Point of weakness for the immemorial earthly Jesus:
1) demons never killed archangels directly on the earth
2) no mention of the specific place of the crucifixion
3) no mention of other deeds of Jesus on the earth
Point of support for the immemorial earthly Jesus:
1) No problems with some pauline passages like "from the sperm of David", "born from woman", etc.
2) relative Talmudic support of a immemorial obscure Jesus, since "there were no witnesses of the his execution among his disciples"
3) an immemorial Jesus on the earth seems more a humble and more "human" figure (spiritually "emptied") than a humanoid Jesus in the outer space.
Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
to Giuseppe,
And where does it say demons killed archangels indirectly on the earth or in the sky or some lower heaven?
Hebrews has Jesus talking about salvation (2:3): "... a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him,"
Note: not so immemorial! Added to that is Paul having met James, the brother of the Lord (Galatians) and Josephus' Ant. 20: James the brother of Jesus called Christ (killed around 62 AD).
Jesus had a humble life and was of no reputation (Philippians). Most of the deeds of Jesus in the gospels are the result of massive embellishments or outright fiction. That was fabricated after Paul & 'Hebrews' times.
Cordially, Bernard
The NT does not say demons killed Jesus and that Jesus was an archangel.1) demons never killed archangels directly on the earth
And where does it say demons killed archangels indirectly on the earth or in the sky or some lower heaven?
It is specified in the gospels. And it is suggested by Paul: Zion.2) no mention of the specific place of the crucifixion
Paul said that Jesus was servant/minister to the Jews (Ro 15:8).3) no mention of other deeds of Jesus on the earth
Hebrews has Jesus talking about salvation (2:3): "... a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him,"
Note: not so immemorial! Added to that is Paul having met James, the brother of the Lord (Galatians) and Josephus' Ant. 20: James the brother of Jesus called Christ (killed around 62 AD).
Jesus had a humble life and was of no reputation (Philippians). Most of the deeds of Jesus in the gospels are the result of massive embellishments or outright fiction. That was fabricated after Paul & 'Hebrews' times.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
The archontes in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are not the Romans neither the Parthians. They are demons as per Enoch. Paul was received by the Galatians as an Angel, as Jesus, therefore implying that Jesus is an Angel for Paul.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:40 pm The NT does not say demons killed Jesus and that Jesus was an archangel.
Enoch saw angels and demons in heaven kill souls of people. And so Isaiah.And where does it say demons killed archangels indirectly on the earth or in the sky or some lower heaven?
The interpolator of 1 Thess 14-16 considered the Jews as true deliberate killers of Jesus, without demons behind them. So the author of 1 Cor 2:6-8 considered the demons as true deliberate killers of Jesus, without humans before them.
It is specified in the gospels. And it is suggested by Paul: Zion.2) no mention of the specific place of the crucifixion
you can't have both the things: the gospel as evidence and the gospel as not-evidence of the same "fact".Most of the deeds of Jesus in the gospels are the result of massive embellishments or outright fiction. That was fabricated after Paul & 'Hebrews' times
tsk, tsk. The Risen Christ was so.Paul said that Jesus was servant/minister to the Jews (Ro 15:8)3) no mention of other deeds of Jesus on the earth
tsk, tsk. The Risen Christ was heard: read "hallucinations".Hebrews has Jesus talking about salvation (2:3): "... a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him,"
your is a very naive reading of Gal 1:19. And please don't quote interpolations.Note: not so immemorial! Added to that is Paul having met James, the brother of the Lord (Galatians) and Josephus' Ant. 20: James the brother of Jesus called Christ (killed around 62 AD).
Dr. Carrier has already explained you that the same "principates and powers" could become poors with the Parusia. So why not the angel Jesus, too?Jesus had a humble life and was of no reputation (Philippians).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
to Giuseppe,
In Galatians, Jesus is also born of woman as a Jew, and a descendant of Abraham. And that's not implied.
Also:
2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.
Cordially, Bernard
But in Ro 13:3, these archontes can be identified as Roman authorities. I rather search in the Pauline epistles for the meaning of a word than in apocryphal literature. There is no evidence that Paul dug up in that kind of texts.The archontes in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are not the Romans neither the Parthians. They are demons as per Enoch. Paul was received by the Galatians as an Angel, as Jesus, therefore implying that Jesus is an Angel for Paul.
In Galatians, Jesus is also born of woman as a Jew, and a descendant of Abraham. And that's not implied.
Souls of people are not archangels.Enoch saw angels and demons in heaven kill souls of people. And so Isaiah.
What do you mean? In 1 Co 2:6-8, there is no demons mentioned, only rulers of this age.The interpolator of 1 Thess 14-16 considered the Jews as true deliberate killers of Jesus, without demons behind them. So the author of 1 Cor 2:6-8 considered the demons as true deliberate killers of Jesus, without humans before them.
Plain Jerusalem is not an embellishment, just a city which existed at the time.you can't have both the things: the gospel as evidence and the gospel as not-evidence of the same "fact".
As a descendant of Israelites, Abraham, Jesse & David, born of a woman under the Law, it is more likely Jesus was servant/minister to the Jews as a human on earth, rather than from allegedly heaven, a mythicist speculation.The Risen Christ was so.
I don't read "hallucinations". 'Hebrews' said Jesus was a descendant of the Judah tribe (7:14),The Risen Christ was heard: read "hallucinations".
Also:
2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.
No, it is a straight reading of Gal 1:19 and the mythicists' efforts to see interpolations for these two passages are rather very far-fetched.your is a very naive reading of Gal 1:19. And please don't quote interpolations.
Another far-fetched explanation.Dr. Carrier has already explained you that the same "principates and powers" could become poors with the Parusia. So why not the angel Jesus, too?Jesus had a humble life and was of no reputation (Philippians).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
why only Roman authorities? You are starting with the false assumption that the gentiles met by Paul were only gentiles of the Roman Empire. Hence that the archontes could be only Roman rulers. Do you are aware that some Jewish would-be king saw with simpathy to a possible anti-Roman alliance with Parthians? Therefore it is another possibiliter fallacy to believe that the archontes of Rom 13 can be only Romans and not Parthians. Therefore it is far from certain to believe that archontes in 1 cor 2:6-8 refers ipso facto to Romans, even when you mean earthly archontes in 1 Cor 2:6-8. Paul had to be more specific in order to mean earthly ROMAN archontes.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:03 pm
But in Ro 13:3, these archontes can be identified as Roman authorities.
.I rather search in the Pauline epistles for the meaning of a word than in apocryphal literature. There is no evidence that Paul dug up in that kind of texts
The Book of Enoch was surely known by Paul insofar he also ascended to third heaven.
Any serious mythicist accepts this fact. That Jesus is humanoid in Paul.In Galatians, Jesus is also born of woman as a Jew, and a descendant of Abraham. And that's not implied.
is the dragon of Revelation a fallen angel? Isn't he battled by good angels?Souls of people are not archangels.Enoch saw angels and demons in heaven kill souls of people. And so Isaiah.
They are spiritual beings. They can't be earthly rulers since otherwise Paul would should add further description to answer to the question: were they Roman rulers or Parthian rulers? Only from the second century it became clear that Rome was the Ruler par excellence.What do you mean? In 1 Co 2:6-8, there is no demons mentioned, only rulers of this age.
also Gerasa was a real city. So is there a historical nucleus behind the demonic gerasene?Plain Jerusalem is not an embellishment, just a city which existed at the time.you can't have both the things: the gospel as evidence and the gospel as not-evidence of the same "fact".
a davidic person would have to be a king of the Jews not a servant.As a descendant of Israelites, Abraham, Jesse & David, born of a woman under the Law, it is more likely Jesus was servant/minister to the Jews as a human on earth, rather than from allegedly heaven, a mythicist speculationThe Risen Christ was so.
I repeat again: any serious mythicist thinks that Jesus has to be humanoid in Paul. If his goal was to save fallen angels, Jesus would have taken a demon-oid body.. 'Hebrews' said Jesus was a descendant of the Judah tribe (7:14),
Also:
2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.
"called Christ" is interpolated in Josephus but Gal 1:19 is genuine in Paul. James is a mere useful witness of the Greatness of Paul the Apostle who deals with Peter (the founder of the cult) as his peer. Think about Cortés who met Montezuma masked as the god Quetzalcoatl: any other Aztech of the court of Montezuma couldn't be on the same level of Cortés.No, it is a straight reading of Gal 1:19 and the mythicists' efforts to see interpolations for these two passages are rather very far-fetched.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, demons are the displaced souls of the giants (off-spring of the fallen angels) destroyed in the flood.
The fallen angels are imprisoned in the abyss until judgement day.
There is no saving of fallen angels.
Sincerely,
John T
The fallen angels are imprisoned in the abyss until judgement day.
There is no saving of fallen angels.
Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
thanks for that but where is the objection to my point? My point was that it is possible to kill demons in a place different from the earth. And that if the goal of Jesus was to save demons, he would have assumed accordingly the body of a demon, not of a man.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
It gets complicated.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:16 pmthanks for that but where is the objection to my point? My point was that it is possible to kill demons in a place different from the earth. And that if the goal of Jesus was to save demons, he would have assumed accordingly the body of a demon, not of a man.
However, the short answer according to my understanding of the DSS is, demons can not leave earth. They will be destroyed here on earth. Dittos for the fallen angels.
Resurrected humans, i.e., Sons of Light, will replace the fallen angels in heaven.
Of course Carrier is not familiar enough with the DSS to understand it, hence his confusion.
Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
to Giuseppe,
The Romans (and not the Parthians) were also in charge of Judea in the 1st century from 6 AD.
