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.
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 »

From the first page of this thread -
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:36 am
... We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus being clearly the ''name above1 all names'' given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud).

... for Ehrman (see my post above), an angel is precisely
When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.

1 "God highly exalted2 him and gave him the name above every name", Philippians 2:9

2 ὑπερυψόω = “super-eminently exalted” or “to raise someone to the loftiest height.” This verbal form of the stem is only found in this place in the New Testament; it is found in Psalm 97:9 (LXX) [the adverb form of this word is used in Ephesians 1:21, 4:10; and in Hebrews 9:5 is used to speak of things which were “above”.]


The bible.org page webpage, Angelology: The Doctrine of Angels is interesting

.
We are not to think that man is the highest form of created being. As the distance between man and the lower forms of life is filled with beings of various grades, so it is possible that between man and God there exist creatures of higher than human intelligence and power. Indeed, the existence of lesser deities in all heathen mythologies presumes the existence of a higher order of beings between God and man, superior to man and inferior to God. This possibility is turned into certainty by the express and explicit teaching of the Scriptures.
.

One might take the following from the same site with a grain of salt -

So while the mention of angels may seem incidental to some other subject contextually, it is an important element of divine revelation and should not be neglected

- yet I think the whole sentence, especially the underlined, "an important element of revelation," has some application to the study of evolving concepts within the NT, especially concepts in the Pauline epistles, and within antiquity, as do other concepts described therein -

.
A Simple Definition

Angels are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him, though created higher than man. Some, the good angels, have remained obedient to Him and carry out His will, while others, fallen angels, disobeyed, fell from their holy position, and now stand in active opposition to the work and plan of God.

The Terms Used of Angels

GENERAL TERMS

ANGEL
Though other words are used for these spiritual beings, the primary word used in the Bible is angel. Three other terms undoubtedly referring to angels are seraphim (Isa. 6:2), cherubim (Ezek. 10:1-3), and ministering spirits, which is perhaps more of a description than a name (Heb. 1:13). More will be said on this later when dealing with the classification of angels.

The Hebrew word for angel is mal`ach, and the Greek word is angelos. Both words mean “messenger” and describe one who executes the purpose and will of the one whom they serve. The context must determine if a human messenger is in view, or one of the celestial beings called “angels,” or if it is being used of the second Person of the Trinity as will be discussed below. The holy angels are messengers of God, serving Him and doing His bidding. The fallen angels serve Satan, the god of this world (aiwn, “age”) (2 Cor. 4:4).

HOLY ONES
The unfallen angels are also spoken of as “holy ones” (Ps. 89:5, 7). The reason is twofold. First, being the creation of a holy God, they were created perfect without any flaw or sin. Second, they are called holy because of their purpose. They were “set apart” by God and for God as His servants and as attendants to His holiness (cf. Isa. 6).

HOST
“Host” is the Hebrew tsaba, “army, armies, hosts.” It is a military term and carries the idea of warfare. Angels are referred to as the “host,” which calls our attention to two ideas. First, it is used to describe God’s angels as the “armies of heaven” who serve in the army of God engaged in spiritual warfare (Ps. 89:6, 8; 1 Sam. 1:11; 17:45). Second, it calls our attention to angels as a multitude of heavenly beings who surround and serve God as seen in the phrase “Lord of hosts” (Isa. 31:4). In addition, tsaba sometimes includes the host of heavenly bodies, the stars of the universe.

DIFFICULT TERMS

SONS OF GOD
In their holy state, unfallen angels are called “sons of God” in the sense that they were brought into existence by the creation of God (Job 1:6; 38:7). Though they are never spoken of as created in the image of God, they may also be called “sons of God” because they possess personality like God. This will be demonstrated later in this study. This term is also used in Genesis 6:2 which tells us the “sons of God” took wives from among the “daughters of men.” Some scholars understand “the sons of God” of Genesis 6:2 to refer to the sons of the godly line of Seth and the “daughters of men” to refer to the ungodly line of the Cainites. Others, in keeping with the use of “sons of God” in Job, believe the term refers to fallen angels who mated with the daughters of men to produce an extremely wicked and powerful progeny that led to the extreme wickedness of Noah’s day. Most who hold to this latter view find further support in 2 Peter 2:4-6 and Jude 6-7.7 Still others believe they refer to despots, powerful rulers. Ross writes:

The incident is one of hubris, the proud overstepping of bounds. Here it applies to “the sons of God,” a lusty, powerful lot striving for fame and fertility. They were probably powerful rulers who were controlled (indwelt) by fallen angels. It may be that fallen angels left their habitation and inhabited bodies of human despots and warriors, the mighty ones of the earth.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD
The second difficulty concerns the identity of “the angel of the Lord” as it is used in the Old Testament. A careful study of the many passages using this term suggests that this is no ordinary angel, but a Theophany, or better, a Christophany, a preincarnate appearance of Christ. The angel is identified as God, speaks as God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God.

