Revelation 13:8 supports a death in outer space

[Giuseppe]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5703#p103655

[Joseph D. L.]

But the text says: before ("from": ἀπὸ) the creation of the world.

Hence, only outer space existed before that time.

That's not how Genesis nor ancient astronomers understood the cosmos. They didn't know an "outer space". They only knew a firmament or a protective shell (like an egg). That's why you and Carrier sound like idiots when you call it that.

Genesis describes it as a dichotomy between heaven and earth. Was it before heaven was created?

ἀπὸ can mean several things in this instance. It's likely inferring that the lamb was sacrificed on the earth as an altar. Nor does it seem that Revelation 13:8 is referring to crucifixion, so you're compounding one claim onto another and saying "aha!", when you have yet to substantiate your foundation. (See what I did there?)

Nor does any of this matter, because it's all bullshit, right? It's a make believe.

I'm just going to start calling you a Christian because you treat these texts like a Christian would.

Giuseppe the Christian. I like that.

[Joseph D. L.]

• The form of death (the cross being a symbol of creation in Plato)

I invite Ben to update the his list in progress on the reasons for a mythical crucifixion.

What is the reference from Plato?

And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, If you look to this figure, and believe, you shall be saved thereby. Numbers 21:8 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

(Justin doesn't like to refer who is "he": the demiurge).

That is a Christian referencing Plato. Do you mean to tell me that you have not even looked up the original reference in Plato himself?

If you care Ben, I've actually quoted the passage in Timeaus here (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5461&p=101082&hilit=cross#p101082) which is something Giuseppe doesn't appear to have ever done, instead always using Justin's more accessible passage. I doubt he's ever read it, because the passage is closer to the middle of the text, not the end.

Notice however that Plato doesn't call this a crucifixion. Nor was Plato inspired by Moses. So Justin's interpretation is strictly his own invention.

Giuseppe and Justin have a lot in common I notice.

[Giuseppe]

But the text says: before ("from": ἀπὸ) the creation of the world.

Hence, only outer space existed before that time.

That's not how Genesis nor ancient astronomers understood the cosmos. They didn't know an "outer space". They only knew a firmament or a protective shell (like an egg). That's why you and Carrier sound like idiots when you call it that.

you should call Dr. Carrier, to begin. I prefer to refer to the anciens the term "outer space" if the only alternative is a discussion with an astro-theologist à la Acharya.

[Joseph D. L.]

But the text says: before ("from": ἀπὸ) the creation of the world.

Hence, only outer space existed before that time.

That's not how Genesis nor ancient astronomers understood the cosmos. They didn't know an "outer space". They only knew a firmament or a protective shell (like an egg). That's why you and Carrier sound like idiots when you call it that.

you should call Dr. Carrier, to begin. I prefer to refer to the anciens the term "outer space" if the only alternative is a discussion with an astro-theologist à la Acharya.

I'll call Richard Carrier a moron first, who took four years of study with the backing of others something I figured out ten years ago on my own time and expense.

Is a celestial death in "outer space" not astrotheology? That is actually the full definition of astrotheology; theology based on celestial and astro phenomenon. You're a moron Giuseppe. You don't belong here.

[GakuseiDon]

But the text says: before ("from": ἀπὸ) the creation of the world.

Hence, only outer space existed before that time.

That's not how Genesis nor ancient astronomers understood the cosmos. They didn't know an "outer space". They only knew a firmament or a protective shell (like an egg). That's why you and Carrier sound like idiots when you call it that.

Earl Doherty has been critical of the term "outer space":
https://vridar.org/2015/03/05/mcgrath-o ... -accuracy/

Also, for McGrath to use the phrase “die in outer space” mirrors the prejudice he feels toward the concept, and the lack of understanding he has for it in ancient thought. “Outer space” in such a context implies a pejorative dismissal, almost relegated to “beyond reality”.

Doherty thought that McGrath had made up the expression himself as a pejorative term against mythicism, not realising that it was created by Dr Carrier. But his criticism is correct: "outer space" doesn't differentiate between the lower and upper heavens, and can easily lead to confusion, as I highlight below.

When it was pointed out to him that Carrier had created the term, Doherty responded:

Hmmm…perhaps Richard uses the term for the sake of those completely unfamiliar with the principle of a layered heavens. I’d have to see its context to judge how it comes across. I guess it just kind of has a problematic feel to me, a shorthand which has its drawbacks to someone in the know. I’d have much preferred something like “in a heavenly world” or “in a lower sphere of the heavens.” That would force the reader to realize that the heavens were viewed very differently than we view them today. “Outer space” to us implies no outer boundary, whereas for the ancients the heavens above the earth were very much delineated and enclosed by God’s realm.

[Giuseppe]

"outer space" doesn't differentiate between the lower and upper heavens, and can easily lead to confusion, as I highlight below.

I prefer to use the outer space, pace Doherty, for two reasons:

• When the mythicism will become consensus, there will be a satirical anti-Christian campaign for their Jesus from outer space.

• By now, the outer space serves to remind the lay people that mythicists don't think that Jesus died in outer space: they think that the the early Apostles placed the Jesus's death in outer space.

[Joseph D. L.]

I prefer to use the outer space, pace Doherty, for two reasons:

• When the mythicism will become consensus, there will be a satirical anti-Christian campaign for their Jesus from outer space.

• By now, the outer space serves to remind the lay people that mythicists don't think that Jesus died in outer space: they think that the the early Apostles placed the Jesus's death in outer space.

Those are incredibly petty and moronic reasons.

[Giuseppe]

Dr Carrier gives another reason to prefer outer space as opposed to heaven:

We ought to refer to it just as they would have understood it. And not obscured their beliefs behind inaccuracies. The modern idea of “heaven” is of an other-dimensional space that has no physical location inside our universe, which bears no resemblance at all to what they then believed; so “heaven” is an innacurate and misleading translation today. “Outer space” is much closer to what their real beliefs were. And this is exactly the point of the title: when we translate their words into what they were actually saying, things look very different than people like you assume.

(my bold)

Carrier insists on the fact that the region of "Air", the archontic territory, was considered part of the inferior world of matter. Hence anything happening in it has (ops, had) the same ontological consistency of what happened on earth.

The risk is that the sense of this ontological consistency is lost if one thinks about (lower) heavens as opposed to outer space.

When Osiris is killed by Seth, the his death happens in the "most remote parts of matter" (Plutarch). Hence, it is outer space. It seems "heaven" (in virtue of the his being described as remote) but it is still matter, universe, physic world.

Note that no one says that, since Plutarch places the death of Orisis in the remote parts of matter, then Osiris was crucified in Egypt.

Hence, accordingly, if Christ was killed without pointing out where, then there is no reason to put the his death in Judea. But any mythicist who places the death of Jesus on earth (for example, Robert_J), means precisely Jerusalem as the place of death. It is as if Plutarch had said that Osiris was killed by Seth in Egypt. As opposed to the "remote parts of matter".

[Giuseppe]

Notice however that Plato doesn't call this a crucifixion. Nor was Plato inspired by Moses. So Justin's interpretation is strictly his own invention.

Plato talks about the intersection of the ecliptic and the equinox as the point where the Logos was placed in form of chi etc. That is probably the source from which prof Price detects precisely the point in outer space where Jesus was crucified:

One of the most controversial aspects of Christ Mythicism is that the crucifixion of Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial event, not an historical one. Jesus was executed on the “cross” of the ecliptic and the equinox, done in by fiendish Archons, Principalities and Powers (1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 2:14-15). The saving death was eventually historicized. Personally, I hold to this theory. It puzzles me that some ridicule this notion as an “outer space crucifixion” when the mytheme is well known from ancient Gnosticism, where it was believed that the Primal Man of Light was dismembered by the Archons in the heavenly realm (“outer space” if you want to call it that). Mythicists are not nuts who think this actually happened. You could jeer at that, but the real point is that these ancient nuts believed it— and a good number of other nutty things.

(my bold)

Price, Robert M. . The Journal of Higher Criticism: Volume 13 Number 2 (p.151). Kindle edition