outhouse

I think it would have helped him a little more to classify "his" two Jesus as spritual/historical instead of celestial/historical

Celestial makes no sense at all, nor is he written in that way. There, he relies on Earls work.


Even is Paul was using a pre existing source for a celestial version of Jesus as RC claims, he denies that! as much as anything else, stating he recieved his information straight from Jesus himself.


Religious people even today claim gods talks to them, and not one relies on a pre existing celestial source for these magical voices. If I called a pencil god and got people to belive in it, they would hear it talking to them too :constern01:

Clivedurdle

Carrier does refer to sub lunar so celestial is correct.

Early on he quotes someone giving a four point argument inluding syncretism and the move from community agricultural salvation to individual salvation. Has anyone references for that?

Also the idea if you have been born again, who is your second mother is possibly very important.

outhouse

Just because RC refers too it, doesnt make him correct.


What does the evidence show?

Spiritual or Celestial, or both? And to what degrees?


I think there are Celestial influences as most deities live in mens imaginations, thus are not grounded to the earth walking as a man. Does this mean Paul only viewed Jesus as Celestial? Does Paul Euhemerize Jesus himself, or does he rely on pre existing sources. If we stick with RC's literal interpretation, he doesnt.

DAZ

Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion: A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Suomen Ateenan-Instituutin Saatio, 1996)

jdboy

at about 14:40 Carrier says the pagans would look at judaism as being the same model as theirs. Heinotheisim?

outhouse

Wich is really funny in that it really deosnt deal with Hellensitic Judaism at all, which we all know is the foundation of Christianity.

I think it could be a useful tool in understanding some aspects of Hellenism during this time period.


http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-12-23.html

outhouse

Pagans were more Polythesitic then Henotheistic.

Unfortunately for RC the very beginnings of Christianity delt more with the Hellenistic Proselytes of Judaism, who had been worshipping under the label of Monotheism for centuries before evolving into Christians. We cannot deny the foundation of Judaism in Cristianity. Hellensitic people worshipped Judaism because its appeal to one powerful god as apposed to a god for Rain, one for thunder, one for crops, one for fertility, one for what ever. It was a smorgusbord of dieties for pagans.

Israelites were Polytheistic for quite some time. After 622 BC and redaction of the early books to match King Josiahs adherance to monotheism to Yahweh. They still had Polytheism and it took hundred of years for monotheism to even take complete hold of their evolving religion.

Since Israelites formation there was Polytheistism as well as Henotheism and Monotheistism from the get go. We had a multicultural people who were a melting pot of religious belief. But we cant dismiss the trend for Monotheism that did take hold to Yahweh.


Todays Chrsitianity is described as Monotheistic to a god. Yet we know Christians worship 3 in 1 Defined as such just so they can hold on too that Monotheistic claim.

Not only that we know other figures in Christianity are worshipped such as Mary and different Saints, church fathers ect. Yet are they viewed as Henotheistic as a whole, or Monotheistic?

Clivedurdle

Did you watch the same video?

The argument was that religions generally co-evolved with Helenism creating a new version, and that Xianity is the result of Judaism meeting Greece.

There is a clear pattern.

Toto

That's a review of a very different book by the same author/

wordy

Could you give him chance again using the pause button or
point cursor over the pause and use the Space bar on keyboard
and that way start and stop.

He sure talks fast. I am not even formally educated in English
only having Elementary school but he is rather good at articulation.
Lawrence Krauss is easier and Dan Dennett talk so slow that he is a miracle
for us bad at getting spoken English. Carrier is interesting. I don't know if he is right.

I agree that most likely there where no real Jesus but that is only my gut feeling
on how groups easily make up Spin stories to get supporters.

I don't support his A Plus thing but give him a chance again