The Jesus Myth Theory

[lesliedellow]

A reconstruction? Can we mythicists do that too, LoL?

In just the same way that a creationist can give his considered opinion on Evolution you can. Of course, the said creationist might not get taken too seriously by biologists. Likewise mythicists and historians, with a few exceptions which you could probably count on the fingers of one hand.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In just the same way that a creationist can give his considered opinion on Evolution you can. Of course, the said creationist might not get taken too seriously by biologists. Likewise mythicists and historians, with a few exceptions which you could probably count on the fingers of one hand.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I skimmed that and some of the quotes of mythicists appear to be straw men. But lower down they seem to handle genuine claims. I'll read it later, thank you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In just the same way that a creationist can give his considered opinion on Evolution you can. Of course, the said creationist might not get taken too seriously by biologists. Likewise mythicists and historians, with a few exceptions which you could probably count on the fingers of one hand.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

The Myth Theory being supported by Dr. Carrier among those listed in your reference is this one:



2. "Jesus was a celestial being who existed in a realm just below the lunar sphere and was not considered an earthly being at all until later."



I didn't see anything to contradict the Myth Theory in their argument. There is only the assertion that Paul describes an earthly Jesus. Dr. Carrier has debunked every point on that issue.

 

[lesliedellow]

I didn't see anything to contradict the Myth Theory in their argument. There is only the assertion that Paul describes an earthly Jesus. Dr. Carrier has debunked every point on that issue.

No he hasn't, as has more than once been pointed out to him by fellow atheists.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal 1.18-19)

So, although just about every other New Testament scholar of the face on the planet assumes "the Lord's brother" to mean Jesus' sibling, Carrier tries to argue that "Brother of the Lord" was a common form of address the early Christians used amongst themselves. If that were the case, it is difficult to see why James was the only person accorded that form of address in the above passage, and why Peter wasn't similarly addressed. Furthermore, although Paul frequently refers to fellow believers as brethren, he nowhere uses the locution "brother/brethren of the Lord", except at 1 Cor 9.5, where the context makes it similarly clear that the reference is to the brothers of Jesus. Apart from those two verses, nowhere else in the New Testament is the locution used, and you will not find it being used outside of the New Testament, as a form of address amongst Christians, either.

That is big time special pleading on Carrier's part.

In case you are interested, here is the second half of that article:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No he hasn't, as has more than once been pointed out to him by fellow atheists.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal 1.18-19)

So, although just about every other New Testament scholar of the face on the planet assumes "the Lord's brother" to mean Jesus' sibling, Carrier tries to argue that "Brother of the Lord" was a common form of address the early Christians used amongst themselves. If that were the case, it is difficult to see why James was the only person accorded that form of address in the above passage, and why Peter wasn't similarly addressed. Furthermore, although Paul frequently refers to fellow believers as brethren, he nowhere uses the locution "brother/brethren of the Lord", except at 1 Cor 9.5, where the context makes it similarly clear that the reference is to the brothers of Jesus. Apart from those two verses, nowhere else in the New Testament is the locution used, and you will not find it being used outside of the New Testament, as a form of address amongst Christians, either.

That is big time special pleading on Carrier's part.

In case you are interested, here is the second half of that article:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

Dr. Carrier addresses this, and he's not using special pleading. I don't remember where in this video, but towards the end as it is in one of his rebuttal arguments.

By the way, Dr. Carrier is literate in ancient Greek so he knows what he's talking about.

 

[lesliedellow]

Dr. Carrier addresses this, and he's not using special pleading. I don't remember where in this video, but towards the end as it is in one of his rebuttal arguments.

So how does he manage to translate ετερον δε των αποστολων as "other than the apostles"? In the first place δε is postpositive, so "ετερον δε" means "but other", and, in the second place, "των αποστολων" is in the genitive, so it means "of the apostles"

Of the quite a few Bible translations I have looked at, not one translates it the way Carrier wants to translate it - not one.

By the way, Dr. Carrier is literate in ancient Greek so he knows what he's talking about.

And you think his critics in the scholarly community aren't?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So how does he manage to translate ετερον δε των αποστολων as "other than the apostles"? In the first place δε is postpositive, so "ετερον δε" means "but other", and, in the second place, "των αποστολων" is in the genitive, so it means "of the apostles"

Of the quite a few Bible translations I have looked at, not one translates it the way Carrier wants to translate it - not one.




And you think his critics in the scholarly community aren't?

I don't know Greek so I cannot evaluate your case, but did you at least listen to what he said on the matter?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't know Greek so I cannot evaluate your case, but did you at least listen to what he said on the matter?

I heard him make a claim which it is pretty difficult to square with the Greek text.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know Greek so I cannot evaluate your case, but did you at least listen to what he said on the matter?

So you took Carrier's word for it but if someone offers that his translation is wrong, now all the doubts come flying in even though you admit you are not qualified in Greek, but you accepted Carrier's translation seemingly without reservation. Instead of talking to @lesliedellow you simply deflect what he said back to watching a video.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I heard him make a claim which it is pretty difficult to square with the Greek text.

Ok let's give you the Josephus reconstruction and the "brother of the Lord" here. Do you have anything else you'd like to use to demonstrate historicity?

There is a lot of counter evidence in the epistles, so you need a bit more for the historicity of Jesus to be taken seriously.

 

[lesliedellow]

There is a lot of counter evidence in the epistles

Rubbish. Carrier just emphasises the passages which talk about the divinity of Jesus, and then tries to explain away the references to his human existence. Confirmation bias is the very kindest epithet which could be used for that procedure.

The historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by pretty much everybody in academia - and that includes the atheists.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Rubbish. Carrier just emphasises the passages which talk about the divinity of Jesus, and then tries to explain away the references to his human existence. Confirmation bias is the very kindest epithet which could be used for that procedure.

The historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by pretty much everybody in academia - and that includes the atheists.

You seem knowledgeable. It's a shame you're sharing so little.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello again, NV

I see that your faith is as pliable as ever. How much of the gospel can be a work of fiction, or a patchwork quilt, or allegory, or parable, or myth? Are you fine as long as the crucifixion and resurrection are literal events in history?

While it may seem that I’m pliable in my faith, what you’re probably perceiving as some kind of ultra-flexibility in my thinking is more likely an epistemological complexity. Like you, I have some education, and through that experience I’ve developed a hesitancy about gulping down the newest presentation of “facts” about Jesus, or any other subject for that matter, before it passes through the network of coherent connections in my mind. Typically, I personally have to study a subject by digesting a number of doctorate level sources from various viewpoints. I typically don’t just read a book, or watch a singular video, and then drastically change my mind.

However, in some limited sense, I’ve already “changed my mind” in our exploration here by conceding to you that there is some space for McDonald’s and Carrier’s premise that Mark may very well have drawn some kind of literary types from Homer, although whether or not he did this to “euhemerize” the figure of Jesus is up for a debate we won't broach here.

In this exploration of Christianity and its various environs of historical scholarship as they relate to the authorship of Mark, I’m not ready just yet to extol the title of “Historical Explanation” upon the Jesus Myth Theory. There is still much more for me to explore on this subject, and even with the numerous points and references given by Truth Surge and Carrier in the videos you’ve cited (of which I’ve watched the first 10 by TruthSurge and then the one by Carrier), I don’t feel that they’ve presented the issues beyond more than an introductory analysis. Since I think this is the case, I would have to actually get some of McDonald’s and Carrier’s books and ponder their more-in-depth analyses.

I’d also have to (hopefully) find and study several sources from other scholars who have treated the Jesus Myth from various other angles, and I would have to do all of this before I can get to any kind of change in thinking that seems coherent to me or compels me to commit to it. This kind of study assumes, too, that the decisive ‘facts’ haven’t been already blown away by the forces of time and nature, remaining forever unreachable by anyone on any side of the conversation. So…no, I don’t think my faith is really pliable. Rather, I’d say that while I invest my belief in the potential of Christianity, I also put a firm value on a praxis involving substantiation, discernment, and coherence, all of which makes me hesitate in swallowing what I’m being told, whether it comes from Christian theists or from atheists. This is one reason I have several hundred doctorate level books and journal articles sitting on my book shelves ...

As you can see it's more or less beyond dispute that at least some of the gospel is borrowed from Homer's epic. Of course, the Odyssey is not the only work that influenced the Gospel of Mark. Many other parts are cultural and mythological references. But the gospel narrative is disconnected from the roots of Christianity, following the same pattern of when other deities were Euhemerized (that is, fictitiously placed in history).

Many religions start through divine revelation and then eventually the savior deity is placed in literal history as a way of cementing the current beliefs and precluding others from having their own contradictory revelations. Just as the Mormon religion was supposedly revealed by the angel Moroni to the apostle Joseph Smith, and just as the Muslim religion was supposedly revealed by the angel Gabriel to the apostle Muhammad, the Christian religion was revealed by the arch angel Jesus to the apostle Paul. The Euhemerization of Jesus occurred later.

If you read Paul's epistles without the gospel narrative in the forefront of your mind, Paul seems to be talking about a mythical/celestial Jesus who was crucified before the world began. There's only one reference to Jesus ever being on earth, and that is when Paul references the 500 eyewitnesses. There's good reason to believe that is a later insertion, and the videos cover that (I believe it's the other set of videos - Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah). Paul says repeatedly that he did not hear of the gospel from any man, but from the scriptures and from divine revelation.

Well, NV, I actually do approach my reading of Paul as a separate literary and historical sphere from that of the Gospels; I may be one of the few who tries to study the New Testament within a historical context, preferring to arrange and consider the books/letters in the Chronological order in which (we think) they were written, even though it’s difficult for anyone to know for sure as to the order, or to know which writings may have been “forged,” or not, and so on. But, I think we could safely say that 1 Thessalonians or Galatians would be in the first three chronological spots, with the Gospels following at least several spots later in the New Testament order.

I might check out the other videos you’re referring to, to see what’s being said.

If you don't mind a detour to the video series you're already on, I'll recommend Richard Carrier's 6-year analysis of the historicity of Jesus

I watched Carrier’s video, and I appreciate your having ‘connected’ me with it since it has given me some additional things to think about beyond what TruthSurge offers. Here’s some of those thoughts:

1) I’m not a fan of the Bayesian approach, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, so I'm not overly impressed by Bayesian applications to historical considerations. (Of course, I'm no math expert, so I could always reconsider this point.)

2) Just because Euhemerization may have been common during Jesus’ time, it doesn’t follow by necessity that Jesus was likewise euhemerized by His disciples. It is a possibility, however, and I do recognize that.

3) Carrier admits that we have little preserved from the first 80 years after Jesus.

4) Carrier says that other pseudo-evidence was forged to fill in the gaps left by the inadequacy of the 1st century disciples—i.e. dozens of Gospels, Acts, fake Epistles, doctored passages, etc.---but Carrier also says that these forgeries are primarily products of the 2nd to the 4th centuries, in which case, I have to say: so what?

5) Carrier states that Philo of Alexandria held to a Jewish Angelology based on Zechariah 6. And to that, I have to also say: so what? It fits with the expectations that various O.T. prophecies stirred up at the time and to which Christians like Paul resorted to in their interpretations regarding the significance of Jesus. Christians would take the same passages and say, sure Philo, or agree with a similar approach, even if not identical.

6) Sure, Paul didn’t care so much about the ‘biographical’ details, once he understood that Jesus was to be identified as the Divine Mouth of God to humanity.

7) Carrier says that Jesus is not said to have appeared before his death, that people only saw him after his death and resurrection. My response is: Maybe because what Paul meant by “appearing” is a spiritual phenomenon that only happens when and after a person is dead; Jesus wasn’t Dr. Strange. Also, it seems that Carrier thinks this means that no one saw, or knew about the personage of Jesus, until He died and was supposedly resurrected, according to stories Paul "fabricated." I think “appearing” here means ‘showing up by way of some apparitional state that is beyond mortal life.’ By contrast, Carrier seems to imply that Paul meant nothing more than that Jesus wasn’t seen by anyone--at any time--until such and such a time that Paul fabricated his theories about Jesus…

8) Carrier dismisses as merely metaphorical (mythical) Paul’s very brief reference in Galatians 4:4 to Jesus’ having been born of a woman. I’m not going to go into this point here, but I think Carrier’s view is contrived and doesn't treat the text properly. I don't think Paul meant for his reference about Jesus' being born of a woman to be understood as a mere metaphor, even though Paul does talk about Sarah and Hagar in a metaphorical fashion in other parts of the same letter.

9) Carrier thinks that Jesus’ Fig Tree incident is a fabricated allegory. Again, I think this comes from his own surmising…but I do agree with him that the Fig Tree incident is related to Jesus' clearing of the Temple and His condemnation (of at least some) of His fellow Jews for their unfaithfulness to God.​

Anyway, there’s just too much to go into here, and since we’re only trying to ‘explore’ these issues rather than debate the validity of either side’s arguments, I’m not going to elaborate too much. But, if there’s some specific issue you may want to explore further, by all means let me know, NV. (Meanwhile, I’m going to see what I can do to get some cheap copies of some of McDonald’s and Carrier’s books.)

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hello again, NV

While it may seem that I’m pliable in my faith, what you’re probably perceiving as some kind of ultra-flexibility in my thinking is more likely an epistemological complexity. Like you, I have some education, and through that experience I’ve developed a hesitancy about gulping down the newest presentation of “facts” about Jesus, or any other subject for that matter, before it passes through the network of coherent connections in my mind. Typically, I personally have to study a subject by digesting a number of doctorate level sources from various viewpoints. I typically don’t just read a book, or watch a singular video, and then drastically change my mind.

OK, well on that note I just have one question which rests upon an assumption of mine:

Assumption: It is the natural inclination of a human mind to believe (tacitly or explicitly) that the earth is an infinite plane. At some point an adult authority figure in your life convinced you that the earth is a sphere.

Question: How much "hesitancy about gulping down the newest presentation of 'facts'" was there for you before you accepted that the earth is a sphere?

As a side note, this example establishes that certain long-held beliefs which align with common sense and intuition can be "flat" wrong. The Jesus Myth Theory is like the spherical earth - a crazy idea that fits with the facts far better than anything else.

However, in some limited sense, I’ve already “changed my mind” in our exploration here by conceding to you that there is some space for McDonald’s and Carrier’s premise that Mark may very well have drawn some kind of literary types from Homer, although whether or not he did this to “euhemerize” the figure of Jesus is up for a debate we won't broach here.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Whether or not Jesus was Euhemerized is the entire point in question upon which the Jesus Myth Theory stands or falls. I agree that we can't debate in this particular forum, and if that's what you mean then I get what you're saying, but if we cannot even discuss the issue then I'm not sure what there really is to discuss.

In this exploration of Christianity and its various environs of historical scholarship as they relate to the authorship of Mark, I’m not ready just yet to extol the title of “Historical Explanation” upon the Jesus Myth Theory. There is still much more for me to explore on this subject, and even with the numerous points and references given by Truth Surge and Carrier in the videos you’ve cited (of which I’ve watched the first 10 by TruthSurge and then the one by Carrier), I don’t feel that they’ve presented the issues beyond more than an introductory analysis. Since I think this is the case, I would have to actually get some of McDonald’s and Carrier’s books and ponder their more-in-depth analyses.

I certainly applaud your willingness to perform all this research. I haven't even bought any books on this issue and I have no current plans to do so, although I could easily see it happening in the near future.

With regards to how you've only yet been exposed to introductory material, I think there is one thing that should be in the introduction that is actually never mentioned (as far as I'm aware). We'll call this my introduction to the Jesus Myth Theory:

If Jesus was born 100 years earlier or later, would that have made a difference to anything in regards to his message, ministry, miracles, or mediation between man and God? If instead of being crucified he was burnt alive or decapitated or stoned to death, would his sacrifice hold any less redemptive power? I think not. I think that Christian theology reveres the cross for what it represents, not for simply being a cross, and if Jesus died by hanging then Christians would proudly hang a noose from their necks. As Paul emphasizes, the only important things are that Jesus died and rose from the dead. So how, on Christian theology, does it really make a difference if Jesus died and rose again in a Greek-esque celestial realm of spirits and gods or if he did so on earth?

I’d also have to (hopefully) find and study several sources from other scholars who have treated the Jesus Myth from various other angles, and I would have to do all of this before I can get to any kind of change in thinking that seems coherent to me or compels me to commit to it. This kind of study assumes, too, that the decisive ‘facts’ haven’t been already blown away by the forces of time and nature, remaining forever unreachable by anyone on any side of the conversation. So…no, I don’t think my faith is really pliable. Rather, I’d say that while I invest my belief in the potential of Christianity, I also put a firm value on a praxis involving substantiation, discernment, and coherence, all of which makes me hesitate in swallowing what I’m being told, whether it comes from Christian theists or from atheists. This is one reason I have several hundred doctorate level books and journal articles sitting on my book shelves ...

Dr. Carrier has said that there are only around a half dozen scholars who either don't believe that Jesus existed historically or else are unsure. So that is quite the minority camp. Carrier says that there have been many poor attempts at constructing a Jesus Myth Theory and that the vast majority of the stuff out there is terrible and factually in error. So he's just trying to set the record straight in terms of the bad mythicists and the bad historical method being used to conclude that Jesus is historical. He claims that he explains in detail in his books why the historical methods used to grant historicity to Jesus are in error.

My understanding of the whole situation is like this: suppose a person tells you, "So I was at McDonald's the other day, and then I got abducted by aliens." When historians accept the mundane claims of the gospels and reject the fantastical ones, they are essentially accepting the claim that the person was actually at McDonald's. But... isn't the claim that the person was at McDonald's a stepping stone to introduce the fantastical claim? Why shouldn't that be in question? It is unsound practicing of history to accept the claim that the person was at McDonald's unless we can at least have multiple sources to confirm it. The gospels, obviously, are just the same source material (Mark) used over and over, and the author of Mark never actually cites any source whatsoever. For this and for more elaborate reasons he rejects the gospels, and when he turns his attention to the epistles he sees that they do not appear to be discussing a human being when referencing Jesus.

Well, NV, I actually do approach my reading of Paul as a separate literary and historical sphere from that of the Gospels; I may be one of the few who tries to study the New Testament within a historical context, preferring to arrange and consider the books/letters in the Chronological order in which (we think) they were written, even though it’s difficult for anyone to know for sure as to the order, or to know which writings may have been “forged,” or not, and so on. But, I think we could safely say that 1 Thessalonians or Galatians would be in the first three chronological spots, with the Gospels following at least several spots later in the New Testament order.

Well I think the champion verse of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is an obvious forgery. 1 Corinthians 15:4-9 says,

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.



The red part is what I contend to be a forgery.

As I'm sure you know, Cephas was Peter. Why would Paul say that Jesus was seen by Peter, then by the twelve? There were never at the same time 12 disciples and a resurrected Jesus on this earth. I suppose, technically, Judas might have killed himself a week or so after the crucifixion in which case there were 12 disciples on earth at the same time as the resurrected Jesus, but Jesus certainly did not appear to Judas even if this was the case. Was Paul unaware of the resurrection narrative? Was he just generalizing by mentioning "the 12" despite already having mentioned Peter?

By my armchair historian reckoning, this insertion probably occurred after Mark was written but before Matthew. Mark's gospel does not include Judas' suicide, and it does not even include posthumous appearances by Jesus. The latter half of the last chapter of Mark is a known forgery and there are various alternate endings as well.

I might check out the other videos you’re referring to, to see what’s being said.

I watched Carrier’s video, and I appreciate your having ‘connected’ me with it since it has given me some additional things to think about beyond what TruthSurge offers. Here’s some of those thoughts:

1) I’m not a fan of the Bayesian approach, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, so I'm not overly impressed by Bayesian applications to historical considerations. (Of course, I'm no math expert, so I could always reconsider this point.)

2) Just because Euhemerization may have been common during Jesus’ time, it doesn’t follow by necessity that Jesus was likewise euhemerized by His disciples. It is a possibility, however, and I do recognize that.

3) Carrier admits that we have little preserved from the first 80 years after Jesus.

4) Carrier says that other pseudo-evidence was forged to fill in the gaps left by the inadequacy of the 1st century disciples—i.e. dozens of Gospels, Acts, fake Epistles, doctored passages, etc.---but Carrier also says that these forgeries are primarily products of the 2nd to the 4th centuries, in which case, I have to say: so what?

5) Carrier states that Philo of Alexandria held to a Jewish Angelology based on Zechariah 6. And to that, I have to also say: so what? It fits with the expectations that various O.T. prophecies stirred up at the time and to which Christians like Paul resorted to in their interpretations regarding the significance of Jesus. Christians would take the same passages and say, sure Philo, or agree with a similar approach, even if not identical.

6) Sure, Paul didn’t care so much about the ‘biographical’ details, once he understood that Jesus was to be identified as the Divine Mouth of God to humanity.

7) Carrier says that Jesus is not said to have appeared before his death, that people only saw him after his death and resurrection. My response is: Maybe because what Paul meant by “appearing” is a spiritual phenomenon that only happens when and after a person is dead; Jesus wasn’t Dr. Strange. Also, it seems that Carrier thinks this means that no one saw, or knew about the personage of Jesus, until He died and was supposedly resurrected, according to stories Paul "fabricated." I think “appearing” here means ‘showing up by way of some apparitional state that is beyond mortal life.’ By contrast, Carrier seems to imply that Paul meant nothing more than that Jesus wasn’t seen by anyone--at any time--until such and such a time that Paul fabricated his theories about Jesus…

8) Carrier dismisses as merely metaphorical (mythical) Paul’s very brief reference in Galatians 4:4 to Jesus’ having been born of a woman. I’m not going to go into this point here, but I think Carrier’s view is contrived and doesn't treat the text properly. I don't think Paul meant for his reference about Jesus' being born of a woman to be understood as a mere metaphor, even though Paul does talk about Sarah and Hagar in a metaphorical fashion in other parts of the same letter.

9) Carrier thinks that Jesus’ Fig Tree incident is a fabricated allegory. Again, I think this comes from his own surmising…but I do agree with him that the Fig Tree incident is related to Jesus' clearing of the Temple and His condemnation (of at least some) of His fellow Jews for their unfaithfulness to God.​

1. I think we are all fans of the Bayesian approach whether we admit it or not. Observe:

I have a pet dog in my backyard.

Do you believe that? Probably, and I don't even have to present any evidence to corroborate my testimony. Why do you believe that? Because the majority of Americans (oh yeah, forgot to mention I'm American) own pets, and the favorite pet is a dog. While dog owners are technically in the minority, they're not in the minority by much. The prior probability of someone owning a dog is high.

I have a pet dragon in my backyard.

Do you believe that one? Probably not, and you probably wouldn't believe it even if I produced a Polaroid, toe nail clippings and a dung sample. The prior probability of someone owning a dragon is low - in fact it is nil.

That is a summary of Bayes theory - it's common sense.

2. Of course it doesn't follow by necessity. It's just something that is pointed out. In the silent years between circa 500BCE to 50CE, the Greeks were influencing the Jews (among many others) with their radical ideas.

Aside from Euhemerus and his new genre of literature, there was Plato. Plato would look at two different chairs/hammers/houses/etc and conclude, "There must be some perfect, ideal notion of a chair/hammer/house/etc that exists in the ether and all chairs/hammers/houses/etc in our world are an imperfect shadow of this perfect chair/hammer/house/etc."

So it's not hard to imagine Paul coming along with his idea of how the blood of bulls and goats cannot remedy sin. I mean, if God wants the best lamb of your flock - the unblemished one - but we know that in the ether there's this perfect idea of a lamb, then why is our best, yet imperfect, lamb good enough? It can't be. Not even the lamb from the ether is good enough. We need God's only son to wash away sin. Nothing else can be good enough. Where does God's only son live? Why, he lives where all of the perfect notions of things exist - in the ether, or in the celestial realm.

3. Yes, and I find that to be expected if we know that the church burned not only heretics but heretical literature as well. And it seems that the earlier you go back, the more heretical stuff there is. The gnostics were quite early. Their ideas survived, but there are many who didn't. The idea of a celestial Jesus was of course quite heretical.

In 2 Peter 1:16 the author feels compelled to state that he doesn't believe in cleverly devised myths. Why does he feel the need to say this to his Christian audience?

4. Carrier is explaining that when you look at the early church, the only literature in existence indicates that Jesus was a celestial being. This evidence was later determined to be heretical and thus was destroyed.

5. I'm not sure how you find this to be insignificant. Philo is describing an archangel named Jesus who is the high priest of God, and this idea streamlines perfectly into the Jesus of the Hebrews Epistle.

6. I find that hard to believe because Paul is rebuking churches left and right, telling them what to do and what not to do. So I am to believe that he knew about Jesus the man and yet never once said to some church, "Hey, you know, Jesus did such and such when he was with us, and he's kind of the perfect example of a human being, so maybe you should kinda do what he did." No, he never once does that despite the fact that every letter he ever writes is about correcting churches that are wandering astray. At the very least Paul could just quote something Jesus said, even if he doesn't care what Jesus did, and yet he does not do that either. I think this is one of several smoking guns.

7. "My response is: Maybe because what Paul meant by 'appearing' is a spiritual phenomenon that only happens when and after a person is dead."

That's exactly the point.

I don't know what you mean by the Dr. Strange reference... please, no spoilers!

8. If you read the King James Version, it says he is made of a woman, not born of a woman. The King James Version is more or less a literal word for word translation. The Greek word being used here means something to the effect of "manufacture" and Paul uses this word when he talks about Adam being manufactured. Adam was not born, so Paul has to use another word. Paul says that Jesus was manufactured of a woman in reference to his incarnation. The same reasoning applies to when it says that Jesus was born of David's seed. He was not born of David's seed, but manufactured from it in the same way that Adam was manufactured from dust.

9. I can't tell if you agree or disagree with Dr. Carrier on this point. Have you also heard about his analysis of Barabbas being released to the public rather than Jesus? He gives a very eloquent explanation of that allegory.

Anyway, there’s just too much to go into here, and since we’re only trying to ‘explore’ these issues rather than debate the validity of either side’s arguments, I’m not going to elaborate too much. But, if there’s some specific issue you may want to explore further, by all means let me know, NV. (Meanwhile, I’m going to see what I can do to get some cheap copies of some of McDonald’s and Carrier’s books.)

Peace

2PhiloVoid

If you haven't bought the books yet, you can probably get digital copies for free by getting a free month trial at a digital book site.

Well, I have to leave for work and I haven't had the chance to proof read this. But hey, YOLO. Here we go... clicking the reply button. Edit - cleaned up some stuff.