Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"This certainly seems to say Jesus died in outer space.47 Because here we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple (as in Heb. 9, as we'll see in a moment), but that he had to do so.

Already a problem: where is the "celestial temple"?
According to: "The sum of what we've said is this: we have such a High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of His Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord set up."
The "celestial" temple is not in the air, where death could occur (even if Kapyong did not provide any examples for that belief) but in the highest heaven, next to God, where death cannot occur, therefore also Jesus' sacrifice.

We're also told that Jesus wasn't ever on earth—instead, he could only have been God's celestial high priest (so as to perform the ultimate sacrifice) if he wasn't on earth. Because "if he were on earth, he would not be a priest', since earth already has its priests—but Jesus needs to be a priest, in order to mediate the new covenant (Heb. 8.6)

Carrier is deliberately combining the lower heaven (the air below the moon) and the upper one, above the firmament, the domain of spirits and immortality. Both heavens have become the celestial realm. Kapyong, you may have to redraw your maps.
Yes, Jesus had to be a priest, but there were priests on earth, so he had to go to heaven after his sacrifice in order to mediate the new covenant as the heavenly high priest. I do not see why the sacrifice cannot be on earth according to the quote. Certainly the sacrifice in the highest heaven does not make any sense. And by demons, on a cross, in the "celestial" sanctuary, next to God? how scary!

We're also told here the same thing Isaiah was told in the Ascension: that everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens (hence Ele­ment 38).

Ascension of Isaiah again (very dependable!!!), the gospel of Carrier. Once again, the duplicate would be in the highest heaven (as in Revelation), not in the air below the moon.

The implication is that Jesus' blood must have been spilled on the heavenly duplicate of God's altar—not on earth, where there already are priests making blood sacrifices, which are less effective than celestial ones. Yet Jesus, being perfect, was the most powerful sacrifice of all (Heb. 7.27-28)

Again, "celestial" includes God's highest heaven. How convenient! Gosh, a blood sacrifice in heaven right by God's side!
Or maybe the blood here is symbolic, not real, typifying Jesus' past sacrifice (on earth).

in the Ascension of Isaiah (Chapter 3, §1). We saw that in the earliest discernible redaction of the latter, the Jesus who passes through the heavens dies in outer space, in the sublunar heaven, not on earth.

No, 'Ascension of Isaiah' does not say that.

'Jesus the Son of God is the great high priest who has passed through the heavens'

In order to pass through the heavens, with the ultimate destination being the highest heaven, next to God, what would be the starting point? Earth.

You might notice that that sounds exactly like the celestial high priest named Jesus in early Jewish theology (Element 40)

I sure would like to know about element 40. I was told by Amazon I would have to wait one month before I get THE book.

Cordially, Bernard

Kapyong wrote:
So the Air is filled with demons and spirits, it is a region of corruption and decay, and actions happen there to do with death and rebirth - sounds just like the Carrier/Doherty thesis to me.

Kapyong

G'day K,

I think that it may be important to discuss a number of things about the stuff you have collated.

Great job by the way with the quotes from ancient sources.

For example the word above is "daemon" and you may recall an extended thread discussing this word in the old forum:
Subversion of the Greek "daimon" [δαίμων] in the Gospels

For the Stoics and Platonists this term was used often to denote some sort of "individual guardian spirit" which is neither good nor bad.

The Christian revolution saw a change in the use of the term "demon" to denote a bad spirit and the "Holy Spirit" of Jesus became everyone's "guardian" LOL

Also, I'd like to see you include the 7 heavens in you diagrammatic review of the material because I think its important.

The texts actually deal with 7 heavens, and sometimes nine.

The firmament was the sphere beyond Saturn of the fixed stars.

This subject directly interfaces ancient astronomy - the geocentric heavens of the planets and their respective gods.



God was thought (by some) to dwell beyond an upper sphere beyond the firmament (universe or cosmos or kosmos) - as you have indicated.


Do you mind me splitting off a copy of this stuff under another thread ..... "Ancient Cosmological Model" for discussion of this stuff?

Thanks K


LC

toejam wrote:

theomise wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:What does Carrier have to say about the source labelled "Eusebius"?

Not a whole lot from what I've read so far (about 1/2 way through now).

I'd be interested in any mentions as you find them.

Thanks

Bernard Muller wrote: Carrier is deliberately combining the lower heaven (the air below the moon) and the upper one, above the firmament, the domain of spirits and immortality. Both heavens have become the celestial realm.

Are you saying "the firmament" was the next structure above the moon? What or whose cosmology are you using here? (We know the air between the moon and earth was said to be filled with spirits but you seem to be saying spirits were only found above the moon. Where does the firmament fit in with all of this? Can you explain your understanding of ancient cosmology/ies and the sources for your understandings?

neilgodfrey wrote:

The Crow wrote:Gospel fiction in other words.

