Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Miken]

Of course not.

Good. What about Josephus were you referring to? Is there actually something I don't know about?

Actually there is plenty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good. What about Josephus were you referring to?

The James reference - Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1).

 

[Miken]

The James reference - Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1).

Oh right. Thank you!

 

[metis]

There is nothing in the Written Torah (the 613 mitzvot) that explicitly requires any sort of mercy or charity in general.

False, as both are mentioned in the Law.

Remember that the prophets ordered mercy when needed, and charity is mandatory if you were to actually read the Law I linked you to. If you can't find them in that link, let me know and I'll point them out to you.

 

[metis]

Are you are under those commandments?

No.

 

[Miken]

False, as both are mentioned in the Law.

Remember that the prophets ordered mercy when needed, and charity is mandatory if you were to actually read the Law I linked you to. If you can't find them in that link, let me know and I'll point them out to you.

First off, the 613 mitzvot are entirely from the written Law, Nothing from the Prophets, What the Prophets said is irrelevant to the mitzvot, The Prophets did influence interpretations of the Oral Torah but there were different interpretations.

If one were to interpret the mitzvot very literally (think Beit Shammai) there are a great many charitable actions one could weasel out of, especially if you had your own point of view on what the Oral Torah meant. The Sabbath is understood as representing Olam Ha-Ba, One will not need to work in the world to come so one does not work on the Sabbath. In Beit Shammai, in the form it became after Shammai died, one was forbidden to visit the sick on the Sabbath because in the world to come no one would be sick.

In Mark 3, the Pharisees are waiting to see if Jesus will miraculously heal a man's withered hand on the Sabbath. He does and they are so incensed they want to kill Jesus. Surely this is barbed satire. But just as surely it is Shammai Pharisees being intended as the target. Super-literal interpretation will let you make even the Torah mean what you want it to mean. 'Love others' is vague and could be bent to get out of what you do not want to do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First off, the 613 mitzvot are entirely from the written Law, ...

613 is simply a tradition. Some point to gematria as the source of the number. Another intriguing possibility is that the number was arrived at through mathematics alone. I've noted elsewhere ...

The lifespans given for our patriarchs conform to a mathematical progression ...​

7 * 5^2 = 175 = lifespan of Abraham
5 * 6^2 = 180 = lifespan of Isaac
3 * 7^2 = 147 = lifespan of Jacob​

Do we really think it mere coincidence that ...

17^2 + 18^2 = 613​

 

[metis]

First off, the 613 mitzvot are entirely from the written Law, Nothing from the Prophets,

The prophets reflected both the written Torah and the Oral Torah, thus they didn't operate in some sort of vacuum.

If one were to interpret the mitzvot very literally (think Beit Shammai) there are a great many charitable actions one could weasel out of, especially if you had your own point of view on what the Oral Torah meant.

One doesn't have to "weasel out" the concept of charity out of either Torah:Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) [see item 52 plus where's it's found]

Common sense should tell you that the numerous Commandments that deal with the protection and well-being of others relate to the need to help take care of each other, whether that be through the letter of the Law or through charity. And the prophets also picked up on that and amplified it.

In Mark 3, the Pharisees are waiting to see if Jesus will miraculously heal a man's withered hand on the Sabbath. He does and they are so incensed they want to kill Jesus.

It is important to realize that it's in reality "some Pharisees" rather then just "Pharisees".

Secondly, especially the School of Hillel would have no problem with healing on Shabbat if that became necessary for health and/or life itself. And at the time of Jesus, it is believed that this more flexible approach was more being followed than some sort of blind literalism.

 

[Miken]

The prophets reflected both the written Torah and the Oral Torah, thus they didn't operate in some sort of vacuum.

You got it backwards. I said that the Prophets had no influence on the Written Torah, not the other way aound.

One doesn't have to "weasel out" the concept of charity out of either Torah:Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) [see item 52 plus where's it's found]

I am very familiar with the mitzvot. Here is another rendering, also based on Maimonides.

It is not the exact wording of that mitzvah that matters. It is the opportunity for the legalistic mind to mess with the meaning.

From my link above

249 To separate the tithe for the poor

Devarim 14
28 At the end of three years, you shall take out all the tithe of your crop in that year and place it in your cities.
29 And the Levite because he has no portion or inheritance with you and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are in your cities, will come and eat and be satisfied; so that the Lord, your God, will bless you in all the work of your hand that you will do.

Tithe of crops, eh? I am a businessman in the city. I don’t have any crops.

251 Not to withhold charity from the poor
250 To give charity

Devarim 15
7 If there will be among you a needy person, from one of your brothers in one of your cities, in your land the Lord, your God, is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy brother.
8 Rather, you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend him sufficient for his needs, which he is lacking.

Lend? Goody!

See how easy it is to get around it by really strict interpretations?

The Common sense should tell you that the numerous Commandments that deal with the protection and well-being of others relate to the need to help take care of each other, whether that be through the letter of the Law or through charity. And the prophets also picked up on that and amplified it.

Irrelevant. The Shammai Pharisees were strict legalists. A traditional anecdote has Shammai saying that it is a sin to say a bride is beautiful if she is not. Hillel replied that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.

The
It is important to realize that it's in reality "some Pharisees" rather then just "Pharisees".

Which is why I specifically named Shammai Pharisees.

The Secondly, especially the School of Hillel would have no problem with healing on Shabbat if that became necessary for health and/or life itself. And at the time of Jesus, it is believed that this more flexible approach was more being followed than some sort of blind literalism.

On the contrary, the fortunes of Beit Hillel did not improve until after the Jewish War when many of the partisan Shammaites died in the war,

 

[YoursTrue]

The word 'atonement' is used about a gazillion times in Leviticus. They are all different. BTW the word translated as 'atonement'; actually means 'covering up'. The section you referenced is about purifying the holy places of the taint of people's sin. Verses 15-19

The atonement (covering up) of the sins of the people happens after that with the scapegoat

Lev 16
20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

But to participate in this covering up of sins against God, one must participate in the Yom Kippur fast and elimination of doing just about anything, instead meditating on your wrongdoings

Lev 16
29 “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. 30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. 31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. 33 He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.” And Aaron did as the Lord commanded Moses.

That is sins against God, Sins against other people must be taken care of by each person.

One who says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, they do not afford him the opportunity to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and Yom HaKippurim will atone for me, Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement. For transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded by Rabbi Elazar b. Azariah: “From all your sins before the Lord you shall be clean” (Leviticus 16:30) for transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow.

Mishnah Yoma 8:9
Mishnah Yoma 8:9

The Mishnah is the written record of the Oral Torah that went beyond the Written Torah.

The high priest was to offer sacrifice for the nation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Matthew admitting that there was a story going around among the Jews about the body of Jesus being stolen would be an embarrassment to him. And he comes up with a very oddball story to cover it up. (What exactly what were the soldiers bribed to not say they saw? An angel coming out of the sky? An empty tomb?) Why would Matthew admit that such a stolen body story did exist if in fact no such story was going around? The fact that it was going around shows that there were Jews who believed that there really was a Jesus, although only an ordinary human one.

However, if you are referring to the Testimonium Flavinium, it is clearly a later insertion and I mean the entire paragraph not just words here and there. Take out that paragraph and there is a smooth transition to the next paragraph. Leave it in and the transition to that next paragraph is very awkward. Pilate having a crowd of Jews attacked by soldiers would qualify as a calamity for the Jews. But Jewish Josephus telling his Roman audience, in language straight out of the Gospels, that Jesus was more than a man and then saying that Jesus being executed was a calamity for the Jews does not add up.

Here is what I am saying. Jesus died. He was killed. He was resurrected. He rose to heaven in glory. That's for starters. He also told his disciples to preach the good news of the kingdom. Not sure what you think is the kingdom (of God). Also, not sure if you read the news about the death of one considered a holy man (a tzadik, I suppose), and the tremendous turnout in NYC for the funeral. Many, many orthodox were not wearing masks. But the point is that it was said that they (I suppose of the Satmar sect) are NOT Americans. hmmm makes one wonder.
"“We need to understand that we are in exile. We live here, but we are not Americans,” the younger Teitelbaum said, according to the Jerusalem Post."

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

OK, so those laws (mitzvot) do not directly apply to you. But then the question is: do they apply to those claiming to 'belong' to or are in the Jewish religion? And then ... going back to the high priest offering sacrifices on the "Day of Atonement," a very important observance for the Jews, how do you think that works?

 

[dybmh]

False, as both are mentioned in the Law.

Remember that the prophets ordered mercy when needed, and charity is mandatory if you were to actually read the Law I linked you to. If you can't find them in that link, let me know and I'll point them out to you.

Correct. The commandment for charity can be traced further back to Deuteronomy 15:7.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is illegal to do any ordinary work (defined precisely in rabbinic writings) on the first day of Passover, beginning at sundown as usual, or any day on which Sabbath rules apply. It is not holding a meeting that is a problem. One goes to synagogue on Passover. Holding a trial that could be and would normally be held on a workday is not allowed. For the high priests to intentionally violate religious laws and render themselves ritually impure ahead of the required duties they must perform when they had a choice of days is inconceivable. For the 70 members of the Sanhedrin to risk being seen violating the law add lose their positions when they had a choice of days is unbelievable. And for the witnesses to be trusted to keep their mouths shut or not to be seen (I saw you sneak out after Seder) is really pushing it when the other people at the trial had a choice of days. And let us not forget that there were servants in the house of the High Priest who seemed to know what was going.

There is simply no way that this scenario ever happened. Please come back with a reason to believe it could happen that is not faith-based.

Keep in mind that John tells a much more credible story that the trial (really just a brief hearing) takes place on the day before Passover and the Last Supper is not a Seder. If you want to believe in the Gospels how do you reconcile that?

First I'd have to make sure if there's a difference between the Passover observance and the Festival of the Unfermented Cakes. Is there? I'm sure you would know better than I right now. From what I read, let's first start there. Then perhaps we can go on.

 

[joelr]

That there was a Jesus movement before Paul is obvious from Paul’s writings. He refers to the Apostles who knew Jesus. He tries to answer earlier missionaries that deny key elements of Paul’s gospel like the abandonment of Jewish Law, the alleged supernatural meaning of the crucifixion, which both Jews and Greeks knew of but apparently assigned no extraordinary meaning to it, and even the resurrection. I have provided scriptural references for these things. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish Christian community. If there was no original Jewish Christian community - and remember Paul says there was – how did that come about?

I never said there wasn't a Jesus movement before Paul?

4. Most certainly Osiris, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Inanna

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (pp. 77-78). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.”

Osiris

Incarnate?

Sufferings?

Trials?

Death?

Resurrection?

Savior?
No. It is entirely one’s actions in life that determines one’s afterlife. Osiris does not influence that.

Wow the apologetics are back. Every dying/rising demigod is different. Obviously each religion that adopted the myth has different beliefs. The point is the demigod dies, rises, often has a passion and is a savior in some sense - they get followers into the afterlife, whatever? Apologetics quibbling is exhausting.

Osirus - resurrection and passion
Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia:
Plutarch writes that “Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle,” and taught him lessons, and then “Osiris consorted with Isis after his death and she became the mother of Harpocrates.”
"“I have come to thee…that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs…raise thyself up, king, [as for] Osiris; thou livest!” (Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670); “Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages!” (Pyramid Texts 1363a-b, = Utterance 553); “[As for] Osiris, collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages; the tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; the double doors of heaven are open for thee…thy soul is in thy body…raise thyself up!” (Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676)."

Incarnate:
"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."

Zalmoxis
"Accordingly, Celsus, the earliest known critic of Christianity, included Zalmoxis in his list of resurrected deities (as attested by Origen, Against Celsus 2.55)"


Inanna

"Inanna is the earliest known resurrected god. For her, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets inscribed in Sumeria over a thousand years before Christianity, plainly describing her humiliation, trial, execution, and crucifixion, and her resurrection three days later. After she is stripped naked and judgment is pronounced against her, Inanna is “turned into a corpse” and “the corpse was hung from a nail” and “after three days and three nights” her assistants ask for her corpse and resurrect her (by feeding her the “water” and “food” of life), and “Inanna arose” according to what had been her plan all along, because she knew her father “would surely bring me back to life,” exactly as transpires in the story (quotations are from the tablets, adapting the translation of Samuel Noah Kramer in History Begins at Sumer). This cult continued to be practiced into the Christian period, Tyre being a major center of her worship. By then, there is some evidence her resurrection tale was shifted to her consort Tammuz, one of several resurrected deities the Greeks called Adonis.



I have no interest in going over every detailed story, the case has been made that these are all dying/rising savior gods. This thing where you demand each one parallell Jesus is pure apologetics tactics. Jesus is a Pagan demigod.
All of the detailed information on all these Gods is in Carrier's book, with sources.
They are not however in Encyclopedia Briticanna.

One would expect resurrection to be permanent, especially if you want to tie into the Christian resurrection into it. In the Inanna story, it is an isolated temporary event involving only gods. Neither is there any mention of ordinary people getting resurrected much less Inanna having anything to do with it.

See this is exactly what I mean. You think there were earlier demigods who died/rose and were some type of savior to the followers and just right there you can't "tie it in to the Christian resurrection?" No one would say something like this unless they were attempting to somehow put forth the idea that Jesus was not a copy-cat myth. Apologetics.

One would expect resurrection to be permanent, especially if you want to tie into the Christian resurrection into it. In theAnd finally, the Inanna story was popular around 2000 BCE in Akkadia. Can we reasonably expect that Paul would know about it?[/QUOTE]

People traveled around, traders, stories of gods were probably a big thing to speak on. But who cares? Maybe Paul didn't know? These are the Gods we KNOW OF that are pre-Christian. Are we now going into the apologetics of there cannot possibly be dozens of others who were erased from existence by later Christians? The story was known.
Whomever began writing the first Jewish savior demigod stories knew enough of the myth to combine it with Jewish elements and create a new version.
You cannot then take the new version and say "hey, the older saviors don't have this..." "Permanent"? Really?? Permanent?
That is your quibble? It has to be permanent? Oh right, the Jesus story is brand new because he was permanent?
Even if a new element was added to the myth, it's still not real and it's how religious syncretism is supposed to work?!

 

[joelr]

As I have already documented – and you ignored - the idea of raising the dead does not appear in in the Gathas, the only Zoroastrianism scripture that existed at the time the Jews lived under the Persians. The first mention of a resurrection is in the Younger Avesta, not written down until the 5th or 6th century CE. Before that it was strictly an oral tradition. The major differences between different manuscripts show that there were significant differences in the traditions being passed along orally. In addition, to be influential in forming Christianity it would have required someone fluent in spoken Younger Avestan, a language so obscure that it is named after the Zoroastrian texts written in it

Well this is your mistake because I already said the Persian concept was of a world messiah, virgin born. The dying/rising demigods started as a Hellenistic movement and moved through several cultures.
I have repeatedly covered the aspects that were adopted into the OT.

Carrier claims that each of the three interpretations that Carrier presents are all equally probable. This is ludicrous. The figure of speech in Romans 1:3 about from the seed of someone is used sense hundreds of times in the Jewish scriptures and in the New Testament to mean the line of descendants from some person despite the phrase clearly being used in exactly that sense with no exceptions at all. If Carrier had been able to read Greek, he would know that. But that would not sell books. Getting to use the word sperm when talking about Jesus does.

If Carrier had been able to read Greek, he would have known that the references to other verses he uses do not say what Carrier claims they do. Instead he is just word mining, looking up words in a Concordance. It still comes down to Carrier looking at the KJV incorrect translation of ‘made’, when that would require (a) a different word and (b) a different voice. Discovering that this is the wrong word, Carrier then has to make all occurrences of the word mean ‘made’, facilitated by the KJV continuing to mistranslate. I have addressed all of this in detail earlier. Maybe you could reply to that instead of playing “But Carrier says”

I already have shown Carrier reads Greek and explained you cannot admit it because it would show you have a conspiracy theory.
I already have shown Carrier gave the closest actual interpretation of what the Greek in that passage means.

I present loads of evidence to support my position. I do not see you present any response to the details of my argument or any response at all except “But Carrier says”

The argument is here. The source is you. You are not pushing me off because you cannot deal with my arguments.”

You seem to think you have some great argument. All you do is continue asserting a conspiracy theory despite the fact that I have shown many examples that show your theory is wrong.
He gave the closest English translation of the word, I posted it (you ignored it) and then have a bunch of speculation. This speculation does not address Carriers logical argument of what Paul was meaning.

No, Carrier did not full source anything. He made a lot of claims that turn out to be incorrect as in the claims about dying/rising gods that I addressed above.

I am not lying, I have read OHJ and his blog entries and quoted from them with criticisms. It would appear that you are unable to address my arguments so you have to accuse me of lying. Your argument consists entirely of “But Carrier says”.

You are actually lying right now? You did not source one bit of that information about those gods? YOu are also lying again about Carrier not sourcing his text? Here are a few:

(Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19),
(Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670)
(Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676)

to which I ALREADY POSTED?

Here is yet another example of how Carrier misconstrues things to support his argument.

“So the fact that Christianity also turned what was originally a communal aim (the resurrection and salvation of Israel as a whole) into an individualistic one (the resurrection and salvation of individual Christians, hence of only those who individually chose to join the faith

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (p. 117=118). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.”

Carrier seems unaware that Judaism was already in individual resurrection and salvation mode hundreds of years before Paul in the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch and in Daniel 12 and in the teachings of the Pharisees. But not knowing that or ignoring it allows Carrier to call Christianity a new cult. Which of course sells books.

Salvation - Wikipedia
In contemporary Judaism, redemption (Hebrew: ge'ulah), refers to God redeeming the people of Israel from their various exiles.[5] This includes the final redemption from the present exile.[6]

Judaism holds that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin.[7] Instead, they place a high value on individual morality as defined in the law of God—embodied in what Jews know as the Torah or The Law, given to Moses by God on biblical Mount Sinai.

In Judaism, salvation is closely related to the idea of redemption, a saving from the states or circumstances that destroy the value of human existence.

Christianity's primary premise is that the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ formed the climax of a divine plan for humanity's salvation.


I am not an expert on this topic. It's clear that Carrier wasn't wrong.

BTW when Carrier covers that topic in OHJ
(Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (p. 658). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.)
He misspells the translation from the Greek as genomenos. It should be genomenou. The νου ending is what makes it middle voice.
νος is not a legitimate verb ending. You would think Carrier would know that.



Show me why you think Carrier worked with the original Greek as opposed to a Concordance that would identify all the places a word is used.

But Carrier said that manuscripts were changed, which is absolutely not the case.

‘Made’ is a flatly wrong translation. As I have shown several times now. Where Carrier claims Paul wants it to mean ‘made’ it very clearly means ‘became’. I have quoted Carrier’s blog on this and shown that Carrier is just plain wrong. Putting ‘made’ in place of ‘become’ destroys the sense of what Paul is trying to say and why he is saying, which are very plain if one can understand the Greek. But the KJV mistranslation says ‘made’ and that is good enough for Carrier. Before responding with “But Carrier says” respond to my detailed arguments in detail.[/QUOTE]

I already posted what Carrier said was the actual most exact translation. It's not my fault if you are not paying attention.
I also posted many examples of Carrier teaching Greek and writing/reading Greek, another is:
Guide to Reading Ancient Greek Script

you are just ignoring stuff then pretending like I didn't answer and asking the same questions?
I already gave Pyramid text translations of how Osirus resurrected but you still gave a lengthy run-down on how he wasn't but didn't source it? I already gave you a lashing about how the Briticanna doesn't trump original sources and here we are again with the same problem? Everything you are accusing me of doing you are actually doing?

 

[joelr]

Translation: I dared contradict the Prophet Carrier who cannot possibly be wrong.

Nope. Translation, you want a myth to be somehow connected to real magic.

Only the Gathas were pre-Christian. There is no mention of resurrection in the Gathas. The first mention of resurrection is in the Younger Avesta which was an oral tradition in an obscure language that was not written down until the 5th century CE and there are significant variations between manuscripts that point to a much less rigorous tradition of oral preservation than for the Gathas. I have documented this earlier but you simply ignored that,

Oh my God I just said this last post and it was a re-telling of the same thing I said way back? How many times do I have to say the world savior was the Persian concept. The dying/rising savior gods were Hellen......holy crap, I just fri#&#&#n wrote this?????

