Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Muffled]

And what evidence would that be?

I believe this is it: John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world

 

[Muffled]

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject.

"
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today."

"
Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?
Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence."
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

They also explain the evidence is that Exodus did not happen which fits the model of Israelites coming out of Canaan.
The original Yahweh worship had Yahweh paired with Ashera who was a Canaanite goddess and El, the main Cananite God is even mentioned in the OT. In a Hebrew variant it says El spread out the nations to each God, Yahweh getting Israel.
This was changed to be a passage only about Yahweh.

Other mentions -"
In the Ugaritic texts, the god
‘il or El is clearly portrayed as the supreme
god of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon and shares many similarities to
Israel’s patriarchal deity. It was during this same period that Canaanite culture
has been thought to flourish in Syria-Palestine. This paper will explore some
of the archaeological evidence of the two cultures but will rely mostly on the
historical textual evidence and research of modern scholars to show a shared
religious tradition between the Bronze Age ancestors of Israel and the native
inhabitants of the land of Canaan."
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=studiaantiqua





Jerusalem was first a Canaanite city:

"Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a shadow of what it had been centuries earlier: many cities were abandoned, others shrank in size, and the total settled population was probably not much more than a hundred thousand.[11] Settlement was concentrated in cities along the coastal plain and along major communication routes; the central and northern hill country which would later become the biblical kingdom of Israel was only sparsely inhabited[12] although letters from the Egyptian archives indicate that Jerusalem was already a Canaanite city-state recognising Egyptian overlordship.[13] Politically and culturally it was dominated by Egypt,[14] each city under its own ruler, constantly at odds with its neighbours, and appealing to the Egyptians to adjudicate their differences.[12]

The Canaanite city state system broke down during the Late Bronze Age collapse,[15] and Canaanite culture was then gradually absorbed into that of the Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites.[16] The process was gradual[17] and a strong Egyptian presence continued into the 12th century BCE, and, while some Canaanite cities were destroyed, others continued to exist in Iron Age I."

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia

I believe that qualifies as the fantasy version of science.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe this is it: John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world

Ahh so anecdotal evidence, nothing concrete.

 

[Marcion]

There are letters that contain a coherent take on Jesus and a corresponding worldview and a consistent style both structural and grammatical. And there are letters that deviate from that. There are seven letters that fall into the first category. They show less than friendly interactions with a more Jewish form of Christianity including a rather embarrassing one in 2 Corinthians and a general feeling of not being accepted by several communities, for example as in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Is there really any reason for doubting that a single person who calls himself Paul wrote these seven letters and also that they were not invented for ideological reasons?

I think the main body of the epistles as they first appeared in the Bible of Marcion were produced by a gnostic school who were originally followers of Simon of Samaria (alias Simon Magus). This original gnostic Paul was later tamed into the more Catholic Paul who was made to seem less in opposition to Peter and his more Jewish christianity. This was done by heavily editing the epistles, adding new ones and by changing his character in Acts (all produced in the second century).

Paul several times refers to a definitely Jewish Christianity that existed before he came on the scene. His references are generally disdainful. He clearly refers to Jesus as Jewish. All of the Gospels do as well. Matthew’s vision is that Christianity is Jewish and takes a few jabs at Paul in that matter. It would appear that Matthew is more in line with the original mission of Jesus than anyone else.

Yes, gMatthew seems to follow the school that was outside of the Pauline ideology originally. However aMatthew used gMark as a source so is also influenced by the Pauline ideas.

I do not see Paul as gnostic at all. Paul’s Jesus was a real man who was really crucified and died and was really resurrected. Without that Paul’s message of the sacrifice undoing the sin of Adam and the promise of a resurrection of the righteous loses its power. That is at significant variance with the general beliefs of the gnostics who viewed Jesus as only seeming to be physically real.

On the contrary, there are distinctly gnostic ideas in the oldest parts of the epistles which the catholic editors have tried to counteract or weaken. This original Paul does not see Jesus as a real man who gave important teachings, in fact he does not refer to him or his teachings but focusses on the cosmic Christ who is within the believing christian.

Paul needed to explain the supposed messiah getting killed and came up with a story about it. There are possible indications that the missionaries for Jewish Christianity Paul mentions may not have bought that whole story. However, Paul’s story is nonetheless rooted in Jewish beliefs, Jesus as the Passover sacrifice and a resurrection as per 1 Enoch and other popular works and beliefs of the times. At one point, Paul describes himself as adhering to the principles of the Pharisees, who did believe in resurrection.

