Horatio Parker

BTW the lecture on the Gospels that RC refers to is here.

outhouse

Originally archon was a Greek secular title for lord or ruler.

Pauls uses it in a supernatural context, you know making stuff up.

Toto

There was a well established usage of the term "rulers of this age" or archons of this age, to refer to the demons who controlled things on earth. Paul did not make this up by himself.

There is some dispute among scholars over whether Paul referred to demon rulers, or secular rulers, or secular rulers under demonic influence. Carrier makes the point that wha.t Paul writes only makes sense if the archons referred to are demonic, not either the Jews or Romans.

jdboy

Ok, but is the Celestial story of satan and demons pointing to the NT story where it's the Pharisees that want jesus dead? So the Pharisees are acting as the demons not knowing who jesus was and killing him.

outhouse

I really dont doubt hat.

But did he use a OT spin on it, or a Hellenistic one? Paul had some artistic leeway here.

With a esoteric reading I would agree, its demonic.



Each reference has to be taken into context properly.


Did the Romans oppress the Jews through Archonic forces?

Did Archonic forces fall the temple?



Ephesians 2;2 gives us a example but only refers to those who are disobedient.

Above he is taking a demonic supernatural meaning.

Colossians 2;15 Where Christ disarms the spiritual rulers and authorities.

Here its very debatable he isnt talking about human rulers.





My whole point is since Paul places Jesus and the authorities in a human history and not a celestial one. The only way this mess can help RC, is he has to prove Paul Euhemerizes Jesus completely, instead or partially. And he hasnt done that. Nor can he.

aa5874

Please, explain what you mean by later gospels?? Which gospels were later than Paul's Epistles?

There are two fundamental conditions that PREDATED Pau's Epistles.

1. Either the Existence of Jesus.

2. Or the Existence of a story of Jesus.

The Pauline Epistles must have been composed AFTER the story of Jesus was known whether or not Jesus lived since Paul admitted he was a Persecutor of the Faith before he was called by God to preach about his Son.

Paul's Epistles must be later than stories of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:9 KJV
Galatians 1Essentially whether or not people believe Jesus did or did NOT exist the Pauline letters must be later than the story of Jesus as soon as he admitted he persecuted the Church.

The Pauline writer must have heard of the story of the resurrected Jesus before he got revelations from him.

Surely, the dead Jesus could not have been the one who first introduced himself to Paul.

The Pauline letters are virtually useless when arguing for the existence of Jesus. The Pauline letters do NOT require an historical Jesus.

The Pauline letters require Revelations--dreams--hallucination-visions.

Steven Carr

And that if they had known that Jesus was the Messiah whose death was prophesied in Daniel (and possibly in Isaiah 53) they would never have gone in for making this prophecy come true.

I think the perfect repost to this is the historicist one that Paul knows that if the Romans had recognised that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah come to replace worship of the Emperor with worship of the Jewish god, they would never have crucified him.

But because the Romans did not know who Jesus really was, they did crucify him. Because the Romans really were longing for a Jewish Messiah to appear, you know. They would never have crucified the Messiah. Oh, if they had only known!

Steven Carr

I think you will find that Pilate was not a Pharisee.

Are you going in for the 'The Jews killed Jesus'?

Clivedurdle

Outhouse, is not Carrier's argument that Paul does not have a human Jesus at all? Therefore no euhemerisation is occurring?

Toto's advice about listening to this and not watching his lips is critical, but you do have to look at the slides.

Is anyone able to contact Carrier and get it re-edited with subtitles and properly synchronised?

Clivedurdle

I have taken notes from what I think is the the critical bit.

Petra Pekkanen used a four fold idea to understand religious changes. She did not discuss Judaism and Christianity, but Carrier says it fits completely.

Syncretism

Around the med, various foreign cults and mystery religions met Hellenism and both changed in a process of syncretism, creating new religions.

Individualism. Carrier notes that understanding of this point is very often missing in critiques of mythicism.

The old agricultural based cults with their communal foci were mapped onto individual salvation cults. A communal feast and experience becomes an individual salvation experience. (Gore Vidal in Julian describes Julian being initiated in very powerful terms).

( My thoughts - In Britain, Billy Graham type evangelism, although a huge communal experience for example at Wembley, was about an individual meeting the god jesus. Compare this with the Greek Orthodox Church, where feasting communally is still very important.

Christianity is obviously rooted in agricultural cults - bread and wine.)

Cosmopilitanism

The idea that all races, cultures, sexes etc are equal and humans are one brotherhood. (The Lord's brother?) This is not a Christian idea - the Island of Kos has a statue of Alexander the Great with an inscription beneath of him saying something similar.

The Roman arguments about voluntary societies (I understand Ehrman completely mangled this in Did Jesus Exist) are precisely about this change of thinking. Interestingly I have recently come across two examples in different Anglican Churches that everyone is welcome to partake in the Eucharist - even if they have not formally acknowledged the creed!

Previously people did not choose a religion, you were born in it, if you went somewhere else you worshipped the local gods. Now you went through an initiation ceremony, had to say you believed in it.

(I wonder if bureaucracy and its development needs to be studied here. The Chinese introduced civil service exams in 4 BCE. Rome loved Chinese silk - maybe they imported governance ideas as well. These are also classic sociological ideas of institutionalisation - Goffman.)

Monotheistic trends

It is false that there are pagans over here and monotheists over there. Henotheism is the reality, a big god with a retinue of demons, devils, saints and angels, cherubim etc.

It is a continuum, not either or.