Ages in Chaos Conclusion's summary

[Ruby Gray]

<< A digression occurred in the discussion, which has been forked to:
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/miracles-and-biblical-infallability.2555/
This comment, which continues the discussion in this thread, has been copied back. --JR >>

I have read vast chunks of Josephus, and apart from the fact that, as a Pharisee, he was describing the religion of his fathers as already laid down in the Hebrew scriptures, the "parallels" with the Pauline writings do not jump out at me. There is nothing that would convince me Paul's letters and Josephus' works were penned by the same hand. One is a chronicler of the history of a religious people; the other is a spiritual teacher and evangelist.

Nor can I reconcile the anachronisms.
Paul was born possibly about 1 to 5 AD in Tarsus, Cilicia; he studied under the great teacher Gamaliel the grandson of Hillel, who are historically attested, and was executed by the Romans in about 68 AD.
Josephus was born about 38 AD in Jerusalem, and died early in the second century.

 

[Jerry Russell]

How can one correctly buy the CM approach and deny Ellis approach with regard to the Pauline corpus?

Ellis has a habit of stating matters in a somewhat polemical manner, verging on outright distortion of the facts. I feel he often has creative & worthwhile insights, but you have to read carefully.

For example, on pages xiv-xv of King Jesus, Ellis says in his typically wordy fashion: "Suddenly, Whiston pauses, raises his quill in a subdued salutation to his ancient fellow writer, while a thin smile tickles his lips... What he had just observed was (paraphrased): "'Josephus's work and the letters of St. Paul are written in the same style'". [J1]

Note [J1] refers us to Dissertation 6, sections 4.2 & 5 of Whiston's translation of Josephus. This turns out to be an appendix dedicated to a work called "An Homily Concerning Hades". Whiston is presenting a case that this little-known homily was, in fact, written by Josephus. Section 4.2 says the composition of the homily sounds more like the New Testament which was written by Jews, as compared to the works of Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp, who were Gentiles. In Section 5, Whiston further explains that he believes Josephus became a Christian late in his life, and spent a lot of time studying the New Testament. Thus, although the style of the homily is far more Hellenistic than Josephus's other works, we should not be dissuaded from concluding that Josephus is the author on that account.

In other words, far from saying that Josephus's War and Antiquities were written in the same style as St. Paul, he is saying almost the opposite. The New Testament, like the "Homily Concerning Hades", is written in a far more Hellenistic style than the bulk of Josephus's work. The only similarity Whiston is claiming, is that both the New Testament and Josephus appear to be written from Jewish perspective.

Thus my conclusion: beware when Ellis seems to be stretching a point, because he probably is.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thus my conclusion: beware when Ellis seems to be stretching a point, because he probably is.

Yes, Ellis does have some sins, such as making a speculative assertion, and then (sometimes almost immediately) banking on his assertion as fact. He should make it clear, at some point, that he occasionally does so, perhaps so that he doesn't have to qualify himself frequently, There is already so much factoid material to wade though that it can already be hard reading.

For whatever sins, and occasionally overreaching, I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For instance, at one point he made a mistake about Roman fasces, in claiming that there were different numbers of sticks employed depending on whom the respective official the fasce was being carried in front of. Instead, the number, while correct, refers to the number of fasces and individuals carrying them in from of said official. Still his larger point about fasces and fascism is well taken.

I have read vast chunks of Josephus, and apart from the fact that, as a Pharisee, he was describing the religion of his fathers as already laid down in the Hebrew scriptures, the "parallels" with the Pauline writings do not jump out at me. There is nothing that would convince me Paul's letters and Josephus' works were penned by the same hand. One is a chronicler of the history of a religious people; the other is a spiritual teacher and evangelist.

Nor can I reconcile the anachronisms.
Paul was born possibly about 1 to 5 AD in Tarsus, Cilicia; he studied under the great teacher Gamaliel the grandson of Hillel, who are historically attested, and was executed by the Romans in about 68 AD.
Josephus was born about 38 AD in Jerusalem, and died early in the second century.

This is ridiculous incredulity. And quite amazing to see such a devout Christian insist that a claimed Pharisee would not stoop to such as what Jesus claimed for them.

