>>16829121the palestinians would stone that faggot for that, without inquiring that he's a faggot
>>16829121Either you take the complete lack of extant writing refering to the miracles of the christ as evidence or you will take nothing
>>16829121Is he implying an acceptance of the Resurrection? Interesting
>>16829121Chrissy is a historicist tranny, but Jesus is as real as his vagina.
>>16829127And Israel bombs churches yet that does not stop us christians from loving them
>>16829172kek
Chrissy is a redd*t tranny but they're not a mythicist nor do they deny the historical Jesus.That guy is a twitter troll, he always has that gilgamesh mask as his avi
>>16829121How much of the Bible do you have to reject before you're no longer considered a believer in a historical Jesus? What would you call someone who believes that there was a man named Yeshua from Bethlehem who started a cult that became Christianity, but was not the son of god, didn't perform miracles, and didn't rise from the grave?Because anything more skeptical than that seems pretty absurd. Like, we have multiple apostles preaching a similar Christian religion at various places around the world in the years after Jesus' supposed death, who maintained their faith in this message even to the point of all twelve of them being executed. Do the mythicists really expect us to believe that twelve people got together and decided to make up a fake story about a prophet, then go their separate ways to spread the story and die for it despite knowing that it was made up? That's just not plausible. This pattern of behavior can only be explained by an initial charismatic cult leader convincing these people that the message was true, and if there was such a founder, then isn't that man clearly Jesus?
>>16829650The problem is that we know next to nothing about the historical Jesus besides that he existed and was crucified, so we're almost forced to engage with the Biblical Jesus and his words/actions because otherwise, we have nothing.
>>16829121In about 1991 years ago
>>16829121When Mythicists have a coherent theory.
>>16829650If you look at the more serious mythicists arguments it's not that these guys were lying, it's just that they didn't claim to be preaching about a real historical person but a spiritual being in the heavens they had a vision about.There are tons of issues with this theory (for one Paul talks about Jesus's brother), but it's different than them lying. It would moreso be later Christians believed in a historical Jesus, and reinterpreted earlier texts with this new belief.
>>16829701>There are tons of issues with this theory (for one Paul talks about Jesus's brother)Carrier has already addressed a thousand times. Come up with some better cope.
>>16829712>Carrier has already addressed a thousand times. Come up with some better cope.They've never read Carrier's book and they never will
>>16829701>There are tons of issues with this theory (for one Paul talks about Jesus's brother), but it's different than them lying. It would moreso be later Christians believed in a historical Jesus, and reinterpreted earlier texts with this new belief.How exactly do mythicists think this happened, or even why? It's seems like a rather odd development, we can all think of instances of real historical people being being mythologized and deified with time, but they are arguing that with Jesus it was the opposite? And how do they account for the earliest gospels having low christology and the later ones higher? Shouldn't it be the opposite if they were right?
>>16829712It's a really dumb and reaching argument to say Paul doesn't mean literal "brother" of the lord because he calls fellow christians "brothers".Brother of the Lord is something Paul distinguishes James from Peter as, meaning Peter is not a brother of the Lord in the same sense.The argument is half-baked and quickly falls apart.
>>16829720>And how do they account for the earliest gospels having low christology and the later ones higher?Yeah this is a glaring issue with the theory.The Mythicists on this board are trolls though and can't give you an answer though.I honestly think I can steelman Mythicism better than they could represent it.
>Mythicists on this board are trolls>posts b8Kek. All of these 'glaring issues' are directly addressed in the book none of you have ever read. You can get the audiobook free even. It doesn't matter to liars and copers how many times you point this out. You'd think faggots infamous for telling everyone to read their book would be sympathetic but abrahamics are all obnoxiously dishonest of course. Or just shills/priests sent here to argue dishonestly, one of the two
>>16829781Would you care to give the mythicist explanation for the low christology in the earlier gospels?
I'll gladly read the bible, I have one right next to me, in fact. None of these coward faggots will even consider reading this man's book. Not one of them. Hilarious >Would you care to give the mythicist explanation for..READ THE FUCKING BOOK LMAO
>>16829825I don't need to read the shitty book, just give the explanation.
>>16829121>When will the Historical Jesus die?He won't, because Jesus is historically at the right hand of the father, testified by Stephen. Revelation 1:18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
>>16829781Just give us the argument then fag.
>>16829731>It's a really dumb and reaching argument to say Paul doesn't mean literal "brother" of the lord because he calls fellow christians "brothers".It's not. "Brother" has long been used in cultic/religious contexts without any biological meaning.>Brother of the Lord is somethingFurthermore, the very fact that he doesn't say "brother of Jesus" tells us everything we need to know. "Lord" = Yahweh. Pre-Christians and early Christians refrained from saying "Yahweh" for pretty much the same reason jews do today. They always said "Lord" in its place.It's difficult to interpret "brother of Yahweh" as being biological rather than cultic/religious.
>>16829926>Brother" has long been used in cultic/religious contexts without any biological meaning.https://medium.com/@cmehans2020/what-does-brother-of-the-lord-mean-533124132860
>>16829926>Furthermore, the very fact that he doesn't say "brother of Jesus" tells us everything we need to know. "Lord" = Yahweh.Romans 10:9 - because, if you confess with your mouth that JESUS IS LORD and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “JESUS IS LORD” except in the Holy Spirit.
>>16829926>>16829929>So the conclusions are in… there is not a single exception. It always turns out to be the case that any time τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ and οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ are uttered, that they mean a physical and biological sibling. So why exactly are we pretending that Paul is any different? Mythicists have to argue that among every ancient writer on record (Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman) that Paul alone is exceptional. It is ridiculous just from a linguistic standpoint alone. The plain meaning of the text is of a biological brother.
>>16829929There is a wealth of non-literal, non-biological uses of ἀδελφός in Ancient Greek literature and the Greek Bible. The position that ἀδελφός is always literal is indefensible.ἀδελφόςhttps://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%82LSJ>3 colleague, associate, PTeb. 1.12, IG 12 (9).906.19 (Chalcis); member of a college, ib. 14.956.Abbott-Smith NT>2. Of a neighbour (Le 19:17).>3. Of a member of the same nation (Ex 2:14, De 15:3). In NT in each of these senses (1. Mt 1:2, al.; 2. Mt 7:3; 3. Ro 9:3) and also,>4. of a fellow-Christian: I Co 1:1, Ac 9:30. This usage finds illustration in π., where ἀ. is used of members of a pagan religious community (M, Th., I, 1:4; MM, VGT, s.v.)
>>16829934>B-but Jesus is LordYahweh isn't a historical character. If Paul thinks Jesus is literally Yahweh, then Paul never had a real flesh and blood person or a historical Jesus in view.
>>16829961If Paul thinks Jesus Lord, then to whom is he referring to when he says "brother of the Lord"?
>itt mythicists getting ASS FUCKED yet again.
>>16829956>There is a wealth of non-literal, non-biological uses of ἀδελφός in Ancient Greek literature and the Greek Bible.>In order to argue differently, mythicists are left scrambling with “but ἀδελφός means a fraternal/fictive brother in Paul’s writing” and to which they would be right. But we are not talking about ἀδελφός on its own, so their argument is an irrelevant non-starter. When they can find evidence that the entire phrase τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ or οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ are used to indicate non-biological relatives, then they will have a case. At this point, the only ones they will be able to come up with are late Christian authors who were arguing for the perpetual virginity of Mary, and who acknowledged that the clear and blanket reading of the text was biological brothers, hence why they have to reinterpret the passages to begin with, i.e., to deny the plain meaning of the text. If this meant a cultic title, or plausibly meant anything other than a biological sibling, then the Christians believing in the perpetual virginity wouldn’t even need to make an argument. Mythicists, as a result, have no more defensible evidence of their position than those who proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary. They are just making stuff up.
>>16829972Not a flesh and blood person. If he thinks they're the same, and he wanted to talk about an earthly person with a biological brother, he should have used his earthly name. The form of address "brother of the Lord" makes it impossible know that he's talking about a biological brother because it's misleading. It leads one to believe he is talking about a fellow Christian or Jew, so my position is Paul would have been sensitive to this and would have gone out of his way to say "brother of Jesus" if he meant a biological brother.
>>16829701>If you look at the more serious mythicists arguments it's not that these guys were lying, it's just that they didn't claim to be preaching about a real historical person but a spiritual being in the heavens they had a vision about.And it's a dumb hypothesis that reads like a deranged Youtube fan theory. If the greatest missionary in Christianity shilled such a theology to a people who would greatly outnumber the original Jewish believers, why is there not more proof for a celestial Jesus? Why isn't it the mainstream opinion or one of the most prominent heresies in Christianity? It also gets confusing when Paul talks about the last supper and crucifixion in Corinthians, since it brings into question who betrayed Jesus, who his disciples were (couldn't be the flesh and blood Peter or James after all), and how that all worked in what is supposed to be some layer of heaven. If presented with the idea Jesus was some guy who Paul had visions about, or the one where Jesus was one of several itinerant preachers who existed at the time in a backwater Roman province, the second one seems more likely to me. When you further get into the fact I don't think I've seen a person who's pushed the mythicist angle who didn't seem to have the same sort of personal investment in proving the Bible completely wrong in the way a Christian would try and prove it right, I remain thoroughly unconvinced.
>>16829983Here's your precious Carrier getting destroyed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv4bh0qVYgc
>>16829121>When will the Historical Jesus die?Who wins and who loses if it happens?What is gained by who and what is lost by who?
>>16829978>definite article fundamentally changes everythingIt's a weak argument
>>16829994>I-I-I-It's a-a w-weak argument...
Most people don't understand the trinity anymore because it's based on the racist original Christian worldview. And since the Catholic church dropped it from their narrative, what they teach now is just confusing and mostly wrong.
>>16829121Given the number of Christian Palestinians and the status of Jesus in Islam, that tranny has far more in common with Israelis lol.
>>16829997You need an explanation for why the definite article changes the non-literal uses of the word.>Look at all these examples where they used the articleisn't an argument by itselfSomehow this should override our basic reading comprehension skills that remind us that Paul did not literally say "the brother of Jesus"? No, there's not enough here to ignore the fact that "the brother of the Lord" sounds figurative
>>16830009>No, there's not enough here to ignore the fact that "the brother of the Lord" sounds figurative"Sounds" figurative? Paul explicitly tells us that Jesus is Lord to him, so it's blatantly obvious to anyone except mythicists that Paul is referring to Jesus.
>>16830017Yes, it sounds figurative, because what he's really saying is "the brother of Yahweh". Nobody would take that literally today.
>>16830005>the number of Christian PalestiniansThere are, at most, 500,000 Christians of Palestinian origin on earth. ~185,000 Christians live in Israel. ~125,000 Christians live in the Palestinian Territories. The Christian population of Israel has been continuously rising for years, while the Christian population of the Palestinian Territories, and all Muslim-majority states, has been continuously shrinking for years.https://cnewa.org/telling-the-story-of-christians-in-israel/https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44905/why-are-christians-leaving-palestinian-territorieshttps://www.academia.edu/7603271https://archive.is/08T4u
>>16830009>>16829997>>16829978I'll add one more thing to this. I don't find the definite article argument compelling because it's used for Greek possessive/genitive phrases, unlike English. I don't see any rhyme or reason why Paul using a genitive phrase suddenly necessitates a literal usage.Examples:https://koineworkbook.wordpress.com/2018/12/23/the-definite-article-and-possessive-pronouns/>Ἰωσήφ δέ ὁ ἀνήρ αὐτῆς>Joseph, the husband of her>Joseph, her husband (Matt 1:19)
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/>in both Galatians 1:18-9 and 1Cor 9:5 the “brother/s of the Lord” are mentioned alongside and separate from other believers. In 1Cor 9:3-6 these “brothers of the Lord” are distinct from “the other apostles” and from “Cephas”, despite them being believers as well. And in Galatians 1:18-19 this “James, brother of the Lord” is somehow distinct from Cephas again, despite Cephas being a believer. So if these uses of ἀδελφός simply mean “a believer”, why this distinction? And why is it only to be found in the two examples where the word is not simply a form of ἀδελφός, but is part of the specific phrase “ἀδελφὸν/ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου” (brother/brothers of the Lord)?>The mainstream reading of these two passages answers this question very easily: James and the other siblings of Jesus were believers, but were distinct from other believers because they were his literal brothers.
This has nothing to do with Carrier's arguments. But i thought everyone should know that he cheated on his wife and then came out as polyamorous when he announced their divorce. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/6737
>>16829121>you just don't get it bro, Jesus is not a metaphor for the sun!>what do you mean the apostles are the zodiac signs incarnate?? you a-are a tranny lover!!
>>16829985Oh I agree with everything you say. More serious is relative. Carrier at least brought it up to a level that could go through peer review, but it's still fringe and not taken seriously.
>>16829985>Why isn't it the mainstream opinion or one of the most prominent heresies in Christianity?It IS a prominent "heresy". It's called Docetism.Some Christians literally believed Jesus was a δόκησις, a phantom or apparition.
>>16830307Docetists still believed that Jesus was a real person who was down here on earth, not in some celestial plane.
>the instant malding christnigger replies to every mythicist post
>>16830314It seems rather difficult to narrowly define Docetism as "Jesus was a phantom, but oh yeah, actually he was still historical in the minds of every Docetist because they were dogmatic and unified in their beliefs". I don't see how someone can't see Docetism as cracking the lid on a non-historical Jesus. This clearly moves the bar in the direction of mythicism on the historical-mythical spectrum.
>>16830341It's actually a big leap, because whether the Docetists thought Jesus was a spirit who only took on the semblance of humanity or that he was a spirit that possessed a righteous man, they still believed that he walked around on Earth and did things. You're making the leap from "Jesus only appeared to be human," to "Jesus wasn't real."
>>16830341>"Jesus was a phantom, but oh yeah, actually he was still historical in the minds of every Docetist because they were dogmatic and unified in their beliefs".You know that phantoms are still supposed to be down here on earth, right? Or what, you think Docetists believed in someone who at the same time thought never existed?Also you still have to contend with the low christology of the early gospels.
>>16830551How did they make the leap from "Jesus was a real historical person" to "Jesus was a historical phantom"? It already sounds like apologists have had a hand in this paradoxical definition of Docetism where Jesus is a phantom, but "oh no, trust me, bro, he was still historical". I'm sure the average ancient Greek thought gods were like phantoms, spirits, or something like that to cope with the fact that nobody was experiencing a tangible, physical entity which could be called a god.What is Jesus reduced to then? The same level of "historicity" as Zeus and Athena. If you asked someone back then, they would assert that these are "historical" characters too! Historical Docetism, by virtue of its paradoxical nature already lies between historicity and mythicism, while clearly being biased towards mythicism. We now see that this goes both ways:No, it isn't that a leap was made from historicity to a historical phantom, rather a leap was made from a completely mythical character to one who was real but like a phantom in order to cope with the lack of direct experience with or knowledge of someone who has suddenly become "historical".
>>16829712>>16829715Carrier's metric has been laughed out of academia because he is presumptive and makes leaps in logic.There is no reason to think Palestinian Rabbis didnt exist and Carrier takes his denying the identity of Christ into the denial of Christ's possibility altogether. >>16829905they wont because the only way they can argue is in bad faith and declaring the criticisms of Carrier to be unreasonable for unknown reasons.There's also the fact Carrier doesnt actually make an argument he only heavily implies things then draws conclusions from them without a critical process.
>>16830704or maybe, just maybe, people have a tendency to mythologize and euhemerize?it goes against all literary criticism to have mythology become history rather than the other way round.
>>16830704The reason why Docetists believed Jesus wasn't a flesh and blood human is because they didn't think he could be perfect if he was flesh and blood. This is reflected by how some Docetists thought Jesus was a possessed human. Their belief wasn't that Jesus was just a vision, it was that Jesus only looked human, but wasn't.
>>16830704>It already sounds like apologists have had a hand in this paradoxical definition of Docetism where Jesus is a phantom, but "oh no, trust me, bro, he was still historical".If this was an argument that the Docetists were making, we would know about it. We only know about it because proto-Orthodox writers were trying to argue against their ideas.You're just reading your own argument into the texts. Whether Jesus was a historical person is not something ANYONE at the time was arguing for or against. They took it for granted. Even Celsus does not cast doubt on it, he tries instead to delegitimize the man as the son of a whore for example.> The same level of "historicity" as Zeus and AthenaComplete non-sequitor. The myths of ancient greece do not cast these gods as historical people working in a recent era of greek history at the time. Their myths take place in a distant mythological past. You're comparing apples to oranges.
>>16830744>Whether Jesus was a historical person is not something ANYONE at the time was arguing for or against.Wrong.https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13425>Stop your ears when anyone speaks to you at variance with the Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and came through Mary; who really was born and ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died in the sight of witnesses in heaven, and on earth, and even under the earth; who really was raised from the dead, too, His Father resurrecting Him, in the same way His Father will resurrect those of us, who believe in Him by Jesus Christ, apart from whom we do not truly have life. [Ignatius, Trallians 9, written between 110 and 160 AD (see scholarship summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.6)]>who really was born and ate and drank;This isn't even a dispute about miracles. They were arguing about historicity!But with who? Not atheists and pagans. They didn't even know enough about the Jesus character to deny his historicity! You usually don't bother arguing with unbelievers. Most arguments happen between believers. This doctrine is best seen as a clear differentiator between sects. The doctrine is valuable insight into what Docetism probably was in that it concerns itself with telling people to believe instead of falsely representing Docetists in order to slander them.
>>16830839>it concerns itself with telling people to believewhat to believe
>>16830839That doesn't necessarily mean he was arguing against people who didn't think Jesus was real. It sounds to me he was arguing against people who didn't think Jesus was human.
>>16830985In the gospels, Jesus was born, ate, and drank.This doctrine is arguing against a clear denial that even this much happened. Did they not read the gospels?>people who didn't think he was humanBut just a moment ago the historical Docetist position was supposedly that he was a phantom but still did things on earth like eating and drinking. Look how much further towards mythicism we've come. I don't think people had any problems with gods or spirits eating and drinking. They're supernatural, so nothing is beyond their capabilities, right? So I don't see how the non-human distinction is helpful here.• No birth• No eating • No drinking• No persecution under Pontius PilateThe only way to summarize this honestly is that it's a disagreement about historicity (or even about a celestial Jesus)
>>16830839>>16831010He was arguing against Docetists, who very much believed Jesus was a real being, just spiritual in nature.He's mentioning born, ate and drank to emphazise his material nature.Also, what indication do you have that the Docetists were the original group and not just a variant that came later like with Gnosticism? Because the entire point of his argument is that Jesus was first a celestial being that was later humanized, how do you know which came first?
>>16829454Every tranny is reddit these days, even the most normie ones on tiktok believe in all the extreme reddit trans politics
>>16831010>The only way to summarize this honestly is that it's a disagreement about historicity (or even about a celestial Jesus)Let me get this straight, you're saying that Docetists were mythicists, is that what you're saying?
