Did Jesus Exist Debate: Carrier VS MacDonald

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How did the gospels make their way into the NT?

Lol. That's a thread, not a post.

Briefly? Organically, I think. The four we have now seem always to have been the most popular ones.

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How did the gospels make their way into the NT? 

"The NT itself was assembled in the middle of the second century, by obvious devout historicists. who thus selected (and in some cases even modified) the contents of the NT specifically to support their agenda."

Citation: "Harry Gamble. ·canonical Formation of the New Testament', in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig Evans and Stanley Porter; Downers Grove, IL: lnterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 183·9 5; Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Lee Martin McDonald and James Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002): Trobisch, First Edition of the New Testament."

Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 279

Edited January 14, 2021 by Davros of Skaro
fix paste errors

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

In an astonishing archeological breakthrough, the 3x5 cards which Jesus used to prepare his sermon on the beatitudes have been discovered in the Vatican Library. They read:

[1] The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted, to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, release to the prisoners

[2] To comfort all who mourn

[3] The poor will inherit the earth

[4] My soul thirsts for God, the living God. When can I enter and see the face of God? My tears have been my bread day and night, as they ask me every day, “Where is your God?

[5] Can one refuse mercy to a sinner like oneself, yet seek pardon for one’s own sins?

[6] Who may go up the mountain of the LORD? Who can stand in his holy place?  The clean of hand and pure of heart

[7] Does anyone nourish anger against another and expect healing from the LORD?

[8] Your kin who hate you and cast you out because of my name say, “May the LORD show his glory, that we may see your joy”; but they shall be put to shame.

Although noted historian (by Australian standards) Tim O'Neill has hailed the discovery as the smoking gun that finally proves that Jesus was no myth, Richard Carrier (who has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia) notes a curious resemblance to sayings found in the canonical and deuterocanical Jewish scriptures.

That is: [1] Isaiah 61:1, [2] Isaiah 61:2b, [3] Psalms 37:11a, [4] Psalms 42:2-3, [5] Sirach 28:4, [6] Psalms 24:3-4a, [7] Sirach 28:3 and [8] Isaiah 66:5b-d.

Thus it appears that the debate will continue, even though there isn't the slightest reason to doubt that Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

If there was NOT a correlation to similar Jewish teachings i would be more surprised. 

sarcasm noted (although it took a while. I thought your post was serious for a while)     My comment is to such a hypothetical  discovery if it should occur and its similarity  to Christ's teachings)   We already know that  many of the words attributed to Christ are also found in other contemporary writings 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

"The NT itself was assembled in the middle of the second century, by obvious devout historicists. who thus selected (and in some cases even modified) the contents of the NT specifically to support their agenda."

Lol. And so @Sherapy now sees why the answer to her simple question is a thread, not a post

 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

We already know that  many of the words attributed to Christ are also found in other contemporary writings 

And so we conclude that a collection of typical Jewish wisdom sayings isn't great evidence for the real-life existence of any single person who was the collection's author.

More carefully - if we assume that the collection is single-authored (although there's no particular evidence that it is), then we might infer that the author is Jewish, maybe even late Second Temple Jewish. Those are elements of the typical definition of the historical Jesus. But nothing connects this Jewish author of the wisdom sayings to being baptized by John, crucified by Pilate or inspiring friends to do anything like found a church after he's died. Those are other typical elements of such a definition.

In contrast, it would be trivial to compile a comparable length collection of memorable sayings of Swedenborg. It would probably be obvious that the author was Christian, maybe even as specific as him being a modern European Protestant (he was in fact a Lutheran, 1688-1772, Swedish). At the same time, the content could easily be distinctive (enough so that he was tried for heresy by the Lutheran church) and not easily confused with other literature from the Swedish Lutheran church of his time.

Which in turn would go a long way to explain why his survivng friends thought it worthwhile to establish a new denomination of Protestant Christianity after he died. His sayings were different from what was available to any Christian before him.

Conclude: a sayngs collection could bear on the hisotricity of a proposed author. As it happens, that isn't the case for Jesus. Too bad, there's yet another potential opportunity that's been lost for evidence to help resolve the problem.

It's not evidence against his historicity that people attribute recycled sayings to him, but it's not much in his favor, either. It's a wash, IMO.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

Just now, eight bits said:

Lol. And so @Sherapy now sees why the answer to her simple question is a thread, not a post

 

And so we conclude that a collection of typical Jewish wisdom sayings isn't great evidence for the real-life existence of any single person who was the collection's author.

More carefully - if we assume that the collection is single-authored (although there's no particular evidence that it is), then we might infer that the author is Jewish, maybe even late Second Temple Jewish. That is one element of the typical definition of the historical Jesus. But nothing connects this Jewish author to being baptized by John, crucified by Pilate or inspiring friends to do anything like found a church after he's died. Those are other typical elements of such a definition.

In contrast, it would be trivial to compile a comparable length collection of memorable sayings of Swedenborg. It would probably be obvious that the author was Christian, maybe even as specific as him being a modern European Protestant (he was in fact a Lutheran, 1688-1772, Swedish). At the same time, the content could easily be distinctive (enough so that he was tried for heresy) and not easily confused with other literature from the Swedish Lutheran church of his time.

Which in turn would go a long way to explain why his survivng friends thought it worthwhile to establish a new denomination of Protestant Christianity after he died.

Conclude: a sayngs collection could bear on the hisotricity of a proposed author. As it happens, that isn't the case for Jesus. Too bad, another potential opportunity has been lost for evidence to help resolve the problem.

It's not evidence against his historicity that people attribute recycled sayings to him, but it's not much in his favor, either. It's a wash, IMO.

 

And so we conclude

Only if you are using the royal we

That's what you might conclude.

Its another example of you ignoring all the chronological  and contextual evidences we have  

we have a character  using words he would have learned and used as a student of the liberal Judaic school of the time 

We have them being used in the time frame and context of this  character's  narrative 

We have them written down at least within a life time of that putative character, and being taught orally before that.

  Indeed its more than likely that, when Paul was writing to  the churches, those churches had written words attributed to christ on which their belief was based  (20 years after his death) 

The gospels make the connections you say are missing  Yes i know the y are filled with miracles and wonders, but the y ALSO describe historical events and almost certainly elements of the actual ife of Christ  

To teach and become Christian one had to  know the gospels. In the AD 30-50 people would have known if the gospels were based on the life of a real person or not 

I suspect, and some evidences confirm, that quite a bit of the ordinary history of Christ's life is true. However it has since been interwoven with myth and superstition , making it hard to  tell which is history.  

[eight bits]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And so we conclude

Only if you are using the royal we

It is the logical conclusion of what you wrote and I quoted. You + I = We.

The grammatical point you're reaching for is that I used the normative indicative present - the pronoun was fine.

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

To teach and become Christian one had to  know the gospels. In the AD 30-50 people would have known if the gospels were based on the life of a real person or not 

Um, what gospels do you think were in existence in 30 or even 50 CE?

[jmccr8]

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That's what you might conclude.

Its another example of you ignoring all the chronological  and contextual evidences we have  

we have a character  

  Indeed its more than likely that, when Paul was writing to  the churches, those churches had written words attributed to christ on which their belief was based  (20 years after his death.

 However it has since been interwoven with myth and superstition , making it hard to  tell which is history.  

Hi Walker

are you arguing with 8 bits or yourself?

jmccr8

Edited January 15, 2021 by jmccr8

[Davros of Skaro]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Lol. And so @Sherapy now sees why the answer to her simple question is a thread, not a post

Scratch that. That previous now deleted video was baaaaaaad.

You're correct on being it's own thread.

Here's a lolipop:

 

Here's Bart to the rescue (note there is a series of these but I'm not posting it all):

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Davros of Skaro

[Will Due]

 

Yes Jesus used existing sayings. But he didn't just repeat them. He altered them and used them in new ways as a backdrop to present and illustrate even greater ideas than those that were there before.

 

Quote

Jesus intimated that some parts of the Scripture were more truth-containing than others and admonished his hearers to feed their souls upon the best of the spiritual food, James interrupted the Master, asking: “Would you be good enough, Master, to suggest to us how we may choose the better passages from the Scriptures for our personal edification?” And Jesus replied: “Yes, James, when you read the Scriptures look for those eternally true and divinely beautiful teachings, such as:

159:5.2

“Create in me a clean heart, O Lord.

