RealityRules wrote:Justin Martyr's First Apology chapter 60

And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross,1 and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".*

And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died,2 and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.

1. Moses didn't take brass and ''make it into the figure of a cross', he took brass and made a serpent and put it on a signal-staff, a pole (see Numbers 21:8 below).
   
2. Numbers doesn't record that 'the serpents died', it says, "whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen [ie. the brass] serpent, he lived." (see Numbers 21:9 below)

8 And Moses prayed to the Lord for the people; and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make thee a serpent, and put it on a signal-staff ; and it shall come to pass that whenever a serpent shall bite a man, every one so bitten that looks upon it shall live.'

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a signal-staff : and it came to pass that whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, he lived.

Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space

RealityRules wrote:

Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space

Carrier's reasoning is solid. Proving a negative is fraught with difficulties, and as he mentions in the commentary his conclusion is "Jesus was more likely mythical than historical" based on the evidence at hand - definitely not the sort of thing a 'fanatic' would say.

To quote Carrier:

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

The above comports with the conclusion I posted years ago in this thread: even if the Divine Jesus was somehow inspired by an actual person who traveled the dusty roads of Palestine, the Historical Jesus is just about the least important person to know about regarding the development of the christian cults.

Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh. Far more interesting is Jesus's social criticism. That social criticism is more likely historical than not --

Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh .. [but] 'Fake scholars' like Carrier and your drunken incantations about what started the creed are just about as interesting here as a bucket of spit. The historical research of atheists like Ehrman, who are serious professional secular academics, count far more than your doting salaaming of Kool-Aid peddlers.

Contradictions abound (and perhaps cognitive dissonance would if it could)

Stein wrote:The history of Jesus the human that you dismiss is more interesting to humanity's future

Well, yeah, ya gotta know the past to help deal with the future - and the present - the real past

Stein wrote:a future with less superstition in it because 'the real historical Jesus' has to do with social justice, not yawn-inducing magic.

Well ... how is "Jesus's social criticism" 2,000 yrs ago gonna influence the future without superstition ??

Stein wrote:Your obsession with how Christianity got started is a distracting shiny object having nothing to do with the frigging title of this thread, HISTORICAL JESUS.

Kirbytime wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?

Have you read that 'fascinating read', Stein ?

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space

Carrier's reasoning is solid. Proving a negative is fraught with difficulties, and as he mentions in the commentary his conclusion is "Jesus was more likely mythical than historical" based on the evidence at hand - definitely not the sort of thing a 'fanatic' would say.

To quote Carrier:

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

The above comports with the conclusion I posted years ago in this thread: even if the Divine Jesus was somehow inspired by an actual person who traveled the dusty roads of Palestine, the Historical Jesus is just about the least important person to know about regarding the development of the christian cults.

PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh. Far more interesting is Jesus's social criticism.

Stein

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh .. [but] 'Fake scholars' like Carrier and your drunken incantations about what started the creed are just about as interesting here as a bucket of spit. The historical research of atheists like Ehrman, who are serious professional secular academics, count far more than your doting salaaming of Kool-Aid peddlers.

Contradictions abound (and perhaps cognitive dissonance would if it could)

Stein wrote:The history of Jesus the human that you dismiss is more interesting to humanity's future

Well, yeah, ya gotta know the past to help deal with the future - and the present - the real past

buutttt

Stein wrote:a future with less superstition in it because 'the real historical Jesus' has to do with social justice, not yawn-inducing magic.

Well ... how is "Jesus's social criticism" 2,000 yrs ago gonna influence the future without superstition ??

Stein wrote:Your obsession with how Christianity got started is a distracting shiny object having nothing to do with the frigging title of this thread, HISTORICAL JESUS.

Here's the frigging Opening Post of this thread, Stein -

Kirbytime wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?

Have you read that 'fascinating read', Stein ?

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:
AND OF COURSE RR KNOWS

D A M N

W E L L

THAT MOST OF THE HISTORICISTS ON THIS FORUM ARE

N O T

C H R I S T I A N S.

no, I don't know that.

What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.

As for this CRAP

Stein wrote:
Anyone who discounts A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER IN A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC SOURCE has swallowed the Kool-Aid and is the same as one of those terrorists who discount A BIDEN VICTORY DULY ACCEPTED BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES.

I'd emphasise it like this

Anyone Who Discounts “A Contemporary Account of a Family Member In A Non-Hagiographic Source” HAS SWALLOWED THE KOOL-AID and IS THE SAME AS ONE OF THOSE TERRORISTS Who Discount A Biden Victory Duly Accepted By Republican Judges.

Your Weird Attempt to Duly Republicanize the issues is Duly noted, too.

Regarding 'Non-Hagiographic Source' - there's no such thing in Christian history

RealityRules wrote:

What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.

Stein wrote:
THERE FUCKING IS. BOOK XX OF ANTIQS. IS A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE JESUS FAMILY BEING FUCKING SENTENCED FOR STONING.

DUH,

STEIN

Festus was now dead and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ whose name was James and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

interestingly, Jacob is a cognate of James

And Genesis 25:26 refers to Jacob's birth when he held on to the heel of his older twin brother Esau ...


Esau is similar to Iesous, the Greek for Jesus (& Joshua)

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote: What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.

How dare you, sir?
Don't you recognize a rational response when you see it?

Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark, de Gruyter, 2014.

Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians, Pickwick 2015.

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:
THERE FUCKING IS. BOOK XX OF ANTIQS. IS A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE JESUS FAMILY BEING FUCKING SENTENCED FOR STONING.

DUH,

STEIN

IT'S NOT AN ''EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT''

And, IT IS HAGIOGRAPHY

HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY

Ant XX.200

Festus was now dead and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ whose name was James and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

It's ambiguous: eg. It could be read as 'the brother of Jesus was called Christ'

'Jesus who was called Christ' is present three times in Matthew:

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ"

interestingly, Jacob is a cognate of James

And Genesis 25:26 refers to Jacob's birth when he held on to the heel of his older twin brother Esau ...


Esau is similar to Iesous, the Greek for Jesus (& Joshua)

Matthew 27:17, 22 (both in statements-questions by Pilate)


'Jesus who was called Christ' was probably copied from one of these verses in Matthew into Antiquities XX.200

.

proudfootz wrote:
As noted in the literature discussing this issue:

Moreover, if he is merely looking for some quick way to identify this Jesus for his readers ... He simply has to say, “the one who was crucified by Pilate” ... which supposedly did appear in the “original” passage of Antiquities 18 ... (This ignores, of course, the consideration that no such crucifixion by Pilate actually took place.)

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/ ... hus%20have