Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

[ghost]

Just because they mention Pilate in the Jesus story doesn't mean the Jesus story can't be a rewrite of an older story.

If it was a completely fictitious story like Romeo and Juliet that would be true. But the theory breaks down when you realize that Christians have always believed that this is the story of the means by which all the world was saved. In other words, the story needs to be 'true' in order to have any salvatory power. Moreover the specific timing of the story to the age of Pilate is shown as early as the second century. Why on earth an important chronological marker like 'Pilate' would be referenced (as opposed to a generic 'the governor,' 'the Roman procurator' when this anonymous reference was certainly possible) is a strong argument in favor of the proper dating for the story.

To the matter of salvificity/soteriology I have to say Caesar had an oak wreath which means soter. So there you have a soteriological aspect. Caesar also saved the Roman republic in his civil war against the Pompeyans/optimates.

[Stephan Huller]

To this I have to say the Roman imperial cult preceeded Christianity

Sure who could dispute that. But you haven't demonstrated that the gospel is a reflection of the Roman cult or why that is more reasonable than seeing it as reflecting specifically Jewish values (which is plainly evident from the narrative).

in the same region (the Roman empire), and the protagonist of the Roman imperial cult is Caesar, not Antigonus.

But Jesus's pedigree (either being an individual without parents or with only a mother, being Jewish, being meek, kind, passive etc) doesn't seem to be reflective of Julius Caesar from the earliest sources.

It's not just a question of whether a story influences another story, but also of how much a story influences another story.

The similarities are not strong and are for the most part forced on your part.

That two or more stories influence another story doesn't mean they influence that other story equally. That a character is a composite doesn't mean the components have equal weight.

You still haven't answered the absurdity of claiming the stories are 'the same' when you've changed (a) the names of the main characters (b) the region they operated (c) how they lived and (d) how they died. Under such transformations anyone could be identified as 'representing' Jesus or vice versa. It is a silly theory that no one around here takes seriously. Why not start your own forum or join a site devoted to batshit theories?

[Stephan Huller]

To the matter of salvificity/soteriology I have to say Caesar had an oak wreath which means soter. So there you have a soteriological aspect. Caesar also saved the Roman republic in his civil war against the Pompeyans/optimates.

But countless other individuals before and after Jesus 'saved' their people. Off the top of my head I think of Ptolemy Soter. The same arguments you make to identify Jesus was Caesar could be used to connect Jesus to any other human being - especially Salvador Dali (at least the name parallel is explicit). It's just silly nonsense which is nevertheless useful to demonstrate the silliness inherent in the theories of others - i.e. Mary Helena. The same arguments developed by you could apply to Antigonus. It's all so vague and nebulous and unconvincing. You'd better be on your way. No one is buying this nonsense. There are just too many other idiots promoting similarly idiotic theories and you all have the effect of cancelling one another out.




Why couldn't the same arguments be used to argue that the messiah will come from the country of El Salvador. There is no end to this insanity.

[neilgodfrey]

But the theory breaks down when you realize that Christians have always believed that this is the story of the means by which all the world was saved. In other words, the story needs to be 'true' in order to have any salvatory power. Moreover the specific timing of the story to the age of Pilate is shown as early as the second century. Why on earth an important chronological marker like 'Pilate' would be referenced (as opposed to a generic 'the governor,' 'the Roman procurator' when this anonymous reference was certainly possible) is a strong argument in favor of the proper dating for the story.

I find no substance at all to the Caesar=Christ idea so my comment on this point is really just an aside. The Jewish scriptures narrating myths are written as real histories. Compare the books of Daniel and Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Samuel and the stories of the patriarchs. Historical names and settings in all. The gospels, notably Mark and Luke, imitated the Septuagint in more than just literary style -- they also extended the fundamental blend of theology and (mytho-)historicity that characterizes the Jewish Scriptures.

[Stephan Huller]

But did the stories associated with Isaiah or Daniel or any of the others promise to save humanity and grant them eternal life? I can't think of an example in literature of a fictitious narrative granting people 'salvation.' The story had to have been claimed to be 'true' and 'real' and 'historical' in order for the vulgar to buy into its sanctity.

[Stephan Huller]

Of course the natural follow up would be - can a mortal man grant eternal life to another mortal man? Not even Moses could grant the Israelites that. Hence Jesus was original conceived as a god (unless it will be argued here by someone that the gospel was written before the promise of eternal life was associated with Jesus's life and death).

[ghost]

Sure who could dispute that. But you haven't demonstrated that the gospel is a reflection of the Roman cult or why that is more reasonable than seeing it as reflecting specifically Jewish values (which is plainly evident from the narrative).

But that's not plainly evident from the Christian tradition. Christians don't follow Jewish values. Christians don't follow the 600+ Jewish commandments. You yourself have pointed out Christians read the OT differently from Jews. There is such a thing as an interpretatio Christiana.

[Stephan Huller]

But that's not plainly evident from the Christian tradition. Christians don't follow Jewish values.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore ... mandments/

Christians don't follow the 600+ Jewish commandments.

They should be expected to. Christianity developed from the two powers in heaven tradition within Judaism which argued that only the 10 commandments came from God.

You yourself have pointed out Christians read the OT differently from Jews.

They interpreted the Pentateuch according to a well recognized Jewish sectarian POV. That Judaism came to be defined by a rival tradition and the two powers theology became exclusively associated with the new religion doesn't change the fact that was Jewish.

There is such a thing as an interpretatio Christiana.

[neilgodfrey]

But did the stories associated with Isaiah or Daniel or any of the others promise to save humanity and grant them eternal life? I can't think of an example in literature of a fictitious narrative granting people 'salvation.' The story had to have been claimed to be 'true' and 'real' and 'historical' in order for the vulgar to buy into its sanctity.

The "story" did not begin with the gospels, though, as we know.

It is a very small step (no step at all, really) from the belief that the blood of the martyrs of the time of the Maccabees had the power to atone for the sins of the nation, or that the blood of Isaac (as understood by at least one sect) had the power to atone for the whole race. I didn't think Christianity introduced the concept of eternal life. Paul's Christianity was all within the parameters of the "Judaism" of the second temple era. I know of nothing that made his teachings "un-Jewish" according to the diversity of understandings and interpretations of the Scriptures in that era.

[MrMacSon]

My point here is to emphasize as always the short-comings of describing the belief that Jesus was an angel as 'mythicism' (a term which the vulgar exploit to mean something like 'fictitious). The early Christians believed the angel's descent was historical. It happened in a particular year in 'real time.' This angel walked on the earth in the same way as Bob Marley imagines God to have communicated with Adam and Eve in the Garden. 'Almighty God is a living man' isn't just some lyric that came to the lead singer of the Wailers while high. It is a distinguishing feature of Coptic Christianity noted by early missionaries to Ethiopia http://books.google.com/books?id=4Zs3Cc ... an&f=false It must have been a very ancient Hebrew belief because God is originally described as possessing anthropomorphic features. As such when Jesus came down to earth, there would certainly have been Hebrews who would have accepted or even 'recognized' the idea that a supernatural being could have come to earth in the form of man.

Stephan, this is so circular in terminology & attempted reasoning as to be Ground-Hog Day.

"The early Christians believed the angel's descent was historical" = sure, but so what? Proposing what early-Christians believed is relevant to the veracity of the truth of their beliefs is circular. Some people may have had visions of dreams along the angle-theme, but subsequent generations are likely to be following narratives; stories that had become folklore. The stories likely became embellished; they became myths. These embellishments would include fiction.

That there were Gnostic or Jewish sects that believed various Christ celestial-beings or a Jesus-celestial-beings does not make those 'beings' real. It doesn't mean "Jesus came down to earth".

You write as if these things happened, or you believe they happened.

You don't seem to be able acknowledge a transition from early propositions, to later narratives.