Ph.D. Historian on Christian origins (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Booker

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    665
    Reaction score
    1,462
    Location
    Colorado
    Offline
    Several enjoyable and informative videos from lectures by Dr. Richard Carrier on the origins of Christianity from a non-supernatural perspective...

    Rapture Day


    Why the Gospels are Myths


    Acts as Historical Fiction


    Did Jesus Even Exist?


    Christianity without Jesus
     
    Re: the crucifixion I think the problem is that Jesus was a minor player in the scheme of things at that time. Yes, the miracles indicate many people either believing or following him to see what would happen but the only records we have are collated and written down decades after the fact. So we know little based on a lack of contemporary information. The Jewish leaders really weren’t all that concerned imo. The Romans were to a degree. Upsetting the status quo required a response. The Romans were smart enough to utilize existing institutions when coming to power over a people. Thus threats no matter their size against the Jewish leaders were viewed dimly by the Romans. Much like now the concept is not law and order but simply order. Law is a cover. Authoritarians fear disorder most of all. Chaos is unpredictable. Stop disorder before it becomes chaos.
    I just want to point out that your impression of Jesus is based on his Gospel portrayal. Which is normal -- the Gospels are the most accessible part of the New Testament. I was raised Catholic, and never remember any discussions about the theology in the epistles, just the tall tales from the Gospels.

    So my speculation (similar to yours) was that Jesus was a guy that got killed, but he inspired followers and legends turned into myths, etc. and so on. And historicists will say that because he was depicted as having done certain things (like being put to death by the Romans) we should assume that those things must have some historical basis.

    But that's not necessarily true. If activities can be shown to have a literary or theological basis I think you have to question whether there's any history behind them or if it's just creative writing.

    Also, the Gospels weren't written until the late first and early second century. At that point, Christianity had died out among it's initial Jewish adherents (who were expecting the end of the world to happen during their lifetimes). But the invention of the Gospels, and the way Mark's literary allusions were changed by the later Gospel writers to become prophecy fulfillment, helped attract a new audience among the gentiles of the Roman empire as a new mystery religion from the east.

    But the Gospels aren't the place to start with when trying to see how Christianity started. The earliest Christian documents are the seven "authentic" letters of Paul, along with Hebrews and Revelation, and perhaps James, and none of them show any reflection to the Gospel stories. Again, go back the narrow gospel Paul preached in the Corinthian Creed -- Jesus died, was raised, and then appeared, signaling the end times were coming. No knowledge of where or when this happened, only that it happened because the scriptures (i.e. Old Testament scriptures) told them so.

    I'm going to break this into two additional responses. First I'll provide examples of why the Gospels shouldn't be taken historically. Then I'll provide evidence that Paul and his contemporaries worshipped not a man from Galilee who got killed for running against the authorities, but a celestial being, God's first born son and agent of creation.
     
    So, let’s start with why the Gospels are completely untrustworthy as history. The Gospels weren't written until the late first and early second century, and as stated, at that point Christianity had died out among its initial Jewish adherents (who were expecting the end of the world to happen during their lifetimes). The invention of the Gospels, and the way Mark's literary allusions were changed by the later Gospel writers to become prophecy fulfillment, helped attract a new audience. But were they myths or were they historically based, or maybe somewhere in between?

    Let’s take a look at a few things from the Gospels and see where some of the stories originated (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).

    As I mentioned previously, John the Baptist and Jesus are meant to parallel Elijah and Elisha from the book of Kings. 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.”

    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.”

    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 the Septuagint/Old Testament -- 2 Kings 17:9-23, where Elijah raises the dead son of a widow.

    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.

    Likewise, Jesus’ execution at Passover is a myth created so that Jesus replaces the Paschal lamb. It’s also 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. Also, a Passover execution 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.

    The same thing 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 so uncommon as to have been written about contemporaneously. The story is actually 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!”)

    The crucifixion scene from Mark 15 draws from Psalms 22. For example, Mark 15:34 (“My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?”) and Psalsm 22:1 (“My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”) and Mark 15:24 (“And having crucified him, they were dividing his garments, casting a lot upon them, what each may take”) and Psalms 22:18 (“They apportion my garments to themselves, And for my clothing they cause a lot to fall.”), among other parallels.

    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.”

    So is this history, or just creative writing, literally taking old myths to make new?
     
    Now let look at how Jesus was viewed prior to the Gospels.

    First let’s start with Philo. He was a Jewish Philosopher who predated and never wrote anything about Christianity. Be he did write, in chapter XV of his Confusion of Tongues that “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!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} 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.” http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

    Note the parts I underlined. “Companions of Moses” is a way of saying “a Jew” who believes there is a first born son of God who goes by different names and is the image of God. This passage also references Zechariah 6:12 (“and hast spoken unto him, saying: Thus spake Jehovah of Hosts, saying: Lo, a man! A Shoot -- [is] his name, And from his place he doth shoot up, And he hath built the temple of Jehovah.” Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord."), where the figure named “Branch” is meant to be understood to be the same figure referenced by “The East.”

    And in the line above, Zechariah 6:11, this figure is crowned: “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak” (i.e. Jesus son of God).

    So before Christianity had begun we see evidence of a belief among some Jews in celestial son of God named Jesus. Now lets look at how Jesus is referred to in the books written prior to the Gospels.

    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.”

    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 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)

    Now let’s 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?

    Now lets go back over where Paul learned of Jesus: scripture and revelation.

    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”

    Now what does Paul have to say about anyone preaching beyond what he has taught them? Not to do it!

    1 Corithians 4:5-6 “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

    Galatians 1:6-9 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

    Now let’s take a look at the Ascension of Isaiah, a late first gospel about Jesus. In the Ascension, Isaiah tells of vision he received as ascended through the heavens, where he sees Jesus. It is foretold that Jesus will descend to the lower heavens and allow himself to be killed by Satan’s demons before rising triumphantly back to the highest heaven. Then, as foreshadowed, Jesus begins his descent, and everything follows as predicted – until you get to where he’s supposed to be killed by demons, where the text is interrupted with an interpolation reflecting the Gospel stories.

    This is interesting, though, because according to Paul Jesus was killed by “the rulers of this age,” which were considered to be Satan and his demons.

    1 Corinthians 2:7-8 “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.”

    The mystery Paul refers to is that by making a sacrifice of God’s first born son, the spilling of Jesus’ god blood will wipe the world clean from sin and begin the end times, when the faithful would be called up to heaven (refer again to this post... https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...-the-choice-is-yours.99900/page-2#post-158909).

    Paul and the early Christians seem to believe this cosmic sacrifice had taken place via scriptural interpretations. But exactly when or where this sacrifice took place isn’t clearly stated, so I’m guessing over time it became subject to speculation among the followers, and depending on their scriptural interpretations they might have ended up in different times and places (which would explain why some would place his death at different times in history -- either under Pilate, twenty years later under Claudius, or 100 years earlier under Alexander Janneus).

    In the case of Mark’s Gospel, he created a myth assigning it approximately 40-50 years before he wrote, and that eventually became canon.
     
    Last edited:
    I would call it “bash to fit”. They had no scripture so they created scripture. That Hebrew scripture was not historically accurate nor actually prophetic meant nothing.
     
    I would call it “bash to fit”. They had no scripture so they created scripture. That Hebrew scripture was not historically accurate nor actually prophetic meant nothing.
    Again, its all about rewriting old myths into new. Take for example the food miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, which recreate (and of course surpass) similar miracles performed by Elisha in 2 Kings. See the passage below from the article about the New Testament as midrash, where it also points out that Homer's Odyssey was also influential (and that's not coincidental, as the Gospel authors were skilled scribes who would have learned and used classical literature as part of their education).


    18. Multiplication of Loaves and Fish (6:30-44; 8:1-10)

    As all acknowledge, the basis for both the miraculous feeding stories in Mark’s gospel is the story of Elisha multiplying the twenty barley loaves for a hundred men in 2 Kings 4:42-44. There is in all three stories the initial assessment of how much food is available, the prophetic command to divide it among a hopelessly large number, the skeptical objection, puzzled obedience, and the astonishing climax in which not only all are fed, but they had leftovers as well! As Helms notes (p. 76), John has gone back to the source to add a detail. He has made the servant (paidarion) of Elisha into a boy (paidarion) whose five barley loaves Jesus uses to feed the crowd (John 6:9).

    But there are more elaborate details in Mark’s stories which do not come from 2 Kings. They come from the Odyssey 3:34-38, 63-68; 4:30, 36, 51, 53-58, 65-68 (MacDonald, pp. 89-90). The reason Mark has two feeding miracles is to emulate Homer, who has Odysseus’ son Telemachus attend two feasts, and Mark has borrowed details from both. For the first feast, Telemachus and the disguised Athena sail to Pylos where King Nestor is presiding at a feast in honor of Poseidon. It is a sailors’ feast, so only men are present. Four thousand, five hundred of them are seated in nine units of five hundred each. Everyone ate to satiety and there were leftovers. In Mark’s first feast story, Jesus and his men also sail to the site of the meal. They encounter a group of five thousand men, andreV, males (no explanation is offered for this, a simple vestige of Homer). Jesus has them sit in discrete groups. After the Elisha-style miracle, everyone eats and is filled, and leftovers are gathered.

    Homer’s second feast witnesses Telemachus going overland to Sparta, just as in Mark’s second episode, Jesus and the disciples walk to Galilee, where he meets the crowd of four thousand. This time, in both stories, there is no restriction to males. A servant of King Menelaus bids him send Telemachus and his companion away unfed, but the king will not, just as a disciple urges Jesus to send away the hapless crowd, and he will not. Everyone sits down to eat, in both cases, and in neither is there any mention of the elaborate arrangement of the diners as in the first feast scene. All are filled; leftovers are gathered. Mark has seemingly cast Jesus as Telemachus in both stories until the hero arrives at the banquet scene, whereupon he switches roles, having Jesus take the place of the hosts, Nestor and Menelaus.​
    There's also evidence in the Bible that some early Christians even recognized the Gospels as simply myth. 2 Peter is a acknowledged as mid-second century forgery, and states at 1:16, "For we have not followed cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

    The significance of this is both that it's a forgery used to create a witness to Jesus where there otherwise isn't one, but also (and more importantly) that, as the epistles are supposedly letters between different groups of Christians, this letter shows there were early Christians, even into the second century when it was actually written, that labeled the Gospels as "cleverly devised myths" that this letter was therefore intended to refute. However, those Christians would have been labeled heretic, and any writings they had either were not preserved or would have been intentionally destroyed.

    That's actually one of the issues -- so little was retained from the first and early second century, with much being intentionally destroyed as heretic, and our only knowledge of the early heretic beliefs comes via the apologetic responses from second century church fathers.

    One of the few surviving early critiques is from Celsus in the late second century, and is worth a few minutes. He comments on various absurdities, parallels Jesus with other mythological characters, and points out how some of the supposed wisdom attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is lifted from other sources.


    There's actually a really great example of how wisdom sayings were rewritten and attributed to Jesus. In the Nag Hammadi find there was a text titled Eugnostos the Blessed, described as "A treatise on the Gnostic world order in the form of a message from a teacher (Eugnostos) to his disciples."

    It was found along side a text titled The Sophia of Jesus Christ, described as "Revelation in the form of questions and answers given by the risen Christ to his apostles. The text is dependent on Eugnostos the Blessed. Jesus' speeches in this text are verbatim with Eugnostos' teachings given in Eugnostos the Blessed."

    Red handed evidence of Christians forging and fabricating in the name of their faith.



     
    Last edited:
    By the way, my apologies for the long winded posts. I've just read way too much about the subject and then like to try to fully explain where I'm coming from so it doesn't seem like I'm just pulling stuff out of my butt (which is why I leave references so if people want they can actually go look at what stuff says).
    It's a fascinating topic.

    As a Buddhist I recognize that there is no real evidence that the Buddha existed. However, it doesn't matter. Buddhism has materialized nonetheless.
     
    Last edited:
    It's a fascinating topic.

    As a Buddhist I recognize that there is no real evidence that the Buddha existed. However, it doesn't matter. Buddhism has materialized nonetheless.
    I haven't done any research on the Buddha, so I can't comment there. I did look into the historicity of Muhammad, and I seem to recall there's a little something there, perhaps a contemporary reference, but that's about it. Compared to the first century Roman empire, which was very well chronicled, in the middle east very, very little was preserved during the middle ages, so really all you have is tradition, which should be considered legendary.

    The big difference between Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus, though, is that only one was supposedly a god walking on earth. Whether or not the history of the Buddha or Muhammad is more legendary than factual, there's nothing unbelievable about someone establishing a religion or philosophy. In the example of Muhammad we can doubt whether the teachings came directly to Muhammad from the angel Gabriel, as is claimed, but you can turn on the TV any day of the week and see televangelists claiming to channel god. But as a god that died and rose from the dead, Jesus ends up in a reference class with with the likes of Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, Tammuz, and Inanna.

    Another way that Jesus is different is that the earliest recorded "teachings" were the revelations received by Paul from the risen Christ. In this way Jesus is more analogous to the angel Gabriel with Paul being analogous to Muhammad, not at all unlike the angel Moroni revealing himself to Joseph Smith. And if you're not a Muslim or Mormon you generally would disbelieve that Gabriel or Moroni were real, but were rather inventions by Muhammad or Joseph Smith to give them authority. Follow the same logic.
     
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    The big difference between Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus, though, is that only one was supposedly a god walking on earth. Whether or not the history of the Buddha or Muhammad is more legendary than factual, there's nothing unbelievable about someone establishing a religion or philosophy. ......................................

    I agree on both counts.

    From what's been handed down, the Buddha was very explicit about not being godly. According to his teachings, nothing can be eternal. Everything has to come from something, which is the real meaning of karma.

    And, could there have been a Buddha who started Buddhism, absolutely. But it's just not known how much was legendary and how much is factual. As I said before though, it's irrelevant to the teachings.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Back
    Top Bottom