Page 1 of 3

Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:31 am
by Giuseppe

One of the most controversial aspects of Christ Mythicism is that the crucifixion of Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial event, not an historical one. Jesus was executed on the “cross” of the ecliptic and the equinox, done in by fiendish Archons, Principalities and Powers (1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 2:14-15). The saving death was eventually historicized. Personally, I hold to this theory. It puzzles me that some ridicule this notion as an “outer space crucifixion” when the mytheme is well known from ancient Gnosticism, where it was believed that the Primal Man of Light was dismembered by the Archons in the heavenly realm (“outer space” if you want to call it that). Mythicists are not nuts who think this actually happened. You could jeer at that, but the real point is that these ancient nuts believed it— and a good number of other nutty things.

Price, Robert M. . The Journal of Higher Criticism: Volume 13 Number 2 (p.151). Kindle edition.

Differently from dr. Carrier, prof Price doesn't list Pagan deities as examples of deaths in outer space, but Gnostic deities.

Surely a first example of a gnostic deity crucified in outer space is the "superior Christ" of the Valentinians.

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images — Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm

Probably Paul localizes this death of Jesus in outer space at the origin of the world because he preaches only "Christ crucified" (Gal 3:1).

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?

There was no reasons for Paul ignoring other things about the life of (even a mythical) Christ, if the his death was recent in the past.

In addition, in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, Paul means the Wisdom as a living entity, not an impersonal knowledge:

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

If the Wisdom is meant here as a living entity, then she existed "before the time began", i.e. before the creation of the world. The implication is that the Wisdom knew already then about the death of Jesus in outer space.

The cross is the symbol of the creation of the world by the Logos, in Plato.

And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, If you look to this figure, and believe, you shall be saved thereby. Numbers 21:8 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe;

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

To this cosmic creation/crucifixion by/of the Logos the incipit of the fourth gospel refers:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

(John 1:3)

Hence also for Paul Jesus was the pre-existing entity who helped God to create the world. How? By the his crucifixion in outer space.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:36 am
by Giuseppe
It is only in Rome that the crucifixion, being the servile supplicium, had to be represented as the apt form of Death of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.

But that happened only in Rome, where probably the Earliest Gospel was written.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:46 am
by Irish1975
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:31 am
One of the most controversial aspects of Christ Mythicism is that the crucifixion of Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial event, not an historical one

Price, Robert M. . The Journal of Higher Criticism: Volume 13 Number 2 (p.151). Kindle edition.
1) "Outer space," Carrier's polemical witticism, is obviously and stupidly anachronistic. I can't understand why anyone would think this terminology is helpful, let alone accurate.

2) "Myth" means story. That is, the point of mythicism (one would think) is to understand the crucifixion as a story from the get go, not an "event," celestial or historical or otherwise. Historicists interpret the story of the crucifixion as an event, and that's the problem. Arguing that they are right about it being some kind of ("conceived, imagined") event, but wrong about what kind of event, is absurd. The evidence for a historical crucifixion is weak, but surely not as weak as this "evidence" that people originally imagined a "celestial crucifixion."

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:58 am
by Giuseppe
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:46 am
1) "Outer space," Carrier's polemical witticism, is obviously and stupidly anachronistic. I can't understand why anyone would think this terminology is helpful, let alone accurate.
It is propedeutic to a satirical campaign against the Christians, once the mythicism will become popular consensus. And believe me, it will become. :wtf:
2) "Myth" means story. That is, the point of mythicism (one would think) is to understand the crucifixion as a story from the get go, not an "event," celestial or historical or otherwise. Historicists interpret the story of the crucifixion as an event, and that's the problem. Arguing that they are right about it being some kind of ("conceived, imagined") event, but wrong about what kind of event, is absurd. The evidence for a historical crucifixion is weak, but surely not as weak as this "evidence" that people originally imagined a "celestial crucifixion."
Why? The Valentinians believed truly blindly about a superior Christ "stretched upon the cross" in outer space. The onus probandi is on you to prove that they didn't believe.
The Naasenes believed truly that the Primal Man was dismembered by the demiurge at the origin of the world. It is on you to prove the contrary.

Add the fact that the silence of Paul is strong even about a mythical Jesus presumed lived in the recent past.

What the ehumerizers did was basically to say that a new, recent earhtly Jesus repeated in recent past what the Primal Man did at the origin of world. The two beliefs coexisted together in some circles for a while.

The mythicists limit themselves only to say what belief, between the two ones, was older than the other.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:03 am
by Irish1975
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:58 am
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:46 am
1) "Outer space," Carrier's polemical witticism, is obviously and stupidly anachronistic. I can't understand why anyone would think this terminology is helpful, let alone accurate.
It is propedeutic to a satirical campaign against the Christians, once the mythicism will become popular consensus. And believe me, it will become. :wtf:
Well that's shitty satire IMO. I'll take Life of Brian any day over Carrier's lame ass polemics.
Why? The Valentinians believed truly blindly about a superior Christ "stretched upon the cross" in outer space. The onus probandi is on you to prove that they didn't believe.
The Naasenes believed truly that the Primal Man was dismembered by the demiurge at the origin of the world. It is on you to prove the contrary.
Why are these late 2nd century figures relevant to what people believed before the Gospels were composed, in the time of Paul? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought both the Valentinians and the Naassenes knew and used the Gospel of John.
Add the fact that the silence of Paul is strong even about a mythical Jesus presumed lived in the recent past.
Well I agree that Paul has no story of a historical Jesus. That point counts in favor of mythicism. But Philippians 2 depicts some kind of earthly manifestation, enslavement, crucifixion.

My larger point here is that mythicism doesn't require an account of how the belief in a crucified Christ got started. Not any more than we need to explain what Homer believed about Zeus and Hera in order to explain how, why, or under what circumstances the Iliad was composed.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:15 am
by Giuseppe
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:03 am Why are these late 2nd century figures relevant to what people believed before the Gospels were composed, in the time of Paul? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought both the Valentinians and the Naassenes knew and used the Gospel of John.
Sure that they were apparently historicists, having the gospel of John. But we have also evidence for their belief in a "superior Christ" crucified in outer space (Valentinians) and/or dismembered at the origin of the world (Naassenes).

Their belief is relevant insofar you asked about examples of ancient people localizing celestial crucifixions in outer space. If they believed still in celestial deaths in 2° CE, even more so (and not less) they believed it in 1° CE.

Well I agree that Paul has no story of a historical Jesus. That point counts in favor of mythicism. But Philippians 2 depicts some kind of earthly manifestation, enslavement, crucifixion.
"in the flesh" means "in the lower heavens, not on earth.
My larger point here is that mythicism doesn't require an account of how the belief in a crucified Christ got started. Not any more than we need to explain what Homer believed about Zeus and Hera in order to explain how, why, or under what circumstances the Iliad was composed.
you are free to think so, but I disagree. Not because the earthly mythicism (argued by you) implies eo ipso historicity, but because really a death in outer space is the more probable scenario to explain Paul and Hebrews.
I insist: the silence of Paul is strong about any earthly Jesus, beyond if mythical or historical. The silence is about earthly things.

This silence is explained perfectly only if the Jesus of Paul was crucified at the origin of the world: only so there was absolute zero need of talking about earthly things: the earth itself was still not created when Jesus was crucified.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:25 am
by Ben C. Smith
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:03 amI'll take Life of Brian any day over Carrier's lame ass polemics.
The whole "outer space" thing is so cringey.
My larger point here is that mythicism doesn't require an account of how the belief in a crucified Christ got started. Not any more than we need to explain what Homer believed about Zeus and Hera in order to explain how, why, or under what circumstances the Iliad was composed.
This is true in an abstract sense, but I do think it helps to have at least one good explanation for how the idea of a crucified Messiah could have arisen on a mythicist theory, so as to make the theory all the more competitive with historicist models. I do not think we find much early evidence of the Greeks evincing embarrassment about the weird antics of their divinities, but we do find early evidence of Jews and Christians evincing some kind of embarrassment over the idea of a crucified Messiah. So it is nice to be able to explain why that particular form of death (and why any death at all) was posited of the Messiah; the theory thereby becomes more robust. That said, I have recently satisfied myself that such a maneuver is quite feasible under a mythicist theory: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5536&start=40#p102225.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:15 amI insist: the silence of Paul is strong about any earthly Jesus, beyond if mythical or historical. The silence is about earthly things.

This silence is explained perfectly only if the Jesus of Paul was crucified at the origin of the world: only so there was absolute zero need of talking about earthly things: the earth itself was still not created when Jesus was crucified.
I have found that there is no bridging this gap. To those on the "heavenly crucifixion" side of the issue, the whole scenario evidently feels like the only possible explanation for our extant texts. To 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.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:34 am
by Secret Alias
The whole "outer space" thing is so cringey.
I agree. It just seems to be a self-fulfilling argument for the Jesus didn't exist crowd. No one would buy into this scenario if they weren't trying to prove he never existed and the gospel narrative was made up. Like here's the part that doesn't make sense to me at all. When the gospel says:
They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law.
Are we supposed to believe that they were all flying around in outer space with interstellar backpacks on? What about when he meets the Samaritan woman? Is she suspended above Mt Gerizim with another backpack? Why should anyone believe that Jesus was walking around on the ground and then suddenly at the end we cut away to outer space? It's one of the stupidest abuses of textual exegesis I've ever come across.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:59 am
by Giuseppe
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.
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. When Couchoud advanced the idea first, he raised a lot of reactions by the same mythicists of the his day. That is the fate of the genius.

Re: Robert Price describes shortly the reasons for a death in outer space

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:12 am
by Irish1975
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:25 am
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:03 am My larger point here is that mythicism doesn't require an account of how the belief in a crucified Christ got started. Not any more than we need to explain what Homer believed about Zeus and Hera in order to explain how, why, or under what circumstances the Iliad was composed.
This is true in an abstract sense, but I do think it helps to have at least one good explanation for how the idea of a crucified Messiah could have arisen on a mythicist theory, so as to make the theory all the more competitive with historicist models.
Very well. To revise the above, mythicism doesn't require an account of how belief in any particular crucifixion event (apart from the Roman war on Judea, of course), celestial, historical, or otherwise, gave rise to belief in a crucified Christ.