"If you don't believe there was a Jesus, you are stupid" (1 Viewer)

Sometime ago, on a discussion on the Mother Board, a poster stated that even if you don't accept the the miracles and other extraordinary claims, if you don't believe a Jesus existed, you are stupid. It's always nice to be insulted.

That's a comment that I have heard before, though, as if the existence of some religious leader named Y'shua would validate anything that's said of Jesus in the Bible.

I don't doubt (I think it's more than likely, actually) that there were religious leaders (plural) around that time who made wild claims about god (or gods) and who spoke against the Roman occupation of Palestine, and who probably met their deaths on a crucifix for speaking against the Roman empire; heck, it could very well be that one of them was named Y'shua... who knows.

But, in the great scheme of things, a run-of-the-mill religious leader is irrelevant, because the Christian claim is not of some mundane religious leader speaking against the Roman empire, but of a very specific persona, with a very specific background, who's given very specific ordinary and extraordinary attributes, and without the background and extrardinary attributes, there is no Christianity.

The Jesus persona very much seems to be an amalgamation of many other deities before him, such as (going by memory here, hopefully I get them all right):
Krishna (who himself seems and amalgamation of other deities - virgin mother
Ishtar - crucified
Prometheus - sacrificed himself for mankind
Horus - resurrected
Dionysius - wine miracles
Asclepius - curing the sick
Orion - walking on water

Seems that, whoever created the Jesus character, went around picking attributes from Roman, Greek, Hindu, Zoroaastrian, and Egyptian deities.

You can point this out to the people who call you stupid for not believing that the Jesus of the Bible existed, and they'll still call you stupid for not believing.

I was raised Christian, Presbyterian exactly. I went to Sunday school, attended church services, even joined the church because it was expected. Ok, not proud of this, but at the time I thought, what is the harm? The entire time I was being fed this story, I never felt anything, other than “boy I don’t want to for eternity, so I’ll hedge my bets“.
I was in my 30s before I felt brave enough to declare myself Agnostic. It was like walking out from under a protective cover of sorts, but no regrets.
Today I look at Jesus, as a person who probably existed, but maybe not. If he existed he was just a guy who preached about his existence and beliefs as a Jew. He never advocated a church be built in his name, nor advocated abandoning Judaism. And if he ever said the words “I am the son of God” I would take that to mean a son of God, just like if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, we would all be sons and daughters of God.
Most heinous in my opinion, are a bunch of men, who appropriated the individual and created a church to scoop up some of the action from the Jewish Church. I really dislike how the pagan concept of Mother Nature, was converted into it all being about HIM, Jesus and as you said, a lot of mumbo jumbo was borrowed from previous religions, ie virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc.
As you know from a previous discussion, I do believe, ok, I hope, that there is a spiritual component of this existence, but I’m still Agnostic. In other words it’s all to vague for me to claim I have a handle on anything regarding the scope of my existence.

Huntn said:

I was raised Christian, Presbyterian exactly. I went to Sunday school, attended church services, even joined the church because it was expected.

Click to expand...

I was born into a Spaniard family, so obviously I started Catholic. But after my parents separated, my mom dragged me into her Tour D'Religion, which included stints with the Mormons and Krishnas. I have been baptized 6 times and forced into veganism once.. and all before I hit puberty.

I actually wrote this for the Religion thread on the motherboard, but I'm going to drop it here first for a trial run and see what you guys think.

In regard to “historical tradition” in the New Testament, specifically the Gospels and also Paul’s earlier letters, this is why I think it’s justified to doubt that there is one.

This merits more than a drive by post so this is going be a pretty dense dive so I'm going to break it into three parts, but I’ve strived (striven?) to provide a detailed survey, and as I’m going to be mostly working straight out of the bible and some other first century texts, if you can make it to the end you can go back and look up everything to follow (https://www.biblegateway.com/).

Part 1 of 3 – Starting off with whether there’s any historical tradition in the Gospels, an interesting (revealing?) thing is that Paul, again writing a full generation before the first Gospel was written, actually suggests there isn’t one. And it’s important to remember that Paul is the first person to write anything about Jesus – his writings influenced the later Gospels, not the other way around.

Thirteen of the twenty-six books in the New Testament are attributed to Paul, but only seven are considered to be and written by the same person (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon), with the remaining six being forgeries written in his name. In none of the authentic letters does Paul mention anything about a ministry, disciples, miracles, teachings, exorcisms, etc. Likewise, in other books considered to be written in the first century (Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and the extra-biblical 1 Clement https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html) these things are also absent.

Paul explicitly denies any oral history, and also appears to deny any traditions of teachings or supernatural activity:

Galatians 1:11-12 “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:22-23 "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

I’ll come back to Paul in a follow up post and examine what he seems to claim to have believed, since most people don’t read his letters, since they’re basically ramblings from a man who was convinced the voice in his head was coming from the heavens. The Gospels narratives are much easier to follow and more user friendly, so people usually stop there, or after Acts (and Paul’s letters often directly refute the activities later attributed to him in Acts).

But first I just want to touch on why the Gospels should be looked at with a pretty big grain of salt when considering whether there’s any history reflected. Simple reasons to be suspect: they’re highly mythologized (often literally rewriting earlier stories with Jesus as the main character) and otherwise often historically improbable.

Likewise, regarding any wisdom attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, I think it's most likely the authors/evangelists are just using Jesus to project their values.

The Gospels first began circulating in the late first and early second century -- the first was written no earlier than the 70’s, either during or following the Jewish-Roman War, and the earliest surviving reference to the canonical Gospels dates to the mid-second century around when the New Testament was first assembled. So they were written somewhere between 70 at the earliest and about 150 at the latest, with the general thought being they were probably all in circulation by about 120.

The first Gospel, Mark, is generally considered to have been written in the 70’s, again at least a full generation after Paul was writing. Mark doesn't really provide much in the way of wisdom sayings. It says Jesus "amazes" people with his teachings, but doesn't ever say what the teachings were; he’s very secretive and speaks in parables and shows frustration that no one understands his meanings (he’s kind of an angry god making his way about the middle east).

Matthew (generally dated in the 80’s) is a highly structured rewrite of Mark -- about 90% of the lines in Mark are paraphrased or copied, often word for word, but Matthew also added a lot, including a nativity and a post resurrection sighting (the original Mark ending concludes with an empty tomb), and otherwise changed stuff, presumably to fit his purposes.

Matthew attributes quite a bit of dialogue to Jesus, notably the "Sermon on the Mount." However, this is a good example of questionable authenticity, as literary analysis shows that, like all the books of the New Testament, the “Sermon” was composed in Greek (there's actually a great deal of alliteration that gets lost in translation), not in Hebrew or Aramaic. Likewise, it addresses concerns that didn't arise until the late first century, after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, another giveaway that it was composed late first century.

Then Luke (90’s-110ish), which is also a later rewrite of Mark (copying, editing, augmenting, etc.) that also includes bits of Matthew, comes up with a new nativity and really expands the post resurrection even further, and then concludes with Jesus flying up to heaven like Superman flying to Krypton.

Luke comes up with the competing (and previously unheard of) "Sermon on the Plains," and Luke also places the most emphasis on material wealth, modifying Matthew’s “blessed are the poor in spirit” to become “blessed are the poor” and “woe to the rich.” It seems suspect that these aren’t projections of the authors values more than inherited tradition.

There’s also an interesting trajectory, where Mark’s Gospel is very heavy on allegory and symbolism, and Jesus is secretive about his activities, whereas the last Gospel, John, insists that events literally happened as depicted and Jesus openly declares “I am the light.” In between Matthew seems to use Jesus to tell Jewish Christians how to operate in a post-Temple society, and then Luke/Acts appears to create a foundation myth to harmonize how a Jewish cult came to be adopted by gentiles.

[Side note -- John (100-120ish) likewise shows dependence on Mark and is also a response to Luke: see the contradicting stories regarding the two Lazuruses in Luke and John; in Luke Lazurus is a poor man who dies and goes to heaven while a rich man goes to hell, and is used in a story to state that even raising a dead man wouldn't give faith to the faithless; in John, the complete opposite occurs when a man named Lazurus is literally raised from the dead to make people believe.]

[For an excellent survey demonstrating Markan priority and strong evidence of how the later Gospels copied first from Mark and then from each other I’d recommend The Case Against Q, by Mark Goodacre - Amazon product ASIN 1563383349.]

So there is extensive evidence that the authors of all later Gospels got information from Mark. But Mark, as it turns out, seems to have gotten his information from the existing mythology of the time. The Gospel Jesus is kind of like the new latest, greatest Jewish superhero – and he even has a mountaintop meeting with Moses and Elijah to illustrate and hammer this home.

For the sake of brevity I’ll cite just a few examples, but Mark and the later evangelists make extensive use of existing scripture, most obviously the Elijah/Elisha stories from Kings but also other books that are now in the Old Testament (but that were first collected in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of those texts that early Christian writers were reliant upon -- and if you were to look at the passages that I’m going to cite in the original Greek, the parallels would become more obvious with the repetition and duplication of key words and phrases). https://www.septuagint.bible/#

[And again, these are just a few representative examples to show I’m not making it up – for a more exhaustive rundown consult Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms - Amazon product ASIN 0879755725. The article in this link also provides an overview of examples of allusions to Old Testament scripture being woven in to color the Gospel narratives https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm.]

As I mentioned previously, the Gospels pull a lot from Kings, where John the Baptist and Jesus are meant to parallel Elijah and Elisha.

• Mark 1: 6 “And John was clothed with camel's hair, and a girdle of skin around his loins.”
• 2 Kings 1:8, speaking of Elijah, “A man -- hairy, and a girdle of skin girt about his loins.”

An example of where the “feeding of the multitudes” stories came from is 2 Kings 4:42-44, where Elisha feeds 100 men with only 20 loaves (‘They will eat and have some left over.’)

The raising of the dead boy in Mark 5, Matthew 9 and Luke 8 comes from 2 Kings 4:32-37.

The healing of the leper from Mark 1:40-44, Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 5:12-16 is a retelling of 2 Kings 5 ("Naaman healed of leprosy").

In Luke 7:11-16 Jesus raises the dead son of a widow. This story was not known to Mark or Matthew, but it’s another story pulled from old scripture, 2 Kings 17:9-23, where Elijah raises the dead son of a widow.

Jesus stilling the storm (Mark 4:35-41) is drawn from both Psalms 107:25-30 (Psalm 107:29 “He stilled the storm to a whisper”) and Jonah 1:4-1:16. Jesus walking on water is drawn from Job 9:8, where God “treads on the waves of the sea.”

Matthew adds the story of Herrod ordering the execution of all male babies, a blatant rip-off of Exodus, where the Pharoah orders all male babies executed.

Further evidence of mythmaking -- the story of Jesus and the two thieves is actually an update of Yom Kippur. There was no Roman “tradition” to release a prisoner, but with the Yom Kippur sacrifice a scapegoat is released into the wild while the perfect goat is sacrificed. Barabbas was the scapegoat released into the wild, Jesus is the perfect sacrifice.

Another clever turn was Luke having Jesus born in a manger with livestock, as he'll later be the sacrificial lamb for mankind. Symbolic mythmaking, not history.

Likewise, Jesus’s execution is depicted at Passover so that Jesus replaces the Paschal lamb (John even moves the crucifixion to the day before Passover, contra the three preceding Gospels, because that was the day the lamb was slaughtered), but this was historically impossible.

Had he been arrested at Passover it would have been like getting arrested during Mardi Gras -- he would have been thrown in jail for the weekend and dealt with afterwards. Beyond that, a Passover execution, also being illegal, would have been so out of the ordinary it almost certainly would have been written about, but there is no contemporary record of this ever happening (just as there is no contemporary record of any of the activities depicted in the Gospels).

Similarly with Jesus storming the Temple. The temple grounds were something like twelve acres, and with guards on hand to prevent any trouble. Anything similar to what is alleged would have likely been documented contemporaneously, but there's no evidence of this.

A minor, relatively insignificant skirmish could be seen as the source of this story, but it actually seems to be generated from texts such as Jeremiah 7:11 (“A den of burglars hath this house”) and Zechariah 14:21 (“And there is no merchant any more in the house of Jehovah of Hosts in that day!”)

Regarding the crucifixion scene, first depicted in Mark 15 it draws heavily from Psalms 22. For example:

• Mark 15:34 “My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?”
• Psalm 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”
• Mark 15:24 “And having crucified him, they were dividing his garments, casting a lot upon them, what each may take”
• Psalms 22:18 “They apportion my garments to themselves, And for my clothing they cause a lot to fall.”

Why is Jesus executed right at noon (Mark 15:33 “And the sixth hour having come, darkness came over the whole land till the ninth hour”)? Because Amos 8:9 says “And it hath come to pass in that day, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, I have caused the sun to go in at noon, And caused darkness on the land in a day of light.”

The Gospels also seem to draw from non-Jewish sources, such as Homer, as there are a number of parallels that can be found with the Odyssey (and as the Gospel authors were highly educated writers, they would have all been heavily exposed to the classics, Homer in particular).

They also seem to have drawn from the myth of the death and resurrection of Inanna, a Mesopotamian goddess, which dates back at least 4,000 years. Inanna, forced to face a trial, is stripped of her clothes as she passes through seven doors as she descends to the underworld to face judgment, where she is turned into a corpse and hung on a hook (i.e. crucified), and is then later resurrected after three days and three nights.

Likewise, Jesus is stripped of his clothes, tried, and executed (and it's interesting, though maybe insignificant, that Jesus is said to be "hung on a tree" by both Paul in Galatians and also in 1 Peter, both of which were written prior to the Gospels, and possibly a reference to Deuteronomy 21:22).

And it may be just an interesting coincidence, but first century cosmology posited that there were seven heavens, and God rules in highest one, where a pre-existent Jesus (as Paul describes him) sits at the right hand of God. So just as Inanna descends through seven doors, Jesus would have had to descend through seven heavens in order to be sacrificed (as is actually depicted in the Ascension of Isaiah http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/AscensionOfIsaiah.html).

Anyway, it all seems heavily mythologized, historically improbable, and, again, not reflected in the earlier letters. If there’s anything actually historic it’s so buried in myth you can’t with any confidence tell what it is. And if you try to remove the supernatural or historically improbable/impossible events, you’re really not left with anything much to speak of.

And again, if you read strictly from the letters generally considered to have been written in the first century – the seven “authentic” letters attributed to Paul along with Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation, the non-biblical 1 Clement – there’s nothing that reflects the Gospel stories about a miracle working middle eastern sage. It’s not until you get to the letters that are acknowledged as second century forgeries, such as 2 Peter and the Timothy’s, that you’ll find harmonization with the Gospels and Acts.

[Note, that with the Gospels being built out of earlier mythology and being written anonymously multiple generations after the events depicted (by which time the original cult members would have likely all died), with an omniscient point of view and with no identification of sources, and with the latter three actually just being rewrites of the first, they are obviously not “independent eye witnesses,” as some might try to tell you. It’s mythology.]

[Bonus recommendation: The Mystery of Acts, by Richard Pervo, the foremost expert on Acts, explains why it shouldn’t be trusted as history - Amazon product ASIN 159815012X.]

A generation before the creation of the Gospel narratives, though, Paul wrote of Jesus as a heavenly being known through revelation, and there’s a book in the bible literally called Revelation, in which Jesus is literally depicted as a god who will descend from the heavens. Where did that belief originate, if not from the stories depicted in the Gospels? This is where is starts to get interesting, when you put away the mythology and take a look at the theology of a zealot that thought he was communicating with a god.

Part 2 of 3 – For this part I’m going to look at Paul, what he preached, and where he says he received his information, as he explicitly denies any oral tradition. And again, the Pauline epistles are the earliest surviving Christian documents, and thus provide our closest glance at how the cult originated.

