Temple Cleansing Fiction

January 19, 2017

eight

"I hold no brief for the historical accuracy of anything narrated in Acts. However, Paul's conversion is realistic in the sense of being a kind of thing that some people undergo in real life (confused sensory dysfunction which they interpret creatively in order to "make sense of" it). It is also the prime example in Western literature of enantiodromia, a sudden "one hundred eighty degree" shift in attitude or behavior to which the species is vulnerable."

I agree, but are you goading me to talk about the Holy Dopamine Ghost/HIGHer Dopamine Power?

I can only FEEL GOOD to obligate to do so. I cannot depend on someone like Sam Harris with the both important notoriety, and qualifications to say it. For proof watch this interview with Sam, and Bill. At 7:20 Bill asks Sam why smart people believe obvious nonsense. Notice that Sam does not directly answer the question.

The "transformative experiences" Sam is talking about is a guise for neurological systems for motivation, learning, and reward. Now for an Ape to put two and two together to lick a stick, and shove it down an ant mound is an evolutionary success. The Apes that can see lick stick Ape, and do the same are successful too.

Now the "transformative experiences" is just the creation, and reinforcing of reward pathways. This can altar thoughts/behaviors wether they have value, or not. It's just that this drive can be stronger in overcoming the rationalizing part of the brain in some people than others despite IQ.

You see spiritual minded people whipping up a foam of nonsense while they see it as pearls of wisdom. You see some have a disdain for science, then turn around then chop it up for confirmation while revealing they do not understand it. Anything can make sense when one believes through faith. That's why faith is held as virtuous, but it only circumvents reward learning. Thoughts can be as addictive as drugs because they involve the same mechanisms. Sam will not say this though he should know through his learning.

As for those sighing right now. Just put me on ignore unless you can prove me wrong. Not wrong in the sense of political correctness, but the science, or of the spirit.

As for Paul's turnaround I can relate from my own fortunately short lived experience.

I used to work with 9/11 truthers. I used to laugh at them, and poke fun (persecuted). When a fuel truck accident in California melted the steel of a bridge, I told them it was proof that Bush did it by their logic.

Then a couple of years later (I no longer worked with the truthers) I watched a 9/11 conspiracy documentary. It was for some reason at the time convincing, and excitable to me in that I believed it. Instead of looking to debunk it I looked further into the conspiracy (which was a form of confirmation bias to fuel the swell of emotions).

This was just for a couple of weeks. I then saw a picture of the WTC under construction with the morning sun's rays revealing it's skeleton (center column s). This snapped me out of seeing with emotion, to thinking with rationality. I then researched not to confirm, but for truth. I have since shown this picture to truthers, but they couldn't redirect what was analogously hot knifed into their thinking.

Now Paul already believed the scriptures to begin with. He just did not know the mystery kept hidden through the ages. All Paul needed was the Christ theology pointed out to him from the select verses, and to believe it. He would not be technically lying that God revealed Christ to him if a persecuted pointed out these verses because it's God's words after all. There's no need for an historical Jesus because it's "the word" that lays out Christology through pattern seeking (Ape/stick/food).

I can make an argument that the early Church of Paul took hallucinogens. The thing is there's no internal evidence for this, but though weakly related there's external evidence. Maybe the incense they used was Cannabis Sativa which is psychoactive compared to Cannabis Indica which the latter glues one to the couch. This is just speculation so I do not have to go there.

Paul, and the Church of his era had visions of Christ being crucified, and Christ resurrected. We are capable of hallucinating (any of the 5 senses, effected speech, and, or movement) through stress, and, or fervor. There's schizotypals who hallucinate often in varying degrees. Paul looks as if he heard voices both bad, and good which is a manifestation of the subconscious through neurological hiccups (schizotypal).

2 Corinthians 12:6-10

"⁶But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, ⁷even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep^[a] me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated.^[b] ⁸Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, ⁹but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power^[c] is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. ¹⁰Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."

So I did not need a blinding light, a voice, or angels whipping me to be a truther (though temporarily). One time I took a small boulder, swam out to about 20 ft of water in a lake, and dived down with the weight outstretched in front of me. When I reached the bottom, I look around, and it was creepily murky. I then started to think of the famous Rhine photo (which was in essence an early version of computer assisted photoshop of what was bubbles) of the Nessie flipper. The creepiness, my vulnerability I sensed manifested in seeing the flipper from my mind to sight. I knew it was my imagination, but I made haste to the surface to shore anyway.

No inside job, or flippered marine reptile needed to believe, or see. Just as no God, and his son is needed to believe, or see.

"I notice that Price and I share one position that has come up in the thread: scepticism about Paul's "persecution" career. I am not a great fan of Price's argument here (interpolation ought not to be a synonym for doesn't fit my theory), but our conclusions on this specific matter are similar."

Interesting... Now it makes sense why you've been a stickler on this. I hope it's not related to Price's observation with Romans 16:7...?

"7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

Paul is constantly talking about being in a spiritual family through faith, and he makes no biological distinctions. Do Rufus, and Paul have the same mother? Are Lucius, Jason and Sosipater his blood relations as well?

Romans 16:13

"13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also."

"21 Timothy, my co-worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my relatives."

This "prison" may not be an actual cell, but it could be being under the law before the revelation of Christ? So Andronicus and Junia could have been practicing Jews under the law before faith in Christ Jesus? There were gentiles that converted to Judaism, and their names sound non Jewish to me.

Galatians 3:23

^"23Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed."

16:7 probably does refer to a physical jail, but I doubt a blood relatio

What is your argument that Paul was not a persecuter? I'm all ears.

I have to check that link out. Thanks

January 19, 2017

On 1/14/2017 at 10:24 AM, third_eye said:

This is one title about Paul / Saul that I found to be the most compelling a read yet so far ...

~

Free PDF at CCEL link

~

~

Good Ol' Saul / Paul did get around back then ...

" Ramsay classifies the Book of Acts as first rate historical writing. The characterization of Paul found in Acts contains such individualized detail that the author could not have gathered this information by any means other than personal acquaintances and original sources. As such, Ramsay believes that the author of Acts has attained a superior mark of historical accuracy and literary trustworthiness."

Can you comprehend spoken english? If so, did you watch the lecture "Acts as Historical Fiction" I linked to early in this thread?

January 19, 2017

Note:

"The first and foremost reason Mark has women first at the tomb, and first to learn the truth, is to fulfill the very gospel itself, that "the least shall be first" (Mark 9:35 & 10:31). That is the whole point, not only of this particular narrative, but of the entire gospel. And Mark declares from the outset that he is writing a gospel, not a history (Mark 1:1). Notice how the parables of Jesus are chock full of this theme, of "reversing" the readers expectations.[25] And notice how Mark records with definite approval Christ's program of concealing the truth behind parables:

"The Mystery of the Kingdom of God is given to you, but to those who are outside everything is produced in parables, so that when they watch they may see but not know, and when they listen they may hear but not understand, for otherwise they might turn themselves around and be forgiven" ...

And with many parables like these he told them the word as they were able to hear it, and he did not speak to them without a parable, but in private he explained everything to his own disciples.[26]

This is a clue to the reader: the truth is being concealed behind parables, and only explained to insiders, in secret. One may balk at the notion, but Holding cannot prove this is not what Mark was doing with his entire gospel. And since the central theme of the gospel was reversal of expectation, contrary to Holding's assumption, having women first at the tomb is exactly what Mark would invent, to carry through the gospel message that the least shall be first.

In other words, the empty tomb story may well be a parable all in itself, whose meaning does not lie in whether it actually happened, but in what the narrative teaches you. And the fact is, Mark's gospel is full of similar and quite blatant reversals of expectation: James and John, who ask to sit at the right and left of Jesus in his glory (10:35-40), are replaced by two thievesat his crucifixion (15:27); Simon Peter, Christ's right-hand man who was told he had to "deny himself and take up his cross and follow" (8:34), is replaced by Simon of Cyrene (a foreigner, the exact opposite of a disciple--and from the opposite side of Egypt no less, a Jewish symbol of death) when it comes time to truly bear that cross (15:21); instead of his family as would be expected, his enemies come to bury Jesus (15:43); even Pilate's expectation that Jesus should still be alive is confounded (15:44); and contrary to all expectation, Christ's own people, the Jews, mock their own savior (15:29-32), while it is a Gentile officer of Rome who recognizes his divinity (15:39). Thus, it is simply more of the same when Mark decides to say it was the male disciples who abandon Christ (14:50 and 66-72 vs. 14:31), while it was the "least" among them, mere lowly women, who attend his death and burial, who truly "followed him," and continue to seek him thereafter (15:40-41, 15:47, 16:1). Indeed, Mark ends his gospel with the mother of all reversals, with the women fleeing in fearand silence, and notdelivering the good news (16:8), the exact opposite of the "good news" of the "voice crying out" of the "messenger who will prepare our way" with which Mark began his gospel (1:1-3). All of this sure looks like literary license to me. It is brilliant fiction--deeply meaningful, but fiction nonetheless.[27]

So, given Mark's narrative agenda, regardless of the actual facts, the tomb has to be empty, in order to confound the expectations of the reader, just as a foreign Simon must carry the cross instead of Peter, a Gentile must acknowledge Christ's divinity instead of the Jews, a Sanhedrist must bury the body, and women must be the first to hear the Good News. But there is another reason to suspect the women are an invention: their names. Salomê is the feminine of Solomon, an obvious symbol of supreme wisdom and kingship (and the builder of the Temple), and wisdom was often portrayed as a feminine being (Sophia). Mariam (Mary) is the sister of Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4, 1 Chronicles 6:3, Numbers 26:59) who led the Hebrew women in song after their deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 15:20-21), which represented the Land of the Dead in Jewish symbolism. Magdala is a variant Hellenization of "tower," the same exact word transcribed as Magdôlon in the Septuagint--in other words the biblical Migdol, representing the borders of Egypt (and hence of Death). The Hebrews camp near Migdol to lure the Pharaoh's army to their doom (Exodus 13:1-4), after which "they passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness three days" (Numbers 33:7-8) on their way to the "twelve springs and seventy palm trees" of Elim (33:9). "Mariam the mother of Jacob" is an obvious reference to theJacob, better known as (you guessed it) Israel. So the two Marys represent Egypt and Israel, and (on the one side) the borders of the Promised Land and the defeat of death needed to get across, and (on the other side) the founding of a new nation, a New Israel--both linked as sisters of Moses (the first savior) and Aaron (the first High Priest), and mediated by Wisdom, manifested here as a symbol of supreme kingship and the building of the Temple.[28]

This seems a highly improbable coincidence, there being exactly three women, with exactly these names, which evoke exactly those scriptures, and triangulate in exactly this way, to convey an incredibly convenient message about the Gospel and the status of Christ as Messiah and miraculous victor over the Land of the Dead. What are the odds? Maybe you are not as impressed by all these coincidences as I am. But you don't have to agree with my theory here. The only thing that matters is that it cannot be ruled out--there is evidence for it (Mark expressly approves of concealing deep symbolic meanings behind narratives, and the names and events of his narrative fit the deeper meaning of the Gospel with surprising convenience), and no evidence against it. It therefore provides an available motive to invent a visit to the tomb by women, especially these particular women, which forbids us from assuming the Christians would instead have invented a visit by men first. We cannot demonstrate that they would. For inventing a visit by women carried even more meaningful symbolism, and was even more in accordance with the Gospel message itself."

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/women.html

January 19, 2017

davros

Quote

I agree, but are you goading me to talk about the Holy Dopamine Ghost/HIGHer Dopamine Power?

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if you talk about it anyway .

Paul's enantiodromia

... was shallow and mostly behavioral. There was remarkable continuity of underlying belief.

As a self-described Pharisee, Paul probably believed, before his conversion, that there would be a general resurrection of the dead at the end of days, to the benefit of the righteous, Jews and the Nations alike.

Assuming that his conversion vision suddenly persuaded him that Jesus had really risen from the dead, Paul needed to integrate that new information with his other beliefs. What emerged was:

- the resurrection of the dead was a process, not an event; some people would rise before others,

- Jesus was the "first fruits" of the general resurrection now in progress, so:

- - Jesus was the best dead guy ever
- - Risen, Jesus could now do all the Messianic tasks
- - The world is ending right now

- The Nations need to be told about this

So, although Paul's attitude specifically about Jesus did a 180 and he found a new vocation, very few of Paul's beliefs changed. Those few changed because of something that isn't so unusual: Paul received new information which surprised him. Something in his body of beliefs had to change, but in Paul's actual solution, very little changed at the core.

Logical systems are often brittle: small changes in the premises can result in big changes in some of the conclusions. This has nothing to do with neurotransmitters. Computers can perform plausibly adaptive nonmonotonic reasoning.

Paul's solution was not the only possible solution. No doubt both psychology and what felt good influenced his specific choices. However, that there was a crisis and that some accommodation to new information sometimes must be made is prior to all implementation issues (like whether silicon or carbon is used to construct the credal agent).

The testimony of Sam Harris

Your witness instructs us that the problem needs to be approached from several areas of expertise, not only from his own area of expertise. I agree, as do many of your other readers. We've squeezed the juice from the dopamine lemon already. Time to look at the rest of the fruit salad.

Mark, and the women at the tomb

I read all the Gospels as (in part) a credentialing of (some of) those who were thought to have known Jesus during his natural life. We know from John that at least two women were credentialed, both named Mary. Physical custody of Mama Mary was key to the later status of the Beloved Disciple, and some believed that Mary Magdalene (not Peter, and not even God Almighty himself) was the first to see the risen Christ. John's MM was also the first to receive an apostolic commission, and the last to receive privately a wisdom lesson from the lips of Jesus.

In contrast, Mark crisply discredits Mary Magdalene, Mom, the rest of the family, and anybody else who might have known Jesus from his hometown. Teaching authority is thus reserved exclusively for the conspicuously dim bulbs that Jesus chose to be his merry men. (Or more relevantly, given a composition date of at least a generation later, credentials land on the almost necessarily smarter pupils of those dim bulbs, among whom "Mark" was later reputed to be a major player.)

