Best Theological Argument Yet 4 a Mythical/aHistoric Jesus?

[MrMacSon]

.
I think cienfuegos has nailed the key aspects of Carriers argument for there theologically only being a celestial/mythical Jesus with two posts on the Did Jesus Die in Outer Space? thread; both reposted here in technicolor -

.

• Did Jesus Die in Outer Space? Evaluating a Key Claim in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus
  
  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/10/
  
  By James F McGrath
  Clarence L Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature
  Butler University
  October 2014

There is, however, a common element of ancient thought which has important implications for the understanding of Ascension of Isaiah. In 7:10 we read, “And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.” As Carrier notes, “the narrative goes out of its way to explain that the firmament contains copies of everything on earth.”[23] And yet, presumably because of his aim to present a case for mythicism, Carrier does not discuss the natural implication of this: that even if the celestial Beloved only descended as far as the firmament, and was crucified there by demons, this would mirror some corresponding occurrence on earth.

.
I believe McGrath has overlooked a key element of Carrier's argument here that maryhelena and others following also go down the rabbit hole on. Carrier's argument here is that Jesus' celestial sacrifice is the perfect copy of the imperfect animal sacrifices practiced on Earth. For additional evidence into this line of thinking, Carrier cites Hebrews 10 where the comparison is made explicit:

• Heb 10:11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

There need not be an earthly sacrifice. The image is the imperfection of the sacrifices offered by the earthly priests.

I am a little surprised that after 10 pages of comments, this wasn't pointed out. Have you all read Carrier's book?

I recommend Vridar's review of McGrath's review. Covington has also written a review.

Here's more from Hebrews 9:

• 11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands; that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are 'outwardly clean'. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation." This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion; it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice..

[MrMacSon]

In his discussion of Hebrews, beginning on P. 540 where he points to AoI's similarity to Hebrews and onto p. 541. I believe in Chapter 3 he deals in more detail with Hebrews. This point is essential to the Carrier-Doherty "outer space" hypothesis. By failing to mention it in his review, I believe McGrath has engaged in borderline fraud, potentially leading people astray by not mentioning key elements of the argument he is reviewing. As an academic and scholar, he has a professional responsibility to honestly present an argument that he critiques. He fails that by allowing just the sort of interpretation as has been taken on this forum.

...here [Hebrews 8.1-5] we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple....but that he had to do so...We're also told here the same thing Isaiah was told in the Ascension: that everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens.The implication is that Jesus' blood must have been spilled on the heavenly duplicate of God's altar; not on earth, where there are already priests making blood sacrifices, which are less effective than celestial ones.

Hebrews 8:1-6:

1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Mac,

Carrier and Doherty are openly acknowledged to have advanced the best theological argument so far for a mythical Jesus. Their argument however carries the "Trojan Horse" of an historical Paul, which IMO is not an hypothesis to be assumed true without examination. Both proponents assume an historical Paul to explain a non historical Jesus.

We have seen a contender in other threads introduced by maryhelena. Father Tom Brodie has presented a case for the MJ in which the source used by Doherty and Carrier (ie: the authentic letters of Paul, after excluding the forgeries of "Pseudo-Paul") is itself exposed as a fabrication. Brodie's MJ resolves to a theological fabrication in part by a school of authors who used source material from the LXX. Brodie refuses to speculate on the political history of this "school", while Carrier and Doherty sweep the political history under the "Paul is historical" carpet.

SEE THREAD: Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul ... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=918



When you are ready to examine and assess a political argument in political history for an MJ, you should know where to look.


Be well,



LC

[MrMacSon]

Hi Mac,
Carrier and Doherty are openly acknowledged to have advanced the best theological argument so far for a mythical Jesus. Their argument however carries the "Trojan Horse" of an historical Paul, which IMO is not an hypothesis to be assumed true without examination. Both proponents assume an historical Paul to explain a non historical Jesus.

Sure, this one of Carrier's is one of the best single arguments; collectively, the theological arguments are highly significant.

While I agree the assumption Paul was a real person is surprisingly predominant, Paul's historicity is almost a secondary battle to Jesus's historicity or not; especially as this argument - that Jesus's role was to surpass the earthly sacrifices of animals - relies on non-Pauline texts (Hebrews is considered a 'masterpiece' - Powell, Mark A. Introducing the New Testament: a historical, literary, & theological survey. Baker Academic, 2009. ISBN 978-0-8010-2868-7)

We have seen a contender in other threads introduced by maryhelena. Father Tom Brodie has presented a case for the MJ in which the source used by Doherty and Carrier (ie: the authentic letters of Paul, after excluding the forgeries of "Pseudo-Paul") is itself exposed as a fabrication.

As I said immediately-above in this post - this argument doesn't seem to use Paul.

Brodie's MJ resolves to a theological fabrication in part by a school of authors who used source material from the LXX. Brodie refuses to speculate on the political history of this "school" ...

SEE THREAD: Brodie vs Carrier on historicity of NT Paul ... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=918

When you are ready to examine and assess a political argument in political history for an MJ, you should know where to look.

Sure, another theological argument is use of LXX material as a basis for the NT. Christian apologists simply say 'of course Jesus fulfilled the LXX/OT prophecies' ... of 'sacrifice for salvation' ...

add; interestingly ...

Composition
... Hebrews uses Old Testament quotations interpreted in light of first century rabbinical Judaism.[9] New Testament and Second Temple Judaism scholar Eric Mason argues that the conceptual background of the priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews closely parallels presentations of the messianic priest and Melchizedek in the Qumran scrolls.[7] In both Hebrews and Qumran a priestly figure is discussed in the context of a Davidic figure; in both cases a divine decree appoints the priests to their eschatological duty; both priestly figures offer an eschatological sacrifice of atonement. Although the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Qumran's "Messiah of Aaron",[10] these and other conceptions did provide "a precedent... to conceive Jesus similarly as a priest making atonement and eternal intercession in the heavenly sanctuary".[7a]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to ... omposition

7 Mason, Eric F. You Are a Priest Forever: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

• • (STDJ 74; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008). ISBN 978-90-04-14987-8

7a ^p.199

9 Utley, RJ. The Superiority of the New Covenant: Hebrews. Bible Lessons International; Marshall, Texas: 1999, Volume 10, p. 1.

10 Oegema, Gerbern S. "You Are a Priest Forever" book review. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct 2009, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p904-905.[/size]
.

[Bernard Muller]

deleted

[Bernard Muller]

It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle"

No, sacrifices of animal were not done in tabernacle or tent or temple edifice but outside, in the open.

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest

The time reference is about when the epistle was written. At that time, Christ was supposed to be in heaven and consequently not on earth then (which would not prevent him to have been on earth before).

Here's more from Hebrews 9:
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands; that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are 'outwardly clean'. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation."

The quoted passage does not say the Sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which is "not a part of this creation". Instead it implies that sacrifice was done outside "the most holy place" (God's heaven), before this "most holy place" was entered.
Any defenders of that theory (about Christ's sacrifice being done in the most heavenly holy place) will have to advocate death was believed to be possible in this place.

This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion; it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice.

I do not see why Jesus's crucifixion could not have been on earth, as for the sacrifice of animals. I think you are reading in the text something which is not here.
Celestial sacrifice? That is in the sublunar realm, apparently crawling with demons. That's not in the most holy place, in God's heaven. You cannot have it both ways.
"Is there evidence in Paul's epistles about the Crucifixion on earth? Yes" http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
"Carrier on Heb 8:1-5 ("proving" Jesus never was on earth) from his book OHJ" http://historical-jesus.info/96.html
Also "Probably the best evidence for an earthly & human Jesus in "to the Hebrews". Updated from OHJ" http://historical-jesus.info/40.html
and
"Hebrews 8:4, one of Doherty's smoking guns" http://historical-jesus.info/45.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle"

No, sacrifices of animal were not done in tabernacle or tent or temple edifice but outside, in the open.

Where animals were sacrifices probably varied from place to place; but where animals were sacrificed doesn't have to have much bearing on the theological notion of Jesus's sacrifice.

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest

The time reference is about when the epistle was written. At that time, Christ was supposed to be in heaven and consequently not on earth then (which would not prevent him to have been on earth before).

I think the point is he would not have been a priest if he were ever on earth.

[andrewcriddle]

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest

The time reference is about when the epistle was written. At that time, Christ was supposed to be in heaven and consequently not on earth then (which would not prevent him to have been on earth before).

I think the point is he would not have been a priest if he were ever on earth.

The point is that Christ cannot at one and the same time both be on earth and act as a priest.

I can't see anything in the text to suggest that to have ever been on earth would permanently disqualify Christ from acting as priest. The idea is that Christ cannot act on earth as a priest, that job is filled and there are no vacancies.

Andrew Criddle

[Bernard Muller]

I think the point is he would not have been a priest if he were ever on earth.

But that's not what the Greek text is saying. Furthermore all members of the tribe of Judah lived on earth (see Hebrews 7:14 “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”)

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest

The time reference is about when the epistle was written. At that time, Christ was supposed to be in heaven and consequently not on earth then (which would not prevent him to have been on earth before).

I think the point is he would not have been a priest if he were ever on earth.

The point is that Christ cannot at one and the same time both be on earth and act as a priest.

Yes, I agree. But I think it's a moot point b/c it's a theologically-infused pontification.