>>16831033Whoever this doctrine argues against does not agree with the basic framework of a historical Jesus. It's probably Docetists, and if not, the same people who would become Docetists.We can't really trust the sources explicitly mentioning Docetists to tell us exactly what that belief system is honestly when treating it directly, because they're arguing against it. Here, because the focus is more on telling people what to believe, it's more likely to shed light on what the opposition is about through indirect means.The point isn't to say the opposition were mythicists. This kind of assumes they initially had a myth which they were denying as historical. They didn't even necessarily have the gospels. They could have had a Pauline version of Christ in mind that was developed without the gospels.
>>16831110>We can't really trust the sources explicitly mentioning Docetists to tell us exactly what that belief system is honestly when treating it directly, because they're arguing against it.So your entire point hangs on nothing, then.
>>16831220No, Docetism or not, the entire point is there is some sect that doesn't agree with the basic facts of a historical Jesus.I'm doing two things:1. Explaining this doctrine probably gets to the heart of the matter regarding Docetism2. Explaining people were in fact arguing about the historicity of Jesus2 is all that matters. Just because I say we can't take explicit statements about Docetism at face value doesn't invalidate anything I've said. Don't get distracted by Docetism. Just focus on 2.
>>16831033I just thought I should clarify succinctly:The reason they disagreed about the historicity of Jesus may have been they had never heard of a life story similar to what is found in the gospels. They didn't know he was supposed to be some regular Joe born to a woman and later persecuted by Pontius Pilate.Later when other people with a life story for Jesus came along, it would have been confusing for them.
>>16829731>Brother of the Lord is something Paul distinguishes James from Peter as, meaning Peter is not a brother of the Lord in the same senseYes, because Peter was an apostle(any Christian who had a vision of the risen Jesus and was sent to preach the message). According to Paul, ALL baptized but NON-apostle Christians were brothers and sisters of the Lord(literally, Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren). Paul in Galatians 4 lays out what it means to be adopted into the family of God, and to obtain the same birth of Jesus. "Brother of the Lord" appears in that phrasing only twice, both times used to distinguish James from an apostle.If one is to believe that James is the biological brother of Jesus, why Paul did not distinguish between biological and cultic "brothers" of the Lord is confusing, and makes no real sense. Unless, for Paul, there WAS no idea of biological brothers, or even family, of Jesus, only cultic family.
>>16830732>There is no reason to think Palestinian Rabbis didnt existCarrier never says this> Carrier takes his denying the identity of Christ into the denial of Christ's possibility altogetherCarrier has said many times that he, when he is being maximally charitable, gives the possibility of a historical Jesus existing a 1 in 3 chance.
>>16829121When the last child of God falls and the light no longer walks the earth.
>>16829147He could have just been a guy about whom they made up miracle-stories.
>>16829720>How exactly do mythicists think this happenedFirstly, it was already a thing outside of Christianity. Euhemerization comes from the author Euhemerus, who took Zeus and Ouranous, and inserted them into history as real kings from a real island. The same was done to Osiris, and so on. So it was already a common thing. Secondly, it's quite simple how it occurred. Per Pliny the Younger's investigations, as of the early 2nd century, there was a huge bottleneck of Christians. Pliny had a difficult time even FINDING any, and when he did he had no idea what they believed. And when he interrogated two deaconesses, all he got was the gospel story. So clearly what had occurred was, during this bottleneck, the only Christians who made it through where to the euhemerizing ones. We can see traces of this in 2 Peter, where the author literally disparages OTHER Christians who "follow cleverly devised myths", which is an antagonistic way of saying "sacred allegories", and claims that HIS group "were eyewitnesses to Jesus, and then forges an account. So Christians were in conflict over the literal truth of the Gospels (which were themselves allegorical histories, not meant to be taken literally as per Mark).>or even why?Again, simple: it became convenient to establish a lineage. As time went on and the apocalypse never came, Christians decided that they wanted to consolidate. Thus, one could no longer say "the Lord appeared to me", but now had to say "well I knew so and so who was taught y so and so, who sat at the feet of Jesus!". Secondly, again, the euhmerists won. They survived. And through historical happenstance got the ear of Constantine, and the rest is /his/.
>>16829985>when Paul talks about the last supperPaul never says "last supper". He says "LORD'S supper". And its a vision, where Jesus is speaking to all Christians. If you read it, no one is present. Paul never says that Jesus is even eating a meal. It's a vision meant to communicate the point of communion as a ritual meal.>crucifixion in CorinthiansIf you notice, with the Corinthian creed, Paul says that these things are "according to Scripture". As in, literally, they're SOURCED from Scripture. Paul is saying that no one knows these things occurred, or were present for them. That we only know they ever happened through secret messages in the Scriptures.
>Paul never says "last supper". He says "LORD'S supper". And its a vision, where Jesus is speaking to all Christians. If you read it, no one is present. Paul never says that Jesus is even eating a meal. It's a vision meant to communicate the point of communion as a ritual meal.This clearly wasn't just something symbolic since we have a vague timeline. After all, it was "on the night he was betrayed," which also means there was a betrayer. We can see how the Gospels all talk about a scene where Jesus met with the apostles and was betrayed by one of them, so the logical conclusion is he's referring to that particular event.>If you notice, with the Corinthian creed, Paul says that these things are "according to Scripture". As in, literally, they're SOURCED from Scripture. Paul is saying that no one knows these things occurred, or were present for them. That we only know they ever happened through secret messages in the Scriptures.He was executed, which means someone had to have carried it out. It also says he was betrayed, which means he has to have been betrayed by someone. Saying it happened "according to scripture" doesn't sound like him waving his hands and going on about how God works in mysterious ways, it sounds more like he's pointing to scripture for more details since those details aren't important to what he's trying to instruct the reader in, which would make sense. If I were to send a letter to someone about scripture who is familiar with it, I'm not going to send a summary, I'd expect them to know what I'm referring to. It doubly makes sense because the chapter-verse system we use wasn't in use back then.(continued)
>>16831513>>16831697All this comes off as filling in gaps with whatever headcanons fit a pet theory because there isn't any better proof to point to a heresy that the most successful Christian missionary apparently believed in and taught, but isn't discussed anywhere else. It should have been the most prominent heresy in the Roman world. There should literally be letters by Church Fathers talking about how some believers claim that Jesus was visions from heaven and counterarguments against it. There is not enough evidence pointing to this conclusion for it to be a reasonable one.
>>16831700>should literally be letters by Church FathersThe Church Fathers, so called, come way, way after all of this. I'm talking about 1st century, even as early as Paul and Cephas, when the cult first began. So the Church Fathers are utterly irrelevant here.Besides, I'm talking there about what Paul himself said. So no one else is really relevant.
>>16831712It's relevant, because such a belief isn't going to disappear without a trace unless it is incredibly fringe, which it wouldn't be if Paul was preaching it.
>>16831734Read my other posts, there was a huge bottleneck of Christians by the time of the early 2nd century. There were very, very few of them left. The ones that made it through were the euhemerist ones. Christianity itself was a fringe thing, and the euhemerists ere simply the easier group to be preserved because the high-level initiation was complex, and the low-level exoteric preaching of a literal historical person was easier.
>>16831746First of all, in such a case, those who learned from Paul are the more likely sect to continue on, especially because his letters were canonized. Now that I think about it, it's a bit weird that we'd still have his letters but not his radical teachings. Secondly, do you have any better proof for a celestial Jesus believing Paul or Christians in general then some variation of>paul never saidThere needs to be a more solid foundation to build on if you're asking people to throw away what appears to be references to things that happened in the Gospels and replace it with a belief nobody seems to have ever professed.
>>16831502Well put
>>16831817You're going completely backwards. You're reading the Gospels INTO Paul. Read forwards instead. Where Paul SHOULD rationally include details from the Gospels (if the Gospels were historical documents), he doesn't. Which is highly confusing. Look again at the Corinthian creed. Paul should by all means include somsthing, even a WORD, about the Gospel narrative in there. Paul SHOULD have differed James from cultic brothers of the Lord IF James was different. But he never does in both instances. Paul also never says anything like "well Peter knew him personally but MY visions are just as good as that". Something so simple, yet so important, that the Christians of Peter's wing surely would have been grilling him on, just NEVER appears.But WORSE, Paul by his own use of language actually SAYS that no one ever met Jesus in person, because we only know about his death "according to the Scriptures". And this is in the creed itself. So as you can see, if you stop reading the Gospels into Paul, things suddenly start make sense. He doesnt mention thsse things because they werent part of the cult doctrine yet.
>>16833877Yep, the creed of Ignatius is a response to versions of Christianity where there are no gospels—probably including the original Pauline Christianity.
>>16831477>Carrier has said many times that he, when he is being maximally charitable, gives the possibility of a historical Jesus existing a 1 in 3 chance.what a charlatan.
>>16833877Something I've noticed when Mythicists refer to the Corinithian creed is they interpret when Paul says "scripture" he means some sort of personal belief he never elaborates on to anyone rather than the more logical conclusion that he's referring to something he would expect everyone reading his letter to be familiar with already. Paul is more concerned with the fact Jesus rose from the dead than anything else he did, because it's the justification for salvation. He isn't there to discuss the life of Jesus, just establish that he died and came back from the dead as proof for who he was. I'm not saying it's even necessarily a Gospel we're aware of, like a proto-Mark/Luke/whatever, but we once again fall into interpreting what Paul didn't say and then making up something that doesn't have any concrete proof to support it. This argument would never be made if it wasn't being approached from a Mythicist angle, because it's looking for ways to explain away anything that could point to a historical Jesus existing rather than being a theory meant to be supported on its own merits. Furthermore, the James argument is dumb by this entire standard.>Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.Galatians 1:18-19If the fact that Paul didn't specifically mention the stuff that Jesus did or details from his life is worthwhile evidence to support a celestial Jesus theory, then why is him referring to Peter as simply Cephas and James specifically as the brother of the Lord not a relevant detail? Especially when the most blatantly obvious answer is he refers to James as the Lord's brother because there were two apostles named James, so he wanted to make clear which one he was talking about?
>>16834448Except Paul is literally reiterating to the Corinthians "that whoch he recieved" and what he taught them. So hes literally telling them what they already believed. It is impossible (read: IMPOSSIBLE) that if Jesus were a historical person, no details about that would have made it into the creed. And yet, nothing. Paul didnt gloss over "common knowledge" because hes literally telling them what they and he believe. As for the "scriptures", Paul is saying that they and he got all they know about Jesus from the Old Testament and other books of the Bible we no longer have extant copies of. Thats the Scriptures to him. Again, you have NO answer as to why Paul spends all the time he did talking about Jesus, and yet any detail about his earthly ministry or even WHERE HE DIED AND WAS BURIED somehow just *pop* slipped his mind!So yes, the silence of Paul is a HUGE red flag and one that you need to address. Thats not even getting into the many instances where Paul indicates that no one knew anything about the death and resurrection EXCEPT via Scriptures, of which one example IS the Creed in quesrion here.As for Cephas, thats what Paul calls him. Peter comes later, but its a more familiar name to us to thats why I used it. The reason why Paul refers to James as the "brother of the Lord" here is to A) distinguish him from an apostle and B) so that people couldnt trip him up and accuse him of getting his creeds from an already baptized Christian. Remember, Paul was claiming that JESUS HIMSELF gave Paul his gospel, and his apostleship. If Paul forgot to say that he had met James, the Christian, then people could have accused him of telling half-truths or even lies.What Paul was literally saying in Galatians is "I didnt meet any apostles, only Cephas. I only saw one other Christian, that being Brother James." You can see other translations of the Bible for less torturous translations than the traditional reading.
>>16834501>and yet any detail about his earthly ministry or even WHERE HE DIED AND WAS BURIED somehow just *pop* slipped his mind!Was it relevant to what he was writing to the Corinthians? If not, then we wouldn't expect him to mention it.
>>16834556I'm talking about anywhere in Paul. But it is telling that Paul also never compares his revealed creed with the allegedly eyewitness creed of Cephas. He's completely ignorant of any such other creed ever existing, and so is everyone else he wrote to.But in the creed itself, Paul is telling them whay they and he already believe, as a reminder to them. So he IS saying common knowledge. He's explicitly repeating it. So why did Paul omit anything that points to a historical Jesus? Anything thats common knowledge amomg the Corinthians, Paul would have repeated. And he never says "oh and btw Im leaving some stuff out, but you know all that already."
>>16834571He probably didn't mention that stuff because he didn't think it was relevant to mention. He wasn't mindful that 2000 years later, mythicist were expecting him to write a whole biography of Jesus.
>>16834586You clearly didn't read what I said. The creed is him specifically doing that. He's giving that information. Hes telling them everything they already know. And he never says hes leaving anything out. So, I ask again, why ISN'T the information on a historical Jesus present? Did the Corinthians just not know? Did Paul not know? Did anyone?
>>16834593He's not writing to the Corinthians with the goal of giving them an entire biography, so he doesn't. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. If I'm writing to my brother, talking about my recent divorce with my wife, I'm going to include my wife's entire life story because it's not relevant. >why ISN'T the information on a historical Jesus present?Paul says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He he says he was a descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that and he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19)
>>16834601>He's not writing to the Corinthians with the goal of giving them an entire biography, so he doesn't.You keep strawmanning about this. What I'm saying is that he is literally repeating to the Corinthians the heart of Christian doctrine, so that both they AND himself believe the same thing. Remember, he's REPEATING to them what they already know. Therefore there is no reason for him to leave out important details like Jesus being crucified outside of Jerusalem, or darkening the sky, or being baptized in the Jordan or anything else that's important in the Gospels. Or even besides that, he DOESN'T say "we know this happened because Peter was there, he saw him". No, Paul just says "we know these things happened because the Scriptures tell us they did". And moreso, he says it without qualifying that AGAINST eyewitnesses to Jesus. Nope, Paul is only aware of ONE way people could have got the creed, and that's revelation in Scripture.cont.
>>16834601I'm convinced this is a pasta you guys are using on here, or you're getting it from somewhere because this EXACT phrasing has appeared before, but I'll deal anyways:>Paul says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a JewPaul does NOT say this. What he literally says is "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"(Gal 4:4).Paul says that he was MADE of a woman, and MADE under the Law. Now firstly, "born/made of a woman" is a really weird way to describe a normal guy. ALL of us are born of women. So what woman is he talking about? Mary? Nope. Paul SAYS what that woman is later in Galatians 4, and WHY the "made under the Law" is important. In Galatians 4:24, Paul SAYS that the woman Jesus was made from is Hagar. The woman of "bondage". And Paul spends time Galatians 3 setting up this whole thing in Galatians 4 about what it means to be born under the Law and what it means to be adopted into the family of Jesus, and receive a "new mother", literally a "new birth". Go ahead. READ Galatians 4 if you don't believe me. Note: Paul uses the word for "manufacture" here, not "birth". He uses the same word to describe the creation of Adam, and the future resurrection bodies and of the manufacture of Jesus from the "Sperm of David".>He he says he was a descendant of AbrahamRead Galatians 3:16. He's saying that Jesus is of the seed of Abraham, but notice the phrasing. He doesn't say that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham, in fact, Paul literally says that he ISN'T talking about a lineage "many seeds". But only one. He never says HOW Jesus is of that seed.>of IsraelitesRead the original Greek of Romans 9:4-5. Jesus is LITERALLY "sourced" from the Israelites. His flesh is constructed out Israelite materials. It even uses the Greek word "kata", which means "sourced from". It NEVER says "descended from" or "ancestry".cont.
>>16834601>and of JesseIt's just another way of saying "made from the sperm of David". It's just a prettier, or alternative way of phrasing it. It has the same issue of ambiguity as the "seed of Abraham" passage.>He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministryWould you mind pointing me to where Paul says that? Because guess what you find if you actually GO to those passages, which you didn't. Well, you find Paul saying that "the Lord gives this command, not I" (1 Cor 7:10), "the Lord ahs commanded" (1 Cor 9:14), "according to the Lord's word"(1 Thess. 4:15). Paul is talking here about Jesus LITYERALLY whispering in his ear these teachings. Like I said before ITT, stop reading the Gospels into Paul. Paul NEVER says that anyone else heard these things, in fact, Paul explicitly says "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12). Paul is stressing here, and he does elsewhere, that he NEVER gets his teachings from anyone but Jesus or God DIRECTLY. This is why he stresses that "And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:" (Gal 1:22). He's emphatically saying that he never even MET any of the Christians in Judea. In fact, he was UNKNOWN to them.cont.
>>16834601>He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulersNo he doesn't, actually. In the original Greek he says "archons of this aeon". Literally, Satan and his sky demons. And furthermore we know that Paul could NOT have been talking about human rulers, because he literally says that if they knew who Jesus was, they would not have killed him. But, this makes no sense, either of Jewish or of Roman leaders. Firstly, Jews already anticipated a dying messiah whose death would save the world. Secondly, if any ruler, Jewish or Roman, knew that the death of Jesus would save the whole Universe and end all suffering, they CERTAINLY would have killed him as God wanted. Do you know who WOULDN'T have killed him, and would have WANTED the world to stay ruled by sin. Satan and his demons.Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense in the translations why Paul didn't say "he was killed by the Romans at the behest of the Sanhedrin", and instead just says "princes of the world" or "rulers of this world". But it DOES make sense when you realize it's a mistranslation.>that and he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had metAgain, your pasta is LYING. Paul NEVER says that James in Galatians 1 is an "earthly, physical brother" in the sense of a biological brother. Paul calls James a "brother of the Lord" ONLY the different him from Cephas, who was an apostle. As you can read in 1 Cor 9:5 (and many other places I can provide citations if you want), Paul says "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Note again, Paul putting the "brothers" of the Lord aside from Cephas (an apostle).Why?Because to Paul, a ""brother" or "sister" of the Lord was a cultic brother. A baptized but non-apostolic Christian. Apostles were, to Paul, those who had visions of a risen Jesus who gave them the gospel of Christ.
There, I wasted enough time on this gish-galop of a "refutation" I strongly recommend anyone curious buy a copy of On the Historicity of Jesus and read it cover to cover. Carrier refutes EVERYTHING I responded to here, and does it elegantly and in a peer-reviewed format.
>>16835256>On the Historicity of JesusWait, isn't that the same book where Carrier brings up a cosmic sperm bank theory and if you actually dig up the evidence it turns out he was basing it off a story where David knocked up a demon who gave birth to the king of Edom? Because I wouldn't trust that book. Are you Carrier? Are these mythicist threads actually a shill campaign to sell a book?
>>16835348The "cosmic sperm bank" thing comes up, but he covers that in "Jesus From Outer Space" at length. In short, no, it doesn't originate from any story about David, but goes all the way back to Zoroastrianism and pre-Christian Jewish beliefs on reproduction (angels bring sperm droplets to God to get the future value of the child thus produced judged).>Are you Carrier?No, and to prove it: I hate niggers and Jews.
>>16829121Never, because he is God.
