Where is the more strong evidence in Paul pointing to an outer space Jesus

[MrMacSon]

... Late Augustine describes several types of demons and gods :

The impiety of Porphyry, which surpasses even the error of Apuleius.
How much more humane and tolerable was the error of Apuleius, your fellow Platonist, who, for all that he held the lunar and sublunar demons in high regard, admitted in spite of himself that they alone are disturbed by the virus of passion and by mental storms!3 When it came, however, to the higher gods in the sky with their position in the realm of aether, whether they were visible and his eyes beheld them shining bright—that is, the sun, the moon and the other luminaries in those regions—or whether they were invisible and merely objects of his thought, he used all his power of argument to set them apart from any stain of such storms of passion.

• lunar demons
• sublunar demons
• higher gods (un disturbed by passion), including the moon?

(IIRC, some early Greeks thought dead souls went to the moon, or near the moon.)

Also, there are other pericopes worth highlighting -

The high priest is bidden to put on a similar dressd when he enters the inner shrine to offer incense, because its fine linen is not, like wool, the product of creatures subject to death, and also to wear another, the formation of which is very complicated. In this it would seem to be a likeness and copy of the universe. This is clearly shewn by the design. In the first place, it is a circular garment of a dark blue colour throughout, a tunic with a full-length skirt, thus symbolizing the air, because the air is both naturally black and in a sense a full-length robe stretching from the sublunar region above to the lowest recesses of the earth. Secondly, on this is set a piece of woven work in the shape of a breastplate, which symbolizes heaven.

Philo sees allegories and likenesses in a lot of scripture, there's one that includes the sublunar region (nothing specifically interesting though.)

Yes, notice the other allegories in that passage^ (highlighted with underlining, broader bolding, or italics)

and -

2. That Knowledge by Astronomical Means is Attainable, and How Far.

A very few considerations would make it apparent to all that a certain power emanating from the eternal ethereal substance is dispersed through and permeates the whole region about the earth, which throughout is subject to change, since, of the primary sublunar elements, fire and air are encompassed and changed by the motions in the ether, and in turn, encompass and change all else, earth and water, and the plants and animals therein.
.

[MrMacSon]

2. That Knowledge by Astronomical Means is Attainable, and How Far.

A very few considerations would make it apparent to all that a certain power emanating from the eternal ethereal substance is dispersed through and permeates the whole region about the earth, which throughout is subject to change¹, since, of the primary sublunar elements, fire and air are encompassed and changed by the motions in the ether, and in turn, encompass and change all else, earth and water, and the plants and animals therein.
.

¹ All the biblical and other texts were subject to change in those days: all the concepts were fluid: angels, archangels, lords, Lords, the Lord were bandied about for various entities: some of those entities were called 'a man' or 'the man' (read the first few verses of the first few books of Zechariah).

[archibald]

I heard (read online) that Doherty, a few years ago, conceded (with caveats) that 'Jesus' may have been described as having come to earth in Ascension of Isaiah. Is this correct and do you have a link?

Probably best to point you to Doherty's website, where he is responding to my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" (my bolding below): http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm

One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that 'in your form' was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase 'they will think that he is flesh and a man'), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth.

Doherty goes on to refer to other texts, though how that impacts on the implications of "probably a reference to earth" is not clear to me. The problem is that Doherty (and also Dr Carrier, who seems to be working from Doherty's analysis) missed that the Latin and Slavonic versions of AoI had "in your form" in it.

I also believe that Carrier suggests that there was a now-missing earlier version of A of I which better supports the 'not having descended to earth' hypothesis. I am not clear on whether this 'missing version' argument was his position from the beginning.

I'm working from memory here, as I don't want to spend too much time on this. (Maybe best to split this out into a separate thread if you want to go deeper into it.) The presumed earlier versions -- Latin and Slavonic -- has the Beloved descending into 'the world' in the form of man (Isaiah's form) and "dwelling among men, and in the world" (thanks to Tim O'Neill for reminding me on this), which probably was written by a docetic Christian. Carrier proposes an even earlier 'missing version', and wouldn't you know it, this earlier missing version exactly supports his mythicist theory! He is the only one proposing it though, and since his analysis starts with an error regarding "in your form", it pretty much dies from the start.

Thanks. That more or less confirms everything that I had read previously.

[archibald]

I'm not sure whether this 'missing version of A of I' argument was Carrier's position from the beginning either, but I think there are two versions of Ascension of Isaiah (at least), with one dated date later than the other. I understand a later-dated version might fit Carrier's argument better, but Carrier has tied his arguments about the role of Ascension of Isaiah [in the genesis of early Christianity] to the earlier version (as I think Carrier wants early Christianity to have kicked off in the mid-1st century, tied, I think, to Paul being a contemporary of Philo). I think Carrier has tied himself in knots, in some respects.

Yes, I think so too.

Imo, on a general note, it's not a question of were there ideas about upper realms, sublunar or otherwise, floating about in those times, or even a question of did Paul know of them or refer to them. To me the question is was Paul's Jesus (specifically), according to Paul, described as not on earth (ie always in a non-earthly realm) prior to and during his supposed crucifixion. As such, citing philo on upper realms, or even citing Paul on upper realms, doesn't really contribute a lot.

[Giuseppe]

That's something that I don't really understand about the Dr Carrier/Doherty mythicist position: in a world where nearly everyone thought there were demons flying around, causing disasters and evil, why is it the more "mature" view that Jesus was killed by demons in the air, if that fit into the beliefs of people of the time? Why wouldn't the common people just go "yep! makes sense!" Why try to place the god on earth in a historical time-period at all? Not that I expect you to give a detailed answer to this, it's just that would be an inevitable question that would come up if Carrier mythicism became the mainstream position.

It is an interesting question, surely (I refer to the part put in blue by me). Why "Mark" ehuemerized Jesus is entirely another question (where surely the Destruction of Jerusalem could have a role) but what is interesting about your question is: why did Paul consider "mature" (only for few people) the knowledge that "demons" killed Jesus? While I can't answer to this question, yet I may derive some implications from that recognized fact:
1) the outsiders knew only that the "Christ" was "crucified".
2) the mere Christian "brothers" knew only that the Christ was crucified by demons.
3) only the "perfects" knew that Christ was crucified by demons "without knowing who he was".

The effect of the point 1 is that some Pagan or Jew could suspect that Christ was a real historical man crucified by Romans for sedition.

The effect of the point 2 is that the Christian "brothers" could imagine or need some fantastic reason why the demons would have crucified Jesus: did Jesus realize something of extraordinary on the earth to derive the attention of the demons against him?

The effect of the point 3 is that the "mature" Christians are "mature" since they don't need of other explanations to explain the death of the Christ, differently from the ignorant outsiders and the mere "brothers".

This is a possible answer to your (very optimal) question.

[Giuseppe]

It is possible to interpret the same 1 Cor 2:6-8 as the Paul's reaction against who was inventing - already in the time of Paul - some historicist legends about Jesus to explain WHY he was crucified by the demons.

The best way by Paul to destroy in advance these rumors is to give himself a REASON of the death of Jesus: the demons didn't know who he was.

Hence the natural question would be: against which kind of historicist legends about Jesus was Paul polemizing, if he wrote 1 Cor 2:6-8 to stop their diffusion?

I think that the Gospels were not still in circulation in the time of Paul.

Therefore the only possible historicist legends about Jesus were something of very similar to the following:

The whole creation that came from the dead earth will be under the authority of death. But those who reflect on the knowledge of the eternal god in their hearts will not perish. They have not received spirit from this kingdom but from something eternal, angelic. . . . The illuminator will come . . . Seth. And he will perform signs and wonders to scorn the powers and their ruler.

Then the god of the powers is disturbed and says, “What is the power of this person who is higher than we are?” Then he brings a great wrath against that person. And glory withdraws and lives in holy houses it has chosen for itself. The powers do not see it with their eyes, nor do they see the illuminator. They punish the flesh of the one over whom the holy spirit has come.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/adam-barnstone.html

In short, in these pre-70 historicist legends about Jesus, in an immemorial time Jesus had performed "signs and wonders" on the earth to scorn the demons and move them to kill him.

[MrMacSon]

I'm not sure whether this 'missing version of A of I' argument was Carrier's position from the beginning either, but I think there are two versions of Ascension of Isaiah (at least), with one dated date later than the other. I understand a later-dated version might fit Carrier's argument better, but Carrier has tied his arguments about the role of Ascension of Isaiah [in the genesis of early Christianity] to the earlier version (as I think Carrier wants early Christianity to have kicked off in the mid-1st century, tied, I think, to Paul being a contemporary of Philo). I think Carrier has tied himself in knots, in some respects.

Yes, I think so too.

Imo, on a general note, it's not a question of were there ideas about upper realms, sublunar or otherwise, floating about in those times, or even a question of did Paul know of them or refer to them. To me the question is was Paul's Jesus ... described as not on earth (ie. always in a non-earthly realm) prior to and during his supposed crucifixion. As such, citing Philo on upper realms, or even citing Paul on upper realms, doesn't really contribute a lot.

I think a significant factor and potential problem is Paul's texts may not have initially been about a Jesus or, if they were about a Jesus, or a Christ, they may not have been about the gospel Jesus.

Passages about the resurrection might have been added later.

(separately, I don't see a link between Philo's writings and the epistles attributed to Paul).

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks. That more or less confirms everything that I had read previously.

No worries! But I should also note that I thought the Ethiopian version of 'Ascension of Isaiah' was written in funny looking Greek (rather than in Ethiopian), so best not to take anything I write for granted. Always check when you can!

[GakuseiDon]

It is an interesting question, surely (I refer to the part put in blue by me). Why "Mark" ehuemerized Jesus is entirely another question (where surely the Destruction of Jerusalem could have a role) but what is interesting about your question is: why did Paul consider "mature" (only for few people) the knowledge that "demons" killed Jesus? While I can't answer to this question, yet I may derive some implications from that recognized fact:
1) the outsiders knew only that the "Christ" was "crucified".
2) the mere Christian "brothers" knew only that the Christ was crucified by demons.
3) only the "perfects" knew that Christ was crucified by demons "without knowing who he was".

The effect of the point 1 is that some Pagan or Jew could suspect that Christ was a real historical man crucified by Romans for sedition.

The effect of the point 2 is that the Christian "brothers" could imagine or need some fantastic reason why the demons would have crucified Jesus: did Jesus realize something of extraordinary on the earth to derive the attention of the demons against him?

The effect of the point 3 is that the "mature" Christians are "mature" since they don't need of other explanations to explain the death of the Christ, differently from the ignorant outsiders and the mere "brothers".

This is a possible answer to your (very optimal) question.

Thanks Giuseppe, very interesting as always. I rarely agree with what you write, but you have an interesting slant on things that makes me think.

[Blood]

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

1 Thessalonians gives the whole thing away. The writer believes "the Jews" killed Lord Jesus, so unless "the Jews" are also in outer space, then the writer believes this happened on earth. The final sentence is also telling: God's wrath has come to the Jews. The most likely explanation for this sentence is that it was written after the temple was destroyed. It is not an interpolation. The entire letter, and perhaps the whole Pauline corpus, was written after 70.