"Paul had to be more specific in order to mean earthly ROMAN archontes." Why? Paul preaching in the Roman empire certainly did not want to specify Romans killed Jesus, the son of God.
Case in point: the gospels authors took great pain into minimizing the role of Pilate into (reluctantly) sending Jesus to the cross; instead they blamed the Jews and the chief priests for that.
Paul was not specific about ROMAN archontes, but also he was not about alleged demonic archontes in 1 Co 2:8.
BTW, Paul is never said to have preached in Parthian controlled territories.
However I think "third heaven" & "paradise" in 2 Co 2:12 might be interpolations because these words are never used in other places of the Pauline epistles, even if Paul had many opportunities to do so.
Still no demons and no archangels.
The Davidian dynasty was over. Even if someone is credited to be a descendant of David, that does not make him a king. Actually, according to the OT, David had many direct descendants and only one became king: Solomon. The other direct descendants did not have any kings among their own descendants, generation after generations.
Paul never called Jesus "king".
Cordially, Bernard
Because the letter was sent to the inhabitants of Rome and there the authorities are Romans, and not Parthians.why only Roman authorities? You are starting with the false assumption that the gentiles met by Paul were only gentiles of the Roman Empire. Hence that the archontes could be only Roman rulers. Do you are aware that some Jewish would-be king saw with simpathy to a possible anti-Roman alliance with Parthians? Therefore it is another possibiliter fallacy to believe that the archontes of Rom 13 can be only Romans and not Parthians. Therefore it is far from certain to believe that archontes in 1 cor 2:6-8 refers ipso facto to Romans, even when you mean earthly archontes in 1 Cor 2:6-8. Paul had to be more specific in order to mean earthly ROMAN archontes.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:03 pm
But in Ro 13:3, these archontes can be identified as Roman authorities.
The Romans (and not the Parthians) were also in charge of Judea in the 1st century from 6 AD.
"Paul had to be more specific in order to mean earthly ROMAN archontes." Why? Paul preaching in the Roman empire certainly did not want to specify Romans killed Jesus, the son of God.
Case in point: the gospels authors took great pain into minimizing the role of Pilate into (reluctantly) sending Jesus to the cross; instead they blamed the Jews and the chief priests for that.
Paul was not specific about ROMAN archontes, but also he was not about alleged demonic archontes in 1 Co 2:8.
BTW, Paul is never said to have preached in Parthian controlled territories.
The traditional Jewish system had three heavens: the lower one was below the firmament & above the earth. The middle one was the firmament. The highest and third one was the domain of God. That's where Paul put Christ, at the right hand of God, in Romans 8:34.The Book of Enoch was surely known by Paul insofar he also ascended to third heaven.
However I think "third heaven" & "paradise" in 2 Co 2:12 might be interpolations because these words are never used in other places of the Pauline epistles, even if Paul had many opportunities to do so.
Descendants of Abraham and born of woman are not humanoids but humans.Any serious mythicist accepts this fact. That Jesus is humanoid in Paul.In Galatians, Jesus is also born of woman as a Jew, and a descendant of Abraham. And that's not implied.
is the dragon of Revelation a fallen angel? Isn't he battled by good angels?
Still no demons and no archangels.
a davidic person would have to be a king of the Jews not a servant.
The Davidian dynasty was over. Even if someone is credited to be a descendant of David, that does not make him a king. Actually, according to the OT, David had many direct descendants and only one became king: Solomon. The other direct descendants did not have any kings among their own descendants, generation after generations.
Paul never called Jesus "king".
Descendants of the tribe of Judah are humans, not humanoids.I repeat again: any serious mythicist thinks that Jesus has to be humanoid in Paul. If his goal was to save fallen angels, Jesus would have taken a demon-oid body.
I beg to differ. All explanations for interpolation, including Carrier's http://historical-jesus.info/104.html, are very far-fetched."called Christ" is interpolated in Josephus
Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus
I think that you should use a better meaning for "earth" in your same words: demons can't leave the sublunar realm (not only the mere earth).John T wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:30 pmIt gets complicated.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:16 pmthanks for that but where is the objection to my point? My point was that it is possible to kill demons in a place different from the earth. And that if the goal of Jesus was to save demons, he would have assumed accordingly the body of a demon, not of a man.
However, the short answer according to my understanding of the DSS is, demons can not leave earth. They will be destroyed here on earth. Dittos for the fallen angels.
Resurrected humans, i.e., Sons of Light, will replace the fallen angels in heaven.
Of course Carrier is not familiar enough with the DSS to understand it, hence his confusion.
Sincerely,
John T
They will be destroyed there. Ephesians 6:12 makes my same point:
Frankly, to interpret Paul I would base myself more on the words of who wanted to talk under his false name (like Ephesians or Colossians but not the Pastorals), more than on the DSS.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.