Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[YoursTrue]

I am sure that your understanding of Leviticus is matched only by your understanding of evidence. But what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

The section there deals with God's requirements for the tabernacle to Moses, and the conversation was about the temple that was destroyed by the Romans in the first century. Since you don't believe in jesus how are you sticking with the topic?

 

[Miken]

Carrier is using Ignatius to show there were other groups of Christians who did not believe the sories were literal but were allegory. So? :

"So not only is this “Ignatius” insisting the Gospels are relating historical facts, but he is declaring that any Christians who say otherwise are to be outright shunned. Which does mean there were Christians saying otherwise. But it also quite decisively proves that this other strain of Christianity—which we might call Ignatian, and which happens to be the one that in a couple of centuries would gain absolute political power over the whole of the West and control nearly all document preservation for a thousand years, eventually becoming today’s plethora of Christendom—was adamantly literalist. They were shunning, expelling, damning any fellow Christians who dare suggest the Gospels are but allegories and not to be taken as historically true."

Of course, there were other forms of Christianity. I have been pointing are there being forms of Jesus followers prior to Paul that disagreed with things Paul said, such as the crucifixion being some kind of sacrifice, the reality of the resurrection, observance of Jewish Law. Although there was a Jesus movement(s) before Paul, it does not appear that there were any mythical elements to it. All of that got added on later.

With the exception of some early traditions found in Mark and probably in Matthew, the Gospel stories are made up for particular purposes. It is not even certain that the Docetists Ignatius is arguing against gave any credence at all to the Gospels much less considered them allegories.

Paul does not use the word "for being born" where he does in Romans 9:11. You have not debunked Carries point at all.

As I said and you have not answered:

As I have shown, Carrier’s interpretation of Romans 1:3 is incorrect in terms of the word used – not ‘made’ but ‘became’, the Greek grammar – an active voice as suits ‘became’ when ‘made; would require-a passive voice, the context of the expectation of the audience – that the messiah would come from the House of David, and even the sense of the very next verse.

As I have said several times now, ‘born’ would focus on the mother but the intent is to focus in the whole lineage. Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is the word ‘born’ ever used with respect to the messiah. Carrier’s argument is wrong.

"Made" "become" the seed is exactly what Carrier is saying. The language doesn't allow us to be 100% sure.

"We cannot answer the question with the data available whether Paul meant “sperm” (i.e. seed) allegorically (as he does mean elsewhere when he speaks of seeds and births, such as of Gentiles becoming the seed of Abraham by God’s declaration), or literally (God manufacturing a body for Jesus from the actual sperm of David), or (as a claim of biological descent—-even though Paul’s vocabulary does not match such an assertion, but that of direct manufacture). At best it’s equal odds. We can’t tell."

What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

‘Made’ and ‘became’ are two different words with different meanings requiring different voices. We can know for sure that Paul used the word ‘became’ in the active voice (even Carrier admits it now) and that Paul’s usage is in line with all the other references to the messiah coming from the lineage of David and that his usage of the word ‘seed’ is in line with all other references to the seed of a person being that person’s descendants in the Jewish scriptures and the NT. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Paul means anything else than Jesus being of the lineage of David, which is exactly how his audience would understand it.

For Carrier’s interpretation to possibly be the case would require that the well-known Jewish expectation then and now that the messiah would come from the House of David in the normal sense of being a descendent in the usual way, that this expectation had been so completely supplanted throughout all of Judaism by the belief that the messiah would be literally manufactured from the literal preserved sperm of David that the Jews in Rome would instantly recognize that this is what Paul meant despite him having used the wrong word in the wrong voice. And then that literal sperm belief, despite its total replacement of the House of David expectation, would vanish from history without a trace and the House of David belief magically reappear.

It is 100% certain that Carrier made up a whopper of a story to go along with the mistranslation in the KJV which he used because he does not know Greek. If you think that the above two total replacements of belief really happened with no trace of the manufacture from sperm belief ever existed, please provide strong supporting evidence for that claim, not from Carrier.

Mystery religion - outsiders were told of a historical resurrection, members were revealed the mysteries, one being the event took place in the heavens.:

"Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions!...
Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens."
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

Where is the part about Osiris being a savior? The idea of resurrection at the end of days already appeared in Jewish thought in 1 Enoch long before Paul. Paul uses the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus story to ‘prove’ the reality of that popular hopeful expectation. It is not rising and dying that is the issue but being a savior god who rises and dies.

We know little about early Jesus followers. We do know dying/rising savior demigods were the rage, the Persians had one and the OT had been radically updated by the Persian ideas during the occupation which included prophecies of a Jewish version of one of these saviors who would permanently forgive sins (no more temple or temple sacrifices) and get followers into the afterlife.

We also know early Christianity was split among many factions each having very different ideas including radically different "Gnostic" groups.
Thinking that you have heard about some followers who had an idea about the sacrifice which then removes mythicism is absurd.

There is no dying/rising god in Zoroastrianism. As I have previously documented, the savior Saoshyant who will be born near the end of the world does not appear until the Denkard text that is definitely dated to after the Muslim invasion of Iran. The reason for the appearance of the savior Saoshyant is the long history of oppression in Iran which is detailed in that book. It all sounds suspiciously like the Zoroastrians copied Christianity on this one. This idea would not have been a part of the Zoroastrian religion during the Persian era in Israel. Although Judaism definitely integrated a number of Persian beleifs.

We can see that there are multiple schools of thought in Corinth about the meaning of Jesus

1 Corinthians 1
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
…
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
…
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

The word of the cross that Paul preaches is that is a sin atonement sacrifice. Clearly not everyone believes this.

There are those who doubt Paul’s authority to speak on these matters since he was not an original apostle

1 Corinthians 9
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Then there is the resurrection thing. Not everyone believe that.

1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

[long witness list where Paul tacks himself onto the end, about which he gets called out and does a flimflam job in 2 Cor 12 trying to justify himself again]

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

There were definitely differing opinions about key points about Paul’s Christology and the others do not consider him an apostle because he came along after them. Paul jumps through hoops in 1 Cor 15 to try to demonstrate that he should be considered an apostle even though he admits he came along after the real apostles. And as we see above, the points of disagreement with the earlier Jesus followers are exactly over the mythicist elements that Paul introduced. The original Jesus followers did not buy into the various things that the mythicists criticize. Sure sounds like there was a real Jesus but not the supernatural kind as later portrayed.

 

[Miken]

Yeah but Carriers argument uses 2 Samuel7:12 :

" It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy of the messiah literally declared that God said to David that, upon his death, “I shall raise your sperm after you, who will come out of your belly” (2 Samuel 7:12) and that seed will sit upon an eternal throne (7:13).
It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy was proved false: the throne of David’s progeny was not eternal; when Christianity began, Davidic kings had not ruled Judea for centuries.
It is an indisputable fact that when faced with a falsified prophecy, Jews almost always reinterpreted that prophecy in a way that rescued it from being false.
It is an indisputable fact that the easiest way to rescue Nathan’s prophecy from being false is to read Nathan’s prophecy literally and not figuratively as originally intended: as the messiah being made directly from David’s seed and then ruling forever, thus establishing direct continuity and thus, one could then say, an eternal throne did come directly from David.

I have previously criticized this in great detail. Please respond to those criticisms in detail before you post this again.

Put all this together and there is no reason to believe Paul meant Romans 1:3 any other way than the only way that rescues Nathan’s messianic prophecy from being false. And that prophecy would be false if it were taken to mean the seed of a continuous line of sitting kings. So Paul cannot have believed it meant that. And Paul’s choice of vocabulary in linking this prophecy to Jesus, based on what we can show was Paul’s own peculiar idiom everywhere else regarding the difference between manufactured and birthed bodies, and his statement in Philippians which confirms he believed Jesus had a body made for him that Jesus then merely occupied, confirms this. No evidence in Paul confirms any other reading.

As I have said earlier, in the Jewish scriptures, the word ‘born’ is never used about the messiah. It would focus on the mother. Instead he is always portrayed as a descendent of David which is what matters. And once more, as I have said multiple times now, the word seed referring to the seed of a persons is very clearly always referring to the descendants of that person.

And as I have said earlier, since the descendent of David who would sit upon the throne sometime in the future after the throne has been created sometime in the future, later Jews were free to say this future king was the future messiah who would oust the foreigners and establish an everlasting kingdom. All that is required is that the messiah be descended from David, which was as I have documented was the belief at the time. That is by far the simplest and most reasonable re-casting of the meaning of 2 Samuel 7:13

As I believe I may have said earlier, Philippians 2 definitely means ‘becoming’. Paul is urging the Philippians to imitate Jesus in humbling himself. Phil 2:7 uses two forms of the word ginomai.

The first is in Jesus emptying himself of the divine identity (from verse 6) and becoming human. The active sense of emptying himself goes with the active sense of becoming human (Middle Deponent = active voice as usual. If Jesus was made to do those things, where is the voluntary humility?

The second is in Jesus becoming obedient, Middle Deponent again. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was manufactured obedient? Obedience is an attribute of the mind not the body. Was the mind of Jesus also manufactured at the time he became human? Where is the voluntary humility in that?

But the KJV mistranslates the word as ‘made’ and that is good enough for Carrier, who does not know Greek. Or apparently have much reading comprehension.

It’s also a fact that:

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke depict Jesus as not descended from the seed of David but directly manufactured by God (this time in the womb of Mary). Though they both give a Davidic genealogy for Joseph, they both explicitly say Jesus was not born of the seed of Joseph.
Therefore even the authors of the Gospels believed either that Jesus’s body was manufactured by God directly out of the seed of David or the “seed of David” prophecy was only meant allegorically. They cannot have understood it figuratively (as meaning biological descent), because they explicitly exclude that in their chosen description of Jesus’s origins.

What happened to Jesus not being born as Carrier claimed? Looks like he was born out of a woman after all instead of Carrier’s song and dance about Galatians 4:4 not meaning what it straightforwardly does mean. Carrier cannot link his ideas about Paul to the Gospels. They are contradicting Carrier.

Read what I previously said about Matthew and respond to that in the linked thread, please.

What missionaries exactly and this is definitely more speculation.

I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.

In the gospels there are Sadducees and Pharisees and no Essenes. So it's likely that Mark/Jesus is the Essene point of view. Jesus was t an Essene, he is a character in a story. In real life there would have been many people representing the Essene but in a story it's represented by one character.

The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion.

 

[Miken]

The argument is not that hard. Because Paul uses allegorical parallel statements elsewhere we can not be sure if by "seed" he meant an allegory or a literal biological descent. It's not enough to argue in favor of historicity or mythicism.

Paul uses figures of speech often. Most writers did and do. He uses metaphors, which refer to one thing as if it were something else to make a point, but with the meaning being obvious. For example, Paul refers to the Law as slavery. Obvious and having a point. An allegory is a story without an immediately obvious meaning that requires explanation. The story in Galatians 4:21-31 is not immediately obvious and requires explanation, especially since it differs from the plain meaning of Jewish scripture, which is that it is Isaac who was born of the promise and his children are law observant Jews.

In Galatians 4:24, Paul is making sure his readers understand that he is taking liberties by saying that he is using an allegory. And note that Paul says this after mentioning anything about births. This is the only time Paul ever uses the word ἀλληγορέω. Which BTW is a verb, not a noun. And he says ‘allegorizing’ making this into an allegory and not ‘These things are an allegory’ as the KJV mistranslates it. (Once again Carrier relying on English translations and not the Greek) But Carrier has this

Nowhere else does Paul tell a story whose meaning is not obvious to his audience and needs explaining. But Carrier has this word ‘allegory’ stuck in his head so he can use to have things literal or non-literal as he feels like. This is simply not the case and any use you or Carrier of the word ‘allegory’ other than in reference to Galatians 4:24 and following is wrong.

Again, because Paul uses allegory we do not need a literal reading of Romans 1:3.

If Romans 1:3 is not literal, then ‘seed’ does NOT mean ‘sperm’? Which way is it, literal or non-literal? In actuality the seed of David is another figure of speech, a euphemism. Seed of David means descendants of David. In the Jewish scriptures when a name of a generic person is mentioned in conjunction with his seed, it is always clearly about descendants of that person. This would instantly be understood by Paul’s Jewish audience in Rome.

Carrier gives examples of cosmic sperm banks in Jewish lore and such:

Tim O'Neill & the Biblical History Skeptics on Mythicism • Richard Carrier

Niddah 15 (not 16) refers to an angel bringing a drop of semen to heaven. It is not stored because it will be needed to get the woman pregnant. This detail alone shows the story is not meant to be literal and therefore not indicative of any prior belief. The angel asks the Lord if this person will be mighty or weak, clever or stupid etc. But the angel never asks if the person will be righteous because the person has free will, this being the point of the story.

As I will later be discussing in detail in a later post, the earliest mention of pregnancy by swimming in a lake is in a work not considered scripture and refers to the bad things that have happened to the Persian people at the hands of foreigners beginning with Alexander and continuing up to the Muslim invasion in the 7th century CE. Not a possible influence on Christianity and quite possibly the other way around.

Carrier is quote mining again ignoring anything that could put it in context.

Has an entire article on the Cosmic Seed:
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier

I have already addressed that article and criticized it in detail but you have not responded to my criticisms. I am not going to continually repeat my arguments if you refuse to acknowledge they exist. You cannot use Carrier to ‘prove’ Carrier when his arguments are so poor. You have to do better than that, like maybe respond to my criticisms. I always respond to everything you say or link. Please do the same.

Carrier claims that Paul's use of the word "made" was changed at some point. I do not know the source on this, it might say in the book OHJ.

I discuss this at greater length below. We have been through this already. At one point, Carrier did say that Ignatius wanted to change the scriptures when, as I have documented, Ignatius was clearly responding to Docetists that claimed that Jesus was only a spirit after all, despite what the scriptures actually indicate in many places.

If Carrier really said at some point that the scriptures were changed – and as I said I cannot find that – that could explain the convoluted logic in trying to portray Ignatius as claiming that.

"The phrase “born of a woman, born under the law” in Galatians 4:4 is an ‘allegory’ for world order. As Paul explicitly says, the “mothers” he is talking about in his argument in Galatians 4 are not people but worlds (Galatians 4:24). In both cases Paul does not use the word he uses for human birth, but the word he uses for divine manufacture (“was created/made”), the same word he uses of God making Adam and our future resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15:37 and 15:45), neither of which are “born” to actual human mothers (or fathers).

Later Christians knew this and tried to change the words to what they needed to be there (and what Evans needs to be there), altering them both (simultaneously here and in Romans 1:3) to Paul’s preferred word for “born” rather than “made,” but we caught them at it, and those doctored variants are excluded from the received text. Experts now know that what Paul actually originally wrote in both passages was his preferred word for “made.” So we can’t tell if Paul means God manufactured Jesus a body out of Davidic seed, or if Jesus was born to some human father descended from David; nor can we tell if Paul thought Jesus was born of a real mother or only an allegorical one. So there is no usable evidence here. At all. Certainly not substantial evidence."
Yes, Galatians 4 Is Allegorical • Richard Carrier

As for the ‘world order’ claim: Utter nonsense. In Galatians 4:24, it is not the mothers that are supposedly ‘worlds’ but in Paul’s (one and only) declared use of allegorizing, it is not the mothers at all that are separated but the descendants of the two sons. And these are not some kind of future worlds but two groups of people currently existing.

Galatians 4:4 that says Jesus became out of a woman and under the Law comes before the allegorizing section. The reader would have no reason to connect this with the two groups of people. If they somehow did, by having Jesus become under the Law would make him one of the children of Hagar and one of the sinful ‘bad guys’.

There is also the problem that Carrier claims that Paul always means manufactured and not became. But in Galatians 4:4 that would mean that Jesus was manufactured out of a woman. I thought it was sperm. Oh, this one is not literal but an ‘allegory’? Became out of a woman sounds pretty clear to me. Also that he would become under the law at his bris 8 days later. And that is very obviously how Paul’s readers would understand it.

A number of translations render the word γενομένου in Romans 1:3 as ‘born’. The KJV translates it as ‘made’ wrong. Both if these is incorrect. Carrier claims that manuscripts were doctored. Let us look at that in detail.

Here is Romans 1:3 in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, beginning with the word outlined in red. While earlier manuscripts of parts of Romans have been found, this is the earliest of Romans 1.

@@@

At that early date, Greek was written in majuscule (upper case only) uncial (square letters) scriptio continua (no space between words).

This is a clearer rendering
ΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΥΙΟΥΑΥΤΟΥΤΟΥΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΕΚΣΠΕΡΜΑΤΟΣΔΑΥΙΔΚΑΤΑΣΑΡΚΑ

Later on, Greek would be written in miniscule (upper and lower case) with spaces between words and diacritical marks like this
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,

The root of the underlined word is γίνομαι (ginomai) which means ‘become’. It does not means ‘made’.

This particular instance is γενομένου (genomenou) which is a participle (‘ing’ word) aorist tense (happened in past) middle deponent voice (active). The preceding definite article τοῦ (the) makes this into a substantive (noun equivalent). Therefore ‘one-becoming’.

The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, presumably the ‘received text’ Carrier refers to. Here is Romans 1:3 from that.

περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

It is clear that the word was always ‘one-becoming’ in case anyone wants to argue that this got changed.

Although it is the word that means ‘one-becoming’, the KJV incorrectly translates it as ‘made’. But Carrier did not know Greek so he thought it really meant ‘made’ and came up with this wacko idea about sperm.

Now about Carrier’s claim that when Paul says ginomai which really means ‘become’ (as Carrier eventually admitted in one of his blog entries) he really means ‘make’. Let’s look at the places Carrier cites

1 Corinthians 15:37

καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον

and what you-are-sowing not the body the shall-be-becoming you-are-sowing only bare kernel

Paul is using the image of sowing plant seeds as a metaphor for burying a dead body. He is giving the Corinthians who are doubting the idea of resurrection something familiar to relate to. The kernel will in fact become a plant. The plant will not be manufactured (passive voice). It will grow (active voice). To think Paul meant ‘made’ would turn this familiar image into something odd and unfamiliar and lose the appeal. Paul would lose the doubting Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:45

οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

this and it-has-been-written became the first human Adam into soul living the last Adam into spirit giving-life

The word ψυχὴν (translated ‘soul’) does not refer to the body (which could be dead) but to the breath of life. Adam became alive.

When did Jesus become a spirit that gives life? At his resurrection, which is the guarantee of the promise of resurrection.

It is not manufactured bodies that are being discussed, it is that mortal life is not the only life.

 

[Miken]

The argument is not that hard. Because Paul uses allegorical parallel statements elsewhere we can not be sure if by "seed" he meant an allegory or a literal biological descent. It's not enough to argue in favor of historicity or mythicism.

Paul uses figures of speech often. Most writers did and do. He uses metaphors, which refer to one thing as if it were something else to make a point, but with the meaning being obvious. For example, Paul refers to the Law as slavery. Obvious and having a point. An allegory is a story without an immediately obvious meaning that requires explanation. The story in Galatians 4:21-31 is not immediately obvious and requires explanation, especially since it differs from the plain meaning of Jewish scripture, which is that it is Isaac who was born of the promise and his children are law observant Jews.

In Galatians 4:24, Paul is making sure his readers understand that he is taking liberties by saying that he is using an allegory. And note that Paul says this after mentioning anything about births. This is the only time Paul ever uses the word ἀλληγορέω. Which BTW is a verb, not a noun. And he says ‘allegorizing’ making this into an allegory and not ‘These things are an allegory’ as the KJV mistranslates it. (Once again Carrier relying on English translations and not the Greek) But Carrier has this

Nowhere else does Paul tell a story whose meaning is not obvious to his audience and needs explaining. But Carrier has this word ‘allegory’ stuck in his head so he can use to have things literal or non-literal as he feels like. This is simply not the case and any use you or Carrier of the word ‘allegory’ other than in reference to Galatians 4:24 and following is wrong.

Again, because Paul uses allegory we do not need a literal reading of Romans 1:3.

If Romans 1:3 is not literal, then ‘seed’ does NOT mean ‘sperm’? Which way is it, literal or non-literal? In actuality the seed of David is another figure of speech, a euphemism. Seed of David means descendants of David. In the Jewish scriptures when a name of a generic person is mentioned in conjunction with his seed, it is always clearly about descendants of that person. This would instantly be understood by Paul’s Jewish audience in Rome.

Carrier gives examples of cosmic sperm banks in Jewish lore and such:

Tim O'Neill & the Biblical History Skeptics on Mythicism • Richard Carrier

Niddah 15 (not 16) refers to an angel bringing a drop of semen to heaven. It is not stored because it will be needed to get the woman pregnant. This detail alone shows the story is not meant to be literal and therefore not indicative of any prior belief. The angel asks the Lord if this person will be mighty or weak, clever or stupid etc. But the angel never asks if the person will be righteous because the person has free will, this being the point of the story.

As I will later be discussing in detail in a later post, the earliest mention of pregnancy by swimming in a lake is in a work not considered scripture and refers to the bad things that have happened to the Persian people at the hands of foreigners beginning with Alexander and continuing up to the Muslim invasion in the 7th century CE. Not a possible influence on Christianity and quite possibly the other way around.

Carrier is quote mining again ignoring anything that could put it in context.

Has an entire article on the Cosmic Seed:
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier

I have already addressed that article and criticized it in detail but you have not responded to my criticisms. I am not going to continually repeat my arguments if you refuse to acknowledge they exist. You cannot use Carrier to ‘prove’ Carrier when his arguments are so poor. You have to do better than that, like maybe respond to my criticisms. I always respond to everything you say or link. Please do the same.

Carrier claims that Paul's use of the word "made" was changed at some point. I do not know the source on this, it might say in the book OHJ.

I discuss this at greater length below. We have been through this already. At one point, Carrier did say that Ignatius wanted to change the scriptures when, as I have documented, Ignatius was clearly responding to Docetists that claimed that Jesus was only a spirit after all, despite what the scriptures actually indicate in many places.

If Carrier really said at some point that the scriptures were changed – and as I said I cannot find that – that could explain the convoluted logic in trying to portray Ignatius as claiming that.

"The phrase “born of a woman, born under the law” in Galatians 4:4 is an ‘allegory’ for world order. As Paul explicitly says, the “mothers” he is talking about in his argument in Galatians 4 are not people but worlds (Galatians 4:24). In both cases Paul does not use the word he uses for human birth, but the word he uses for divine manufacture (“was created/made”), the same word he uses of God making Adam and our future resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15:37 and 15:45), neither of which are “born” to actual human mothers (or fathers).

Later Christians knew this and tried to change the words to what they needed to be there (and what Evans needs to be there), altering them both (simultaneously here and in Romans 1:3) to Paul’s preferred word for “born” rather than “made,” but we caught them at it, and those doctored variants are excluded from the received text. Experts now know that what Paul actually originally wrote in both passages was his preferred word for “made.” So we can’t tell if Paul means God manufactured Jesus a body out of Davidic seed, or if Jesus was born to some human father descended from David; nor can we tell if Paul thought Jesus was born of a real mother or only an allegorical one. So there is no usable evidence here. At all. Certainly not substantial evidence."
Yes, Galatians 4 Is Allegorical • Richard Carrier

As for the ‘world order’ claim: Utter nonsense. In Galatians 4:24, it is not the mothers that are supposedly ‘worlds’ but in Paul’s (one and only) declared use of allegorizing, it is not the mothers at all that are separated but the descendants of the two sons. And these are not some kind of future worlds but two groups of people currently existing.

Galatians 4:4 that says Jesus became out of a woman and under the Law comes before the allegorizing section. The reader would have no reason to connect this with the two groups of people. If they somehow did, by having Jesus become under the Law would make him one of the children of Hagar and one of the sinful ‘bad guys’.

There is also the problem that Carrier claims that Paul always means manufactured and not became. But in Galatians 4:4 that would mean that Jesus was manufactured out of a woman. I thought it was sperm. Oh, this one is not literal but an ‘allegory’? Became out of a woman sounds pretty clear to me. Also that he would become under the law at his bris 8 days later. And that is very obviously how Paul’s readers would understand it.

A number of translations render the word γενομένου in Romans 1:3 as ‘born’. The KJV translates it as ‘made’ wrong. Both if these is incorrect. Carrier claims that manuscripts were doctored. Let us look at that in detail.

Here is Romans 1:3 in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, beginning with the word outlined in red. While earlier manuscripts of parts of Romans have been found, this is the earliest of Romans 1.

@@@

At that early date, Greek was written in majuscule (upper case only) uncial (square letters) scriptio continua (no space between words).

This is a clearer rendering
ΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΥΙΟΥΑΥΤΟΥΤΟΥΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΕΚΣΠΕΡΜΑΤΟΣΔΑΥΙΔΚΑΤΑΣΑΡΚΑ

Later on, Greek would be written in miniscule (upper and lower case) with spaces between words and diacritical marks like this
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,

The root of the underlined word is γίνομαι (ginomai) which means ‘become’. It does not means ‘made’.

This particular instance is γενομένου (genomenou) which is a participle (‘ing’ word) aorist tense (happened in past) middle deponent voice (active). The preceding definite article τοῦ (the) makes this into a substantive (noun equivalent). Therefore ‘one-becoming’.

The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, presumably the ‘received text’ Carrier refers to. Here is Romans 1:3 from that.

περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

It is clear that the word was always ‘one-becoming’ in case anyone wants to argue that this got changed.

Although it is the word that means ‘one-becoming’, the KJV incorrectly translates it as ‘made’. But Carrier did not know Greek so he thought it really meant ‘made’ and came up with this wacko idea about sperm.

Now about Carrier’s claim that when Paul says ginomai which really means ‘become’ (as Carrier eventually admitted in one of his blog entries) he really means ‘make’. Let’s look at the places Carrier cites

1 Corinthians 15:37

καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον

and what you-are-sowing not the body the shall-be-becoming you-are-sowing only bare kernel

Paul is using the image of sowing plant seeds as a metaphor for burying a dead body. He is giving the Corinthians who are doubting the idea of resurrection something familiar to relate to. The kernel will in fact become a plant. The plant will not be manufactured (passive voice). It will grow (active voice). To think Paul meant ‘made’ would turn this familiar image into something odd and unfamiliar and lose the appeal. Paul would lose the doubting Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:45

οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται, Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν: ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

this and it-has-been-written became the first human Adam into soul living the last Adam into spirit giving-life

The word ψυχὴν (translated ‘soul’) does not refer to the body (which could be dead) but to the breath of life. Adam became alive.

When did Jesus become a spirit that gives life? At his resurrection, which is the guarantee of the promise of resurrection.

It is not manufactured bodies that are being discussed, it is that mortal life is not the only life.

 

[Miken]

Also the Zoroastrians had directly influenced Jewish theology from 6CE on and they already had the same concepts now being discussed - saviors and cosmic seeds.
Carrier and Professor Fransesca Stravopolou both confirm this, and the information on the Persians is from the leading scholar on the subject Mary Boyce.


"The Zoroastrians believed that the final prophet would be born of a virgin who would become pregnant after bathing in Lake Kasaoya, which contained the miraculously preserved the semen of Zoraster. Interestingly enough, this final prophet would resurrect the dead, his apprearance marks the final triumph of good over evil, and he would be a judge of mankind. My sources for this are:

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Page 127.

Mark W. Muesse, The Age of the Sages: The Axial Age in Asia and the Near East. p.29

Regardless of whether the early Christians borrowed this idea from the Zoroastrians or not, this should establish at least that the idea of supernatural conception and supernaturally preserved ‘seed’ or semen was conceivable to ancient people.

Did the Christians borrow this idea from the Zoroastrians?

Consider that the final Zoroastrian prophet (called the Saoshyant) was a virgin-born savior figure who would usher in the apocalypse and raise the dead (like Jesus), and many scholars believe that the Saoshyant concept influenced Danielic Son of Man (which Jesus was thought to be)."
Seed of David, Take Two... • Hume's Apprentice

The Saoshyant born of a virgin idea does not appear at all in Zoroastrianism until Book 10 of the Denkard. See verses 15-18. Book 7 of the Denkard refers to historical events in the history of the Persian people including
the 7th century invasion of Persia by the Muslims See item 7 in the list.

It is far easier to believe that Zoroastrianism copied from Christianity than the other way around.

Also if the Gospels say Jesus was from the seed of David what do you think they meant?

Considering that the Gospels use the phrase Son of David 15 times in referring to Jesus, I think that is pretty obvious.

QUOTE="joelr, post: 6906574, member: 54426"]
Cosmology of Paul in Ephesians - BcResources the cosmology of Paul
[/QUOTE]

Ephesians was not written by Paul. It starts off with lots of snippets from earlier Pauline works then slides into a discussion of church issues and situations that did not exist until well after Paul. Regardless of where you stand on authorship, we can see what was meant by the original use of the terms involved.

A demonstration that the first part of Ephesians is snippets can be seen here.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

What Paul really said was.

Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

From Carrier: First Heaven (Material Cosmos) — Eph 1.10; 3.14-16; 4.9-10

Ephesians 1:10 says “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Heaven and earth are all of creation.

Ephesians 3:14-16 simply repeats “in heaven and on earth”

I do not know why Carrier chose to include Ephesians 4:9-10 in this category. Ephesians 4 is where the author departs from what Paul says.

Ephesians 4
8 Therefore it says,
When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

The ‘When he ascended on high’ quote is from Psalm 68 and refers to climbing a mountain. The Ephesians reference to first descending is not there. Not the first time that scripture was misused in later scripture.

The problem is that Paul makes no mention of an underworld. In Paul, and especially in 1 Cor 15, the dead are sleeping in the ground from which they will be raised. No separate Sheol other than its original sense of the grave. It is only ever the faithful who are resurrected. There is no mention at all of the fate of the unrighteous. This part of Ephesians is definitely not Paul writing. Which shows that Ephesians cannot demonstrate what Paul thought.

From Carrier: “Second Heaven (Battle Zone with Spiritual Forces) — Eph 3.9-10; 6.10-12”

Ephesians 3
The key phrase Carrier refers to is:
“the principalities and powers in heavenly places” Eph 3:10

Carrier claims that:

Referring to the Second and Third Heavens, Paul consistently uses the phrase “in the heavenlies” (cf. Greek; with prefixed preposition).
From the Carrier link above.

He never justifies this claim. Just repeats it. Yet it is demonstrably false.

1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul uses the word ἐπουράνιος twice, once without a preposition prefix and once with a preposition prefix. Yet he is clearly talking about the same thing.

1 Corinthians 15:41 makes it clear that by on-heavenlies Paul means the sun, the moon and the stars, that is, the material cosmos. So is on-heavenlies the material cosmos or the second or third heaven?

In 1 Corinthians 15:48 again uses that word twice without a prefix preposition.

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

If on-heavenly without a prefix preposition is not the second or third heaven, then who are these people who are supposedly of the material cosmos? What does that even mean?

And again in 1 Corinthians 15:49 the same word this time with a prefix preposition in the Greek

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Is Paul now switching the meaning of the word to point to a different heaven?

Carrier just made up a silly rule that does not work and for which he never had any justification in the first place.

From Carrier: “Third Heaven (Throne of God; Paradise) — Eph 1.3; 1.20-21; 2.5-7”

Ephesians 1:3, 1:20-21 and 2:5-7 all use ‘on-heavenlies’. As we have just seen, Carrier’s rule about that does not work.

In his book Carrier also argues that Paul would have been aware of the Jewish cosmology:

"What does McGrath mean by “purely” in the celestial realm? Is he unaware that mythicism places the incarnation of Jesus below the heavens, not in the heavens? That in fact it was to occur precisely where flesh and decay and death reside, just where Satan and his demons congregate? The distinction between the heavens and the firmament, the latter being the whole vast region between the earth and the moon, was well-established in both Jewish and pagan cosmology (see Element 37, Chapter 4, OHJ, pp. 184-93). Is he unaware that the Jewish theologian Philo mentions that in Jewish angelology and demonology “some” spirits “descend into bodies” in that lower realm and are then subject to it? (p. 188) Is he unaware that pagan theology knew of incarnating spirits below the orbit of the moon? (p. 186; e.g. p. 172) Is he unaware that Paul knew Jesus as a pre-existent archangel even before his own incarnation and resurrection? (Element 10, Chapter 4, OHJ, pp. 92-96; and see Bart Ehrman’s defense of the same conclusion.)"

In his book, Carrier uses the Ascension of Isaiah as the basis of his claim for stacked heavens. In that work there are seven heavens. In 2 Enoch there are ten heavens. Carrier says Paul has three. Which is the Jewish cosmology Paul would have been aware of?

In that quoted article by Ehrman Carrier points out that Ehrman believed first Christians regarded Jesus to be a preexistent divine archangel. His argument does favor historicity however.

I have previously shown that there were missionaries separate from Paul and arising earlier than him that did not believe Paul’s ‘gospel’, disagreeing with him about the meaning of the crucifixion and about the possibility of resurrection and of course about the necessity of Jewish law. In Romans, when speaking to Jews, Paul refers to Jesus as becoming the Son of God at the resurrection, i.e., he was not a pre-existent Son of God in the sense Philo meant the phrase. It was OK to present a divine Jesus to Gentiles who did not have a problem with polytheism. But the Jewish Christians would never buy it so Paul changes his tune. I see no reason to think that the original Jesus movement thought of Jesus as a pre-existent divine archangel and good reason to think they did not.

In this article he finishes with a section - "
Misrepresenting the Nature of the Translations
where he discusses translations. It's so obvious that he is familiar with the original that your speculation is just a conspiracy theory.
What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

In that section Carrier claims that the KJV accurately translates the word ginomai as made when he had earlier admitted that it really means became. As I have said several times, Carrier based his wacko ideas on thinking the KJV was the real deal and is still tap dancing trying to defend them when he can no longer deny that he was wrong. That section does not indicate that Carrier knows Greek. It strongly indicates that he does NOT know Greek.

Thank you for that pure speculation.

ZOMG what a brilliant comeback! I love the way you addressed my argument in such great detail and with such finely tuned counter-arguments!

NOT!

I provided good reasons why Paul would not provide much detail about the life of Jesus. He never knew Jesus and knew only what others might have told him plus whatever details he would have gotten from the Apostles would have portrayed Jesus as an observant Jew, screwing up Paul’s anti-Law mission. If you can address why this cannot be the case, provide your reasons now.

 

[Miken]

My copy of his book is on loan. At 23:23 Carrier explains experts agree that we have established the most likely earliest version of IA:

“Scholarly estimates regarding the date of the Ascension of Isaiah range anywhere between the final decades of the first century to the early decades of the third century, though scholars prefer some time in the early 2nd century. The reason for this large range in dating is due to the fact that there is virtually no information that allows for a confident dating into any specific period.
…
The earliest section, regarding chapters 3:13-4:22, was composed at about the end of the first century AD or perhaps early second century and is believed to be a text of Jewish origins which was later on redacted by Christian scribes”
Ascension of Isaiah - Wikipedia

If this started out as a Jewish work in the late 1st century or early 2nd century then any mention of Jesus, as in the second section, would have to come later. No support for it being written contemporaneously with the Gospels.

No you said you were familiar with his book. I sent you a link to his messenger because you seem to have some conspiracy theory that Carrier is lying and making stuff up. If you had his book you would know he understands Greek.

I have OHJ online in a searchable form. I can find nothing in there that stands up to scrutiny and definitely nothing that demonstrates that he knows Greek.

"Having come" from the seed of David. That isn't "having been born".
That is what Carrier said. He makes his point and summarizes it in that article and his point stands. He still doesn't count it against historicity. So you have nothing here.

Being born would focus on the immediate mother rather than on the all-important lineage. Becoming from the line of David is the all-important thing. Paul needs to emphasize that when talking to Jews to justify him calling Jesus the messiah (Christ) immediately before that. Remember he is going to tell Jews to not only let Gentiles be Christians without following the Law but to give up the Law themselves.

Carrier addresses all this.
"What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy of the messiah literally declared that God said to David that, upon his death, “I shall raise your sperm after you, who will come out of your belly” (2 Samuel 7:12) and that seed will sit upon an eternal throne (7:13).
It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy was proved false: the throne of David’s progeny was not eternal; when Christianity began, Davidic kings had not ruled Judea for centuries.
It is an indisputable fact that when faced with a falsified prophecy, Jews almost always reinterpreted that prophecy in a way that rescued it from being false.
It is an indisputable fact that the easiest way to rescue Nathan’s prophecy from being false is to read Nathan’s prophecy literally and not figuratively as originally intended: as the messiah being made directly from David’s seed and then ruling forever, thus establishing direct continuity and thus, one could then say, an eternal throne did come directly from David.

Put all this together and there is no reason to believe Paul meant Romans 1:3 any other way than the only way that rescues Nathan’s messianic prophecy from being false. And that prophecy would be false if it were taken to mean the seed of a continuous line of sitting kings. So Paul cannot have believed it meant that. And Paul’s choice of vocabulary in linking this prophecy to Jesus, based on what we can show was Paul’s own peculiar idiom everywhere else regarding the difference between manufactured and birthed bodies, and his statement in Philippians which confirms he believed Jesus had a body made for him that Jesus then merely occupied, confirms this. No evidence in Paul confirms any other reading.

What Nathan really said was:

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
From the Hebrew Tanach of course.

It does not say that this throne already existed. It says that it will be established sometime in the future. Since it is tied to a particular future event, building a house for God’s name, it does not refer to a line of kings but to an individual.

Want the Septuagint?

αὐτὸς οἰκοδομήσει μοι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ ἀνορθώσω τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

he will-build-up for-me house for name of-me and I-will-set-up the throne of-him until into the eon

Same thing.

The person is never named nor does it say that he will be David’s immediate successor. Only that at some time in the future the throne will be set up for someone and that the throne will last forever.

To later Jews, Nathan’s prophecy has not failed. It has not come about yet. Notice the possible inference that it will be the same king forever. It is an indisputable fact that the easiest way to rescue Nathan’s prophecy from being false is to read Nathan’s prophecy about seed in exactly the way that references to the seed of someone in the Jewish scripture always unmistakably means that person’s descendants. In that context, it very clearly never means ‘sperm’. Carrier is totally unjustified in using the word ‘sperm’ except that the more controversy the more books he sells.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 (Tanach)
Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign a king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land.
In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.

The word צֶ֣מַח translated as ‘shoot’, means that in the sense of a branch or similar growth. The word used in 2 Samuel 7:12 is זַרְעֲךָ֙ which is ‘seed’. A shoot grows ultimately from a seed. The image of stored sperm suddenly being manufactured into the messiah does not fit here at all. Growth over time does, Post-exilic Judaism, before which the line of kings died out, had no concept of sperm being stored. Especially laying on a throne.

Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.

Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah.
MESSIAH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The idea is that the messiah would come from the House of David not manufactured from his literal sperm. I previously posted from the Aramaic Pe****ta whose translators from the Greek also took it as totally obvious that Paul the House of David to be understood.

For ‘seed’ in Romans 1:3 to mean literal would require that the Jewish Christians in Rome to be so familiar with the idea that literal sperm was meant that it would instantly and totally replace the well-known idea of the messiah coming from the House of David, that is being a descendant of David in the perfectly ordinary sense. Where is there any evidence of that? Without convincing evidence that this sperm idea was so widely known that Paul could count on Jewish strangers in Rome to instantly understand it, Carrier’s claim is dead in the water. “Carrier says so” is not evidence.

I don't think you even read one blog article by Carrier?

Of course I have. I have been quoting from them and criticizing them all along. I also read OHJ and criticized it. Try providing counter-arguments beyond throwing at me exactly the things I just severely criticized.

“It’s weird, therefore improbable” is not a scholarly but in fact an anachronistic and thus amateurish response to this. Even the Zoroastrians had similarly imagined their messiahs to be born from the ancient stored semen of their religion’s founder;

It is not merely weird. It is not merely improbable. It requires gigantic ad hoc assumptions for which there is no support whatsoever and which run contrary to what we do know of beliefs in that era. I have already addressed the Zoroastrianism virgin story in a previous post. It is absolutely of much later provenance than Paul and cannot have been an influence on Paul or his predecessors, which makes it irrelevant. In any case, Carrier’s argument is nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. Maybe Carrier invented his story after reading about the Denkard, which would totally remove it from any consideration.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not in mine.

But it was destroyed and does your Bible say it would be? Apparently not, according to you. So then how do you figure if Jesus started christianity. Did he say anything about following him? Apparently also not in your Bible.

 

[Miken]

Carrier is saying it's not implausible that Paul meant 1 of 2 things:

Therefore even the authors of the Gospels believed either that Jesus’s body was manufactured by God directly out of the seed of David or the “seed of David” prophecy was only meant allegorically. They cannot have understood it figuratively (as meaning biological descent), because they explicitly exclude that in their chosen description of Jesus’s origins.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke depict Jesus as not descended from the seed of David but directly manufactured by God (this time in the womb of Mary). Though they both give a Davidic genealogy for Joseph, they both explicitly say Jesus was not born of the seed of Joseph.

Therefore even the authors of the Gospels believed either that Jesus’s body was manufactured by God directly out of the seed of David or the “seed of David” prophecy was only meant allegorically. They cannot have understood it figuratively (as meaning biological descent), because they explicitly exclude that in their chosen description of Jesus’s origins.
What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

Carrier is wrong. If Matthew and Luke did not want to present Jesus as a descendant of David, why do they call him Son of David multiple times? Why would Matthew even bother with an elaborate genealogy if he is going to deny Davidic descent? Matthew needs to have Jesus be of Davidic descent in order to claim Jesus to be the messiah, which his Rabbinic Judaism rival denies. At the same time, he needs to remove the taint of polytheism from Paul’s divine Son of God by making Jesus a human person blessed by God to be the messiah as his Jewish Christian audience requires.

Just as Paul used Philo to make Jesus divine, Matthew uses Philo to make Jesus human. Philo writes of multiple pregnancies inspired by God with no human involvement and even states that virgins are the most proper recipient. However because God needs nothing (a big point with Philo), the nominal father is in fact the true father and the offspring is his legitimate child. In short the child is not divine but human and a proper member of the house from which his nominal father descended.

For more details
If you wish to argue with this, do so in that thread.

There is no way that Matthew would want to use anything from Paul, his other rival who wants Jewish Christians to stop being Jews.

Matthew’s story (and Luke’s) are made up to sell their individual agendas. They don’t agree on any NT Big Picture. Oh and BTW, since both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born from a mother, aren’t they contradicting Paul on that point?

And it isn't. Your speculation doesn't prove him wrong. So I don't know why you are "laughing" at Carrier?

Carrier is a con artist out to sell books. He says the wildest and totally unsupported things to generate controversy and trap Bible believers into saying unsupported things that he can criticize and generate publicity.

I have not speculated anything. I have presented detailed arguments that not only have you never addressed but even denied that I made any arguments by claiming I never even read Carrier’s blogs.

You have to do better than that.

Carrier is using Ignatius to show there were other groups of Christians who did not believe the sories were literal but were allegory. So? :

"So not only is this “Ignatius” insisting the Gospels are relating historical facts, but he is declaring that any Christians who say otherwise are to be outright shunned. Which does mean there were Christians saying otherwise. But it also quite decisively proves that this other strain of Christianity—which we might call Ignatian, and which happens to be the one that in a couple of centuries would gain absolute political power over the whole of the West and control nearly all document preservation for a thousand years, eventually becoming today’s plethora of Christendom—was adamantly literalist. They were shunning, expelling, damning any fellow Christians who dare suggest the Gospels are but allegories and not to be taken as historically true."

Of course, there were other forms of Christianity. I have been pointing are there being forms of Jesus followers prior to Paul that disagreed with things Paul said, such as the crucifixion being some kind of sacrifice, the reality of the resurrection, observance of Jewish Law. Although there was a Jesus movement(s) before Paul, it does not appear that there were any mythical elements to it. All of that got added on later.

With the exception of some early traditions found in Mark and probably in Matthew, the Gospel stories are made up for particular purposes. It is not even certain that the Docetists Ignatius is arguing against gave any credence at all to the Gospels much less considered them allegories.

Paul does not use the word "for being born" where he does in Romans 9:11. You have not debunked Carries point at all.

As I said and you have not answered:

As I have shown, Carrier’s interpretation of Romans 1:3 is incorrect in terms of the word used – not ‘made’ but ‘became’, the Greek grammar – an active voice as suits ‘became’ when ‘made; would require-a passive voice, the context of the expectation of the audience – that the messiah would come from the House of David, and even the sense of the very next verse.

As I have said several times now, ‘born’ would focus on the mother but the intent is to focus in the whole lineage. Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is the word ‘born’ ever used with respect to the messiah. Carrier’s argument is wrong.

"Made" "become" the seed is exactly what Carrier is saying. The language doesn't allow us to be 100% sure.

"We cannot answer the question with the data available whether Paul meant “sperm” (i.e. seed) allegorically (as he does mean elsewhere when he speaks of seeds and births, such as of Gentiles becoming the seed of Abraham by God’s declaration), or literally (God manufacturing a body for Jesus from the actual sperm of David), or (as a claim of biological descent—-even though Paul’s vocabulary does not match such an assertion, but that of direct manufacture). At best it’s equal odds. We can’t tell."

What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

‘Made’ and ‘became’ are two different words with different meanings requiring different voices. We can know for sure that Paul used the word ‘became’ in the active voice (even Carrier admits it now) and that Paul’s usage is in line with all the other references to the messiah coming from the lineage of David and that his usage of the word ‘seed’ is in line with all other references to the seed of a person being that person’s descendants in the Jewish scriptures and the NT. There is no reason whatsoever for thinking that Paul means anything else than Jesus being of the lineage of David, which is exactly how his audience would understand it.

For Carrier’s interpretation to possibly be the case would require that the well-known Jewish expectation then and now that the messiah would come from the House of David in the normal sense of being a descendent in the usual way, that this expectation had been so completely supplanted throughout all of Judaism by the belief that the messiah would be literally manufactured from the literal preserved sperm of David that the Jews in Rome would instantly recognize that this is what Paul meant despite him having used the wrong word in the wrong voice. And then that literal sperm belief, despite its total replacement of the House of David expectation, would vanish from history without a trace and the House of David belief magically reappear.

It is 100% certain that Carrier made up a whopper of a story to go along with the mistranslation in the KJV which he used because he does not know Greek. If you think that the above two total replacements of belief really happened with no trace of the manufacture from sperm belief ever existed, please provide strong supporting evidence for that claim, not from Carrier.

Mystery religion - outsiders were told of a historical resurrection, members were revealed the mysteries, one being the event took place in the heavens.:

"Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions!...
Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens."
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

Where is the part about Osiris being a savior? The idea of resurrection at the end of days already appeared in Jewish thought in 1 Enoch long before Paul. Paul uses the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus story to ‘prove’ the reality of that popular hopeful expectation. It is not rising and dying that is the issue but being a savior god who rises and dies.

What missionaries exactly and this is definitely more speculation.

I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.

 

[Miken]

In the gospels there are Sadducees and Pharisees and no Essenes. So it's likely that Mark/Jesus is the Essene point of view. Jesus was t an Essene, he is a character in a story. In real life there would have been many people representing the Essene but in a story it's represented by one character.

The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion

What missionaries exactly and this is definitely more speculation.

I documented that earlier. There are more examples, such as in Galatians and Romans as examples but I am not going there today.

In the gospels there are Sadducees and Pharisees and no Essenes. So it's likely that Mark/Jesus is the Essene point of view. Jesus was t an Essene, he is a character in a story. In real life there would have been many people representing the Essene but in a story it's represented by one character.

The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not at all like an Essene. They lived in tightly knit communities and even in physically isolated ones. They avoided public interaction. There is no way that an Essene would have gotten into arguments with Pharisees about interpretation of the Oral Torah, and most definitely not quoted Isaiah in that argument since the Essenes did not accept the Prophets.

It is these stories about arguing with the Pharisees that contain details pointing to genuine clashes decades before Mark wrote that (minus miracles) are the most authentic sounding. One can see the ultrastrict Shammai Pharisees being parodied at one point. The Shammai Pharisees claimed that the Sabbath is the World to Come in miniature, which in Judaism is true to a considerable extent. For example, one does not do ordinary work on the Sabbath because in the World to Come one will not need to. The Shammai Pharisees to an extreme. Anything that will not need to be done in the World to Come is forbidden on the Sabbath. One cannot visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the World to Come no one will be sick.

Mark’s story about the Pharisees wanting to kill Jesus for performing a miracle on the Sabbath and healing a man with a crippled hand has got to be aimed at Shammai Pharisees. In the World to Come no one will have a crippled hand so a miracle will not be necessary. Satirical to be sure, but clearly aimed at the Shammai crowd. They just saw a miracle performed and want to kill the miracle worker for breaking their super strict rules. A Hillel Pharisee would not react that way.

The Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Jewish War, being Roman hating participants. Today’s Judaism is descended mostly from the Hillel Pharisees who were not involved in the war. When Mark wrote there were no longer any Shammai Pharisees to speak of, This and other parts of Mark sound very much like legitimate early traditions. We might mention that in Mark’s Gospel there is only an Empty Tomb at the end. Tradition has it that Mark got much of his Gospel from Peter in prison. In 1 Corinthians there are people who do not accept the idea of resurrection. One of the proponents of an unspecified different gospel mentioned is Cephas (Peter). A long chain to connect but an interesting notion.

 

[Miken]

We know little about early Jesus followers. We do know dying/rising savior demigods were the rage, the Persians had one and the OT had been radically updated by the Persian ideas during the occupation which included prophecies of a Jewish version of one of these saviors who would permanently forgive sins (no more temple or temple sacrifices) and get followers into the afterlife.

We also know early Christianity was split among many factions each having very different ideas including radically different "Gnostic" groups.
Thinking that you have heard about some followers who had an idea about the sacrifice which then removes mythicism is absurd.

There is no dying/rising god in Zoroastrianism. As I have previously documented, the savior Saoshyant who will be born near the end of the world does not appear until the Denkard text that is definitely dated to after the Muslim invasion of Iran. The reason for the appearance of the savior Saoshyant is the long history of oppression in Iran which is detailed in that book. It all sounds suspiciously like the Zoroastrians copied Christianity on this one. This idea would not have been a part of the Zoroastrian religion during the Persian era in Israel. Although Judaism definitely integrated a number of Persian beleifs.

We can see that there are multiple schools of thought in Corinth about the meaning of Jesus

1 Corinthians 1
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
…
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
…
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

The word of the cross that Paul preaches is that is a sin atonement sacrifice. Clearly not everyone believes this.

There are those who doubt Paul’s authority to speak on these matters since he was not an original apostle

1 Corinthians 9
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Then there is the resurrection thing. Not everyone believe that.

1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

[long witness list where Paul tacks himself onto the end, about which he gets called out and does a flimflam job in 2 Cor 12 trying to justify himself again]

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

There were definitely differing opinions about key points about Paul’s Christology and the others do not consider him an apostle because he came along after them. Paul jumps through hoops in 1 Cor 15 to try to demonstrate that he should be considered an apostle even though he admits he came along after the real apostles. And as we see above, the points of disagreement with the earlier Jesus followers are exactly over the mythicist elements that Paul introduced. The original Jesus followers did not buy into the various things that the mythicists criticize. Sure sounds like there was a real Jesus but not the supernatural kind as later portrayed.

Yeah but Carriers argument uses 2 Samuel7:12 :

"

It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy of the messiah literally declared that God said to David that, upon his death, “I shall raise your sperm after you, who will come out of your belly” (2 Samuel 7:12) and that seed will sit upon an eternal throne (7:13).
It is an indisputable fact that Nathan’s prophecy was proved false: the throne of David’s progeny was not eternal; when Christianity began, Davidic kings had not ruled Judea for centuries.
It is an indisputable fact that when faced with a falsified prophecy, Jews almost always reinterpreted that prophecy in a way that rescued it from being false.
It is an indisputable fact that the easiest way to rescue Nathan’s prophecy from being false is to read Nathan’s prophecy literally and not figuratively as originally intended: as the messiah being made directly from David’s seed and then ruling forever, thus establishing direct continuity and thus, one could then say, an eternal throne did come directly from David.

I have previously criticized this in great detail. Please respond to those criticisms in detail before you post this again.

Put all this together and there is no reason to believe Paul meant Romans 1:3 any other way than the only way that rescues Nathan’s messianic prophecy from being false. And that prophecy would be false if it were taken to mean the seed of a continuous line of sitting kings. So Paul cannot have believed it meant that. And Paul’s choice of vocabulary in linking this prophecy to Jesus, based on what we can show was Paul’s own peculiar idiom everywhere else regarding the difference between manufactured and birthed bodies, and his statement in Philippians which confirms he believed Jesus had a body made for him that Jesus then merely occupied, confirms this. No evidence in Paul confirms any other reading.

As I have said earlier, in the Jewish scriptures, the word ‘born’ is never used about the messiah. It would focus on the mother. Instead he is always portrayed as a descendent of David which is what matters. And once more, as I have said multiple times now, the word seed referring to the seed of a persons is very clearly always referring to the descendants of that person.

And as I have said earlier, since the descendent of David who would sit upon the throne sometime in the future after the throne has been created sometime in the future, later Jews were free to say this future king was the future messiah who would oust the foreigners and establish an everlasting kingdom. All that is required is that the messiah be descended from David, which was as I have documented was the belief at the time. That is by far the simplest and most reasonable re-casting of the meaning of 2 Samuel 7:13

As I believe I may have said earlier, Philippians 2 definitely means ‘becoming’. Paul is urging the Philippians to imitate Jesus in humbling himself. Phil 2:7 uses two forms of the word ginomai.

The first is in Jesus emptying himself of the divine identity (from verse 6) and becoming human. The active sense of emptying himself goes with the active sense of becoming human (Middle Deponent = active voice as usual. If Jesus was made to do those things, where is the voluntary humility?

The second is in Jesus becoming obedient, Middle Deponent again. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was manufactured obedient? Obedience is an attribute of the mind not the body. Was the mind of Jesus also manufactured at the time he became human? Where is the voluntary humility in that?

But the KJV mistranslates the word as ‘made’ and that is good enough for Carrier, who does not know Greek. Or apparently have much reading comprehension.

It’s also a fact that:

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke depict Jesus as not descended from the seed of David but directly manufactured by God (this time in the womb of Mary). Though they both give a Davidic genealogy for Joseph, they both explicitly say Jesus was not born of the seed of Joseph.
Therefore even the authors of the Gospels believed either that Jesus’s body was manufactured by God directly out of the seed of David or the “seed of David” prophecy was only meant allegorically. They cannot have understood it figuratively (as meaning biological descent), because they explicitly exclude that in their chosen description of Jesus’s origins.

What happened to Jesus not being born as Carrier claimed? Looks like he was born out of a woman after all instead of Carrier’s song and dance about Galatians 4:4 not meaning what it straightforwardly does mean. Carrier cannot link his ideas about Paul to the Gospels. They are contradicting Carrier.

Read what I previously said about Matthew and respond to that in the linked thread, please.

 

[Miken]

The parallels between the Genesis and Mesopotamian myths are well established by scholarship and some sources are in the article.
The Israelites used Mesopotamian myths to create their versions.

"Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to the Israelite people's belief in one God"
"
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[19][20]"
"Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths."
"Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath."
Genesis creation narrative – Wikipedia

Yes, that is what I said. Genesis 1 is very cleverly constructed to undo the Babylonian ideas of the Enuma Elish and replace them with Hebrew ideas, even beyond what is stated in Wiki. Lots of different references to older mythologies in the second (Eden) creation story as well. And the Flood narrative is a very skillful interleaving of the wording of two different Hebrew versions of the Flood. In the original Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (2000 BCE?) is presented as already being an old story and may itself be sourced from Atra-Hasis, probably not easily available in separate form to the Genesis writers. Other elements of Genesis can be seen to have come from Gilgamesh.

"Mary Boyce, an authority on Zoroastrianism, writes:

Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[30]


Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity, Islam,[8] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism."

The role of the Saoshyant, or Astvat-ereta, as a future saviour of the world is briefly described in Yasht 19.88-96, where it is stated that he will achieve the Frashokereti, that he will make the world perfect and immortal, and evil and Druj will disappear.

This pre-dates Christainity.
In Boyce's book you can actually go to page 41 and see the quote.

In the section of the book immediately prior to page 41 you will see a discussion of the evolution of Zoroastrianism over time. Zoroastrianism today has all those beliefs but they were not all present when Israel was under Persian rule. The Yasht is part of the Younger Avesta, not written down until the 5th century and known from comparing different versions to have undergone changes by different oral sources along the way. That Yasht 19 has been changed considerably can be seen that although nominally dedicated to the earth, it has virtually nothing to do with that dedication. Other Yasht do follow the topic of their dedication. A really telling feature is that the evolution of Jewish thought in the post-Persian era starts from only those Jews left alive when God comes to fix everything will participate in the renewed world to a human messiah will accomplish the renewal and that the dead will also be resurrected. Yet Yasht 19 has all of those at once.

Yasht 19:89. That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;

The Saoshyant story in the Denkard, which elaborates on this including for the first time in Zoroastrian literature that the mother of the Saoshyant will be a virgin, definitely came about after the Islamic invasion since it refers to that. We can see the reuse and extensive elaboration of Yasht 19 story coming about as the result of the long sufferings of the Persians under foreign rule, which did not even start until Alexander and continuing in identifiable phases until the Muslims. It is this same history of oppression that the Jews suffered that led to a personal messiah idea being developed and the detail parallels with much older Christianity in the Denkard suggest that this was the direct inspiration for that later Zoroastrian idea.

Also, in Zoroastrianism Zoroaster propagated the idea that everyone is responsible for their own actions. This does not mean that Judaism (and other cultures) did not already have that understanding. However, the notion of heaven/hell after death based on one’s actions in life does not seem to appear in Judaism until the Persian era, although it is not expressed in religious writings until after Alexander. Not that surprising, since those writings are often about God saving the Jewish people from the oppressors.

"
At 5:16 Carrier explains the influence the Persians had

Some things on Carrier’s display that are not correct.

War of Good God versus Evil God

The idea of Ahura Mazda (God) and Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit) were present in Zoroastrianism during the Persian rule over the Jews. However, Angra Mainyu does not appear as an actual individual other than a tendency to evil until the Younger Avesta, an oral tradition in the very uncommon Avestan language not written down until the 5th or 6th century CE, well after Christianity began. In the early Gathas, there are angels of a sort but they are good and none of them fall, being extensions of Ahura Mazda (God). The concept of devils (daevas) also first appears in the Younger Avesta. Whether the idea of evil fallen angels (the daevas just exist, they are not fallen) entered Jewish thought from Zoroastrianism may or may not be the case. It should be kept in mind not only that the Younger Avesta were an oral tradition in an exotic language but that, unlike the central Zoroastrian Gathas, the Younger Avesta was changed over time as seemed suitable by the separate relators. How close the ideas finally written down in the 5th century CE may have been to the ideas of a thousand years earlier that the Jews were exposed to, if they were exposed to those ideas at all, is a matter of speculation.

In the Jewish scriptures, specifically Job, we see Satan as a personification of opposition, which is what the word literally means. But Satan is the one who tests the individual and operates with permission of God. We see rebellious angels having been imprisoned already in 1 Enoch but there is no single leader loose in the world. An individual Satan who is evil and opposed to God does not appear in the Jewish apocrypha until the Book of Jubilees from the late 2nd century BCE as can be seen by its reference to the Maccabees. While Satan existed in the Jewish popular imagination sometime before the 1st century CE, it was not then and is still not a part of the formal Jewish religion.

The world will end, and God’s justice realized.

The Frashokereti (renewal of the world) is not described in any detail until the Bundahishn, written in the 9th century CE. Although its ideas are in the Zoroastrian popular mind, the Bundahishn is not considered actual scripture. because it varies very considerably from the older Younger Avesta and the much older Gathas.

The renewal of the world in Jewish literature is not about destroying Persian gods as Carrier claims. It is about God stepping in to defeat the Gentile oppressors, establishing a permanent Jewish kingdom to which all nations will pay allegiance. The broader idea of a battle with Satan instead of the Gentiles does not appear until the Book of Revelation, written no earlier than the end of the 1st century CE.

A river of fire sent by God will flow over the universe burning everything up

A similar idea appears only in the 9th century CE Bundahishn, not considered scripture. Gochihir (some celestial object) falls to earth causing molten meal to flow all over the earth. The righteous will experience this as a pleasant sensation. The unrighteous will suffer terribly. In this way everything is purified. It is not the molten metal that renews the world but an act of God afterward.

This idea comes from LDS quote mining snippets from here and there. There are no references to the end of days in Jewish or Christian literature that involve burning everything up or everyone waking through molten metal.
A new better world will be created in its place

This idea does not appear in any significant detail in Zoroastrian thought until the 9th century CE in Bundahishn, not considered scripture.

Whether the Jews will simply live in peace in their homeland or the world will actually get changed and in what way is an evolving thought. It appears in Jewish thought after the end of the rather benign and tolerant Persian rule when foreign oppressors make the idea of God defeating them and making things better an attractive one.

All the good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after

There is no clear reference to the resurrection of the dead until Yashti 19 described earlier. Yashti 19 describes the final evolved form of the thought ca. 1st century CE and not the earliest post-Persian Jewish writings.

Did the Persians influence Judaism? Sure, that was well known before Carrier came along. But Carrier has to do everything possible to denigrate Christianity because that sells books. He does not bother to research the ongoing evolution of Zoroastrianism (as referred to by Boyce in her book), as he does the ongoing evolution of Judaism.

 

[Miken]

and at 2:30 Professor Fransesca Stravopolou also explains the Persian influence and re-working of Judaism during the occupation.

Professor Stravopolou says nothing about Zoroastrianism. She talks about Persian influence on the evolution of Judaism which is certainly the case. Keep in mind that there were Persian religions older than Zoroastrianism, which was not yet dominant. The idea of angels may have come from the lesser deities of Persian polytheism getting incorporated into an increasing Jewish monotheism, this being a very practical matter as previously discussed and with which Stravopolou also discusses.

Persian influences on Judaism, including very possibly ones unique to Zoroastrian. Definitely.
Judaism and Christianity deriving from Zoroastrian writings from centuries after the advent of Christianity as Carrier wants. No.

The Yash that world savior comes from was established by 6BC according to Mary Boyce in her book. But this does not matter because scholarship recognizes 6-7 pre-Christain dying/rising savior demigods.

Well besides that the Persian beliefs pre-date Christianity there are 6 or 7 dying/rising savior demigods who pre-date Christianity as agreed by the historicity field. SO scholars argues the Persians were first. That would be some kind of non-scholarly apologetics argument.

If 6 or 7 dying/rising savior demigods are so agreed on by the historicity field, it should be a cinch to name them. Remember that they have to be dying/rising savior demigods with definite pre-Christian stories that would be accessible to people in the general mid-East / Mediterranean world.

In particular please reference a dying/rising god that was part of Zoroastrianism before 332 BCE when the Jews were no longer in contact with Persia.

And of course the fact that the earliest Jesus followers had a problem with this upstart Paul who never really saw Jesus and who preached the resurrection of Jesus.


Here is some fun reading.

“DYING AND RISING GODS . The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”
Dying and Rising Gods | Encyclopedia.com

That is just the intro. Lots more after it.

Now this is getting apologetic. Apocalyptic literature entered the Bible after it had been exposed to another religion who has this. False religions will all end in fire. Religious syncrenism doesn't need be exact, it actually is supposed to change up concepts a bit.

No, not apologetic. You are being evasive. Show me anywhere in the Bible where it says the world will end in fire. If you cannot do that, admit it.

Zoroastrian influence
R. C. Zaehner, a professor of Eastern religions, argues for Zoroastrianism's direct influence on Jewish eschatological myths, especially the resurrection of the dead with rewards and punishments.[33]
Jewish mythology - Wikipedia]

Rewards and punishments yes, but immediately after death. Resurrection of the dead? Not until the post Christian Yasht 19 do we see that.

Linear history
The mythologist Joseph Campbell believes the Judeo-Christian idea of linear history originated with the Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism. In the mythologies of India and the Far East, "the world was not to be reformed, but only known, revered, and its laws obeyed".[34] In contrast, in Zoroastrianism, the current world is "corrupt [...] and to be reformed by human action".[34] According to Campbell, this "progressive view of cosmic history"[35] "can be heard echoed and re-echoed, in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaean, Arabic, and every tongue of the West".[36]
Mary Boyce echoes this belief.

The quotes from Campbell do not mention anything about linear time. In Zoroastrianism, individual responsibility for one’s actions is an important precept. That is what will determine the nature of the world. But that is also an idea found in the old Greek classics. It is also found in the Akkadian myths from before 2000 BCE that Genesis 2-4. What constitutes linear time is a matter of definition, What definition are we using?

None of the citations point to a book by Campbell, just his name. Therefore, I cannot look at the context of the quotes.

What about my comment that the apparently pre-Persian parts of Jewish scriptures are obsessed with chronologies and genealogies? And the creation stories (2 of them) in Genesis are related to really old Sumerian or Akkadian myths, not Persian.

I don't know where exactly "sin" stands under other savior deities. Sin is usually a major part of all religions. In Hinduism it forms all ethics and morality and all sorts of concepts arise out of it.
Jesus as a replacement for the annual magic blood atonement ritual as the ultimate one time blood magic ritual for forgiveness of sins is likely the entire reason for the movement.

Judaism at that time had many different forms of sin atonement. Only sometimes was blood involved. It was connected with blood as atonement for the sins of the people only on Yom Kippur. However Paul connects the death of Jesus with Pesach. He also sometimes connects the blood with bread, which would not be allowed on Yom Kippur, this being forbidden on a strict fast day. Also, as I have previously shown, other Jesus missionaries had problems with this Jesus was a sacrifice thing. So no, Yom Kippur does not work.

`
Miken: Markan sandwiches and ring structure are forms of chiasmus, a common technique in the Jewish scriptures as well as Greek and Roman literature. What is the point here?

That it's all myth. This works in favor of mythicism.

All forms of literature – histories, biographies, in addition to religious works – used these literary techniques. Not at all unique to myth.

Miken: Because as this author is pointing out in this case (Mark) is transforming his story with narratives from other stories and the OT.

It just demonstrates these were highly educated authors writing fiction.

For specific purposes.

Mark was seeking to deal with the destruction of the Temple and its impact on Jewish Christians (obvious) and on Gentile Christians put off by the apparent association of the terrible war with messianic movements. His use of legitimate sounding anecdotes from the world as it was around 30 CE and almost incomprehensible to a later audience points to a movement that had been around some time.

Matthew is strengthening the walls around Jewish Christianity against the new Rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity. He goes to great lengths to identify Jesus as the Messiah against Jewish denial of that. On the other side, he pushes back at the Pauline abandonment of Jewish Law.

Luke is concerned that Matthew sounds too much like trying to revive the nearly dead ashes of a revolutionary messianic movement and turns much of Matthew upside down to refocus the story.

John reverts back to Paul’s divine Son of God, neglected in the Synoptic Gospels and also quietly debunks the ‘Jesus is coming back very soon’ notion found in the other Gospels. As part of his divine Jesus program, John separates Christianity from its Jewish roots, being the first to lump all Jews together as ‘the Jews’.

"On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives."
Gospel – The Open Mind

Referring to existing scriptures was common. Paul also indulged in it as did Luke. Matthew went over the top with it. We can see the Jewish Mishnah and Gemara written years later doing it very often. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am sure that your understanding of Leviticus is matched only by your understanding of evidence. But what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

Did jesus start christianity? Yes, it has a lot to do with Leviticus, the temple, sin AND Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not in mine.

Does your Bible say that Christianity would start?

 

[Miken]

Miken: These are common technique in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. How does this relate to ‘mythic literature’. And how exactly does ‘transformation of OT narratives’ relate to mythic literature.

At 16:09 Carrier demonstrates Luke is using an OT narrative directly to create an updated story.

Jesus as Moses is the entire point of the updated religion. This suggests these stories are myth (among other things)

So Carrier picks out two sets of five miracles in Mark, leaving out others so he can say Ten Miracles! Must be the Ten Commandments! Jesus must be Moses! There is no relationship in the passages mentioned to any of the Ten Commandments. Nor are the Ten Commandments divided into five pairs.

Carrier then stops talking about the Ten Commandments before he has to try to explain the connection.

Instead he claims that Jesus calming the storm at sea twice, including walking on the water one time, is the same as Moses parting the Red Sea. The walking on water story is very strange. Jesus sends the disciples by boat across the Sea of Galilee. They run into trouble in a storm. They spot Jesus in the distance walking on the water but he did not intend to stop for them. He was just walking and was going to pass them by. Why exactly was he walking on the water in the middle of the night in the middle of a storm in the first place instead of some easier miraculous mode of transportation? This sounds like some earlier story old enough to spawn two versions as with the two feeding of the multitudes. It does not sound like an intentionally invented story.

And despite Charlton Heston, Moses had to wait all night for the wind to blow the waters away. He did not perform that miracle himself.

Several stories that involve healing have Jesus speaking Aramaic, including the two that involve spit. Really? Mark is going make up stories about Jesus using spit to perform miracles? Especially since in one of them, Jesus has to do it twice because it flopped the first try. These are old stories that Mark incorporated. In these and some others that Carrier mentions Jesus speaks Aramaic. Mark is writing for a mixed Jewish/Gentile Christian audience. The Jews would recognize Mark’s subtle identification of John the Baptist with Elijah via scriptural references. But he needs to explain Jewish customs for the Gentiles. However both groups know Koine Greek. This is not Judea or any Aramaic speaking area. Why would Mark invent stories using Aramaic? Similarly, the connection between Jesus on the cross, reciting Psalm 22 in Aramaic and being thought to be calling Elijah only works if you can speak Aramaic and see the similarity of pronunciation. These are old stories Mark inherited not anything he invented.

Carrier does not understand the Gerasene demoniac story. It is a revenge fantasy against the Tenth Legion, whose emblem was a pig that they loved to show to the Jews. The Tenth and two other legions has sent some elements to the siege of Gamla in 67 CE during the opening of the Jewish War. Many insurgents and refugees had fled to Gamla, a fortified city up in the mountains. But the Romans got to them anyway and many people were forced over a steep cliff and died. The 2000 demons had begged to be allowed to leave the country before they were sent into the pigs who fell down a cliff. The purpose of the revolt was to force the Romans out of the country.

Someone reading Mark shortly after 70 CE when he wrote would get the meaning of the story. They would never see a connection with Moses.

If Carrier wanted to see a connection with Moses he would be better off using Matthew who makes that image quite explicit as part of his program of making Jesus he culmination of Law observant Jewish history. Which is opposed to anti-Law Paul. Luke then campaigns against Matthew’s image to disassociate Jesus from Matthew’s frequent subtext of still wanting to throw out the Romans.

As usual, Carrier is way off the mark.

Speaking of which, Carrier’s later discussion of fig trees shows that he does not fully understand Mark’s very clever imagery about the fig tree and the Temple and having faith, which ties into Mark’s Olivet Discourse. It is not about the Temple cult. It is about the destruction of the physical Temple. Mark does not have Jesus talk about prayer but about having a whole lot of faith. In the Olivet Discourse, Mark has the fig tree blooming as a metaphor for seeing the signs of the return of Jesus beginning with the destruction of the Temple. But you have to have a lot of faith that it is really going to happen. You can’t just quote mine one liners and expect to understand the Big Picture.

In this same video at 29:08 Carrier gives several demonstrations of narratives from the OT being used in the NT. Triadic cycles in Mark (these don't happen in the real world), a Matthew chiasmis, Luke re-using a story (they are fabrications),

Carrier’s presentation is about proving that the Gospels are not literally true in every word. That’s right. They are all about pushing individual agendas sometimes in opposition with each other. They use some really great techniques and imagery in that pursuit. But what has this to do with Jesus being mythical? The Gospels were written 40 and more years after Jesus. What they say has no bearing on what really happened. They did not invent Jesus as we can see from Paul and from Paul’s predecessors who had other ideas about Jesus before Paul and from Mark’s use of clearly old stories. Who is going to understand the arguments between Shammai Pharisees and Hillel Pharisees when there are no more Shammai Pharisees?

Miken: The first exposure to the Persian religion would have been sometime before 334
, which was the end of Persian rule. Where are you getting 6 BC from?

Most of the text as we now know it it 5th century onward - Persian Period 2:30 professor F.S.

That is referring to the 5th century CE when the Younger Vesta was finally written down. There are some writings later but they are not considered scripture,

Paul and those who came before hear a story about their own Jewish version of the dying/rising demigod who was already prophecized in scripture. It works fine. Carrier's odds are 3 to 1 in favor.

Carrier’s ‘odds’ are dishonestly rigged as I have previously shown. Give me evidence that an unforgivingly monotheistic religion like Judaism ever included a belief in a dying/rising demigod. Quote scripture, canonial or non-canonical, But not 'Carrier said so'.

Both videos presenting explanations by PhD biblical scholars are speaking of theories not their own but established scholarship.
The main tenants of he Persian religion are dated to at least 6BC

"When Zoroaster marked the initial success of his prophetic mission in 588 BC, converting King Vishtaspa to become a Zoroastrian, he was already forty years old. Since he lived seventy seven years, it is generally agreed among scholars to date him at 628-551 BC."

Where is this quote from?

The tenets of Zoroastrianism that can be seen in Jewish scriptures are valid and can be found in the Gathas. But the tenets that are claimed to be the source of Christian belief come much much later in Zoroastrian writings, after the Christian era had begun.

Also, please learn the difference between 6 BC and 6th century BC.

Mary Boyce who lived in Iran for 1 year is the leading authority on the religion.

And I have no quarrel with Boyce. Show me something she said that contradicts what I have said.

More articles sourcing Mary Boyce:

Historical Text Archive: Electronic History Resources, online since 1990

"It is during the Inter-testament period (400-1 B.C.E.) where the infiltration of Zoroastrian doctrines are clearly seen. The book of Daniel bears all the marks of Zoroastrian influence. Most scholars believe that Daniel wrote this work during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV around 168 B.C.E. Antiochus IV sought to force the Jews to deny their religious practices, and his atrocities culminated in the sacrifice of a pig on the altar in the Temple. Daniel places the revelations in the context of several Persian Kings (Cyrus and Darius are included). Yet there is no mistake he is referring to Antiochus. Daniel calls Antiochus IV “the abomination of desolation” (Daniel 9:27). Daniel takes several Zoroastrian doctrines and places them in a Jewish context. He looks to the coming of the Anointed One, one “like a Son of Man” who will come as a cosmic ruler and overcome evil (7:14-15, 9:26). Christians see this as Jesus Christ. In Zoroastrian’s scheme, this is the final Saoshyant (world redeemer). Daniel employs the dualism of the forces of good against evil, and even gives names to two of the “good” angels of Yahweh, Michael and Gabriel (9:21, 12:1). Is this not an obvious borrowing from the naming of the forces of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman? Whereas Jews before the exile viewed death as the end, and if there was an afterlife, it was a murky existence of shadows, Daniel says there will be a restoration and a physical resurrection at the end. Those who are righteous will experience eternal life, those who have lived lives of evil will experience everlasting shame and contempt (12:1-2). From books like these, it becomes clear that Zoroastrian’s shadow falls heavily on later Jewish writers."

Daniel never refers to the one “looking like a son of man” as the Anointed One or anything near that. The anointed one in 9:26 is a king (an anointed one) who is killed and will be no more. End of story. The Messiah will be no more? This is trying to retrofit Christian claims about meaning into Daniel’s intended meaning. Nor can I find any reference to Anointed One in Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda is God and Ahriman is the evil one. Why would Daniel think that the two good archangels that he names are God and the evil one? It is perfectly obvious that good archangels Gabriel and Michael are neither God nor the evil one.

This person may source Boyce but definitely not with respect to anything Boyce said.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have decided its a myth because its two parallel stories. Again, let me say this again, maybe these two sources had a single legend where "its not a myth" but they had narrated their own versions of it.

Yes, I agree the 2 versions are not copying each other. But which seems more accurate? The one that provides the most seaworthy vessel! The Bible's Ark has ratios in its design -- 30(L):5(W): 3(H) -- that compare to modern ships.
No '90-cubit sq. x 120-cubit high' box, which would be so unstable!!

 

[Muffled]

Christianity started when some creative writers imagined the Jesus character.

I believe your imagination exceeds anyone else's in this regard.

 

[Muffled]

Good question.
Berean Study Bible (Matthew 5:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."

I believe you could add to that the concept that Jesus , as God is the word of God as stated in John 1:1.

 

[Muffled]

Rabbinic Judaism isn't just from the festivals found in the Bible it's also the traditions of rabbis.

I believe you will find that God doesn't pay much attention to the traditions of men