Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth?

[toejam]

^Could that not mean (in the eyes of the author of Hebrews) mean that the flesh & blood Jesus here on Earth was the shadow?

[stevencarrwork]

^Could that not mean (in the eyes of the author of Hebrews) mean that the flesh & blood Jesus here on Earth was the shadow?

So the flesh and blood Jesus was not the one that was killed?

[toejam]

^Are you asking for my opinion, or that of the author of Hebrews?

[stevencarrwork]

^Are you asking for my opinion, or that of the author of Hebrews?

Of the author of Hebrews, as you interpret him.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Ehrman in his book "Did Jesus Exist?", looked at the prevailing views of the leading mythicists. He picked them apart one by one and showed there was no there, there. Carrier, Doherty, Feke, Gandy, Price, and Wells all make statements of fact that are unguarded, undocumented or outright misstatements of fact.

I don't believe you.
Please provide an example where Carrier made "statements of fact that are unguarded, undocumented or outright misstatements of fact".

The common theme of most of these bizarre theories is that Jesus is a myth patterned after the dying and rising gods of ancient myths, e.g. Osiris, Hercules, Mithras, etc.. However, when you look at the history of these pagan myths, it turns out it is the mythicists who are simply imagining things.

Wrong.
Carrier's argument has nothing to do with that at all.
If only you knew what Carrier actually wrote.

And why is it so hard for you to learn how to QUOTE people properly here?


Kapyong

[toejam]

Hebrews is pretty clear about where this atonement took place. Hebrews 8:5 explains that the earthly place where sacrifices were offered was a shadow of the heavenly one, where Jesus was sacrificed.

Hebrews 8:1-7 (NRSV)

1 Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.

Where does it say that the heavenly tent is where Jesus was sacrificed? To me, it's saying that is where he is now. Later on in Hebrews it says he suffered outside the city gate (13:11-12).

[stevencarrwork]

<skip>

****************************

However, this is what Ehrman actually wrote: "Where do any of the ancient sources speak of a divine man who was crucified as an atonement for sin? So far as I know, there are no parallels to this central Christian claim....'
John T

Crucified as an atonement for sin is a 'central' Christian claim?

Is this the same Ehrman who maintained in 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' that Luke/Acts, one quarter of the New Testament, removes any idea that Jesus died as an atonement for sin, and replaces it with the idea that Jesus was the first Christian martyr?

How central can the claim be , when Ehrman himself points out early Christians who deliberately removed it from their version of Christianity?

Can Ehrman be trusted to write the truth?

[stevencarrwork]

Hebrews is pretty clear about where this atonement took place. Hebrews 8:5 explains that the earthly place where sacrifices were offered was a shadow of the heavenly one, where Jesus was sacrificed.

Hebrews 8:1-7 (NRSV)

1 Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.

Where does it say that the heavenly tent is where Jesus was sacrificed? To me, it's saying that is where he is now. Later on in Hebrews it says he suffered outside the city gate (13:11-12).

Yes, there is a Jerusalem above us, as Paul well knew.

Hebrews 9-:11-12

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.
Hebrews 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.


Hebrews 9:25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again....


Hebrews is clear that Jesus only had to offer himself once, not again and again - and that he did that in Heaven.

And , if Jesus had been a mortal man, there would be no need to point out that he could only be killed once, not again and again.

[Robert Tulip]

As far as the apt comment that Carrier is a "crank exegesis" well, that comes from the Craig vs. Carrier debate. I agree with Craig. http://youtu.be/BaUd234Q3GU

I watched Craig's opening speech in that "crank" debate. The topic is whether Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The title trumpets that Craig "destroys" Carrier. It really shows that faith can work wonders in the perceptions of believers.

Craig tells us his argument is based on a "personal encounter with the living Lord." He presupposes the existence of God, and that the Gospels are reliable on the Historical Jesus. The "paydirt" is "five independent sources for Jesus' burial."

Apparently, the scientific belief that dead people cannot come back to life is a "crank theory" in the opinion of William Lane Craig and his acolyte here John T. If Craig were not simply defending irrational tradition, he would apply a more evidence based approach to his claim of 'independent sources', a claim that is vacuous rhetoric.

Enough said really. Evangelical preaching means never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

[andrewcriddle]

I mean, just to give an example, you probably know the Sumerian Inanna myth, where the goddess Inanna went to the underworld, was killed there and nailed to a wooden pole, where she was exhibited for three days and then resurrected by Enki. She returned as goddess and sent her lover Tammuz to the underworld instead (someone has to die for her), the same Tammuz the Israelites cried over on the steps of Salomo's Tempel in the book Ezekiel, or the same Tammuz (one of the dying/resurrecting gods of the area) who was venerated at Jesus' birth cave, or the same Tammuz one of the summer months of the Jewish calendar is named after. The Inanna myth doesn't contain any atonement for sins obviously, but I guess you can see that some of the elements are there and, often enough, well known to Jews of the time.

The supposed crucifixion of Inanna was discussed here.

One issue is that this is is the Sumerian account of Inanna and Dumuzi. It is unlikely do have been known to Jews (or anyone else) at the time of Jesus.

The Akkadian account of Ishtar and Tammuz may well have been familiar at the time of Jesus but it is less useful for mythicist purposes.

Andrew Criddle