Let's Have a Discussion About What is Authentic About Early Christianity OUTSIDE OF MARCION?

[dbz]

Some ideas:

(1) Hebrews. Perfect, heavenly sacrifice takes away sin, once and for all.

• via blood that has more mojo than animal blood

MacDonald starts with a wildly erroneous claim that Doherty is wrong to interpret Hebrews 9 as saying Jesus replaced the Yom Kippur goat, the annual universal atonement for sins (Leviticus 16), when in fact that is explicitly what it says:

But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many.
Hebrews 9:26-28

The whole chapter explains how Jesus’s sacrifice replaced the temple sacrifices (in which a priest offers blood “for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance,” Heb. 9:7), so we don’t need those anymore (because Jesus “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,” Heb. 9:12). Thus “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse[d] our consciences from acts that lead to death” (Heb. 9:14), and this is because Jesus “died as a ransom to set [us] free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). That this means the Yom Kippur is clear: Jesus’s once-for-all sacrifice replaced the once-per-year sacrifice (Hebrews 9:7, 25) and this atoned for sins (as all the above verses indicate). There is no other temple sacrifice the author can be talking about but Yom Kippur. And he is explicitly equating Jesus with the goat whose blood reaches the altar, which is the atonement goat, not its twin, the scapegoat (whose blood conspicuously never approaches the altar). There is nothing whatsoever here about “merely inspiring repentance.”

---

--Carrier (25 March 2023). "John MacDonald's Bizarre Defense of a Historical Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.

[MrMacSon]

Let me put it another way ... scholars dig back into the past and determine that (a) the four gospels have some value because they are the oldest surviving gospels and (b) they testify to a historical Jesus who didn't fly and pass through people like the Jesus from the heretics. We have works from the Church Fathers that support (a) and (b).

• And the Church Fathers also support a historical Jesus who did fly (and descend and ascend) and passed through people.
  
  But yes,
  

  So we can create a world, real or imagined, where Christianity and the gospels [were said to have] develop[ed] from [allegedly] real historical events, events that [were] "eyewitnessed" ... I would imagine that most of these real scholars take Acts to be historical in some sense.

So, from these bits and pieces we necessarily have to ignore the world view of heretics who knew that the gospel, Acts and the rest of this literature were historical forgeries."

• Except many, most or even the vast majority of the "heretics" likely never knew that "the gospel[s], Acts and the rest of this [new] literature were historical forgeries."

You can't have one without the other. It's not BECAUSE the evidence for the gospels is so persuasive THAT we know there is a historical Jesus who didn't fly or pass through people. And it's not BECAUSE we know there was a historical Jesus who didn't fly or pass through people THAT we trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It's a little of both or, as I put it, BECAUSE we [so] want to have a respectable field to study reasonable propositions (i.e. historical personages like Jesus, historical documents like the New Testament canon) THAT "we" agree to ignore the heresies. Why? ... There's a respectability to Christianity in its orthodox form which doesn't appear in the heretical versions of the religion and a respectability to the study of traditional Christianity ...

• Some/Many have ignored or sidelined the so-called heretics in their attempts to study early Christianity
  
  Some choose not to eg. M David Litwa. See his
  • Found Christianities,
  • The Evil Creator, and
  • Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes: three early Christian teachers of Alexandria and Rome; see https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2023/2023.02.09/
  (And look out for a book on Simon or Simonianism)
  
  eta:
  Litwa has just posted on his Patreon account he has a new book coming soon:
  • The Naassenes: Exploring an Early Christian Group, Routledge (due October, 2023)

[Secret Alias]

Litwa means Lithuania. When rented my car in Germany they were like you can drive this Audi anywhere but Eastern Europe.

[Leucius Charinus]

What isn't fake in early Christianity. What is worth believing in, what is worth working with, accepting, in the sense of not fake, not falsified, not corrupting something earlier.

'This man, named after Apollo,
and shining forth Tyana,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men) .'

--- Ancient inscription, translated C. P. Jones

http://mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_Inscription.htm

[Leucius Charinus]

Not sure there was a Simon Magus.

Elevated into the literary spotlight (after a minor fictional role in Acts) by the author of the Clementine Recognitions which was composed (according to contemporary European scholarship) by an Arian author during the rule of Constantine.

[davidmartin]

The Odes?
The Shepherd of Hermas?
Thomas?

SA I think you really need to read the Pistis Sophia - all of it, come on it's on your bookshelf I know it, what if the clue is in there? Are you ready for the big adventure.. the PS is ready for you, the PS loves you, it's so easy to read it all in one go

[dbz]

Some ideas:
[...]
(2) Paul. Son of God accepted the penalty of the law for sin by his death to buy freedom from the law.

Carrier explains the "old world order" as understood by Christians before Paul, was that the law of the "old world order" was death & decay and held sway for all (gentiles and jews) unless you were torah observant.

In the new world order of Paul's cult not so much—with IS XS.

• "Jesus Was Born of A Woman, Born Under The Law In The Heavens Mythicist?". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 21 November 2022. @time:00:10:12

[lsayre]

Was daily Temple animal sacrifice intended to cover merely lesser, such as (for example) inadvertent sin, or all sin at all levels, no matter how grievous? If the latter, then why have prisons, or tortures on up to capital punishment? Why not simply sacrifice an animal or two (etc...) and call it a day, and then send everyone on their merry way, including the grievous offender?

If it was the former, then the sacrifice of a god could only be intended to similarly provide for the "once and for all" covering of all lesser, such as inadvertent sin.

But since this "sacrificed" god rose from the dead, where was/is the sacrifice?

A sacrifice can only logically be the giving up of a greater good or gratification in return for either nothing, or for a lesser good, or for anguish. The giving up of any lesser good in return for a greater good down the road a bit can in no way be deemed to be (or to have ever been) a sacrifice. Such is more properly to be considered as logically prudent long term planning and investment. Or in short, rational self interest (or as is often the case as seen from the eyes of others, selfishness). [wherein such rational self interest extends to benefiting ALL of ones hierarchy of rational self(ish) interests, such as a spouse, children, valued friends, shelter, food, financial planning, recreation, etc...]

[maryhelena]

Was Temple animal sacrifice intended to cover merely lesser, such as (for example) inadvertent sin, or all sin at all levels, no matter how grievous? If the latter, then why have prisons, or tortures on up to capital punishment? Why not simply sacrifice an animal or two (etc...) and call it a day, and then send everyone on their merry way, including the grievous offender?

If it was the former, then the sacrifice of a god could only be intended to similarly provide for the "once and for all" covering of all lesser, such as inadvertent sin.

But since this "sacrificed" god rose from the dead, where was/is the sacrifice?

A sacrifice can only be the giving up of a greater good or gratification in return for either nothing, or for a lesser good. The giving up of a lesser good in return for a greater good down the road a bit can in no way be deemed to be (or to have ever been) a sacrifice. Such is more properly to be considered as logically prudent long term planning. Or in short, rational self interest (or as is often the case as seen from the eyes of others, selfishness). [wherein such rational self interest extends to benefiting all of ones hierarchy of self(ish) interests, such as a spouse, children, friends, shelter, food, financial planning, etc...]

The whole sacrifice idea attributed to a human sacrifice - in this case on the cross of Calvary - is total nonsense. It is anti-humanitarian, total irrational nonsense. If that is what christianity is about then it's on it's way to the dump. What saves the gospel 'sacrifice' theology is the resurrection of it's Jesus figure. It is the resurrected Jesus, a figure removed from an earthly context, a context in which sacrifice can have value. In other words, the gospel crucifixion and resurrection story is reflecting two principles. Flesh and blood sacrifice has no value - but a sacrifice within a 'resurrected' context, within an intellectual/philosophical context does have value. An old, useless idea can sacrifice itself (or face the cross/guillotine) and allow the new idea to develop value.Sacrifice does not benefit the sacrificer - it benefits the beneficiaries.

(Looks like the OT 'evil' god, a god of negative dualism, is already in Matthew being sent off to a heavenly, spiritual or philosophical context....a ransom in exchange for many works within an intellectual context - it is hell on steroids in an earthly, human to human context. No such thing as a flesh and blood resurrection.....hence sacrifice or ransom requires an intellectual/philosophical context.)

Yes men go to war and get killed. The popular response is that they died so other could live - they sacrificed their life for others. This is perhaps an attempt to ennoble the lives that have been lost. However, since war itself is outside the scope of morality, such attempts to ennoble the deaths it incurs by use of a gospel principle (taken out of context) serves to glorify war itself; death in war as the route to following the sacrifice on that cross at Calvary. Great, of course, for the war machine - but not for those spilling their guts out in some foreign hellhole. Christian theology has much to answer for.....