Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlTi95hun34&app=desktop
TTA Podcast 198: The Question of Christ

• • Published on Dec 22, 2014

Just finished listening. This is a worthwhile discussion, thanks for the link.

Robert M. Price is a card! They were talking about lore as passed down in an oral culture, and the moderator brought up claims made by William Lane Craig about the accuracy of memory in an oral culture. Price said,"these apologists like William Lane Craig are representatives of an anal culture."



Actually, he and the others did a good job of showing how traditional lore is reshaped over and over, acquiring new twists, in an oral culture.

to cienfuegos,

bernard wrote:

Maybe you expect some accidental healer from Galilee to have been reported early on in CNN report style. That's not reasonable, more so that most writings in antiquity did not survive up to our days.

So if the evidence doesn't say what we want it to say, we just make it up? Was Jesus well-known or not well-known?

That's not what I said. Actually I was able to document, mostly from the Pauline epistles, gMark, Q, Josephus, all the elements of my reconstruction.
The basics about Jesus' life were certainly known in some early Christians communities, more so where gMark was written. See also that:
http://historical-jesus.info/20.html
#20 Were the earliest Christians of Corinth told about Jesus in a worldly manner?
A basic analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:16b demonstrates it was the case, and Paul asked his Christians to forget about what they heard in the past. With update from OHJ

Of course, in Romans 5:15, Paul also speaks of the one man, Adam. In fact, he is comparing Adam to Jesus.

Adam or no Adam, Paul declared here Jesus was a man, just like Adam, except ....

In 1 Cor 15:45-48, Paul says:

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

It is clear that Paul can believe that Jesus is a celestial being, with celestial flesh, and be a celestial man.

It is not as clear as you think: Paul wrote about two men, one coming from dust, the other from heaven, as a pre-existent entity. Jesus, of course, for Paul, is heavenly, with only a stunt on earth.
Furthermore, your translation is misleading:
1 Cor 15:45-49 YLT
45 so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit,
46 but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord out of heaven;
48 as is the earthy, such are also the earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are also the heavenly;
49 and, according as we did bear the image of the earthy, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly.
There is no mention of "celestial flesh" or "heavenly man". Paul only said that the elects will, one day, have the same form than the heavenly (post-resurrection) Jesus.

bernard wrote:

2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3)).
3) He was a minister/servant to Jews (Ro 15:8).
4) He was of no reputation (Php 2:7).
5) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
6) The crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews: see here.

I believe this is all based on the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Notice that #3, it isn't just that he "was a servant" but that he became a servant:
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed 9 and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.
Notice Paul says "has become," that Jesus is a servant, not "was," but the Jesus in heaven is a servant of the Jews.

You make a leap of faith here: "I believe ...". So now you are saying Paul was thinking over and over again, in different epistles, of the Suffering Servant. But Paul always mentioned these attributes are about Jesus/Christ/Lord.
Furthermore the Suffering Servant is never described with many of these attributes, including Son of David and crucified.
I think you need to find some better explanations for these many pieces of evidence which clearly indicate Jesus had been human on earth. You are assuming here with no evidence, against very important points confirming Jesus' past existence on earth. You have to do a lot of work as a mythicist apologist.

Notice that #3, it isn't just that he "was a servant" but that he became a servant:
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed 9 and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.
Notice Paul says "has become," that Jesus is a servant, not "was," but the Jesus in heaven is a servant of the Jews.

The verb for your "has become" or "was" is in the perfect tense:
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
That would fit Jesus' ministry on earth, but not your ever lasting ministry of Christ from heaven up to the present (when the epistle was written). And forget about your present tense.

I think you are misinterpreting what Paul means by "the brothers of the Lord."

