Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
So there you go. Nothing more to say. Happy times
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
"Element 1: The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE." (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 65, emphasis added)."...Peter
Richard Carrier said it, therefore it's gospel.
Richard Carrier said it, therefore it's gospel.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
No, but given that I put forward two options:
1. Jesus = Jewish man
2. Jesus = Jewish God
There aren't many mythicists who would disagree with the idea of (1) or (and assuming 'if' the statement is properly contextualized) (2) once Carrier is acknowledged to have said that.
1. Jesus = Jewish man
2. Jesus = Jewish God
There aren't many mythicists who would disagree with the idea of (1) or (and assuming 'if' the statement is properly contextualized) (2) once Carrier is acknowledged to have said that.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
Perhaps you missed the point of my post.John T wrote:Richard Carrier said it, therefore it's gospel.
This thread, after initially making blanket accusations against persons unknown ("besides spin, Joe Wallack and DCH"), put blame on Carrier for promoting "the rejection of Jewish origin for Xristianity." But that doesn't seem to be an accurate representation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
3. Jesus = Hellenistic GodStephan Huller wrote:No, but given that I put forward two options:
1. Jesus = Jewish man
2. Jesus = Jewish God
.
Two is not enough, as the answer is #1 and 3
-
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
No doubt, there were a lot of Jewish men with some form of that name.#1. Jesus = Jewish man.
At question here is whether a mythological god personage was fashioned upon OT textual word plays, and associations with other OT literature characters of that name.
The character that is clearly presented to us within NT literature is certainly no normal 'Jewish man', but is first and foremost a 'god' or rather THE God embodied in the form of a living dead zombie.
The persuasion/choice/decision of accepting/believing or denying/rejecting that there was any actual living person behind the NTs highly contrived theological god mythological construction, either way, is arrived by faith. Each person believing what they will.
Evidently some 'Jewish' people did buy it. The evidence indicates that most did not, and do not.2. Jesus = Jewish God
3. Jesus = Hellenistic God
Just another among many. In this case the Hellenists buying/creating/fabricating stories of this mythological Jewish adopted bastard son zombie god creature and decking it out in Hellenistic theological garb.
Personally, I see no reason for a rational person to accept such religious horse shit as having any basis in fact on any level.
- cienfuegos
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
What I don't get, Stephan, is why you are so hostile to "mythicists?" I like this idea of your's, have nothing against it at all. I think it fits again with Carrier's citation of Zec 6:12 and Confusion of Tongues 14.62-63. Why throw Mithras into it? Who even makes a Mithras argument anymore? Carrier only cites Osiris as an example of a dying and rising god, that Jesus is not unique. Your observation here is not inconsistent with that at all.Stephan Huller wrote:To this end, I have to wonder again, how can there be any doubt that Jesus = Ishu. It's not just the second century Church Fathers, it's not just Marcion but even the very earliest heretics (= Simon Magus) and the earliest reports about the Christian heretics (= minim) all say that Jesus was the second god of the Pentateuch narrative. Why is Mithras, Osiris and the rest of the fanciful understanding 'more convincing' that what all the early sources - and indeed what logic itself tells us (i.e. that Christianity and Jesus developed from Jewish expectations about God and his visitation)?
I started by assuming that people were just intellectually lazy. But maybe there is more to it than this? But what? On the one hand there is Jesus the Jewish man. The mythicists say there was no man, he is not historical, he is fictitious. Ok. But why does that discount the Jewishness of the 'fictitious being' exactly? Why isn't the most likely conclusion that this god is still a Jewish god - indeed THE Jewish god from the very beginning? Still waiting for an answer. I doubt one is forthcoming
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
Carrier does not reject a Jewish origin for Christianity and explicitly says that it started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this). Carrier thinks it was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. He names specific examples, but I don't remember them or feel digging up the Kindle right now, but it's not either/or with Christian origins. It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter. The original Palestinian Jewish cult (whether there was an HJ at the center of it or not) was not Christianity. Christianity is what happened to the cult after it went into the Empire and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi
I am only pontificating because you asked me to explain myself. Sorry. I usually employ sexual allegories which tend to rub people (sorry) the way here. So let me try something else. Music.What I don't get, Stephan, is why you are so hostile to "mythicists?"
Music.
Ideas develop in music and if they are natural or seem un-contrived they 'work.' People like the song. There's no exact science to it. But I think musicians and athletes get to be great because they've spent sufficient time 'playing around' - i.e. working with the building blocks which help them make 'art' or 'creativity.'
Sports.
I watch my son practice and play soccer A LOT. It is probably what I spend most of my time doing. He's still not amazing. He's only 8. But he has one thing going for him above his peers. He has a feel for the game. He watches a lot of high level soccer, he plays FIFA, he watches Youtube clips of great soccer players ad nauseum.
Mythicism.
I don't think that most 'mythicists' have put enough time into selecting what is/are the most likely 'myths' to serve as building block for their theories. They haven't 'played around' enough. They haven't learned to 'get a feel' for what is likely among Jews or alleged 'Jewish mythicists.' Subjective opinion but I think its valid because kabbalah is Jewish mysticism.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote