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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:54 pm And you don't even have evidence that the church father citations DID omit the word "again". I took a look into it, and that's just something that Lataster said in a footnote without a citation. There is, quite honestly, nothing here.
You're just discrediting yourself here. You found an uncited footnote in Lataster and conclude that you now know all about it. For now, I will continue not to provide any citations, just because I find it funny to see you flap around like this and want to know how deep a hole you want to dig for yourself.

In addition to the evidence of the textual modification in Galatians 2:1, removing "again," there is the internal evidence here:

Galatians 1:1 - "Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father"
Galatians 1:11-12 - "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Galatians 1:15-24
But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. ...Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me. Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up ... to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 Yet it was a concern because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised ... 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

In the text of Galatians, we learn that Paul prided himself on having a gospel that he did not receive from any man. In the text of Galatians, we also learn that Paul says that he was unknown to the churches of Judea, and we learn that Paul says that he did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before he was, since he received the gospel from a revelation from Jesus Christ and did not "consult any human being." When Paul does meet them, after fourteen years, it was "because of a revelation that I went up." And it is at this time that Paul "submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." At this time, during this meeting after fourteen years, "those who were of repute contributed nothing to me."

And so we have this text:

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

But, of course, it is a lie. Paul already said that he didn't consult with any human being and that he did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before he was. Paul went on to emphasize that he compared notes ("submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles") with Peter and James after fourteen years and that they had nothing to add to Paul's gospel. Paul decided to go to Jerusalem at all only after receiving a revelation indicating that he should do so.

All of Paul's statements are trivialized by this interpolation. Since Paul could already compare notes after three years with Peter and James, it becomes meaningless to say that Paul's message was complete after meeting with them after fourteen years. That statement is empty unless Paul was, as he said, someone who had not consulted with the apostles before him, prior to that meeting after fourteen years. And unless Paul was meeting with them for the first time and was uncertain about whether their message would match Paul's, there would be no reason for there to be "fear that somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain" when submitting unto them his gospel to the Gentiles.

It doesn't get much more clear than that. Galatians 1:18-20 is probably an interpolation.
"You still have provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters."

What evidence do I need
You would need evidence that Paul's letters were insanely popular and widely distributed around the Roman empire in the early second century, to support the claims you were making:
Paul's letters were insanely popular and distributed across the whole of the geography of Christianity very quickly
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: Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:26 pm "Scholarship about the origins of Mahayana Buddhism has strongly suggested that cults surrounding Amitabha Buddha and similar beings arose when Buddhist monks, absorbed in meditation and guided by scriptures, had visions of Buddhas whom they became convinced were saviour figures."

Sorry dude, you think I'm going to just accept it when YOU tell me that scholarship says this or that? Big phat citation please. Otherwise, didn't happen LOL.

[...]

Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? Of course he was, it's in literally all the "earliest Christian literature". The movement began as apocalyptic, clear as day, and Jesus was its founder, and there are several attributions of Jesus saying precisely those things. I don't need to disconfirm literally any alternative you pull out of your arse. If you want to make an alternative suggestion, the burden of proof is on YOU LOL given the fact that literally ALL the earliest Christian attestation, right back to Paul himself who directly knew the originals, were apocalyptic.
1. Given that you have admitted that you have admitted that you have never studied Buddhism and have evinced not willingness to perform even the most basic research about Buddhism even when I am discussing Buddhism as part of this discussion, I am disinclined to provide sources. But I will, out of a kindness that you lack. Jan Nattier a (non-Buddhist) scholar of Mahayana Buddhism, has provided much discussion, both oblique and direct, about the model of Mahayana Buddhism's formation that I have discussed, as has the Buddhist scholar Mu Soeng (a former Zen monk and teacher who is the scholar-in-residence at the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies); to take a specific example, Nattier summarizes scholarship about the development of the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines Sutra (from a monk's discourse to Gautama Buddha's discourse) in her excellent book "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)" [University of Hawaii Press; New edition (May 31 2005)]. In order to address your concerns that a former Zen monk and Buddhist teacher may have biases, I must inform you that Zen Buddhism is a form of Mahayana Buddhisam fundamentally based upon Mahayana Buddhist sutras that Mu Soeng and others concede arose due to visions of Buddhas - even though the key Zen Buddhist sutras (Diamond, Heart, and Lankavatara) are presented as actual discourses by Gautama Buddha upon the Earth.

2. You cannot even be bothered to cite this "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)" as revealing a Jesus Christ apocalyptic preacher upon this Earth. The Revelation to John portrays Jesus as an apocalyptic revealer, but he is (1) presented as a heavenly revealer figure working through an angel and (2) is never described as a preacher upon the Earth within the text.

3. You have not revealed in this thread your expertise, about the model of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or otherwise. Rather, you have revealed yourself as overly confident and as basing your arguments upon selective readings of sources, failing to research fully your opponents' claims before claiming to refute them, and insults. For this reason, I will no longer respond to you but will read the responses that other people give to you here (which are excellent demonstrations of how you misrepresent your evidence and belittle contrary evidence).

That having been said, if you would like to seek titles of books or articles about Buddhism from me, feel free to PM me.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

"You're just discrediting yourself here. You found an uncited footnote in Lataster and conclude that you now know all about it. For now, I will continue not to provide any citations, just because I find it funny to see you flap around like this and want to know how deep a hole you want to dig for yourself."

Peter ... I'm not digging myself into a hole, nor did I say anything about knowing all about this. I made a very simple request. You said that all these authors don't have the word "again" when they cite Galatians 2:1. I'm just asking you ... why I should think that. Or why you think that. This is the very first check for your argument: that your evidence is actually there. We haven't even begun to discuss the relevance of church father attestation versus manuscript attestation, and, even if then and we accept interpolation of the word "again", it has the actual implications you're suggesting it. This is literally the very first, bare bones requirement: actually give evidence for your claim about the word "again" missing everywhere.

If you say you're not going to provide any citations because you want me to flap around, we both know I'm going to interpret that as you having zero evidence. Eh, to be honest with you I've actually already come to that conclusion. I'm pretty darned sure your sole basis for thinking that is that Lataster footnote. After all, you were MORE than willing to cite the other points you made earlier on, but all of a sudden ... you can't be bothered to produce a citation. Yeah right come on man.

"In the text of Galatians, we learn that Paul prided himself on having a gospel that he did not receive from any man."

Let me know where you find where in Galatians 1:18-19 Paul says he got the gospel from James or Peter. If you decided to take a look, you'd see him only saying he got acquainted with Peter for about two weeks and just "saw" James. Like, come on bruh, you KNOW Paul getting "acquainted" with Peter doesn't contradict anything he said otherwise LOL. You then say Paul must be lying because he said he didn't talk to any human being. Nah bro, he didn't say that at all ROFL. He said he didn't get TAUGHT THE GOSPEL from anyone. If you magically discover the place in Gal. 1:18-19 which says Paul got taught anything by Peter or James (when he only says he got acquainted with Peter and just "saw" James), do let the world know. Based on your countless misrepresentations of what Paul actually says in Gal. 1:18-19, you then conclude "It doesn't get much more clear than that." But it really does. You're going to have to live with the fact that Paul getting acquainted with Peter and saying that he "saw" James during his stay with Peter doesn't contradict literally anything else Paul says anywhere in that chapter or the next. Just go ahead and ask literally anyone else here dude. Just ask Neil. I'm sure Neil can work this one out. Yo Neil, does Paul say anything more than that he got acquainted with Peter and "saw" James during his stay with Peter in Gal. 1:18-19?


"You would need evidence that Paul's letters were insanely popular and widely distributed around the Roman empire in the early second century, to support the claims you were making"

Oh, PFFT that's extremely easy. I thought you would have known *at least* that. Already in the first century, people were writing numerous forgeries in Paul's name. Why? Because Paul was a super popular guy. Possibly Colossians, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, possibly 2 Thessalonians. The authors of ALL SIX OF THESE SOURCES, which could be up to six different authors, knew about Paul and thought there was enough authority in his name to write a letter in his name. And most of these, if not potentially all of them, were composed in the first century. Early 2nd century at the latest, certainly before Marcion. Not only that, but the author of Hebrews also knows of Paul. The author of Acts probably knows of Paul. The author of the James epistle probably knows of Paul's letters. But we can also go outside of the NT. I mean, Clement of Rome, in the first century (potentially as early as 70, but also maybe in the 90s) speaks of Paul and Peter on the same level as each other. Polycarp knew of and quotes Paul's letters too. Ignatius knew of Paul. The Didache, also first century, knows of Paul's letters (or letters attributed to Paul). It's obvious that 2 Thess, Ephesians, and Colossians all had achieved virtually canonical status before Marcion, since Marcion included them in his collection. I mean, let's be honest: who DIDN'T know about Paul? I just named like a dozen pre-Marcionite sources that knew of Paul. Also, Paul founded several churches across the empire. He is widely considered, probably correctly, as the most successful evangelist of all time. Paul was EXTREMELY POPULAR, EVERYONE was using his letters. Therefore, it is literally logistically impossible for a mass-interpolation of all copies of Paul in every single city, region, church, sect, faction etc or the Roman Empire in the time between Marcion and his critics (as early as Irenaeus in 180) without a TRACE in literally all global documentation besides the singular example of the hyper-controversial, widely believed to be a fraud Marcion.


__________


"vinced not willingness to perform even the most basic research about Buddhism"

God damn dude, I realize you're a Buddhist and all, but DAMN relax, literally no one here studies Buddhism like you do. But to be fair, while I don't know too much about Buddhist theology, I do know a fair amount about the history of medicine and medical practices in the Buddhist tradition. This whole discussion about Buddhism is a big red herring: you need evidence from early Christianity, not Buddhism, to back up your claims. I can't be bothered to read this gibberish anymore.

"You cannot even be bothered to cite this "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)" as revealing a Jesus Christ apocalyptic preacher upon this Earth."

Are you telling me you literally don't know the places in the Gospels where Jesus predicts the apocalypse, and the countless places where Paul reveals he was also an apocalypticist? It's unequivocal that the founder of the sect was an apocalypticist, and 100% of the evidence about him suggests exactly that and nothing else.

" For this reason, I will no longer respond to you"

That's just about the billionth time you've said that now.
Last edited by karavan on Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:22 pm "vinced not willingness to perform even the most basic research about Buddhism"

God damn dude, I realize you're a Buddhist and all, but DAMN relax, literally no one who has ever used this website with the sole exception of you spends their time studying Buddhism. But to be fair, while I don't know too much about Buddhist theology, I do know a fair amount about the history of medicine and medical practices in the Buddhist tradition. This whole discussion about Buddhism is a big red herring: you need evidence from early Christianity, not Buddhism, to back up your claims. I can't be bothered to read this gibberish anymore.

"You cannot even be bothered to cite this "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)" as revealing a Jesus Christ apocalyptic preacher upon this Earth."

Are you telling me you literally don't know the places in the Gospels where Jesus predicts the apocalypse, and the countless places where Paul reveals he was also an apocalypticist? It's unequivocal that the founder of the sect was an apocalypticist, and 100% of the evidence about him suggests exactly that and nothing else.

" For this reason, I will no longer respond to you"

That's just about the billionth time you've said that now.
1. People can change their minds when confronted with differing circumstances - such as new evidence. You changed your mind about Neil's relationship with Dr. Carrier is response to the evidence that I provided. You also changed your mind about whether Amitabha Buddha was a historical figure when I provided to you evidence that Amitabha Buddha and Gautama Buddha are different Buddhas. I changed my mind from mythicism towards accepting a Jesus who walked upon the Earth when confronted, not with insults and selective quotation of sources (by which I refer to condemning any scholarship supporting any thesis that can support any aspect of mythicism), but due to respectful and unbiased consideration of all evidence. I have also decided to change my mind n response to your latest reply because it is so easy to respond to.

2. Formerly, you were asking for sources in support of my claims about Buddhism; now you say that you will not read them. Surely, this is evidence of some defect in your reasoning or kindness.

3. Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity arose in similar religious environments (even though they are quite different religions - no Christian contemporary to the Buddhist Nagarjuna would have written treatises refuting the existence of souls or uncreated creator gods). Both arose within sectarian environments in which their "parent religions" (Judaism and so-called Hinayana Buddhism) were centred around canons of texts but were nonetheless religious minorities (Judaism versus Greco-Roman religion and so-called Hinayana Buddhism versus Hinduism). Both involved communities of devout men gathering for religious discussion, prayer/meditation, consideration of scriptures, and experiencing of visions that were taken seriously. Both movements produced four types of written scriptures in response to these impulses (although certainly each produced other types of scriptures also): letters to others setting forth doctrines and guides to right conduct, such as Nagarjuna's Letter to a Friend and Paul's letters; hymns espousing their doctrines (such as the hymns within Pauline letters and Nagarjuna's hymn in praise of dharmadhatu); accounts of the lives of their founders from birth until death (GMatthew and GLuke for Christians, and the anonymous Lalitavistara Sūtra and Aśvaghoṣa's Buddhacarita for Mahayana Buddhism); and texts based upon visions (the Revelation to John and many Mahayana Sutras - most notably the Sutra of Golden Light). Both movements produced extraordinary missionary impulses that allowed them to expand beyond their homelands to a degree unprecedented by their parent religions, even though both Judaism and so-called Hinayana Buddhism had had success in converting foreign elites (cf., King Menandros the Bactrian, who became a Buddhist monk and whose conversion seems to have triggered the use of Buddhist symbolism in one form or another on the coinage of close to half of the Greek kings in India who succeeded him, and Queen Helena of Adiabene). Both movements condemned their parent religions as inferior in many ways (the term Hinayana literally meaning inferior vehicle, opposed to the great vehicle of Mahayana Buddhism). Both movements developed what seems to have been a minor industry (if I may introduce levity) of fabricating texts and attributing them to a great master from the past (Nagarjuna among the Buddhists, Paul among the Christians). Both movements used a key scripture in which ideas alien to the teachings that they attributed to their founders were presented as their founders' teachings (The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines Sutra for Buddhism and the Gospel of John). Humans being prone to the same impulses and guided by the same motivations, it seems that studying one movement may help to explain another. Such a thing is not unprecedented within Religious studies. Dr. David Chrisopher Lane (Professor of Philosophy at Mount San Antonio College and a Lecturer in Religious Studies at California State University, Long Beach), the scholar of Radhasoamite religions (a form of Sikhism, to simplify dramatically) openly cites the dynamics of Early Christian leadership in explaining and hypothesizing about the development and maturation/fragmentation of Radhasoamite leadership in his book “Radhasoami: A Critical History of Guru Succession”.

4. I am not asking for citations from within the gospels, as I made clear with my reference to "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)". Furthermore, even if you were to provide to me references within this "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)" to Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, that would not be sufficient to demonstrate that they refer to Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth because the Revelation to John (which can fairly be argued to be a pre-gospel text depending upon when the various texts are dated) is an entire book in which Jesus’s apocalyptic prophesizing is presented as a heavenly vision revealed to the author by an angel. Even if I concede that the Revelation to John was written after the Gospels, the fact that it was accepted as canonical reveals that there was a widespread willingness within Early Christianity to accept such apocalyptic prophecies as being revealed by a heavenly Jesus. The absence within "earliest Christian literature (viz., the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts)" to Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth, in combination with the Revelation to John’s revealing of a religion in which there was a widespread willingness within Early Christianity to accept such apocalyptic prophecies as being revealed by a heavenly Jesus, makes very possible a model in which apocalyptic prophecies were later attributed to an Earthly Jesus (perhaps in response to waning interest in apocalyptic prophecies attributed to a heavenly Jesus) in order to give them more authority. I note that rejecting Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet need not correlate to mythicism; mainstream biblical scholars have asserted that Jesus, while preaching upon the Earth, was not this. In short, unless you provide to me, from a pre-gospel text, an explicit reference to Jesus preaching apocalypticism upon the Earth (rather than in an uncertain or heavenly setting), then you are not providing evidence to me that I would deem relevant (although you would provide evidence, albeit not as good as others may think it to be). If you think this to be unreasonable, then I say that you have been quite selective about what evidence you would accept (even accusing us of not providing any evidence when our evidence is not up to your standards).

As a final note, if you are wanting to say that the anonymous Lalitavistara Sūtra and Aśvaghoṣa's Buddhacarita's being based upon a real person's real deeds proves (within my logic) that the Gospels were based upon a real person's real deeds, I say that the anonymous Lalitavistara Sūtra and Aśvaghoṣa's Buddhacarita feature many legendary features that are not supported by the earliest Buddhist texts' words about Gautama Buddha's life (for which a useful compilation in English - albeit not scholarly - is "The Life of the Buddha: According to the Pali Canon", by Bhikkhu Ñanamoli) and presents Gautama Buddha as espousing doctrines not found within earliest Buddhist accounts of his teachings - which is just what I am arguing with my reminder that the gospels' portrayal of Jesus as a an apocalyptic prophet could have been (and has been argued to be) later accretion(s) not supported by the earliest surviving Christian texts (the letters of Paul and other pre-gospel texts).
Last edited by ABuddhist on Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:15 am, edited 2 times 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 »

"You changed your mind about Neil's relationship with Dr. Carrier is response to the evidence that I provided."

What did I change my mind about? Tim O'Neill completely annihilated Carrier's entire career and every single one of his articles about that kook is 100% facts. I also didn't "change my mind" about the Buddha thing because it's something I had no opinion to begin with.

Your mass of what very well could be pseudoparallels require citations before being accepted. I asked you for citations before, and I'm still waiting. Sorry dude, but no amount of mental gymnastics is going to get around the fact that you can't make an argument about early Christianity by citing the history of Buddhism. If that's your whole argument, it doesn't even count as "circumstantial". After all, circumstantial evidence at least concerns the *circumstances* in which something happened. The thing is, you're trying to claim you have evidence that something happened in place X because something else happened in place Y which is a third way across the world LOL.

LOL, Revelation was after the Gospels dude. This is pretty well-known, and it's internal chronology puts it roughly in the time of Domitian. See the latter part of the following paper: "Do They Never Come Back? "Nero Redivivus" and the Apocalypse of John". I notice you gave no citation for your own claim. And the revelation John gets (which is not a literal revelation; this is an apocalypse, and so it's using the motif of an angel delivering a vision) is of stuff happening *on Earth*.

So literally all the early evidence puts Jesus as an apoclayptic prophet, but your claim is that it isn't "on Earth". The thing is, it *is* on Earth. Paul didn't believe in a celestial Jesus who got crucified in outer space. Ask Neil, he said so himself! Or maybe you only mass-cite Neil when he agrees with you, LOL. But yep, Paul has Jesus on Earth, getting crucified, buried, twelve disciples, descendant of David, with a brother, and on and on. The way to get rid of these passages is either through insane mental gymnastics (space sperm theory) or pure wishful thinking (ALL interpolations!).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:22 pmIf you say you're not going to provide any citations because you want me to flap around, we both know I'm going to interpret that as you having zero evidence. Eh, to be honest with you I've actually already come to that conclusion. I'm pretty darned sure your sole basis for thinking that is that Lataster footnote. After all, you were MORE than willing to cite the other points you made earlier on, but all of a sudden ... you can't be bothered to produce a citation. Yeah right come on man.
You're funny.
karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:22 pm"You would need evidence that Paul's letters were insanely popular and widely distributed around the Roman empire in the early second century, to support the claims you were making"

Oh, PFFT that's extremely easy. I thought you would have known *at least* that. Already in the first century, people were writing numerous forgeries in Paul's name. Why? Because Paul was a super popular guy. Possibly Colossians, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, possibly 2 Thessalonians. The authors of ALL SIX OF THESE SOURCES, which could be up to six different authors, knew about Paul and thought there was enough authority in his name to write a letter in his name. And most of these, if not potentially all of them, were composed in the first century. Early 2nd century at the latest, certainly before Marcion. Not only that, but the author of Hebrews also knows of Paul. The author of Acts probably knows of Paul. The author of the James epistle probably knows of Paul's letters. But we can also go outside of the NT. I mean, Clement of Rome, in the first century (potentially as early as 70, but also maybe in the 90s) speaks of Paul and Peter on the same level as each other. Polycarp knew of and quotes Paul's letters too. Ignatius knew of Paul. The Didache, also first century, knows of Paul's letters (or letters attributed to Paul). It's obvious that 2 Thess, Ephesians, and Colossians all had achieved virtually canonical status before Marcion, since Marcion included them in his collection. I mean, let's be honest: who DIDN'T know about Paul? I just named like a dozen pre-Marcionite sources that knew of Paul. Also, Paul founded several churches across the empire. He is widely considered, probably correctly, as the most successful evangelist of all time. Paul was EXTREMELY POPULAR, EVERYONE was using his letters. Therefore, it is literally logistically impossible for a mass-interpolation of all copies of Paul in every single city, region, church, sect, faction etc or the Roman Empire in the time between Marcion and his critics (as early as Irenaeus in 180) without a TRACE in literally all global documentation besides the singular example of the hyper-controversial, widely believed to be a fraud Marcion.
I am aware of the claims you're making. This whole question is worth investigating further, at some point.
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 4:27 pm "You changed your mind about Neil's relationship with Dr. Carrier is response to the evidence that I provided."

What did I change my mind about? Tim O'Neill completely annihilated Carrier's entire career and every single one of his articles about that kook is 100% facts. I also didn't "change my mind" about the Buddha thing because it's something I had no opinion to begin with.

Your mass of what very well could be pseudoparallels require citations before being accepted. I asked you for citations before, and I'm still waiting. Sorry dude, but no amount of mental gymnastics is going to get around the fact that you can't make an argument about early Christianity by citing the history of Buddhism. If that's your whole argument, it doesn't even count as "circumstantial". After all, circumstantial evidence at least concerns the *circumstances* in which something happened. The thing is, you're trying to claim you have evidence that something happened in place X because something else happened in place Y which is a third way across the world LOL.

LOL, Revelation was after the Gospels dude. This is pretty well-known, and it's internal chronology puts it roughly in the time of Domitian. See the latter part of the following paper: "Do They Never Come Back? "Nero Redivivus" and the Apocalypse of John". I notice you gave no citation for your own claim. And the revelation John gets (which is not a literal revelation; this is an apocalypse, and so it's using the motif of an angel delivering a vision) is of stuff happening *on Earth*.

So literally all the early evidence puts Jesus as an apoclayptic prophet, but your claim is that it isn't "on Earth". The thing is, it *is* on Earth. Paul didn't believe in a celestial Jesus who got crucified in outer space. Ask Neil, he said so himself! Or maybe you only mass-cite Neil when he agrees with you, LOL. But yep, Paul has Jesus on Earth, getting crucified, buried, twelve disciples, descendant of David, with a brother, and on and on. The way to get rid of these passages is either through insane mental gymnastics (space sperm theory) or pure wishful thinking (ALL interpolations!).
1. Formerly within this thread, you were claiming that Neil and Dr. Carrier never disagreed about anything. I provided evidence otherwise.

2. What is wrong with arguing in certain circumstances that "something happened in place X because something else happened in place Y"? After all, if the event in place x be truly strange such that it only arose due to certain rare events, than a similar event in place Y may be explained (not must be - only may be!) through thinking that similar or identical events happened. It is just like the existence of farmers in plot A who gain bumper crops from certain agricultural practises may lead people to suspect (correctly or not may vary) that farmers in plot b, enjoying a similar bumper harvest, may be using similar agricultural practises.

3. I did not cite the claim that Revelations came before the gospels because, as I conceded, its precise chronological timing relative to the gospels is less important than the fact that it reveals that early Christrianity (first century CE) was willing to accept scriptures in which Jesus was portrayed as a heavenly apocalyptic prophet with no reference to his preaching similar things on Earth. That having been said, Revelations is a very complicated text, and I am aware of proposals that would place key portions of it before the gospels. See, for example, https://vridar.org/2021/10/31/the-war-o ... e-gospels/ [wherein a date of c. 70 CE is given for its earliest layer]. This is not to say, of course, that later accretions could not have arisen during (or even after) the time of Domitian, but I already said that its precise chronological timing relative to the gospels is less important than the fact that it reveals that early Christrianity (first century CE) was willing to accept scriptures in which Jesus was portrayed as a heavenly apocalyptic prophet with no reference to his preaching similar things on Earth.

4. I gave to you citations: specifically, a book by Jan Nattier and the scholarship of Mu Soeng. Would you like me to cite for you the precise pages within their books? Such precision I refuse to give when you have both evinced an unwillingness to research any of my claims about Buddhism and cite O'Neill (without any precision) as refuting many things that you disagree with.

5. I am in agreement with you that "Paul didn't believe in a celestial Jesus who got crucified in outer space." 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.

6. Your drawing a distinction because "the revelation John gets (which is not a literal revelation; this is an apocalypse, and so it's using the motif of an angel delivering a vision) is of stuff happening *on Earth*" reveals how little you understand my argument. Of course the apocalypse describes things upon the Earth (and in Heaven, before YHWH's throne - but I will not count such a mistake against you). But the apocalypse is delivered by a Jesus who is intimate associated with the heavenly revealer role (as in, he apparently teleports to Patmos from Heaven and later takes John to Heaven) and who is never described as preaching apocalyptically upon the Earth before he died (although the text describes him as dying upon the Earth and as doing various violent things upon the Earth in the End times). Admittedly, the fact that Jesus preaches apocalyptically upon the Earth within the Revelation to John could be interpreted as refuting my claims about the lack of evidence about Jesus preaching apocalyptically upon the Earth, but but such preaching is (a) explicitly part of a series of strange visions, and therefore easily dismissable as a representation of reality; and (b) explicitly set after Jesus's death (which is explicitly set upon Earth within this text, as we agree) and is therefore not proof that Jesus preached apocalyptically upon the Earth.

7. 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. I admit that if there were no early Christian traditions of Jesus as heavenly/postresurrection apocalyptic prophet and if there were no evidence from the scholarship about Mahayana Buddhism about how later traditions and visions were retroactively attributed to an earthly founding figure (Gautama Buddha, whom I believe was as real as I am), then this lack of a single pre-Gospel Christian text explicitly describing Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher upon the Earth would not be as problematic. But because there are early Christian traditions of Jesus as heavenly/postresurrection apocalyptic prophet and if there were no evidence from the scholarship about Mahayana Buddhism about how later traditions and visions were retroactively attributed to an earthly founding figure (Gautama Buddha, whom I believe was as real as I am), this lack of a single pre-Gospel Christian text explicitly describing Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher upon the Earth is problematic and leaves open (as I and scholars who accept that Jesus walked upon the face of the Earth) the possibility that such things were attributed to him by later authors.

8. Even as you keep seeking sources about a topic (Buddhism) that you have refused to research, I note that you have not asked for the names or publications of mainstream biblical scholars who deny that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. This suggests that you are so confident in your beliefs that you refuse to investigate alternatives - which is not a good way to defend any position.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:06 pm All you have is Raphael Lataster's ridiculous mental gymnastics on the subject of Galatians.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:25 pm By the way, I googled the whole Galatians 2:1 "again" thing. It's just some crap made up by Raphael Lataster. I knew the whole thing was BS, LOL.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:54 pm I took a look into it, and that's just something that Lataster said in a footnote without a citation. There is, quite honestly, nothing here.
karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:22 pm I'm pretty darned sure your sole basis for thinking that is that Lataster footnote. After all, you were MORE than willing to cite the other points you made earlier on, but all of a sudden ... you can't be bothered to produce a citation. Yeah right come on man.
This, 'quite honestly', is all way more sad and pathetic than it is amusing.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

@ Peter "I am aware of the claims you're making. This whole question is worth investigating further, at some point."

If that's your response then I guess that's that convo.


____________________


@MrMacSon Just admit it bro, you have literally never seen any data outside of Lataster's footnote for your idea that the word "again" is missing in all those quotes. If you think I'm wrong about this, feel free to let me know where you've seen the evidence for this. I'm willing to admit it very easily: you literally just have to point to it like you would point to anything else. I quite honestly expected a more serious discussion and that this "again" datapoint would be cited relatively quickly and easily before we moved on, but it seems we're now all stuck on this, aren't we? Well, YOU'RE stuck on this.



__________________

@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.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:39 pm @MrMacSon Just admit it bro, you have literally never seen any data outside of Lataster's footnote for your idea that the word "again" is missing in all those quotes.
I've never seen nor do I know about Lataster's footnote other than by your oblique references to it

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:39 pm If you think I'm wrong about this, feel free to let me know where you've seen the evidence for this.1 I'm willing to admit it very easily: you literally just have to point to it like you would point to anything else.
1 I have. In this thread.

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:39 pm I quite honestly expected a more serious discussion ...
Step up then.

karavan wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:39 pm ... and that this "again" datapoint would be cited relatively quickly and easily before we moved on, but it seems 'we're' now 'all stuck' on this, aren't we? Well, YOU'RE stuck on this.
Good attempt at gaslighting, Gonzo.

It ain't me that's Stuck. Of your various schticks, your Duane Gish like one is sadly your best.
Post Reply