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

[MrMacSon]

I am not going to set out in detail for you a case that is already mainstream and can be accessed by googling even wiki pages on early Christianity, the spread of early Christianity or the church fathers. That case/version is fairly well-established. I understand that you are considering alternatives.

One alternative is the church fathers were more Jewish than Christian and were more philosophising about early Christianity and various vague texts that were then available. eta: including Tertualian and even Origen.

One question....how do you integrate these possibilities with your being 75% in favour of a non-earthly Jesus?

There could well be an earthy person incorporated in synoptic accounts of the NT Jesus character, including a real 1st c. Jesus (though whether Nazareth existed then is debatable). I think celestial entities could also be incorporated in Paul's accounts.

Would you say that that is your most preferred explanation, and that these others come from the remaining 25%?

These earthy 'contributions' would make up the 25%. Maybe it should be 50/50. But I think the chance of a real 1st c. Jesus being behind the NT Jesus is << 25%.

[Giuseppe]

It is not true that Doherty thinks that AoI is historicist.

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.

Immediately after he writes:

However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my 'World of Myth' chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?
In any case, the 'in your form' tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm

It is a bit dishonest for GakuseiDon only mention the first part of Doherty's words but not the immediately next sequel.

[archibald]

I am not going to set out in detail for you a case that is already mainstream and can be accessed by googling even wiki pages on early Christianity, the spread of early Christianity or the church fathers. That case/version is fairly well-established. I understand that you are considering alternatives.

One alternative is the church fathers were more Jewish than Christian and were more philosophising about early Christianity and various vague texts that were then available. eta: including Tertualian and even Origen.

One question....how do you integrate these possibilities with your being 75% in favour of a non-earthly Jesus?

There could well be an earthy person incorporated in synoptic accounts of the NT Jesus character, including a real 1st c. Jesus (though whether Nazareth existed then is debatable). I think celestial entities could also be incorporated in Paul's accounts.

Would you say that that is your most preferred explanation, and that these others come from the remaining 25%?

These earthy 'contributions' would make up the 25%. Maybe it should be 50/50. But I think the chance of a real 1st c. Jesus being behind the NT Jesus is << 25%.

I see. Thanks.

I had thought that maybe you were 75% non-earthly and 25% earthly but not 1st C Judea. In which case I was going to ask you why no percentage at all for earthly 1st C Judea.

So I'm relieved that you don't rule that out, because I personally think it's still a contender.

That said, even my views on 1st C would not be monolithic. By and large, I think the further away from the 'accepted' date we speculate, the harder it becomes, in either direction, backwards or forwards in time, to come up with a strong case. So for example, the idea that 'events' happened closer to or just after the Jewish War (but still in the 1st C) seems an easier thesis to advance than moving into the 2nd C, the 3rd or (as some do and which I wondered if you did) the 4th.

I think your point about early church fathers is not implausible, by the way. I doubt that 'orthodox' just appeared, fully-formed. Christianity separated from Judaism (it would seem) over time. At least that is the thesis which I am happier with. And even Judaism was not un-fragmented or closed to outside ideas at the time. There was a fair bit of flux, I think. And the scene in Judea might have been different rom the scene outside, among diaspora jews.

[archibald]

It is not true that Doherty thinks that AoI is historicist.

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.

Immediately after he writes:

However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my 'World of Myth' chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?
In any case, the 'in your form' tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm

It is a bit dishonest for GakuseiDon only mention the first part of Doherty's words but not the immediately next sequel.

Even your expanded quote says what I took Doherty to have said. As Gakuseidon (to his credit) did say (in his review I think), Doherty moving on to other texts was arguably not entirely relevant and him saying that the point about 'in your form' (which he appears to broadly accept) not saying much about other considerations is fair enough, but away from the point also.

As far as I am aware, a hypothetical non-extant version of A of I that would plainly refer to a non-earthly Jesus is Carrier's position. Given that Carrier once saying that A of I is a template for non-earthly Jesus, I am not sure if he was at that time saying that in relation to a hypothetical lost version or an extant one, but it makes more sense to say that something existing 'is a template'.

[Giuseppe]

I disagree. Doherty is arguing really against the presumed importance of an only item ("in the your form") in the deciding the dilemma in a historicist sense.

I think that Doherty and Carrier don't say that AoI is mythicist evidence.

They say that AoI is too enigmatic as it is today to decide his being historicist or mythicist (just as the first gospel, for Carrier, cannot help to decide pro or against the historicist faith of the his first author). Insofar it is not evidence of mythicism or historicism, AoI can be used by Carrier (and Doherty) as an example of something to which the original myth may be similar IF IT WAS REALLY A MYTH.

Now, since Carrier and Doherty conclude that Jesus never existed, the AoI for them has to be a mythicist evidence (just as "Mark" for them has to know the truth: that he was inventing a life for Jesus). But this as conclusion of the case and not as premise.

[GakuseiDon]

It is a bit dishonest for GakuseiDon only mention the first part of Doherty's words but not the immediately next sequel.

Wait a moment, I DID mention that when I quoted Doherty back on Page 2 of this thread, here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3769&start=10#p80395

I gave a link to Doherty's page and wrote after the quote: "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." Please check that for yourself to confirm. I also make the same comment in my review of Doherty's JNGNM, here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... 4.html#4.2

Maybe you think that's not enough. Fair enough. But I think my comment is perfectly reasonable. If you'd like to explain how Doherty's comments about Apocalypse of Adam and Revelation 12 impacts our understanding of how to read AoI in its known Latin/Slavonic versions, I'd be interested to hear it.

Nor does Doherty's concession mean that AoI is "historicist". An earthly Jesus doesn't necessarily mean a historical Jesus, as I've said many times, including in my review where I discuss Doherty's use of AoI (see link above). But "in your form" and "dwelling among men, and in the world" does rule out S/L AoI as a text that has a clearly celestial-only Jesus. That version only exists in Dr Carrier's imagination.

I hadn't planned to post again until I've completed a number of important projects over the next few months, but being accused of dishonesty is never nice.

[archibald]

Now, since Carrier and Doherty conclude that Jesus never existed, the AoI for them has to be a mythicist evidence (just as "Mark" for them has to know the truth: that he was inventing a life for Jesus). But this as conclusion of the case and not as premise.

I wish it were the case.

They use A of I to assist in getting to their conclusion.

Or, if it is as you say, then that's not a good approach.

[Giuseppe]

In the AoI Jesus dies in the Sheol. Period.
Where was localized the Sheol? AoI doesn't say. So it is fifty-fifty.

About Doherty, he isn't saying that Jesus in AoI is an earthly man, since Carrier has already explained sufficiently that in the original myth Jesus was a humanoid. Being humanoid ("in the form of a man") doesn't imply being on the Earth, because otherwise the Logos of Philo would be an earthly figure, too (given the fact that Philo calls him a Man).

[archibald]

In the AoI Jesus dies in the Sheol. Period.

[Sharp intake of breath].

Do you mean.......not in a higher realm after all?

That's Outer Space Jesus f**ked then.

[Giuseppe]

In the AoI Jesus dies in the Sheol. Period.

[Sharp intake of breath].

Do you mean.......not in a higher realm after all?

That's Outer Space Jesus f**ked then.

Richard Carrier says that the Sheol was localized in the outer space, for some Jewish sects.
Note that the Christian apologist James Mcgrath agrees with Carrier that the place of Death of Jesus in AoI is the Sheol.