re: Jesus Was a Refugee Commercial

Most secular scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure, want to debate, debate them.

quote:

---

It is my legitimate truthful opinion...

---

Perhaps you mistakenly believe it is true, but your "truthful opinion" isn't being presented as just as opinion but the absolute truth of the matter. You are quick to counter 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy in order to proclaim conspiracy theories as fact.

quote:

---

based on what I have read from the Bible and also learned from scholarly and historical sources and commentaries that Paul believed Yahweh, who he called Kyrios and called the firstborn of creation by what he called Theos (Hebrew El Elyon), was given a real body made of human flesh in the highest heaven. They invented a secret plan that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 2 to save mankind in some fashion, and the archons of this aeon in the lowest heaven didn’t know about the secret plan and killed Yahweh incarnate. After 3 days, El Elyon his father resurrected him and then bestowed on him a name above all others, Jesus, and highly exalted him and raised him back up to the 7th heaven to sit on his own throne at El’s right hand. That’s what I believe Paul really believed or claimed to believe.

---

All this is absolute bunk based on what Paul actually taught within the context of the Christian Bible more broadly, and narrowly within the context of Paul's own writings. There's a reason why Christians have not held your opinion for 2,000 years, and it's not simply because they are getting their marching orders from Rome. Protestants in particular have examined the Scriptures and reject your interpretation because it doesn't make sense within the context of the Bible. Your opinion is not based on the Bible but based on other belief systems that you are interpreting the Bible in light of because of your presupposition that that's how the Bible must be interpreted. The Scriptures, themselves, do not lead to such an interpretation when taken at face value. You have to assume those beliefs in order to arrive at those beliefs in the Bible.

quote:

---

I know you will think about Romans 1:18 onward. Paul wrote that God has shown himself to everyone even those who claim to not believe. Then why the frick did Paul even need to travel around preaching and trying to convert people. People are generally reasonable and need evidence to believe anything. If the evidence isn’t there, then it’s logical that some people won’t believe. Us atheists aren’t lying when we say we don’t believe in the Christian god. We legitimately don’t believe. God hasn’t made anything plain to us, and we sure as shite wouldn’t want to “reject” God and spend eternity in hell. We just simply don’t believe and I think you are insane if you can’t grasp that.

---

I know you don't believe in God. That isn't the same thing as what Romans 1 teaches. You know there is a God even if subconsciously, and you actively suppress that truth. Dr. Greg Bahnsen used to use a helpful analogy: it's like being in a swimming pool and trying to hold an inflatable ball under the water. Atheists are trying their best to hold that ball under the water but sometimes it pops out; you claim God doesn't exist but you can't live that way. You live your life in such a way that only makes sense in light of the existence of God because you were made in His image and can't help but live according to that knowledge that you suppress.

But that's an aside to this discussion. Paul was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ because salvation isn't an intellectual issue but a moral one. It isn't just about knowledge of the truth but a trust in that truth that comes through a changed heart which comes from God, working through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

“Made of woman” was a Greek idiom to mean “human”. I think he actually was speaking of Jesus’ incarnation. I also think the prevailing theology of Paul’s sect was that this body of flesh was made for Jesus in heaven.

---

OK, so you believe that Paul believed that Jesus actually did take on a human nature, but only to be human in Heaven, right? He didn't actually come to earth, according to Paul, right?

quote:

---

Pay attention to Paul. He doesn’t mention Judas or any disciples… ever.

---

Of course not, and he didn't need to. Paul was referencing the historical reality of the last supper where Jesus was betrayed by Judas. He quotes Jesus' words given in some form from the synoptic gospels, a clear allusion to the event that happened on earth. It's not on Christians to prove that Paul wasn't referencing the last supper narrative on earth, but it's on you to prove that Paul was speaking of some other event, or that the event took place in Heaven rather than on earth. The text, itself, doesn't mention anything about these events taking place in Heaven; that's your assertion based on one verse that you are forcing a false interpretation into.

quote:

---

Never mentions anything about any earthly ministry of Jesus… ever.

---

The birth, death, resurrection, and even this passage about the Lord's Supper are all mentions of Jesus' earthly ministry. You just refuse to accept them as such because you'd rather believe that Paul has a completely different view of Jesus than all the other authors of the Scriptures, even though Paul's writings were referenced and taught by the early church fathers who also believed in Jesus' earthly ministry rather than a purely heavenly ministry. There is no hint that those who followed Paul's teachings believed he taught something that the rest of the Scriptures do not regarding Jesus and His earthly ministry.

quote:

---

When Paul writes “on the night he was betrayed”, realize that the word betrayed in Greek has multiple meanings. It also means “handed over”. Subtle difference, but I believe this refers to when El sent Yahweh in the flesh down to the lowest heaven to be killed.

---

It doesn't matter if the word used is translated "betrayed" or "handed over", because they refer to the same act of Judas' betrayal by Jesus being handed over to the rulers of Israel. The word used here is used many times throughout the New Testament to describe betrayal of Jesus and His followers. The nuance you're trying to add here is not necessary and it doesn't change the meaning of the text. Jesus was betrayed into the hands of His enemies by Judas on the night that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, which is what Paul was referencing in 1 Cor. 11. According to the Christian tradition--especially given in the other Scriptures--this is the narrative that Paul was referencing. If you disagree, you need to provide proof beyond one verse that can be interpreted in different ways than you are interpreting it, which seems to be the lynchpin to your entire belief about Paul's ideology.

quote:

---

I don’t believe any of that happened in reality, but I believe Paul and the earliest Christians believe Jesus was killed in heaven by the other deities/angels/archons/rulers or whatever you want to call them. The reason I believe this is because Paul explicitly states that in 1 Corinthians 2, and we know the “rulers” are heavenly beings from Ephesians 6:12.

---

We have writings from the church fathers from the 1st and 2nd centuries (as well as writings like the Didache from the 1st century) that either quote Jesus' words from the Gospel writings or mentioned the events from those writings regarding Jesus' earthly ministry as true events, and several of those early fathers carried on the themes of Paul's writings, so even though they were exposed to Paul, they did not have the same understanding of his teachings as you do. You are actually referring to non-Christian beliefs, it seems, and claiming the early Christians believed them. Perhaps some Gnostics did believe some of those things, but they also taught and believed specific things that Paul did not teach in his writings.

On the contrary, you are essentially creating an alternate reality regarding Paul based on one verse. Your entire argument about Paul comes from 1 Corinthians 2, where you are claiming that Jesus was killed in Heaven. The passage you are referencing doesn't actually say that Jesus was killed by the rulers of this world in Heaven. It just says that if those rulers had known what they were really doing, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus. You are adding in the assumptions that the rulers is only talking about spiritual rulers, and that those spiritual rulers are in Heaven and do not act on earth, and that those rulers do not act through human agents. On the contrary, the supporting verse you mentioned (Eph. 6:12) follows verse 11 which states that Christians are fighting against the Devil (Satan), and we know that Satan isn't relegated to heavenly places alone. Luke 22:3 states that Satan actually entered into Judas and then Judas betrayed Jesus. In that specific example, the "ruler of this world" (Satan) used a human agent (Judas) to crucify Jesus. That narrative was about Jesus' earthly ministry, not an execution by a Roman method in Heaven.

quote:

---

I don’t know. Interesting here is that Enochian Jews and later Christians believed Eden was in heaven. That’s why Adam “fell”. He fell from heaven to earth. Literally. In 1 Enoch, Eden is definitely described as being in heaven. That would make both Adam’s body and Jesus’ body both manufactured by El in heaven.

---

Except Paul wasn't talking about Adam's literal fall, but his spiritual fall through sin. It's why he said that through Adam's sin, death entered the world, while through Jesus' obedience, life was given. Adam is spoken as a historical figure whose sin spread to all his posterity while Jesus, in the same context, provided life. In this context, Paul is speaking of the historical account of Adam and Moses provided in the Old Testament and saying Jesus was the greater Adam who obeyed God and provides life.

quote:

---

You and I both know the word used is NOT “descendant”. Paul said his body was manufactured of the sperm of David literally. Paul believed it was a very real human body.

---

You can argue over "seed" vs. "descendant" all you want but you can't change the meaning of the word in how Paul uses it. Just as Paul says that Jesus is also Abraham's "seed", you can tell that he's talking about a blood descendent "according to the flesh", not merely taken from the literal sperm of David or Abraham. Paul uses the word "seed" to speak to descendance, and you cannot argue that away. All you can do is ignore the facts.

quote:

---

Most secular scholars and historians do not believe the verses you referenced are authentically Pauline.

---

I find it interesting that your go-to defense for Paul's writings which contradict what you claim Paul actually taught and believed is to pretend that those contradictions to your narrative don't actually exist and that Paul didn't actually say those things. It's quite the tactic: argue from the Bible to prove your point until you're met with an incontrovertible point, so just wish it away with a "scholars don't believe that is authentic". Whoosh.. the point is gone and you don't have to deal with it any longer. How convenient for you.

quote:

---

So Paul was a Jew. Do you believe it is reasonable to conclude that he actually wrote any of that? Would he use the term “the Jews” as if he wasn’t one himself? Would he say that “the Jews” displease God? Check out the last sentence… wrath has come upon “them” at last. It’s incredibly obvious that this is a much later Christian insertion into Paul’s letter and the wrath that had come upon “the Jews” “at last!” Was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE, about 15+ years after Paul died. So there’s no way Paul could have written that.

---

Yes, it's reasonable for Paul to say this. He said as much in his other letters. Even in Romans, Paul speaks of Israel's rejection of the gospel and being natural branches that were cut off while Gentiles were grafted in. He speaks of "Jews" throughout Romans and the judgement that God sends to Israel, so yes, those words are consistent with what Paul writes elsewhere.

quote:

---

Thank you for the question. Burial and raised from the dead in Heaven. Appearing to the disciples and the 500… well why don’t you check what Paul wrote on the subject of his visions of Jesus. 2 Corinthians 12. Paul believed he was even taken up by an angel to the third heaven. I would say though that the visions whether they were on earth or heaven doesn’t matter and it may have been one or the other or both. In reality though they were all hallucinations.

---

You didn't answer my question. Paul stated as a fact that Jesus appeared after His resurrection to Peter and the disciples and then to 500 others (humans) afterwards as an evidence that Jesus was truly raised from the dead. I don't see how these visions you are alluding to are a help to believers that Paul is writing to. Paul's entire argument is that if Jesus in His body did not die and was not raised from the dead, then Christians have no hope for the future at all. You are asserting that Jesus didn't have an earthly ministry but had a human body, death, and resurrection only in Heaven. How is that a comfort to Christians and a proof that their faith is real. The point that Paul was making about Jesus appearing to others was not that He only showed up in dreams and visions but that He, in His real body, was witnessed by hundreds of people as an evidence that He was still alive. These witnesses wouldn't have known Jesus or cared about His death and resurrection if He had no earthly ministry that they witnessed to begin with. Seeing Him alive and in person was a big deal, which is why Paul mentioned it. It wouldn't make sense if it were just some hallucination, as Paul mentions this as an evidence of true physical resurrection.

quote:

---

I’m going to disagree. I think the gospel of Mark, the one that all the other ones copied from and used as a source to re-write and “correct” it, was the very first gospel and was created as a literary allegory...I think Paul’s 7 legit letters plus Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, Jude, James, and 1 Clement are in alignment. 2 Thessalonians and the gospels and letters of “Peter” and “John” and to Titus are very different in their theology. In the second century, the letters of “John” and “Peter” even refer to the Pauline Christians as antichrists because they deny Jesus came to earth and that the gospels are cleverly devised myths.

---

There's a reason why all of these books are included in the Scriptures: they were all God-breathed and provide one coherent and unified message.

quote:

---

Wait a minute. Earlier in this thread, a believer asked me "Does God exist?", and I responded "No."

Then HE demanded that I prove it. I was not trying to prove anything. He, the believer, demanded proof.

---

He did indeed.

The "God question" sorted you out, not as an agnostic, but as a faith-filled, belief-oriented atheist. Your emphasis on others as "believers" intimates a personal misunderstanding of your own faith. The demand was that you, as a believer yourself, understand that fact for what it is.

That was the point of the question, which you've understandably found unsettling. Your atheistic holdings are no less a belief than those of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Neither atheism nor theism is, as of yet, falsifiable. Hence the demonstrative request for proof on your part, or at least an attempt.

Consider it a wake up call, or perhaps an invitation to leave the faith of atheism, and declare yourself an agnostic.

You're welcome.

Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American ancient historian.[2] He is a long-time contributor to skeptical websites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs. Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[3] However, Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians,[4][5][6][7] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.[8][9][10]

Announcing their divorce, Carrier revealed that he is polyamorous, and that after informing his wife of his extramarital affairs, the last two years of their marriage had been an open relationship.[

quote:

---

Perhaps you mistakenly believe it is true, but your "truthful opinion" isn't being presented as just as opinion but the absolute truth of the matter.

---

You are the only one claiming your opinions are “the Truth” with a capital “T”.

In 20 years, it will become scholarly consensus that the man Jesus never walked the earth, just like already is consensus that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. never existed as real people.

There will be people like you that will cling to your beliefs in the man Jesus on a 6000-year-old earth with a history of plant-eating tyrannosauruses with dinosaurs cohabiting the earth with people. No amount of hard evidence can convince the severely brainwashed.

quote:

---

All this is absolute bunk based on what Paul actually taught within the context of the Christian Bible more broadly, and narrowly within the context of Paul's own writings.

---

This statement is complete and utter horseshite.

quote:

---

That isn't the same thing as what Romans 1 teaches. You know there is a God even if subconsciously, and you actively suppress that truth

---

What Roman’s 1 teaches is just Paul’s excuse for why he is unable to convert some gentiles. Trust that a disbeliever in all the many gods of the Israelite pantheon and others do not believe in them consciously or subconsciously.

Your insistence on univocality of only the scriptures in your Bible but none of the other scriptures that didn’t make the cut of the canon won’t even allow your brain to look at the big picture of middle eastern history and all the other writings/scriptures available to put the modern canon into context. So you’ll never be able to understand it like I am able to. It’s like you are mentally handicapped while believing you are a genius.

Well, ending my ridicule for today.

Merry Christmas. I hope you and your family had a good one.

In my prayers brother

But yet there it is, in scripture. There is nothing in scripture that wasn’t put there for a reason. Yes, Satan is also guilty but not by himself. Remember in the garden when he told Eve a lie and she believed him? She then acted on that lie, but she had a choice and made a wrong decision. So it was with the crowd who were fed a lie and acted on it