What I mean to say there is I have no idea what the “Jerusalem” Judean perspective was. Only the Pauline Judean perspective.
But Philo also illustrates the argument existed among Judeans 1) as to how strict one should follow the perfect Law and 2) who was and was not a Judean.
While the argument seemed to be over freedom, Paul’s (perhaps) unique perspective was that it was Jesus providing this freedom.
Steefen said
Reference:5) Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Value Inquiry Book Series, 336; Leiden: Brill, 2019)**
Steve Campbell, author of the well-reviewed book, Historical Accuracy
The above recommended text has a price tag of $210.
On amazon, it has two ratings average 3.5 stars.
Let’s see this $210 book’s description:
This volume moves beyond the mainstream scholarly scepticism over the Christ of Faith and considers if there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the more mundane Historical Jesus.
Using the logical tools of the analytic philosopher, Lataster finds that the relevant sources are unreliable as historical documents, and that the key method of those purporting that the Historical Jesus existed is to appeal to sources that do not exist.
Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.
Richard Carrier is not alone.
Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. (2017), University of Sydney, is an associate lecturer at that university. He has published monographs and articles on God’s existence and Jesus’ existence, including The Case Against Theism (Springer, 2018).
= = =
Raphael Lataster is a boring nobody, who just repeats what Carrier says almost verbatim. He adds nothing to the discussion and his work has no relevance in the field.
FocusMyView said
As a mythicist, agreed on the Baye’s Theorem. But he does a great job of outlining and listing the variety of theories on both sides of the debate in a manner not often seen in debate.
No he does not. He does a terrible job of it, and regularly misrepresents, misconstrues, and misunderstands the work he uses. In fact, he has been regularly caught bluffing citations, and lying about what people said. Heck, he has even been caught lying about what he said himself (and then further caught editing posts to make it seem like he had better credibility than he did).
He is one of the most unreliable people in the debate, and has about as much honesty as your average Republican politician.
Chris_Hansen said
FocusMyView said
As a mythicist, agreed on the Baye’s Theorem. But he does a great job of outlining and listing the variety of theories on both sides of the debate in a manner not often seen in debate.
No he does not. He does a terrible job of it, and regularly misrepresents, misconstrues, and misunderstands the work he uses. In fact, he has been regularly caught bluffing citations, and lying about what people said. Heck, he has even been caught lying about what he said himself (and then further caught editing posts to make it seem like he had better credibility than he did).
He is one of the most unreliable people in the debate, and has about as much honesty as your average Republican politician.
I have certainly taken my lumps for spouting a Carrier idea without vetting it. Still, I think it’s a pretty easily accessible layout of so many theories on both sides.
FocusMyView said
Chris_Hansen said
FocusMyView said
As a mythicist, agreed on the Baye’s Theorem. But he does a great job of outlining and listing the variety of theories on both sides of the debate in a manner not often seen in debate.
No he does not. He does a terrible job of it, and regularly misrepresents, misconstrues, and misunderstands the work he uses. In fact, he has been regularly caught bluffing citations, and lying about what people said. Heck, he has even been caught lying about what he said himself (and then further caught editing posts to make it seem like he had better credibility than he did).
He is one of the most unreliable people in the debate, and has about as much honesty as your average Republican politician.
I have certainly taken my lumps for spouting a Carrier idea without vetting it. Still, I think it’s a pretty easily accessible layout of so many theories on both sides.
Only if you think misrepresentations and lying are “accessible […] of so many theories on both sides.”
Everyone has the responsibility to research whether any of the ideas presented are of value. Not too hard to do.
It can be confusing to do though. On the subject of Innana, after researching the subject matter by watching professors lecture on Innanna, I would be inclined to agree with Carrier. But when discussing it with the subset of historians focused on the specific methodology with which Jesus is actually and physically dead for a period of three days, as written in the many gospels written in the many decades and centuries AFTER a Jesus Christ died, we must happily find there are 0 similarities! 😉
Chris_Hansen said
Steefen said
Reference:
5) Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Value Inquiry Book Series, 336; Leiden: Brill, 2019)**
Steve Campbell, author of the well-reviewed book, Historical Accuracy
The above recommended text has a price tag of $210.
On amazon, it has two ratings average 3.5 stars.
Let’s see this $210 book’s description:
This volume moves beyond the mainstream scholarly scepticism over the Christ of Faith and considers if there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the more mundane Historical Jesus.
