This is not really correct. There is nothing wrong at all with speculation, in fact it is a necessary starting point to formulate a hypothesis. Then, we test the hypothesis. I'm not nearly done with that, but that does not mean my hypotheses are not evidence based. They are just not yet examined with the necessary rigour. I want to be honest about that, so I state it clearly.Flann 5 wrote: Hi Johan. Well you upfront acknowledge that a lot of your presentation on the origin of Christianity is speculation, so it's not really evidence based which is what historians would generally be looking for.
Again, the letters of Paul. My use of Jesus/Josua is there because we know that Paul acknowledged that the Jewish, Jerusalem-based part of the sect preceded him. Now 'Jesus' is just the Greek form of the Hebrew Josua, so in the oldest tradition we know of, he would have been known as Josua.Flann 5 wrote: What historical evidence do you have for this Jewish proto-Christian sect who have a belief in a heavenly teacher Jesus/Joshua?
That is standard reading of old testament 'prophecy': finding some passage, usually dealing with some (supposedly) historic event, and then reinterpreting it as prophecy. I'm agnostic regarding Carrier's theory on this matter but your objection seems invalid. I don't know how they came up with their Josua, but I can see in Paul's letters that they did.Flann 5 wrote: But this Joshua is clearly an earthly not celestial high priest who receives a crown from named returnees from the Babylonian captivity.
It would be absurd to posit a parallel sub-lunar world with another Babylon and doppelganger returnees from a parallel celestial captivity. The branch prophesied is not Joshua but one who is to come.
Can you provide a single example of a Jewish religious group of the time who did not expect the messiah to come to Earth and Israel and succeed, but instead to fail and get executed? So you see, your objection cuts both ways. The beliefs of the proto-Christian sect were in some ways traditional, in some ways novel. We already know that. A sub-lunarly failed messiah is hardly more novel than an Earthly failed messiah. Moreover, there are several examples outside Judaism, but which were nevertheless familiar, such as Osiris, where we have such executions in a non-Earthly realm. This is no stranger than the Christians borrowing Santa Claus from the pagans, you take an idea (someone rides across the sky to give yuletide presents to the children) and reshape it to fit your religion. Because it seems to have some deeper meaning to you (but of course those people didn't quite get it) or just because it is popular and you have to cater to the masses.Flann 5 wrote: Can you provide a single example of a Jewish religious group of the time who did not expect the messiah to come to earth and Israel, but to Carrier's sub-lunar world?
I have absolutely no idea, there are far too many possibilities. Maybe he lied, he never was a persecutor of Christians, he just made this up to make his conversion story seem more impressive/appealing. Maybe he did, and he then had a powerful religious experience and converted. This does in no way contradict him also being a skilled power player who knew how to manipulate people for his own agenda. Maybe he had a falling out with the people who paid him to persecute the sect, and switched sides. Who knows.Flann 5 wrote: The obvious question is how could Paul a zealous persecuter of Christianity have suddenly changed his mind and converted to that which he despised and considered a threat to true Judaism and it's traditions. How do you explain this?
None of this is likely to be true, but leading a sect is a high risk/high reward type of gambit so even if it was true, it does not change the equation.Flann 5 wrote: But in fact it was not a bed of roses for Paul or the other Christian leaders since Paul had many conflicts and was executed by Nero,James the brother of John was beheaded by Herod, James the brother of Jesus was executed by the Jewish high priest, and John was deported and exiled to the isle of Patmos.
It's hard to see this as L Ron Hubbard style stuff.
I agree that Paul's letters are chiefly esoteric. He is mostly talking to the enlightened few. But there is no doubt from his texts that he is stressing the need to use an exoteric version when preaching for the new converts.Flann 5 wrote: As for esoteric stuff there is often a misconception I think about what Paul means when he talks about mysteries. He says that they are now revealed and pretty much spells out what they are for all to see in his letters.
I did not say that human nature is inherently sinful, but that the flesh is. That is a paradox for Paul, because Jesus needs to be fully human, which means he needs to have flesh, and he also needs to be free from sin. Death and resurrection was Paul's solution to this problem, presumably a solution he had acquired from the proto-Christian sect as he joined it. I do not agree that atonement for the sins of others is the central teaching of Paul's gospel, I believe that is a retrofitted reinterpretation in order to confirm beliefs that were formed later.Flann 5 wrote: Because if his human nature was inherently sinful he would inevitably sin and since Paul says that the wages of sin is death he would only be receiving the penalty for his own sins in dying. He could not make atonement for the sins of others which is the central teaching of Paul's gospel.
I agree that this word itself does not give us any final answer. However, if he really believed Jesus was recently crucified by some specific ruler, i.e. Pilate, it is quite remarkable that he never says so. Assigning blame in such a general sense strongly points to an otherworldly perpetrator.Flann 5 wrote: Paul doesn't say Jesus was crucified by Satan in heaven. Some interpret I Corinthians about the rulers of this age in this way. Archons means rulers and can be human or spiritual rulers. There is a specific Greek word for demons which is used elsewhere in the N.T. which Paul could have used if he wanted to say this.
Why do you believe they 'certainly' knew this? That seems like a very strange assumption.Flann 5 wrote: He says that if the rulers of this age had known the wisdom of God they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. The demons certainly knew he was the Lord of glory, but this would not be so obvious to the human rulers since he came incarnate.
That is an absurd claim and there is no evidence for it. I don't need evidence that this did not happen, those claiming it did happen need evidence. All I'm saying is that according to Paul's letters the central power of the proto-Christian sect was in Jerusalem, and then this power disappears from history, at a time where Jerusalem was completely disrupted by the Roman-Jewish wars. It is reasonable to assume these events are related.Flann 5 wrote: You would need to provide evidence that this was so. According to some Christian accounts many Christians managed to flee Jerusalem in recognition of Christ's prophecy that when they would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies they should get out,and apparently many did.