And what is your interpretation? based of what?
Here are my replies to mythicist interpretations (mostly Carrier's):
http://historical-jesus.info/37.html
#37 All about "the brothers of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Updated from OHJ
Let's define who would be these brothers and then see how Doherty and Carrier “interpret” them within their mythicist outlook.
http://historical-jesus.info/51.html
#51 Following my analysis of "brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, let's examine the meaning of "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19.
If "brothers of the Lord" cannot mean "all Christians", or "brothers" as members of the same sect, then what are the implications for "James, the brother of the Lord" in Galatians?
http://historical-jesus.info/80.html
#80 Does Romans 8:29 indicate Paul considered Christians as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus?
Richard Carrier contends all Christians were considered by Paul "brothers of the Lord". However Romans 8:29 would deny it.
http://historical-jesus.info/81.html
#81 Looking at the other Carrier's arguments about brothers of the Lord meaning Christians
Since in my previous post I addressed the issue of brothers of the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:5) against one of Carrier's arguments, I want now to look at the others.
http://historical-jesus.info/93.html
#93 My discussion with Dr. Carrier about Christians being understood as "brothers of the Lord" from Paul or the converts
I demonstrated there is no evidence that "brothers of the Lord", with a familial & spiritual/honorary meaning, was what Paul or his Christians (about themselves) believed, despite Carrier's objections.

And about "the brother of the Lord":

http://historical-jesus.info/94.html
#94 Carrier's lame arguments in OHJ against "James, the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19
The two arguments of Carrier in a nut shell about "James, the brother of the Lord" not being Jesus' blood brother: he was either John's brother or just a lesser Christian!
http://historical-jesus.info/82.html
#82 An answer to Carrier's objections about "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19 meaning true flesh and blood brother of Jesus
Carrier's counter-proposals are lame, somewhat pathetic, convoluted and based mostly on imagination, not on evidence.

bernard wrote:

On my blog, I addressed objections and mythicist interpretations of Carrier & Doherty on Paul's admission of an earthly/human Jesus in the near past.
I am afraid you understand by "context" that Jesus was mythical, consequently all indications to a human/earthly Jesus in the Pauline epistles are actually not possible.

No, I believe that you cherry pick phrases which within the context of Paul's writings do not have the connotation that you want to cast. For example, Romans 15:8 which I discussed above and Paul referring to Jesus as "a man."

I am not changing my opinion about that. I notice you are also cherry picking phrases which seems to favor your viewpoint. You hardly discussed on Romans 15:8, nothing saying that "man" in that verse does not refer, like for Adam, to a human being, albeit of different alleged origins.

Maybe you didn't read far into the text. I think this is where the first hint is:

4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

I bet you know who I think the author of Mark is referring to.

Yes I know that "Mark" attributed to that John items given to Elijah in the OT.
But that does not make the gospel being an allegory. I do not see any connection, not even a hint.

bernard wrote:

You treat gMark as it cannot contain any pieces of true fact. How can you know that?

What are you talking about? Did you not see my posts about the novel Little Big Man, responses to outhouse?
Fact: George Armstrong Custer attacked an Indian village camping on the Little Big Horn.
Fact: Custer died that day.
Fiction: Jack Crabb's family was massacred by Cheyenne warriors who then raised him.

see? Even a purely fictional work is not devoid of facts. But you have to be able to find what is fictional and what is factual. You need a methodology to do that. I used the criterion of embarrasment to demonstrate that Jack Crabb's family was killed by Cheyenne warriors. Yet we know that the entire account is fictional. It is plausible that a small group of settlers would be attacked crossing native territory in the mid to late 1800s (we know it happened). We know it is plausible that natives would raise white children, it happened. Yet and still, Jack Crabb is entirely fictional. How do you know that anything about Jesus in gMark is based on something that actually happened? How can you make that determination?

As you demonstrated so well, Little Big Man is not only about fiction, but contains historical facts.
So that movie (which I saw) cannot be called purely fictional work.
Many stories include facts and fiction.
Anyway Little Big Man is very remote and indirect relative to Jesus and the gospels, which is very typical of mythicist argumentation.
It makes a lot of sense fiction can be added to facts for religious purpose. Carrier did demonstrate that very well for Haile Selassie and Rastafarian belief:
http://historical-jesus.info/106.html
#106 Carrier made a case against his theories in OHJ on Rastafarian faith and Haile Selassie
I think Carrier's piece on the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie and the Rastafari religion (pages 18-20 of OHJ) is priceless and goes against Carrier's mythicist theory in a big way, despite his objections.

As for methodology, I described mine in details here:
http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
Not simple, I am afraid, but that's the best which would be available nowadays, and certainly good enough to produce a reconstruction of the beginning of Christianity.
So what is your methodology? I want to know about it.

Cordially, Bernard

To Bernard:

Again, you are offering argument and interpretation in place of evidence. Your methodology says nothing about source criticism, my main objection with you being that you use your sources naively.

As to your translation differences, I just used NIV. Your's is Young's Literal? For 15:45-49, it doesn't matter, Paul is referring to Jesus as heavenly as opposed to Adam who is earthy. That is my point. In Paul's belief system Jesus can take on heavenly flesh, he can even don other kinds of flesh, as in the AoI where at each level of descent, Jesus is transformed.

cienfuegos wrote:To Bernard:

Again, you are offering argument and interpretation in place of evidence. .

He is offering his interpretation of the evidence, not in place of evidence.

to cienfuegos,

To Bernard:
Again, you are offering argument and interpretation in place of evidence. Your methodology says nothing about source criticism, my main objection with you being that you use your sources naively.

So what is your methodology about source criticism? Can you answer that question?
I notice you make a point of not answering what I ask you. Why?
No evidence, really? my many pieces of evidence from the Pauline epistles are very clear-cut and direct in favor of an earthly/human Jesus, against your unevidenced belief that Paul had Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

As to your translation differences, I just used NIV. Your's is Young's Literal? For 15:45-49, it doesn't matter, Paul is referring to Jesus as heavenly as opposed to Adam who is earthy. That is my point. In Paul's belief system Jesus can take on heavenly flesh, he can even don other kinds of flesh, as in the AoI where at each level of descent, Jesus is transformed.

Try to consult other translations and the underlying Greek. I got caught many times using the NIV which sometimes add up more of what is in the Greek.
Translation and the underlying Greek do matter. This is part of my methodology. Apparently, not of yours.
Paul never said Jesus can take heavenly flesh. And you are assuming a Paul's belief system. You mention the AoI as reference: how bizarre!
Your own words about gMark:
"Who is the author of gMark? How reliable is that author? How is that author thought of by his contemporaries? Is he cited by his contemporaries?"
Why don't you ask the same question about AoI, and because you cannot answer them, trash the whole AoI, just as you did for gMark. Be consistent with your methodology.
And the visions in AoI most likely did start with an entirely Jewish text, which got later Christianize, first a bit, then a lot more but differently. I do also source criticism. I do not think you do it on text favoring your belief:
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html
#100 Another look at the 'Ascension of Isaiah', the "gospel" of Dr. Carrier in OHJ
Thanks to the study of R.H. Charles, this hypothesis can be postulated: the 'Vision of Isaiah' started as a Jewish Greek text which got interpolated (first slightly, then heavily) by docetist Christians.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,

So what is your methodology about source criticism? Can you answer that question?

sure, I have previously many times:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

See source criticism.

Bernard wrote: I notice you make a point of not answering what I ask you. Why?

I thought I was, but I am trying to be brief because I'm tapping out my posts on a smart phone.

Bernard wrote: No evidence, really? my many pieces of evidence from the Pauline epistles are very clear-cut and direct in favor of an earthly/human Jesus, against your unevidenced belief that Paul had Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

no, in fact as I already demonstrated, it isn"t clear at all.

Bernard wrote: Try to consult other translations and the underlying Greek. I got caught many times using the NIV which sometimes add up more of what is in the Greek.
Translation and the underlying Greek do matter. This is part of my methodology. Apparently, not of yours.

I did not say it doesn't matter. I said, in this case it doesn't change the meaning of what Paul said. As to translation, by the way, the literal translation might not be the best for capturing the spirit of the meaning. Unless you are an expert, there's no reason that I should grant your favored translation over the translation of experts.

Bernard wrote:
Paul never said Jesus can take heavenly flesh. And you are assuming a Paul's belief system. You mention the AoI as reference: how bizarre!
Your own words about gMark:
"Who is the author of gMark? How reliable is that author? How is that author thought of by his contemporaries? Is he cited by his contemporaries?"
Why don't you ask the same question about AoI, and because you cannot answer them, trash the whole AoI, just as you did for gMark. Be consistent with your methodology.

I do not treat the AoI as a source of historical data. I do not believe Jesus descended through heavens to be killed. The AoI and the supposed authentic writings of Paul are primary sources for the beliefs of whoever wrote them. In that sense they are artifacts.

Bernard wrote: And the visions in AoI most likely did start with an entirely Jewish text, which got later Christianize, first a bit, then a lot more but differently. I do also source criticism. I do not think you do it on text favoring your belief:
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html
#100 Another look at the 'Ascension of Isaiah', the "gospel" of Dr. Carrier in OHJ
Thanks to the study of R.H. Charles, this hypothesis can be postulated: the 'Vision of Isaiah' started as a Jewish Greek text which got interpolated (first slightly, then heavily) by docetist Christians.

Cordially, Bernard

I only used the AoI as an example of a category of thought, attesting to an idea. Don"t read too much into it.

to cienfuegos,

You are asserting this.

Yes, but that's after years of research and study, which I took the trouble to explain on my website.

The fact remains that most new converts to Christianity did not witness any of the events related to the life of Jesus.

Of course. And if they had witnesses these (true) events, they certainly would not have become Christians, because they had no reason to be.

They had to take the word of those who claimed they did. So it comes back to the eyewitness testimony. Who were they? Did they tell the truth?

My analysis of gMark tells me they (or only Peter) (not Christians themselves) were telling about a humble, not divine, uneducated Galilean (very unlike a Son of God on earth), with a smattering of facts on the last year of his life. They were just offering their testimony. Because there were a few eyewitnesses then, it is unlikely one would tell tales, when another one could deny them. And Paul had to take that in account.

The appeal of Christianity is in the resurrection (see Paul, for example).

Actually, 1 Cor 1-4, written after Peter got followers there, does not mention any resurrection, only goes as far as death & crucifixion of Jesus. And Paul managed to make points only on that.

So the key element of the religion: that Christ had conquered death and offers salvation to all was made up (by our knowledge of natural laws). If that was false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest was not false, too. People two degrees away from the events have no way to judge whether or not those events occurred. We know, beyond doubt, that some people will believe false claims on little or no evidence.

If something is false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest is false. But I agree about your points about the falsity of the resurrection and many people believing in it.
BTW, "If that was false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest was not false, too" looks to me the main part of your methodology.

I believe that early Christians were not trying to pass off something they knew to be false.

"I believe ...". So your understanding on early Christians is based on faith. Whoa! And do you have evidence on that? Probably not.
However that what I think of James and eyewitnesses about the earthly Jesus, except those were not adopting Christian beliefs. But do you think that early Christians, such as Paul, Apollos and "Mark" were passing only things they knew were true?

I believe they really did believe that a celestial being, Jesus, pre-existent with God, descended to earth (or the lower heavens), took on the appearance of a man (a Jewish man, it had to be for the new covenant to be established) and was killed by demons under the control of the ruler of the ages.

Another statement of faith (obviously part of your methodology). Can you supply evidence for that?
Like crucified by demons on earth or in the air. The appearance of a Jewish man (that is circumcised) in the air or earth, would that be tricky? Was God trying to fool himself?

They discovered this truth in the ancient writings of the Jews, translated into Greek.

A Messiah from heaven, disguised as a Jewish man, crucified by demons: where would that be in the ancient writings?

I believe this is compatible with what Paul talks about in his letters related to Jesus.

Another statement of faith based on very indirect evidence (mormonism and Joseph Smith).

The followers in Corinth would only have second hand, or even third hand, knowledge of Jesus and not be able to assess the veracity of the story. It would not matter to them whether or not there had been an actual Jesus.

So some Corinthians would have abandoned Paul to become followers of Peter, even if this one never went to Corinth: very unlikely. Paul went to Corinth and had followers, Apollos of Alexandria went to Corinth (according to 'Acts') and had followers. The same was most likely for Peter in order to have followers.
I do not agree it would not matter if there was no actual Jesus. If the early Christians were not sure, they would not join a new cult about "blank" crucified and resurrected.

When you say "I demonstrated" what you mean is "I have presented an argument that satisfies me." I would very much like it if you would embed your arguments and evidence here in your posts. I realize you have layers and layers of explanation and "demonstration" but often following your links is like a wild goose chase. Just state it here.

Did you read my webpages? they are too long to be put on this thread. Too much work about reformatting (color, bold). Just one click of the mouse. Is it too much to ask?

bernard wrote:

The same goes for "Hebrews", which I am certain was written at the same time than the Pauline epistles.

I tend to lean toward an early dating of Hebrews as well.

But Hebrews also mentions a flesh and blood Jesus on earth:
http://historical-jesus.info/40.html
#40 Probably the best evidence for an earthly & human Jesus in "to the Hebrews". Updated from OHJ
Let's examine what Doherty wrote in JNGNM against it and then conclude.

I have already said that I believe the early Jesus belief was based on Isaiah 52/53. You are not dealing with that at all, but only re-asserting your position.

Sorry, because you said it (as a belief!), does that mean I have to agree with something which is unevidenced? And I already answered your point on Isaiah in a previous post.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,

You are asserting this.

Yes, but that's after years of research and study, which I took the trouble to explain on my website.

The fact remains that most new converts to Christianity did not witness any of the events related to the life of Jesus.

Of course. And if they had witnesses these (true) events, they certainly would not have become Christians, because they had no reason to be.

They had to take the word of those who claimed they did. So it comes back to the eyewitness testimony. Who were they? Did they tell the truth?

My analysis of gMark tells me they (or only Peter) (not Christians themselves) were telling about a humble, not divine, uneducated Galilean (very unlike a Son of God on earth), with a smattering of facts on the last year of his life. They were just offering their testimony. Because there were a few eyewitnesses then, it is unlikely one would tell tales, when another one could deny them. And Paul had to take that in account.

The appeal of Christianity is in the resurrection (see Paul, for example).

Actually, 1 Cor 1-4, written after Peter got followers there, does not mention any resurrection, only goes as far as death & crucifixion of Jesus. And Paul managed to make points only on that.

So the key element of the religion: that Christ had conquered death and offers salvation to all was made up (by our knowledge of natural laws). If that was false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest was not false, too. People two degrees away from the events have no way to judge whether or not those events occurred. We know, beyond doubt, that some people will believe false claims on little or no evidence.

If something is false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest is false. But I agree about your points about the falsity of the resurrection and many people believing in it.
BTW, "If that was false, there is no reason to conclude that the rest was not false, too" looks to me the main part of your methodology.

I believe that early Christians were not trying to pass off something they knew to be false.

"I believe ...". So your understanding on early Christians is based on faith. Whoa! And do you have evidence on that? Probably not.
However that what I think of James and eyewitnesses about the earthly Jesus, except those were not adopting Christian beliefs. But do you think that early Christians, such as Paul, Apollos and "Mark" were passing only things they knew were true?

I believe they really did believe that a celestial being, Jesus, pre-existent with God, descended to earth (or the lower heavens), took on the appearance of a man (a Jewish man, it had to be for the new covenant to be established) and was killed by demons under the control of the ruler of the ages.

Another statement of faith (obviously part of your methodology). Can you supply evidence for that?
Like crucified by demons on earth or in the air. The appearance of a Jewish man (that is circumcised) in the air or earth, would that be tricky? Was God trying to fool himself?

They discovered this truth in the ancient writings of the Jews, translated into Greek.

A Messiah from heaven, disguised as a Jewish man, crucified by demons: where would that be in the ancient writings?

I believe this is compatible with what Paul talks about in his letters related to Jesus.

Another statement of faith based on very indirect evidence (mormonism and Joseph Smith).

The followers in Corinth would only have second hand, or even third hand, knowledge of Jesus and not be able to assess the veracity of the story. It would not matter to them whether or not there had been an actual Jesus.

So some Corinthians would have abandoned Paul to become followers of Peter, even if this one never went to Corinth: very unlikely. Paul went to Corinth and had followers, Apollos of Alexandria went to Corinth (according to 'Acts') and had followers. The same was most likely for Peter in order to have followers.
I do not agree it would not matter if there was no actual Jesus. If the early Christians were not sure, they would not join a new cult about "blank" crucified and resurrected.

