Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now the way I see it, we all agree that the Torah and Tanakh are God's word, that they are the oracles of God. So if something contradicts the Tanakh, we know it to NOT be of God. My advice to you is to ditch Paul.

Who is this "we all"? Outside the Orthodox community there are many who recognize the Tanakh - including the Torah - as the work of man, and even some with Modern Orthodoxy are open to the conclusion of Biblical Criticism.

 

[syo]

As I understand, Jesus is fiction, the nt is literature. But I still consider ''christianity'' a religion.

 

[joelr]

As I have addressed several times at length, there was an earlier Jesus movement that did not believe in the resurrection. Paul was considered to be a johnny come lately upstart trying to introduce strange new ideas by trying to weasel himself in as an Apostle. It sounds like this movement included Peter. Recall that Mark, in possession of some very legitimate sounding early stories about Jesus, and who tradition says got his stories from Peter, ends his Gospel with an empty tomb and no risen Jesus in sight.

You reject a PhD historian yet reference some movement scholars all say we know noting about?
As if this makes any point at all?

Carrier claims that there were lots of savior dying/rising demigods, all of them named Savior (which I have shown is not what Jesus means) yet never names a single one. Paul wanted the death of Jesus and the claim of resurrection to be the guarantee of a future resurrection, a popular notion then going around. He made the story up on that basis. No need for prior myths.

Sorry, dying/rising savior Gods were a trend. Elements change in each cult, that's what religious syncretism means. Each new group makes modifications. It's still a trend. I already sourced the book that covers the blending of Hellenistic ideas with each region.

Also:
"The very concept of an eschatological messiah and an end-times resurrection of the dead are actually Zoroastrian (as are belief in a burning hell, and a Satan as God’s adversary), imported into Judaism by cultural diffusion just a few centuries before Christianity arose."

But Carrier never wants to understand actual context. He just wants to quote mine individual words to support crazy ideas, which derive from him taking the KJV mistranslation as accurate because he did not know Greek.

The truth is that the messiah being a descendant of David is exactly what the Jews in Rome would expect to hear and definitely how they would understand Paul to be saying. All of Carrier’s arguments fail big time as I have repeatedly shown. It is perfectly clear what Paul meant. But Carrier, not knowing Greek, thought that when the KJV said ‘made’ it was the real meaning. When it was made very clear to him that this was not the case, he jumped over to ‘but when Paul says it, it means manufactured’, which as I have repeatedly shown and continue to show below is simply not the case. But admitting he was wrong would mean not selling his books anymore, so it HAS to mean that.

Wrong again. Carrier makes the argument we cannot be sure but still counts that in favor of historicity.
The fact that you continue with this idea that Carrier cannot read Greek puts you in the conspiracy theory group.
Your insistence that Carrier "fails big time" because you have your own speculation is also crank.
His blog post allows comments. Why don't you take your conspiracy to the source? Why do you think I gave his messenger?

Not only have I read it, I have quoted from it and criticized it. But you not only ignored that but you deny that I even did that. After all, how can anyone doubt the Gospel according to St. Carrier?

Right, you read Carrier's book but then sourced an old encyclodedia article on dying/rising demigods which Carrier already has chapters on with full source. It completely destroys that ridiculous article. Yet, you sourced it. You are lying, you did not read anything.

As I have repeatedly shown, every single use of the term ‘the seed of so and so’ in the NT and in the Jewish scriptures very plainly refers to descendants. There are only 8 uses of many hundreds in the Jewish scriptures and none at all in the NT of the word to mean ‘sperm’ and they all refer to ritual purity after ejaculation and to putting your sperm in the wrong person. The Jewish Christians Paul is talking to would know perfectly well that the messiah will be a descendant of David and I have documented that this is definitely the case. There is no way the Jews Paul is writing to would take it any other way.

But Carrier did not know Greek and took the KJV incorrect translation of ‘became’ into ‘made’ and came up with his crazy word game idea for selling books. Notice that in the article you linked, Carrier finally admits that the word does not mean ‘manufactured’ as he originally claimed but ‘became’.

It is an indisputable fact that when Paul says this, he uses a word he only uses of manufactured, not birthed bodies (ginomai, referring to Adam’s body: 1 Corinthians 15:45, in the very context of describing Adam’s body; and our future resurrection bodies: 1 Corinthians 15:37, which, as for Adam, God will manufacture for us).



Carrier first says that modern translators are using the wrong word. Now he tries to claim that Christian scribes tried to change the manuscripts themselves. There is absolutely no evidence for that anywhere and as I have shown, the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest copy of Romans 1 in existence, definitely says ‘become’ not ‘make’. Not does any Greek manuscript I can find use the word for ‘born’. This is just Carrier flimflamming (aka lying).

Had you bothered to even read just a blog post you would know he already said "came to be" was the best literal translation? But again, he does not count this against historicity.
He also clearly worked with the original Greek. Acknowledging this would make you a conspiracy theorist so I guess you cannot go there.

None of the most literal translations of the Bible, from the Protestant King James edition (whether original or updated), or even the old Catholic Douay–Rheims edition, to the even more modern Darby, YLT, and BLB, render Paul’s word as “born.” They always say “made” or “came.” Because that’s what the Greek says. In fact, “came” is less literal a translation than “made,” as a more literal translation would be “came to be,” and Paul’s usage with respect to other bodies (the first of all bodies, Adam’s, and our future resurrection bodies) always employs it in the sense of “made, manufactured.” And Paul should be translated in light of how Paul himself speaks and uses words.

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

 

[joelr]

Apologetics? You still have not figured out that I having been arguing against the Christian perspective and not just Carrier

Well I thought that but then you got all apologeticy.

Concerning the word Saoshyant

“In the Gathas, the most sacred hymns of Zoroastrianism, believed to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, the term is used as a common noun to refer to the prophet's own mission and to his community of followers, who "bring benefit" to humanity. The common noun also appears in the Younger Avesta (e.g. Yasna 61.5), where it generically denotes religious leaders, including Zoroaster (e.g. Yasna 46.3)[1] Another common noun airyaman "member of community" is an epithet of these saoshyants. In contrast, the standing epithet of the saviour figure(s) is astvat-әrәta "embodying righteousness,"[2] which has arta/asha "Truth" as an element of the name.[3] These saviours are those who follow Ahura Mazda's teaching "with acts inspired by asha" (Yasna 48.12).”
Saoshyant - Wikipedia

The word Saoshyant does not mean ‘savior’. It means the mission of Zoroaster, or his followers, or religious leaders, or members of the community. Saoshyants are never called saviors. BTW the reference for that is Boyce.

Saoshyans were not demigods but people. And they did not die and rise.

My point was that your dates for the Persian myths were pre-Christian and they were.

Osiris did not rise from the dead. After he was killed, he became the lord of the underworld and judge of the dead.

“According to the form of the myth reported by the Greek author Plutarch, Osiris was slain or drowned by Seth, who tore the corpse into 14 pieces and flung them over Egypt. Eventually, Isis and her sister Nephthys found and buried all the pieces, except the phallus, thereby giving new life to Osiris, who thenceforth remained in the underworld as ruler and judge.
…
From about 2000 bce onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth.”
Osiris | Description, Myth, Symbols, & Facts

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Osiris-Egyptian-god

Oh my God. You are sourcing an old encyclopedia article again and I sourced a PhD sourcing Pyramid Texts?
Wow. (Hint - you lose)

The Jews were not obsessed with blood magic atonement. There were lots of ways of atoning that did not involve blood. It was Yom Kippur that associated atonement with blood sacrifice. Yet it is not the Day of Atonement that Paul refers to.

And the apologetics are back. There may have been some other ways but Yahweh loves the magic blood atonement.

The Passover sacrifice is not about sin atonement. Passover is about Jews being rescued from Egyptian slavery. The blood of a sacrificed lamb was sprinkled on the doorposts of Jewish homes to mark them as safe from the killing of the firstborn, the final sign that convinced Pharaoh to let them leave Egypt. The reference to cleaning out the chametz definitely points to Pesach. (We may note here that Paul is talking to Jews in Corinth, yet he has trouble with people (even Jewish Christians who consider it a stumbling block!) accepting Paul’s idea of the meaning of the crucifixion, and big time problems with getting his resurrection story accepted.

Blood. Sacrifice. Point made.

Carrier never identifies any dying/rising savior demigods. He just says there are lots if them and they are all named Savior. You are the one who brought in Zoroastrianism.

Yup and there are lots. Do you need more sources? Do you have some encyclopedia articles that trump original sources? The Persians had the concepts (I already posted many times) that were added to the OT. I do not know of an actual demigod who died and rose in that cult. They are known for having the concept of a messiah. Do we have to go around and around on this? Professor Fransesca Stravopolou already cleared this matter up.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Paul himself in 1 and 2 Corinthians and in Galatians and in Romans said that there were others who were teaching things contrary to Paul. The gainsaying, criticizing and disagreeing did not go down any black hole. Paul admits it was there. But Christians always come up with a million reasons why the scriptures do not mean what they mean. So do mythicists.

Sigh. All biblical historians say the same thing. There is a giant black hole here were all other writings are gone.
Paul might admit it but anything contradictory is gone. Are you not aware that heretical writings were punishable by death? The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden unfinished (so quickly) and just happened to have been missed.

Paul does mention an earthly Jesus as I have already shown. He is descended from David according to the flesh. Or if you insist he was manufactured out of the sperm of David it is still according to the flesh. How can that not be earthly? Jesus gets killed and buried and raised from the dead. How can that not be earthly? As I have shown, there are good reasons why Paul did not want to say anymore. He never knew Jesus and whatever else he got from the Apostles would point to a Law observant person, which is the last thing Paul would want.

As Carrier shows in his book, other savior demigods went through this also but in the celestial realm. I already sourced a lecture no? Mystery religions - demigod dies and rises on Earth but then when you join you learn it was actually in the celestial realm?

We do not see anything about a non-earthly Jesus until in 2 Cor 12 when Paul tries for the second time to slither away from getting called out for claiming to be an Apostle.

we get revelations of a resurrected savior, that's it.

My Thanksgiving dinner will be delivered to my door soon and I have solid commitments for the entire weekend. I will not be bothering to reply to any more of your posts until sometime after that. With you it is all just ‘but Carrier says…’ You even insist that I have never even read Carrier’s blogs. Not only have I read Carrier’s blogs but I have addressed them with detailed counter-arguments that you never respond to.

That's funny, Mr Britannica complaining that I'm sourcing the only PhD who's done a Jesus historicity study since 1926.
Yup, Carrier.
And Bart Ehrman and Fransesca Stravopolou and Mary Boyce and Marc Goodacre....

 

[YoursTrue]

Paul contradicted the Tanakh (OT). The Tanakh stresses over and over from start to finish the importance of obedience. Paul says the law brings a curse, that it's belief that matters and only belief.

Now the way I see it, we all agree that the Torah and Tanakh are God's word, that they are the oracles of God. So if something contradicts the Tanakh, we know it to NOT be of God. My advice to you is to ditch Paul.

Talking about curses, the rabbis themselves do not agree with how the Tanakh is meant to be interpreted. And, of course, the Law simply cannot be followed now at all. Period. (Talk more about curses of the Law?) I hate to break it to you.
So since you're still waiting for the third temple, and your rabbis have interpreted maybe the temple will come from heaven, maybe it won't (it's been about 2,000 years now of waiting), maybe you should pray for wisdom and guidance from God.

Furthermore, there are some basic requirements for those who were and who do claim today that they are in a covenant relationship with God the Almighty. To not commit adultery is one basic and serious commandment.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Talking about curses, the rabbis themselves do not agree with how the Tanakh is meant to be interpreted. And, of course, the Law simply cannot be followed now at all. Period. (Talk more about curses of the Law?) I hate to break it to you.
So since you're still waiting for the third temple, and your rabbis have interpreted maybe the temple will come from heaven, maybe it won't (it's been about 2,000 years now of waiting), maybe you should pray for wisdom and guidance from God.

I think where the rabbis don't agree, we are free to decide for ourselves. I tend to go along with the Conservative interpretations, though I still have holdover actions from my Orthodox days like not flipping light switches on the Shabbat.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think where the rabbis don't agree, we are free to decide for ourselves. I tend to go along with the Conservative interpretations, though I still have holdover actions from my Orthodox days like not flipping light switches on the Shabbat.

Yes, and remember the Shabbos Goy? Some non-Jews are happy to do that type of thing, but tell me where in the scriptures does it say that? Maybe it's there but I don't recall. Oh, and then I remember there's also toilet paper.
Also, as far as being free to do one's own thing -- we'll find out if R. Schneerson does come out of the grave, I guess the tomb will have to be unlocked.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think where the rabbis don't agree, we are free to decide for ourselves. I tend to go along with the Conservative interpretations, though I still have holdover actions from my Orthodox days like not flipping light switches on the Shabbat.

So again, my dear IndigoChild, since you quote a rabbi saying God is everywhere in a manner of speaking, again -- was He with Hitler and his henchmen?

 

[Milton Platt]

But are you sure Abraham and Sarah existed? That's the first question.

No, nor many other Bible characters

 

[Skywalker]

No, nor many other Bible characters

Papyruses exist that match the account in the book of Moses.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, nor many other Bible characters

Ok well at least you're honest in saying you don't believe what the scriptures say.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, and remember the Shabbos Goy? Some non-Jews are happy to do that type of thing, but tell me where in the scriptures does it say that? Maybe it's there but I don't recall. Oh, and then I remember there's also toilet paper.
Also, as far as being free to do one's own thing -- we'll find out if R. Schneerson does come out of the grave, I guess the tomb will have to be unlocked.