We are wasting our time with someone who is proudly stiff-necked and refuses to see that Josephus's works are interwound with the Gospels, much less dovetailing the works of Paul. This is how fear (in this case of losing one's bad perception of eternal salvation) completely disables ratioonal thinking. And yet, this same fear cause the same exoterics to dispense with Faith in the conceited and vain effort to prove to the perceived apostates, heathens, and themselves that their lunacy is justified.

That there was absolutely nothing new within Christianity was evidenced by the Church Fathers explaining (for their rubes' sakes) that Satan had foreseen Christ's coming and thus imitated everything in advance. Instead it is all logical theological mergers and acquisitions for the empire's sake.

 

[Jerry Russell]

We are wasting our time

Wasting our time? C'mon. It's well known that debating with a Postflavian is like wrestling with a pig. Both sides get dirty, but the pig is enjoying it.

I find myself considering whether this discussion of Ellis & Paul should be forked to yet another thread. For now, I'm leaving it here because chronological shifts a la Velikovski might be involved in the solution to the puzzle.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Hmm, I could just ignore you both and you can swap sophistries amongst yourselves. But I think after all these years you know what each other is going to say already. At least Jerry, I can see the twinkle in your eye.

 

[Richard Stanley]

So I was right, you are enjoying it.

Just as there are good pastries and bad pastries, our sophistries are yummy and true, and yours ... not so much.

Your gourd father decides to sacrifice his only 'begotten' (as opposed to Satan) son, in which you admit that he had promiscuous carnal sex with an unwitting virgin 'maiden' (thus, as you say: the 'begetting' of), only to have said son go through all of this passionate drama and have the world end up just as your Roman friends wanted it. Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, a Roman construct (with the help of some erudite Jews) by any other Greek name (Christian) for the Sun (Sol) is still a Roman (and Babylonian) construct. And because it is so brilliantly written in a deviously ambiguous way, it can be, and is, interpreted a thousand different ways, allowing everyone to konform sufficiently for the age at hand. Then, the rubes feeling too much of their oats, must be cleansed for the subsequent rinse and repeat cycle. Only the new house has more rooms added and the washing machine is bigger and runs on AC electricity.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hmm, I could just ignore you both and you can swap sophistries amongst yourselves.

Ruby is being abusive here, as the definition of "sophistry" is "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation". I'll overlook it this time, because I've lost track of who insulted who first.

in which you admit that he had promiscuous carnal sex with an unwitting virgin 'maiden' (thus, as you say: the 'begetting' of),

She did not admit to any such thing. It could have been a purely spiritual encounter.

 

[Richard Stanley]

She did not admit to any such thing. It could have been a purely spiritual encounter.

Wait a minute or seven.

She said that Satan and the other sons of gourd (mentioned near the beginning of Genesis) were conceived by some other means than 'begetting', meaning: physical sexual intercourse, of course. And thus that this is why Jesus of Gamala, Izates, Isa, was indeed the Only Begotten Son of said gourd.

Do you think that spaghetti squash qualifies in the making of 'pasta', or must pasta only be made with noodles containing a grain flour and egg? And, if so, is a squash close enough to being a gourd, such as to allow Christianity to be subsumed under Pastafarianism, the new revelation? And if so, should the name of Pastafarianism be changed to Pastaflavianism? Arrgh!!

 

[Jerry Russell]

She said that Satan and the other sons of gourd (mentioned near the beginning of Genesis) were conceived by some other means than 'begetting', meaning: physical sexual intercourse, of course.

OK, here is the quote:

Satan cannot be "a prior begotten son of God" as God has only one begotten son, Jesus.
A "begotten son" is one born in the manner with which we are all familiar. Both a father and a mother are required to produce a begotten son. This never applied to Satan or any other created angels. They had no existence before their sovereign creation, whereas of Jesus it is said that he always existed in the form of God.
...
So God's son was only "begotten" when Mary conceived Jesus.

While I agree she is drawing an analogy to physical sexual intercourse, I'm sure you'd agree that God the Creator of the Universe would not do this in exactly the same way as you or I might. Does God have a physical ("carnal") body at all? I wouldn't venture to assume what Ruby would say about this. Consulting Google, I find that the majority view of Christians seems to be that God does not have a physical body, but rather a spiritual presence. But on the other hand, God being omnipotent, it seems unlikely that he couldn't do what any ordinary dude can accomplish before breakfast. My mind is simply boggled.

And she certainly didn't say anything about "promiscuity" (defined as "indiscriminateness in the choice of sexual partners"). As far as the Bible tells us, God only did this once.

 

[Richard Stanley]

While I agree she is drawing an analogy to physical sexual intercourse, I'm sure you'd agree that God the Creator of the Universe would not do this in exactly the same way as you or I might. Does God have a physical ("carnal") body at all? I wouldn't venture to assume what Ruby would say about this. Consulting Google, I find that the majority view of Christians seems to be that God does not have a physical body, but rather a spiritual presence. But on the other hand, God being omnipotent, it seems unlikely that he couldn't do what any ordinary guy can. My mind is simply boggled.

This entity that you refer to manifested himself to Abraham, where they dined together, and discussed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Later, this entity would manifest himself and engage in an all-night nude mud wrestling contest with Jacob. Upon winning Jacob would become known as .... uhmm Israel, thus demonstrating a synthetic geopolitical construct under the rubric of divine nonsense.

Interesting that some people feel that the famous stone of Jacob's is in actuality the equivalent of a Hindu lingam, or divine penis stone, like an omphalos 'navel' stone or the famous Ben-Ben. Hmmm, makes one wonder more about circumcision as well. And no wonder this same gourd felt compelled to personally kill poor Onan, who obviously did not want to have carnal sex with his new wife, and former double sister-in-law, Tamar. His brothers had come to their ends after boinking Tamar (the female name of Egyptian royals) and Onan would not escape the same fate by self-abuse (or perhaps merely early withdrawal).

And she certainly didn't say anything about "promiscuity" (defined as "indiscriminateness in the choice of sexual partners"). As far as the Bible tells us, God only did this once.

They were not married, and thus gourd should be stoned to the death, and maybe the Virgin as well, even though she was not witting. I don't make these particular rules Jerry. And maybe this is really why gourd never manifests himself as a man anymore, because he knows that he'll get stoned, and not on marijuana. And maybe this is why such as priests and other clergy like to engage in 'divine' pedophilia, re-enacting the perverse act?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Later, this entity would manifest himself and engage in an all-night nude mud wrestling contest with Jacob.

Same answer I gave before. Who says that an omnipotent being needs a physical body to engage in wrestling? The Bible does not say anything about mud or any lack of clothing, you made up the lurid details yourself.

They were not married...

Now you're just being silly. Surely, God would have had no trouble paying for the $34 minister's ordination package from the Pastafarian Church, so that he could officiate at his own wedding.

And maybe this is why such as priests and other clergy like to engage in 'divine' pedophilia, re-enacting the perverse act?

And now you go changing the subject. Like it's Ruby's fault, what the Priests of the Whore of Babylon have been doing. Besides, God was gender normative.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Who says that an omnipotent being needs a physical body to engage in wrestling?

Well, there is alligator wrestling, so you might have a point. But, it is clear that this was a typical theophany of a 'man-ifestation', not a 'gatorifestation' or a Holy 'Ghostifestation'.

The Bible does not say anything about mud or any lack of clothing, you made up the lurid details yourself.

Neither does it say that they didn't do such, when they had every opportunity to provide a more innocent explanation, therefore it is implicit that something lurid was going on. Look what others claim for what ol Hambone did with his naked (and drunk) father, Noah.

In any case, one doesn't engage in wrestling, certainly for all-night long, with a Jewish man-dress on, and Jacob had no other garb besides a suitcase full of man-dresses. Now, all these liberal clergy dudes and dudettes wear pants and shirts and ties and such. Apostates. Gourd wants men to wear only man-dresses and only ride donkeys or camels.

Now you're just being silly. Surely, God would have had no trouble paying for the $34 minister's ordination package from the Pastafarian Church, so that he could officiate at his own wedding.

Now, you're saying they got divorced? Or did the Virgin commit bigamy?

And now you go changing the subject. Like it's Ruby's fault, what the Priests of the Whore of Babylon have been doing. Besides, God was gender normative.

That's why I included "other clergy", who are not priests. They might be rabbis, or ministers, or gurus.