Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote:

Kapyong wrote:What can we learn from all that ?
* The theme of the earthly being a copy of the heavenly is found as early as the 1st century.
* This theme is repeated by various writers, especially the heavenly Jerusalem idea.
* At least one group apparently saw the earthly Christ as a copy of a Christ Above

The one very, very important thing to keep in mind when saying that "the earthly" is "a copy of the heavenly" is that (AFAIK) the location of the perfect things in "the heavenly" is in the upper heavens. That is not a controversial idea, so "Jerusalem on earth" is a copy of the "Jerusalem in heaven" is consistent with ancient thought.

But AFAIK the idea that things on earth were copies of things in the lower heavens is unprecedented. Carrier introduces a concept of "half-corrupt imitations" to explain this. He cites two sources: both anti-Christian apologetics books rather than scholarly books. That in itself may be okay, but both Bernard Muller and I have checked those two books (one each), and there doesn't appear to be anything in those cites that supports such an idea.

So, when giving examples of things on earth being copies of things in heaven, it would be really useful if you specify whether the things in heaven are above the firmament ("upper heavens" or "real heavens") or below (the zone of corruption.) Otherwise things get in a muddle.

BTW, this is what Carrier writes on the relationship between earth and the firmament on p. 194 (my bolding below):

• There are even versions of earthly things in the firmament, as we learn in the Ascension of Isaiah 7.10, which says, 'as it is above, so is it also on the earth, for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is also on the earth'. Although those things would not be the perfect models, which resided only in the perfect heavens above, but half-corrupt imitations, in between the models above and their earthly copies below.

I have no idea what he means by "half-corrupt imitations" in the firmament. I argue that the "likeness on earth" relates to envy and war, referred to in 7.9. Satan and demons are half-corrupt imitations? The envy and war in the firmament is a half-corrupt imitation of what is happening on earth? Sounds very strange indeed!

But, to emphasize: I agree that there was an ancient school of thought that the things on earth are (imperfect) copies of things in the (perfect) upper heavens. But I disagree that there was a school of thought that the (imperfect) things on earth were (imperfect?) copies of things in the lower heavens. That's the thing I would be interested in seeing examples of, and to me, that's the thing that is missing. So when giving examples, it would be useful if you could identify what level of the heavens are being referred to. I think you will quickly see the pattern.

GDon: "I agree that there was an ancient school of thought that the things on earth are (imperfect) copies of things in the (perfect) upper heavens."

That is all that is necessary to argue for a 'heavenly crucifixion' being a mirror, an echo, a reflection, a counterpart, to a human flesh and blood earthly crucifixion. Arguments as to just whereabouts in 'heaven' this crucifixion takes place are moot - just what is *heaven* anyway???? In what part of our mind does heaven reside.....

Methinks, GDon, that it's not just the Carrier-Doherty mythicists that are going to have to do a rethink and up their game......

"Invisible Platonic realm

This is also problematic. I thought the Platonic realm was the real one - we see as in a glass darkly!

I think various comments in this discussion is missing this and reversing this. The heavenly one is not the reflection - the earth one is! Part of the problem is we are now very used to high quality mirrors and lenses and after Hubble, opticians, colour digital photography and electron microscopes, see the "real" world very clearly!

Would someone tell me what the ancients thought the Platonic world was made of, and how widespread platonic attitudes were? Might they have been popularised by Christianity and in fact be core to the end of the "pagan" world, which as I understand it was very pragmatic, observational, working things out, not being too fussed by grand ideas?

Thus the heavenly Christ is the real one and the historic one the copy! The term "type" is also problematic. The platonic one is the real one, everything else - "reality" - is a copy!

Gday all,

GakuseiDon wrote:I have no idea what he means by "half-corrupt imitations" in the firmament.

Me neither. I can't agree with him.

GakuseiDon wrote:I argue that the "likeness on earth" relates to envy and war, referred to in 7.9.

It does rather seem that way. But there are plenty of other passages that discuss As Above So Below.

GakuseiDon wrote:Satan and demons are half-corrupt imitations? The envy and war in the firmament is a half-corrupt imitation of what is happening on earth? Sounds very strange indeed!

It is a weird idea. Another weak spot in his argument.

GakuseiDon wrote:But, to emphasize: I agree that there was an ancient school of thought that the things on earth are (imperfect) copies of things in the (perfect) upper heavens. But I disagree that there was a school of thought that the (imperfect) things on earth were (imperfect?) copies of things in the lower heavens. That's the thing I would be interested in seeing examples of, and to me, that's the thing that is missing. So when giving examples, it would be useful if you could identify what level of the heavens are being referred to. I think you will quickly see the pattern.

I think all my examples refer to the Upper Heavens. I don't see any that would support Carrier.


Kapyong

The use of the terms perfect and real are also problematic! The perfect platonic universe is the real one! This one is a projection, a shadow, a reflection - ie unreal, imperfect!

Kapyong wrote:I think all my examples refer to the Upper Heavens.

Thanks for the confirmation, Kapyong. If you ever come across any that reflect copies between earth and the lower heavens, I would be very interested in hearing those.

Question: "Does that mean that you've [John T] read it?"...Peter Kirby

Answer: Yes, I read the book: "Did Jesus Exists?" by Bart Ehrman. However, I did not buy the book nor did I memorize all the facts and evidence that Ehrman used to prove Jesus was real. However, I did quote Ehrman's evidence over many different threads.

So, just in case you missed them all, here is a cut and paste of my summary of his book with a final comment on what is "acceptable evidence".

**************************************

Summing things up.

After watching hours of Carrier debates/lectures as well as reading parts of his blog and then reading Ehrman's book, "Did Jesus Exist?" it is abundantly clear that mythicists are not interested in history but promoting their own religious agenda.

By using the standard model that historians use for determining historical probability, Ehrman proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was real based on a large number of independent sources and applying the following criteria:

1. Contextual Credibility
2. Multiple Attestation
3. Criterion of Dissimilarity

Perhaps, because these sound methods prove Jesus existed, Carrier is proposing that the criteria for historicity be changed? Why change the rules of the game? Because mythicists/atheists can't have a method that proves Jesus existed, that being in direct violation of their core religious beliefs. Which would explain why Carrier is so bent on modifying the Bayes' Theorem with a new formula that is far too subjective to be taken serious by mathematicians but nevertheless will get the desired results that the mythicists want.

Bayes' original theorem is to Carrier's crackpot theorem like astronomy is to astrology.

Ehrman writes: "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist."...pg 337

Ehrman points out over and over again that the mythicists are not thinking logically, [well duh!].

"Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology, They are not doing history; they are doing theology."...Ehrman, pg338.

They feel if they can turn Jesus into a myth then they will have killed God and free the world of superstitious nonsense that is responsible for so much evil and suffering (never mind the track record of the atheist/communist nations). However, as Ehrman points out, "Whether or not Jesus existed is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God exists."...pg337

So in summary, Ehrman did an excellent job presenting the evidence that Jesus did exist and as a real person was crucified. The claim that God rose Jesus from the dead is another matter altogether. Ehrman did an excellent job in proving the humanists/mythicists are not being intellectually honest when they claim they have sound evidence that Jesus never really existed in the first place but was simply a myth.

Are the mythicists dishonest or delusional in their goal to prove Jesus was a myth?
Likely both.

The real atheists would do well to avoid associating themselves with the likes of Carrier and the mythcists because they are as far on the left as the fundamentalists are on the right and the truth lies in between.

Sincerely,

John T


********************************************

Now, of course a mythicist can trot out the straw-man argument that Ehrman failed to give empirical (test tube) evidence that proves Jesus was real and I will simply remind you that historical evidence and scientific evidence are two different things.

Six steps historians use for determining historical facts.

1. It has great explanatory scope.
2. It has great explanatory power.
3. It is plausible.
4. It is not Ad Hoc.
5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs of the time.
6. It outstrips rival theories for 1-5.

I'm afraid that short of Jesus returning or someone inventing a time machine, some people, i.e. mythicists, will reject any evidence that Jesus was real.

Once again I ask, just what criteria would mythicists accept for proving Jesus was real?

Sincerely,
John T

Geez Louise!

I keep hearing that Plato supposedly espoused an idea that what is below is a copy of what is above. Someone is mixing his theory of ideal "forms," which the demiurge ("the workman") used as patterns when fashioning the things in the material world, with his concept of a world which is like sediment, which evidences stratification, and so the face of the earth (earth, air, fire and water) is the courser sediment, and as one ascends higher into the heavens, the more rarified the sediment gets. In the highest heaven, there are earth, air, fire and water of a more pure and closer to the ideal forms upon which they are based. Rocks are rockier. Colors are more vivid. Textures are more fine. Air is more rarified, etc. The things below are NOT COPIES OF THINGS ABOVE IN THE HIGHER HEAVENS, they are just less refined.

DCH

John T wrote: ... Yes, I read the book: "Did Jesus Exists?" by Bart Ehrman. However, I did not buy the book nor did I memorize all the facts and evidence that Ehrman used to prove Jesus was real. However, I did quote Ehrman's evidence over many different threads.

So, just in case you missed them all, here is a cut and paste of my summary of his book with a final comment on what is "acceptable evidence".

After watching hours of Carrier debates/lectures as well as reading parts of his blog and then reading Ehrman's book, "Did Jesus Exist?" it is abundantly clear that mythicists are not interested in history but promoting their own religious agenda.

"Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology, They are not doing history; they are doing theology."...Ehrman, pg338.

Religious agenda & religious ideology are both centered around gods and belief in them. Theology is the study of propositions of gods, narratives around them, and the effects of those propositions and narratives.

All Mythicists do is argue that Jesus was not a real human.

John T wrote:By using the standard model that historians use for determining historical probability, Ehrman proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was real based on a large number of independent sources and applying the following criteria:

1. Contextual Credibility
2. Multiple Attestation
3. Criterion of Dissimilarity

Perhaps, because these sound methods prove Jesus existed, Carrier is proposing that the criteria for historicity be changed? Why change the rules of the game? Because mythicists/atheists can't have a method that proves Jesus existed, that being in direct violation of their core religious beliefs.

Six steps historians use for determining historical facts.

• 1. It has great explanatory scope.
  2. It has great explanatory power.
  3. It is plausible.
  4. It is not Ad Hoc.
  5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs of the time.
  6. It outstrips rival theories for 1-5.

Best you familiarise yourself with the historical method and its reliance on primary sources.

Once again I ask, just what criteria would mythicists accept for proving Jesus was real?

Contemporaneous information that could be deduced or inferred to be evidence.

Ehrman did an excellent job in proving the humanists/mythicists are not being intellectually honest when they claim they have sound evidence that Jesus never really existed in the first place but was simply a myth.

This is a misrepresentation - mythicists do not claim to have sound evidence that Jesus never exists ...

Mythicists point out there is no primary-source evidence that Jesus did exist, beyond biblical narratives;
and that the biblical narratives suggest more a celestial spiritual 'Jesus' son of God with concurrent narratives asserting humanity.

DCHindley wrote:Geez Louise!

I keep hearing that Plato supposedly espoused an idea that what is below is a copy of what is above. Someone is mixing his theory of ideal "forms," which the demiurge ("the workman") used as patterns when fashioning the things in the material world, with his concept of a world which is like sediment, which evidences stratification, and so the face of the earth (earth, air, fire and water) is the courser sediment, and as one ascends higher into the heavens, the more rarified the sediment gets. In the highest heaven, there are earth, air, fire and water of a more pure and closer to the ideal forms upon which they are based. Rocks are rockier. Colors are more vivid. Textures are more fine. Air is more rarified, etc. The things below are NOT COPIES OF THINGS ABOVE IN THE HIGHER HEAVENS, they are just less refined.

DCH

Copies? Whoever thought a copy was equal to an original? Try that one out when applying for a passport.....the original always has the greater value...

Or how about trying to sell a copy of a designer dress for the same price as the original.....

The very term *copy" denotes something less than the original.

In dealing with the Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below in connection with sacrifices:

1) animal sacrifices were perceived to have some value.

2) human flesh and blood sacrifices have no value whatsoever.

3) spiritual sacrifices have supreme value, salvation value.

The concept of *value* denotes a hierarchy of value. Some things are just more precious, more valuable, than other things.

A world of equal 'value' is a world without value.....

The Second Temple High Priesthood liked animal sacrifices. They not only made money when the animal was bought, but kept the meat and the valuable hides.