Using the logical tools of the analytic philosopher, Lataster finds that the relevant sources are unreliable as historical documents, and that the key method of those purporting that the Historical Jesus existed is to appeal to sources that do not exist.
Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.
Richard Carrier is not alone.
Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. (2017), University of Sydney, is an associate lecturer at that university. He has published monographs and articles on God’s existence and Jesus’ existence, including The Case Against Theism (Springer, 2018).
= = =
Raphael Lataster is a boring nobody, who just repeats what Carrier says almost verbatim. He adds nothing to the discussion and his work has no relevance in the field.
You listed his work.
Robert said
Steefen said
Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.
Richard Carrier is not alone.
Lataster is not agreeing with Carrier here. Lataster prefers agnosticism to Carrier’s position.
Steefen to Richard Carrier
In Raphael Lataster’s book, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus ($210), the amazon product page’s description says “Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in and was later allegorised in the Gospels…” does that mean there is agreement between you two scholars? / You are not alone?
Richard Carrier
Yes. He is less confident (he assigns a probability of 50% instead of 67%) but he only compares the celestial theory with mainstream (secular) historicism, because he only deems those viable. As do I.
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.
Richard Carrier is not alone.
Lataster is not agreeing with Carrier here. Lataster prefers agnosticism to Carrier’s position.
Steefen to Richard Carrier
In Raphael Lataster’s book, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus ($210), the amazon product page’s description says “Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in and was later allegorised in the Gospels…” does that mean there is agreement between you two scholars? / You are not alone?
Richard Carrier
Yes. He is less confident (he assigns a probability of 50% instead of 67%) but he only compares the celestial theory with mainstream (secular) historicism, because he only deems those viable. As do I.
Raphael Lataster is publicly avowed as an agnostic, not a mythicist. I have his book. I’ve read it. Stop bothering with your random quotes. And no one cares what proven liars like Carrier have to say.
Steefen said
Chris_Hansen said
Steefen said
Reference:
5) Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Value Inquiry Book Series, 336; Leiden: Brill, 2019)**
Steve Campbell, author of the well-reviewed book, Historical Accuracy
The above recommended text has a price tag of $210.
On amazon, it has two ratings average 3.5 stars.
Let’s see this $210 book’s description:
This volume moves beyond the mainstream scholarly scepticism over the Christ of Faith and considers if there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the more mundane Historical Jesus.
Using the logical tools of the analytic philosopher, Lataster finds that the relevant sources are unreliable as historical documents, and that the key method of those purporting that the Historical Jesus existed is to appeal to sources that do not exist.
Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.
Richard Carrier is not alone.
Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. (2017), University of Sydney, is an associate lecturer at that university. He has published monographs and articles on God’s existence and Jesus’ existence, including The Case Against Theism (Springer, 2018).
= = =
Raphael Lataster is a boring nobody, who just repeats what Carrier says almost verbatim. He adds nothing to the discussion and his work has no relevance in the field.
You listed his work.
And I also said his work is redundant and adds nothing.
FocusMyView said
Everyone has the responsibility to research whether any of the ideas presented are of value. Not too hard to do.It can be confusing to do though. On the subject of Innana, after researching the subject matter by watching professors lecture on Innanna, I would be inclined to agree with Carrier. But when discussing it with the subset of historians focused on the specific methodology with which Jesus is actually and physically dead for a period of three days, as written in the many gospels written in the many decades and centuries AFTER a Jesus Christ died, we must happily find there are 0 similarities! 😉
Carrier has no expertise with Inanna and no scholar of ancient Akkadian and Sumerian literature agrees with him. Even the whole idea that Inanna was “crucified” is bunk, and is based on Carrier stretching the term “crucify” to absurdity. In the tale of Inanna, she is impaled on a spike.
EhrmanFan101 said
One of the best books I have read on this issue, aside from the Ehrman books mentioned is, How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson / Random House.
Ernest G. Barr, amazon review of the book
Steefen
Paul was a Gentile?
Paul rejected the coming of the Kingdom of God?
Ernest G. Barr, amazon review of the book
Wilson relates that the movements, one led by Christ and the other by Paul had little in common, leading to two separate religions. Wilson relates how it happened in the year 325 that the Christ Movement headed by Paul ultimately became the Christian Church.
Steefen
This seems to be saying Paul rejected Judaism for Gentiles and continued to reject Judaism even if it were a messianic Judaism of the Biblical, apocalyptic Jesus.
This is a bit complicated because Paul uses the biographical death of the Jesus he rejected.
= = =
106 ratings averaging 4.5 stars on the amazon product page
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert