ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old 13th July 2020, 01:07 AM   #2481
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
In fact, it isn't ambiguous at all. In all three of the extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, the Beloved (Christ) comes to earth and is found 'dwelling among men'. So Dr Carrier is wrong if he suggests otherwise. I go into this in detail on the Early Writings forum where I created a thread a couple of years ago on the topic:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4640

Jesus is crucified on earth according to the Ethiopic version, which has Jesus born to Mary and is crucified in Jerusalem. The Slavonic/Latin texts have the Beloved come to earth, to dwell among men. While the location of the crucifixion in the Slavonic/Latin texts is missing, it is clearly below the firmament, since the Beloved descends below the firmament before the story hits the fragmented sections. But the passages earlier in the text implies that the crucifixion takes place on earth, though Ben C Smith -- a man who knows much more than me! -- suggests in the thread that the original author possibly had Hades in mind. But it seems to be either earth or Hades, and not the firmament.

So in the three extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have:
1. the Beloved descending to earth and dwelling among men in all extant versions
2. No crucifixion in the firmament

That's clear in the extant texts. The text that Carrier refers to in his books and videos is a 'reconstruction', but people reading his book and viewing his videos on the topic come away with the idea that Carrier has actually found a variant text that supports a heavenly crucifixion. However, no such text exists outside of Carrier's imagination.

If anyone doubts this, read the link. I've cited all the pertinent passages so you can check this for yourself.
But, but, Carrier is a genius! Just ask him...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 02:23 AM   #2482
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
OK, well … all neutral readers can now see for themselves that we have reached the point in this thread where it is now openly being said that the reason we know Jesus was real is because it says so in the bible.

Thats' the level of pro-HJ argument that we are actually dealing with here.

And by the way (just for more objectively educated neutral readers here) – in checking a few “facts” before writing parts of my above posts, I listened to a YouTube interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times” … OK, so the point is – that is exactly what I have said here about 12 times now (eg taking it from the book by Hodge; full ref given earlier) …

… so here is a bible scholar (actually by far the THE most prominent bible scholar on this specific subject of Jesus Historicity), saying exactly what I had said from the Dead Sea Scrolls … namely (in case the point is not crystal clear) – the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters about a priestly messiah named Yehosua/Iesous (ie “Jesus” in 11th century English), was already being preached in the Dead Sea scrolls in that exact same tiny region from probably at least 200 years before Paul.

In that same interview, as proof that James was indeed the human brother of a human Jesus, Ehrman makes the same joke that he made in his public book-reading for the launch of his book Did Jesus Exist (and this is something that I have also mentioned here several times before) - namely, that when asked about the evidence for Jesus in the light of scepticism or “mythicism”, he says about James in that half-sentence in one of Paul's letters “you would think his own brother would know if Jesus was real! Ha ha!”

… well, Ehrman may think that's an amusing remark, but as his main evidence of Jesus he is actually trying to tell people that the half-sentence show's Jesus was indeed real because his own brother would have certainly known that Jesus was real … so according to Ehrman that's effectively a proof of Jesus right there in the letter… and that's the standard of academic incompetence that people here are constantly appealing to as their “authority” in this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtOq-o-5Y6I
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 02:25 AM   #2483
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
But, but, Carrier is a genius! Just ask him...
Dr Carrier is the living embodiment of the expression "Often wrong, never in doubt."
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 02:35 AM   #2484
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Dr Carrier is the living embodiment of the expression "Often wrong, never in doubt."
I think I know the type.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 03:46 AM   #2485
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
And by the way (just for more objectively educated neutral readers here) – in checking a few “facts” before writing parts of my above posts, I listened to a YouTube interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times” … OK, so the point is – that is exactly what I have said here about 12 times now (eg taking it from the book by Hodge; full ref given earlier) …

… so here is a bible scholar (actually by far the THE most prominent bible scholar on this specific subject of Jesus Historicity), saying exactly what I had said from the Dead Sea Scrolls … namely (in case the point is not crystal clear) – the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters about a priestly messiah named Yehosua/Iesous (ie “Jesus” in 11th century English), was already being preached in the Dead Sea scrolls in that exact same tiny region from probably at least 200 years before Paul.

Show were Hodge talks about an early belief in an executed messiah or that Jesus was a myth. Otherwise you're wasting your time.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 04:11 AM   #2486
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Show were Hodge talks about an early belief in an executed messiah or that Jesus was a myth. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

I do not have to do any such thing. And you are still waaaaay overdue for producing your proof of how you showed James to be the human brother of a human Jesus.

But I already told you that the book by Stephen Hodge (see link below to buy a copy, or just borrow a copy from your local library) is NOT a book about Jesus, or about any so-called "mythicism" or anything whatsoever like that. It's book entirely about the Dead Sea Scrolls ... but unusually amongst those books on the Scrolls, it does explain in one chapter that what we see in the Scrolls is belief in an apocalyptic priestly messiah (just as Bart Ehrman himself agrees is true), and that such preaching was by then quite commonplace and was replacing the earlier preaching/teaching where traditional OT preaching had for hundreds of years previously believed that the messiah would be a princely royal or military leader who would save the fortunes of the people of Israel (God's chosen people) in battle by leading them to great victories over all those who they saw as their enemies ...

... but that later preaching, and different variations of that, which was (according to Hodge) becoming commonplace by the time of the Scrolls circa 200BC onwards, is exactly what you find being preached by Paul over 200 years later ...

... so in other words, it seems very likely indeed from that background, that whilst before his vision Paul was still "old school" in preaching the traditional OT messianic beliefs, his vision suddenly convinced him that such newer preaching was right and that God had now revealed to him that the messiah had already been upon the Earth and that his message was indeed that of apocalyptic warning where the faithful would be risen even from death unto heaven ... and all of that is really unarguably clear in Paul's letters (in fact, that was Paul's entire gospel message, for which he actually says "for if Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain").

Here's a link to the book, so you can get a copy -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-Sc...s=books&sr=1-1
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 04:34 AM   #2487
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I do not have to do any such thing. And you are still waaaaay overdue for producing your proof of how you showed James to be the human brother of a human Jesus.

But I already told you that the book by Stephen Hodge (see link below to buy a copy, or just borrow a copy from your local library) is NOT a book about Jesus, or about any so-called "mythicism" or anything whatsoever like that. It's book entirely about the Dead Sea Scrolls ... but unusually amongst those books on the Scrolls, it does explain in one chapter that what we see in the Scrolls is belief in an apocalyptic priestly messiah (just as Bart Ehrman himself agrees is true), and that such preaching was by then quite commonplace and was replacing the earlier preaching/teaching where traditional OT preaching had for hundreds of years previously believed that the messiah would be a princely royal or military leader who would save the fortunes of the people of Israel (God's chosen people) in battle by leading them to great victories over all those who they saw as their enemies ...

... but that later preaching, and different variations of that, which was (according to Hodge) becoming commonplace by the time of the Scrolls circa 200BC onwards, is exactly what you find being preached by Paul over 200 years later ...

... so in other words, it seems very likely indeed from that background, that whilst before his vision Paul was still "old school" in preaching the traditional OT messianic beliefs, his vision suddenly convinced him that such newer preaching was right and that God had now revealed to him that the messiah had already been upon the Earth and that his message was indeed that of apocalyptic warning where the faithful would be risen even from death unto heaven ... and all of that is really unarguably clear in Paul's letters (in fact, that was Paul's entire gospel message, for which he actually says "for if Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain").

Here's a link to the book, so you can get a copy -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-Sc...s=books&sr=1-1
I think you'll find that the Sectarian Scrolls which contain the descriptions of the "Priestly Messiah" (still a real flesh and blood human BTW) are more likely 1st Century CE, just based on the internal evidence.

The margin of error for the carbon dating that has been done so far as I know has a margin of error greater than the time the Qumran site was occupied.

I could be wrong.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 06:30 AM   #2488
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...interview with Bart Ehrman where he actually says (I'll paraphrase from memory, but I'll include the link below so you can listen yourself to exactly what he says) … “we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that people expected a Priestly Messiah preaching the apocalypse of End Times”... the very same thing that Paul was preaching in those letters
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
...more likely 1st Century CE, just based on the internal evidence.
Also not the claimed content. Ehrman's words are either "a great, mighty priest" or "a great and mighty priest". (If the "and" is there, he dropped the A and D, so the N sort of merges with the adjacent M.) No apocalypse, no end-times, no losing. A priestly messiah would have been somebody who lived to unite & lead all Jews and convert the world, not a wandering heretical loudmouth with distinctly un-Jewish ideas that most Jews would reject and a few thousand followers who would get killed or scattered by a Roman riot squad.

But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people. I'm familiar with claims of fulfilled prophecy that involve creative reinterpretation of either the prophecy itself or real well-known events or both, like the siege of Tyre, but is there any precedent anywhere else for a popularly-accepted prophetic story being "oh, it already happened, but it just wasn't a big deal; you've never heard of the fulfilling event because it just didn't change anything and nobody noticed"? Or is this just another example of the MJ case hinging on sociological unrealism, requiring people to accept something that people wouldn't really have accepted?
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 11:40 AM   #2489
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Also not the claimed content. Ehrman's words are either "a great, mighty priest" or "a great and mighty priest". (If the "and" is there, he dropped the A and D, so the N sort of merges with the adjacent M.) No apocalypse, no end-times, no losing. A priestly messiah would have been somebody who lived to unite & lead all Jews and convert the world, not a wandering heretical loudmouth with distinctly un-Jewish ideas that most Jews would reject and a few thousand followers who would get killed or scattered by a Roman riot squad.

But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people. I'm familiar with claims of fulfilled prophecy that involve creative reinterpretation of either the prophecy itself or real well-known events or both, like the siege of Tyre, but is there any precedent anywhere else for a popularly-accepted prophetic story being "oh, it already happened, but it just wasn't a big deal; you've never heard of the fulfilling event because it just didn't change anything and nobody noticed"? Or is this just another example of the MJ case hinging on sociological unrealism, requiring people to accept something that people wouldn't really have accepted?


Christian writings do state that their Jesus and his actions were products of supposed prophecies found in Hebrew Scripture.
The book of gMatthew alone have multiple references to the supposed prophecies from conception to crucifixion.

Matthew 1:22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet

Matthew 2.5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

Matthew 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet

Matthew 2:17
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Matthew 2.23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareththat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 3:3
this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias

Matthew 4.14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 8.17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.


Matthew 12.17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 13.35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 21:4 All this was donethat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,

Matthew 24.15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Matthew 26.56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.