Still, in some passages He distinguishes Himself from Yahweh (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13, Ex. 3:2; Judg. 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). That the Angel of the Lord is a Christophany is suggested by the fact a clear reference to “the Angel of the Lord” ceases after the incarnation. References to an angel of the Lord in Luke 1:11; and 2:8 and Acts 5:19 lack the Greek article which would suggest an ordinary angel.


The Origin, Nature, and Number of Angels

ANGELS ARE CREATED BEINGS

THE FACT OF THEIR CREATION
That angels are created beings and not the spirits of departed or glorified human beings is brought out in Psalm 148 ... “For He commanded and they were created” (Ps. 148:1-5) ...

Since God is Spirit (John 4:24) it is natural to assume that there are created beings who more closely resemble God than do the mundane creatures who combine both the material and immaterial ... Angelology rests not upon reason or supposition, but upon revelation.

THE TIME OF THEIR CREATION
... they were created before the creation of the world. From the book of Job we are told that they were present when the earth was created (Job 38:4-7)

THE AGENT OF THEIR CREATION
.... Paul was writing to refute an incipient form of Gnosticism that promoted the worship of angels in place of the worship of Christ (cf. Col. 2:18). In this, Paul demonstrates superiority and rightful place of worship as supreme (cf. Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Phil. 2:9-10; Col. 2:10, 15:10

ANGELS ARE SPIRIT BEINGS

THEIR ABODE
... due to the ministry and abilities given to them in the service of God, they have access to the entire universe. They are described as serving in heaven and on earth (cf. Isa. 6:1f; Dan. 9:21; Rev. 7:2; 10:1).

...expounded in the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch (7, 9.8, 10.11; 12.4), from which Jude quotes in v. 14, and...in the intertestamental literature and the early church fathers (e.g., Justin Apology 2.5) [is the view that angels had a domain and a dwelling place]. The angels “did not keep their positions of authority” (ten heauton archen). The use of the word arche for “rule,” “dominion,” or “sphere” is uncommon but appears to be so intended here (cf. BAG, p. 112). The implication is that God assigned angels stipulated responsibilities (arche, “dominion”) and a set place (oiketerion).


Mankind, including our incarnate Lord, islower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7).

Angels are not subject to the limitations of man, especially since they are incapable of death (Luke 20:36). Angels have greater wisdom than man (2 Sam. 14:20), yet it is limited (Matt. 24:36). Angels have greater power than man (Matt. 28:2; Acts 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:11), yet they are limited in power (Dan. 10:13).

https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels

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've never seen nor do I know about Lataster's footnote other than by your oblique references to it"

Then you got it form someone who got it from Lataster. Plain and simple.

"I have. In this thread."

Nah you haven't LOL. In fact, you just quoted Irenaeus actually using the word "again", and when I pointed that out, you just said "ughhh never mind" and you deferred to Peter Kirby. And so I asked Kirby for HIS source, and he also didn't give one. So no dude, there's no source. You got nothing and you know that for a fact. And I'm not surprised, you're a Carrier lover ROFL.

As for your gigantic angel comment, I'm going to assume that has no relevance to me unless you want to say that it does and explain why. 'Cause that's a BIG comment to read through.

"your Duane Gish like one is sadly your best."