The original Paul was changed into this Jewish personality who was supposedly first involved in the persecution of christians by the Catholic editors. His ideas however don't at all support this, it seems part of the tactics of catholic orthodoxy to change Paul more into a personality connected with Judaism.

The sayings are quite Jewish in nature. This is especially visible in Matthew 5. They are generally rooted in Jewish scriptures or traditions. Can you show me any that are not?

BTW I do not buy the Q idea. The Synoptic Gospels show a clear linear progression from apparent original or at least very early traditions about Jesus in Mark through Matthew and on to Luke. Each had its own reasons for getting written and we can see clear intentional contradictions of Matthew in Luke.

Examples? And evidence that the original sayings were different?

I don’t want to start a discussion about the non-existence of Q in this thread as it is widely accepted as the best solution to the synoptic problem. The Q-sayings are not Jewish in nature and hardly refer to the Jewish scriptures, especially in the Three-source hypothesis which I think is the best choice for the reconstruction of Q. In the Three-source hypothesis the original aLuke may have known gMatthew but did not want to use it. Later however aLuke or another editor added some sayings form gMatthew that did not appear in Q and also created the minor agreements of gMatthew and gLuke against gMark. These are the sayings that Burton Mack assigns to two hypothetical later layers of Q created by what he sees as a Q-community.
Of course Mack supports the Two-source hypothesis where aLuke did not see or know gMatthew at all.

The ideology or philosophy of this reconstructed Q is neither Pauline nor in any way Jewish. It is neutral and not tied to any particular religion although it was formed in a certain time and culture perhaps in Galilee which was quite multi-cultural in the first century.

 

[Miken]

Part 2

More evidence that a celestial Jesus was the original story Paul was telling.

Carrier wanted to use the Ascension of Isaiah to connect planets with Paul. This does not work. There are no planets in A of I and no stacked heavens in Paul, despite Carrier’s poor and as I have shown failed attempt to show the number of heavens by prepositions. As a reminder, Carrier’s rule about explicit (‘prefixed’) prepositions as opposed to implicit case-determined prepositions leads to the problem in 1 Cor 15:40 where the Greek for the first ‘celestial’ has an implicit preposition and the second ‘celestial’ has a explicit preposition. By Carrier’s rule the two occurrences of ‘celestial’ should be different heavens, thereby making the sentence incomprehensible.

Carrier’s problem once again is that he does not know Greek. He is basing his conclusions on English translations.

Concerning Paul’s lack of detail about the life of Jesus, other than that he was born and was crucified, Paul had two good reasons for that. One was that he was not around but only knew what was told to him. But the even more important reason was that if he used any material that he got from the various Apostles with whom he spoke, it would be about Jesus being a law observant Jew. This would be the last thing Paul would want to tell people about Jesus.

No, the earliest version of Isaiah was put around the same time as the gospels.

I presented evidence that the Ascension of Isaiah contains material from all the Gospels. Can you present evidence that it was written contemporaneously with the Gospels.

He is comparing Paul's use of the words, not the dictionary. Why don't you ask him on messenger?
Log in to Facebook | Facebook
My copy of his book which explains in detail is on loan.

The conversation is here, not on Facebook. As I have previously shown, I have his book.

The dictionary meaning is how the audience would understand them. Especially since the intended audience of Romans 1:3 is Jewish Christians. They would expect a messiah to be descended from the House of David and that is how they would understand it.

Interpreting 2 Samuel 7:12 as a prophecy about God getting a sample of David’s sperm cells and stashing it away (after David is dead no less) is wacko. It goes against the clear sense of the word seed in the Jewish scriptures and the clear sense that everywhere else God is promising David a kingdom to his descendants. To claim that this interpretation of the prophecy is so well known that all Jewish hearers will instantly think of the literal sperm idea totally supplanting the tradition that the messiah will be a descendant of David is simply wacko. If this claimed alternative tradition was so universally held, why is the messiah as descendant of David tradition so well known but Carrier’s claim totally absent from any Jewish records?

Because Paul is using allegories earlier about "seeds". He references Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham and uses it as an allegory, Paul says Gentiles become by adoption “the seed of Abraham” he again means allegorically, not literally. So, when Paul says Jesus was born according to the flesh and from the seed of David, he can just as easily mean allegorically here as there, when he says this of us being born to Hagar and the seed of Abraham.