No. Certainly not. "Gospel fiction" is a conclusion, not an assumption as you seem to presume is behind the argument.

I am addressing the fundamental method of approaching any ancient literature and various sources. It is only in biblical studies that theology and traditional assumptions underpinning a theological view of history that we find the set up of its own unique methods that are grounded the assumptions of this theological view of history.

We see a document containing a narrative. Do we just assume that the narrative should be rationalized as genuine history or based on history? On what grounds should we make such an assumption? How does it work in other areas of ancient history? I don't think very many have ever stopped to think through this question.

No not presuming anything. Literature can contain history and still have a fictional basis.

http://vridar.org/2013/09/28/why-the-go ... l-fiction/

Kapyong wrote:How about Paul sneaking out of Damascus during the reign of Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)

???
Does a reference to Batman meeting with the mayor and chief of police verify Batman's existence?

How can you or anyone else on this forum employ 'Paul' to verify the existence of 'Paul'?

I have no evidence that the author we call 'Paul' was actually Origen of Alexandria, writing at the outset of the third century, but, if one sought an expert on Judaism, fluent in Hebrew, ostensibly a believer in the divinity of Jesus, to create a fictional author, 'Paul', who happened to "meet" Jesus on the road to Damascus, after the latter's demise and resurrection, Origen strikes me as an appropriate candidate.

Who is the first ancient "patristic" author to quote from 'Paul'? Is that author's text credible? Is its provenance established? Is it a copy of a copy with lacunae, or even, absent save for a citation found in Dear Eusebius?

The observation that 'Paul' has so little to share in common with the gospels, again, has no bearing on which group of authors came first. One envisions the arguments and debate over the fundamental discoveries in transmission of electricity that led to widespread adoption of AC current (Tesla) rather than DC current (Edison). The key, in my opinion, to establishing that Gospel of Mark, at least, had been both written, and in the hands of, the authors we call 'Paul', is the description, in Codex Sinaiticus, of the last supper. In Greek, the Gospel of Mark omits the word "new" as descriptor of the covenant between Jesus and his disciples, while 'Paul', following Matthew, inserts "new", revising the initial text of Mark, improving it, clarifying it, just as had been necessary for Matthew to correct the errors in Mark's commentary on Jesus' journey to Lake Galilee from Tyre (through Sidon!)

Those who claim the converse, i.e. 'Paul' before the gospels, need to explain why Mark failed to reference this covenant as it had been previously defined, breaking with traditional Judaism, by 'Paul'. Does Carrier explain this discrepancy? Does Carrier assume that Paul preceded the gospels? If so, does he furnish an explanation for his assumption?

bcedaifu wrote:

Kapyong wrote:How about Paul sneaking out of Damascus during the reign of Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)

???
Does a reference to Batman meeting with the mayor and chief of police verify Batman's existence?

How can you or anyone else on this forum employ 'Paul' to verify the existence of 'Paul'?

Hoo boy, this spin was so predictable. Of course 2 Cor 11 contains evidence Paul wrote in the time of Aretas. You asked for evidence and you got evidence. Internal content is very often used as evidence for dating any documents.

What you mean to be disputing is the evaluation and testing of evidence.

neilgodfrey wrote:

bcedaifu wrote:

Kapyong wrote:How about Paul sneaking out of Damascus during the reign of Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)

???
Does a reference to Batman meeting with the mayor and chief of police verify Batman's existence?

How can you or anyone else on this forum employ 'Paul' to verify the existence of 'Paul'?

Hoo boy, this spin was so predictable. Of course 2 Cor 11 contains evidence Paul wrote in the time of Aretas. You asked for evidence and you got evidence. Internal content is very often used as evidence for dating any documents.

What you mean to be disputing is the evaluation and testing of evidence.

Neil - so much water under the bridge re Aretas and 'Paul' that one can't use this source to prove anything about 'Paul'. Actually, 'Paul' could well be the downfall of the Carrier-Doherty theory - far too many eggs have been placed in that Pauline basket.

maryhelena wrote: Neil - so much water under the bridge re Aretas and 'Paul' that one can't use this source to prove anything about 'Paul'. Actually, 'Paul' could well be the downfall of the Carrier-Doherty theory - far too many eggs have been placed in that Pauline basket.

You missed the point and thread of discussion. We have internal evidence. That was what was initially disputed. How we evaluate and test that evidence is a separate question.

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote: Neil - so much water under the bridge re Aretas and 'Paul' that one can't use this source to prove anything about 'Paul'. Actually, 'Paul' could well be the downfall of the Carrier-Doherty theory - far too many eggs have been placed in that Pauline basket.

You missed the point and thread of discussion. We have internal evidence. That was what was initially disputed. How we evaluate and test that evidence is a separate question.

No, Neil, I missed no point. The internal data re Paul and Aretas is ambiguous. It cannot be used as support for Paul.