Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Note also that dr Carrier, differently from prof Price, adds in the correct analogy the death of some pagan deities in outer space, in primis Osiris and Attis. Plutarch is very explicit in localizing where Typhon attacked Osiris to kill him. And Mithras, despite of being him also "born by woman" and "king", killed the Bull at the origin of the world.

Regarding Paul's silence and a human messiah, why isn't it possible to argue that he was trying to draw attention away from that messiah and his earthly life (teachings/person) etc, while keeping and emphasising the manner of his death?

So it may not be that Paul doesn't believe in an earthly Christ but that the Christ had only to fulfill a sacrificial role. His silence on his teachings/person is not due to lack of knowledge but connections to a previous gospel based around his teachings/person that he is wishing to replace with his new gospel. Paul admits it when he says 'we used to think of Christ in an earthly manner but we do so no longer'. The fact that Christ is experienced mystically makes this possible but doesn't mean there wasn't an earthly person originally (ie a mystical incarnation which Paul also has to have). Out of such things a lot of myths can grow of course. I don't think Paul could accept a purely cosmic crucifixion, but an ethereal earthly one, yes

For example, in the Gospel of John there may be hints of the previous gospel when Jesus is said to bear 'the words of life', ie eternal life. His Word saves in this instance not through belief in the sacrifice of the cross. So Paul's silence is intentional as part of his gospel, and the 4 gospels represent information on the historical person behind Paul's crucified messiah but edited to align somewhat with Paul's gospel maybe to make acceptable for his churches. But Paul himself may well have been opposed to the earthly Jesus, hence his silence about him

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:40 am Regarding Paul's silence and a human messiah, why isn't it possible to argue that he was trying to draw attention away from that messiah and his earthly life (teachings/person) etc, while keeping and emphasising the manner of his death?

it is not only Paul the anomaly. But Hebrews, the Odes of Solomon, the Didache, Revelation. Same silence.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:59 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:25 amTo someone like me, dealing very seriously with mythicism as a possible theory from the "earthly crucifixion" side of the issue, the whole scenario is not only wrong, but recklessly and relentlessly wrong: wrong to the point of absurdity. This gap makes debate unfruitful and irritating. This was the case when I debated Earl Doherty himself back on the FRDB; it was the case when I read the "outer space" portions of Richard Carrier's book (even though other portions were really good); and it remains the case every time I read a post on this forum, or on some mythicist blog. There just seems to be no overlap of argumentation on this issue.

this say much about your own reluctance to accept the pure and simple fact that some Christians from the early II° CE, even if also historicists, localized the death of another Christ in heaven. And Hebrews 13:12 contrasts perfectly this earth from the place where Christ suffered really.

I have read most of your posts about such instances, and I disagree with virtually all of them. Not in a casual way, mind you, but rather in the way that an astronomer or a physicist might dismiss a young-earth creationist's proposal that new celestial phenomena sometimes appear in the night sky from more than 10,000 light-years away because God created the light already in transit, with those phenomena encoded in the light stream.

Doubtless from your point of view you are the Galileo and I am the stubborn Roman Catholic inquisitor. Hence my characterization of the divide as an unbridgeable gap.

Evidently you are reluctant to admit humbly that Earl Doherty is right. It is expected by who has done a lot of study of the texts without realizing the obvious thing.

You are free to ascribe whatever motives you wish to me. I know myself, and I know what I represent. There are points on which Doherty is spectacularly correct, and I am not slow to say so when they arise. And yet, on the point for which he was destined to become most famous, he is spectacularly incorrect.

Your guessing at my lack of humility is a natural consequence of the unbridgeable gap: when people who otherwise seem rational demonstrate that they adhere to wildly irrational ideas, it can induce those on the other side to try to find motives for such irrationality. To you I am the one who seems irrational on this point, so naturally you seek reasons for it to be so.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:04 pm Doubtless from your point of view you are the Galileo and I am the stubborn Roman Catholic inquisitor. Hence my characterization of the divide as an unbridgeable gap.
..
Your guessing at my lack of humility is a natural consequence of the unbridgeable gap

sincerely, I think and believe precisely that about you. But even so, I find highly instructive to discuss with you about other questions and texts.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:12 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:04 pm Doubtless from your point of view you are the Galileo and I am the stubborn Roman Catholic inquisitor. Hence my characterization of the divide as an unbridgeable gap.
..
Your guessing at my lack of humility is a natural consequence of the unbridgeable gap

sincerely, I think and believe precisely that about you. But even so, I find highly instructive to discuss with you about other questions and texts.

Why do you think that so many Jesus mythicists or Jesus agnostics out there fail to find the heavenly crucifixion theory viable? What is holding them back? (This is not a rhetorical question; it is sincere.)

But how on earth is this logical? For most of the gospel Jesus's is walking on the earth going place to place and then suddenly we have an ending in outer space? Why? Who bought into this nonsense? And for what purpose? It reminds me of the radical ending to the Prisoner TV show which is entirely out of keeping with the original Secret Agent Man and the other dozen episodes of the Prisoner:

it is not only Paul the anomaly. But Hebrews, the Odes of Solomon, the Didache, Revelation. Same silence.

Hebrews/Revelation - to be expected
Didache - this is a mystery text to me, no explanation here

Odes - "Because I continually did good to every man I was hated."
Sounds like a person
"And they condemned me when I stood up"
"I have seen His holy day" (of the messiah)
"those who were after me sought in vain to destroy the memorial of Him who was before them" - ie humans who came after the human messiah
"there was no danger for me because I constantly walked with Him"

Christ is still essentially a spiritual concept though I admit that..possible separate from a person and still 'work' i just think there was a guy who embodied this. Isn't putting everything cosmic kind of no different than putting it in an imagined historical context?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:22 pm Why do you think that so many Jesus mythicists or Jesus agnostics out there fail to find the heavenly crucifixion theory viable? What is holding them back? (This is not a rhetorical question; it is sincere.)

when Couchoud advanced firstly the idea of a celestial crucifixion, he founded particular resistance by :

• Mythicists who believed that the crucifixion was an earthly rite practiced any year from the remote past.

• Mythicists who believed that the Jesus of Paul was earthly but was some shadowy figure lived under Janneus and someway remembered in the Talmud.

The first case is an example of people having already their "reason" to be mythicist hence being reluctant a priori to abandon that reason.

The second case, that I can extend easily on the modern likes of G.A.Wells (afterall, he was open to the possibility of the Ellegard's Teacher of Justice as the real Jesus of Paul), is an example of people who are closed a priori about the possibility of a celestial death because the only idea seems to be too much "Gnostic" for them and as such "not really Jewish" hence not really useful to explain the belief of the Origins. Hence they create a false dicothomy: who denies an earthly crucifixion can be only a gentile (Christian or not), not a Jew (Christian or not). Because the Jews - as the prejudice goes - have a Messiah who is davidic or ephraimite therefore he has an earthly lineage therefore he has to be earthly. Even when he is compared to Melkizedek, "without father or mother", he has to be earthly "as Melkizedek was also". Something as: a genuine 1° CE Jew can't despise the earth to a such measure that he places the death of the his messiah not on this earth. The implicit assumption is that only the gentiles could place fatidic events "in the air". The Jews have to place their idols on the earth. The Jews have to be "materialistic" in any their conception. If they see a ghost, the ghost has to be material, too. Materialism is synonymous of Jewishness, it would seem (I am talking about the prejudice in action behind anti-Doherty mythicists here).

there is also some gnostic texts that seem to say Jesus existed on earth
i mean this doesn't explicitly say it but it seems that way to me

Then the Son who is perfect in every respect -- that is, the Word who originated through that Voice; who proceeded from the height; who has within him the Name; who is a Light -- he revealed the everlasting things, and all the unknowns were known. And those things difficult to interpet and secret, he revealed. And as for those who dwell in Silence with the First Thought, he preached to them. And he revealed himself to those who dwell in darkness, and he showed himself to those who dwell in the abyss, and to those who dwell in the hidden treasuries, he told ineffable mysteries, and he taught unrepeatable doctrines to all those who became Sons of the Light

then there is another one from nag hammadi

they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh

there were sects that said about a cosmic cross i think we dont have their writings, but i just post this to show the gnostics dont seem to be averse to a human saviour as well depending on the sect what a diverse bunch!