Intrinsic stupidity of the common objection to Carrier's Outer Space theory

[Giuseppe]

My view of Carrier's outer-space theory is that it is pure imagination.....

Carrier himself might even be not existed, the point remains that the Outer Space theory is for the 90% the theory advanced by the past mythicists in the History. So my point is that a lot of people think wrongly that Doherty or Carrier have proposed the first time the idea, which is false.

[maryhelena]

My view of Carrier's outer-space theory is that it is pure imagination.....

Carrier himself might even be not existed, the point remains that the Outer Space theory is for the 90% the theory advanced by the past mythicists in the History. So my point is that a lot of people think wrongly that Doherty or Carrier have proposed the first time the idea, which is false.

Jesus from outer-space, crucifixion in outer-space, Giuseppe, that is the stuff of science fiction. Whatever it was that Paul (if he was a historical figure) wrote has to be interpreted to have meaning for 21sts century minds. For heavens sake, do rational people believe in the Adam and Eve story ? Why on earth should modern-day people believe in imaginary things happening in outer-space. ? What possible purpose would such a belief have, what value for people who value rationality, logic and reason ? Not only does Carrier need to turn around from the brick wall he is facing - he has to come back down to earth and face the music here below. Jesus from outer-space is a fantasy that is hindering the mythicist/ahistoricst position from moving forward - it's a dead end. In no shape or form does the outer-space theory answer historical questions related to the gospel story. This theory is no substitute to historical research into the gospel Jesus story. It is simply pure imagination...

[Peter Kirby]

While it is possible that there were also different versions of docetism with different locations, not explicitly attested (possibly excepting the hypothetical substratum of AoI?), the claim above -- it was probably deployed as a counterpoint to its historicized version, namely, the story of Christ’s ... passion in Jerusalem --- is not supported.

I think that if 1 Cor 2:6-8 is an interpolation, then it had to be against something, i.e. a "counterpoint" to a rival view. The reason is that the 90% of pauline interpolations are all classified as counterpoints to rival notions.

If I understand well Droge, he before proves that 1 Cor 2:6-8 is better explained as a Valentinian or proto-Valentinian interpolation and then he concludes about its character of "counterpoint" to an earthly life of Jesus.

Do you understand Droge correctly?

Because the passage I'm referencing above doesn't invoke an interpolation into 1 Cor as the support of its argument.

[Giuseppe]

Droge's point is that the interpolated character of the passage increases, rather than decreases, its function of counterpoint to an earthly life of Jesus:

Since we can find only second- and third-century parallels to the crucifixion myth alluded to at 1 Cor. 2:6–8, it strains credulity to suppose that Paul could have written these lines. Our passage must be a non-Pauline intervention of the second century. Martin Widmann was right to regard it as non-Pauline, but he was wrong to attribute it to
a “pneumatic group” of “Corinthian enthusiasts” who corrected what they saw as Paul’s distortion of their position. Our passage simply cannot be that early, no matter who is responsible for it.

(my bold)

[Peter Kirby]

Droge's point is that the interpolated character of the passage increases, rather than decreases, its function of counterpoint to an earthly life of Jesus:

Since we can find only second- and third-century parallels to the crucifixion myth alluded to at 1 Cor. 2:6–8, it strains credulity to suppose that Paul could have written these lines. Our passage must be a non-Pauline intervention of the second century. Martin Widmann was right to regard it as non-Pauline, but he was wrong to attribute it to
a “pneumatic group” of “Corinthian enthusiasts” who corrected what they saw as Paul’s distortion of their position. Our passage simply cannot be that early, no matter who is responsible for it.

(my bold)

Maybe you misread. The quote is "our passage simply cannot be that early."

It does not say our passage simply cannot be that "earthly."

...

No, but seriously, interpolation (or the letter itself being late?) is the conclusion there, not a premise.

[Leucius Charinus]

... the point remains that the Outer Space theory is for the 90% the theory advanced by the past mythicists in the History.

viewtopic.php?p=111418#p111418

That's an interesting "Outer Space" collection Giuseppe

[Giuseppe]

Note 72:

To be clear, my point is not that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 influenced the Valentinians, but that the Valentinians “influenced” Paul. Yet this was not only true of the Valentinians. “Paul” (or better, “Pauls”) was (were) a literary fabrication of the
second century.

Why the mention of the Valentinians is important? Because not coincidentially they argued for a celestial crucifixion. As the link proves, we were talking about Valentinians placing the crucifixion of the superior Christ in heaven (outer space) even before that Droge had uploaded the article on academia.edu.

That answers indirectly to your objection that docetism is not mythicism. The case of the Valentinians implies that docetism, even in a sect who is from long time apparently a historicist sect, implies the mythicist location in outer space of the crucifixion of the "superior Christ".

[maryhelena]

The case of the Valentinians implies that docetism, even in a sect who is from long time apparently a historicist sect, implies the mythicist location in outer space of the crucifixion of the "superior Christ".

How anyone can advocate an outer-space crucifixion story with a straight face beats me.....

Surely, when ones interpretation leads to irrationality one should pause, take a deep breath - seriously re-engage the logical side of one's brain.

As a fellow poster quoted to me... 'You can have your opinions but you can't have your own facts'. Carrier has no facts, no evidence, for his outer-space theory. All he has is his own interpretation of the NT.... thats all.

I have great difficulty in understanding how the outer-space theory ever got off the ground..... though I suppose magic carpet rides allow imagination to rise above logic and rationality.

There is no historical evidence for a gospel Jesus (of whatever varient). That does not mean that the alternative is Jesus from outer-space. The alternative is a historical search; a search to trace what it was in history that motivated, inspired, writers to write that gospel story.

In other words, it's necessary to dig deep in history rather than jumping skywards.. where the danger of falling flat on one's face is ever present.

[rgprice]

He doesn't do himself favors by saying "outer space", but clearly this is the same thing as "heaven". I don't agree that Paul thought Jesus was crucified in heaven or that the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus in heaven is an important part of "mythicism".

Surely anyone with much background in this field knows, however, that a common view held at the time was the concept of multiple levels of creation, starting in the highest heaven and descending through levels until you got to earth and then perhaps beyond in the the underworld. Clearly there are many Jewish and Christian writing that talk about ascension and descension through these levels of heaven and different activities taking place in these various levels of heaven. And the Letter of the Hebrews does certainly talk about how various things on earth are crude copies of their heavenly counterparts, including alters and sacrifices. And the idea that earthly actions were but insufficient attempts at copying the pure actions that took place in the heavens, where pure sacrifices could take place and pure knowledge could be gained, etc.

So yes, much of that makes some sense. But, I agree that Ascension of Isaiah likely records concepts that precede the Gospels and perhaps even the Pauline writings and in Ascension of Isaiah the Beloved is clearly sacrificed on earth, that's a big part of the point. So I agree that Ascension of Isaiah is a strong point in favor of earthly crucifixion. It's still an entirely made up imaginary event, but its an event that was imagined on earth.

Carrier also doesn't do himself any favors by clinging to the orthodox introduction of Romans and trying to say that Jesus was conceived of the seed of David via a heavenly sperm bank...

[Giuseppe]

I have great difficulty in understanding how the outer-space theory ever got off the ground.....

the idea of the descent (in lower heavens) is in nuce in the same gospels. The idea has been transformed by having now Jesus "going around" by benefiting the people. Originally Jesus "descended through" the heavens.

Try to think in this way: if the original myth was not a descent in lower heavens, then the Gospel story would have shown no Jesus walking around the Galilee and the Judea. We would have had an entirely different story.