointed monarchs of the Davidic dynasties. It is given even where the physical father is specified as not God, e.g. Jesse for David and David for Solomon. God even says to David: after you die (and your son Solomon is anointed) I will make Solomon my son.

This is the original sense of Son of God. It is a messianic human title and does NOT imply that its bearer is divine. For David was not divine, for example. Paul says, Jesus belongs to this lineage. Paul is thereby saying Jesus is a human messianic figure. After his death, God hoisted him into the sky to show that all faithful people will be raised to eternal life after their deaths. I have seen him there, says Paul; he has spoken to me, and we will soon all go up to meet him.

Later, pagan ideas about gods impregnating women, along with misunderstood and even mistranslated expressions from the Tanakh, got mixed up with the original ideas and produced the Virgin Birth stories. These are contradicted by earlier material in the Gospels, and by John, and are unknown in the general epistles or in Revelation: so they are rejected by the HJ proponents as evident mythical accretions.

But the original Son of God idea is perfectly compatible with a human Jesus on Earth, in which Paul evidently believed. It is all the more certain that he believed it, if the alternative is buckets of preserved sperm floating in the sky somewhere south of the Moon.

Indeed.

Carrier is talking a load of bollocks...

 

[IanS]

What would I accept as genuine evidence of Jesus known to anyone? Any relatively reliable author of the time describing how they had met Jesus, or describing how some other reliable witness or witnesses had met & described Jesus.

Alternatively (or additionally), any physical/archaeological remains of the sort that we find for Roman emperors and other famous people of the time.

Or, a reasonably credible description from someone like Paul, who had himself perhaps never known Jesus, but where that "someone like Paul" had not claimed to know Jesus only as a fictional spirit, but had instead given a reasonably detailed account of what he had heard of the earthly life of Jesus such that certain basic facts could be checked, e.g. the approx. date of the birth of Jesus, the years when he was preaching, where he was preaching, any well known people that came to hear him preach, places that Jesus visited and people who he went to visit there, a reasonable number of different teachings or stories which "someone like Paul" might give as the main speeches that Jesus made, a properly detailed description of how Jesus had come to be crucified, e.g. why he was arrested, what was said about any arrest by Jesus or by any officials who arrested him and/or tried him, what date this was, etc. etc.

Any reasonable amount of things like that. Things which could at least in principle be checked, coming as information from a writer in the same lifetime as Jesus (e.g. Paul), or very nearly contemporary to the claimed time of Jesus.

That would not include the Gospel writers of course. They are nothing remotely like Paul. For a start they are completely anonymous, so their veracity and reliability can never be checked. And unlike Paul, what they wrote was a series of miracle claims which, although universally believed at the time (and in fact believed right up until about 100-200 years ago, ... no doubt even still believed today by many Christians), have since been proven by science to be certainly all untrue fiction. So the gospel authors and their writing is completely unreliable as a source for anything they claimed about an impossible Jesus figure they had never known.

So it would be evidence of that kind.

But what we certainly should never accept as reliable evidence, are the impossible gospels riddled with fiction on every page, and letters from Paul that actually say the author obtained his Jesus beliefs from scripture and from revelation, and not ever from anywhere else. And where that is the sum total of all the claimed evidence for a human Jesus who was never known to anyone. That is very obviously not credible as evidence of a living Jesus.

On the issue of what Carrier said about Paul's use of the word "genomenos", meaning "to happen", or "to become", or "to be made" vs. the word "spermatos" .... according to Carrier that word means "manufactured" by God. But firstly, if Carrier is being criticised here for not pointing out in the film that both words were used in some or all of the extant copies or fragments of the Pauline letters, then note that the HJ people in this thread did not mention the use by Paul of the word "genomenos" when they claimed Paul only said "spermatos" ...

... so according to their own discussion and their own posts it appears that the HJ posters here did not know that Paul had qualified the word "spermatos" by adding the word ""genomenos", which according to Carrier means "manufactured by/from" God.

Now I do not have original earliest extant copies of P46 or other mss of Paul's earliest writing, so I cannot say what words were actually used in the "original" copies of Paul. But if Carrier is right to say that qualifying term ""genomenos" was sometimes used by Paul when describing descent from David, and if he is right about the meaning of that word in Paul's usage, then it follows that Carrier is probably correct to interpret that as showing that Paul mean the same as he did when he and/or others used that same word ""genomenos" about the creation of Adam ... i.e., that it means "created from" or "created by", and does not mean a normal biological family sibling of any normal sort.

That's all that Carrier is pointing out about the fact (he says it's a fact) that Paul does use that term "genomenos". Ie that is shows Paul was talking about Jesus being "created" or "made" or "manufactured" by God in that same ancestral line as David was believed to be from OT prophecy. That is - he is talking not about any human family descent of real human people, but of creation or manufacture by God. Or at least that's what Carrier seems to be arguing. And if that word "genomenos" is there at all in Paul's letters, then there does seem to be room for that argument at the very least.

Though as I pointed out to Craig about 4 pages back - this argument appears to be completely pointless anyway, because apparently David is now widely thought amongst bible scholars to be fictional anyway. E.g., according to Carrier in that film, and Huddleston in the earlier film, current scholarship accepts that David did not even exist to be the ancestral father of anyone let alone Jesus 1000 years in the future!

And finally, the other thing we must always keep in mind when making claims about what any of Paul’s extant letters actually truly say, is something that Carrier also stressed in that last film. Namely that - all the writing we have as extant copies of any letters or gospels, appears to be some centuries after supposed originals once existed, but in the extant copies it is certain that Christian copyists were changing all sorts of words and sentences that they came to disagree with ... Carrier says in the film that there were actually more complete forgeries written that any genuine letters or gospels at that time, i.e. he says about 3 to 4 times as many forgeries as there were supposedly genuine documents ...

... so as Carrier stresses, we have to, and he had to, go back to find the earliest examples of what was said in any letters and gospels, because that often turns out to be different from what appears in later copies where crucial words and crucial sentences have been changed.

That is vital if you are trying to decide what word or words Paul originally used for ideas and beliefs about Jesus as the “seed” of an imaginary prophetic David from the OT.

 

[Brainache]

What would I accept as genuine evidence of Jesus known to anyone? Any relatively reliable author of the time describing how they had met Jesus, or describing how some other reliable witness or witnesses had met & described Jesus.

Alternatively (or additionally), any physical/archaeological remains of the sort that we find for Roman emperors and other famous people of the time.

Or, a reasonably credible description from someone like Paul, who had himself perhaps never known Jesus, but where that "someone like Paul" had not claimed to know Jesus only as a fictional spirit, but had instead given a reasonably detailed account of what he had heard of the earthly life of Jesus such that certain basic facts could be checked, e.g. the approx. date of the birth of Jesus, the years when he was preaching, where he was preaching, any well known people that came to hear him preach, places that Jesus visited and people who he went to visit there, a reasonable number of different teachings or stories which "someone like Paul" might give as the main speeches that Jesus made, a properly detailed description of how Jesus had come to be crucified, e.g. why he was arrested, what was said about any arrest by Jesus or by any officials who arrested him and/or tried him, what date this was, etc. etc.

Any reasonable amount of things like that. Things which could at least in principle be checked, coming as information from a writer in the same lifetime as Jesus (e.g. Paul), or very nearly contemporary to the claimed time of Jesus.

...

I'll leave the rest for now, but as for this bit: Do you really think that if someone had written such a thing describing a purely human teacher, that it would have survived? Apparently there once existed a "Gospel of the Ebionites" which described Jesus as a mortal human teacher, an ordinary man, but it was deemed Heretical and it was destroyed. Similarly any non-Christian account of Jesus which denied the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection would have been deemed heretical and destroyed. We only know of Celsus' criticisms because we have copies of a book refuting him.

There may be something yet undiscovered in a cave somewhere or on a charred scroll in Pompeii that fits your criteria: A complete copy of Philo's works or something.

There is a lot of "Early Christian Writings" that aren't in the bible:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

ETA:
Here's an interesting little snippet from one of those early Christian writings. It is from something called "Kerygmata Petrou" and is supposedly Peter talking to Paul:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/kerygmatapetrou.html

...
1. "If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? 2. And if you will say, `It is possible,' then I ask, `Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' 3. And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? 4. But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. 5. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. 6. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. 7. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us."

It's a reconstruction from the Ebionite tradition of Pseudo-Clementine writings. Make of it what you will, but I'll just note that this is a very old debate...