You are just posting a load of nonsense.

Christians of antiquity and even today believe all the events about their Jesus were indeed fulfilled prophecies and worship him as the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Last edited by dejudge; 13th July 2020 at 11:43 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 05:12 PM   #2490
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,778
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
But this idea of Jesus being made up to fulfill an old prophecy of a priestly messiah has another oddity built in too: the idea of claiming that a prophecy had already been fulfilled by something that nobody noticed because nothing changed, and having that claim actually believed by other people.
It depends on how willing those people are to believe it. If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.

Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump
Quote:
His campaign slogan for President was, “Make America Great Again,” and that is exactly what he is doing.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 07:07 PM   #2491
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump
And also Trump is the self-declared "Chosen One" (12 secs video).

From this article: "“He's the chosen one to run America: Inside the cult of Trump, his rallies are church and he is the Gospel"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...-is-the-gospel
Many followers deploy a familiar Christian-right formula for justifying abuses of power, declaring Trump a modern King David, a sinner nonetheless anointed, while others compare him to Queen Esther, destined to save Israel—or at least the evangelical imagination of it—from Iran.

Still others draw parallels to Cyrus, the Old Testament Persian king who became a tool for God’s will. “A vessel for God,” says former congressman Zach Wamp, now a member of The Family, the evangelical organization that hosts Trump every year at the National Prayer Breakfast.
If any group started to believe that the "vessel for God" ascended to heaven after death, and started to pray to him, then he would become a full-blown divine figure.

The difference is that Trump is wildly popular/infamous at the moment. Jesus probably became notable only after death, and that was tied into what was happening around Christianity.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 08:58 PM   #2492
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
It depends on how willing those people are to believe it. If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.

Making up stuff or twisting facts to make it look like your leader is great is not confined to religions, and in no way indicates that the leader is imaginary. For example,

Donald J. Trump
What a ridiculous statement.
What absolute nonsense.

There are perhaps millions of made up characters in fiction novels and the writings of religious cults all over the world


The very fact that people [Christian or not] believe Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Holy Ghosts exist is evidence that made up characters are accepted as real beings.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:04 PM   #2493
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If a purported messiah needs to have fulfilled an old prophecy then there is an incentive for his followers to believe that he has - and if he hasn't, to make up stuff. Other possibilities include mundane events being mistaken for fulfillment of a prophecy, or actions being taken to (purportedly) fulfill it.
The proposal without a real person (or two) behind the Jesus idea is that somebody made up a prophecy-fulfilling person who hadn't even existed and made up prophecy-fulfilling events that hadn't even happened in any form at all. That's different from saying that some real person was a prophecy-fulfiller or some real event was a prophecy-fulfillment.

Has it (the former) ever happened in any (other) cases we know of? It seems like it wouldn't because normally, new religious ideas that actually gain much acceptance from people who weren't raised on them do so by being emotionally compelling, and "some guy whom nobody you can meet ever met did this thing a while ago that nobody you know ever heard of because it made no difference" scores zero on the emotional compellingness scale.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:34 PM   #2494
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
...The difference is that Trump is wildly popular/infamous at the moment. Jesus probably became notable only after death, and that was tied into what was happening around Christianity.
What you say is baseless. A blatant mis-representation of the Jesus stories

You have no historical evidence at all - none whatsoever, that NT Jesus lived or died.

The stories of the Jesus of Nazareth in the fables called the NT specifically state that the character was famous with thousands of people following him sometimes for days without even eating.

Matthew 8.34--- And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.


Mark 1.28 And his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Mark 8.1In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
2-9 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat...…………And they that had eaten were about four thousand.

It is most disturbing that you claim Carrier is wrong about the place of the crucifixion but is now openly mis-representing the fact that it is claimed Jesus, the water-walker, was extremely well-known in the region before his death.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 09:57 PM   #2495
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The proposal without a real person (or two) behind the Jesus idea is that somebody made up a prophecy-fulfilling person who hadn't even existed and made up prophecy-fulfilling events that hadn't even happened in any form at all. That's different from saying that some real person was a prophecy-fulfiller or some real event was a prophecy-fulfillment.

Has it (the former) ever happened in any (other) cases we know of? It seems like it wouldn't because normally, new religious ideas that actually gain much acceptance from people who weren't raised on them do so by being emotionally compelling, and "some guy whom nobody you can meet ever met did this thing a while ago that nobody you know ever heard of because it made no difference" scores zero on the emotional compellingness scale.
What you assume is irrelevant.

If the NT authors wanted to write about a human being it would make no sense for them to claim their Lord and Savior Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.

The author of gLuke even stated that his story about Jesus the son of a Ghost was gotten from witnesses.

Luke 1:2---Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.

Acts 2.32 32 --This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a Ghost story from conception to ascension.

Superstitious people believe Ghosts are real and even mundanely talk to them on earth.

Last edited by dejudge; 13th July 2020 at 09:58 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2020, 10:02 PM   #2496
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,080
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! Absolutely not. Have read the book by Hodge? No. Why not? Get a copy and educate yourself about what he says there about the contents of Dead Sea Scrolls and the belief that the messiah would not be a Kingly military leader as previously thought & taught from 800 years or more before the Scrolls, but instead it was by then, 200BC to 70AD, being widely preached that the true meaning of OT messiah prophecy was that the promised messiah would be a priestly preacher of "end times" ... I have explained that to you at least 10 times here now.

And that's exactly what Paul was preaching 200 years later in 35 to 60AD.

And you present it as a fact that certain claims about Jesus were "retro fitted" on to a human Jesus of the 1st century ... OK, so you also need to produce a proof of how you ascertained that as a factual certainty ...

Please provide the proof of your claimed fact that such claims were merely "retro fitted" on to a human Jesus.
One scholar (Hodge) does not a convincing argument make.

In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come. Numerous scholars attest to this. Jesus is presented throughout the NT as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.

But Jesus manifestly didn’t deliver the goods. Hence the recasting of the messiah as the ‘suffering serving’ based upon a few passages in Isaiah by those, such as Paul, determined to promote the Jesus story.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:16 AM   #2497
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,033
Post

James, the Lord's Brother

The epistles have many examples of the use of the word 'brother' to mean a fellow believer - a 'brother in Christ' - rather than a literal brother :

Quote:
1 Cor. 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?
Or does it only apply when it supports his beliefs ?


1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.

Quote:
Heb 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,

“I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”
Paul is happy to call fellow believers "brothers".
But they are not literal brothers.

Claiming that the ambiguous phrase 'Lord's brother' means a physical, literal brother in exactly ONE place, and NOT in others - is simply special pleading aimed at supporting a faithful belief that faithful believers all faithfully believe and repeat endlessly with out any basis.

Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:37 AM   #2498
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
One scholar (Hodge) does not a convincing argument make.

In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come. Numerous scholars attest to this. Jesus is presented throughout the NT as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.

But Jesus manifestly didn’t deliver the goods. Hence the recasting of the messiah as the ‘suffering serving’ based upon a few passages in Isaiah by those, such as Paul, determined to promote the Jesus story.
Your proposition doesn't make any sense!!

Why would Jews re-cast a known dead man as Jesus the Messiah decades after his death when according to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Jews expected their Messianic ruler sometime around the Jewish War c66-70 CE.

The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant and this is confirmed c 133 CE when Simon Bar Cocheba was regarded as the Messianic ruler of the Jews after the short-lived defeat of the Romans.

Simon Bar Cocheba was not re-cast as a suffering servant after he was captured and killed by the Romans.

In addition, the Ascension of Isaiah was supposedly written long after the Gospels were already composed and used by early Jesus cult Christians.

No NT writer mentioned anything from the Ascension of Isaiah or that their Jesus was a suffering servant.

NT Jesus was God the Creator from the beginning.

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

In the earliest Greek manuscripts of the NT writings the Lord Jesus is God.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 12:41 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:57 AM   #2499
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
James, the Lord's Brother

The epistles have many examples of the use of the word 'brother' to mean a fellow believer - a 'brother in Christ' - rather than a literal brother :



Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?
Or does it only apply when it supports his beliefs ?


1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.



Paul is happy to call fellow believers "brothers".
But they are not literal brothers.

Claiming that the ambiguous phrase 'Lord's brother' means a physical, literal brother in exactly ONE place, and NOT in others - is simply special pleading aimed at supporting a faithful belief that faithful believers all faithfully believe and repeat endlessly with out any basis.

Kapyong
James, the son of Damneus, in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is not James the brother of God [the Lord] in Galatians 1.

James the son of Damneus was stoned to death in c 62-63 CE and James the brother of God[the Lord] was alive up to c 68-69 CE in Christian writings.

See the Preface to the Recognitions.

Quote:
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching..
Jerome' De Viris Illustribus
Quote:
Simon Peter.... pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.
In Christian writings Peter was executed under Nero in the 14th year of his reign c68-69 CE when Clement and James were still alive.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 12:58 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:14 AM   #2500
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,778
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
James, the Lord's Brother

The epistles have many examples of the use of the word 'brother' to mean a fellow believer - a 'brother in Christ' - rather than a literal brother :
Not at all the same as 'the Lord's brother'. if every follower of Jesus was a 'brother', why say that James was 'the' Lord's brother - as if he was the only one? It doesn't compute.

But we don't need Paul to tell us that Jesus (if he existed) was a flesh and blood person. Does Paul deny the accounts of a human Jesus as described in the Bible? Or is there any evidence that these accounts did not exist when Paul was around?

Here's what I don't understand. Why the desperate need to twist every text into 'proving' that Jesus was nothing more than a myth? As far as we can tell, Christians have believed he was the human founder of their church from day one. Why should we believe that they just made it all up, when the normal behavior of cults is to deify their leader not invent him? Why should this time be different? What are the mythicists so afraid of that they have to swap skepticism for a conspiracy theory?

Christ myth theory
Quote:
The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the view that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no substantial claims to historical fact. Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." It is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view...

Maurice Casey has criticized the mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes mythicists for their frequent assumption that all modern scholars of religion are Protestant fundamentalists of the American variety, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 14th July 2020 at 01:17 AM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:30 AM   #2501
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
James, the Lord's Brother

The epistles have many examples of the use of the word 'brother' to mean a fellow believer - a 'brother in Christ' - rather than a literal brother :
That's true, but there are three formulations that use "brother":

1. "brother" (adelphos): used by itself, it means a fellow believer.
2. "brother of X" (adelphos + X): also see "son of X" in the example below.
3. "brother in X" (adelphos en X): as you yourself noted, "brother in Christ" seems to refer to a fellow believer.

Examples:

1. "Brother" - Examples as you've given them

2. "Brother of X"
Gal 1:19 James brother of the Lord
1 Cor 9:5 ... as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

3. "Brother in X"
Phil 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds...
Other examples of "in X" in Paul:
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
You can see the pattern:

1. Used singularly, "brother" means fellow believer
2. Used as "brother of X", it seems to mean literal or familial brother of X.
3. Used as "brother in X" or "in X", it seems to refer to membership of group X.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Does Jerrymander believe that Jesus had OTHER brothers?
I can't speak to Jerrymander's beliefs, but yes, it does imply that Jesus had other brothers. According to Mark (whether or not you believe Mark!), their names were Joses, Juda and Simon.

You've given a few examples of the use of "brother" used by itself. Would you like to examine the use of "brother of X" and "brother in X", and see if you come to the same conclusion that there is a pattern there?

I'm not saying that it is 100% certain. While an examination of the text seems to show a definite pattern, there may be examples that go against that pattern or other reasons to think the pattern doesn't hold in one particular case. But at least let's start with what the text suggests.

Last edited by GDon; 14th July 2020 at 01:58 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:13 AM   #2502
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,876
Emmanuel ******* Haroldson, this thread!
Chanakya is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:56 AM   #2503
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,222
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The proposal without a real person (or two) behind the Jesus idea is that somebody made up a prophecy-fulfilling person who hadn't even existed
But don't we have Paul doing just that? He says that he got his information from no man. So either you believe that he got messages from God or he is making it up.

Yes, he says that he met James, but that is not where he got his information about Jesus, according to him. Is there any reason to think he met James before writing the other stuff? Given how it is mentioned mostly as an afterthought as part of his travels, it clearly isn't his basis for anything.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:18 PM   #2504
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,699
Paul's visions weren't about the existence of Jesus; they were about what Jesus said and whether Paul should be for or against him. He was already aware of Jesus and Christians before that, and, although his descriptions of his previous self do talk about attacking & oppressing them, he doesn't say he ever thought they were incorrect about Jesus's existence.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 12:46 PM   #2505
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That's true, but there are three formulations that use "brother":

1. "brother" (adelphos): used by itself, it means a fellow believer.
2. "brother of X" (adelphos + X): also see "son of X" in the example below.
3. "brother in X" (adelphos en X): as you yourself noted, "brother in Christ" seems to refer to a fellow believer.

Examples:

1. "Brother" - Examples as you've given them

2. "Brother of X"
Gal 1:19 James brother of the Lord
1 Cor 9:5 ... as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

3. "Brother in X"
Phil 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds...
Other examples of "in X" in Paul:
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
You can see the pattern:

1. Used singularly, "brother" means fellow believer
2. Used as "brother of X", it seems to mean literal or familial brother of X.
3. Used as "brother in X" or "in X", it seems to refer to membership of group X.
Now, please tell us the Greek word used for LORD in Galatians 1.19.

Galatians 1.19--But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.[adelphos of KY]

GDon knows that the Lord is God "ΚΥ" not only in Galatians 1.19 but all over the OT and NT.

There are thousands of references to GOD as "KY' in the Greek Christian Bible.

Psalms 118 alone has more than 10 references to GOD as KY.

It is really a waste of time to use Galatians 1.19 to prove the supposed Jesus was human when it states the Pauline character saw God's brother.


Examine line 13 of the Galatians 1 in the Codex Sinaiticus.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...9&zoomSlider=0

Examine line 24 of NT Papyri 46 [Galatians 1]
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-2.html

The LORD in Galatians 1.19 is GOD[ a supernatural being].

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 12:49 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:06 PM   #2506
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Here's what I don't understand. Why the desperate need to twist every text into 'proving' that Jesus was nothing more than a myth? As far as we can tell, Christians have believed he was the human founder of their church from day one....
What complete twisted rubbish you post. Even the so-called Pauline witer claimed he persecuted the Church before his resurrected Jesus was revealed to him.

It is most absurd to argue that Jesus existed but did not start the Jesus cult and was started by a character who claimed he persecuted the Church before he was converted.

What a load of crap you post [from day one].
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 01:33 PM   #2507
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Paul's visions weren't about the existence of Jesus; they were about what Jesus said and whether Paul should be for or against him. He was already aware of Jesus and Christians before that, and, although his descriptions of his previous self do talk about attacking & oppressing them, he doesn't say he ever thought they were incorrect about Jesus's existence.
How ridiculous can you be!!! Do you expect a person who claims he heard and saw the resurrected Jesus to also state his Lord did not ever exist??
Jesus cult Christians believe their Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Ghosts actually exist.

The Pauline writer must have believed his LORD existed, was crucified, resurrected, ascended and would return to earth at the Second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Quote:
16 For the Lord [KC] himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord[KY] in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord [KY]
The Lord is God in the so-called Pauline Epistles.


The HJ argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 01:48 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 02:09 PM   #2508
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
How ridiculous can you be!!! Do you expect a person who claims he heard and saw the resurrected Jesus to also state his Lord did not ever exist??
Jesus cult Christians believe their Gods, Devils, Demons, Angels and Ghosts actually exist.

The Pauline writer must have believed his LORD existed, was crucified, resurrected, ascended and would return to earth at the Second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

The Lord is God in the so-called Pauline Epistles.


The HJ argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Possibly the stupidest argument I have ever read. Thank you.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 02:22 PM   #2509
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But don't we have Paul doing just that? He says that he got his information from no man.
No, Paul never wrote that "he got his information from no man". Never! Never never! I wish that meme would die.

Paul wrote that he got his gospel message for the Gentiles "from no man" ("the gospel which was preached of me is not after man", Gal 1:11).

Here are the steps to what Paul claims in Galatians:

1. Previously, he had been persecuting the Jewish Christians ("churches of Judaea which were in Christ", Gal 1:22)
2. Then he had his revelation experience ("To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles", Gal 1:16),
3. And then he started to preach the same things as the Jewish Christians were preaching ("he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed", Gal 1:23).
4. Paul then eventually goes to Jerusalem to see James and Peter to discuss his own gospel message ("gospel which I preach among the Gentiles", Gal 2:2)
5. James and Peter sign off on Paul's gospel message ("they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter", Gal 2:7)

So it is important to distinguish between saying Paul got "his information from no man" and Paul got "his gospel message from no man". The first one is not correct. The second one is what the text tells us.

I would think that Paul would have known something about Jesus at the time he was persecuting the Jewish Christians, so he had some information before his revelation. But that revelation was about Paul going to the Gentiles to preach about Jesus's significance to the Gentiles. That's what the text says, regardless of whether the early Christians thought that Jesus was historical or mythical.

So, please guys! No more "Paul got his information from no man" on this board! It's simply wrong, and it confuses discussions around Paul from the get-go.

Last edited by GDon; 14th July 2020 at 02:32 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 03:18 PM   #2510
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,215
Looks like real life is trying to interfere with my internet time again, so I'll make this my last post here for a while. I'll leave you with a rant!

I'm just an amateur on this topic, with an amateur's interest. I've read all the early Christian literature many times in the English translation, and quite a bit of secondary literature. But I've never studied the topic, and I have no understanding of the ancient languages involved. So don't take my word for anything on the subject. I always try to argue from what I know, i.e. the texts in English translation version. (If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!)

But jeez guys! If you call yourself skeptics, you need to do more than just repeat stuff that you've heard from some fringe theorists or other posters. Because many of those things you'll find on these types of boards are misinformation:

1. Paul said "he got his information from no man"
2. "Brother of the Lord" = "Brother in the Lord"
3. "Seed of David" = from Cosmic Sperm Bank
4. There is a version of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus is crucified in the firmament (there isn't, it's just part of Dr Carrier's imagination)
5. Paul doesn't call Jesus a "man"
6. There are other examples of gods being crucified in the firmament

That's just off the top of my head. Lots of other things that I've seen on this board and others, that are simply either wrong (not actually what is in the text) or not supported by the literature.

I know it is fun to make fun of the creationists and their support of nonsense, but what stops you from being the same as them? Where do you think they get their information from about evolution? From dedicated evolution boards, or from creationist boards? How do amateurs suddenly think they know more than scholars in the field who have dedicated their lives to the topic? Because all scholars are biased? Or there is a fringe scholar who writes what you believe, and that's good enough? You don't need to check him?

You need to at least understand what the texts say, and start from there. Don't start with what the texts DON'T say.

Why is this important to me? I'm not a Christian. I've never believed that the Bible is anything but a collection of old books. But all that ancient literature -- Bible, Tao Te Ching, Greek philosophers, ancient historians -- is humanity's heirloom. Criticize the content all you want, but don't make misinformation out of it. That's just disrespecting our forebears.

Bye for now!
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 03:52 PM   #2511
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Looks like real life is trying to interfere with my internet time again, so I'll make this my last post here for a while. I'll leave you with a rant!

I'm just an amateur on this topic, with an amateur's interest. I've read all the early Christian literature many times in the English translation, and quite a bit of secondary literature. But I've never studied the topic, and I have no understanding of the ancient languages involved. So don't take my word for anything on the subject. I always try to argue from what I know, i.e. the texts in English translation version. (If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!)

But jeez guys! If you call yourself skeptics, you need to do more than just repeat stuff that you've heard from some fringe theorists or other posters. Because many of those things you'll find on these types of boards are misinformation:

1. Paul said "he got his information from no man"
2. "Brother of the Lord" = "Brother in the Lord"
3. "Seed of David" = from Cosmic Sperm Bank
4. There is a version of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus is crucified in the firmament (there isn't, it's just part of Dr Carrier's imagination)
5. Paul doesn't call Jesus a "man"
6. There are other examples of gods being crucified in the firmament

That's just off the top of my head. Lots of other things that I've seen on this board and others, that are simply either wrong (not actually what is in the text) or not supported by the literature.

I know it is fun to make fun of the creationists and their support of nonsense, but what stops you from being the same as them? Where do you think they get their information from about evolution? From dedicated evolution boards, or from creationist boards? How do amateurs suddenly think they know more than scholars in the field who have dedicated their lives to the topic? Because all scholars are biased? Or there is a fringe scholar who writes what you believe, and that's good enough? You don't need to check him?

You need to at least understand what the texts say, and start from there. Don't start with what the texts DON'T say.

Why is this important to me? I'm not a Christian. I've never believed that the Bible is anything but a collection of old books. But all that ancient literature -- Bible, Tao Te Ching, Greek philosophers, ancient historians -- is humanity's heirloom. Criticize the content all you want, but don't make misinformation out of it. That's just disrespecting our forebears.

Bye for now!
It's a shame that you have to leave before IanS could get a chance to respond to your demolition of Richard Carrier. I'm sure it would have been, er, informative...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 09:54 PM   #2512
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by GDon View Post

1. Previously, he had been persecuting the Jewish Christians ("churches of Judaea which were in Christ", Gal 1:22)
Please, you very well know that the location of a church in Judaea does not mean that all converts are Jews.

In Acts, it is claimed Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judaea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya about Cyrene, Rome, Jews and proselytes were in Jerusalem and heard the apostles preaching about Jesus, the resurrected and ascended son of a Ghost.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
2. Then he had his revelation experience ("To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles", Gal 1:16),
Paul could not have received any historical information from a dead man or a non-existing God.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
3. And then he started to preach the same things as the Jewish Christians were preaching ("he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed", Gal 1:23).
So the Galatians writer did not start the Jesus cult of Christians if he persecuted them and attempted to destroy the faith before he started to preach.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
3
4. Paul then eventually goes to Jerusalem to see James and Peter to discuss his own gospel message ("gospel which I preach among the Gentiles", Gal 2:2)
The Galatian writer said no such thing. Events in Galatians 2 supposedly happened 14 years after those 1n Galatians 1.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
35. James and Peter sign off on Paul's gospel message ("they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter", Gal 2:7)
Again, the claims in Galatians are not corroborated by other writers in and out NT.

Christians writers contradict the Galatians writer and state that Peter was preaching the Gospel in Rome for about 20 years before Saul/Paul arrived there as a prisoner.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
3So it is important to distinguish between saying Paul got "his information from no man" and Paul got "his gospel message from no man". The first one is not correct. The second one is what the text tells us.
What you say does not make sense.

The Galatians writer specifically stated at the very beginning of the Epistle that he was not an apostle of man but of the RESURRECTED Jesus Christ and God.

Galatians 1.1--- Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

A resurrected being is not human.

A resurrected being is a Ghost!!!

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I would think that Paul would have known something about Jesus at the time he was persecuting the Jewish Christians, so he had some information before his revelation. But that revelation was about Paul going to the Gentiles to preach about Jesus's significance to the Gentiles. That's what the text says, regardless of whether the early Christians thought that Jesus was historical or mythical.
Just say it.

The Pauline writers were liars.

They heard and read stories about the Lord Jesus, the son of God and a woman, who was crucified, buried and rose again on the third day who ascended to heaven and would return for the dead in Christ and claimed they received their Gospel from no man!!

What Liars!!! What deceivers!!!

Originally Posted by GDon
So, please guys! No more "Paul got his information from no man" on this board! It's simply wrong, and it confuses discussions around Paul from the get-go.
The Pauline writer was known as a liar for at least 1700 years.

The Pauline writer did not need any revelation or hear a voice to preach his Gospel he most likely read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 09:58 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:25 PM   #2513
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,080
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

Why would Jews re-cast a known dead man as Jesus the Messiah decades after his death
Because Jesus wasn’t dead as far as they were concerned, he was resurrected.

Quote:
The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant
Indeed. Which is why I said that “In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come”. Numerous scholars attest to this as you indicate.

Quote:
NT Jesus was God the Creator from the beginning.

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one".

In the earliest Greek manuscripts of the NT writings the Lord Jesus is God.
The earliest Greek texts, including John 10.30 which you referenced, were all composed many decades after Jesus’ death. What we get in them is the all new ‘messiah’ concept. The Jesus-followers had little choice other than to reinvent their messiah given that their expected all conquering king had been executed by the very people he was supposed to conquer. So, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the Greek manuscripts.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 10:27 PM   #2514
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
It's a shame that you have to leave before IanS could get a chance to respond to your demolition of Richard Carrier. I'm sure it would have been, er, informative...
It's a shame that GDon has left because he admitted HJ arguments from Ehrman and Sanders are disappointingly based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

In any event GDon cannot leave this thread.

GDon will not allow the HJ argument to be crucified.

GDon will attempt the impossible- to raise HJ argument from the dead.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th July 2020 at 10:28 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2020, 11:11 PM   #2515
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Because Jesus wasn’t dead as far as they were concerned, he was resurrected.
But that would be a lie if Jesus actually lived and was dead and buried for three days.

The Pauline writer could not have been a witness that God raised his Jesus from the dead.

Originally Posted by dejudge
The Jews expected a Messianic ruler not a suffering servant
Quote:
Indeed. Which is why I said that “In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah was a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who was expected to be anointed with oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come”. Numerous scholars attest to this as you indicate.
So, Jesus the Messianic ruler of the Jews in the time of Pilate is indeed a fiction character. No such Messianic ruler ever existed.

If Jesus of Nazareth did live and was never believed or known to be the prophesied Messianic ruler before his death then he would never ever be called their Messianic ruler decades after his death.

The Jewish Messianic ruler must be living and be an actual ruler to be called or believed to be their Messiah.

Jews do not look in graveyards for their Messianic ruler.


Originally Posted by Tassman
The earliest Greek texts, including John 10.30 which you referenced, were all composed many decades after Jesus’ death. What we get in them is the all new ‘messiah’ concept. The Jesus-followers had little choice other than to reinvent their messiah given that their expected all conquering king had been executed by the very people he was supposed to conquer. So, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the Greek manuscripts.
But what you say does not make any sense since the Jews were expecting a living Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE around the time of the Jewish War with the Romans which is confirmed by writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

This expected Messianic ruler was based on Hebrew Scripture so your story about a spiritual Jewish Messiah is just baseless nonsense.

We know your spiritual Jewish Messiah is baseless nonsense because around c 133 CE the Jews believed Simon bar Cocheba was their Messianic ruler because he was able to defeat the Romans.

What must not be forgotten is that after Simon bar Cocheba was captured and killed by the Romans he was no longer regarded as the Messianic ruler of the Jews.

Instead of calling him the Son of the Star he was later called the Son of the Lie.

What you don't seem to realise is that the Jesus of Nazareth story never originated with Jews. The propaganda was fabricated by non-Jews after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Now, NT writings introduced their Jesus as the Son of God not just gJohn.

Examine gMatthew, gMark,gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation and you'll see that Jesus was always a supernatural being - the son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator or a water-walking transfigurer who was raised from the dead.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2020, 01:36 AM   #2516
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,384
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
It's a shame that GDon has left because he admitted HJ arguments from Ehrman and Sanders are disappointingly based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

In any event GDon cannot leave this thread.

GDon will not allow the HJ argument to be crucified.

GDon will attempt the impossible- to raise HJ argument from the dead.
I stand corrected...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2020, 11:20 PM   #2517
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
After wasting time on every conceivable meaning of "brother" GDon completely forgot to tell us who the" Lord" was .

It is the character called the Lord in Galatians 1.19 whose nature must be confirmed.

Galatians 1:19----But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Who is the Lord in the Christian Bible??

There are thousands upon thousands of references to the Lord in the Christian Bible.

Exodus 6.2----And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

Now Examine gMark 1.3 The author of gMark claimed John the Baptist was preaching about the coming of the Lord and made reference to passages in the book of Isaiah.

Mark 1.3--- The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Examine Isaiah 40.3 In the book of Isaiah the Lord is God.

Isaiah 40.3---- The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Anyone who knows Greek will immediately see that the Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" in the NT is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" [the God of the Jews] in the OT.

The Greek Nomina Sacra for the Lord [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra the Lord[KY] in Isaiah 40.3.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is God.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 and the Christian Bible is a figure of mythology.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 02:53 AM   #2518
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,080
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
But that would be a lie if Jesus actually lived and was dead and buried for three days.
Well Jesus’ followers were wrong, obviously, in believing that Jesus rose from the dead - not so much lying. Human psychology tells us that people readily adapt what they want to believe to fit the reality.

Quote:
The Pauline writer could not have been a witness that God raised his Jesus from the dead.
Paul never refers to an empty tomb. Paul’s Jesus was raised in a spiritual sense and appeared to his followers in a way similar to that of Paul’s Damascene vision. This is in contrast to the Jesus of the gospels.

Quote:
If Jesus of Nazareth did live and was never believed or known to be the prophesied Messianic ruler before his death then he would never ever be called their Messianic ruler decades after his death.


But what you say does not make any sense since the Jews were expecting a living Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE around the time of the Jewish War with the Romans which is confirmed by writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.
No. Josephus says that “it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers”. Jesus was just but one of many “pseudo messiahs”.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...seudo-messiahs

Quote:
This expected Messianic ruler was based on Hebrew Scripture so your story about a spiritual Jewish Messiah is just baseless nonsense.
The story was adjusted to meet reality of the situation, namely that Jesus was executed instead of freeing the Jews from the yoke of Roman power. Hence, he became a different kind of messiah – a humble spiritual one whose conquering takes place in the spiritual world. And this is the messiah we get in the gospels.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 10:01 AM   #2519
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,605
At this point, as already said, the HJ argument is dead in the water.

The Greek Nomina Sacra [KY] for the Lord Jesus is the very same for the Lord God of the Jews

The Lord in the NT is God.

The Lord is a figure of mythology.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 05:59 PM   #2520
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,778
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
At this point, as already said, the HJ argument is dead in the water.

The Greek Nomina Sacra [KY] for the Lord Jesus is the very same for the Lord God of the Jews
What a ridiculous argument.

Kyrios
Quote:
Kyrios or kurios (Ancient Greek: κύριος, romanized: kýrios) is a Greek word which is usually translated as "lord" or "master"... In Classical Athens, the word kyrios referred to the head of the household, who was responsible for his wife, children, and any unmarried female relatives...

The term "κύριος" is still in use in the Modern Greek language and is the equivalent to the English terms "mister" (title conferred on an adult male), "master" (someone who has control over something or someone), and "sir" (an address to any male)...

The Gospel of John seldom uses kyrios to refer to Jesus during his ministry, but does so after the Resurrection, although the vocative kyrie (meaning sir) appears frequently. The Gospel of Mark never applies the term kyrios as a direct reference to Jesus, unlike Paul who uses it 163 times. When Mark uses kyrios (e.g., in 1:3, 11:9, 12:11, etc.) it is in reference to YHWH/God.
Nomina Sacra
Attached Images
File Type: jpg nomina sacra.jpg (68.1 KB, 5 views)
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.