Edited January 19, 2017 by eight bits

January 23, 2017

On 1/19/2017 at 3:55 AM, eight bits said:

Paul's enantiodromia

Thinking one has unique, and profound knowledge (wether factual, or not) can be very intoxicating. Just look at the Conspiracy Theorists, Bigfooters, and the Astral Projectors here on UM. A Jesus revealed from scripture would be far more interesting to someone of Paul's education than a messiah wannabe that gets killed in reality. Paul being what looks to be schizotypal sure can manifest God's words in his mind, and his letters show it.

The symbolism in Mark is so rich. The young man of earthly flesh (perishable), the place of the skull (death), to the young man of spiritual flesh (imperishable). The later gospels make it a point that Jesus resurrected in the flesh. From touching his feet, to Jesus eating, and then Thomas putting his fingers in Jesus's wounds. Just remember what Paul said about the physical/perishable cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, and Paul never did make an argument for an empty tomb, and Mark's tomb angel did not say in what manner the disciples would see the risen Jesus.

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

"Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won." "

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

On 1/19/2017 at 3:55 AM, eight bits said:

The testimony of Sam Harris

Your witness instructs us that the problem needs to be approached from several areas of expertise, not only from his own area of expertise.

Sam's underlying premise is analogous to how an alcoholic can be cured through the placebo of belief (born again). Sam is hinting at coming up with secular leaning mental switch-a-roos.

I mentioned this several times before, but sadly I have no proof of this. I heard of a man that went to AA. He did not want to do the "Higher (D) Power" concept of the program. They told him to worship an inanimate object, so he chose the radiator in his room. By doing a daily routine It worked, and remained sober. I was perplexed when I heard this, but the evidence I now know fits. We are not designed to worship (a mere made up definition), but evolved to follow motivation. It's just that we are not all created equal, but still susceptible to traps of our own degrees. The other day I seen a Smart car with performance stickers on the back window, and a loud pipe installed. Is it arrogant of me to think this person missed the point of owning a Smart car? By the way it sounded pathetic going down the road. Then again I wish all Loud Dopamine Exhaust addicts had their vehicles magically transformed to sound like that guy's Smart car. LOL!

Of note is the immediate thing that Sam says is the taboo factor that society holds in regards to being critical about religion. I run into non-Theists who try to hand wave to misdirect my efforts. I understand when being straight up mean. It can be easy to fall into, and hard to resist when dealing with circular reasoning. The thing is just not believing is seen as a sickness by Theists. The verse "fool in his heart..." is a cognitive bias to keep in, rather than to bring in.

Being nasty aside, I get resistance (red herrings) going to the core with facts. It's as if going Russel, or Hitchens lite with some give is honorable, and preferenced. If the "Taboo Faction" had mod status, I'm sure they would alter my older posts, and delete posts like a Theist would.

I try to understand their motivation, and have some theories. I've given up trying to figure it out, but I know it's their own form of reward to do what they do. I will just blaze past them.

I see what I do as more of a vaccine before belief than a cure post belief. A Theist that can be reasoned out of belief can do it on their own. There's no kill shot, but Anthony Magnabosco's "Street Epistemology" videos on Youtube is a step. The thing is there's the "Taboo Faction" saying that by Anthony not disclosing what he's doing it's unethical. The effective point of SE is to ask questions with the subjects guard down so they hear themselves. Is it ethical to indoctrinate young minds into what is non-evidenced?

On 1/19/2017 at 3:55 AM, eight bits said:

I agree, as do many of your other readers. We've squeezed the juice from the dopamine lemon already. Time to look at the rest of the fruit salad.

A1) Translation: It's not how things are done around here.

Acts 7:51

" 51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Dopamine Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do."

Luke and Josephus

"There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work."

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

On 1/19/2017 at 3:55 AM, eight bits said:

Mark, and the women at the tomb

Why I would love to give a more definitive breakdown of "James the Lord’s brother" in this thread. After all it's the verse Dr. Bart Ehrman pretty much hangs his hat on as proof for Jesus's historicity.

Galatians 1:16-17

"16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus."

Paul makes it a point his revelations are straight from God through scripture, and visions. The previous verse 1:15 are references from Isaiah 49:1, and Jeremiah 1:5.

Paul did not immediately confer with the apostles.

Galatians 1:18-20

"18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. 20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!" "

Paul's Gospel is that Jesus is the "firstborn" among many brethren. Brethren in a spiritual family through faith in Jesus. He makes no biological distinction here, and is always referring the faithful as God's relatives.

In Mark the few times Jesus's family is mentioned there's an underlined theme.

Take note that Cephas, and Peter are the same name.

As a sidenote Paul does not mention any disciples which are direct students under a teacher. Of course you have apologists saying that an apostle is the same thing.

Galatians 2:1-2

"2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain."

After 14 years of being out of Jerusalem (Gal 1:21) Paul comes back, and has a private meeting with "acknowledged leaders (those who were of repute)".

Galatians 2:3-5

"3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you."

Paul encounters an infiltration of spys.

Galatians 2:6-8

"6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles)," "

Are these "supposed to be acknowledged leaders (those reputed to be something)" the same leaders Paul met privately? Paul's unsure of them, and makes it a point that his Gospel is still pure. Also Paul says God is working through Peter.

Galatians 2:9-10

"9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do."

Now we have James, Cephas, and John "who were acknowledged pillars (reputed to be pillars)" recognize God's will is in Paul.

Galatians 2:11

"11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” "

Is this Cephas one of the "acknowledged/reputed pillars" that's not behaving properly in a spiritual family?

Is this James a pillar as well that sends "certain people" that influences a dissension from the truth of the Gospel?

Now "James the Lord’s brother" is not considered to be an interpolation. But it does look like a distinction in that Paul looks to be talking about a range of different people? Those that are in a spiritual family, and those that are not.

January 23, 2017

davros

Quote

Thinking one has unique, and profound knowledge (wether factual, or not) can be very intoxicating.

There's a thread right now over on the sheltered workshop religion board about Kurt Godel. The theorem that bears his name (not the theorem that that thread discusses) revealed a foundational mistake that mathematicians and logicians had been making for thousands of years. Although some had glimpsed the truth, literally all of them - Euclid, Fermat, Pascal, ..., our own glorious Bertrand Russell, ... - everybody missed it until Godel alone saw what had been "right there" in the well-known literature for millennia.

In the end, Godel went insane and killed himself. Nobody can say for sure "Godel went insane because he couldn't integrate the implications of what he learned into his psychological make-up." But apparently he couldn't (some of his end-of-life ravings were adverse comments about the theorem named for him).

The parallels between Godel and Paul of Tarsus may be food for thought. Intoxication can be overwhelming, not just energizing.

Quote

A Jesus revealed from scripture would be far more interesting to someone of Paul's education than a messiah wannabe that gets killed in reality.

But anybody at all whom God personally raised from the dead might hold some interest. Also, we don't have any evidence that Paul thought that Jesus wanted to be the Messiah, or did anything with the intent of getting the job. Finally, Paul doesn't show much interest in Jesus as a person, only the role that God gave Jesus, the Christ.

Quote

The later gospels make it a point that Jesus resurrected in the flesh.

Yes, that was in play from Paul's time right through to today. The whole idea of "formerly dead, now living again physical body" is poorly formed, and not necessarily attractive. John's risen Jesus is concerned that Mary's embrace will damage his new meatsuit (wtf is the point of having a body if you can't hug your lover? That's like one of those poetic punishments in hell), and supposedly the "new" body still bears the scars of its last torment (Beetlejuice?). If that includes the flogging, imagine what his back, fanny and legs look like.

Quote

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Yes, even today there are variations in the NT canon, even within the apostolic succession. Even among the "world" churches, the Eastern Orthodox recognize Revelation as canonical, BUT they do not allow it to be read in their liturgy - something usually included as part of the definition of "canonical."

So far as I know, however, the "common belief" pretty much might come down to Dan Brown and people who think his Da Vinci Code is a documentary.

Quote

there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century

Mmm, that's because that's how we define our term orthodox. The actual controversy at the "defining moment," the Arian heresy, was hair-splitting within what was clearly an already formed consensus (and had nothng to do with the canon, of course).

Most of the surviving disagreement about the NT canon concerns the non-Pauline epistles (Revelation is an epistle). The letters of Paul, "real" and fakes, were on Marcion's list (Second Century) and the Four Gospels seem to have been dominant by the Third Century. Acts is a category in itself (and may have gotten in simply because it is a "volume II" of Luke, which was supposedly "in" from Maricon's time).

A good deal of what we today call "gospels" that missed the canon are of different genres from the capital-G Gospels and not epistles, either. The Jewish canon has a provision for simply "literature," but the Christians seem mostly to have decided against that approach.

Quote

AA

We could do a whole thread on the religious and secular psychological (Jung, secular but culturally Christian) roots of AA. The organization acknowledges both.

Why not a radiator? There's an order of Catholic nuns who schedule worship in shifts so that they can collectively adore a piece of bread kept in a glass case 24-7-365.

Quote

The thing is there's the "Taboo Faction" saying that by Anthony not disclosing what he's doing it's unethical.

Umm, I brought up the ethical issue in the OP of that thread, and I don't observe any "Taboo" about speaking plainly about religious beliefs.

Quote

Why I would love to give a more definitive breakdown of "James the Lord’s brother" in this thread.

OK, but I don't think Paul's mention is the basis of secular acceptance of a historical James who was kin to a historical Jesus. That's based, in my estimation, on Josephus' Antiquities XX, and that's a long story (for two or three words of text).

May I propose:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/josephus-and-jesus-iv-how-origen-gave-james-a-new-brother/

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/josephus-and-jesus-v-seriously-origen-howd-you-manage-to-do-that/

------------------------

ETA: Although I called Acts a category unto itself, as you know, I think the capital-G Gospels are as fairly described as "tales of the first churchmen" as "life stories of Jesus." With the "tales of the chruchmen" definition, Acts would fit right in, a fifth capital-G Gospel.

Edited January 23, 2017 by eight bits

January 29, 2017

eight

"But anybody at all whom God personally raised from the dead might hold some interest. Also, we don't have any evidence that Paul thought that Jesus wanted to be the Messiah, or did anything with the intent of getting the job. Finally, Paul doesn't show much interest in Jesus as a person, only the role that God gave Jesus, the Christ."

All this below is from scripture, and visions, not from man. Paul makes this point several times which is very odd if Jesus had an Earthly ministry. As a celestial revelatory being, it fits the evidence which is that the Gospels are not history (as demonstrated), and Jesus started out as superstitious people's imagination (hence Paul's patternicity, and being prone to seeing things). The same imagination for over 10,000's of other deities mankind created, or transformed from other beliefs over the millennias.

1 Corinthians 8:6

"6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

Philippians 2:5-11

"5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God

as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself

and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name

that is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus

every knee should bend,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

2 Corinthians 4:4

"4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Romans 8:29

"29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family."

"Yes, that was in play from Paul's time right through to today."

Good thing I have more evidence to draw upon instead of fully repeating myself again. Hand waving without refutation, and reiteration must be Agnostic Apologetics 101?

But as a reminder Paul's Gospel is the crucifixion of sinful flesh, and the resurrection of spiritual flesh. As I already pointed out again Paul's Jesus put on the likeness of sinful flesh, was killed for being in this costume, and raised by God in glory. Glory which is what Satan disguises himself as (2 Cor 11:14). A believer in Paul's Gospel crucifies sinful flesh through baptism, and faith. Then walks in the Spirit (being moral) till the day the believers bodies gets changed.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44

"42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body."

1 Corinthians 15:50-57

"50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

55 “Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Philippians 3:19-21

"19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory,by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself."

2 Corinthians 3:7-18, 4:1-6

"7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets,came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10 Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; 11 for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit."

"4 Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 4:16-18, 5:1-5

"16 So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. 17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, 18 because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal."

"5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling— 3 if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee."

Mark is a canonization of Paul's Gospel which is select verses from the OT, and revelations from hallucinations. The other Gospels as demonstrated loose Mark's symbolic intent.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

"12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body."

Mark 7:14-23

"14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” "

January 29, 2017

eight

"I brought up the ethical issue in the OP of that thread, and I don't observe any "Taboo" about speaking plainly about religious beliefs."

There's a difference between "speaking plainly about religious beliefs", and speaking matter of factly, or showing evidence that the beliefs are probabilistic at being false.

There's also a difference between disagreeing with one's conclusions, and poisoning the well because of the perceived implications of said conclusions.

"but I don't think Paul's mention is the basis of secular acceptance of a historical James who was kin to a historical Jesus."

Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

"That's based, in my estimation, on Josephus' Antiquities XX, and that's a long story (for two or three words of text)."

It's very simple. But those of keepers of the faith fight tooth, and nail for Josephus mentioning Jesus Christ. Without it there's the embarrassment of no non-Christian reference to Jesus in the 1st century.

Now let's look at the blatantly obvious.

Now Josephus makes it clear that the High Priesthood out of tradition (time of Moses) had successions through blood heirs. It went from father to son, and brother to brother depending on the circumstances.

Antiquities 20.9.1

"But the king deprived Joseph of the high-priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes, that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of an high-priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests."

Antiquities 20.10.1

"Whence it is a custom of our country, that no one should take the high-priesthood of God, but he who is of the blood of Aaron, while every one that is of another stock, though he were a king, can never obtain that high-priesthood."

"And when he had been slain by the treacherous contrivance of Trypho, as we have related somewhere, Simon his brother took the high-priesthood; and when he was destroyed at a feast by the treachery of his son-in-law, his own son, whose name was Hyrcanus, succeeded him, after he had held the high-priesthood one year longer than his brother. This Hyrcanus enjoyed that dignity thirty years, and died an old man, leaving the succession to Judas, who was also called Aristobulus, whose brother Alexander was his heir;"

Now "who was called Christ" is an idiom found in Matthew. Most glaringly Josephus does not explain, or even reference what "Christ" is, or why Jesus is called this to his pagan readers.

