Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:57 pm
1. Where in Paul is a reference to Jesus's having a human father (aside from perhaps David, which led to the strange "David's heavenly sperm model" from Dr. Carrier).
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27) (see http://historical-jesus.info/19.html).

Yes, Carrier's interpretation is more than strange, it is plain ridiculous.
See http://historical-jesus.info/70.html and http://historical-jesus.info/95.html
2. Who, knowing a person's siblings, would refer to that person only as "born of a woman" rather than "born from the human woman [mother's name]"?
See http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

Cordially, Bernard
Although I thank you for your sources, you have provided no reference to Jesus's having a human father.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:58 am
Russell Gmirkin says:
2021-10-31 17:25:59 GMT+0000 at 17:25

My starting-point for understanding the significance of the Jewish War to early Christianity is the book of Revelation, which appears to date to spring of 70 CE based on the failed prophecy of Rev. 11:2, which knew about the siege of Jerusalem’s temple but incorrectly predicted this would last 42 months. Revelation documents a Jewish Christianity that knew of Jesus as a crucified innocent now residing in heaven; saw salvation not as personal (as in Paul’s mystery religion) but national, in line with the Hebrew Bible; sided with the rebels, who were in desperate straits; and looked forward the Rome’s defeat, but only with the imminent help of Jesus returning with heavenly armies. This provides a contemporary snapshot of Jewish (non-Pauline) Christianity in the midst of the Jewish War.

The next stage of my analysis is the Olivet Prophecy of Matt 24 / Mark 13 / Luke 21. I note numerous affinities with Revelation (as well as with the activities of omen prophets leading up to and during the Jewish War in Josephus). I conclude that the Olivet Prophecy was an independent authentic/early subdocument that circulated during this period that saw Jesus as Daniel’s Son of Man figure returning from the heavens with power.

The third stage is the gospels, which may date as late as the early second century, although I tend to be swayed by the parallels between the Messiah Jesus as a rival to the Messiah Vespasian in Mark that this last book dates shortly after the Jewish War, written for a Roman audience. With the Jewish War in the rearview mirror, and reflecting a Pauline rather than Jewish-Christian perspective, there is a shift away from the role of Jesus in Jewish nationalist aspirations (a worldly kingdom of God) to a new religion with Jesus as personal savior.
.
I'm not sure any perceived, loose references to the fallen Jewish Temple, such as Rev 11:2, can be said to just be references to the First Roman Jewish War or to have been written just in response to it, soon after it, as with the Olivet Prophecy. Both types of references could be to events or perceptions after the Second War, the Bar Kochba Revolt.

While parallels between Messiah Jesus and Messiah Vespasian can be made, I'm not sure one can say the former was a 'rival' to the latter. Though I can agree G.Mark seems to be written for a Roman audience and reflects a Pauline perspective.

Furthermore, one might think that, "a shift away from the role of Jesus in Jewish nationalist aspirations (a worldly kingdom of God) to a new religion with Jesus as personal savior," might fit better after the Bar Kochba Revolt, as might, "Jesus as Daniel’s Son of Man figure returning from the heavens with power."

Revelation 11:1b—3 fwiw

“Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 2 but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth.”

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Bernard Muller »

Although I thank you for your sources, you have provided no reference to Jesus's having a human father.
If it is said Jesus was a descendant of Israelites, Abraham, Jesse and David, that would certainly signify he had a human father.
Descendance in the Jewish system is always from the male line. See the genealogies of Jesus in Luke & Matthew's gospels, and the royal descendance of the successive Davidic kings in 1 & 2 Kings.

Cordially, Bernard
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:38 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:58 am
Russell Gmirkin says:
2021-10-31 17:25:59 GMT+0000 at 17:25

My starting-point for understanding the significance of the Jewish War to early Christianity is the book of Revelation, which appears to date to spring of 70 CE based on the failed prophecy of Rev. 11:2, which knew about the siege of Jerusalem’s temple but incorrectly predicted this would last 42 months. Revelation documents a Jewish Christianity that knew of Jesus as a crucified innocent now residing in heaven; saw salvation not as personal (as in Paul’s mystery religion) but national, in line with the Hebrew Bible; sided with the rebels, who were in desperate straits; and looked forward the Rome’s defeat, but only with the imminent help of Jesus returning with heavenly armies. This provides a contemporary snapshot of Jewish (non-Pauline) Christianity in the midst of the Jewish War.

The next stage of my analysis is the Olivet Prophecy of Matt 24 / Mark 13 / Luke 21. I note numerous affinities with Revelation (as well as with the activities of omen prophets leading up to and during the Jewish War in Josephus). I conclude that the Olivet Prophecy was an independent authentic/early subdocument that circulated during this period that saw Jesus as Daniel’s Son of Man figure returning from the heavens with power.

The third stage is the gospels, which may date as late as the early second century, although I tend to be swayed by the parallels between the Messiah Jesus as a rival to the Messiah Vespasian in Mark that this last book dates shortly after the Jewish War, written for a Roman audience. With the Jewish War in the rearview mirror, and reflecting a Pauline rather than Jewish-Christian perspective, there is a shift away from the role of Jesus in Jewish nationalist aspirations (a worldly kingdom of God) to a new religion with Jesus as personal savior.
.
I'm not sure any perceived, loose references to the fallen Jewish Temple, such as Rev 11:2, can be said to just be references to the First Roman Jewish War or to have been written just in response to it, soon after it, as with the Olivet Prophecy. Both types of references could be to events or perceptions after the Second War, the Bar Kochba Revolt.

While parallels between Messiah Jesus and Messiah Vespasian can be made, I'm not sure one can say the former was a 'rival' to the latter. Though I can agree G.Mark seems to be written for a Roman audience and reflects a Pauline perspective.

Furthermore, one might think that, "a shift away from the role of Jesus in Jewish nationalist aspirations (a worldly kingdom of God) to a new religion with Jesus as personal savior," might fit better after the Bar Kochba Revolt, as might, "Jesus as Daniel’s Son of Man figure returning from the heavens with power."

Revelation 11:1b—3 fwiw

“Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 2 but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth.”

Certainly, I am willing to seriously consider alternative dating schemes for Revelation to John and the Gospels. But such a thing would not impress karavan here. Furthermore, as I told karavan, the precise dating of the Revelation to John (both absolutely and relative to the Gospels) is less important for me than the fact that it reveals that the model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet" need not coincide with any model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death".
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:20 pm it [Revelation] reveals that the model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet" need not coincide with any model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death".
A very good point. Cheers.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"the precise dating of the Revelation to John (both absolutely and relative to the Gospels) is less important for me than the fact that it reveals that the model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet" need not coincide with any model of "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death"."

It doesn't do any such thing. Literally, it doesn't even *comment* on this subject. All you've done is quote a text which says that Jesus is coming to come back in the future and bring on the judgement. That literally tells us absolutely *nothing* about whether Jesus predicted the apocalypse during the ministry. You can keep saying it does, but that's only because you have no evidence for this. You <<<know>>> that the Gospels paint Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, and that Paul was an apocalypticist, and that Paul joined extremely early. Like, within 2-3 years of the crucifixion early and he got his own views from earlier Christians. You have to conjure up some sooper dooper early, non-apocalyptic strand of the Jesus movement in the absence of literally any evidence and in the face of all the sociological evidence we have showing that the Jesus movement was *always* apocalyptic.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

I note that no person has PMed to me any evidence that karavan has cited a single pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death. If karavan has admitted that no pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death exists (and Q does not count, being only a hypothetical text whose existence has been challenged by Mark Goodacre who accepts the gospels' Jesus), then people are welcome to PM me.

That having been said, I want to refine my response to karavan's claim that I am saying, with regard to Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism, "something happened in place X because it happened in place Y".

My actual reasoning, if reduced to such pseudo-algebraic notation, would be along the lines of "if event A, in location A, was caused by events B, C, and D, and led to results X, Y, and Z, then surely we are justified (1) investigating whether event B, in location B, which also caused results X, Y, and Z, was caused by events B, C, and D, and (2) if investigation prove that event B, in location B, which also caused results X, Y, and Z, was caused by events B, C, and D, investigating the similarities (and differences!) between locations A and B and events A and B in order to better understand the locations, the events, the causes, and the things caused by the events".

If karavan deny that the reasoning in the preceding paragraph is worthy of applying when analyzing events (such as, to use a minor and tragic example, crowd collapses and crushes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_col ... nd_crushes]), then I fail to understand what business karavan has in claiming to offer guidance about any religious movement's origins.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

As a minor correction to what I writed earlier about Mahayana Buddhism's parallels to Christianity, which I only make in order to deflect potential criticism from karavan, when I referred to "Menandros the Bactrian King", I should have referred more precisely to him as "Menandros the Greek King of Bactria".
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"I note that no person has PMed to me any evidence that karavan has cited a single pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death."

Why are you talking about? (BTW no one else is posting on the thread but you anymore dude, try to address my directly instead of talking to yourself.) Your request is a red herring, the Gospels are the earliest biographies of Jesus and therefore asking for a "pre-gospel" text is literally ludicrous. If we simply subtract the wishful thinking that there is literally <<NOTHING>> historical in the gospels, we end up with a pretty obviously historical portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, backed up by the fact that the Jesus movement was already apocalyptic decades before the Gospels were composed, and as early as we can possibly see backwards, per the sociological evidence from Paul's letters where Paul simply assumed (rather than had to assert) the coming end and acted as if this was obvious to him and his audience in several of his epistles to several different churches. Just admit it, you are, without a SINGLE HINT OF EVIDENCE, assuming an even earlier non-apocalyptic phase of the Jesus movement that vanished almost as soon as it began, without a single trace. That's ridiculous.

"and Q does not count, being only a hypothetical text whose existence has been challenged by Mark Goodacre who accepts the gospels' Jesus"

But the thing is, Q DOES count if there's more evidence for it than the reverse. Someone challenging something doesn't refute it, because the vast majority of scholars "challenge" your non-apocalyptic Jesus, and yet you hold to it. I'm not planning on debating any Q right now (haven't read the literature about it), but I find it funny how some people that like to hang around Jesus mythicism want to dismiss Q so quickyl.

"My actual reasoning, if reduced to such pseudo-algebraic notation, would be along the lines of "if event A, in location A, was caused by events B, C, and D, and led to results X, Y, and Z, then surely we are justified (1) investigating whether event B, in location B, which also caused results X, Y, and Z, was caused by events B, C, and D, and (2) if investigation prove that event B, in location B, which also caused results X, Y, and Z, was caused by events B, C, and D, investigating the similarities (and differences!) between locations A and B and events A and B in order to better understand the locations, the events, the causes, and the things caused by the events"."

You're right, this is literally "pseudo logic" because it's impossible and has literally never happened with any historical event ever. Because there is no identical causes B, C, and D in multiple events. That's literally gibberish, there are so many billions of different variables between India in the origins of this Buddhist sect and Israel in the origins of Christianity that to claim that you have the same causes B, C, and D, is an outright lie. And the idea that the products are both identically X, Y, and Z is also an outright lie. So we're left with nothing. Plus, you haven't yet given any evidence of any real similarities. You simply claimed they exist. When asked for a citation, you had nothing. When asked why actual scholars of Buddhism and early Christianity & second temple Judaism haven't noticed these similarities, you had nothing. It's almost like it's all just in your head. Just admit it dude, you're just "a Buddhist" (or someone who really likes Buddhism) whose super interested in researching Buddhism and you want to engineer some sort of supreme relevance of it in an important topic because you know people in this part of the world don't really care about Buddhism, therefore you want to connect it with Christianity or something. Not working, no evidence.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Secret Alias »

the Gospels are the earliest biographies of Jesus
Was the gospel really a biography or an account or a proof of the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy regarding the coming of the messiah according to certain statements contained therein? This is a critical distinction. A biography is principally interested in telling the story of an individual - presumably a great individual. Great individuals accomplish something. Not sure what Jesus 'accomplished' during his lifetime other than to secure his own death, a death traditionally understood to have occurred because of the insistence of 'the Jews.' Our earliest patristic commentary on the gospel (Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 4) treats the narrative almost exclusively as a prophetic fulfillment exercise. Of course Tertullian or his source emphasizes certain prophecies fulfilled by this Christ of the Jews. I have always been partial to the empty tomb being a literally translation of the Hebrew of Daniel 9:25. In this way 'the messiah' disappeared = ואין לו He disappears, he has disappeared. I suspect that Mark, the original gospel, emphasizes Daniel's 70 weeks so much in chapter 13 because Jesus himself will be the fulfillment of the Christ who disappears expectation of Daniel. Not sure that 'jibes' with a historical biography as this could never have actually happened.
Post Reply