Say something that makes sense bro. You're just mad because I did the unthinkable: I asked you for evidence. LOL.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:39 pm @ABuddhist. Ah yes, that. Sure, Neil has a few disagreements, though *most* of the time when he disagrees, he just tries to achieve the same conclusion with another method. Doesn't change the fact that he vigilantly defends Carrier not just from anyone, but probably from any THING that would dare get in his way LOL. Also, "something happened in place X because it happened in place Y" is just a blatant non-sequitur, I'm not sure if you're joking there though 'cause the logic is so bad. I can also use your logic: Muhammad is the historical founder of Islam, therefore Jesus is the historical founder of the Jesus sect (which became Christianity). You obviously just cherry picked the example to suit your needs. But it's still an open question *if* you have an example to begin with, given the lack of citations. (You basically use my correct citation of O'Neill as an excuse not to give the citations, which I'm now increasingly confident you don't have.) By the way, you misrepresented Revelation. It says literally nothing about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet during his time on Earth. Your claim that it says he wasn't one is, therefore, plainly wrong. It's just an assumption, one that can't be backed up by the source you're citing. The whole of Revelation is set in the future, besides passing references to Jesus' death/crucifixion and resurrection. And that's it.

P.S. Your Neil Godfrey blog says literally nothing about an earliest strand of Revelation in 70. So you're still left with the fact that the internal chronology of Revelation appears to place it in the time of Domitian.

"But I have cited to you evidence that early Christianity believed that after his death upon the Earth, Jesus served as a heavenly revealer figure - including as an apocalyptic prophet such as he appears - among other lurid roles - in the Revelation to John."

HOLD UP LOL. So according to you, the teachings of Jesus were NOT apocalyptic. but the Jesus sect only became apocalyptic AFTER his death on the basis of receiving apocalyptic revelations from the then heavenly Jesus? Please confirm.

"You claim that all of the evidence shows that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher is refuted for my purposes by your inability to provide for me a single pre-Gospel Christian text explicitly describing Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher upon the Earth."

How does that refute it at all LOL? The Gospels are more than enough on this point. And Paul provides significant evidence to confirm: Paul shows that in his time, and he was literally extremely early, the Jesus movement was apocalyptic. The only serious explanation for this is the fact that its founder was an apocalypticist, which is directly backed up by a wealth of info from the Gospel (which only mythicists believe are 100% fiction). The idea that the founder was not apocalyptic but that the group later somehow magically morphed into apocalypticism almost instantly just makes zero logical sense. Plus it's a tried and tested claim anyways. You seem a bit ignorant of the scholarship. The Jesus Seminar tried to argue once that the apocalypticism only arose out of a belief in Jesus' resurrection, which therefore must have signalled the coming end times and the final resurrection. But everyone agrees that the Jesus Seminar got KOed on this one. Dale Allison wrote a lengthy refutation in his book on Jesus' apocalypticism. You should check it out.
1. ""something happened in place X because it happened in place Y" is just a blatant non-sequitur, I'm not sure if you're joking there though 'cause the logic is so bad." So you assert, but where is your proof? To given another example, if person X were to die in place X and display symptoms of arsenic poisoning (later confirmed as arsenic poisoning), and person Y were to die in place Y and display symptoms of arsenic poisoning, then surely it would be logical to say that person Y may have died in place Y due to arsenic poisoning - in turn justifying further research into whether person Y died in place Y due to arsenic poisoning. This same thought process justifies using the origins of Mahayana Buddhism in order to understand the origins of Christianity (and vice versa).

2. With regards to citations, I say that by the standards that you have set forth (in which my providing two authors and one book title is not enough), your referencing "Dale Allison wrote a lengthy refutation in his book on Jesus' apocalypticism" is in no way adequate, because it provides neither title of book nor pagenumbers within the book. You should read the portions of "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)" [University of Hawaii Press; New edition (May 31 2005)] discussing the development of the The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines Sutra (finding the precise discussion by looking up the title in the Index - where it may be given in Sanskrit as Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra).

3. I apologize for not pinpointing more precisely within the vridar blog-post; the relevant material in in the comments and begins as follows:

Russell Gmirkin says:
2021-10-31 17:25:59 GMT+0000 at 17:25

“Another feature of the Gospels has puzzled many commentators: the war of 70 is not a major issue.” True, and significant in understanding the gospels in relationship to the rise of Christianity detached from Jerusalem and Judea.

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 note that Gmirkin, in response to my citing evidence in support of pro-mythicist talking points, does not insult either me or the evidence that I cite (although he says that I missed several lines of his argumentation); rather, he explains his reasoning calmly. Maybe you could do the same.

4. I never claimed that the Revelation to John claims that Jesus was never an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion - we agree that it does not say such a thing. But it also does not say that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion - hence my argument (supported by mainstream biblical scholars - albeit whom you claim have been refuted) that such a tradition was later.

5. "So according to you, the teachings of Jesus were NOT apocalyptic. but the Jesus sect only became apocalyptic AFTER his death on the basis of receiving apocalyptic revelations from the then heavenly Jesus? Please confirm." I would phrase it more skeptically: "Jesus, during his life, was not an apocalyptic prophet and did not teach apocalypticism, but the Jesus sect became apocalyptic AFTER his death on the basis of various post-Jesus apocalyptic material that was attributed to Jesus, some of which was said to come from receiving apocalyptic revelations from the then heavenly Jesus and arose in visions that Christian leaders/authors/preachers interpreted as due to their receiving apocalyptic revelations from the then heavenly Jesus; other portions of such traditions may have been Christians making statements that they interpreted as being guided by the Holy Spirit that were later attributed to Jesus or may have been invented and incorrectly attributed to Jesus by less sincerely motivated people for various reasons - including gospel-writers." In order to address claims that the gospels' writers would neither invent traditions about Jesus's life nor insert fictional material about Jesus's life within their accounts, I cite GMatthew's account of Herod's slaughtering toddlers and babies in Bethlehem in response to learning about Jesus's birth (mentioned nowhere else within the Christians' scriptures nor by any account not obviously derived from GMatthew) as proof that the Gospels' authors were willing and able to either make up material about Jesus or incorporate such material into their accounts - and I can also cite GMatthew 27:52-53's description of a mass physical resurrection of the dead in Jerusalem in response to Jesus's death (said to be seen by many!). As further evidence that a non-apocalyptic religious tradition can develop into an apocalyptic tradition without an original leader's preaching apocalyptically, I cite the Ghost Dance movement (citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance and trusting that its sources are accurate), whose origins can be traced to 1869 as a local movement founded by Wodziwob among the Northern Paiutes living in Mason Valley that claimed only that the dead Northern Paiutes' spirits would return within 3 or 4 years but in 1889-1890 developed into a more overtly universal and explicitly apocalyptic scheme under the guidance of Wovoka, who claimed that he had stood before God in heaven and had seen many of his ancestors engaged in their favorite pastimes, and that God had showed to him a beautiful land filled with wild game and had instructed him to return home to tell his people that they must love each other and not fight. He also stated that Jesus was being reincarnated on earth in 1892, that the people must work, not steal or lie, and that they must not engage in the old practices of war or the traditional self-mutilation practices connected with mourning the dead. He said that if his people abided by these rules, they would be united with their friends and family in the other world, and in God's presence, there would be no sickness, disease, or old age. Then among the Lakota, this movement developed a more violent and terrestrial direction, drawing from their traditional idea of a "renewed Earth" in which "all evil is washed away". This Lakota interpretation included the removal of all European Americans from their lands: "They told the people they could dance a new world into being. There would be landslides, earthquakes, and big winds. Hills would pile up on each other. The earth would roll up like a carpet with all the white man's ugly things – the stinking new animals, sheep and pigs, the fences, the telegraph poles, the mines and factories. Underneath would be the wonderful old-new world as it had been before the white fat-takers came. ...The white men will be rolled up, disappear, go back to their own continent." — Lame Deer. I am not saying that the Ghost Dance movement perfectly parallels Christianity (after all, none of its later leaders were claiming to be Wodziwob or even Wovoka - excepting, of course, Wodziwob and Wovoka themselves), but the Ghost Dance movement is proof that fundamentally local, non-apocalyptic religious movements can rapidly transform into globally oriented apocalyptic religious movements even when their founders/key figures did not teach such things. This, of course, is relevant to both the minimal historical Jesus believed in by me, Gmirkin, and Parvus (in which Jesus did not preach while upon the Earth) and to the more expansive historical Jesus whom you admit others have accepted (who was a preacher but not an apocalyptic preacher).

6. You have yet to cite a single pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:03 pm, edited 7 times in total.
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 general comments about my discussion with karavan, I hope that I am not the only one to note the following three things about his claims.

1. With regards to citations, I say that by the standards that karavan has set forth (in which my providing two authors and one book's title about Mahayana Buddhism's development was not enough citation), his referencing "Dale Allison wrote a lengthy refutation in his book on Jesus' apocalypticism" is in no way adequate, because it provides neither title of book nor page-numbers within the book. Karavan should read the portions of "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)" [University of Hawaii Press; New edition (May 31 2005)] discussing the development of the The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines Sutra (finding the precise discussion by looking up the title in the Index - where it may be given in Sanskrit as Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) and consider researching what books Mu Soeng has written discussing the origins of Mahayana Buddhism.

2. According to karavan, Dr. Richard Carrier is simultaneously so cunning that he has been able to make a career from writing for materialistic atheists eager for anti-religious propaganda and so stupid that Tim O'Neill, a man with no Ph.D. in history, has been able to destroy his career.

3. According to karavan, mythicists are simultaneously weak enough that they are not worthy of addressing with any respect and strong enough that multiple peer-reviewed refutations of mythicism have been written.

I further note that karavan keeps misunderstanding my arguments. Contra karavan, I never claimed that the the Revelation to John claims that Jesus was never an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion. If any person here can cite any portion of my word to em in which I explicitly claimed that the Revelation to John claims that Jesus was never an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion, then I will recite aloud the Mahayana Repentence of Emperor Wu of Liang - which apparently takes over 20 hours!

Given karavan's gross misunderstanding of my words, refusal to be consistent in accepting varying levels of detail in citations as valid, and refusal to cite for me "a single pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death", I will no longer engage with em and have made em the first user upon this forum whom I have placed within the "ignore user" category that this forum so kindly provides. That having been said, if e cites even one "pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death", then people (including karavan) should PM me and I will reconsider my stance towards em.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:28 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 »

"To given another example, if person X were to die in place X and display symptoms of arsenic poisoning (later confirmed as arsenic poisoning), and person Y were to die in place Y and display symptoms of arsenic poisoning, then surely it would be logical to say that person Y may have died in place Y due to arsenic poisoning - in turn justifying further research into whether person Y died in place Y due to arsenic poisoning."

This of course is a pseudoargument for billions of reasons. For one, you gave no evidence that your similarities between Christianity and Buddhism are real. You just said they were, and then declared you don't need to cite your claims when I asked for citations. Given the fact that no real expert has ever yet noticed these magical parallels, I'm going to assume they're all solely in your head. Secondly, dying of some sort of poisoning is such a ridiculously oversimplistic analogy to the beginning of a movement that it's a red herring. The fact is, history isn't arsenic poisoning you moron. It's pure pseudohistory to claim anything about the origins of one religion based on another. No real expert does that, anywhere, because it's joke reasoning.

"With regards to citations, I say that by the standards that you have set forth (in which my providing two authors and one book title is not enough), your referencing "Dale Allison wrote a lengthy refutation in his book on Jesus' apocalypticism" is in no way adequate, because it provides neither title of book nor pagenumbers within the book. "

You are just so full of excuses as to why you can't provide a proper citation. Here's the full thing for you from Allison:

Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, 2010, 116–36.

You can't just name a whole book. Give me the page numbers.

As for Revelation, your attempt to date it is based on Gmirkin, another total clown. Funny enough, Carrier himself thinks that Gmirkin's main theories are BS: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-30456

But Gmirkin has his head up his arse on Revelation 11:2. There is no prophecy of a trampling of the temple for exactly 42 months, Gmirkin should try to google something called "numerology". This crap goes back to the apocalyptic end-times prophesy of a time, time, and time and a half in Daniel where the beast will reign. That of course is equal to 3.5 years. 3.5 years is the equivalent of 42 months and 1,260 days. Revelation uses the numerology of these values literally all the time, for all sorts of random things. Literally in the very next verse Gmirkin quotes;

Revelation 11:1-3: Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 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. And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY DAYS, wearing sackcloth.”

Notice that 1,260 days (=42 months) appears for something completely different, literally in the next sentence. But there's more. The value of 42 months and 1,260 days also appears in Revelation 12:6 and 13:5 in completely different other random contexts. In other words, these numbers are obviously just apocalyptic numerology, motifs that Revelation used over and over but without any literal significance. (Because again: Revelation is one huge dream vision where the universe is destroyed halfway through it. NOTHING in Revelation is "literal".) Gmirkin doesn't know anything about apocalyptic numerology, so he made this gigantic error. Next time you make a claim, cite a real scholar on the subject. If you keep relying on these dorks, you're never going to learn anything.

The Vespasian thing is also just BS, there's no evidence for that.

"I never claimed that the Revelation to John claims that Jesus was never an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion - we agree that it does not say such a thing. But it also does not say that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon this Earth before his crucifixion - hence my argument (supported by mainstream biblical scholars - albeit whom you claim have been refuted) that such a tradition was later."

LOL. So basically, your logic is "Revelation does not comment on topic X. Therefore it supports my interpretation on comment X." Sorry, you lose.

The rest of the giant paragraph seems to be a huge red herring. The Jesus movement was apocalyptic as early as Paul, and Paul joined in 2-3 years after Jesus' died and got his own views (including those on apocalypticism) from earlier Christians. If you want to claim that it emerged LATER, the burden of proof is on you, because ALL our evidence shows that the Jesus movement was ALWAYS apocalyptic. There is NO EVIDENCE for earlier, non-apocalyptic strands of the Jesus tradition, literally anywhere. In other words, you're just pulling a non-apocalyptic earlier phase of the Jesus movement out of your arse.

" Dr. Richard Carrier is simultaneously so cunning that he has been able to make a career from writing for materialistic atheists eager for anti-religious propaganda and so stupid that Tim O'Neill, a man with no Ph.D. in history, has been able to destroy his career."

Carrier hasn't made a career of anything LOL, he stays financially afloat by having internet doofuses with zero education in anything pay him to keep saying what he says. Basically, he's like a witch doctor selling their medicine. They both prey on the ignorant to extract money from them. And there's no reason why someone like Tim O'Neill can't expose a witch doctor.

"According to karavan, mythicists are simultaneously so weak that they are not worthy of addressing with any respect and so strong that multiple peer-reviewed refutations of mythicism have been written."

The reason why mythicists get SPECIAL TREATMENT AND RESPONSE from historians (where a normal theory like this wouldn't get much response) is because of how much its propaganda is popular online. Historians have a responsibility to address fakes. This is also true among scientists. There are literally a mountain of studies proving that vaccines don't cause autism. But there has never been ANY real study showing that they do to begin with. So why do scientists write so many of such studies? Because of people who are the equivalent of Richard Carrier in those discussions.

P.S. Why are you referencing me in third person like you have some giant audience?
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 understand that karavan has posted within this thread again. However, because e is within my "ignore list", I am not seeing what e wrote - and, given eir consistent rudeness, unwillingness to read resources that I cited for em, distortion of my claims/arguments, and unwillingness to cite even one "pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death", I am unwilling to remove em from my ignore list unless e (or another person reading this thread) pm to me, at minimum, one "pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death".

If this seem unreasonable to karavan, then I take comfort from the fact that Neil, during his efforts to debate with O'Neill, wanted to impose even harsher restrictions (viz., no insults).

karavan may think that Neil and I are both cowards for refusing to interact with our opponents, but I dare say that even karavan beyond a certain point would refuse to interact (unless payed!) with a person about a worldview which e holds to be worthy of respect (unlike karavan's view of mythicism) if the other person were to keep responding rudely, be unwilling to read resources that e would cite for the other person, distort karavan's claims/arguments, and be unwilling to cite even one piece of evidence that, if provided, would refute karavan's claims.
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 »

Hurtado and Gullotta: the Philo's Logos is not an archangel
Philo's logos is a heavenly being, altogether an archangel, the Son, the eldest Son, the firstborn. However Philo's made also allusions the Son is also a man.
Hurtado and Gullotta: the Paul's Jesus is not an archangel
At the time of Paul, Jesus was supposed to be (back) in heaven, resurrected as an heavenly being, after his (earthly) (human) death by crucifixion.
Carrier and Ehrman: the Paul's Jesus is an archangel
However Paul indicated Jesus had been a human (born from human parents) in the near past (some of his brothers being still alive, especially James, who Paul met several times.
Carrier: even if there was no archangel named Jesus, the Christians were the first to name ''Jesus'' an archangel (see Hymn to Philippians).
The hymn does not say Jesus was an archangel, but tells Jesus was a heavenly being before becoming a mortal human.

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 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:58 pm
However Paul indicated Jesus had been a human (born from human parents)

Cordially, Bernard
Leaving aside all of the controversies about whether the references to brothers and born of a woman are interpolations (and in the case of brothers, referring to biological kinship), I have 2 questions.

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).

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]"?
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 »

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
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 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:58 pm Philo's logos is a heavenly being, altogether an archangel, the Son, the eldest Son, the firstborn. However Philo's * made also allusions the Son is also a man.
Hi Bernard, What do you mean here * ?
Thanks.
Post Reply