Antiquities 20.9.1

"when therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"

At the end of the passage Ananus is punished.

"king Agrippa took the high-priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high-priest."

James is brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, not Jesus, who was called Christ. Thus keeping with High Priesthood tradition. This blunder was the result of either a marginal note (wishful thinking) that got put in the text by an unaware later copyist (thinking the notation was a previous scribes error correction), or a deliberate interpolation by a zealous Christian?

If one is still apologetic that this is a reference to Jesus Christ? Then they have to explain why the "most equitable of the citizens" would care enough to inform the King, and travel to the incoming Procurator over the death of the brother of a condemned criminal.

"but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened, that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done;"

Also the Apologist must explain why the "most equitable of the citizens", King Agrippa, and Procurator Albinus are acting like Christian sympathizers. In other words the argument must be made it was not a reaction to the breach of laws unfairly used against a High Priest, and that Christian interpolation/forgery is rare rather than the presupposition "Of course it's talking about Jesus Christ, and his brother James".

The High Priesthood looked to have acted like street gangs.

Antiquities 20.9.4

"And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high-priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high-priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came from reproaches to throwing of stones at each other."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html

As for the "Testimonium Flavianum" that's even simpler to dispel. First off Josephus claimed Vespasian to be Messiah because he was declared Emperor on Jewish soil. No Christian apologist cites the Testimonium till Eusebius of Caesarea (4th CE). Finally just read the passage before it, then read the first sentence after it. Even if it's a partial forgery it interrupts the textual flow. The passage after the Testimonium goes into much more detail over a sex scandal. The TF is a blatant forgery in entirety.

Antiquities 18.3.3

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

The only evidence for Jesus in the 1st century are the Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles. The 2nd century pagan references are only evidence of Christians, and what they believed. The Pliny/Trajan exchange is most interesting, and the Talmud reference is a joke.

January 29, 2017

davros

As to your first post today, I am unsure how showing a quesion was in play in Paul's time is rebuttal to my

Quote

Yes, that was in play from Paul's time right through to today.

As to your second post today, my main point on the ethical issue was that I brought up ethics, so you can't seriously expect me to think there's anything wrong with people just because they too bring it up.

In the end, is the intervention such a good thing that it should be imposed under anything short of informed consent? I suspect you and I disagree about that.

On James the Just

I get it that Paul wrote it, and that many in the God Squad (including Squad alumni like Ehrman) believe that when Paul wrote "brother," he meant a face-to-face life-long familiar relationship. There's not much secular traction in that belief, however.

Josephus' Antiquities XX is a much bigger problem. The passage is ample secular evidence that there really was an illegal trial during the summer of 62 CE. Although Josephus might have been absent from Jerusalem at the time on a mission to Rome, so he didn't see the trial himself (maybe), there is no question that Josephus knew and worked with the people who ran the trial, and maybe he knew something about the defendants, too, from his lived experience.

So, if Joe really did write that one of the defendants was the brother of Jesus called Christ, then we've got ourselves a historical Jesus, with comfortable confidence. That's a lot more serious than having or avoiding embarrassment about the First Century silence. Also, there's no half-way here, unlike the Testimony. Everything hangs on two words of text.

Both sides, then, will fight tooth and nail. I think James' brother was a different Jesus, probably one of the two other Jesuses mentioned in the storyline within which this unlucky James is a bit player. Origen misremembered what he read, then Eusebius and later Jerome went along. IMO.

Quote

If one is still apologetic that this is a reference to Jesus Christ? Then they have to explain why the "most equitable of the citizens" would care enough to inform the King, and travel to the incoming Procurator over the death of the brother of a condemned criminal.

The issue was the legality of the trial, not who was charged. And we don't know whether James died as a result of the trial or not; the successful procedural interventions may have stayed the execution. Joe doesn't bother to tell us that.

Edited January 29, 2017 by eight bits

February 1, 2017

"I am unsure how showing a question was in play in Paul's time is rebuttal to my"

"Yes, that was in play from Paul's time right through to today.

My reply showed the evidence that contradicts your statement, so I do not know what you're gettin on about.

The post Mark Gospels make it a point that Jesus was in the physical flesh, then was killed, and resurrected in the physical flesh. This is the doctrine we have today. When taking a closer look at Mark, and the strangeness in the non-pseudographical Epistles of Paul, there's compelling evidence that a different Theology is at it's origin.

Here's a review of Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" by Dr. Carrier from early 2000. This Book ( which people in number, some he knew, and respected asked him to read) is what brought Carrier to start questioning the scholarly consensus on Jesus's historicity.

Here's the intro (bold emphasis mine):

Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion

"Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views."

"The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion."

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

"my main point on the ethical issue was that I brought up ethics, so you can't seriously expect me to think there's anything wrong with people just because they too bring it up."

I'm talking about you. Not people who get upset over a women folding her arms, and rocking over some sound questions. They should watch some beheading videos to gain some perspective, and hopefully raise their melting point a couple degrees.

I have a right to question the motives of someone challenging my arguments. If you are under a form of "Agnostic-O-Mania", or a pitty for those with scant evidence for their beliefs? I will point this out as a bias.

I'm going by the evidence, and it's probability of where it leads.

"In the end, is the intervention such a good thing that it should be imposed under anything short of informed consent? I suspect you and I disagree about that."

Since the goal is getting someone to think. Other than the consent for filming, and questioning, the goal is diminished on full disclosure.

Your thread is called "Street Evangelism". Anthony is asking questions in Socratic methodology, not preaching. I suspect this is splitting hairs to you?

"On James the Just"

It's a moniker by Hegesippus with no precedence (correct me if I'm wrong) from the late 2nd century through his martyrdom tale. It contains many absurdities, and that's not talking about knees like a Camel.

Do I really have to point out the implausible accounts of his story? Like the opposition giving him voice to the Passover crowd, and a total disregard for Jewish burial laws.

"He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html

"I get it that Paul wrote it, and that many in the God Squad (including Squad alumni like Ehrman) believe that when Paul wrote "brother," he meant a face-to-face life-long familiar relationship. There's not much secular traction in that belief, however."

You sure do like me to repeat things.

Dr. Ehrman believes Paul was talking about Jesus's biological brother. Paul makes no distinction of this, especially since he's constantly talking about a cultish familial relationship through faith. The reference is very important for historicity.

"Josephus' Antiquities XX is a much bigger problem. The passage is ample secular evidence that there really was an illegal trial during the summer of 62 CE. Although Josephus might have been absent from Jerusalem at the time on a mission to Rome, so he didn't see the trial himself (maybe), there is no question that Josephus knew and worked with the people who ran the trial, and maybe he knew something about the defendants, too, from his lived experience."

So what. There's no digression to explain what "who was called Christ" means, and the would be supporting TF not only interrupts the flow of texts, it looks to be a micro Gospel ripped from Luke's "Road to Emmaus".

Testiomonium Flavianum

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Luke 24:18-27

"18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."

As a sidenote Matthew 27:17 coincidentally ties the two Jesus mentioning passages in Josephus together (I'm saying as a curiosity, and not that the interpolations are of the same hand).

"So, if Joe really did write that one of the defendants was the brother of Jesus called Christ, then we've got ourselves a historical Jesus, with comfortable confidence. That's a lot more serious than having or avoiding embarrassment about the First Century silence. Also, there's no half-way here, unlike the Testimony. Everything hangs on two words of text."

There's no embarrassment for me, or most Atheists if there was solidifying evidence for an historical Jesus. To say so for those of no faith is ridiculous, and besides the matter would be delegated to wether Jesus was God, or not.

Another ridiculous thing is the phrase "Everything hangs on two words of text" when the context is the High Priesthood, and the abuse of authority.

"Both sides, then, will fight tooth and nail. I think James' brother was a different Jesus, probably one of the two other Jesuses mentioned in the storyline within which this unlucky James is a bit player. Origen misremembered what he read, then Eusebius and later Jerome went along. IMO."

The evidence speaks for it's self. Only those that deny it fight it.

Yes Origen mixed up Hegesippus with Josephus.

"The issue was the legality of the trial, not who was charged. And we don't know whether James died as a result of the trial or not; the successful procedural interventions may have stayed the execution. Joe doesn't bother to tell us that."

Looks like James was swiftly tried, and stoned to me.

So the Jewish elite went to King Agrippa, and Procurator Albinus over the unjust trial, and execution of a High Priest. Ananus was kicked out so Jesus son of Damneus was installed as both reparation, and being blood heir to James.

Or... The Jewish elite went to the King saying "They killed the brother of the King of the Jews". Then went to the Procurator saying "They killed the brother of that crucified guy who's body went missing, and was seen walking around"...Er..Hold on.

February 2, 2017

davros

Quote

My reply showed the evidence that contradicts your statement, so I do not know what you're gettin on about.

Well, then what we have he-ya is fail-ya to communicate. My position is that Paul had some ideas on the issue (not necessarily coherent ones), and that other folks have had their own ideas ever since. Your evidence shows that.

Quote

The post Mark Gospels make it a point that Jesus was in the physical flesh, then was killed, and resurrected in the physical flesh.

Basilides of Alexandria didn't think so. Your command of Koine Greek is better than his?

Quote

When taking a closer look at Mark, and the strangeness in the non-pseudographical Epistles of Paul, there's compelling evidence that a different Theology is at it's origin.

Um, and so: Paul had his ideas about the issue and at least one other person ("Mark") had some different ideas from Paul's. This contradiction of yours is very elusive.

Quote

But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant.

Really, but unfortunately the first is logically valid, while the second isn't.

Let's talk about Hitler and not run afoul of Godwin, just history: Hitler joined the Nazi party; he didn't "found" the Nazis. Nevertheless within a few years, Hitler was the focus of the party, its face and its voice. The political movement so admired today by skinheads is a cult of Hitler, not "originally," but as it has been received since then.

National Socialism started as a political movement without a charismatic leader, therefore Hitler didn't exist.

The logic needs some work, eh?

Quote

Since the goal is getting someone to think.

The articulated goal is "creating atheists." Your "getting someone to think" is offered as a means to achieve that goal. If you disagree, take it up with Boghossian, not me.

Quote

Do I really have to point out the implausible accounts of his story?

No, unless you want to. I didn't mention Hegesippus. You brought him up. I discussed Paul and Josephus. Neither of them wrote a death scene for their James with-a-notable-brother.

With Paul, the issue is "in what sense was some James 'the Lord's brother'?" With Josephus, the issue is whether he identified some James by reference to Jesus-called-Christ, regardless of what he thought the actual relationship was.

Hegesippus has nothing to contribute to either problem. He is fun to talk about though, so knock yourself out.

Quote

You sure do like me to repeat things.

Say what? We agree what Ehrman's position is about Paul's "brother" language, and we agree about how Paul uses that term repeatedly. If you're laboring this, that's on you.

Quote

The reference is very important for historicity.

Among non-seculars, and some seculars who first formed their opinion about Paul's "testimony" when they believed in Jesus on faith. Ehrman has acknowledged that his secular phase was well along before he ever investigated problems with the HJ conjecture, and after he did, "secular" Ehrman expressed certainty that HJ really existed.

In contrast, my claim was about secular beliefs, not faith-based assumptions and habits of thinking that some famous former Squadronaire hasn't yet managed to leave behind.

Quote

So what. There's no digression to explain what "who was called Christ" means, and the would be supporting TF not only interrupts the flow of texts, it looks to be a micro Gospel ripped from Luke's "Road to Emmaus".

I think the "interrupt the flow" TF thing is dead. The Seduction of Paulina is what interrupts the flow of the Pilate stories, and it has provably been displaced about 600 words from where it would belong if it were original to the work (which it might not be, based on genre and content grounds).

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/josephus-and-jesus-i-the-shifty-seduction-of-paulina/

As to A XX, no. The same thing that makes us so doubtful about whether the mention is authentic adequately explains its form if it is authentic. There are two other Jesuses in the storyline. "Jesus called Christ" crisply distinguishes this one from the other two.

Josephus would have no obligation to explain what a called-Christ is, anymore than if he'd written "ben Joseph," he would need to include a biography of Joseph. The point would be "this is a third Jesus," either way. Either James and Jesus have a father who isn't Damneus or Gamaliel, or this Jesus had some ethnic epithet which is apparently meaningful to the Jews, who are the subject of this book written by one of their own."

Note that Josephus' alleged "need" to explain colorful ethnic lingo is pimped by both sides in this dispute. There are few surer signs that a "gotta be" is BS than that.

Quote

There's no embarrassment for me, or most Atheists

Excuse me, what on Earth does atheism have to do with whether or not some Jewish preacher lived, or whether any First Century non-devotees bothered to write about him?

I thought the party line, which you espouse, is that atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in any gods. Jewish preachers aren't gods. Focus.

Quote

Another ridiculous thing is the phrase "Everything hangs on two words of text" when the context is the High Priesthood, and the abuse of authority.

If it were settled that Josephus didn't write "called Christ," then there would be no historicist or mythicist interest in the passage.

The relevance of the "rest of the passage" is that there are two other Jesuses in it. The mention of James' name is unrelated to the content of the rest of the passage, under both hypotheses on offer. That there was more than one defendant is also mentioned and is equally unrelated to the content of the passage.

Everything on-topic in this thread hangs on those two words of text. Lose them, and the HJ-MJ discussion of the passage is over. Authenticate them and there is ordinary and what would usually be sufficient secular evidence for confidence in some historical Jesus.

Those are the stakes of the problem. Not its resolution, but what is at stake.

Quote

Looks like James was swiftly tried, and stoned to me.

Good for you. Evidence is what Josephus wrote, not how things look to you.

In particular, there is nothing in Josephus that any defendant was a "high priest." The elite priesthood was a family affair, but we cannot assume that all males in the family would be priests ... for example, any blemish would disqualify someone, and there are many other opportunities for the well-connected to make a living.

You, not Josephus, have made James a high priest, and you, not Josephus, have stoned him.

