Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by ghost »

Josephus was called Flavius Josephus. He's also Flavian. If there are Josephan "fingerprints" in the NT then there are also Flavian "fingerprints".
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by ghost »

Also, since Marcion is the earliest church father he's the one least likely to be influenced by Josephus and thus closest to "Jesus was Caesar".
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

But you haven't demonstrated any reason to believe the "Jesus = Caesar" was ever known before Carotta had the idea for a moronic book
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by ghost »

If the Flavians tried to rewrite Caesar into oblivion, then of course they're going to try to distort Marcion so he doesn't look like a witness.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

So you are admitting there is no evidence for your proposition while there is evidence for other models of early Christian development. I would suggest a ban on discussing theories for which there is no direct evidence in antiquity (especially if acknowledged as such by their proponents). With the Caesar = Jesus theory we are not dealing in any way with an ancient belief but something thoroughly modern and stupid. It should have no place in this forum
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Ulan »

Stephan Huller wrote:What I should have clarified in that citation of my previous post is that I wasn't arguing about the plausibility of Jesus's historical existence per se but which of (1) or (2) was more likely to have been believed by converts from Judaism?
Oh, I see. So yes, (2) is a necessary position. I mean, that's the Jesus everyone talks about nowadays, right? The "but he was also fully human" who definitely ran around in Jerusalem is more or less secondary for belief. It's only there to make him relatable.
Last edited by Ulan on Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

Not necessarily. We have yet to decide which is the more likely. I only think we should recognize that the gospel in its present form couldn't have been originally conceived as a historical document per se. This leaves the door open to (2) and further serious discussion.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Ulan »

Stephan Huller wrote:Not necessarily. We have yet to decide which is the more likely. I only think we should recognize that the gospel in its present form couldn't have been originally conceived as a historical document per se. This leaves the door open to (2) and further serious discussion.
Okay, but that's basically what I meant. The divine Jesus is necessary to explain the success of the movement. The historical Jesus may have existed or not, it doesn't matter much. Even if texts like the Didache may point to this also being a possible starting point for some movement, but with less traction.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ulan wrote:The divine Jesus is necessary to explain the success of the movement. The historical Jesus may have existed or not, it doesn't matter much.
*Ding*, *Ding*, *Ding*...
"We have a winner...Tell'im what he won, Don...".

Enter "PAUL" (aka "Mucianus") who argues JUST THAT and there is a giant Problem with a capital "P" and that stands for POOL...errr...ummm "Sheep's Pool".

We are led down the Garden Path (on the Aurelian Road...) that tells us there was this "Jesus" who was divine even though he looked human. Then this divine figure was crucified and then he met up with PAUL on the Road to Damascus. Paul tells us that he got his information from no man, from divine revelation directly from Jesus (provided you believe Paul's version of salvation). There is a Time Line of events that lead to the crucifixion of Jesus that is absolutely necessary to understanding what comes later - AND THAT TIME LINE OF EVENTS IS NOT NECESSARY AT ALL

That one factoid ends any discussion of the Historical Jesus - "The historical Jesus may have existed or not, it doesn't matter much".

Then why do we have the NT Gospels and their support documents AT ALL? They are totally and completely NOT NECESSARY.

Which leads to the basic question: The Gospels and support documents WERE most important to someone or a particular group of people. People who could read, write and promote written texts as being TRUE. "Who could that be...?"

CW
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Ulan »

Or, much simpler, if you ask many questions, you will get many answers. Believers asking questions about the object of their veneration, and they got answers. Jerusalem isn't only a necessary location for these stories, as that's the place where most AT stories that made it into the gospels were located. It was also a convenient location, turned to a tabula rasa by its destruction, a place without witnesses that may have gotten in the way of whatever story you placed there.
Post Reply