Littlejohn

In fact, NONE of the letters socalled 'Pauline' were written by the character known to history as 'Paul of Tarsus', which, in fact, NOT was named Paul, and NOT even came from Tarsus. However, he also wrote yet more letters than those that are commonly attributed to him.

It is highly likely that into some of the current 'Pauline epistles', there is a bit of material that once belonged to one or more letters written by the character in question, namely Paul of Tarsus. It is also likely that there was, in effect, an real exchange of letters between him and Seneca.

The true story of the origins of Christianity it is extremely complex, because very complex was the character known to history with the pseudo-name of Jesus of Nazareth. If you decide not to accept this historical perspective, we will proceed until infinite with such improbable 'mythical' theories or other ....

Littlejohn

.

lpetrich

Excellent talk by Richard Carrier. He argues that Xianity fits Hellenistic religious trends very well:

• Syncretism, especially cross-cultural syncretism. Very common.
• Monotheism, though usually with the form of a big god and a lot of little deities. Can anyone say angels and saints?
• Individual salvation. Dying and rising gods were originally in agricultural cults about the death and resurrection of the vegetation, but they came to emphasize individual death and resurrection.
• Cosmopolitanism. One isn't born into it, but instead chooses it, and one's fellow followers become one's honorary brothers and sisters.

Jews had been reluctant to go along with it, but by the beginning of the Common Era, some Jews had done some Hellenistic-Jewish syncretism. Xianity then emerged from it.

RC then gets into dying and rising gods, and as he so correctly says, Mithras was NOT one of them. However, he went through some ordeal or other that involved the killing of a bull. You can see carvings of Mithras cutting a bull's throat in some surviving Mithraism sanctuaries.

RC discussed our first source about Jesus Christ, Paul's letters. Paul talked mostly about a heavenly JC who was a demigod, one who was only known through revelation and Old Testament texts, and not from some earthly existence.

He also mentioned Philo talking about a similar sort of demigod, though I'd like to see sources about that.

As to reinterpreting deities as human, that was very common in the Greco-Roman world. It's called euhemerism, after someone named Euhemerus who did a lot of that. He interpreted Zeus as an earthly king, and I'd guess that he was memorable for being a ladies' man.

RC also mentions the Roswell incident, and how over 30 years some fragments of a high-altitude balloon experiment got exaggerated into the recovery of a flying saucer and autopsies of its operators.

On the subject of mythmaking, one could add how the Rastafarians turned Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie into a messiah figure.

RC also mentioned the origins of Islam and Mormonism from prophets who claim to have had revelations. Such prophets could be having hallucinations, and given my numerous experiences of waking dreams, I would not be surprised if many people conclude that they had been journeying in some other realm. Of course, there are cases of fakery, and that's rather evident for Joseph Smith.

Looking back in antiquity, our only source for a certain Alexander of Abonutichus, Lucian of Samosata, makes him seem like an outright charlatan.

ETA: RC recommended three books:

• Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, which he prefers to ED's second book as more concise.
• Robert Price, The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems.
• Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, arguing that much of the Gospels' content is pure fiction.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I'd like to see that as well. Carrier says that Philo tells us "that there was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being actually named 'Jesus'" (about 18 mins). I've been through Philo's works in English translation, so I can only suspect that Philo referred to such a being as a saviour, or something similar, and Carrier gets "Jesus" from that. If that is the case, he is doing what he criticizes other mythicists for: twisting writings to make them seem applicable to the mythicist case.

Carrier also states that "euhemerization was taking a celestial deity and putting them on earth and giving them an earthly story" (around 7 min 30 secs in). :huh: No it wasn't. It was taking the legends of gods and demi-gods who acted on earth, and proposing that the gods and demi-gods in those stories were actually just kings and heroes around whom legends grew. Euhemerus (who was considered an atheist by later writers) wasn't taking celestial beings and "putting them on earth", which is how some mythicists view how the Gospels were created. Carrier has tweaked the definition to make it sound applicable to Christianity, which is the very thing he criticizes other mythicists for. Euhemerus would have looked at the Gospels and thought that Jesus was just a man around whom legends grew, in the same way as today's secular scholars do. He wouldn't have thought that someone had taken a celestial deity and placed him 'in history'.

Carrier also continues his mistaken view that there were beliefs of Osiris being incarnated, killed, buried and resurrected in heaven under the orbit of the Moon. (about 20 mins in). :facepalm:

As much as I like Carrier for how he engages stupid mythicist claims, he makes some bone-headed mistakes of his own at times.

EarlDoherty

I pointed out in another thread in answer to this that Philo does not refer to any celestial being called "Jesus." (I guess I'm going to have to listen to Carrier's talk to see what he actually says.) He refers to an emanation of God, the Logos, which bears some resemblance to the heavenly Christ the Pauline cult believed in, but is less personalized. Neither does Philo present his Logos as some kind of cultic savior, but simply a part of God fulfilling certain roles.

One can't point to a specific document or passage for this in Philo, because he rarely sets any subject out systematically. He refers to the Logos at various times and in various connections throughout his writings. Unless you're prepared to read through his whole corpus, it's best to read modern scholarls' works about Philo, such as E. R. Goodenough (his classic By Light, Light, or his Introduction to Philo Judaeus).

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

No, Don, he is not mistaken. I've shown that's correct (as in Plutarch's reports of Egyptian 'legend') not only in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (p.146-8) but in my response to your review of the book.

But there you go again. You keep repeating your same old statements (smilies optional), ignoring any rebuttal that may have been made against them no matter how many times. You must have some parrot blood in you.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

"Those with the evidence argue the evidence. Those without the evidence argue the man." C'mon Earl, no need for that. Let's actually get down and examine the claims being made! We are both using the same texts, so why bother with zingers here? Let's investigate and leave the personalizing comments aside, just this once! Argue for those readers here who would like to see the evidence for themselves, at least on this point made by Carrier in his talk.

So if you've done the work already, then great! You just need to paste the relevant cite from Plutarch from your book into this thread. I'll then give the context from Plutarch, and we (you, me and the other readers) can look at it together. Easy! No insults or zingers, just the evidence.

As background, my comments on Carrier's review of Doherty's “Sublunar Incarnation Theory”:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view4.html#4.3

Earl, let's start with the first point: Plutarch showing a belief that Osiris was incarnated ("in-carne": "in the flesh") in a non-earthly realm. Does Plutarch claim there was such a belief? I argue "no". You and Carrier argue "yes". We have the on-line text, so we can look at it together:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/A.html

Which passage in the Plutarch text supports that? I can't find it in the text. Nor do you seem to cite any passage in the text that supports this. So which passage in Plutarch did you have in mind?

Those readers interested in pursuing this can also help to see whether I am right or Carrier and Doherty are right. To do this:

1/ Find the passage in Plutarch that Doherty cites in his book to support the idea that there was a belief that Osiris was incarnated in a non-earthly realm

2/ Read that passage in Plutarch to see if that is what that passage actually says.

Once we've done the "incarnation in a non-earthly realm", we can move onto the other points. Let's investigate the mythicist theory together!

AdamWho

I see a lot of "Carrier was mistaken about this or that" in this thread.

You people understand that he is explaining a controversial theory which didn't even originate with him? Have you guys actually listened to the talk?... especially the first 5 minutes explaining this?

aa5874

The Myhticist theory is that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence and this is confirmed by the very authors of the books of the Canon.

No writer of the Canon claimed to personally know of or met a human Jesus. A Pauline writer who claimed he met apostles of Jesus NEVER met Jesus until he was RAISED from the dead.

Let us discuss the Mythicist theory that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence.

EarlDoherty

Why not go to my response to your review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man?

here

Scroll about half way through that Part Four until you get to the discussion on Plutarch. It starts with the line:

"Now he goes on to Carrier's presentation (and mine) of the 'proof-of-concept' in Plutarch."

It's all there. Your claim as above, and my response, with texts.

I'm through playing your games, Don. And I'm certainly not wasting time going over the same stuff with you over and over. I've done that enough through the years.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

Carrier does not go into great detail in the audio about Philo's reference to a heavenly form of Jesus who is somehow also not the Logos of Heraclitus. He defers to one of his books.

Neither does Carrier mention the "Christianization" of Philo that has been discussed by a number of academics. Is Philo a corrupted source? This is a valid question that other academics have pursued, but is passed over in the audio without comment.