When you say "I demonstrated" what you mean is "I have presented an argument that satisfies me." I would very much like it if you would embed your arguments and evidence here in your posts. I realize you have layers and layers of explanation and "demonstration" but often following your links is like a wild goose chase. Just state it here.

Did you read my webpages? they are too long to be put on this thread. Too much work about reformatting (color, bold). Just one click of the mouse. Is it too much to ask?

bernard wrote:

The same goes for "Hebrews", which I am certain was written at the same time than the Pauline epistles.

I tend to lean toward an early dating of Hebrews as well.

But Hebrews also mentions a flesh and blood Jesus on earth:
http://historical-jesus.info/40.html
#40 Probably the best evidence for an earthly & human Jesus in "to the Hebrews". Updated from OHJ
Let's examine what Doherty wrote in JNGNM against it and then conclude.

I have already said that I believe the early Jesus belief was based on Isaiah 52/53. You are not dealing with that at all, but only re-asserting your position.

Sorry, because you said it (as a belief!), does that mean I have to agree with something which is unevidenced? And I already answered your point on Isaiah in a previous post.

Cordially, Bernard

Well, Bernard, there isn't really a point to continue this. You refuse to follow standard historical methods and concocted a methodology that really seems to serve the purpose of creating an impenetrable web of defense. I want to note one misconstruence: when I used the term "I believe" it was not meant to be taken as a statement of faith but as a signal that I was stating a hypothesis, putting forward my current reading of the evidence based on our discussion and what I have learned previously. Either there is some communication gap, or I am unclear, or you are not very honest about your reading of my positions, whatever the case is, it is too laborious to continue trying to keep the record straight. It was a fun Christmas discussion. Maybe we can discuss the crucifixion at Easter time.

cienfuegos wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:https://theconversation.com/weighing-up ... esus-35319
Raphael Lataster Tutor in Religious Studies at University of Sydney

• Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth?
  
  ...[trimmed]...
  
  
  Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Just reminding everybody about the OP. Nothing so far diminishes these observations. So far, I only see exactly what RL criticizes.

Thanks Cienfuegos. I have to agree. On the scales of academic balance the result teeters as another straw is added to the camels' back. Three cheers for the church organisation which is surely the elephant in the room. It's elephants all the way down. To the so-called "Divine Institute" of antiquity.

• "My Dearest Paul, How's the conversion business going dude? Guess who writes to You today? It is I Seneca! And Caesar sends his Love again. Farewell Brother"
  
  "My Dearest Seneca, Business is picking up, we have a new CEO in the diaspora. I baptised a talking lion in the wilderness the other day. I will write again soon Good Buddy. 10-4"
  
  
  http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... nd-seneca/
  The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca existed in the fourth century, for Jerome mentions it, says it was 'read by many', and is led by it to insert Seneca in his catalogue of Christian authors; Augustine also, quoting the genuine Seneca, says, 'of whom some letters to the apostle Paul are current read'. The Pseudo-Linus inserts a paragraph in his Passion of Paul telling how Seneca frequently conversed and corresponded with Paul, admired him much, and read some of his writings to Nero.
  
  

LC

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:
What man?

If you don't know, your in the wrong forum.

The man who lit up the mountains with a great light ....

• And they prayed again another time, saying, "Son of life, Son of immortality, who is in the light,
  Son, Christ of immortality, our Redeemer, give us power, for they seek to kill us!"
  
  Then a great light appeared so that the mountains shone from the sight of him who had appeared.
  And a voice called out to them saying,
  
  "Listen to my words that I may speak to you.
  
  Why are you asking me? ;)
  
  I am Jesus Christ who am with you forever."
  
  
  The Letter of Peter to Philip - Translated by Frederik Wisse
  http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet.html

This letter is preserved quite independently in a number of ancient codices. It was obviously well read.
In it Jesus is not a man. He is a booming and pyrotechnical voice from the sky above the mountains.
Jesus was some mythical Jewish sky god who was hijacked and crucified by the Roman propaganda machine.
He didn't seem to leave any footprints on earth according to his Apostle John.

Monty Python may have used this type of motif in the "Holy Grail".




LC