Seed as descendent of Abraham is used literally for Jews and figuratively for Gentile Christians. An allegory is more complex than that. It says that ‘this’ stands for ‘that’. Allegories need explanation, figurative expressions do not.

In Galatians 4, Paul explicitly says that he is using an allegory.

Galatians 4
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Ishmael was born of Hagar, Sarah’s slave, because Sarah could not conceive. Isaac was later born of Sarah after God made that promise. Hagar and Sarah are not themselves allegorical. In the scriptures they are real mothers. Paul then explicitly says he is now using this as an allegory, (‘allegorizing’ ἀλληγορούμενα) which he never says anywhere else.

A little background. Paul previously preached ‘his’ gospel in Galatia including that Jewish Law should not be followed. After that some Jewish Christians came and preached that Jewish Law is required. In his allegory, Paul says that the Jews are the children of Hagar, of the flesh not the promise. Actually, tradition has it that the Jewish nation was descended from Isaac not Hagar. But that would prevent the allegory from working. Paul’s allegory is that the Gentile Christians are the descendants of Isaac and are not to follow the way of the flesh (σάρξ sarx which in Koine Greek had overtones of sinfulness). That is, do not follow the Jewish Law which leads to sin.

Descent from Abraham is not an issue here. Both Isaac and Ishmael were children of Abraham. And Paul does not use the word seed here at all.

In Romans, Paul is talking primarily to the Jewish component of the mixed Jewish/Gentile Christians community there. He wants the Jewish ones to accept the Gentile ones without them being required to follow Jewish Law. Now he uses the figurative expression of the Gentiles becoming descendants of Abraham by faith and so encourage the Jews to accept the Gentiles as equals. An immediately understandable image with no need to explain anything.

Paul has a habit of adapting his delivery to his audience. In most of his letters, Paul has Jesus be a pre-existing divine figure. But to avoid bringing an offensive aroma of polytheism under the noses of the Jewish audience, he says that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” Rom 1:4. Notice that this points in a different direction from Carrier’s claim about the meaning of Romans 1:3. Jews would not want to hear about some kind of weird supernatural entity ‘made from’ the literal sperm of David. Jesus was a man who was declared to be special after his death and not some strange visitor from another planet. Got to look in context of the surrounding material and how the audience would understand what it being said.

Are you even reading the argument he's putting forth? It isn't long or a "book" by any means?
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier

I have read it and criticized it. Carrier is wrong as I have argued at length. Please address my points and not just point to the material I have already criticized.

Still busy but I will continue replying as much as I can.

 

[joelr]

I believe that qualifies as the fantasy version of science.

You think all archaeology is a fantasy or just the stuff that doesn't match your beliefs in an ancient story?

 

[joelr]

Part 2

Carrier wanted to use the Ascension of Isaiah to connect planets with Paul. This does not work. There are no planets in A of I and no stacked heavens in Paul, despite Carrier’s poor and as I have shown failed attempt to show the number of heavens by prepositions. As a reminder, Carrier’s rule about explicit (‘prefixed’)

.

Cosmology of Paul in Ephesians - BcResources the cosmology of Paul

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 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.

Carrier’s problem once again is that he does not know Greek. He is basing his conclusions on English translations.

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

Concerning Paul’s lack of detail about the life of Jesus, other than that he was born and was crucified, Paul had two good reasons for that. One was that he was not around but only knew what was told to him. But the even more important reason was that if he used any material that he got from the various Apostles with whom he spoke, it would be about Jesus being a law observant Jew. This would be the last thing Paul would want to tell people about Jesus.

Thank you for that pure speculation.

I presented evidence that the Ascension of Isaiah contains material from all the Gospels. Can you present evidence that it was written contemporaneously with the Gospels.
.

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:

The conversation is here, not on Facebook. As I have previously shown, I have his book.

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.

The dictionary meaning is how the audience would understand them. Especially since the intended audience of Romans 1:3 is Jewish Christians. They would expect a messiah to be descended from the House of David and that is how they would understand it.

"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.

Interpreting 2 Samuel 7:12 as a prophecy about God getting a sample of David’s sperm cells and stashing it away (after David is dead no less) is wacko. It goes against the clear sense of the word seed in the Jewish scriptures and the clear sense that everywhere else God is promising David a kingdom to his descendants. To claim that this interpretation of the prophecy is so well known that all Jewish hearers will instantly think of the literal sperm idea totally supplanting the tradition that the messiah will be a descendant of David is simply wacko. If this claimed alternative tradition was so universally held, why is the messiah as descendant of David tradition so well known but Carrier’s claim totally absent from any Jewish records?

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.

Seed as descendent of Abraham is used literally for Jews and figuratively for Gentile Christians. An allegory is more complex than that. It says that ‘this’ stands for ‘that’. Allegories need explanation, figurative expressions do not.

In Galatians 4, Paul explicitly says that he is using an allegory.

Galatians 4
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Ishmael was born of Hagar, Sarah’s slave, because Sarah could not conceive. Isaac was later born of Sarah after God made that promise. Hagar and Sarah are not themselves allegorical. In the scriptures they are real mothers. Paul then explicitly says he is now using this as an allegory, (‘allegorizing’ ἀλληγορούμενα) which he never says anywhere else.

A little background. Paul previously preached ‘his’ gospel in Galatia including that Jewish Law should not be followed. After that some Jewish Christians came and preached that Jewish Law is required. In his allegory, Paul says that the Jews are the children of Hagar, of the flesh not the promise. Actually, tradition has it that the Jewish nation was descended from Isaac not Hagar. But that would prevent the allegory from working. Paul’s allegory is that the Gentile Christians are the descendants of Isaac and are not to follow the way of the flesh (σάρξ sarx which in Koine Greek had overtones of sinfulness). That is, do not follow the Jewish Law which leads to sin.



I have read it and criticized it. Carrier is wrong as I have argued at length. Please address my points and not just point to the material I have already criticized.

Still busy but I will continue replying as much as I can.

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

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.

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

 

[joelr]

I don’t want to start a discussion about the non-existence of Q in this thread as it is widely accepted as the best solution to the synoptic problem. The Q-sayings are not Jewish in nature and hardly refer to the Jewish scriptures, especially in the Three-source hypothesis which I think is the best choice for the reconstruction of Q. In the Three-source hypothesis the original aLuke may have known gMatthew but did not want to use it. Later however aLuke or another editor added some sayings form gMatthew that did not appear in Q and also created the minor agreements of gMatthew and gLuke against gMark. These are the sayings that Burton Mack assigns to two hypothetical later layers of Q created by what he sees as a Q-community.
Of course Mack supports the Two-source hypothesis where aLuke did not see or know gMatthew at all.

The ideology or philosophy of this reconstructed Q is neither Pauline nor in any way Jewish. It is neutral and not tied to any particular religion although it was formed in a certain time and culture perhaps in Galilee which was quite multi-cultural in the first century.

I am told that Mark Goodacre's book on Q is excellent and pretty much closes the case against Q. Meaning the source is Mark:

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

 

[Miken]

Carrier gets into Ignatius and what he wanted changed and ties it into the seed of David about 1/2 way down you see the sub-title :Ignatius"

Establishing the Biblical Literalism of Early Christians • Richard Carrier

I have already addressed that quote from Ignatius. It is clearly aimed at Docetism. But to Carrier, the fact that it disagrees with his original claim cannot possibly mean that his original claim was wrong. It must mean that there was this conspiracy to change the meaning of Paul’s original intent.

I have already referenced the strong cautions against Docetism in the Epistles of John from the same era as Ignatius. This was a Gnostic idea. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus described the beliefs of Docetism in this way.

“For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered.”

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.23 (St. Irenaeus)
Book 1 23:3

Without Jesus being a man, the crucifixion and death cannot be an atoning sacrifice. And the resurrection of a spirit has no bearing on a future human resurrection. These ideas lie at the heart of mainstream Christianity and come straight from Paul. That is why Ignatius and Irenaeus are so vocal against Docetism.

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 – that Jesus did not become the Son of God until he was resurrected. This avoided a head on collision with the Jewish Christians over Paul’s divine Jesus idea. Carrier’s claims of context are nonsense. None of the uses of ginomai in Paul can be interpreted as ‘manufactured’. And the actua context of surrounding material and how Paul’s readers would understand what he said point directly away from Carrier’s claims.

In On the Historicity if Jesus, Carrier claims repeatedly that Paul’s uses of the word ginomai always mean ‘made’ in the sense of manufactured. As I have shown repeatedly, none of Paul’s uses of the word ginomai ever mean ‘made’. However note that the KJV mistranslates the word in question as ‘made’, ignoring actual meaning and grammatical structure.

Now let us look at what Carrier said later on.

IIn Romans 1:3, Paul literally writes “concerning His Son, who came to be from the sperm of David according to the flesh.”

Most modern translations do not render these words literally but “interpret” the words to say something else according to each team of translators’ theological assumptions, adding words not in the Greek, or translating words contrary to Paul’s usual idiom.

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

Suddenly Carrier is admitting that the word literally means “who came to be” instead of ‘made’. Apparently, someone finally got through to Carrier that he does not know Greek and he cannot rely on English translations, such as the KJV, which is the culprit that adds words to the verse not in the Greek that Carrier mentions. Apparently, he really was using the KJV as his source. Otherwise why mention this at all?

Carrier also talks about some translators ‘interpreting’ the words to mean something else, instead of translating them literally. But ‘became’ IS the literal translation, as Carrier already admitted. Is Carrier criticizing the KJV which says ‘made’? What exactly is Carrier saying here? That the KJV is interpreting the word incorrectly? So it does not mean ‘made’ after all?

But Carrier insists that Paul still meant ‘made’ because wherever he uses the word it must mean that. But as I have shown – and still have not gotten any counter-argument other than quoting Carrier – it very clearly does NOT mean ‘made’ anywhere else in Paul. It really does mean ‘became’.

Carrier is tap dancing (and stumbling) to try to get out of getting caught with his pants down. And how is that for an apt image?

Previous dying/rising savior gods had the story play out in the celestial realms. So crucifixion, dying, rising can happen in a celestial realm. Then were converted into history, a popular concept in the region.
The 12 apostles had visions.

Give an example of a savior god who died and rose in the celestial realm. With links to supporting documentation that (a) the god in question is a savior god and (b) that the death and resurrection took place in the celestial realm. I practically learned to read on Bullfinch and Hamilton and later on read Hooke. I am rather knowledgeable about Graeco-Roman and Mid-East mythology and cannot recall any such thing. Nor do I see the idea of Jesus dying and resurrecting in a celestial realm in the NT. (Anyone going to try to use the ὤφθη argument in 1 Corinthians 15? Go ahead, make my day.)

In any case, I have argued that the earliest Jesus followers apparently did not care for Paul’s ideas about the crucifixion being any kind of sacrifice or the resurrection being real or Jesus being a pre-existent divine entity. Which removes any mythological references from contention as origins of a mythical Jesus. Rather the belief in the existence of Jesus before all of that points toward a historic Jesus.

What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier
But Carrier goes on with a 3rd list (your examples are from the 2nd list in that article and explains why be believes we cannot know what Paul meant for certain.
He then gets into all the multiple translations compared to the Greek to finish that post.

It still counts for historicity because his determination is we cannot be sure either way.

Here is what Carrier said in the third item in his list in What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3? • Richard Carrier

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 figuratively (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.

Of course, we can tell what Paul meant.

If we leave out 2 Samuel 7:12 and Romans 1:3, which Carrier claims mean something else. We have only 8 instances in the entire Bible where the word seed means sperm. And those 8 instances, 4 are about the necessary purification rituals after ejaculation (did dead David perform those?) and 4 are about the evils of screwing around with the wrong women (not a very good image for what Carrier claims Paul means). All of the other uses of the word are very clearly about plant seeds or descendants.

There was and is a well-documented belief that the messiah must come from the House of David. ‘in accordance with the flesh’, a literal descendant in the normal way. This is what Paul’s Jewish Christian audience would expect to hear and that is how Paul would want them to understand. Paul needs to emphasize that Jesus was not just some kind of messiah but the Jewish Messiah because he is going to talk about non-Jews being figurative descendants of Abraham by faith. Talking about literal sperm would be confusing and a turn off and would blow away what Paul is trying to establish, the importance of Jesus to the Jewish Christians so that faith in Jesus as the messiah would be meaningful grounds.

There is absolutely no record of anyone holding the belief that the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 has anything to do with literal sperm being put in the freezer by God until Jesus comes along. But for Carrier’s claim to be the case that story must have been so widely known and believed that It completely supplanted the idea that the messiah would be a descendant of David in the normal manner. And it would have to supplant the ‘ordinary descendant’ belief to the degree that talking about the messiah coming from the seed of David would instantly bring to mind God defrosting David’s sperm and making Jesus out of it. Oh wait, it does not say ‘made’ after all, does it?

And as I have already addressed endlessly, Paul never uses the word ginomai in any sense than becoming.

Carrier’s sperm interpretation is not equal odds at all. It is zero probability as can be readily seen.

Missionaries who were told of a demigod from scripture and stories does not contradict the mythicist position at all.

There is no indication that the missionaries that preceded Paul had any a belief in a demigod. Paul uses the term of Son of God in the sense Philo uses the term, as a pre-existent, yet does not seem to be the original sense of the term. Mark plainly has early traditions at his disposal not from the Pauline tradition. In his trial scene Mark has the high priest get Jesus to claim to be the messiah and Son of God (actually Son of the Blessed One as one would a high priest to say it) Jesus then refers to the supernatural Son of Man in the third person. Jesus is then delivered to the Romans on the charge of claiming to be King of the Jews. That term would imply revolutionary intent to expel the Romans. We may note that prior to this, Mark has Jesus forbid anyone from identifying him as the messiah. Mark wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and would not want Jesus connected with the terrible Jewish War. Yet nonetheless he allows that realistic sounding trial passage to be included, where Jesus admits to being the messiah at the worst possible time.

There were some traditions that a pre-existing messiah-like figure would come and conquer the ‘nations’ (that is, the Gentiles) and establish an everlasting Jewish kingdom. Daniel 7 in the 2nd century BCE refers to this entity as looking like a son of man, that is, a human being in contrast to the evil ugly beasts just described. By the next century in the Book of Parables in 1 Enoch, this figure had become the Son of Man, a specific title. However, there is no connection made in Daniel or 1 Enoch or any of the apocryphal works that connect Son of God with Son of Man. Paul never uses the latter term.

It is doubtful that the earliest missionaries, who disagreed with Paul about the sin atonement thing and the resurrection, would consider Jesus to be the expected supernatural entity after he got killed.

Explanations of Jewish societies to Pagan cultures like Josephus, History of the Jews, he explains the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes were the main groups then in the gospels there is an absence of Essenes so some scholars believe Jesus is the Essene voice.

Doubtful that Jesus was an Essene. Most Jews were just Jews. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were like elite clubs with specific membership requirements. Josephus estimated the number of Pharisees at 6000. Essenes kept out of public life, living communal lives either within cities or in closed communities in the countryside. Keeping out of public life certainly does not describe the Jesus we see in the Gospels.

 

[Miken]

Early OT was syncretic:

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin. Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible."

Genesis 1 stands in opposition to the Enuma Elish, turning that story inside out to substitute Hebraic ideas and beliefs for the old Sumerian ones that would have been common in Babylon. The Enuma Elish was not brought into Jewish thinking. It was thrown out of it by putting a Hebrew oriented overlay on the stories those Jews born in Babylon would be hearing all their loves. Long story. Not today or anytime soon.

Then at 6BCE scholars such as Professor Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, Carrier and Mary Boyce (who lived with modern Persians for 1 year) know that Zororastrian elements began entering the OT - messianic saviors, world ends in fire, good vs evil, good/bad afterlife, members get resurrected after the apocalypse and go to heaven, linear time, and so on.

There are certainly Persian elements in later Jewish thought. Not surprising since Israel was under Persian rule for centuries. However, it is not until after the rather benign and tolerant Persian rule ended with the conquest of Israel by Alexander the Great and the push to Hellenize the Jews began that these Persian ideas started to be expressed in Jewish thought. The evil but rich oppressors lived very comfortable lives while the righteous poor got screwed and just died. An afterlife with judgment where the good guys get rewarded and the bad guys punished is a comforting thought. It is not until the earliest Enochian literature

But some of the elements you mention do not apply to early Christianity.

“messianic saviors”

In the Gathas, representing the oldest Zoroastrian tradition, the word Saoshyant (benefit giver) is applied first to Zoroaster himself and then to people who bring benefit to the world by acting righteously. It is not until the Younger Avesta that we see the word Saoshyant applied to a specific future quasi-divine individual who will save the world.
Saoshyant - Wikipedia

The problem with that is that the Younger Avesta was not written down until the 5th or 6th century CE. It was purely oral (in the Avestan language) until that time and unlike the Gathas there was not a strict tradition of exact transmission.
Avesta - Wikipedia

Unless, the Jews involved in the Jewish story were fluent in Avestan and desired to go seek out those carryon on the oral tradition, it does not appear that the ‘messianic savior’ of Zoroastrianism could have much bearing on their beliefs. Also since the Younger Avesta tradition was more fluid in transmission there is no certainty that this ‘messianic savior’ even existed in Zoroastrianism in the 1st century CE. One might easily argue that this belief was inspired by Christianity. In fact the idea of an end time does not appear until the Younger Avesta. In earlier Zoroastrianism, judgment and one’s fate take place not long after death with no final judgment.

“world ends in fire”

There is no such belief in Christianity. The only details given anywhere are that there will be a great battle and the bad guys will be defeated. The description in Revelation is based on various descriptions in the Jewish scriptures. Most of the references in the NT do not go into any real details at all. But nowhere is there any reference to the world ending in fire. There is a gospel folk song about ‘the fire next time but that is all.

“linear time”

The Jewish scriptures are obsessed with linear time going back to even the earliest writings with elaborate histories and genealogies even as far back as Adam, often with how long each person lived. There is nothing like this in Zoroastrianism.

Then popular mystery religions which had dying/rising savior gods who allowed members forgiveness of sins and entry into the afterlife was all over the region and Christianity is a Jewish version of this cult.
This is ALL syncretic.

Forgiveness of sins is already discussed at great length in Leviticus. However, the idea of forgiveness of sins does not appear in Greek mystery later until rather later than that. The idea of pity did not arise until quite late in Greek culture.
https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.27.2.152

The idea of the sacrifice of Jesus annulling the sin of Adam and potentially all sin for the believer seem to have been a Pauline inventions. Earlier Christian missionaries (Peter is mentioned) appear to be having a problem with it. As Paul puts it, a stumbling block for Jews and for Greeks foolishness. Note that it is Greeks who consider this cult dependent forgiveness thing a foolishness.

The gospels used familiar mythic literature, markan sandwiches, ring structure, inversion, transformation of OT narratives.

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?

Inversion, changing the normal order of words, is allowed in an inflective language like Greek. Mark does use inversion from time to time in what looks a form of inclusion bracketing off a related pair of sentences in a chiastic like style. The Jewish scriptures do this a lot. So?

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.

Early Israel has a consort for Yahweh (Ashera) and eventually a monothestic movement won out.

The monotheistic ‘no idols’ theme is a way of putting a fence around a unified Judaism. The Jewish God cannot be represented in any way, being the creator of everything. The problem of statues getting smashed by enemies with the psychologcal implication of destroying that god and the problem of two different statues allegedly of the same god with the danger of statue form related tribalism are avoided.

The first exposure to the Persian religion was 6 BCE. Greek Hellenistic mystery religions were even older.

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

Paul preached to gentiles. The movement was open to all.

And those Jesus followers who came before Paul required a Gentile to become a full-fledged Law observant circumcised Jew before following Jesus. Again we see that Pauline Christianity was not the original form and that basing mythicism on the views of Paul does not work.

Not true. In 6 BCE they adopted all the main points of the religion of those who were occupying their land.
At 3:40 Professor Stravopolou explains why this happened.

from 6BC on

Are you sure you linked the right video? In the one you posted, the discussion around 3:40 is Cyrus ending the Babylonian Exile.

Also in 6 BCE, the Romans were the occupying force and had been for some time. I see no evidence of the Jewish people adopting Roman religion. Herod the Great made a big show of being an observant Jew. The collaborationist Sadducees were strict followers of the Torah. The ever practical Romans allowed the Jews the only people in the Empire not required to sacrifice to the Roman gods.

Carrier also does a lecture on this.

"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.[9]"
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

I have already pointed out the problem in assuming that Christianity was influenced by Younger Avesta messianism. And free will appears to have been a part of Judaism all along. You are responsible for your own actions.

Yes I just mean the concepts that are now commonly thought of, messianic saviors, good vs evil, heaven/hell...are Persian.

Once again, there is no reason to assume that the idea of a messianic savior existed in Zoroastrianism before the Christian era, there being no reliable mention of it until much later. And if it did the reis the problem of how Jews came into possession of a strictly oral tradition in the Avestan language.

Like Professor Fransesca points out, Carrier elaborates that it was time for a new updated Judaism. During the Persian occupation Jewish prophets began saying they too will be getting a savior and so on.
These features came about as prophecies during the occupation of a culture that already was like CHristianity and the emmisary to the Jewish leaders was a well liked Persian.


"We believe that Zoroastrianism greatly influenced Judaism and Christianity, and then trickled through to Islam. This ‘osmosis’ particularly seems to have happened with the afterlife doctrine. The concepts of heaven and hell, God vs Satan, individual judgement, resurrection of the body, the last judgement, the coming of the Messiah – these are mainstream Zoroastrian theological ideas which entered post-exilic Judaism around the fourth century bce. From my understanding of Judaism, it did not originally have a defined ideology as far as its eschatology was concerned."

Carrier and Professor F.S. agree with this completely.

There is no mention of a personal messiah in canonical Jewish literature, although people love to retrofit later ides via quote mining. It is always God himself who will save the Jewish people. The first mention of a personal messiah is in the so-called Animal Apocalypse in the Astronomical Book, the third and final part of 2 Enoch. By reference to issues of the day, the Animal Apocalypse is rather reliability dated to 165-160 BCE nearly two centuries since the Persians left.
The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 83-90) – Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Another reason for not relating Jewish messianism to Persian influence.

 

[Thief]

Well, Christians yes but were the early followers of Jesus, Christian?

I've read they did not call themselves Christians. In fact, that "Christian" started out as a derogatory term used by non-Christians.

that is the item

until Rome took the mantle of such faith unto itself
Christian...... was a slur

 

[YoursTrue]

that is the item

until Rome took the mantle of such faith unto itself
Christian...... was a slur

And I wonder what is the reasoning behind the question, 'did Christianity start with Jesus'? I wonder -- what does that question mean?

 

[Thief]

And I wonder what is the reasoning behind the question, 'did Christianity start with Jesus'? I wonder -- what does that question mean?

well if you are searching for the point of origin (genesis)
that would be the Carpenter

at the Table for His Last Supper....He did what most Jews would consider offensive

the Passover meal was to hold the Exodus and Moses in remembrance
the Carpenter told His followers
now ....do THIS is remembrance of Me

He usurped the high sabbath for Himself
that would not be very....Jewish

it may have been that gesture that put Judas out the door looking for the Romans

 

[YoursTrue]

Some say Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi.

Did Jesus teach Christianity or did Jesus teach Judaism?

Did Jesus intend to found a new religion? Did not Jesus say that he was sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

If however, you say Jesus did not come to found a new religion, then where did Christianity come from?

Rabbi means teacher. Jesus taught the faith of his God. His disciples were those he taught. He lived among Jews, taught among Jews, and was put to death (by people) because of his faith.In God. Now the Bible helps us to understand why (1) he was put to death, and (2) what that means for mankind.

 

[YoursTrue]

well if you are searching for the point of origin (genesis)
that would be the Carpenter

at the Table for His Last Supper....He did what most Jews would consider offensive

the Passover meal was to hold the Exodus and Moses in remembrance
the Carpenter told His followers
now ....do THIS is remembrance of Me

He usurped the high sabbath for Himself
that would not be very....Jewish

it may have been that gesture that put Judas out the door looking for the Romans

Frankly, I don't know what you mean.

 

[Thief]

Frankly, I don't know what you mean.

false claims aimed at me all the while you confess you don't understand

atta boy

 

[Thief]

and was put to death (by people) because of his faith.In God.

someone pointed a finger at Him and said....
King of the Jews

that would be insurrection
punishable by death

note the inscription on His cross

 

[YoursTrue]

The Greek word "διδάσκαλος" means teacher or master.




So, in your view, Judaism exists as a corrupted belief?

Judaism is based on the Tanakh. Was the Tanakh corrupted as well?

The point is then, what did Jesus think? He kind of more or less outrightly said it. Besides, he died, he was put to death as the Lamb of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

false claims aimed at me all the while you confess you don't understand

atta boy

Huh? What false claims? But if you mean the post I deleted part of, I must apologize since I thought I was posting to someone else, not you. Sorry. That is why I deleted much of that post. And yes, I don't know what you mean anyway. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

someone pointed a finger at Him and said....
King of the Jews

that would be insurrection
punishable by death

note the inscription on His cross

He went like a lamb to the slaughter.