And speaking of you ignoring things, here is what I said in the posted you replied to. As can be seen, you refused to address it completely

And now you say I IGNORE THINGS???????? WTF?????

“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.

Cool, let's ask Boyce.
Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
By Mary Boycepage 48:

"Belief in a World Savior
An important theological development during the dark ages of the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the saoshyant or coming savior. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that the Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their final struggle.........he seems to have thought there would come "the man who is better than a good man (Y 43-3), the Saoshyant.....he will lead humanity in the last batle against evil.
..will be born of the prophets own seed...When the end of time approaches a virgin will bath in a lake and become with child by the prophet.

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

It is clear why you would not want to address that. The scholar you introduced as an expert, a point I previously agreed with, is saying that Zoroaster and the others called Saoshyants were not called saviors and neither they nor the ones actually called saviors were not messianic figures.

My prediction is that you will continue to ignore this.

Wow, wrong on all accounts. Heh.
Virgin born son of a God = demigod. Mesianic savior.
I know you will quibble so Zoroaster was the first priest - "master and judge of the world", at his birth the "waters, plants and all good of creation rejoiced"...so he's divine enough to fit the concept.

How is that prediction looking now.

The encyclopedia I referenced is the Encyclopedia Britannica and the article is fairly recent as Egyptology studies go, about 20 years old. But it contradicts Carrier the Great so it must be wrong.

It is actually Carrier who is wrong about the Pyramid Texts by his usual methodology of quote mining. Why would language put inside the tomb of a king depict Isis talking to Osiris? And why would it talk about the reconstruction of Osiris in the future tense?

The answer is that in the opening of Pyramid Texts, the king being buried is referred to as Osiris. Here is the opening of the Pyramid Text of King Unas. Unas was king of Egypt in the Fifth Dynasty in the 24th century BCE


Oops. Almost forgot. You just had to slip in the PhD business again. Carrier’s PhD did not involve any study of scriptures or of Egyptology. And his ‘sourcing’ of the Pyramid Texts is just his usual quote mining out of context to support an unsupportable point.

No Briticanna doesn't contradict Carrier it contradicts the Pyramid Texts.
Oh, oops, those are not the text Carrier is using? I gave the number and utterance. Yours are about a king and have different identifying numbers and letters??

So ‘apologetics’ is the new code word for “I can’t answer that so I will pretend it didn’t happen”. You said it was a sin atonement blood sacrifice. It isn’t that simple. Only rarely in Judaism is a blood sacrifice needed for sin atonement.

I pointed out that if Paul invented the whole story, he would have Yom Kippur as the setting for the story, not Pesach. In 1 Cor 10, Paul refers to how after the meal they would share the bread and drink the wine. In a Seder the bread eaten after the meal is the afikomen\an matzoh, the last thing eaten. This is shared and recapitulates the point of the Seder, the sacrificed lamb that led to the Israelites gaining their freedom from Egypt. Having the matzoh be the body of Jesus makes Jesus be the lamb that brought freedom. The Third Cup of wine is drunk after the afikomen. This is the Cup of Redemption. Referring to being freed from the Babylon Captivity. Paul has Jesus say that the cup is his blood shed for a new covenant, making Jesus the Redeemer, the next and final stage in Judaism where they are ‘freed’ from the Law.

It is far more complex and meaningful than just Blood Sacrifice. But you, just like Carrier, are blind to subtleties. Especially since Paul not choosing Yom Kippur as the setting and the Pesach lamb not being a sin atonement sacrifice points to a real Jesus really getting crucified. However, Paul says he got the story directly from Jesus and the Jerusalem people do not really have any sense of the crucifixion being a sacrifice with supernatural meaning. A simple explanation would be that Jesus got tricked into getting killed while in Jerusalem for Pesach and Paul latched onto that to weave into his story.

I don't care if you attach some inner meaning to archaic sacrifice rituals. Any blood sacrifice is blood magic. The Jesus story is a blood magic sacrifice.

 

[joelr]

The criteria Carrier puts forth are:

Carnate (a god born as a human)
Suffering
Trials (Before judges)
Death
Resurrection
Savior
Named Savior

Tell me about all these gods who each and everyone meet all these criteria. And include the original sources, ones that work in actual original context. I have yet to see anything like that from you.

And while you are at it, give me a source that explicitly has Professor Stavrakopoulou say that the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism ending in the 4th century definitely included messianism. I happen to agree with Stavrakopoulou on just about everything but whenever you claimed she said something in that video you posted, it simply was not there.

And keep in mind what I previously quoted from Mary Boyce – you remember her, the one you introduced as THE expert on Zoroastrianism – that the concept of a single world saving savior does not appear in that form in canonical Zoroastrianism.

Already gave some information of savior gods. He doesn't say "trial" he says struggle.
Already schooled you on the world savior. A messiah fits the words of Mary Boyce on the savior.
Why would you quibble on a word that has such a general meaning?
"Messianism is the belief in the advent of a messiah who acts as the savior or liberator of a group of people.[1] Messianism originated as an Abrahamic religious belief, but other religions have messianism-related concepts. Religions with a messiah concept include Zoroastrianism (Saoshyant),"
Wiki? this fits Boyce's words?

Carrier also notes differences and it's all in the book. Why would the literal word "savior" be needed?
Boyce already used it - world savior - so we are done there (actually I cleared this up way way back and you just won't accept it) but gods who come back to life and are personal gods, how is that not the same myth?
"Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.

The apologetics here is that you are actually seemingly trying to say Jesus wasn't just a Jewish version of this myth? Which suggests you are clinging to something supernatural somewhere in here.

All Bible historians say that there was a Jesus movement before Paul with different ideas than Paul? Those that do tend to restrict the different ideas thing to whether or not to follow Jewish Law and that it supposedly was Jesus telling Paul he changed his mind about that. Those who are of a non-religious bent tend to skip over it because looing at it too closely points toward the existence of a real historical Jesus and that it was Paul introducing the mythical sounding elements. That the earliest Jesus followers did not believe those supernatural elements takes the wind out of mythicist sails.

No there is a blck hole of information from this period. PhD Carrier says this as does PhD Bart Ehrman.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are thought to have been written over a long period of time, the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE. It includes a great deal of writings on varied subjects, including quite a bit consisting of copies of Jewish scriptures and none of the rest being not far from standard Judaism. Which at that time was still very diverse. Because of the rather haphazard nature of the contents of the DSS, it is not reasonable to say that there was some stage at which it could be called finished. A possible reason for the DSS writing tradition to come to an end in the 1st century CE is the aftermath of the terrible Jewish War. Many many people were dead, the economy was shattered including the destruction of the biggest city, Jerusalem. There was no longer much means of support for a monastic style community.

But of course you are making the same mistake that many amateurs do, confusing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Nag Hammadi Library. The writings found there did not even start to be written until Qumran was out of business. It is often called the Gnostic Library although there is an enormous range of beliefs represented much of which cannot reasonably be called gnostic. Although there had been a battle of wits between Gnostics and proto-orthodox Christian writers from the beginning of the 2nd century, serious formal repression of Gnosticism did not really get going until after Emperor Theodosius came into power in the late 4th century and outlawed any belief system other than the newly defined form of Christianity. That is when the books at Nag Hammadi were hidden.

But this has nothing to do with what happened in the first half of the 1st century.

Are you saying that it was writings that supported or contradicted Paul’s version that were suppressed? If it was writings that supported Paul why would they be suppressed? If it was writings that were suppressed, then you are saying that such writings existed. If you are saying that such works never existed then why are you talking about suppression at all? But that non-Pauline beliefs existed before Paul is known from Paul himself. Which is an argument against mythicism. The mythical elements began with Paul not with the original followers of the Jesus movement.

Yeah I read Elaine Pagels. Gnostic Gospels. This has nothing to do with mythicism.

So name some and demonstrate that their stories connect to Carrier’s claims. No. I am not going to do your homework for you, You introduced the claim. You back it up.



What about that sperm stuff Carrier insists on? Sounds pretty earthly to me. Crucifixion and getting buried are definitely earthly. But I have made these arguments before and you just ignored them.

I already posted an example of a dying/rising god who was set on earth but members were told the real secret that it happened in the celestial realm.
And you forgot about that also? Do you do this to pretend I didn't respond?

"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. So in fact, contrary to Ehrman (who evidently never actually read any of the sources on this point), Plutarch says the belief that Osiris went to Hades was false (On Isis and Osiris 78); and yet even in that “public” tale, Osiris rules in Hades in his old body of flesh, restored to life. Hence still plainly resurrected. But as Plutarch explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58), the esoteric truth was that the god’s death and resurrection occurs in sublunar space, after each year descending and taking on a mortal body to die in; and that event definitely involved coming back to life in a new superior body, in which Osiris ascends to a higher realm to rule from above, all exactly as was said of the risen Jesus (who no more remained on earth than Osiris did). The only difference is that when importing this into Judaism, which had not a cyclical-eternal but a linear-apocalyptic conception of theological history, they converted the god’s dying-and-rising to a singular apocalyptic event.

You are obsessed with that PhD thing, aren’t you? Since, as everyone here already knows, his dissertation was not related to scriptural studies, his PhD is irrelevant. But if merely having those three letters to add after your other letters regardless of what it is for, then I can be as much of an expert as Carrier. More, since investigating what the writers intended to convey to their readers and the reason for that and in the context of the times and to the extent I can the original language (Koine Greek yes, Hebrew not so much), has been a serious hobby of mine for 50 years.

Carrier did not do a genuine history study. As I have been showing all along, either his competency level or his honesty level is quite low. But saying wacky things sells books these days. Carrier’s work is at the same level as the Aliens Built the Pyramids kind of thing Carrier makes fun of.

Ehrman seems to just be parroting the fad belief of the day. And not doing it very well. I am guessing that after losing his faith in his mind he is still trying to lose it in his heart by embracing whatever idea he can lay his hands on. I realized there was a problem with his understanding of scriptures when he said he did not know why Luke put his genealogy back in Chapter 3.

Professor Stavrakopoulou {note spelling} is an expert in Hebrew scriptures but not in NT scriptures.

Mary Boyce is all about Zoroastrianism and very good at it. Mark Goodacre (Mark with a K) is a no-Q proponent but never goes beyond that to seek an explanation of why Luke would so often deal with subjects original to Matthew but in a manner totally opposite to Matthew.

So what was the point of all that? You wanted to say PhD again because none of your arguments are working?

I'll say PhD when I feel like it. The idea that I say it because my arguments are not working is demonstrably wrong because I have been smashing you all along.

 

[metis]

You got it backwards. I said that the Prophets had no influence on the Written Torah, not the other way aound.

I went back on this discussion, and I did not say that the prophets influenced the written Torah but that they "reflected" it.

See how easy it is to get around it by really strict interpretations?

It's called "commentary", and basically all schools used it.

Irrelevant. The Shammai Pharisees were strict legalists. A traditional anecdote has Shammai saying that it is a sin to say a bride is beautiful if she is not. Hillel replied that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.

It is not "irrelevant". The application of the Law was and is variable within Judaism and it always will be. Also, the commentary system that both used left room for discussion and some disagreement even within each school. You know: 2 Jews = 3 opinions on pretty much anything and everything.

On the contrary, the fortunes of Beit Hillel did not improve until after the Jewish War when many of the partisan Shammaites died in the war,

Who was talking about "fortunes"? Essentially the Hillel School won out in the long run, especially with the destruction of the Temple and the movement out into the Great Diaspora.

To finish this off, you were and are wrong about Judaism supposedly not condoning charity. I showed you where it's found in Torah and yet you ignored it. Therefore, our discussion is finished.

 

[metis]

OK, so those laws (mitzvot) do not directly apply to you.

Not as a mandate, However, I voluntarily buy into many of the mitzvot.

But then the question is: do they apply to those claiming to 'belong' to or are in the Jewish religion?

Depends. Traditionally, the answer would be yes, even though there was wiggle-room to varying extents allowed. But as time has gone on, questions about the authenticity of of a literalistic interpretation of Torah have come to fruition with the various reform movements.

And then ... going back to the high priest offering sacrifices on the "Day of Atonement," a very important observance for the Jews, how do you think that works?

You'll have to clarify what you're looking for, so please do so.