Well, tearing is one of the 39 forbidden labors. The 39 malachot are the 39 categories of work that took place to build the Tabernacle. As you may recall, building the Tabernacle ceased on Shabbat. Therefore it was reasoned that all the labors used for the Tabernacle must cease on the Shabbat.

Thus toilet paper cannot be torn. One solution is to pre-tear the toilet paper. I always just put the toilet paper in the cabinet and put out kleenex.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thus toilet paper cannot be torn. One solution is to pre-tear the toilet paper. I always just put the toilet paper in the cabinet and put out kleenex.

I suspect that the tribe would have grumbled far less if they had been given access to decent toilet paper the other six days of the week.

 

[metis]

I always just put the toilet paper in the cabinet and put out kleenex.

But that can plug your sewer line as I discovered twice when mine backed up. Kleenex is tighter knit, so it breaks up much more slowly.

Hey, in the "good old days" one used their "potty hand"

, thus you wouldn't have to worry about your pipes clogging! Just don't lick your fingers afterwards.​

 

[Miken]

Ok, well you bring up many points. I am not that smart and can only handle one or two at a time, so an early point you brought up caught my interest. So here it is...(I might like to go over some of your other points later, they're interesting, but here is my impression at the start...)
Who do we we believe? Paul? Or those he contradicted or tried to straighten out?

My point was that important elements in the Jesus story as later found in proto-orthodox Christianity are at variance with what earlier followers of the Jesus movement believed, This includes mythical elements that Paul says he got directly from Jesus. Pointing to mythical elements in the story as evidence for a mythical Jesus does not work. The earlier followers did not believe those things. It does not matter whether Paul really got information from dead Jesus or not. The supernatural elements were not part of the original story and could not play any part in making up a story about a non-existent Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

My point was that important elements in the Jesus story as later found in proto-orthodox Christianity are at variance with what earlier followers of the Jesus movement believed, This includes mythical elements that Paul says he got directly from Jesus. Pointing to mythical elements in the story as evidence for a mythical Jesus does not work. The earlier followers did not believe those things. It does not matter whether Paul really got information from dead Jesus or not. The supernatural elements were not part of the original story and could not play any part in making up a story about a non-existent Jesus.

What was mythical about what Paul said? Just because they werent mentioned in the four gospels doesn't mean that they arent true. They are part of the same Testament. I dont think they were a made up story or a hallucination because what did Paul have to gain by saying that he saw the risen Jesus? He went to jail and was executed.

 

[YoursTrue]

My point was that important elements in the Jesus story as later found in proto-orthodox Christianity are at variance with what earlier followers of the Jesus movement believed, This includes mythical elements that Paul says he got directly from Jesus. Pointing to mythical elements in the story as evidence for a mythical Jesus does not work. The earlier followers did not believe those things. It does not matter whether Paul really got information from dead Jesus or not. The supernatural elements were not part of the original story and could not play any part in making up a story about a non-existent Jesus.

I do not understand what you are saying. If you'd like to be more specific, that is ok. The Jesus that spoke to Paul was not dead anyway. He was resurrected (brought back to life) by God and given glory in heaven when he spoke to Paul.

 

[YoursTrue]

I suspect that the tribe would have grumbled far less if they had been given access to decent toilet paper the other six days of the week.

Since I was quite well acquainted with traditional practices, I suppose tissues do well on shabbos.
It doesn't matter. As they say, while it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, tearing is one of the 39 forbidden labors. The 39 malachot are the 39 categories of work that took place to build the Tabernacle. As you may recall, building the Tabernacle ceased on Shabbat. Therefore it was reasoned that all the labors used for the Tabernacle must cease on the Shabbat.

Thus toilet paper cannot be torn. One solution is to pre-tear the toilet paper. I always just put the toilet paper in the cabinet and put out kleenex.

I figure using kleenex is not forbidden. I really should be thankful. Which I am. No temple, but toilet paper tearing is forbidden. (Have a nice day.)

 

[YoursTrue]

But that can plug your sewer line as I discovered twice when mine backed up. Kleenex is tighter knit, so it breaks up much more slowly.

Hey, in the "good old days" one used their "potty hand"

, thus you wouldn't have to worry about your pipes clogging! Just don't lick your fingers afterwards.​

Ah -- stunning post. And now I wonder if "Noahides" would or should refrain from tearing toilet paper, lol. On the sabbath of course. Yeah well anyway -- y'all -- have a great day, be careful.