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

[Bernard Muller]

In the AoI Jesus dies in the Sheol. Period.

And where does the AoI say that?

Cordially, Bernard

[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.

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.

Drat. Pity it seems to say he comes to earth at all then.

If only we could find that missing version that doesn't say it. Then A of I could be used to bolster the mythicist case.

[Giuseppe]

In the AoI Jesus dies in the Sheol. Period.

And where does the AoI say that?

Cordially, Bernard

The Beloved is told to descend to the firmament, and from there to sheol, but not to haguel (perdition or “hell”). Carrier rightly points out that some systems of thought located the realm of the dead not in an underworld, but in the heavens

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml

[Bernard Muller]

I do not care where Carrier placed Sheol.
I asked where in AoI it says that Jesus dies in Sheol.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I do not care where Carrier placed Sheol.
I asked where in AoI it says that Jesus dies in Sheol.

Cordially, Bernard

. "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

[Bernard Muller]

Still nothing to say Jesus dies in Sheol.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

About Sheol:
The AoI says Jesus goes through the air downward, below the heavens (10:29-30).
So that would put Sheol in the air, at the highest, not exactly "outer space".

Cordially, Bernard

[archibald]

About Sheol:
The AoI says Jesus goes through the air downward, below the heavens (10:29-30).
So that would put Sheol in the air, at the highest, not exactly "outer space".

Cordially, Bernard

It wouldn't put Sheol in the air. It's completely unclear where the writer puts sheol and it does not say Jesus was cruficied in sheol anyway, and McGrath does not as far as I can see agree with Carrier that Jesus died in A of I's sheol, or that sheol is likely in the air.

Bottom line: Carrier posits a missing earlier version of A of I for his case. That's all we really need to know. He does not rely on the extant A of I.

As you may already know, 11.2 (or 11.3)-11.22 is taken by some to be a later Christian insertion. Take that out and there appears to be a missing part of the 'down then up again' journey, so taking that out leaves a gap in the route, because before chapter 11 he's on the way down and after 11.22 he's on the way up again, to the firmament, and nowhere in between is his death described as being in sheol (earth appears to be the only place in A of I described for his death; correct me if I'm wrong).

Hence, I think, Carrier suggests that the insertion replaced something else. Even if true, it could be anything. It could be the Docetist view that only an avatar descended to earth. That would give the interpolators (if there were any) a reason we are already familiar with to change the text. We don't, actually, have much reason to think this text (or any other) was amended to get Jesus on earth, because there are no early mythicists to be evidenced. Early mythicists are almost as 'mythical' as Jesus, in fact they are more 'mythical' because there isn't any evidence for them.

As a tangent, Neil Godfrey at Vridar posted an article about 10 years ago suggesting 11.3-11.22 might be original.

Oddly (to me) Neil still says, in that article, that this would be in support of mythicist Jesus.

"Further, if we accept Norelli’s revisions to our understanding of the AoI then it would appear that the AoI might support in part Roger Parvus’s interpretation of the original (“mythicist”) gospel: that Jesus descended to earth to be crucified before ascending again. Except that Roger, I think, argued for Christ only appearing for a short time on earth for this purpose. The AoI has the Beloved hiding his identity from the demons by means of slipping into the world through Mary."

https://vridar.org/2015/01/08/a-new-com ... of-isaiah/

This to me seems in some ways similar to Doherty's reported acceptance that A of I Jesus likely descended to earth at least for a short time. The reaction appears to be, 'it wouldn't matter'. Which I find odd, given how much time and energy was previously expended trying to read extant A of I the opposite way.

Both Carrier and Doherty gave much prominence to A of I. I Believe Carrier said it is a template for an outer space Jesus. One would think that accepting that the extant does not say what they thought it said would be accepted to count against their theses, but instead it seems to be a case of carry on regardless.

Personally, I consider both Doherty and his thesis to be crank, and Carrier a fool for swallowing it and essentially trying very hard to polish a turd thereafter. I also think Carrier exhibits a very strong bias when approaching the issue, possibly derived from having accepted it before starting to analyse. His Raglan scores are inflated and his use of bayseian probabilities is suspect and subjective, imo. He also thinks he has proved stuff, and it always bothers me to read people saying that about stuff which is way beyond proof, let alone consensus. I smell dogma. This annoys me for quite a few other writers (and posters) too, of all persuasions, for and against the historicist/ahistoricist question and beyond it. One has to try to read 'through and around' their agenda, personal preferences and biases. This is not unusual, but here it seems to be pronounced.

I could be wrong. Jesus may never have existed. But I think outer space Jesus is a weak explanation for this. I could be wrong about that too, but I am not impressed by the certainties expressed, the apparent bias in approach, or by the way counter-indications are conveniently set aside as if they hadn't appeared.

[Giuseppe]

About Sheol:
The AoI says Jesus goes through the air downward, below the heavens (10:29-30).
So that would put Sheol in the air, at the highest, not exactly "outer space".

Cordially, Bernard

It wouldn't put Sheol in the air. It's completely unclear where the writer puts sheol and it does not say Jesus was cruficied in sheol anyway, and McGrath does not as far as I can see agree with Carrier that Jesus died in A of I's sheol, or that sheol is likely in the air.

I don't agree. James McGrath agrees clearly with Carrier that the final destination of Jesus in AoI (hence, the place where he will die) is the Sheol. If even a Christian apologist agrees with Carrier on this point, then I should have bias when I listen Bernard or Archibald think otherwise.

Bottom line: Carrier posits a missing earlier version of A of I for his case. That's all we really need to know. He does not rely on the extant A of I.

not only Carrier, but the scholars on which he is based about the AoI. I can concede that the recent research of Norelli goes against these previous views, but apart him, any scholar thinks that the 'pocket gospel' in AoI is interpolated.

I don't understand why you don't like Carrier. The Outer Space Jesus is the best Mythicist theory. You can be historicist: no problem with that. But you should admit that the Outer Space Jesus remains the best mythicist theory.

[Ben C. Smith]

It's completely unclear where the writer puts sheol....

I do not think it is completely unclear: "Go forth and descend through all the heavens, and you will descend to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol you will descend, but to Haguel you will not go." This reads like an itinerary, in order: heavens, firmament, "that world" (= the world of humans, pretty consistently throughout the text), sheol. It looks like sheol is further below the human world.