Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Bucky Ball]

As late as the late 300's AD, the split between Judaism and Christians was still not complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos

"Adversus Judaeos (Greek Kata Ioudaiōn, "against the Jews" or "against the Judeans") are a series of fourth century homilies by John Chrysostom directed to members of the church of Antioch of his time, who continued to observe Jewish feasts and fasts. Critical of this, he cast Judaism and the synagogues in his city in a critical and negative light."

When he was made Bishop of Constantinople, they also were found to be doing the same things ... and he railed against it again in he Christmas sermon, of the year 400.

"Homilies against Jews and Judaizing Christians[edit]

Main article: Adversus Judaeos

During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386–387), John denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight homilies delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances.[44] It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame, censure).[citation needed]

One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom's flock. In his homilies, John criticized those "Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.[45]

John claimed that synagogues were full of Christians, especially Christian women, on the shabbats and Jewish festivals, because they loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy and enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom.[46] A more recent theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity.[47]

In Greek the homilies are called Kata Ioudaiōn (Κατὰ Ιουδαίων), which is translated as Adversus Judaeos in Latin and Against the Jews in English.[48] The original Benedictine editor of the homilies, Bernard de Montfaucon, gives the following footnote to the title: "A discourse against the Jews; but it was delivered against those who were Judaizing and keeping the fasts with them [the Jews]."[48]

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[49] This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.[50]

[Drich]

As late as the late 300's AD, the split between Judaism and Christians was still not complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos

"Adversus Judaeos (Greek Kata Ioudaiōn, "against the Jews" or "against the Judeans") are a series of fourth century homilies by John Chrysostom directed to members of the church of Antioch of his time, who continued to observe Jewish feasts and fasts. Critical of this, he cast Judaism and the synagogues in his city in a critical and negative light."

When he was made Bishop of Constantinople, they also were found to be doing the same things ... and he railed against it again in he Christmas sermon, of the year 400.

"Homilies against Jews and Judaizing Christians[edit]

Main article: Adversus Judaeos

During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386–387), John denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight homilies delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances.[44] It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame, censure).[citation needed]

One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom's flock. In his homilies, John criticized those "Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.[45]

John claimed that synagogues were full of Christians, especially Christian women, on the shabbats and Jewish festivals, because they loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy and enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom.[46] A more recent theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity.[47]

In Greek the homilies are called Kata Ioudaiōn (Κατὰ Ιουδαίων), which is translated as Adversus Judaeos in Latin and Against the Jews in English.[48] The original Benedictine editor of the homilies, Bernard de Montfaucon, gives the following footnote to the title: "A discourse against the Jews; but it was delivered against those who were Judaizing and keeping the fasts with them [the Jews]."[48]

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[49] This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.[50]

if you had ever read the bible most of everything you mention is found in there. albeit subtly, in that the churches set up by Paul were being bombarded with all the jewish tradition, trying to infiltrate the gentile church.. and what was Paul's response? we are free from the law to the point that if we wish to bind ourselves with these 'legal observances' we can, but at the same time it is not necessary... nothing new here sport all very very old hat. like 1st century church old. just fyi I spent 10 years studying this period in the church under the personal tutelage of a doctor of theology, there is very little you can say here, that we have not already covered.. such as there remains a remnant of this jewish inspired church today referred to as the messianic jews. they hold tight to tradition and also the message of Christ. nothing's changed just the number of members has shifted in favor of the gentile church. In the first and second century this was 'the church this was the church of peter. but later through the guys you posted about a change went down to convert to a more gentile friendly church... eitherway works as there are not rules of worship in christianity. outside of do what your heart says must be done to worship God with all your being!

understand i am not a catholic where all of this has been hidden from me. I understand what the church was and where it came from... remember I was telling you just one post ago what the church was despite your modern understanding of the word had you believe it to be a sanctuary.  (meaning you did not know the difference between a church and sanctuary) think both where the same and one being proof that a passage in mat 16 could not exist...

I say that because you keep trying to ah ha! me.. Like provide me with a fact i did not know which will undermine my belief... So here's the thing... 25 years ago when I started I knew nothing, and I knew I knew nothing no pretended to so I sought out to learn the truth.. I started not with the church's history but the secular history of the church which is why I guess everything you have been going over I feel like it has been done and put to rest in the 1990s as that is when I started my studies. so this is all nice and all but getting very boring fast what else you got?

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla

I never said a church was a sanctuary ... ever ... you pulled that one out of your ass. Wow. You are quite talented at making shit up.
I think Trump may have a job for you.
You really are an arrogant presumptuous ass.

Now run along outside back to playing.
No one will miss your nonsense and lies.

BTW, I don't really care if what I write is new to you or not, (but thanks for admitting you have no basic education on these matters).
I don't write for you.
I use the convenient opportunities you constantly present to correct the record of Fundy Christians for passing guests ... who FAR FAR outnumber members.
On behalf of them, we thank you for your ignorance, and the opportunities you present ... in every post.

[Drich]

bla bla bla

I never said a church was a sanctuary ... ever ... you pulled that one out of your ass. Wow. You are quite talented at making shit up.
I think Trump may have a job for you.
You really are an arrogant presumptuous ass.

Now run along outside back to playing.
No one will miss your nonsense and lies.

BTW, I don't really care if what I write is new to you or not, (but thanks for admitting you have no basic education on these matters).
I don't write for you.
I use the convenient opportunities you constantly present to correct the record of Fundy Christians for passing guests ... who FAR FAR outnumber members.
On behalf of them, we thank you for your ignorance, and the opportunities you present ... in every post.

  I knew once you started quoting wiki you were running out of material.. that's ok. I'm sure you'll 'get me next time'

[Bucky Ball]

 I knew once you started quoting wiki you were running out of material.. that's ok. I'm sure you'll 'get me next time'

Nope.
Wiki is the easiest place to go. Since you have no education, other than Fundy indoctrination, whatever they have is bound to be news to you.
You never quote or reference any scholars, thus I assume you are not familiar with any.

I do have a question though.
Do you really think your hermeneutic of insult, ... your "evangelization" method of *CB* (Christian Bullying) is really an effective way to
transmit the Christian message, and more effective than others ?

The hallmark of a bully (as everyone knows) is insecurity.
You appear to be very insecure.

[Minimalist]

this one confirms the date 1961 was the only evidence of pilate that was not linked to christ in any way
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html



Liar.   The second sentence demonstrates it.

"There were accounts of him, of course, "

We don't need archaeological evidence to prove anything.  The accounts of Josephus and Philo were sufficient.  And again, neither of them heard about your fictitious godboy.  Sucks to be you.


this one allows you to see the stone and transcribes what is on it.
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/15/archaeolo...es-gospel/


So what?    I've seen it.  It proves that Pilate was prefect which seems to be news only to morons like you.

Philo gives an extensive listing of Pilate's rather nasty activities.... and never once mentions anything about any fucking jesus.  Fuck you, dripshit.  Try pulling Philo's dick out of your ass.

[Bucky Ball]

http://paulbarnett.info/2011/04/the-quest-for-the-historical-pontius-pilate/
For an otherwise obscure governor of a minor province with a small military command Pontius Pilate is remarkably well attested in the ancient sources. In addition to the inscription bearing his name and title as “Prefect of Judaea” discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1961, he is referred to in the written sources by Tacitus, Philo, Josephus, the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.  

Pilate’s involvement with Jesus was limited to a few hours direct contact, and a few hours beyond that of indirect contact when Jesus was taken for execution. Yet for two thousand years, Sunday by Sunday, Christians have affirmed that Jesus Christ, ‘suffered under Pontius Pilate’.

1. The Quest for the Historical Pilate
Pontius Pilate poses a major problem for the historian. The three main sources present him rather differently. Philo’s comments about Pilate are extremely hostile. Josephus is not so obviously biased as Philo. Nonetheless, his descriptions of the governor are quite negative. How, then are we able to reconcile the ruthless figure of Philo (who is negatively described by Josephus) with the governor of the gospels who is unable to discharge a prisoner whom he wishes to set free ?

2. Pontius Pilate in the Gospels.
My working assumptions are that Matthew and Luke used Mark, but that John was written independently of the texts of Matthew, Mark or Luke.
2.1 Mark.
Mark portrays Pilate’s direct involvement with Jesus in two connected scenes.
In the first, the chief priests, elders, teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to Pilate accusing him, we infer, as ‘king of the Jews’. Pilate interrogates him along that line. Jesus’s answer, “You say so” is probably an acknowledgement of the charge and nothing more. The accusers make other charges and Pilate is astonished that Jesus makes no reply.
In the second scene it is to be implied that Pilate does not find the charges proven and offers to release the ‘king of the Jews’ based on the ‘Passover Custom’ for the release of a prisoner. ‘Deciding’ but not necessarily ‘wanting’ (so NIV – boulomai can mean either) to satisfy the crowd, Pilate is impelled to release Barabbas and hand Jesus over for execution.
2.2 Matthew.
Matthew follows the same two-scene format with two additions.
One is the dream of the Prefect’s wife, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man”. The other is Pilate’s washing of the blood of Jesus from his hands whereupon the people declare that Jesus’s blood will be on them.
2.3 Luke.
Luke follows the same two-scene format, with an elaboration in the first of treasonable allegations against this ‘king’.
Luke separates the two scenes with Herod Antipas’s interrogation of Jesus whom he exonerates of the charges of treasonable behavior in Galilee.
In the second scene Pilate confirms the Tetrarch’s exoneration of the earlier explicitly made accusations. However, Pilate’s desire (qevlw) to release Jesus is met with the demand of chief priests and people to crucify Jesus. So Pilate ‘gave sentence’ (RSV) to their demands. He released Barabbas and surrendered Jesus to their will.
2.4 Unanswered Questions in the Synoptics.
2.4.1. If a Roman governor has reached a verdict why was he not able to implement his decision ? Why was Pilate not able to release Jesus finding the charges not proven ?
2.4.2. If for some reason Pilate felt impelled to execute Jesus, why did he feel he must release someone else ? Did the ‘Paschal Privilege’ require the release of a prisoner ? How historically authentic is this ‘Passover Custom’ ? See commentary on Mark by W. Lane for extensive discussion of the ‘Paschal Privilege’.
2.5 John.

John¹s account is the longest. With strong historical probability John keeps the accusers outside the Prefect’s praetorium to avoid ceremonial uncleanness. He calls them ‘the Jews’ but it is obvious that he has the temple hierarchy in mind. ‘The Jews’ never enter the praetorium. There are two main scenes.
In the first Pilate came outside to them asking what is the charge. Inside he asks Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”. Jesus admits he is a king, but with a non-political kingdom. Pilate comes out and announces he finds no basis for the accusation. Pilate seeks to release Jesus according to the ‘Passover Custom’. ‘The Jews’ seek the release of Barabbas a lestes/’bandit’.
There is an interlude between the two scenes. This is when Jesus is handed over by Pilate to the soldiers who flog and parody the ‘king of the Jews’.
The second scene is outside the praetorium. Pilate brings out the mocked ‘king of the Jews’ with the verdict that the charge against the accused is without basis. When Pilate proposed to set Jesus free, ‘the Jews’ declare,

“If you let this man free you are not a friend of Caesar. Any one who claims to be a king, opposes Caesar.”
When Pilate asks, “Shall I crucify your king?” ‘the Jews’ reply, “We have no king but Caesar.”
John’s account yields an apparent answer to one of the questions posed in the synoptic, that is, why did Pilate not simply release a prisoner whom he had found not guilty of the charges against him. Pilate, a ‘friend’ or client of Tiberius, owes his appointment to him. The prefect must not set free any man who claims to be ‘king of the Jews’ for Tiberius is that ‘king’.
But this does not take us very far. Tiberius would not expect his prefect to execute a person charged with treason if the prefect determined that the charges were not substantiated. The Romans did not crucify benign rabbis or prophets on merely religious offences.
In effect, John’s account, while hinting that the Temple hierarchy had some leverage with Pilate, does not explain further what that leverage might be.

3. Theories About Pontius Pilate
Naturally the divergences between Philo/Josephus and the Gospels have attracted the attention of scholars and several theories have been proposed to account for them. Two such views will be reviewed and a third proposed as the most likely approximation of the governor, under whom Jesus “suffered.”
There is, first, the view that the tough governor as portrayed by Philo and Josephus is more or less correct but the accommodating Pilate of the gospels is a falsification. According to this reconstruction, which is chiefly associated with S.G.F. Brandon. Jesus was in fact an anti-Roman insurrectionist (or an advocate of insurrection). Since the early church needed the good will of the Roman authorities, its founder’s true sympathies must be masked. Hence the gospels present Jesus as innocent, a victim of Jewish machinations, with an indecisive governor portrayed as coerced to execute Jesus against his better moral judgment.
It is likely that the Romans were indeed aware of and concerned about the new messianic sect from Judaea. Though written half a century after the events Tacitus is describing the apprehension evident in his account of the spread of this “superstition” to Rome and of its strength there would surely also have been felt in the sixties. The gospel writers’ sensitivity to this opinion may be reflected at a number of points. In his account of the Feeding of the 5000 Mark significantly omits the assertion found in John that the Galilean crowd attempted to make Jesus “king,” even though Mark’s account demands some detail of this kind to make sense of the flow of the narrative. Luke’s version of Jesus’ trial by Pilate and his interrogation by Herod the tetrarch is intentionally careful to establish that Jesus did not engage in any treasonable kingship activities, whether in Galilee or Judaea.
Sensitivity to damaging opinion does not, of course, make that opinion true. The accusation of high treason to Pilate by the temple hierarchy, that “he opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ a king” resonates remarkably with the crimes of a notorious Galilean who had in the not too distant past risen up against Roman rule in Judaea. The uprising of Judas the Galilean at the time Judaea was annexed as a Roman province, when direct personal tax to Roman was first levied, was doubtless well-remembered by Roman officials in Rome. Judas was a rabbi, a Galilean and a populist, a convenient and damaging stereotype to apply to Jesus, who was also a Galilean and a rabbi and a populist.
The Roman military governors took seriously charges of this kind. One of their major responsibilities was to maintain peace and order within the provinces. The Roman military administration was quite severe not only in regard to leaders of movements, but also to associates and followers of those leaders who rose up against them. It must be assumed that Pilate would have investigated carefully these charges against Jesus and not only executed him for treason, as indeed he did, but that he would also have acted severely against his followers. Had Jesus been the insurrectionist of Brandon’s reconstruction the Romans would have stamped out the Jesus movement then and there, as they had in the case of Judas’ following.
In short, the possible presence of some apologetic elements in the gospels portraying Jesus as a non-revolutionary, does not prove that he was a revolutionary, nor does it invalidate the essential integrity of the gospels in their presentation of Pilate as a rather accommodating figure at that time.

A second, advanced by McGing in 1991, proposes that the major sources are in fact in fundamental agreement, despite apparent divergences. According to this line of argument Pilate was a governor loyal to his emperor Tiberius and that his actions towards Jews and Samaritans, when compared to other governors, were relatively unremarkable. In fact his ten year incumbency was one of relative calm. His behavior towards Jesus can be adequately accounted for by his ignorance of Jewish culture and politics along with a certain personal indecisiveness. There may have been just enough smoke, as it were, in the case of Jesus to justify extinguishing the fire. In any case what importance, more or less, attached to one Jew? And did not the accused’s stubborn silence in the face of interrogation amount to contempt of court (contumacia), something abhorrent to Romans?
While this reconstruction upholds the broad historicity of the gospels in the face of the Brandon alternative, it scarcely does justice to Philo’s and Josephus’ accounts of Pontius Pilate. Indeed, so far as we know, it was the provocative actions of Pilate after his arrival in Judaea in A.D. 26 which broke the calm which had prevailed since Judas’ rebellion twenty years earlier. In his brief chronological survey of Jewish history from the arrival of Pompey in 63 B.C. to the outbreak of the war with Rome in A.D. 66 Tacitus was to comment, sub Tiberio ques, “under Tiberius all was quiet”. This was to change during the next five years while the Praetorian Prefect L. Aelius Sejanus was, de facto, ruler in Rome.
Pilate’s introduction to Jerusalem of military standards bearing idolatrous icons was without precedent; previous governors had used unornamented standards. Similarly unprecedented, apparently, was the issuing of coins bearing the offensive lituus and simpulum as used in Roman cultic practice. These actions cannot be explained away on the grounds of cultural innocence. They were calculated and deliberate. Indeed, in relationship with the iconic standards in Jerusalem, Josephus comments “Pilate…decided to overturn the laws of the Jews.” Actions such as the seizure of money from the sacred treasury for the construction of an aqueduct in Jerusalem. and the slaughter of the Galileans in the act of sacrificing the Passover lambs are quite consistent with the provocatively introduced iconic standards and coins noted above.

The two insurrectionists crucified with Jesus, along with Barrabbas, had participated in an otherwise unknown uprising against Roman rule. Perhaps this disturbance was also provoked by Pilate’s actions. The furor some time later over the gilded shields brought to Jerusalem, despite the absence of iconography, reflects the deep and justifiable suspicion of the people towards Pilate. Aniconic these shields may have been, but the inscriptions dedicated to Tiberius were almost certainly offensive. Pilate’s appointment in Judaea effectively ended when he was dispatched to Rome to account for the slaughter of a number of Samaritans on Mt Gerizim.

Josephus does nothing to qualify or downplay his report that the Samaritans complained that their people had gathered at Mt Gerizim, “not as rebels against the Romans,” but as “refugees from the persecution of Pilate”. Josephus’ is but a milder and briefer version of Philo’s portrayal of Pilate as “naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness” who, according to Philo “feared exposure for his conduct as governor…the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries; executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty…his vindictiveness and furious temper”. Even allowing for some rhetorical excess by Philo the violence of the episodes recorded by Josephus and Luke’s brief but chilling reference to the slaughter of the Galileans may well justify Philo’s verdict on Pontius Pilate.

But how can this Pilate be reconciled with the governor who comes before us in the gospels ?

A third reconstruction, which is associated with E.M Smallwood and P.L. Maier, would indicate that both Philo and Josephus have portrayed Pilate correctly, but that at the trial of Jesus, due to changed political circumstances in Rome, Pilate had been forced to act out of character. Thus each of the major sources are able to be viewed as historically consistent.
According to this line of thought it is noted that Pilate’s appointment to Judaea more or less coincided with the beginning of Sejanus’ appointment as Praetorian Prefect. It will be remembered that Tiberius continued to remain on the island of Capri during those years, leaving Sejanus as de facto ruler in Rome.

Philo the Jew of Alexandria states that Sejanus “wished to make away with (our) nation” knowing that the Jewish people were loyal to Tiberius. There is evidence that Sejanus, ambitious to grasp imperial power in Rome, harboured the desire for a ruler cult in honour of his deity  This, too, would have contributed to an enmity against the Jews and their monotheistic beliefs. It appears to be no coincidence that Pilate “decided to overturn the laws of the Jews” at a the very time the anti-Semite Sejanus was at the height of his powers in Rome.
After the fall of Sejanus in October A.D. 31, however, Tiberius wrote to his provincial governors demanding that they “speak comfortably to the members of our nation in the different cities…to disturb none of our established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care…” To no provincial governor would these words have been more appropriate than to the Prefect of Judaea, home of the Jewish people, even if we had no information about his actions. But we do. Josephus’ descriptions of Pilate’s behavior and Philo’s verdict on Pilate, noted above, indicate the singular appropriateness of Tiberius’ letter to his Prefect in Judaea, Pontius Pilate.

The incident of the gilded shields occurred in the post-Sejanus situation. Pilate is now accountable to a new master, Tiberius, who, aware of the political realities involving the Jews forbade further harassment of them. This will explain Pilate’s speedy removal of the shields, upon the petition of the Herodian princes (including the tetrarch of Galilee-Peraea, Herod Antipas). This he would not have done during Sejanus’ incumbency. In the new situation when Tiberius was again undisputed ruler, the Jewish temple hierarchy had the upper hand in regard to Pilate, especially in the light of his past behavior towards the Jewish people. It is this ‘new’ situation that explains the ‘new’ Pilate as we encounter him in the gospels in his relationship to the Jewish leadership.
Under interrogation by the chief priests Jesus did not deny that he was the Messiah. This provoked the charge of blasphemy against Jesus. But when they brought him to Pilate they converted the religious charge of blasphemy to one more recognizable and culpable for the Roman mind, the political charge of treason. Thus in each of the four gospels Pilate asks the political question of the accused, “Are you the king of the Jews ?” Jesus’s agreement with this charge would have been, in effect, a denial of Tiberius’s kingship in Judaea. Upon inquiry, however, Pilate decided that he must release Jesus. The charge of treason was not substantiated. But in the ‘new’ situation after the fall of Sejanus, the chief priests are able to intimidate the governor:
If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend; everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.
adding, ominously,
We have no king but Caesar

The man who had ridden roughshod over the Jewish people was now at the mercy of their leaders. And he knew it. One false move and his appointment would be cancelled and his career finished. And so Pilate acquiesced, handing Jesus over to the execution squad for crucifixion, on the charge of treason, that he was “the king of the Jews.”

[Bucky Ball]

Philo of Alexandria was in Jerusalem a number of times, and his brother lived there. He frequently commented on the events in Jerusalem. 
He did write about a celestial messiah who encountered evil somewhere between the Earth and the moon, in a cosmic battle. 
He never says ANYTHING about the Jesus events. Very strange, if in fact they did involve the authorities the gospels mention. 
There is NO WAY there was an execution which coincided with both an earthquake and the spontaneous tearing of the temple curtain, and NOT ONE JEW ever, anywhere ...
says one thing about it. Something is "rotten in Denmark".

[Minimalist]

He did write about a celestial messiah who encountered evil somewhere between the Earth and the moon, in a cosmic battle.

Same as that "paul" bullshit.  Must have been a big idea with Greeks and Hellenized jews.  Jesus?  Not so much it seems.  He was a poser.

[Bucky Ball]

He did write about a celestial messiah who encountered evil somewhere between the Earth and the moon, in a cosmic battle.

Same as that "paul" bullshit.  Must have been a big idea with Greeks and Hellenized jews.  Jesus?  Not so much it seems.  He was a poser.

That's actually exactly one of Carrier's points ... that it was a commonly circulating meme among Hellenized Jews.