Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

the 180-degree turnaround that would have been necessary not long after, the fact that a non-earthly entity dying in an upper realm would not be a convincing selling point to persuade men that it could happen to them.

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:52 am And there are other factors, such as the absence of any believers in upper realm Jesus,

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:36 am I agree quasi totally with this critic:

So, Carrier concedes this [that there is no evidence of an archangel named Jesus], but insists on his point: even if Jesus was not based on an archangel named Jesus, he was still based originally on some form of archangel and the Christians just named him "Jesus". So Carrier's thesis is not entirely refuted. I have two problems with this. Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time. Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel. So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, but I sure don't. Given Gullotta's arguments, Carrier concludes "we just don't know if there was an archangel named Jesus!" But if we don't know, Carrier's argument can't be supported.

https://discourse.biologos.org/t/richar ... =korvexius
(my bold)

My reply to:

Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time.

It is false. We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus' being clearly the ''name above all names'' that is given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud).

My reply to:

Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel.

But for Ehrman (see my post above), an angel is precisely

When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.

We know that for some ebionites,

They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of
the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the
Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called
Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?,
reports:
"I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing,
the wrath of God will not cease from you."

(Epiphanius,  Panarion 30.16,4-5)

MY CONCLUSION:

So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, and I too.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:58 am Some Cathars were mythicists.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2500#p56099

This proves that it is possible to believe in an Outer Space Jesus AND EVEN TO DIE FOR HIM.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:18 am

the 180-degree turnaround that would have been necessary not long after, the fact that a non-earthly entity dying in an upper realm would not be a convincing selling point to persuade men that it could happen to them.

Not relevant points at all, for me.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:18 am

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:52 am And there are other factors, such as the absence of any believers in upper realm Jesus,

The great merit of Richard Carrier is to have confuted that point with great efficacy. Please read this old post about the clash Gullotta/Hurtado versus Carrier:

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:36 am I agree quasi totally with this critic:

So, Carrier concedes this [that there is no evidence of an archangel named Jesus], but insists on his point: even if Jesus was not based on an archangel named Jesus, he was still based originally on some form of archangel and the Christians just named him "Jesus". So Carrier's thesis is not entirely refuted. I have two problems with this. Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time. Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel. So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, but I sure don't. Given Gullotta's arguments, Carrier concludes "we just don't know if there was an archangel named Jesus!" But if we don't know, Carrier's argument can't be supported.

https://discourse.biologos.org/t/richar ... =korvexius
(my bold)

My reply to:

Again, going back to Gullotta's point, no one was naming archangels "Jesus" at this time.

It is false. We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus' being clearly the ''name above all names'' that is given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud).

My reply to:

Secondly, Paul in fact says Jesus is not an angel by making an unambiguous distinction:

Code: Select all

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hurtado brings up this same point when criticizing Ehrman's thesis (to which Ehrman did not address in his response). According to Paul, nothing, including any angel, can separate us from God and the Lord Jesus. So Jesus isn't an angel.

But for Ehrman (see my post above), an angel is precisely

When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.

We know that for some ebionites,

They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of
the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the
Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called
Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?,
reports:
"I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing,
the wrath of God will not cease from you."

(Epiphanius,  Panarion 30.16,4-5)

MY CONCLUSION:

So, in light of Gullotta's criticisms, Carrier might think his thesis can still survive that Jesus was based on some angel, and I too.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:50 am

Born a Jew, born of a woman, in the flesh, ate bread, killed, by Jews, died etc etc...

Adonis was a Frygian and was killed by a boar and X [=add ''earthly'' isolated details you like)

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:39 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:50 am

Born a Jew, born of a woman, in the flesh, ate bread, killed, by Jews, died etc etc...

Adonis was a Frygian and was killed by a boar and X [=add ''earthly'' isolated details you like)

That is a curious rejoinder. Adonis is thus identified as a mortal earth-dweller whose killer was another earth-dweller.

Ought we not conclude that the story is that Adonis died on earth?

Whether a story is true is a distinct question from where the story is set. The question currently before us is where Paul's story is set. There'll be plenty of time later on to discuss whether he's a reliable source.

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:42 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:58 am Some Cathars were mythicists.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2500#p56099

This proves that it is possible to believe in an Outer Space Jesus AND EVEN TO DIE FOR HIM.

Didn't they believe there was a Jesus killed on earth, in Jerusalem, by Pilate? That, presumably, would be a historical Jesus, to them.

Also, 12th C is rather late. I did ask for evidence of mythicists from around that time.

Indeed, the good Christ they say neither ate nor drank nor assumed the true flesh, nor was he ever in this world except spiritually in the body of Paul. But for this reason we say "in the earthly and visible Bethlehem": The heretics believe there to be another earth, new and invisible, and in this second earth some of them believe the good Christ was crucified.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:51 am

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:42 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:58 am Some Cathars were mythicists.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2500#p56099

This proves that it is possible to believe in an Outer Space Jesus AND EVEN TO DIE FOR HIM.

Didn't they believe there was a Jesus killed on earth, in Jerusalem, by Pilate? That, presumably, would be a historical Jesus, to them.

Also, 12th C is rather late. I did ask for evidence of mythicists from around that time.

I am not denying that the Cathar Mythicism is too late. But when who believed to this:

Indeed, the good Christ they say neither ate nor drank nor assumed the true flesh, nor was he ever in this world except spiritually in the body of Paul. But for this reason we say "in the earthly and visible Bethlehem": The heretics believe there to be another earth, new and invisible, and in this second earth some of them believe the good Christ was crucified.

...are even people who were persecuted to death by the Insiquisition in virtue of that belief, then it is possible in line of principle to be Christians and Mythicists.

3:1/4:31 In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,

Heracleon also said that when Jesus goes down to Capernaum (John 2.12), that means — for such is the meaning of the city’s name — that he is descending into the nether regions of the Cosmos. This meaning is retained in French, in which the word “capharnaüm” refers a place of chaos and debauchery, according to [French lexicographer] Littré; and the earliest reference to this city is in the New Testament. From there, Jesus returns to Jerusalem — in other words, from the physical realm to an intermediate region where the psychics live. There is nothing historical about this symbolic Jerusalem.

Fragment 11, on John 2:12 (In John 2:12, “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days.”) The words, "After this he went down to Capernaum," indicate the beginning of a new dispensation, for "he went down" is not said idly. Capernaum, means these farthest-out parts of the world, the material realm into which he descended. And since the place was alien to him, he is not reported either to have done anything or said anything in it.

But the fable, desirous to signify this, says, that the mother of the gods exhorted Attis to take care of himself, and neither depart any where else, nor be captivated with any other. but Attis, departing from the mother of the gods, descended even to the very extremity of matter.