Most people don’t read past the Gospels, and if they do read Paul they’re reading him through Gospel tainted lenses, so the first thing one should do is disabuse yourself of any preconceptions rooted in the Gospels and read Paul on his own terms. Paul’s “Christ Jesus” isn’t a Galilean preacher but a cosmic being, a super archangel -- if anything, look to how Jesus is described in Revelation 1:13-16, as a great, fiery cosmic being in the sky, “like the sun shining in all its brilliance.”

Let’s start with the quote from my previous post:

1 Corinthians 1:22-23 "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

Again, writing a generation before the Gospels were conceived, he denies any tradition of signs or wisdom, just this knowledge ("Christ crucified") that is a "stumbling block" or "foolishness" to the uninitiated.

It’s interesting to examine the last part of that quote from Paul in light of the gospel Paul preaches to his followers, which is provided in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (which is, again, void of any mention of ministry, miracle workings, exorcisms, forty days spent on hanging out after the resurrection, etc.):

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

And Paul is clear that Jesus was revealed “in me” (Galatians 1:16), clarifying that it was an internal revelation that appeared to him.

Galatians 1:15-16 “But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.”

[Note that this statement also directly contradicts his alleged activities as depicted in Acts].

And as Paul fails to differentiate his experience from the apostles who preceded him, he should be understood to mean that their experiences were no different than his – i.e. when Jesus appeared to Cephas and the other apostles the appearances were also internal visions, whether they took place individually or in a group setting.

[Note, this is no different from modern Christians, who claim to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus that is experienced internally. And as a proof of concept, this is would be no different than how Islam originated, with Muhammad receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel, or Mormonism, with Joseph Smith claiming to receive revelation from the angel Moroni/Nephi.]

If Paul is to be taken at his word here, this is the gospel. A both literal and logical way to interpret the Corinthian Creed is that Christ's death and resurrection were first revealed (received) through new readings of old Hebrew scriptures (which had been collected in the Septuagint for convenient cross-referencing), and only after that, starting with Cephas (aka "Peter," who thus probably started the cult), did people begin to commune with Jesus, who appeared through visions/hallucinations/personal revelation.

Paul's Christ, remember, is the image of God, God's agent of Creation, an angel of God, God's humble equal, whose blood sacrifice has cleansed all sin and whose resurrection is the first fruit of all the righteous who will be reborn in his presence.

He speaks of Christ as a heavenly being, an archangel if not a god, and if he is indeed telling us that Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were not witnessed but were revealed through prophetic writings and then confirmed via visions/hallucinations, it would certainly explain why it would be a “stumbling block” or considered “foolishness” to outsiders.

Let's look again and explore how Paul explicitly says his message about Christ was a hidden mystery revealed through prophetic writings:

• Galatians 1:11-12 “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
• Romans 15:3-4 “or even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.”
• Romans 16:25-26 “…the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith”
• 1 Corinthians 11:23 “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you”
• 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
• 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 “However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him — these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”

And this is what he tells his audience about Christ:

• Romans 8:29 “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” (God’s firstborn son, made in his image)
• 2 Corinthians 4:4 “…the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
• Galatians 4:14 “…you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.” (the equivalent of an angel)
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (God's Agent of Creation)

Hebrews, another pre-Gospel text, adds this information:

• Hebrews 1:2 “…his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”
• Hebrews 2:17 “…in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God…” (God’s heavenly high priest)
• Hebrews 4:14 “…we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God…”
• Hebrews 8:1-2 “Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.”
• Hebrews 8:4-6 “If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” (His ministry is in heaven and thus is superior to the earthly imitations)

Also look at Philippians 2:5-11, where Paul recites of Jesus:

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Do you notice that he doesn’t get named ‘Jesus’ until after he sacrifices himself? Interesting. What’s also interesting is the following passage I provided above in regards to God’s plan:

1 Corinthians 2:6-10:

“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him — these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”

What’s interesting about this (aside from Paul speaking of hidden mysteries revealed by God), is that “rulers of this age” = “archons of this aeon,” which in Paul’s day and age were recognized as Satan and his demon minions.

So he basically states that Satan and his minions killed Christ because they didn’t understand God’s plan (i.e. to sacrifice His son to save the world), and in the next line says that “these are things” not seen or heard or even conceived by the human mind but revealed by God. Very interesting.

Part 3 of 3 – So if Christ was originally revealed via scripture, as Paul seems to say, as opposed to witnessed in action as per the later mythological Gospels narratives, what would that look like? This is where it gets really interesting.

The scriptures that Paul would have been using would have been from the Septuagint, again a Greek translated collection of old Hebrew scripture, which is known to have been consulted by early Christian writers, including Paul and the later Gospel authors, as there are mistranslations in the Septuagint that reappear in their writings.

This collection of writings offered an opportunity to look for secret messages and connections between otherwise unrelated passages (something we know other zealot cults, such as the Essenes, for example, were doing at the time), which seems to be what Paul says he is doing when he references “the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings.”

As a “proof of concept” that this is what Paul was doing, let’s start with Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher. Philo was ignorant of Christianity, but he was writing around the same time it developed, so he can provide some contemporary context.

Philo actually wrote about a first born son of God, a great archangel of many names, who was the agent of creation and image of God, which sounds exactly like what Paul is talking about when he speaks of Jesus (see for yourself -- https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html):

• (62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East*!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity.
• (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.
• (146) And even if there be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.
• (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons." For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.

Note in the link that this passage is a reference to Zechariah 6:12, where the figure identified and translated as "the East" is a variant translation of "the Branch":

Zechariah 6:12

• “... Behold a man whose is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord."

In the Septuagint, however, which Philo and Paul would have been using, it's translated this way:

• “Behold a man, rise up his name, and from under him he will rise, and he will build the house of the Lord.”

So, completely ignorant of Christianity, Philo is talking about a first-born Son of God, who is the image and agent of creation of God, the great archangel of many names, the Word (i.e. Logos – which Jesus is later identified with in the Gospel of John), and who is also connected to a reference in Zechariah about the one who will rise and build the temple of the Lord.

This sounds a lot like Paul’s Christ and also the heavenly high priest of Hebrews. And Philo has found this son of God not in Nazareth or Bethlehem, but going by the Zechariah reference, apparently revealed via scripture.

Note where Philo states “in another passage” this son of God is referred to as “firstborn” who “has formed such and such species,” referencing a passage from something outside of Zechariah, suggesting that this son of God was discovered by tying together otherwise unrelated passages to reveal hidden secrets.

The Book of Hebrews actually gives it away that this is what they were doing, as it demonstrates that scriptural passages were being read as being “secretly” about Jesus:

• Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his father, and he will be my son”
• Psalms 2:7 “I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
• 2 Samuel 7:14 “I will be his father, and he will be my son.”
• 1 Chronicles 17:13 “I will be his father, and he will be my son.”
  
  
• Hebrews 1:6 “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
• Deuteronomy 32:43 (Septuagint) “Rejoice, you heavens, for him, and all the angels of God worshiped him.”
  
  
• Hebrews 1:7 “In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”
• Psalms 104:4 “He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.”
  
  
• Hebrews 1:8-9 “But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
• Psalms 45:6-7 “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions.”
  
  
• Hebrews 1:10-12 “He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”
• Psalms 102:25-27 “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
  and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
  
  
• Hebrews 1:13 “To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
• Psalm 110:1 “The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

That makes it pretty clear that they were mining scripture for messages that were secretly about Jesus, as he’s not mentioned in any of those original passages.

[Side note, this might also explain how they came to view Jesus as “the image of God” and “God’s agent of creation.” As Psalms appears to have been a preferred source for information about Jesus, when using the “Name of God” translation, you’ll find that Psalms mentions both Yahweh and Elohim throughout, such that one might view them as separate beings (though they’re both usually just translated as “God”). Just using the examples from above you get this:

• Psalm 2:7 “I will announce Yahweh’s decree. He said to me: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.”
• Deuteronomy 32:43 (Septuagint) “Rejoice, you heavens, for him, and all the angels of Yahweh worshiped him…”
• Psalm 45:7 “…That is why Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you, rather than your companions, …”
• Psalm 110:1 “Yahweh said to my Lord, “Sit in the highest position in heaven until I make your enemies your footstool.”

So if Elohim could be read as secretly referring to Jesus, in Genesis we will find:

• Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.”
• Genesis 1:26 “Then Elohim said, “Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness.”

This would also be consistent with Philo referring to the son of god as an “archangel of many names.”]

So, if one was a faithful zealot, as Paul and presumably Cephas/Peter before him both would have been, who was looking to find secret messages in scripture about a secret son of God, what else might we find?

Since Philo provided the reference to Zechariah, we can use that as our starting point.

Zechariah 6:11-14 (let’s look at that whole passage now, where we find that the heavenly high priest who will rise and build the Temple of the Lord is God’s Righteous Son, who is crowned…Jesus)

• 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua, Jehozadak’s son Jesus, the Righteous Son of God. [In Greek Joshua and Jesus are identical, Jehozadak literally translates to God’s Righteousness]
• 12 Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘‘Behold a man, rise up his name, and from under him he will rise, and he will build the temple of the Lord.
• 13 It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two."

2 Samuel 7:13-14 & 16 (Further confirmation that God’s son will build his eternal temple and sit on an eternal throne – presumably in heaven, being eternal)

• 13 He will build a temple for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.
• 14 I will be his father and he will be my son.
• 16 Your dynasty and your kingdom will be secured forever before me. Your throne will be established forever.

1 Chronicles 17:12-14 (Same)

• 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.
• 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor.
• 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.

The Wisdom of Solomon 2 (God’s righteous son will be tested and condemned to a shameful death, but will also be helped/protected):

• [12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man…
• [18] …for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
• [19] Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.
• [20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.

[The Wisdom of Solomon -- https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445]

Psalms 89:38 (Note “anointed” appeared in the Septuagint as “christon,”i.e. Christ)

38 Thou have shown Thyself wroth with thine anointed one Christ.

Isaiah 53 (The passage is about Gods servant and his suffering; towards the end are a couple of key passages that connect it with Zechariah 3:9, as the Lord’s righteous servant will be sacrificed and will bear the guilt/sin of the world)

• 5 He was pierced because of our rebellions and crushed because of our crimes. He bore the punishment that made us whole; by his wounds we are healed.
• 10 But the Lord wanted to crush him and to make him suffer. If his life is offered as restitution, he will see his offspring; he will enjoy long life. The Lord’s plans will come to fruition through him.
• 11 After his deep anguish he will see light, and he will be satisfied. Through his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will make many righteous, and will bear their guilt.

Zechariah 3 (The whole chapter is interesting when you read ‘Jesus’ instead of ‘Joshua,’ with the key thing to take away being that on a day to be named God will remove guilt/iniquity/sin from the land in one day and Jesus is to be involved)

• 9 See this stone that I have put before Joshua Jesus. Upon one stone, there are seven facets. I am about to engrave an inscription on it, says the Lord of heavenly forces. I will remove the guilt of that land in one day.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 discusses the rights of the “first born son,” which could have then been connected with 21:21-22 (and as being hanged on a tree was a most shameful death, this matches up with the “shameful death” required in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:20 above):

• 21 …and he hath died, and thou hast put away the evil out of they midst…
• 22 …and he hath been put to death, and thou hast hanged him on a tree,
• 23 his corpse doth not remain on the tree, for though dost certainly bury him that day…

The Wisdom of Solomon 5 (The righteous man – previously identified as God’s son – will overcome death and live forever, as will all the righteous):

• [1] Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors.
• [2] When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation.
• [15] But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them.

Hosea 6:1-2 (The restoration/resurrection will take place on the third day, so that the righteous may live in God’s presence; also, Hosea was renamed Joshua, i.e. Jesus – “archangel of many names?”)

• 1 …He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.
• 2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

Daniel 9 (The end is coming, time for eternal righteousness -- and this provides a time frame which the original Christians interpreted to mean their present day):

• [24] Seventy weeks are appointed for your people and for your holy city to complete the rebellion, to end sins, to cover over wrongdoing, to bring eternal righteousness, to seal up prophetic vision, and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel 12 (At the end times the righteous chosen will receive eternal life):

• 1 At that time, Michael the great leader who guards your people will take his stand. It will be a difficult time—nothing like it has ever happened since nations first appeared. But at that time every one of your people who is found written in the scroll will be rescued.
• 2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty land will wake up—some to eternal life, others to shame and eternal disgrace.
• 3 Those skilled in wisdom will shine like the sky. Those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and always.

[Side fun fact: just as Philo references the son of God as “an archangel of many names,” many Jehovah’s Witnesses in fact believe that Michael and Jesus are revealed through scripture to be the same figure, further proof of concept regarding finding hidden connections in scripture.]

So, if one was looking to discover hidden "secret messages" for the righteous (as we know people at the time were), and you daisy chain just those passages together, you will learn…

• God has a secret righteous first-born son who was crowned Jesus who will sit on a heavenly throne and build (or has built) God’s eternal temple.
• At the end times this secret servant will suffer a lowly, shameful death and in the act remove sin from the world in one day ("by his wounds we are healed").
• He will be hanged on a tree and buried the same day.
• He will then overcome death “on the third day” and rise to return to God’s side to rule eternally, and all the chosen, righteous people will receive eternal life in heaven as well.
• These events are already happening/have already happened – the end is nigh!

This creates a lean gospel but one that would be consistent with the early Corinthian Creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), which, again, seems to literally declare that the death and resurrection of Christ were first revealed through scriptures and he then appeared through visions/hallucinations, and also consistent with reading 1 Corinthians 2:6-10 in regard to the “mystery” of the crucifixion as being something that was not seen or heard but revealed by God.

It also circles back to other things Paul wrote about in regard to the righteous and the righteousness of God that would be consistent with being drawn from the passages above:

• 2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
• Romans 1:17 “For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.
• Romans 3:21-22 “…the righteousness of God has been made known…This righteousness is given through faith…”
• Philippians 3:9 “…the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.”
• Galatians 5:5 “For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.”

Anyway, I guess the point of this dissertation spread over the last few posts is that when I look at the evidence it suggests to me that the Christ Paul writes of was drawn from the existing literature of the day, and then beyond that his own mind. Just as nothing historical was necessary to generate belief in the incredibly similar sounding son of God discussed by Philo, nothing historical was needed for Paul or his predecessors in the faith to develop their beliefs, only interpretation of “scriptural revelation” they believed they were receiving from heaven.

Likewise, the Gospels constructed in later generations then seem to be carefully crafted dramatic narratives that expanded on the initial gospel by also drawing from existing myths and literature of the day, and then beyond that the creativity of the respective authors -- making the Gospels literally old myths retold as new.

Then, of course, the later epistles that are recognized as forgeries were created that often try to harmonize everything.

Between it all there doesn't seem to be much room left for anything that can be pointed to as being actually or solidly historical, especially considering the historical silence and complete lack of contemporary witnesses to Jesus in the secular record. It all seems, for lack of a better word, made up.

Booker said:

I actually wrote this for the Religion thread on the motherboard, but I'm going to drop it here first for a trial run and see what you guys think.

Click to expand...

Well, you know what I think

I say drop it there; maybe carry the people on the "Derrek Carr, Bible Thumper?" thread over the Religion thread.

SystemShock said:

Well, you know what I think

I say drop it there; maybe carry the people on the "Derrek Carr, Bible Thumper?" thread over the Religion thread.

Click to expand...

Does it all make sense? It's a lot, but you can't just say "it's all made up" without providing context of why it looks "all made up."

Going back through it, between Paul, Philo, and Hebrews, they really seem to give up the game that the figure of Jesus was "divined" via scripture, and then when you start to put together that the Gospel stories started with Mark re-purposing texts to create an allegorical dramatic narrative, and then the later writers just rewrote his myth for their audiences, and it suddenly makes sense why there's no historical record of this person.

Logically it follows that at some point, when the original cult members would have been dying out, a sect of the cult switched from preaching a son of God revealed via scripture to a son of God who walked the earth (and like all religions, you don't need anything to be real, you just need an audience willing to believe you that it is). This sect eventually outgrew and outlasted the competition and became recognized as orthodox, labelling anyone who didn't say Jesus came "in the flesh" as being heretics.

Booker said:

Does it all make sense? It's a lot, but you can't just say "it's all made up" without providing context of why it looks "all made up."

Going back through it, between Paul, Philo, and Hebrews, they really seem to give up the game that the figure of Jesus was "divined" via scripture, and then when you start to put together that the Gospel stories started with Mark re-purposing texts to create an allegorical dramatic narrative, and then the later writers just rewrote his myth for their audiences, and it suddenly makes sense why there's no historical record of this person.

Logically it follows that at some point, when the original cult members would have been dying out, a sect of the cult switched from preaching a son of God revealed via scripture to a son of God who walked the earth (and like all religions, you don't need anything to be real, you just need an audience willing to believe you that it is). This sect eventually outgrew and outlasted the competition and became recognized as orthodox, labelling anyone who didn't say Jesus came "in the flesh" as being heretics.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to me, and I'd say, it'll make sense to anyone who doesn't want to blindly believe the “historical tradition” of the NT.

Booker said:

Does it all make sense? It's a lot, but you can't just say "it's all made up" without providing context of why it looks "all made up."

Going back through it, between Paul, Philo, and Hebrews, they really seem to give up the game that the figure of Jesus was "divined" via scripture, and then when you start to put together that the Gospel stories started with Mark re-purposing texts to create an allegorical dramatic narrative, and then the later writers just rewrote his myth for their audiences, and it suddenly makes sense why there's no historical record of this person.

Logically it follows that at some point, when the original cult members would have been dying out, a sect of the cult switched from preaching a son of God revealed via scripture to a son of God who walked the earth (and like all religions, you don't need anything to be real, you just need an audience willing to believe you that it is). This sect eventually outgrew and outlasted the competition and became recognized as orthodox, labelling anyone who didn't say Jesus came "in the flesh" as being heretics.

Click to expand...

I do not mean to disrespect your faith, but “faith” is faith for a reason… it’s not fact. And nothing in the Bible is factual, but “Testiments“ from ancient superstitious human beings trying to figure out their place in this reality. And after a lifetime of analyzing my existence, the last thing I would do is vest myself in ancient folklore as a basis to understand my existence. Don’t get me wrong, knowing our history is vital to see where we came from, but not to let yourself fall in with a bunch of ancient mumbo jumbo.

Now this IMO does preclude the possibility of “spirituality” that this journey, our existence, is not an isolated to a nanosecond in an infinite time line. There could easily be, and I hope for more much more. Because the bottom line is that if you and I, everyone are here for just a nanosecond, than what is the point exactly? There would be no point. Therefore, I choose to believe that the journey is much more than a human lifespan.

Complicating the issue is that religion has a huge significance, as far as the power, control, and wealth it offers to human beings who assume the role of official spokesperson for God on Earth. It skews everything about the contemplation of our place in this reality.

Huntn said:

I do not mean to disrespect your faith, but “faith” is faith for a reason… it’s not fact. And nothing in the Bible is factual, but “Testiments“ from ancient superstitious human beings trying to figure out their place in this reality. And after a lifetime of analyzing my existence, the last thing I would do is vest myself in ancient folklore as a basis to understand my existence. Don’t get me wrong, knowing our history is vital to see where we came from, but not to let yourself fall in with a bunch of ancient mumbo jumbo.

Now this IMO does preclude the possibility of “spirituality” that this journey, our existence, is not an isolated to a nanosecond in an infinite time line. There could easily be, and I hope for more much more. Because the bottom line is that if you and I, everyone are here for just a nanosecond, than what is the point exactly? There would be no point. Therefore, I choose to believe that the journey is much more than a human lifespan.

Complicating the issue is that religion has a huge significance, as far as the power, control, and wealth it offers to human beings who assume the role of official spokesperson for God on Earth. It skews everything about the contemplation of our place in this reality.

Click to expand...

No offense taken, I have no faith to disrespect.

I was raised Catholic, but by the time I was ten was ready to dismiss it as make believe based on some basic observations: 1) magic isn't real, 2) people lie, and 3) other people are often anxious to believe those lies (look no further than Trump and Trumpism).

For me this was just a curiousity -- how did Christianity get started if not with a magic man? Mormonism started when Joseph Smith, a known con-man, convinced people he was receiving visions from angels, just as Islam is said to have begun with Muhammad receiving visions from an angel. Unless you practice one of those faiths you would tend to think "they were just making it up."

Christianity supposedly begain with a miracle working sage. I always just assumed that there was a guy underneath the legend, be he a rabble rousing rabbi or anti-Roman militant, and that through the "game of telephone" or something along those lines, his followers elevated his status in the aftermath of his death.

Then I read something to the effect that there was no evidence for this person, and some suspected he didn't exist. But others were quite insistent that he did. Wikipedia, for example, reads "virtually all scholars agree" that he did, and the idea his didn't is "fringe" (as it turns out, they don't all agree, and the only two peer-reviewed studies in the last century on the subject conclude that he probably didn't). So I started looking into it, figuring that there must be some evidence if some were so certain.

The thing is, when I looked into it I found that indeed there was no contemporary record whatsoever of this person. More than that, rather than finding evidence of legendary accretion, where a mere man is slowly elevated to god status, the first literature clearly recognized him as a god.

So this was bizarre. This person would have had to be so amazing as to convince his followers he was a god, but still maintained a low enough profile as to escape contemporary notice. Okay, not impossible, but this wasn't convincing.

Likewise, I didn't find some opposing theories very convincing either, such as astro-theology, "Jesus is Horus," or that Christianity was created by the Romans to pacify the Jews. Those were all pretty easy to dismiss.

But when reading about how the Gospels were created, how the laters versions were really just revisions of Mark, and that the stories told were actually manufactured from existing stories, and that they weren't reflected in the earlier literature -- and once you see the evidence of literary dependence it's really undeniable.

So I looked before the Gospels, to Pauls letters, and he literally says its all revealed from scripture. Then I read Philo, and he literally offers a "show and tell" of how Jews in his time were teasing a son of god out of scripture -- and then Hebrews 1 literally confirms that early Christians were reading scripture as being secret messages about Jesus.

So, as an excercise (as I did in my Part 3 post above), you start with what Philo gives you, and sure enough, you can recreate a basic Christian gospel by connecting passages into a "secret" revelation.

Then you find additional suggestions from Paul's letters and 1 Clement that the early faith seemed to be bleeding followers, and then can infer that when the later Gospel writers expanded the myth by arranging more scriptural references into a dramatic narrative and preaching that instead they found a greater audience.

So the best evidence I can find is that it was all teased out of scripture, and I literally demonstrated how they would have done this. That to me makes for a far more likely explanation for how it got started than 1) the Gospel stories being true (obviously) or 2) there was a dude who was a nobody but made his followers think he was god.

Again, with any religion, nothing has to be true, you only need people willing to preach something as true and other people willing to believe it.

SystemShock said:

I was born into a Spaniard family, so obviously I started Catholic. But after my parents separated, my mom dragged me into her Tour D'Religion, which included stints with the Mormons and Krishnas. I have been baptized 6 times and forced into veganism once.. and all before I hit puberty.

Click to expand...

well that explains a lot (I'm only teasing heh)

zztop said:

well that explains a lot (I'm only teasing heh)

Click to expand...

Actually, it does explain a lot, as far religion is concerned. Once I started looking at different religions without the desire to believe in them, I started realizing that gods didn't make humans in their image, humans made gods in their image. Our ancestors tried to make sense of the world they lived in, and the best they could come up with is gods, of various flavors and sizes. As cultures/civilizations progressed, they gave more and more super human attributes to their gods, idealizing these gods could deliver them from mortality, hunger, poverty.

But yeah, it does explain a lot

SystemShock said:

Actually, it does explain a lot, as far religion is concerned. Once I started looking at different religions without the desire to believe in them, I started realizing that gods didn't make humans in their image, humans made gods in their image. Our ancestors tried to make sense of the world they lived in, and that's the best they could come up with is gods, of various flavors and sizes. As cultures/civilizations progressed, they game more and more super human attributes to their gods, idealizing these gods could deliver them from mortality, hunger, poverty.

But yeah, it does explain a lot

Click to expand...

Yep, gods started as agricultural saviors that you would pray to for rain, a good harvest, etc., and eventually evolved into personal saviors that you would pray to for eternal life. Most modern religions, when you boil them down, are about escaping death.

Holubice said:

Your answer is here:

This is the Beginning of the End

So, let's summarize...Since the bankruptcy of the Leman Brothers investment bank, the economy has entered a period of recession that has pushed large sections of society into semi-poverty. Or in real poverty. All manufacturing has moved from western factories to those in the Far East, where...

madaboutpolitics.com

Click to expand...

How many more times are you going to post and link to the same debunked psychobabble?

Nice work Booker, I will review it further when I have a few hours.

I did not notice any cites to Ehrman or Carrier, have you read their books?

Consigliere said:

Nice work Booker, I will review it further when I have a few hours.

I did not notice any cites to Ehrman or Carrier, have you read their books?

Click to expand...

Yes I have, but you'll notice I intentionally don't cite anyone's opinions above in favor of just going straight to the texts where people can see for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Booker said:

Yes I have, but you'll notice I intentionally don't cite anyone's opinions above in favor of just going straight to the texts where people can see for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Click to expand...

Very well. I see echoes of both in your work. No shame in that. They are the thought-leaders, and those of us who do not read Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. must rely on them somewhat.

I am a big Ehrman fan - books and podcast.

I appreciate Carrier as amusing and thought-provoking but I think he takes it too far. And he refers to "my peer reviewed book" too often.

It seems that you are on the Carrier side. What do you think about the fact/allegation that Paul is an eyewitness to a living breathing James? and James would know whether he had a brother named Jesus who got crucified. Supported by Josephus.
- Carrier response: he meant "spiritual brother"
- Ehrman reply: see Galatians 1:18-19 ("Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." So it would be redundant if it were only spiritual brother.
- Carrier retort: Ehrman is getting the Greek grammar wrong.
And I don't know Greek so WTH.