I agree Paul was most likely not antisemitic. There is of course 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: "For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."Flann 5 wrote: Some anti-Semitism does emerge in the second century. I don't think the gospels are anti-Semitic. The O.T. and N.T. books are almost exclusively written by Jews and Jesus was a Jew. Paul in Romans chs 9 to 11 does not evince anti Semitism but to the contrary. Indeed the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first.
But this is widely believed to be a later forgery, and I agree. It is not consistent with the bulk of Paul's writings. You may say 2nd century (I assume John), I think we can't exculpate Matthew so easily. I think the most likely explanation for this shift is again found in the Roman-Jewish wars. Sometimes, the supposed persecution of Christians is offered, but why were the Christians persecuted? Most likely, because they were perceived to be Jews, who were not popular at the time.
I can't see that you're offering any arguments for your position, so I'm not exactly convinced. From my perspective, it is rather historicists who tend to completely disregard the human side to people in the biblical stories.Flann 5 wrote: He talks about improbabilities and what real people would do etc. He's not very observant of real human behaviour in my opinion
Certainly. For me, miraculous stories are the most certain indications we can find that an account is either fraudulent, mistaken or allegorical. It does not get any more final than that.Flann 5 wrote: It depends on your wordview whether you take miraculous accounts seriously or not.
That is an absurd claim, considering half the Greek pantheon were resurrected (after having been eaten by Cronus), and the number of Greek heroes who were said to have been resurrected. Asclepius, Achilles, Castor and Heracles are just some. The Greek typically did not have a concept of resurrecting someone in a way that did not include the body.Flann 5 wrote: Also the physical resurrection of the body was antithetical to pagan and Greek thought and would not have appealed to them whether on earth or in some other world.
Not sure why you are talking about interpolation or forgery here, or what is your point with the above statement. Hebrews is very interesting, it may offer us a view into the pre-Gospel esoteric beliefs.Flann 5 wrote: Carrier and Doherty are not so hasty to cry interpolation or forgery when it comes to the book of Hebrews as they see it as an important plank for their sub-lunar Jesus thesis
But N.T. scholars think it was written before the destruction of the temple as it speaks of it and the sacrificial system as still operating and the Hebrew recipients of the letter were suffering persecution with the temptation to revert to Orthodox Judaism as a way out.
I disagree, I think the view of the crucifixion in Hebrews is markedly different from the interpretation in the Gospels and beyond. I'm not suggesting Paul (or the author of Hebrews) believed Jesus had to be killed to cleanse him from his own sins, I'm saying he had to be killed in order to be cleansed from his flesh, from the very possibility of temptation. This are subtle differences, but important.Flann 5 wrote: But it's Hebrews pre-eminently that elucidates the superiority of Christ's sacrifice and this while the temple was still operating under the Levitical system.
The sacrifices too had to consist of lambs and other animals without blemish typifying the purity necessary and there is no suggestion that Christ had to be crucified to deal with any problem relating to his human nature being defective in purity. Hebrews says he was tempted yet without sin.
Are you saying such writings don't exist, or are forgeries, or what? I really don't understand why you seem to think it has to occur in the canon. The proto-Christian sect was not orthodox, as you just illustrated with your reference to Hebrews.Flann 5 wrote: As a matter of interest where do you get the idea of a parallel sub-lunar world populated by humans,cats,dogs plants etc? It's certainly no part of mainstream Judaism or Christianity and their canons of books. Carrier tends to trawl through pseudepigraphical and apocryphal writings for a lot of his stuff.
I'm not really sure here by what you mean with either 'authentic' or 'faked'. You seem to have a rather different idea of these concepts.Flann 5 wrote: He talks about fake gospels and letters but then uses obviously fake stuff for many of his arguments. Fakes of course imply that something authentic is being faked.
That something is authentic means that it is written by whoever is considered to have written it, at the time it is considered to be written. If the author is unknown (eg Hebrews) it can still be authentic in date, at least. If parts of it were unauthentic (or 'fake') that would mean it had been subsequently edited during a later era, importing statements that don't belong there. Paul's supposed antisemitism is a great example of this.
Whether something is in some canon or not is completely unrelated to it being authentic. There is inauthentic canon, authentic canon, inauthentic apocrypha, authentic apocrypha.
Nobody ever talks about syncretizing, it is just done. Being open to syncretism does not in any way mean being open to whatever idea someone is trying to force you to adopt. It just means borrowing stuff that you like. It could be Santa Claus or the resurrection of Jesus. It is also not necessarily a conscious act, but once someone has heard of an idea or concept, they are more likely to think of it, to believe they found it in scripture, to have visions of it, etc.Flann 5 wrote: I also don't see that Paul was enthusiatic for syncretizing pagan religions with Christianity. How anyone could actually read Paul's letters and think this, is baffling. Likewise the early Christians under threat and infliction of torture and death,refused to worship the image of Caesar as god, so historically speaking there is a lot of nonsense being peddled about pagan syncretism and early Christianity.
While the Gospels are religious fables, Acts seems more like a hagiography of legends told by warring factions, each trying to gain legitimacy by claiming their favourite martyr suffered even more than your favourite martyr, so there!Flann 5 wrote: I don't see that Acts is somehow a different genre to Luke's gospel but it transitions pretty seamlessly and reads to me like a clear continuation from the gospel narrative continuing the account from Christ's resurrection and ascension to the outworking of their commission by him to preach the gospel beginning at Jerusalem and Judea and eventually to the Gentiles. Or that Acts fits Carrier's travesty of it.