The legal and political defect in the trial was that it usurped Albinus' prerogative, a problem stated by Josephus in black letters. That is sufficient to explain why Albinus would take an interest. Albinus plausibly taking an interest is sufficient to explain why Albinus' client king might take an interest, too. Ka-ka rolls downhill, as the proverb says.

Edited February 2, 2017 by eight bits

February 16, 2017

eight

"Well, then what we have he-ya is fail-ya to communicate. My position is that Paul had some ideas on the issue (not necessarily coherent ones), and that other folks have had their own ideas ever since. Your evidence shows that."

Ok, I just thought a play on words was at hand. As for Paul. He's coherent once you look past present tradition, or rather the filtering it went through.

Paul does not know of a Jesus:

That the women grabbed hold of his feet (Matthew 28:9).

That made it a point he was flesh, and did a Superman up in the clouds in front of the disciples (Luke 24:39, :51).

That three times Jesus was revealed to the disciples that he was raised in the flesh (John 21:14).

Paul's Jesus:

Philippians 1:21-24

"21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. 23 I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; 24 but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you."

Paul does not know of a second coming, but a first coming of Jesus, and those who believe will be transformed into his likeness (hint: not flesh).

Philippians 3:19-21

"19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself."

Paul's Jesus (as previously mentioned) descended from on high, put on a disguise of flesh to fool those in which that not only being flesh is a crime, but to trespass in a region as such requires immediate execution (Philippians 2:5-11).

So where is this region where one dares trespass they immediately get impaled to wood?

2 Corinthians 11:14

"14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."

Could this region be the lower Heavens that the noble Quran states that nosey Jinn are chased by flaming projectiles to advert espionage on Allah's (swt) celestial council?

Allah's Missile Defense System (Shooting Stars repel Demons).

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/263536-allahs-missile-defense-system/?do=findComment&comment=5102494

Muhammad and his group just took older myths/religious texts, and twisted it to their own devices. Ancient commoners often mistook natural celestial events as supernatural happenings. It's not farfetched to surmise that Shooting Stars were seen as the coming, and going of celestial messengers (powers of air).

"Basilides of Alexandria didn't think so. Your command of Koine Greek is better than his?"

Red Herring much?

Knowing Koine Greek means nothing if one thinks that the Gospels convey history even if with a gnostic lens.

For example Coptic Christians from Egypt believed that Jesus was just a man until God's Spirit was infused in him at the Baptism in Mark. They did not know that scene was just a mixture of symbolic exegesis of haggadic midrash from the OT, and religious syncretism;

2. Jesus’ Baptism (1:9-11)

"The scene in broad outline may derive from Zoroastrian traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry. Son of a Vedic priest, Zoroaster immerses himself in the river for purification, and as he comes up from the water, the archangel Vohu Mana appears to him, proffering a cup and commissions him to bear the tidings of the one God Ahura Mazda, whereupon the evil one Ahriman tempts him to abandon this call. In any case, the scene has received vivid midrashic coloring. The heavenly voice (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice.

In view of parallels elsewhere between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, some (Miller, p. 48) also see in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior."

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

"so: Paul had his ideas about the issue and at least one other person ("Mark") had some different ideas from Paul's. This contradiction of yours is very elusive."

Mark is Pauline though symbolic with literary allusions to the Septuagint, and Hellenistic influences.

Also there's reversals that Mark uses. For example demons recognize Jesus, but the Priesthood does not. In the epistles Priestly Paul has a revelation of Jesus, and Jesus puts on a man suit to trick demons.

The other Gospels are the false brethren that leed many astray.

In Mark the women say nothing to no one despite the Angel's instruction to tell the men, and what Jesus has foretold. This goes with Paul's revelation source in that he got it from no man, but scripture, and direct contact with Christ Jesus.

What would be parallel-o-mania diminishes when there's so many instances where Mark creates parts of narratives from Paul's epistles. Here's some examples: (2 Cor 8:9=Mark 10:17-22, 1 Cor 13:2=Mark 11:23, 1 Cor 3:10-11=Mark 12:10-11, Rom 13:7=Mark 12:17, Rom 6:12-14=Mark 9:42-47, 2 Cor 9:6-15=Mark 12:41-44, 2 Cor 11:13-15=Mark 13:21-23, Gal 5:13-15=Mark 12:28-34, 1 Thes 5:4-11=Mark 13:32-37, Phil 3:21=Mark 12:25, 1 Thes 4:16=Mark 14:62, Gal 2:11=Mark 8:33, Gal 4:6=Mark 14:36, 1 Cor 5:6-8=Mark 8:15).

Mark is the first fruits of what Paul has sown. The other Gospels are the choking weeds, stony traveled paths, and seed eating birds that take away from what Jesus really is.

"Really, but unfortunately the first is logically valid, while the second isn't.

Let's talk about Hitler and not run afoul of Godwin, just history: Hitler joined the Nazi party; he didn't "found" the Nazis. Nevertheless within a few years, Hitler was the focus of the party, its face and its voice. The political movement so admired today by skinheads is a cult of Hitler, not "originally," but as it has been received since then.

National Socialism started as a political movement without a charismatic leader, therefore Hitler didn't exist.

The logic needs some work, eh?"

LOL! False equivalency much?

Did the Nazis have an ancient, and sacred mystical Book where they interpreted certain passages as talking about Hitler?

Did the Nazis come to power over a belief in Hitler when no actual Hitler was needed? Not like when Caesar needed to cross the Rubicon to enact the Roman Civil War, not just a belief in it.

Did the Nazis have hallucinations of Hitler, and receive spiritual gifts, such as powers to interpret outerspace Hitler's will?

Did the Nazis believe in a coming of Hitler, but not a second coming?

Did the Nazis believe Hitler was a pre-existant being that was an instrument for the creation of the universe?

Did the Nazis go on to write backdated, authors unknown, wildly fictional, and allegorical biographies of Hitler that copy verbatim sections of the first, and contradict other points?

Did the Nazis have a very influential member that was a breakaway from a priesthood that had a psychoactive flower symbolised on their sacred garments?

Antiquities 3.7.6

"The high priest's mitre was the same that we described before,
and was wrought like that of all the other priests; above which
there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it
was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another;
out of which arose a cup of gold, which resembled the herb which
we call Saccharus; but those Greeks that are skillful in botany
call it Hyoscyamus.....it sends out
a flower that may seem to resemble that of poppy. Of this was a
crown made, as far from the hinder part of the head to each of
the temples; but this Ephielis, for so this calyx may be called,
did not cover the forehead, but it was covered with a golden
plate, which had inscribed upon it the name of God in sacred
characters. And such were the ornaments of the high priest."

"These psychoactive properties include visual hallucinations and a sensation of flight...The plant, recorded as Herba Apollinaris, was used to yield oracles by the priestesses of Apollo"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscyamus_niger

Either you need a work in logic, or you can't let this little doosey get out?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL0-RH2LfU

Thus are those in the shadows that would alter this thread.

"The articulated goal is "creating atheists." Your "getting someone to think" is offered as a means to achieve that goal. If you disagree, take it up with Boghossian, not me."

Really? Why that's horrible! Less, and less people will accept the good news about Inanna, Attis, and Mithras if they keep that up.

You need not worry, and continue in folly with resistance. There will be for a time plenty of people chasing you know what in result letting the ancient part of the brain dominate the modern part. Be rest assured on that.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dD6ckwewquU

Just look at how Heroine addicts are aware that their next fix could be a "hot load" resulting in death. They ignore that just like lovers of the Holy Neurotransmitter Spirit will ignore this thread.

"I discussed Paul and Josephus. Neither of them wrote a death scene for their James with-a-notable-brother."

Josephus's point is why Ananus was kicked out after just 3 months, and that Jesus took his place. There's no James was saved from stoning in Josephus.

"With Paul, the issue is "in what sense was some James 'the Lord's brother'?" With Josephus, the issue is whether he identified some James by reference to Jesus-called-Christ, regardless of what he thought the actual relationship was."

As I pointed out Paul is distinguishing between different people. One in a spiritual family, and the other of bigoted influence.

Wether Jo's Jesus was ben Yahweh, ben Yosef, or ben Damneus is curious since the traditional "son of" moniker is missing. All High Priests are christened/anointed with oil. But in context with "Antiquities", Jo talks about patriarchal kings as being anointed. The pagan readership could infer kingship as written.

"Hegesippus has nothing to contribute to either problem. He's fun to talk about though, so knock yourself out."

Origen mixed up what Hegesippus, and Josephus wrote. Hegesippus from what I can tell is the originator of the moniker "James the Just".

It's a fact that both Heg, and Jo mention a James related to a stoning which Origen has faulty memory over? Also Heg's James's martyrdom follows the Jewish War;

"And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive."

While Jo's James has some more years, and High Priests to go through.

Origen's mix up may have hypothetically influenced a marginal note in Ant XX of "who was called Christ" that later got accidentally interpolated by the next copyist? Insert Home Alone face slap...

Also of note the Jews had their own autonomy of their own affairs ever since Julius Caesar, and by decree from Augustus Caesar. This is a point against the Gospel's Jesus trial in that the Jews had to get Pilate's approval. The Antiquities passage reeks of Christian sympathy all around including from the author as it's currently read which is improbable.

"I think the "interrupt the flow" TF thing is dead. The Seduction of Paulina is what interrupts the flow of the Pilate stories, and it has provably been displaced about 600 words from where it would belong if it were original to the work (which it might not be, based on genre and content grounds)."

Hmmm? There's odd things afoot indeed. Paulina, and Fulvia (of the next passage) both have an husband named Saturninus, and both women receive a religion themed deception. Also all the Jews being banished from Rome on the account of four men sounds improbable?

But, for the sake of argument let's put the TF on a textual Dolly Cart (as a sidenote the TF, and Paulina is not in the Book's table of contents, nor would it necessarily be listed). These aside why did so many of the early Christian apologists never cite the TF till Eusebius?

"Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already

"So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus

http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html?m=1

The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke

"Using this method with the Greek texts shown in the Synopsis, the following phrase-by-phrase outline of coincident points is produced:

[Jesus] [wise man/prophet-man] [mighty/surprising] [deed(s)] [teacher/word] [truth/(word) before God] [many people] [he was indicted] [by leaders] [of us] [sentenced to cross] [those who had loved/hoped m him] [spending the third day] [he appeared/spoke to them] [prophets] [these things] [and numerous other things] [about him]

Each of the nineteen brackets represents a location correspondence and contains the words or summarizes the meaning at each such point."

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/7/13/59.full.pdf+html

"As to A XX, no. The same thing that makes us so doubtful about whether the mention is authentic adequately explains its form if it is authentic. There are two other Jesuses in the storyline. "Jesus called Christ" crisply distinguishes this one from the other two.

Josephus would have no obligation to explain what a called-Christ is, anymore than if he'd written "ben Joseph," he would need to include a biography of Joseph. The point would be "this is a third Jesus," either way. Either James and Jesus have a father who isn't Damneus or Gamaliel, or this Jesus had some ethnic epithet which is apparently meaningful to the Jews, who are the subject of this book written by one of their own."

Note that Josephus' alleged "need" to explain colorful ethnic lingo is pimped by both sides in this dispute. There are few surer signs that a "gotta be" is BS than that."

Josephus would not have to explain anything if the original passage was; "brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, whose name was James". This makes much more sense in context of the High Priesthood which is the history Josephus is telling of the Jews.

"Excuse me, what on Earth does atheism have to do with whether or not some Jewish preacher lived, or whether any First Century non-devotees bothered to write about him?

I thought the party line, which you espouse, is that atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in any gods. Jewish preachers aren't gods. Focus."

You forget that I'm an anti-Theist Atheist, not an apathetic Atheist. If there was undeniable evidence for Jesus then this thread would be over. Since you are an anti-anti-Theist Agnostic I will just give more evidence showing Jesus less probable as being historical.

The best I can hope for is the apathetic Atheist to take some interest. To go from "Jesus was just some religious leader", to "The evidence for Jesus does not look good for historicity. He probably is a myth". Also to dump the fallacious arguments for myth from the likes of Acharya S aka DM Murdoch, and Joseph Atwill.

To me it's not good enough to say a man cannot walk on water, or link to a George Carlin video. Besides reason, and facts are not for those that shed them like water off a duck's back anyway. After all what harm does running on emotion, and instincts do? The animal kingdom is fine with it. At least until a monkey learns to refine sugar, or something...

"If it were settled that Josephus didn't write "called Christ," then there would be no historicist or mythicist interest in the passage.

The relevance of the "rest of the passage" is that there are two other Jesuses in it. The mention of James' name is unrelated to the content of the rest of the passage, under both hypotheses on offer. That there was more than one defendant is also mentioned and is equally unrelated to the content of the passage.

Everything on-topic in this thread hangs on those two words of text. Lose them, and the HJ-MJ discussion of the passage is over. Authenticate them and there is ordinary and what would usually be sufficient secular evidence for confidence in some historical Jesus.

Those are the stakes of the problem. Not its resolution, but what is at stake."

The theme is the High Priesthood, and the Jewish elite's reaction to an overstepping of authority of the system. Would the Jewish elite be concerned over unfairness to a member of the system, or over someone of an heretical sect (a potential blasphemor that will bring God's wrath if left unchecked), or both?

"Good for you. Evidence is what Josephus wrote, not how things look to you.

In particular, there is nothing in Josephus that any defendant was a "high priest." The elite priesthood was a family affair, but we cannot assume that all males in the family would be priests ... for example, any blemish would disqualify someone, and there are many other opportunities for the well-connected to make a living.

You, not Josephus, have made James a high priest, and you, not Josephus, have stoned him.

The legal and political defect in the trial was that it usurped Albinus' prerogative, a problem stated by Josephus in black letters. That is sufficient to explain why Albinus would take an interest. Albinus plausibly taking an interest is sufficient to explain why Albinus' client king might take an interest, too. Ka-ka rolls downhill, as the proverb says."

Biting, and scratching.

"brought before them James the brother of Jesus, son of Joseph, a seditious imposter who was called Christ"

Now that would make complete sense if Josephus was actually writing about an historical Jesus Christ, unless he was a Christian sympathizer.

"brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others"

The "some others" are not important probably because the two aforementioned men are both sons of Damneus. This would be the point for Jesus being installed as High Priest for reparations. Other than the TF, "Christ" is absent elsewhere.

"From my article (pp. 490-91, sans footnotes with extensive citation of scholarship):"

"As manuscripts were copied by hand, it often happened that text became accidentally skipped over or left out. When this error was noticed upon proofreading (when no erasure or “do over” was practical), the omitted text would be written in the margins or between the lines, sometimes with a mark indicating its place (in much the same way modern editors indicate corrective insertions even now). But scribes and scholars also often scribbled the equivalent of “footnotes” (and glosses and passage labels and other notes and commentary) in the margins or between the lines of manuscripts, sometimes again with a mark indicating its place (to which the note refers). As there was no standard notation for distinguishing marginal notes from accidentally omitted text, we have countless examples of such notes being accidentally interpolated into the text of other manuscripts. A later scribe simply mistook the marginal note as accidentally omitted text and, upon creating a copy, “rectified” the error by “reinserting” it, thus creating an altered sentence that appears to be what its author originally wrote, but is not."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4391

Also see the treatise on Jesus in Josephus in the already linked to "Jesus Myth-The Case Against Historical Christ".

February 16, 2017

davros

Paul "doesn't know of a Jesus" ?

Granted, that "author doesn't know of subject" is Gospel-geek speak for "author doesn't mention subject." Paul does mention this subject, however.

According to Paul, Jesus is Jewish, he has a mother, his body was gibbeted within the jurisdiction of Torah legislation, which is exclusively planet Earth. His corpse was buried, which requires earth. He played with bread and a cup, both human artifacts so far found only on Earth.

There is a certain irony about those who argue Russell's teapot on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and then argue "Everything Paul says that suggests an earthly mission actually existed in outer space" the rest of the time. There is no bread or cup out there. There are no graves or tombs out there. There are no wooden apparatus for the display of corpses. There are no Jews in space, except in Mel Brooks movies.

Red herring claims don't cut it. You repeatedly make big points about the language Paul uses, down to individual word choices, but you have no concept of Koine Greek. There is no point discussing English translations. Some suck; that's uninformative about Paul's beliefs.

How is Paul "priestly?"

Quote

In Mark the women say nothing to no one despite the Angel's instruction to tell the men, and what Jesus has foretold. This goes with Paul's revelation source in that he got it from no man, but scripture, and direct contact with Christ Jesus.

Through 16:8. Nobody knows what, if anything, Mark wrote beyond that.

By the way, "revelation source" is English, and spun English at that. Paul never says that he received no information about Jesus from men. What he says he didn't get from men was his own distinctive message, which, logically and grammatically, is the recitation at the the tail end of Galatians 2. Paul's distinctive message is what happened when and after Jesus died and what that means for Paul's customers.

Quote

LOL! False equivalency much?

Logic is syntactical reasoning. The schema you quoted is invalid. I gave a counterexample, that is, demonstative proof that the schema is invalid. End of story. There is no further relevance of the National Socialists to this discussion.

Quote

Heroine

heroin maybe? Or did you mean addiction to Jennifer Lawrence?

I could be persuaded.

Quote

There's no James was saved from stoning in Josephus.

Nor is there a stoning of James in Josephus. Whether or not James died is uninteresting to Josephus. Oh wait, let me translate that into Gospel-geek speak for you: Josephus doesn't know of a stoning of James.

He knows of a conviction, and he knows of a two-front intervention into the affair. I'll bet he also knows that there was a procedural provision for delays of up to 30 days in the execution of a death sentence, when those with relevant information might come forward. You know, information like whether the conviction was lawful. Albinus probably knew something about that.

Quote

Origen mixed up what Hegesippus, and Josephus wrote.

Eusebius maybe? Josephus wrote what Origen said, he just didn't write much of it about James. That was Origen's mistake. It was Eusebius who got all excited and dragged Hegesippus into it.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/josephus-and-jesus-v-seriously-origen-howd-you-manage-to-do-that/

Quote

Origen's mix up may have hypothetically influenced a marginal note in Ant XX of "who was called Christ" that later got accidentally interpolated by the next copyist? Insert Home Alone face slap...

Possibly. But the Greek phrase appears three times in Matthew, which Origen was working on at the time, and it is obvious that Origen does not have Josephus open on the desk before him.

Not to go all Occam's on your butt, but I think Origen simply misremembered what he had read.

Quote

Also all the Jews being banished from Rome on the account of four men sounds improbable?

"On account" is tricky. Jews, followers of Egyptian religion and maybe astrologers were kicked out at the same time. Tiberius may simply have lost patience with "unRoman" religions. Also, the Jews were conscripted for crap duty, so that may have had something to do with it - any pretext might have served.

Quote

These aside why did so many of the early Christian apologists never cite the TF till Eusebius?

Personally, I think because the authentic original "TF" was similar to Tacitus' mention of Christians 20-ish years later: an explanation of the church, not really much explanation of Jesus.

So, no real controversy that such a writing would bear upon.

As to your laundry list, just look at #1, Justin Martyr. He thinks there are PRIMARY sources about Jesus, specifically census records and Pilate's report of the crucifixion. What in hell is Josephus supposed to add to that?

Quote

Would the Jewish elite be concerned over unfairness to a member of the system, or over someone of an heretical sect (a potential blasphemor that will bring God's wrath if left unchecked), or both?

According to Josephus, the "Jewish elite" was divided. The high priest usurped a prerogative of the representative of Rome. Others in the Jewish elite thought that was impolitic. The king agreed with the latter and fired the high priest.

Josephus doesn't care enough about whether the defendants survived to tell us. Holding their trial was the offense. Josephus doesn't even say what anybody was accused of. It doesn't matter to why the high priest was fired.

It's not about James, whether he had it coming, whether he was popular or unpopular with the "elite," or any of these other things Josephus doesn't bother to tell us. The trial was illegal, and a provocation to Albinus.

That is what Josephus bothers to tell us.

Quote

Biting, and scratching

Why? I don't think Josephus wrote "called Christ." Our disagreement seems to be whether there needs to be some far-fetched backstory to justify that finding. No, there doesn't.

Also, I am unsure why the assumption is so prevalent that James and Jesus' father is Damneus, rather than Gamaliel. It all reads equally well either way.

February 16, 2017

I thought Paul knew James, Thomas and Peter ... and Mary too if I'm not wrong ...

~

February 17, 2017

3ye

Peter (presumably the same person as Cephas, "Rocky"), James ("Brother of the Lord," and probably the same James mentioned several verses later) and John were "reputed pillars" of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2). Paul doesn't identify them as having been disciples of Jesus, nor anybody else as having been, either.

I can't think of any mention of Thomas. Mary is referred to (Jesus had a mother, Galatians 4:4), but Paul doesn't give her name. I can't think of Paul mentioning any other Mary who'll appear in the later Gospels.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eight bits
font fault

February 17, 2017

Eusebius Bits

"Granted, that "author doesn't know of subject" is Gospel-geek speak for "author doesn't mention subject." "

When he does it's from pattern seeking verses of scripture because it's the secret kept hidden through the ages. Then he has schizophrenic episodes where Jesus shows him things.

"According to Paul, Jesus is Jewish,"

So is his celestial daddy. What's your point?

"he has a mother,"

Born of a women is allegory. He goes into how the free woman is the "Jerusalem above" (Gal 4:26-31), or just read Galatians 4 in entirety:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=NRSV

You know this. Stop playing games...

"his body was gibbeted within the jurisdiction of Torah legislation, which is exclusively planet Earth. His corpse was buried, which requires earth. He played with bread and a cup, both human artifacts so far found only on Earth." "

Inanna came down from on high, was deprived of talismans, stripped naked, killed by a spell, hung on a hook, after 3 days/nights was resurrected by sacred food, and this was in the lower Heavens. Paul went to the third Heaven, and saw "paradise" which translates to something like a park (grass, dirt, trees). In Carrier's Book he gives other sources in Jewish literature of the belief that there's copies of things here that's in the Heavens, or just read Hebrews.

"There is a certain irony about those who argue Russell's teapot on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and then argue "Everything Paul says that suggests an earthly mission actually existed in outer space" the rest of the time. There is no bread or cup out there. There are no graves or tombs out there. There are no wooden apparatus for the display of corpses. There are no Jews in space, except in Mel Brooks movies."

Speaking of irony...

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.E.—40 C.E.)

"The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century."
Philo's archangel Logos compared to Paul's Christ Jesus:

God's firstborn

Philo: "The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the "first-born."..."he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns (Conf. 63)."

Romans 8:29

"29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family."

Image of God

Philo: "Describing Moses' account of the creation of man, Philo states also that Moses calls the invisible Divine Logos the Image of God (Op. 24; 31; LA 1.9)."

2 Corinthians 4:4

"4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

God's agent of creation

Philo: "Though Philo's model of creation comes from Plato's Timaeus, the direct agent of creation is not God himself (described in Plato as Demiurge, Maker, Artificer), but the Logos. Philo believes that the Logos is "the man of God" (Conf. 41) or the shadow of God that was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation (LA 3.96)."

1 Corinthians 8:6

"6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

God's celestial High Priest

Philo: "When speaking of the high priest, Philo describes the Logos as God's son, a perfect being procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings: "For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world [the high priest] should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings" (Mos. 2.134)."

Hebrews 2:17, 4:14

"17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters[a] in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people."

"14 Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession."

Philo's Logos is an intermediary power between God, and man.

Philo: "And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Logos rejoices.... saying "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you" (Num. 16:48); neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties (Her. 205-206)."

1 Thessalonians 1:10, 4:16

"10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming."

"16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

1 Corinthians 15:22-28

"22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end,[a] when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all."

Philo's Logos is also has powers of the Holy Dopamine Ghost:

Philo: "Wisdom flows from the Divine Logos (Fug. 137-138)."

Philo: "through this Logos, which men share with God, men know God and are able to perceive Him (LA 1.37-38)."

1 Corinthians 2:10-13

"10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual."

Philo: "The Logos is the Cupbearer of God. ... being itself in an unmixed state, the pure delight and sweetness, and pouring forth and joy, and ambrosial medicine of pleasure and happiness (Somn. 2.249)."

Romans 5:1-5

"5 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we[c] boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we[d] also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us."

Philo: "God therefore sows and implants terrestrial virtue in the human race, being an imitation and representation of the heavenly virtue (LA 1.45)."

Galatians 5:25-26

"25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another."

Halucinatory power

Philo: "When, therefore, the soul is shone upon by God as if at noonday, and when it is wholly and entirely filled with that light which is appreciable only by the intellect, and by being wholly surrounded with its brilliancy is free from all shackle or darkness, it then perceives a threefold image of one subject, one image of the living God, and others of the other two, as if they were shadows irradiated by it ....(Abr. 119-123)."

2 Corinthians 3:7-8, :12-18, 4:6

"7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets,[a] came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory?"

"12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that[a] was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit."

"6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Note: When I had a Dopamine release via sleep deprivation, everything had an aura like white sheen around things. Also being that the mechanisms for reward learning was in overdrive, it effectively blanketed rational thought so nonsense made perfect sense, and heightened creativity (creating/strengthening pathways for motivational repetition).

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Red herring claims don't cut it."

Well I must admit, there's so many types of fallacies I get confused. So I often stick to the classics. Here's a list. Please pick the ones you are committing. The "Affirmation of the consequent" kind of sounds like you, but I'm not sure?

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

"You repeatedly make big points about the language Paul uses, down to individual word choices, but you have no concept of Koine Greek. There is no point discussing English translations. Some suck; that's uninformative about Paul's beliefs."

Let me guess...Straw Man. Right?

"How is Paul "priestly?" "

He was moving up in the ranks of Judaism, that's until Yahweh revealed his chief archangel anointed saviour to him.

Galatians 1:13-16

"Through 16:8. Nobody knows what, if anything, Mark wrote beyond that."

There's the speculation of longer Mark. But since Mark was not writing history, the original as we know it ending serves his symbolic purposes.

"By the way, "revelation source" is English, and spun English at that."

Non sequitur.

"Paul never says that he received no information about Jesus from men. What he says he didn't get from men was his own distinctive message, which, logically and grammatically, is the recitation at the the tail end of Galatians 2. Paul's distinctive message is what happened when and after Jesus died and what that means for Paul's customers."

LOL! Ministry on Earth? I do not need no stinking teachings when he was here for my arguments. Let me tell you about Jesus by citing OT verses, and what my imagination conjures up. This would be like (assuming Jesus was real) someone teaching about Abe Lincoln by using select sentences from the Declaration of Independence, and a Crystal Ball to consult his ghost. Also making fact that George Washington used Abe to create the United States. Then goes on repeatedly claiming that such means, and knowledge by no other is the mark of a true historian.

"Logic is syntactical reasoning. The schema you quoted is invalid. I gave a counterexample, that is, demonstative proof that the schema is invalid. End of story. There is no further relevance of the National Socialists to this discussion."

Your counterexample was entirely presuppositional making it invalid from the start.

"Nor is there a stoning of James in Josephus. Whether or not James died is uninteresting to Josephus. Oh wait, let me translate that into Gospel-geek speak for you: Josephus doesn't know of a stoning of James."

Why not go all bedlam agnostic by suggesting Ananus might have delivered James to the ancient Palestine equivalent of a Grateful Dead concert?

"He knows of a conviction, and he knows of a two-front intervention into the affair. I'll bet he also knows that there was a procedural provision for delays of up to 30 days in the execution of a death sentence, when those with relevant information might come forward. You know, information like whether the conviction was lawful. Albinus probably knew something about that."

WOW!

I know what people are capable of, but I would not think you would be this compartmentalized?

Ananus from the context is doing a cleanup, and hurriedly "when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road;". Now did the Jewish elite get to the King in time (Albinus was not there yet) for a stay of execution "he delivered them to be stoned"? It does not say "imprisoned to await stoning". The Jewish elites reaction is out of fullness of what Ananus did to completion "they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified".

"Eusebius maybe? Josephus wrote what Origen said, he just didn't write much of it about James. That was Origen's mistake. It was Eusebius who got all excited and dragged Hegesippus into it."

Here's a qoute from your "Uncertainist" link:

"There is no way for us to tell whether “And immediately Vespasian besieged them” is in Hegesippus’ or Eusebius’ voice. Even if it is in Hegesippus’ voice, and even if it is a causal claim, it is a much weaker and far less forceful causal claim than Origen imputes to Josephus or what Josephus actually wrote."

Eusebius "Ecclesiastical History":

Quoting Hegesippus

"...Immediately after this, Vespasian invaded and took Judea." Such is the more ample testimony of Hegesippus, in which he fully coincides with Clement (more like embellishes LOL!). So admirable a man indeed was James, and so celebrated among all for his justice, that even the wiser part of the Jews were of opinion that this was the cause of the immediate siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them for no other reason than the crime against him."

Quoting Josephus

"...appointed Jesus the son of Dammasus his successor. These accounts are given respecting James"

Origen "Against Celsus"

"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice."

So Origen (mid 3rd century) looks to be confusing what Hegesippus (late 2nd century) wrote for what Josephus (late 1st century) had written, but did not. Origen is getting "called the Just" from Hegesippus just as he's getting the idea of the fall of the Temple for the martyrdom of James. Hence getting wires crossed with "called Christ" from his review of Matthew.

Maybe the "Uncertainist" should be changed to "Confusionist"?

"Possibly. But the Greek phrase appears three times in Matthew, which Origen was working on at the time, and it is obvious that Origen does not have Josephus open on the desk before him.

Not to go all Occam's on your butt, but I think Origen simply misremembered what he had read."

Oh..Gee...You think so?

"This James passage was unknown to Origen (despite his explicit search of Josephus for Jesus material in his answer to Celsus). All claims to the contrary until now have been mistaken on that point."

"Because in fact, it’s objectively evident that Origen mistook a story about James in Hegesippus as being in Josephus (a kind of mistake I document Origen sometimes made)."

"All other accounts of the death of James the brother of Jesus do not match this one in Josephus; they therefore had no knowledge of this passage being about the Christian James (Eusebius is the first author to ever think so; and the first to ever quote it from Josephus)."

"We know Acts used Josephus as a source text for historical color, yet the author of Acts never noticed this passage as being about Jesus Christ (which is inexplicable, given that if it was, then it shows Jews being punished for persecuting Christians, exactly the kind of thing the author of Acts strove to include; instead, Acts never mentions this James even being martyred)."

"If Josephus had written this passage as about the persecution of Christians, he would have explained things, as is his style consistently in all his historical writing; only a Christian would just assume all those obscure things were already known to the reader (like what a “Christ” was; that James was a Christian; that Jews sought to kill Christians; and why, we must then suppose, the Jewish elite and Roman authorities opposed the killing of James if he was a Christian)."

"The words tou legomenou christou, “the [one] called Christ,” is for these and many other reasons most likely a marginal note (by Origen or Pamphilus, or another scribe or scholar in the same Library of Caesarea), expressing belief rather than fact (possibly trying to find the passage Origen claimed he’d seen here but mistakenly saw instead in Hegesippus)."

"That marginal note was then accidentally interpolated into the manuscript produced or used by Eusebius (which would have been a copy of the one used by Origen), a very common form of scribal error."

"Possibly by replacing ton tou damnaiou, “the son of Damneus,” in the same place. That same line is repeated at the end of the story. Repetition of that identical phrase a few lines after may have led a scribe to suspect the marginal note was correcting a dittograph (an accidental duplication caused by a previous scribe skipping some lines by mistake, starting at the “wrong” Jesus in the story). But more likely, that duplication is exactly what Josephus meant: Ananus is punished for killing the brother of Jesus ben Damneus by being deposed and replaced by Jesus ben Damneus."

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 - Richard Carrier

"Personally, I think because the authentic original "TF" was similar to Tacitus' mention of Christians 20-ish years later: an explanation of the church, not really much explanation of Jesus."

Yeah...He forgot to mention it when he was talking about the different Jewish philosophies he mentioned earlier.

"So, no real controversy that such a writing would bear upon."

Except to the Christian apologist who believes the Gospels, and this near contemporary Jew has a mere footnote.

As to your laundry list, just look at #1, Justin Martyr. He thinks there are PRIMARY sources about Jesus, specifically census records and Pilate's report of the crucifixion. What in hell is Josephus supposed to add to that?"

So never mind such records would have been destroyed. So Justin would have just passed over a nugget for his apologies, and especially his controversy with Trypho the Jew? Wether how small, hostile, or neutral a Jesus reference by a Jew would be, the confirmation seekers would be hard pressed to ignore it.

"According to Josephus, the "Jewish elite" was divided. The high priest usurped a prerogative of the representative of Rome. Others in the Jewish elite thought that was impolitic. The king agreed with the latter and fired the high priest."

Can you imagine this is how the original text was written?

"they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him"

The deleted (by me) part sure sounds somewhat like the Gospels portrayal of Pilate that does not reflect the Pilate of Philo, and Josephus.

Just saying...

"Josephus doesn't care enough about whether the defendants survived to tell us. Holding their trial was the offense. Josephus doesn't even say what anybody was accused of. It doesn't matter to why the high priest was fired."

I bet there were plenty of blood thirsty rock throwers in those days that would jump at the opportunity in an instant (Monty Python Life of Brian).

"It's not about James, whether he had it coming, whether he was popular or unpopular with the "elite," or any of these other things Josephus doesn't bother to tell us. The trial was illegal, and a provocation to Albinus."

Just look at the Salem witch trials. The elite didn't mind it until their rank started to get accused.

"That is what Josephus bothers to tell us."

Until an interpolation, or scribal error happened?
"Why? I don't think Josephus wrote "called Christ." Our disagreement seems to be whether there needs to be some far-fetched backstory to justify that finding. No, there doesn't."

Hissing...

"Also, I am unsure why the assumption is so prevalent that James and Jesus' father is Damneus, rather than Gamaliel. It all reads equally well either way."

You just love being unsure rather than looking at the probable

February 17, 2017

22 hours ago, third_eye said:

I thought Paul knew James, Thomas and Peter ... and Mary too if I'm not wrong ...

~

Paul knows of a Peter, and James, but not likely to be illiterate fishermen otherwise he would use this in his arguments against them when quoting scripture. I'm unsure of a Thomas. He mentions a Mary at the end of Romans, but she's a Church worker.

Just read Galatians 4 in entirety to see "born of a woman" is allegory. Paul only knows Yahweh's Chief Archangel Anointed Savior Logos.

Edited February 17, 2017 by davros of skaro

February 17, 2017

Dee, I think I'll do it from the bottom up this time.

what you wrote to 3ye

Quote

Paul knows of a Peter, and James, but not likely to be illiterate fishermen otherwise he would use this in his arguments against them when quoting scripture.

Where is it written that Peter, James or John are supposed to be illiterate?

Quote

Just read Galatians 4 in entirety to see "born of a woman" is allegory.

Allegories can't be set on planet Earth? The one that begins at verse 21 is set on Earth. That Jesus has a mother is mentioned back at verse 4.

what you wrote to me

- What I'm saying is that Gamaliel and Damneus appear equiprobable to me. I was curious what the attraction of Damneus is, to people like yourself, who find him the unique favorite for father of the year, 62 CE.

Quote

Just look at the Salem witch trials. The elite didn't mind it until their rank started to get accused.

The "elite" was being accused, of usurpation of the Roman prerogative. The first king the Romans ever tortured to death was Jewish. Pretend you're the Jewish king, and the usurper serves at your pleasure. Do the math.

Quote

I bet there were plenty of blood thirsty rock throwers in those days that would jump at the opportunity in an instant (Monty Python Life of Brian).

Josephus was discussing legal execution. The rules for that may be found in the Talmud. Oddly enough, it isn't quite the way Monty Python depict it. Go figure, eh?

Quote

Can you imagine this is how the original text was written?

No, that would require Josephus to give a rat's patootie what happened to James and his co-defendants. He doesn't, nor is there any special reason why he should.

Quote

So never mind such records would have been destroyed.

Justin thinks they exist, and are being maintained. (Since I doubt whether such records ever existed, I never reach the question of whether they would have been destroyed. And it's irrelevant to Justin, who thinks his readers have access to them.)

Quote

especially his controversy with Trypho the Jew?

Um, you do realize that Trypho is widely thought to be Justin's sock-puppet, right?

In any case, Trypho never challenges that Jesus existed, or that he was executed under Pilate. If there ever was a real TF, then that's pretty much all it would have said, beyond some noting that Christians believe more than that.

Quote

Yeah...He forgot to mention it when he was talking about the different Jewish philosophies he mentioned earlier.

The Christianity known to Josephus' readers is not a Jewish philosophy. It's entirely possible that it never was one, even if there was an HJ and the James gang were HJ's disciples.

Quote

Oh..Gee...You think so?

Then we agree where Origen got the idea. Since Eusebius and Jerome adopted it (both saints), we don't need a long song and dance about marginalia. Maybe all that happened, maybe a lot less happened, but the game ended when two saints signed off on "called Christ," and nobody but Christian enlisted personnel was copying Josephus for a long time afterwards.

Quote

Maybe the "Uncertainist" should be changed to "Confusionist"?

No, it's perfectly clear that Josephus wrote substantially what Origen says, and adjacent to the mention of James, but Josephus wasn't writing about James when he linked the fall of Jerusalem to something else. That's what Origen misrecalled, whom Josephus was writing about.

Quote

Origen is getting "called the Just" from Hegesippus

Origen was the pupil and successor of Clement of Alexandria, who used the term. That would explain where Origen got it. Nobody knows who was the first to use it.

Quote

Quoting Hegesippus

Um, no, actually Eusebius isn't quoting Hegesippus there.

And, as the Uncertaintist accurately reports, when Eusebius does start quoting H., there is some ambiguity where the quotation ends, 'cause quotation marks hadn't been invented yet. Even if the quote extends as far as the "shortly thereafter," then that would assert only post hoc, which I assume you realize leaves propter hoc at best vague.

Regardless, Josephus did give a reason for the bad outcome, within several lines of James' trial, but the reason wasn't the trial.

Quote

Albinus was not there yet

Sufficient reason for a stay of up to 30 days; actually the Talmud says that somebody named Jesus once got a 40 day stay, but that might be just loose talk.

Quote

Your counterexample was entirely presuppositional making it invalid from the start.

Well, as long as we're agreed that the schema which you quoted is invalid, it really doesn't matter why you think being "presuppositional" has anything to do with its validity.

Quote

This would be like (assuming Jesus was real) someone teaching about Abe Lincoln

Paul is teaching about Paul here, pitching that part of what he teaches that is DIFFERENT from what others who revere Jesus taught, why a smart person would sign up with Paul rather than some other flavor of Jesus devotion. In brief, why you can leave your hat on.

Quite the argument if you're a boy and more than eight days old.

Quote

Non sequitur.

Damnum absque injuria. Let's see your cards.

Quote

But since Mark was not writing history, the original as we know it ending serves his symbolic purposes.

Since neither you nor anybody else knows what Mark's authorial intentions were, you don't know what serves his "symbolic purposes." You know what your own symbolic purposes are; Mark may have had different ideas.

Quote

He was moving up in the ranks of Judaism,

Says who?

Quote

Let me guess...Straw Man. Right?

No. Just saying that finding an English translation that helps your argument isn't really helpful when the document was written in a different language, and competing translations exist which don't help your case.

Quote

Well I must admit, there's so many types of fallacies I get confused.

You're the one who brought up red herring. If you don't know what you're talking about, that's not my fault.

BTW, you could save a lot of quoting and just say

"Philo and Paul were contemporaries, both educated, both Jewish, and both wrote in Greek while using Hellenized names, so there's no surprise that they also had many ideas in common, especially Hellenized readings of Jewish scripture."

Yeah, they did. And nobody says otherwise. It's not the "what?" you need to labor, it's the "so what?"

Quote

Born of a women is allegory ... You know this.

See above. The allegory comes long after the birth announcement. The allegory has nothing to do with Jesus' earthling status, either.

Quote

So is his celestial daddy. What's your point?

God the Father is Jewish? That's a new one.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eight bits

February 18, 2017

See how Matthew's nativity narrative is inspired from Josephus's nativity of Moses in Antiquities (2.9.2-3).

Amram= Joseph

Pharaoh= King Herod

Pharaoh's sacred scribes= Herod's chief priests, and scribes

Jacob= Balaam's prophecy/Star of Bethlehem (Balaam being a gentile oracle might be inspiration for the magi, and an opportunity to use the mystical number "3"?)

Balaam's prophecy:

Numbers 24:17 (Star of Bethlehem)

"I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near—
a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel"

Messianic motifs: Balaam - Livius

Antiquities:

"2. While the affairs of the Hebrews were in this condition, there was this occasion offered itself to the Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred Scribes, who are very sagacious in foretelling future events truly, told the King, that about this time there would a child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low; and would raise the Israelites: that he would excel all men in virtue; and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages. Which thing was so feared by the King, that, according to this man’s opinion, he commanded that they should cast every male child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river, and destroy it: that besides this, the Egyptian midwives should watch the labours of the Hebrew women, and observe what is born: for those were the women who were enjoined to do the office of mid-wives to them: and by reason of their relation to the King would not transgress his commands. He enjoined also, that if any parents should disobey him, and venture to save their male children alive, they and their families should be destroyed. This was a severe affliction indeed to those that suffered it: not only as they were deprived of their sons; and while they were the parents themselves, they were obliged to be subservient to the destruction of their own children, but as it was to be supposed to tend to the extirpation of their nation: while upon the destruction of their children and their own gradual dissolution, the calamity would become very hard, and inconsolable to them. And this was the ill state they were in. But no one can be too hard for the purpose of God, though he contrive ten thousand subtile devices for that end. For this child, whom the sacred scribe foretold, was brought up and concealed from the observers appointed by the King: and he that foretold him did not mistake in the consequences of his preservation, which were brought to pass after the manner following.

"3. A man, whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of the Hebrews, was for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter: and was very uneasy at it; his wife being then with child; and he knew not what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to prayer to God; and intreated him to have compassion on those men who had nowise transgressed the laws of his worship: and to afford them deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured, and to render abortive their enemies hopes of the destruction of their nation. Accordingly God had mercy on him; and was moved by his supplication. He stood by him in his sleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future favours. He said farther, that he did not forget their piety towards him; and would always reward them for it: as he had formerly granted his favour to their fore-fathers, and made them increase from a few, to so great a multitude. He put him in mind, that when Abraham was come alone out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, he had been made happy, not only in other respects, but that when his wife was at first barren, she was afterwards by him enabled to conceive seed, and bare him sons. That he left to Ishmael, and to his posterity, the country of Arabia; as also to his sons by Ketura, Troglodytis; and to Isaac, Canaan. That by my assistance, said he, he did great exploits in war; which, unless you be your selves impious, you must still remember.

As for Jacob, he became well known to strangers also, by the greatness of that prosperity in which he lived, and left to his sons; who came into Egypt with no more than seventy souls; while you are now become above six hundred thousand. Know therefore that I shall provide for you all in common what is for your good; and particularly for thy self what shall make thee famous. For that child, out of dread of whose nativity the Egyptians have doomed the Israelite children to destruction, shall be this child of thine: and shall be concealed from those who watch to destroy him. And when he is brought up, in a surprising way, he shall deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress they are under from the Egyptians. His memory shall be famous while the world lasts; and this not only among the Hebrews, but foreigners also. All which shall be the effect of my favour to thee, and to thy posterity. He shall also have such a brother, that he shall himself obtain my priesthood, and his posterity shall have it after him to the end of the world." "

Matthew 1:18-20

"18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 2:1-4

"2 In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” 3 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born."

Matthew 2:16

"16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."

Of course Matthew beefs up the rest of his fiction with OT verses to make it official.

Isaiah 7:14 (Virgin birth)

Isaiah 9:6 (Prince of peace)

Micah 5:2 (Bethlehem prophecy)

Hosea 11:1 (Out of Egypt)

Jeremiah 31:15 (slaughter of the innocents)

Exodus 1:22 (slaughter of the innocents)

Judges 13:5-7 (Jesus of Nazareth)

Here John takes a parable in Luke, and reworks it into his narrative. The Gospel writers didn't know their work would be canonized.

Luke 16:19-31

"19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. 24 He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ 27 He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ 30 He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

John 11:1-6

11 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, 6 after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was."

John 11:38-44

"38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” "

Now this next passage by it's self would mean nothing. But by John already plagiarizing from the Lukan parable one can see the further influence that John used.

John 13:23-27

"23 One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him; 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25 So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. 27 After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” "

February 18, 2017

davros

Quote

See how Matthew's nativity narrative is inspired from Josephus's nativity of Moses in Antiquities (2.9.2-3).

Josephus got it from Exodus 1:8 - 2:10. Since Matthew has access to the Septuagint, he likely got it from Exodus, too.

Star of Bethlehem

Nobody knows who was the first to find significance in the various lights of the night sky. There is always something happening up there, if not something flashy like a comet, then something that a "trained eye" can appreciate (e.g. a conjunction of Jupiter and anything else in the constellation of Leo - ooh, Judea is gonna have a new king; an especially good guess when Herod is getting long in the tooth and sees conspiracies against himself everywhere).

BTW, why do you quote all that stuff? Antiquities is online, for free and in several places. You could just give the citation and maybe the most salient part (what you render in bold).

Quote

The Gospel writers didn't know their work would be canonized.

It's hard to say. They wouldn't know that there would someday be an almost-uniform ecumenical New Testament, but it does appear that except possibly for Mark, they might have known that their work would be adopted as the go-to gospel of specific church groups, or even written directly for such a group.

Quote

Here John takes a parable in Luke, and reworks it into his narrative.

Quite a bit of John has the "tone" of correcting the synoptics (especially Mark, the root of the synoptics). We could do a whole thread on "Secret Mark," which has the Lazarus-raising incident closely parallel to John's (with a dash of boys' night out in the bath house ... but then John's Jesus would go for that, too, wouldn't he?).

That said, the connection between Lazarus of Bethany and Lazarus of nowhere-in-particular is strained. The better antecedent for John's Lazarus (and I think it is original with him or "his lost source(s)") is the Jairus' daughter pericope, Mark 5:21-44. John turns everything around, so that it's a real miracle, plus Jesus gets killed for this hero deed worthy of a god (well, for bragging about it anyway).

BTW, if you are into Luke's Lazarus, that line (16:21)

who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores.

is a drop-dead reference to the pericope of the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark (7:24 ff). Luke completes the sanitizing (already begun by Matthew 15:21 ff) of a real embarrasssment, that a pagan lady one-upped Jesus, who was being a total dick and so had it coming.

Personally, I prefer the way Mattie throws the disciples under the bus .

February 19, 2017

Eusebius Bits

"Where is it written that Peter, James or John are supposed to be illiterate?"

Nowhere. As portrayed in the Gospels chances are they would be illiterate. Since the Gospels are made up, Jesus being derived from the OT, and Paul never touts his literacy over them, then chances are these people could read.

"Allegories can't be set on planet Earth? The one that begins at verse 21 is set on Earth. That Jesus has a mother is mentioned back at verse 4."

Behold the religious syncretism.

Born of "woman" is a metaphor for the wisdom/Sophia/Dopamina of God. Those that believe are adopted heirs of promise to be free from the slavery of Satan, and his designs.

Born of woman= God's nurturing wisdom from above

Law= God's word

Word= Philo's Logos

Logos= Paul's anointed savior

Slave woman/Jerusalem (physical)= Earth/lower Heavens where Satan, and death rule that are perishing to nothing

Free woman/Jerusalem above (celestial)= Highest Heaven of the Father, and son adopting the faithful into an imperishable family

"Having identified the Logos with Wisdom, Philo runs into a grammatical problem: in the Greek language "wisdom" (sophia) is feminine and "word" (logos) is masculine; moreover, Philo saw Wisdom's function as masculine. So he explains that Wisdom's name is feminine, but her nature is masculine: .....'Let us then pay no attention to the discrepancy in the terms, and say that the daughter of God, Wisdom, is both masculine and the father, inseminating and engendering in souls a desire to learn discipline, knowledge, practical insight, notable and laudable actions' (Fug. 50-52)."

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Galatians 4:1-11, :21-31 5:1

"4 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits[a] of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba![c] Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted."

"21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia[a] and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”

28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman."

"5 1 For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

1 Corinthians 2:6-12

"6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the human heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God."

Wisdom of Solomon 1:2 2:17-24

"2 Because he is found by those who test him not, and he manifests himself to those who do not disbelieve him."

"17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward.
23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it."

"What I'm saying is that Gamaliel and Damneus appear equiprobable to me. I was curious what the attraction of Damneus is, to people like yourself, who find him the unique favorite for father of the year, 62 CE."

Jesus ben Damneus got his 40 acres, and a Donkey.

"The "elite" was being accused, of usurpation of the Roman prerogative. The first king the Romans ever tortured to death was Jewish. Pretend you're the Jewish king, and the usurper serves at your pleasure. Do the math."

Keep on ignoring Antiquities 16.6.2

Do the thinking.

"Josephus was discussing legal execution. The rules for that may be found in the Talmud. Oddly enough, it isn't quite the way Monty Python depict it. Go figure, eh?"

Josephus was discussing why Ananus got booted. So women didn't dress as men to get in on the stoning action?

"No, that would require Josephus to give a rat's patootie what happened to James and his co-defendants. He doesn't, nor is there any special reason why he should."

He related what's pertinent to the storyline. Your agnosticism is your stumbling block not mine.

"Um, you do realize that Trypho is widely thought to be Justin's sock-puppet, right?

"In any case, Trypho never challenges that Jesus existed, or that he was executed under Pilate. If there ever was a real TF, then that's pretty much all it would have said, beyond some noting that Christians believe more than that."

Justin would have mentioned it in his apologies, or controversy. I'm not going to entertain another one of your Red Herrings.

"The Christianity known to Josephus' readers is not a Jewish philosophy. It's entirely possible that it never was one, even if there was an HJ and the James gang were HJ's disciples."

It doesn't matter. We have no contemporary writings of the Christian philosophy as depicted in the timeline presented from the Gospel fictions. Josephus does not know Christianity as either a philosophy, or a charlatan movement.

"Then we agree where Origen got the idea. Since Eusebius and Jerome adopted it (both saints), we don't need a long song and dance about marginalia. Maybe all that happened, maybe a lot less happened, but the game ended when two saints signed off on "called Christ," and nobody but Christian enlisted personnel was copying Josephus for a long time afterwards."

Origen got it from Hegesippus out of confusion. You're the one dancing, not me.

"No, it's perfectly clear that Josephus wrote substantially what Origen says, and adjacent to the mention of James, but Josephus wasn't writing about James when he linked the fall of Jerusalem to something else. That's what Origen misrecalled, whom Josephus was writing about."

That's not the part of the Confusionist I was referring to. Is that your blog?

"Origen was the pupil and successor of Clement of Alexandria, who used the term. That would explain where Origen got it. Nobody knows who was the first to use it."

Hegesippus...

"Um, no, actually Eusebius isn't quoting Hegesippus there.

And, as the Uncertaintist accurately reports, when Eusebius does start quoting H., there is some ambiguity where the quotation ends, 'cause quotation marks hadn't been invented yet. Even if the quote extends as far as the "shortly thereafter," then that would assert only post hoc, which I assume you realize leaves propter hoc at best vague."

Um. It's clear where Eusebius's qoute ends, and when his narration picks up even without the quotation marks in the translation I used. If you want to side with the Confusionist, then so be it. I would be more concerned at what Eusebius could be making up.

"Regardless, Josephus did give a reason for the bad outcome, within several lines of James' trial, but the reason wasn't the trial."

Good work Holmes.

"Sufficient reason for a stay of up to 30 days; actually the Talmud says that somebody named Jesus once got a 40 day stay, but that might be just loose talk."

I understand, I really do, but the context points otherwise.

We don't know for sure when Mark was written. It's a hard argument for a post 65-80 CE composition. But this passage might be a partial influence for the improbable Jesus trial narrative? Just look how Matthew as I previously posted used Antiquities. This is a weak argument I know, but you being an uncertainist, you may appreciate that though unadmittedly because of the consequence to your apologetics.

"Well, as long as we're agreed that the schema which you quoted is invalid, it really doesn't matter why you think being "presuppositional" has anything to do with its validity."

You got spanked...

If there was 1% of the evidence we have for Hitler for Jesus we would not be having this conversation.

"Paul is teaching about Paul here, pitching that part of what he teaches that is DIFFERENT from what others who revere Jesus taught, why a smart person would sign up with Paul rather than some other flavor of Jesus devotion. In brief, why you can leave your hat on.

Quite the argument if you're a boy and more than eight days old."

Paul is obviously a functioning schizotype telling what he knows about Jesus, and it's not someone that sailed around a fresh water lake as if it was voyages on the Mediterranean sea.

"Damnum absque injuria. Let's see your cards."

I call your bluff. But your poker face is like the cookie crumbs on the shirt of the kid in denial several posts ago.

"Since neither you nor anybody else knows what Mark's authorial intentions were, you don't know what serves his "symbolic purposes." You know what your own symbolic purposes are; Mark may have had different ideas."

Mark 4:10-12

"Says who?"

So sayeth the Paul. But you have alternative reasons to cast darkness of doubt on this as you did with Paul's persecution career. Just fess up why you want to downplay Paul's anointed Savior's mercy.

"No. Just saying that finding an English translation that helps your argument isn't really helpful when the document was written in a different language, and competing translations exist which don't help your case."

You act as if I'm using the KJV. LOL!

"You're the one who brought up red herring. If you don't know what you're talking about, that's not my fault."

Oh, I know what you are doing alright. It's just the fancier fallacies I'm timid with. Argumentus absurdicus post hoc terminus! Am I having an argument, or casting an Harry Potter spell?

"BTW, you could save a lot of quoting and just say

"Philo and Paul were contemporaries, both educated, both Jewish, and both wrote in Greek while using Hellenized names, so there's no surprise that they also had many ideas in common, especially Hellenized readings of Jewish scripture."

Yeah, they did. And nobody says otherwise. It's not the "what?" you need to labor, it's the "so what?" "

Then by your logic Philo's Logos was historical, and Philo was just selling his own Gospel. Also being the "shadow of God" the Logos was real because only being on Earth can one cast shadows, and not die from the vacuum of space.

You can save a lot of egg on your face and just say:

"How about that...Jesus probably didn't exist."

"See above. The allegory comes long after the birth announcement. The allegory has nothing to do with Jesus' earthling status, either."

Waaah! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I'll take my chances for the unbiased, and rational minded people to read Galatians 4 in it's entirety to discern the truth.

"God the Father is Jewish? That's a new one."

OY! A hot Pastrami on Rye, and a clink in the tithe box is a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

As for your previous post in response to Matthew. The Greek women reference is interesting, but the rest I will not dignify with a response.

February 19, 2017

3rd eye

Check this out:

"Why Were Paul and All His Congregations Uninterested in Any Facts about Jesus’s Life?"

"The silences in Paul’s letters are really weird and hard to explain in any believable way. Besides the ones I list and discuss in OHJ, Chapter 11.2, Earl Doherty has compiled an even larger list (top 20, plus more in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Philippians, and Thessalonians). In OHJ I quote numerous experts agreeing this is weird and hard to explain. Evans had no response to this beyond the standard implausible conjecture that Paul was wholly uninterested in anything to do with Jesus’s life. Which is not only inherently unbelievable and not in evidence (Paul never says such a thing or anything indicative of it), but also doesn’t explain why no one else he wrote to or against was at all interested in such facts, either, since none ever presented him with any evidence or argument from them that ever required his response. Conjecture is not evidence. The silences remain simply weird—and better explained by the fact that there were no pertinent facts of Jesus’s life to discuss, and no witnesses to cite or discuss them."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935

February 19, 2017

davros

Quote

Nowhere. As portrayed in the Gospels chances are they would be illiterate.

In the Gospels, they seem to be home owners and capitalists (specifically fishermen who own boats and who employ hired workers). In later Acts they chose to pursue, and have risen to visible leadership positions in, a field dominated by the literate. I therefore wouldn't assume that they are illiterate; certainly the texts offer no support for that. And as you mentioned, Paul doesn't take the shot; could be that's because he doesn't have that shot to take.

You and I seem to be in agreement that maybe they could read and write. My basis for this is that the Gospel-Acts picture of them complements Paul's picture of them on this issue. You were asking earlier about the straw man fallacy. You've just provided an example.

Quote

Jesus being derived from the OT,

You were also asking a while ago about the fallacy of "assuming the consequent." That's it, right there.

Later writers found many parallels between a supposed Jewish teacher and the teachings of the Jewish Bible. That's what's in evidence. Whether the Jewish teacher was derived by those writers is what's in question.

Quote

Born of "woman" is a metaphor

Could be, but the allegory you originally argued for doesn't occur until several verses later, and its extent is well contained there.

Regardless, being used as a metaphor does not affirm or deny the truth of the concrete situation in question. Every concrete assertion that can be understood can be so used. Recall further that our inquiry here is only what Paul's understanding of the story is. Paul's understanding of the story is that Jesus has a Jewish mother.

Paul does not know of any Jewish women in outer space.

Quote

Galatians 4:1-11, :21-31 5:1

We seem to be in agreement that the allegory occurs long after the fact claim about Jesus' mother. As you point out, Paul introduces minor-heir and slave as stand-alone figures of speech, well before Paul returns to them and develops them in the allegory based on Genesis, no longer focused on the minority-guadianship issues that were Paul's concern when he first introduced the imagery. In other words, Paul later makes an altogether different point than before.

The $64 fact claim itself is an incidental obervation, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Paul's audience is an heir or a slave (both kinds of people existing at the time), or how that status echoes the story of Abraham. Paul also tells us that he believes (what your translation somehow describes as) "elemental spirits" exist on Earth.

Do you deny that? If not, then how do you distinguish when Paul is telling us about something spacey that he believes exists on Earth from when he is telling us about something earthly that exists only in outer space?

Regardless, there is a fair reading of the chapter that Paul believes both that supernatural beings deal with people on Earth (e.g. God; your translator's "elemental spirits" are strained) and that Jesus was born to a Jewish woman on Earth. You are entitled to dissent from that reading, but not entitled to be surprised that yours is a minority view (as noble as defending minority convictons may be).

Quote

Antiquities 16.6.2

We were discussing events in Book 20. Try to keep up. Augustus' charter was dead letter by 62 CE.

Quote

So women didn't dress as men to get in on the stoning action?

Probably not. After you've read the Talmudic regulations, Google is your friend, then see if you can name any other differences between The Life of Brian and historical reality.

Quote

Your agnosticism is your stumbling block not mine.

Agnosticism describes my answer to the question of God. As I have already pointed out, Jewish preachers aren't gods. Focus.

Quote

Justin would have mentioned it in his apologies, or controversy. I'm not going to entertain another one of your Red Herrings.

You, not I, brought up Justin. Even if your assumption that Trypho was a real man were granted, the absurdity of citing Josephus to a Jew fully explains why Justin would not do it.

Quote

Origen got it from Hegesippus out of confusion. You're the one dancing, not me.

Apparently, in your mind, "dancing" means "presenting evidence." I've shown my evidence (that Josephus really did write what Origen describes, but not about James, and that Jerome, one of the two patristic saints who signed off on Origen's misrecollection, did the same thing himself on another matter.)

So, put on your ballet slippers and present some evidence that Origen got his ideas about James from Hegesippus, rather than from his own teacher and boss, Clement.

Quote

But this passage might be a partial influence for the improbable Jesus trial narrative?

It is a curiosity of the Gospel Passions that Jesus got any "due process" at all. Were I Pilate or Pilate's best buddy Caiaphas, I'd have offed him in the garden, shot while trying to escape, later showing some poor guy's ear as evidence justifying my use of deadly force.

Quote

Mark 4:10-12

Shows a Jewish preacher quoting Jewish scripture, to explain his use of a literary form, speaking as a character in the story. It doesn't explain Mark's authorial intentions in writing the story (as some passages in the beginning of Luke and Acts or the end of John do explain those authors' intentions, in their own voices and in their own words).

Quote

Am I having an argument, or casting an Harry Potter spell?

I've wondered that myself.

Quote

Then by your logic Philo's Logos was historical, and Philo was just selling his own Gospel.

No, on the contrary, that's the chief problem with a theory of Christian origins based on Philo: he didn't sell his Gospel, and he didn't pitch anything about his God to Gentiles.

And you do realize that the whole point of a revealed religion is that supernatural forces are believed to operate in history, right?

Edited February 19, 2017 by eight bits

February 20, 2017

Eusebius Bits

"My basis for this is that the Gospel-Acts picture of them complements Paul's picture of them on this issue."

The Gospels, and Acts are fictional along with it's portrayal of the apostles found in the Pauline epistles. I have provided the textual, and scholarship evidence for this.

"You were asking earlier about the straw man fallacy. You've just provided an example."

How so?

"You were also asking a while ago about the fallacy of "assuming the consequent." That's it, right there.

Later writers found many parallels between a supposed Jewish teacher and the teachings of the Jewish Bible. That's what's in evidence. Whether the Jewish teacher was derived by those writers is what's in question."

It's you commiting the fallacy. I provided the evidence. All you are doing is apologetics, hand waving, and misdirecting.

"Could be, but the allegory you originally argued for doesn't occur until several verses later, and its extent is well contained there."

Well if the unbiased, and reasoned that read Galatians 4 in it's entirety still has some doubt? Then just read Galatians 3 in entirety. It has all the elements of the allegory buliding up; i.e. "Abraham", "offspring", "promise", "heir", "under the law", "slave", "free", and note Gal 3:19-20 :29 (as well as the context of Gal 4:1-7).

"Regardless, being used as a metaphor does not affirm or deny the truth of the concrete situation in question. Every concrete assertion that can be understood can be so used. Recall further that our inquiry here is only what Paul's understanding of the story is. Paul's understanding of the story is that Jesus has a Jewish mother."

You're just taking a ripple in a sea of allegory and metaphor which said ripple has strong ties to, and making an apologetic assertion.

"Paul does not know of any Jewish women in outer space."

He's just spewing God's wisdom on how the gentiles are heirs to the promise through faith (firstborn among many brethren).

Romans 9:8-9 15:7-13

"We were discussing events in Book 20. Try to keep up. Augustus' charter was dead letter by 62 CE."

Good. Then you see how implausible among many other things that the Jews had to go to Pilate for approval to execute Jesus as depicted in the Gospel fictions.

"You, not I, brought up Justin."

Along with many other Christian apologists that do not refer to Josephus mentioning Jesus. Chances are one of them would have, and that's the point. Not untill the early 4th century being Eusebius who also cites a letter by Jesus to a king.

Why not cite any writer from the 1st century CE (other than Josephus & the NT) giving biographical details about Jesus?

"So, put on your ballet slippers and present some evidence that Origen got his ideas about James from Hegesippus, rather than from his own teacher and boss, Clement."

Instead of being your puppet down the rabbit hole of your distraction tactics. Why don't you prove Josephus mentioned Jesus Christ?

"It is a curiosity of the Gospel Passions that Jesus got any "due process" at all."

Why didn't the Fellowship of the Ring keep that giant Eagle on retainer?

"5th Element reference" Ha! Good one.

Mark 4:10-12

"Shows a Jewish preacher quoting Jewish scripture, to explain his use of a literary form, speaking as a character in the story."

It's a literary device called an "inclusio". It's a clue to the reader that the whole story is a parable.

"It doesn't explain Mark's authorial intentions in writing the story."

It's a sacred allegory. I have given ample evidence for this.

"No, on the contrary, that's the chief problem with a theory of Christian origins based on Philo: he didn't sell his Gospel, and he didn't pitch anything about his God to Gentiles."

So a Jew living in gentile lands, combining the Greek philosophy around him with his Judaism (both known for ancient pedigrees), writing in a universal language of the region, and also documenting some events had no influence?

Your buddy Eusebius even mentions Philo:

"CHAPTER XVII.

account given by Philo respecting the Ascetics of Egypt.

The same author in the reign of Claudius, is also said to have had familiar conversation with Peter at Rome, whilst he was pro-claiming the gospel to the inhabitants of that city."

LOL!

"And you do realize that the whole point of a revealed religion is that supernatural forces are believed to operate in history, right?"

HOLY COW! So Zeus throws lightening bolts in real time?

Yes. Philo's Logos, Paul's Jesus, and the Church of Galatia's publicly portrayed Christ crucified are all products of people's HDG fueled imagination.

Combine ancient revered text with ignorance of the brain's capabilities to fool itself, and you get a celestial Christ Jesus. Now further mix in politics, brutal force, a legacy of taboo to criticize religion, and you get an historical Jesus Christ.

February 20, 2017

davros

Literacy of Paul's reputed pillars

We seem to agree on the conclusion, differing only on our respective lines of inference. Those having been aired, we can move on.

Other business

Quote

I provided the evidence.

For what is not in dispute, that stories about Jesus incorporated earlier Jewish models. That is uninformative about the proposition you asserted as a fact:

Quote

Jesus being derived from the OT,

since you have provided no evidence that would distinguish a real man about whom traditional stories came to be told, from a possible fictional character based on those stories in the first place. That distinction is what the HJ-MJ controversy is about, and what makes it difficult to resolve.

Mark is kind enough to tell us, twice, that from the very beginning there were other stories being told about Jesus, besides the ones Mark himself was telling, stories identifying Jesus with Jewish Bible figures, or taking him as somebody "like" them, or showing him being the revenant of a more recent version of them, John the Baptist, at 6:12ff and 8:27-28.

Quote

Well if the unbiased, and reasoned that read Galatians 4 in it's entirety still has some doubt? Then just read Galatians 3 in entirety.

Tell you what. I've already read the whole letter. Paul is a better than good writer, he can ring changes, leveraging a small number of basic elements into different combinations to make different points, using different literary figures.

Your allegory begins at 4:21, not before. The allegory is set on Earth, and compares one set of human beings, Paul's audience, with another set of human beings, characters from Genesis. The allegory isn't about Jesus' nature or his personal historical (un)reality. It is, in black letters at the outset, rebuttal to those readers who wish to live according to Torah law. Paul urges them not to.

Quote

You're just taking a ripple in a sea of allegory and metaphor

I am reading good writing.

Quote

Good. Then you see how implausible among many other things that the Jews had to go to Pilate for approval to execute Jesus as depicted in the Gospel fictions.

The Gospel story is that some characters wished Jesus to have a Roman crucifixion. Regardless of the plausibility of that wish, the monopoly provider of that service in the area was Pilate. That has nothing to do with the legal status 30+ years after Pilate of Augustus' charter, and not much to do with whether or not Jesus was a real person.

Quote

Along with many other Christian apologists that do not refer to Josephus mentioning Jesus.

And so, it was legitimate for me to discuss Justin, which is what you disputed.

Quote

Why don't you prove Josephus mentioned Jesus Christ?

Because nobody knows whether he did or not.

All anybody can have is an estimate of probability. Mine is that Josephus did, more likely than not, write something about the early Christian church, similar to what Tacitus wrote about 20 years later (in part because I think Josephus was Tacitus' source), and that Josephus did not, and here I am more confident, write "called Christ" in Book 20.

There isn't much controversy about what the evidence is, only about interpreting what little evidence we have.

Quote

It's a literary device called an "inclusio". It's a clue to the reader that the whole story is a parable.

Actually, it's a clue that Mark was a practiced writer, even if Greek was not his preferred language of composition.

Quote

It's a sacred allegory. I have given ample evidence for this.

You haven't even shown that the story is "sacred" to Mark. He's not necessarily a Christian, and we know that some people came and went through the movement, or changed affiliations within the God-fearer umbrella, ... Even if Mark were a Christian, his purpose might have been promoting one side or another in the succession disputes that plausibly broke out when Paul and other leaders from the first generation died.

As I mentioned a page or so back, Alec McCowen showed in a bit of "experimental archeology" that the Gospel in hand makes a fine playscript - a secular play. Neither sacred, nor allegory, just a ripping yarn, expertly dramatized, even if the Greek is a bit shaky (a blemish that can be fixed by artful translation into any other language, or by a good troupe working in Greek from this as a base treatment.)

Quote

So a Jew living in gentile lands, combining the Greek philosophy around him with his Judaism (both known for ancient pedigrees), writing in a universal language of the region, and also documenting some events had no influence?

That's not the same thing as launching a world religion. We know that once it was launched, Christianity's apologetic writers did look back at Philo (not necessarily with much understanding) and at other classical authors, too.

So, yes, indeed, the Fourth Century Eusebius did write about Philo. The rub is that we're trying to figure out what happened in the First Century. Eusebius didn't know.

Quote

HOLY COW! So Zeus throws lightening bolts in real time?

Zeus wasn't the focus of a revealed religion, although Tom Wolfe played with that idea in modern setting in his novel A Man in Full, which is very entertaining.

It'll get your dopamine going. Check it out.

Edited February 20, 2017 by eight bits
played out the layout

Temple Cleansing Fiction

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

eight bits

eight bits

back to earth

Posted Images

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SHaYap

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

eight bits

Link to comment

Share on other sites