159:5.3

“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

159:5.4

“You should love your neighbor as yourself.

159:5.5

“For I, the Lord your God, will hold your right hand, saying, fear not; I will help you.

159:5.6

“Neither shall the nations learn war any more.”

159:5.7

And this is illustrative of the way Jesus, day by day, appropriated the cream of the Hebrew scriptures for the instruction of his followers and for inclusion in the teachings of the new gospel of the kingdom. Other religions had suggested the thought of the nearness of God to man, but Jesus made the care of God for man like the solicitude of a loving father for the welfare of his dependent children and then made this teaching the cornerstone of his religion. And thus did the doctrine of the fatherhood of God make imperative the practice of the brotherhood of man. The worship of God and the service of man became the sum and substance of his religion. Jesus took the best of the Jewish religion and translated it to a worthy setting in the new teachings of the gospel of the kingdom.

159:5.8

Jesus put the spirit of positive action into the passive doctrines of the Jewish religion. In the place of negative compliance with ceremonial requirements, Jesus enjoined the positive doing of that which his new religion required of those who accepted it. Jesus’ religion consisted not merely in believing, but in actually doing, those things which the gospel required. He did not teach that the essence of his religion consisted in social service, but rather that social service was one of the certain effects of the possession of the spirit of true religion.

 

Jesus did not hesitate to appropriate the better half of a Scripture while he repudiated the lesser portion. His great exhortation, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” he took from the Scripture which reads: “You shall not take vengeance against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus appropriated the positive portion of this Scripture while rejecting the negative part. He even opposed negative or purely passive nonresistance. Said he: “When an enemy smites you on one cheek, do not stand there dumb and passive but in positive attitude turn the other; that is, do the best thing possible actively to lead your brother in error away from the evil paths into the better ways of righteous living.” Jesus required his followers to react positively and aggressively to every life situation. The turning of the other cheek, or whatever act that may typify, demands initiative, necessitates vigorous, active, and courageous expression of the believer’s personality.

159:5.1

 

 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

It is the logical conclusion of what you wrote and I quoted. You + I = We.

The grammatical point you're reaching for is that I used the normative indicative present - the pronoun was fine.

Um, what gospels do you think were in existence in 30 or even 50 CE?

Nup it might be what you and others concluded, but not I what concluded, thus the we doesn't include me 

You cant get away with arguing that grammatical correctness overrides  intent and meaning  of a sentence  

I assume you meant me, as the post was directed to me 

Given the same information, i conclude something entirely different 

In  a sense this is the crux of our difference.  Its fair/reasonable/ logical for you  to conclude as you do because you look at she issue in a certain way and with certain biases 

I have the same information but  (perhaps because of m background in the humanities) i  look at it differently and perceive it differently, and perhaps with a different bias  Ie the evidences we have, in my mind, don't really leave room for  any logical doubt about Christ the mans existence.

    In a sense you are simply less certain than i am  so I wouldn't say your bias was unreasonable.

It would be unreasonable for a person to argue that there is not enough evidence for some  degree of certainty about Christ the mans, existence  

Edited January 15, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Will Do said:

Yes Jesus used existing sayings. But he didn't just repeat them. He altered them and used them in new ways as a backdrop to present and illustrate even greater ideas than those that were there before.

The issue, however, is whether a collection of sayings is evidence for the existence of a particular person.

Example Hermann Hesse, an elite fiction writer, a Nobel Prize winner, presents lengthy dialogs in his 1919 novel Demian between the narrator (whom all readers accept to be a fictional depiction of Hesse himself as a young man) and an older character named Pistorius. He's a church organist who has long talks with the narrator character.

Pistorius's speeches mainly concern a god named Abraxas. Abraxas is an attested ancient divine name. However, the Pistorius speeches are unlike anything found in ancient literature about Abraxas. They are distinctive.

Anybody can sort this out today, since the actual source of Pistorius's speeches is Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead, which was first widely published in 1961. But suppose it's 1959. Are the speeches in Demian evidence about whether Pistorius was a real man who actually lived? Fictionalized, just as the narrator is a fictionalized Hesse, but nevertheless pointing to a specific historical figure?

If you work through the hypothetical, taking seriously what even some credentialed scholars of Hesse's work would know in 1959, yes, it'd probably stand as pretty good evidence. It's not like other philosophical discourses of Hesse, nor typical of the Europe in his time. You'd even be "half correct" in the end, since the source of the passages is a specific real person who actually lived, and a different person from Hesse himself, a contemporary of his. Only half correct, because Jung wasn't anything like any reasonable definition of the historical Pistorius.

Would that favorable assessment of the evidence be true in 1969? No, not any more, because then, and now, we can see where the Pistorius speeches came from. No suprise that a Nobelist polished this material up some, broke what was originally an extended poem into discrete prose speeches and dialogs ... but evidence for a historical Pistorius? Not once we realize where the sayings came from and can see what Hesse did with them.

Application: For the sayings of Jesus, it's 1969. We can see where they came from. The people who bring these sayings to us were the Hermann Hesses of their day, elite writers. The best selling authors of all time, we're often told. So, no surprise that compared with the sources, the sayings attributed to Jesus are very nicely polished, nicely integrated into the storyline, too.. We expect no less from our professionals.

Does that mean there was no historical Jesus? No. No more than we can eliminate that young Hermann Hesse met some church organist at one time or other - there were plenty of church organists for him to meet. Maybe one of them became the model for the fictional character. Maybe several of them. However, if there were a historical Pistorius, or one specific real-life model for the character in Demian, then we know nothing about him. Including nothing about what, if anything, he really said.

In closing, a heads up: I won't soon forget that you honored a bipolar-imitating troll who lied about me. Trash talk has no place in civil discussion, You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know from experience that that orifice doesn't retract his attack posts, instead retreating into a phoney "who, me?" posture until he does it again. Maybe you will show some class and apologize for praising him. Check your book. probably there's something on point.

 

and then there's @Mr Walker

Quote

Nup it might be what you and others concluded, but not I what concluded, thus the we doesn't include me

You taught English and you can't parse the normative present indicative?  Not even understand a common grammatical usage like that when it's pointed out to you?

That's not my problem, is it? I have reviewed what I wrote, I find it correct as written, and I am delighted to stand by what I wrote. If you have a continuing problem with that, then perhaps you should summon a moderator. Know, however, that the ensuing conversation will include mention of that site rule which forbids criticism of other posters' grammar.

Quote

It would be unreasonable for a person to argue that there is not enough evidence for some  degree of certainty about Christ the mans, existence  

I can't think of anybody who denies that the existence of Jesus (why can't you say the only version of his name that the hypothetical man ever would have known?) is "seriously possible" ( = some degree of confidence is warranted). Dr Carrier, for example, would place it at better than 1 in 15,000.

Hey, that's some.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by eight bits

[Will Due]

On 1/12/2021 at 11:35 AM, Sherapy said:

If you cannot articulate it it simply means you have a sense, but are not sure. It is always a great idea to know what you don’t know and ask questions. 

Great job for having the courage to ask. 

 

What about what Jesus says do you like or want to explore? 
 

For example: I wanted to understand ahimsa which is do no harm, I used being a vegan as the path and along the journey I saw a lot of things about myself that were not so great or errors, or misunderstandings,, for example, I saw in myself that my core purpose was to be better than because I was a vegan, I explored it, meaning I acknowledged it and in doing so accepted that I was capable of being self righteous. I stood corrected and am aware that I amongst many things can be self righteous given the right  circumstances. I accepted my humanness. 

I also hope that Dee, LG, Jay, Third Eye, and Eighty and contribute to this too.

I also hope MW does as he is a wonderful example of how we all have a charlatan that lives within, this is said with the best of intentions too.

 

Also, you always have the final say in how you receive this message of if you do at all. 
 

Over to you, your thoughts matter to me. 
 

 

On 1/12/2021 at 9:34 AM, Sherapy said:

Will there is a huge distinction between know and knowledge. “To know”has a large subjective component to it, where as knowledge is fact based.

With this in mind what did Jesus leave in the way of knowledge? 

 

 

Hi Sheri,

I apologize for taking so long to reply to you but everytime I tried to take a crack at it, I would come up blank. It's important to me that I get it right because I think you've asked some significant questions. 

 

Quote

What about what Jesus says do you like or want to explore? 

 

I'm not sure that I like everything Jesus says because some of the things he says makes me understand that I've got a lot of things yet to accomplish that I can see aren't easy and don't come naturally. 

The method to use to get there though, is easy, and I think it's tied up in what to me is the answer to your other question. 

 

Quote

what did Jesus leave in the way of knowledge? 

 

Yes, knowledge. What did Jesus leave in the way of knowledge? Certainly it's a lot of things. 

I've been pondering this question for days now. What can be more important than knowledge? So this morning I think it finally came to me.

The main thing that Jesus leaves us about what to know, is that it isn't so much about believing things in particular but rather that it's about doing things specifically that matters.

And it's in the doing of these specific things progressively in my opinion, that more and more of the knowledge he leaves us is gained. 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Will Do

[Will Due]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

The issue, however, is whether a collection of sayings is evidence for the existence of a particular person.

 

Yes that's the issue. Is the collection of the sayings of Jesus evidence that he was a real person. 

I say that it is.

But it will depend on how great a person's desire is to "oye como va" (listen to how) the rhythm goes of his sayings, in order to decipher everything that's true about the issue that Jesus is a real person. 

In my opinion of course.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Will Do

[Davros of Skaro]

WOW! The Urantia Book must be from outer space after all!

 

[Will Due]

12 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

WOW! The Urantia Book must be from outer space after all!

 

Just like Jesus, it's "not of this world".  

 

 

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

The issue, however, is whether a collection of sayings is evidence for the existence of a particular person.

Example Hermann Hesse, an elite fiction writer, a Nobel Prize winner, presents lengthy dialogs in his 1919 novel Demian between the narrator (whom all readers accept to be a fictional depiction of Hesse himself as a young man) and an older character named Pistorius. He's a church organist who has long talks with the narrator character.

Pistorius's speeches mainly concern a god named Abraxas. Abraxas is an attested ancient divine name. However, the Pistorius speeches are unlike anything found in ancient literature about Abraxas. They are distinctive.

Anybody can sort this out today, since the actual source of Pistorius's speeches is Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead, which was first widely published in 1961. But suppose it's 1959. Are the speeches in Demian evidence about whether Pistorius was a real man who actually lived? Fictionalized, just as the narrator is a fictionalized Hesse, but nevertheless pointing to a specific historical figure?

If you work through the hypothetical, taking seriously what even some credentialed scholars of Hesse's work would know in 1959, yes, it'd probably stand as pretty good evidence. It's not like other philosophical discourses of Hesse, nor typical of the Europe in his time. You'd even be "half correct" in the end, since the source of the passages is a specific real person who actually lived, and a different person from Hesse himself, a contemporary of his. Only half correct, because Jung wasn't anything like any reasonable definition of the historical Pistorius.

Would that favorable assessment of the evidence be true in 1969? No, not any more, because then, and now, we can see where the Pistorius speeches came from. No suprise that a Nobelist polished this material up some, broke what was originally an extended poem into discrete prose speeches and dialogs ... but evidence for a historical Pistorius? Not once we realize where the sayings came from and can see what Hesse did with them.

Application: For the sayings of Jesus, it's 1969. We can see where they came from. The people who bring these sayings to us were the Hermann Hesses of their day, elite writers. The best selling authors of all time, we're often told. So, no surprise that compared with the sources, the sayings attributed to Jesus are very nicely polished, nicely integrated into the storyline, too.. We expect no less from our professionals.

Does that mean there was no historical Jesus? No. No more than we can eliminate that young Hermann Hesse met some church organist at one time or other - there were plenty of church organists for him to meet. Maybe one of them became the model for the fictional character. Maybe several of them. However, if there were a historical Pistorius, or one specific real-life model for the character in Demian, then we know nothing about him. Including nothing about what, if anything, he really said.

In closing, a heads up: I won't soon forget that you honored a bipolar-imitating troll who lied about me. Trash talk has no place in civil discussion, You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know from experience that that orifice doesn't retract his attack posts, instead retreating into a phoney "who, me?" posture until he does it again. Maybe you will show some class and apologize for praising him. Check your book. probably there's something on point.

 

and then there's @Mr Walker

You taught English and you can't parse the normative present indicative?  Not even understand a common grammatical usage like that when it's pointed out to you?

That's not my problem, is it? I have reviewed what I wrote, I find it correct as written, and I am delighted to stand by what I wrote. If you have a continuing problem with that, then perhaps you should summon a moderator. Know, however, that the ensuing conversation will include mention of that site rule which forbids criticism of other posters' grammar.

I can't think of anybody who denies that the existence of Jesus (why can't you say the only version of his name that the hypothetical man ever would have known?) is "seriously possible" ( = some degree of confidence is warranted). Dr Carrier, for example, would place it at better than 1 in 15,000.

Hey, that's some.

 

I was taught  to address people by their surname, with title attached, or else just by title.

I am not familiar enough with Christ to call him by his first  name  alone (seriously it seems disrespectful to me )  I never addressed any adult by their first  name until i was at least in my early teens and was given permission to do so by adults i began working alongside aged about 13 .Until then every adult had a title like Mr or Aunty  attached, or was called sir or madam    

If your sentence  creates  a false meaning  then your grammar is wrongly used, even if technically correct (and i won't argue about the technicality of your grammar here )

As written your sentence said we had (both)  logically come to a common conclusion. That was false, and thus your sentence was untruthful,  whether or not it was grammatically correct 

ps

Quite a few of the mythicists claim that no such person ever existed, and that his teachings were a deliberate construction from an amalgam of earlier mythologies, by people who wanted to gain control over other people,  and basically invented a new religion, and the person who was   its origin

It is these people whom  "the   guild"  holds the greatest of their disdain/contempt for  

Edited January 16, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As written your sentence said we had logically come to a common conclusion

Just drop it. You've had your say. Now find the topic and stay on it for once.

Speaking of which, if you don't like calling Jesus by his first name alone, then perhaps Jesus of Nazareth, of Galilee, or bar Joseph might work for you in a secular discussion, since all of them are polite. Christ isn't his surname, so I don't see how calling him that solves the problem you mentioned anyway.

[Davros of Skaro]

49 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Just like Jesus, it's "not of this world".  

Jesus from outer space? It's looking more and more that way to me (I know you will ignore this, but it's for others).

Here's more Philo/Paul similarities of which is many.

Space Travel (2 Cor. 12:1-4)

PHILO: THE SPECIAL LAWS, III

"I There was once a time when, devoting my leisure to philosophy and to the contemplation of the world and the things in it, I reaped the fruit of excellent, and desirable, and blessed intellectual feelings, being always living among the divine oracles and doctrines, on which I fed incessantly and insatiably, to my great delight, never entertaining any low or grovelling thoughts, nor ever wallowing in the pursuit of glory or wealth, or the delights of the body, but I appeared to be raised on high and borne aloft by a certain inspiration of the soul, and to dwell in the regions of the sun and moon, and to associate with the whole heaven, and the whole universal world. At that time, therefore, looking down from above, from the air, and straining the eye of my mind as from a watch-tower, I surveyed the unspeakable contemplation of all the things on the earth, and looked upon myself as happy as having forcibly escaped from all the evil fates that can attack human life. ...Behold, therefore, I venture not only to study the sacred commands of Moses, but also with an ardent love of knowledge to investigate each separate one of them, and to endeavour to reveal and to explain to those who wish to understand them, things concerning them which are not known to the multitude."

 2 Enoch 8:1

 “And those men took me thence, and led me up on to the third heaven, and placed me there”.

 Apocalypse of Moses 38:4

“And … the Father of all … stretched out his hand, and took Adam and handed him over to the archangel Michael saying: ‘Lift him up into Paradise unto the third Heaven'”.

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

Earth Man & Heaven Man (aka the "two Adams") (Rom. 5:14-19, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, :45-49)

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

"XII  “And God created man, taking a lump of clay from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life: and man became a living soul.” The races of men are twofold; for one is the heavenly man, and the other the earthly man. Now the heavenly man, as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence. But the earthly man is made of loose material, which he calls a lump of clay. On which account he says, not that the heavenly man was made, but that he was fashioned according to the image of God; but the earthly man he calls a thing made, and not begotten by the maker. And we must consider that the man who was formed of earth, means the mind which is to be infused into the body, but which has not yet been so infused. And this mind would be really earthly and corruptible, if it were not that God had breathed into it the spirit of genuine life; for then it “exists,” and is no longer made into a soul; and its soul is not inactive, and incapable of proper formation, but a really intellectual and living one. “For man,” says Moses, “became a living soul.”'

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

"XIV “And God planted a paradise in Eden, in the east: and there he placed the man whom he had Formed:” (Gen. 2:8) for he called that divine and heavenly wisdom by many names; and he made it manifest that it had many appellations; for he called it the beginning (Gen. 1:1), and the image, and the sight of God."

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

"XIV ...the plantation of this paradise is represented in the east; for right reason never sets, and is never extinguished, but it is it's nature to be always rising. And as I imagine, the rising sun fills the darkness of the air with light, so also does virtue when it has arisen in the soul, irradiate its mist and dissipate the dense darkness."

Note: Check out Gen. 2:8 & Gen. 2:15. God twice puts a man in Eden. One man is God's self taught firstborn (to tend to the Tree Life? Gen. 2:9b, 3:22c, :24c), and the other man is Adam to cultivate the garden for it's celestial virtues (to learn). It's confusing thanks to the way the first five books of the Bible were put together, but they (Paul/Philo) talk about two separate beings in Eden.

"According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors")."

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

"The first creation story always and only refers to God as Elohim (Gen. 1:1a "when God"). The second creation story always refers to God as Yahweh, or Yahweh Elohim (Gen. 2:4b "the LORD God"), but never as Elohim alone."

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

The doublets in the creation story influenced Philo's perception, and Hellenistic philosophy on scripture.

THE SPECIAL LAWS, I

"LVI...Do you not see that the most important and greatest of all the powers of the living God are his beneficent and his punishing power? And his beneficent power is called God, since it is by means of this that he made and arranged the universe. And the other, or *punishing power, is called Lord, on which his sovereignty over the universe depends. And God is God, not only of men, but also of gods; and he is mighty, being truly strong and truly Powerful."

ON FLIGHT AND FINDING

"XIX ...The images of the cities of command and prohibition are the laws in the ark; that of the merciful power of God is the covering of the ark, and he calls it the mercy- seat. The images of the creative power and of the kingly power are the winged cherubim which are placed upon it. But the divine word which is above these does not come into any visible appearance, inasmuch as it is not like to any of the things that come under the external senses, but is itself an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any partition or distance being interposed between them: for it is said, “I will speak unto thee from above the mercyseat, in the midst, between the two Cherubim.” (Exo. 25:22) So that the word is, as it were, the charioteer of the powers, and he who utters it is the rider, who directs the charioteer how to proceed with a view to the proper guidance of the universe."

Platonism

The Hellenized Philo seen the doublets in the creation story as one creation of an incorporeal world, and another the creation of the corporeal world (an inferior copy of the former) by God using his Divine Word as an instrument. Compare this to the philosophy of Platonism which Philo deduced Plato's inspiration (Hellenistic philosophy in general) was from the five books of Moses.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, I

"(4) What is the man who was created? And how is that man distinguished who was made after the image of God? This man was created as perceptible to the senses, and in the similitude of a Being appreciable only by the intellect; but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal, is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, and he is the form of the principal character; but this is the word of God, the first beginning of all things, the original species or the archetypal idea, the first measure of the universe. Moreover, that man who was to be created as a vessel is formed by a potter (Isa. 64:8/Rom. 9:20-21), was formed out of dust and clay as far as his body was concerned; but he received his soul by God breathing the breath of life into his face, so that the temperament of his nature was combined of what was corruptible and of what was incorruptible. But the other man, he who is only so in form, is found to be unalloyed without any mixture proceeding from an invisible, simple, and transparent nature." 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, I

"(8) Why did God place man whom he had created in the Paradise, but not that man who is after his own image? *Some persons have said, when they fancied that the Paradise was a garden, that because the man who was created was endowed with senses, therefore he naturally and properly proceeded into a sensible place; but the other man, who is made after God’s own image, being appreciable only by the intellect, and invisible, had all the incorporeal species for his share; but I should rather say that the paradise was a symbol of wisdom, for that created man is a kind of mixture, as *having been compounded of soul and body, having work to do by learning and discipline;* desiring according to the law of philosophy that he may become happy; but he who is according to God’s own image is in need of nothing, being by himself a hearer, and being taught by himself, and being found to be his own master by reason of his natural endowments."

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, I

"(19) Why the creation of animals and flying creatures is mentioned a second time (Gen. 2:19), when the account of their creation had already been given in the history of the six days? (Gen. 1:20-27). Perhaps those things which were created in the six days were incorporeal angels,* indicated under these symbolical expressions, being the appearances of terrestrial and flying animals, but *now they were produced in reality, being the copies of what had been created before, images perceptible by the outward senses of invisible models."

"Many people associate Plato with a few central doctrines that are advocated in his writings: The world that appears to our senses is in some way defective and filled with error, but there is a more real and perfect realm, populated by entities (called “forms” or “ideas”) that are eternal, changeless, and in some sense paradigmatic for the structure and character of the world presented to our senses.... We are urged to transform our values by taking to heart the greater reality of the forms and the defectiveness of the corporeal world. We must recognize that the soul is a different sort of object from the body—so much so that it does not depend on the existence of the body for its functioning, and can in fact grasp the nature of the forms far more easily when it is not encumbered by its attachment to anything corporeal. ...To understand which things are good and why they are good (and if we are not interested in such questions, how can we become good?), we must investigate the form of good."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

[Will Due]

28 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

It's confusing thanks to the way the first five books of the Bible were put together

 

You can say that again.

And that's why for that reason and many others, a couple of things "not of this world" were put together so that those types of confusing things may become confusing no more, thanks to the way it always works out in the end, for the good of all. 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Will Do

[Davros of Skaro]

26 minutes ago, Will Do said:

You can say that again.

And that's why for that reason and many others, a couple of things "not of this world" were put together so that those types of confusing things may become confusing no more, thanks to the way it always works out in the end, for the good of all. 

Just like Islam, and Mormonism claims of a superior revelation over the corrupted, or incomplete Bible. How convenient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sadler

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

How convenient.

 

Yes, things do have a way of working themselves out, and I for one, try to never ignore anything, nor anybody.

 

 

[Will Due]

36 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Just like Islam, and Mormonism claims of a superior revelation over the corrupted, or incomplete Bible. 

 

If the Bible is an incomplete revelation, wouldn't it make sense that some day, it would be made more complete? 

I mean when the NT was added, didn't it make the revelation of the OT more complete?

Going back into antiquity, didn't each new revelation make more complete the revelation that preceded it?

Why would the evolution of progressive revelation stop now?

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Will Do

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

If the Bible is an incomplete revelation, wouldn't it make sense that some day, it would be made more complete? 

I mean when the NT was added, didn't it make the revelation of the OT more complete?

Going back into antiquity, didn't each new revelation make more complete the revelation that preceded it?

Why would the evolution of progressive revelation stop now?

 

 

Hi Will

To a person like me I see it no different then the next 2 John Wick or Fast and Furious movies that are coming out they are all stories and someone else or the same person tells another story that fills in the blanks or expands on the characters and background but it is still a story based on a story.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

To a person like me I see it no different then the next 2 John Wick or Fast and Furious movies that are coming out they are all stories and someone else or the same person tells another story that fills in the blanks or expands on the characters and background but it is still a story based on a story.

jmccr8

 

Yes. You just defined the story of revelation.

One revelation expands on the revelation that came before.

It's as natural as the flow of a river is to its riverbed.

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

47 minutes ago, Will Do said:

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

Yes, things do have a way of working themselves out, and I for one, try to never ignore anything, nor anybody.

If the Bible is an incomplete revelation, wouldn't it make sense that some day, it would be made more complete? 

I mean when the NT was added, didn't it make the revelation of the OT more complete?

Going back into antiquity, didn't each new revelation make more complete the revelation that preceded it?

Why would the evolution of progressive revelation stop now?

Does that mean that the Koran, and the Mormon Bible are legit revelations?

Edited January 16, 2021 by Davros of Skaro