gurugeorge

Wasn't that the point of bringing in Philo? If Philo is talking about an Archangel/Celestial being called "Jesus", and he's talking about it as something ongoing in Judaism at the time, then that might just pip the post as earlier than Christianity. Certainly if you look at Thomas L. Thompson's book, the concept of the King as the Anointed Son of God, is older than the Exile-induced yearning for someone who'd give the Romans a bloody nose.

April DeConick talks in her 13th gospel book, about pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism, and how an Archangel emanation, or a mediator aspect of God, seems prominent there.

Incidentally, I think Carrier's bang on with the amount he emphasizes hallucinations. The further back you go, the weirder religion gets. In those days people actually did run their lives by what someone would babble in a trance (where they felt they were communicating with a divine being or spirit).

Well, it was either that or the telly, I suppose

aa5874

Please, please, please!!!! The Pauline writer did NOT claim to hijack the character of Yeshua and transform it into a Savior.

The Paul writer claimed it was ALREADY written and KNOWN in WRITTEN sources that Jesus DIED for OUR SINS.

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV It was ALREADY DOCUMENTED that Jesus was a Savior BEFORE Paul wrote his letter.

Now, a vision is the very least and unlikely to produce historical data. The claims by the Pauline writers that are compatible with Gospel stories are more likely to have come from a human source whether orally or in writing.

mountainman

Just a minute aa5874, I thought the books of the new testament canon were Divinely Inspired by the Primary Cause, and not by mere secondary causes.

aa5874

Well, the very Jesus stories in the Canon Contradict you. It is the complete opposite.

The Jesus story gets WEIRDER from the short-ending gMark to gJohn.

In gMark, Jesus merely came from Nazareth but later he was the Son of a Ghost from Nazareth in gMatthew, then in gLuke the author claimed he found out How the Holy Ghost produced Jesus and then in gJohn Jesus was in the Beginning and was GOD the Creator of heaven and earth.

The Jesus story does NOT get weirder the further back you go.

In the short-ending gMark story, Jesus was MERELY rejected as the Son of God and Messiah by the Jews but by gJohn Jesus is God and the Universal Savior of ALL Mankind.

It is most reasonable that gMark is the least weird Jesus story.

Sheshbazzar

I agree.
The weirdness grows progressively and radically weirder, ending up with, according to John & Paul and christian theology, Jeebus' himself being 'The everlasting Father' and cosubstantial with the holy Ghost.
So that Jeebus effectively was that holy Ghost that incestuously knocked up Mary his own mother to produce 'the everlasting Father' of the christian religion which is himself.
What horse-pucky.

It IS most reasonable that gMark is the least weird Jesus story.

tanya

yes, agree, and if it is not already obvious, should others arrive at this same conclusion, then, it follows that Paul's epistles post date Mark.

To me, it is not simply the "weirdness" factor of Paul's letters, it is also, as aa5874 has illustrated, for years now, that Paul explicitly argues "kata tas graphas", indicating the existence of some kind of written text, explaining the Jesus story, before Paul's epistle had been composed.

As noted in other threads, Paul's assertion, "kata tas graphas" ought not refer to old testament writings, absent the appropriate modifier, hagios, "holy", which would then change grafas, writings, into scripture.

In other words, Paul's letters are almost universally mistranslated. Paul writes grafas, without hagios to refer implicitly to new testament texts, though true believers invariably assume, incorrectly, in my opinion, that grafas, "writings", with or without "hagios", ought to refer instead to "scripture", meaning, "old testament", not, as I claim, to "new testament" exclusively when "hagios" is absent.

I can easily be refuted, by someone who knows of some place in Paul's letters, some unadulterated location, which clearly points to the old testament, by context, or explicit reference, yet, is described using "grafas", sans "hagios". My idea is probably wrong. Someone on the forum will know the answer.....

Won't be my first mistake of the day....

aa5874

And it gets worse when we examine Acts of the Apostles.

After Jesus, the Son of the Holy Ghost ASCENDS in a cloud, the Holy Ghost--the FATHER of Jesus, somehow manages to FILL up the disciples on the Day of Pentecost and their Heads light up with something like a FIRE and they become Multi-lingual.

Acts 2 By the time Acts of the Apostles was written, the Jesus story had turned into a fully WEIRD Ghost story.

The disciples were FULL of the Holy Ghost, the FATHER of Jesus, and spoke in Tongues..

It was the HOLY GHOST that INITIATED the Jesus cult in Acts. That is WEIRD.

But, it gets WEIRDER.

The Pauline writer claimed he spoke in TONGUES more than anybody else.

The Pauline writer was FILLED to the BRIM with the holy GHOST, the Father of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV In the short-ending gMark Jesus did NOT speak in Tongues--He deliberately spoke in Parables so that the outsiders would NOT understand him.

Paul and the Apostles NEEDED to be FILLED with the Holy GHOST to preach the Jesus story.

Sheshbazzar

Being a death cult, They all drank the same Kool-Aid, from the same 'cup'.

gurugeorge

You have your reasons for not accepting Paul as early text, but I'm talking about a theory that does accept Paul as fairly early. Carrier's theory does accept an earlier and purely visionary Pauline Christianity, with the human-seeming bits, the bringing-down-to-earth of the myth, coming later, in GMark.

aa5874

Again, theories are developed on COLLECTED Credible data whether history or Science.

A theory cannot be developed with the hope that someday-somewhere-somehow there will be credible data to support it.

As soon as the Pauline letters are introduced as evidence for an early Jesus cult of Christians BEFORE c 70 CE then the credibility and historical accuracy of the letters MUST be established.

I do NOT accept PRESUMPTIONS as evidence to support a theory.

Once we examine the short-ending gMark it can clearly be seen that it was composed BEFORE there was a Jesus cult of Christians. The Markan Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted and did NOT want the Jews to know he was Christ and did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

And it is CLEARLY stated that the Pauline writer PERSECUTED the FAITH. See Galatians 1

Logically, the Pauline writings are AFTER the short-ending gMark.

1 Corinthians 15:9 KJV--For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 KJV--For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: