Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
dbz
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by dbz »

  1. Michael BG says
    November 7, 2023 at 9:37 pm
    Dr Sarah,
    You set out where in Paul’s authentic letters Paul implies that Jesus lived on earth. You mention 1 Cor 15:12-22, and I wondered if Paul’s discussion of physical and spiritual bodies later in chapter 15 would support the idea that Jesus had to have a physical body before his resurrection and getting a spiritual one. However, I don’t think it does.
    I tried to find on the internet what Richard Carrier says about verses 12-22. I could find what he says about verses 3-8 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069. His conclusion seems strange for someone arguing Jesus never lived on earth. – “1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is almost certainly a pre-Pauline text composed within a few years of when Jesus was believed to have died.”
    I could find out what he said about verses 35-58 in an article by Andrew W Pitts https://www.academia.edu/5856050/_Pauls ... 2016_44_58 where Pitts sets out what Carrier says (from page 50 onwards).
    Richard Carrier mentions 1 Cor 15:12-22 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18223 but doesn’t address why these verses do not refer to a human Jesus.
    Please can someone provide a link to where Richard Carrier discusses that 1 Cor 15:12-22 do not refer to a human Jesus?
  2. db says
    November 9, 2023 at 10:05 am
    • Hypothetically:
    IF Paul understood that humans could live, breed, die, etc. on Mars as on Earth THEN any human reference made by Paul—sans planetary context or the current/previous/future planetary location of said human—may be a reference to a human who is on Mars or it may be a reference to a human who is on Earth. In this hypothetical scenario there is no way to determine the planet that the human is on per Paul.
    • Fact:
    Paul understood that humans could live, breed, die, etc. on the sub-lunar sphere called “Firmament” as on Earth. ALL Paul’s references to Jesus’s death location are indeterminate between the location being on the Earth or on the Firmament.
  • Everybody agrees that Paul attributed a human body to Jesus. The debate is how, where, and when did Paul and the early apostles understand the how, where, and when!
I and even Bart Ehrman argue (and others, whom we both cite), the first Christians [including Paul] were already sure Jesus was an incarnated archangel…so which one?
[…]
Philo’s angel is the same being the first Christians thought their Jesus was. Which is equally weird, and thus equally likely, on either historicity or mythicism.
[…]
Gullotta seems to think I argue that Paul definitely did not mean Jesus had human parents; when in fact on the a fortiori side of my error margin . . . I only argue we can’t tell (on the scant and ambiguous evidence we have). Maybe that’s what Paul meant. Maybe not. It’s unclear. That it’s unclear is itself weird (why should Paul speak so weirdly, evasively, and unclearly about the parentage of Jesus?).
[…]
[Per the fact that Paul calls Jesus a man] This entails Paul believed Jesus was (briefly) human—but we already agree on that. That’s already entailed by mythicism. The question is not whether Paul thought Jesus wore a human body. It’s whether he wore it on earth. And Paul never says he did. Plain and simple.
--Carrier (16 December 2017). “On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review”. Richard Carrier Blogs. [NOW BOLDED]:
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by RandyHelzerman »

dbz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:37 am [*]Everybody agrees that Paul attributed a human body to Jesus. The debate is how, where, and when did Paul and the early apostles understand the how, where, and when!
Everybody? I mean, Marcion was probably the guy who popularized Paul's letters, and he apparently thought Jesus had a spectral body. Yeah, looking at Pauls letters and the Evangelion, its a pretty weird doctrine to have because they by no means unambiguously support that position, but nevertheless the earliest Paulinists we have any kind of visibility for didn't read Paul that way.
dbz
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by dbz »

RandyHelzerman wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:30 am ...the earliest Paulinists we have any kind of visibility for didn't read Paul that way.
Thus are "pre-blood-poured-out" Christian mythicists?
rgprice
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by rgprice »

I'm not so sure about that. Carrier has gone all in on his heavenly sperm bank, and thinks that Romans 1-7 is authentic. I'm rather confident that the introduction to Romans is heavily interpolated by orthodox editors.

1 Cor 15:
45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

This remains in the orthodox letters.

I'm not confident in the reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel, primarily because my reading of the Gospel of Mark is actually more well aligned with Marcion's supposed teaching than Ev* is.

My view is that the beliefs of the early so-called heretics arose from reasonable and plain interpretations of the materials that they read. And thus, we should expect that there were Christian scriptures that said explicitly the things that early heretics believed, such as that Jesus was an incorporeal spirit who came to earth directly from heaven, that Paul was the one true apostle, and that the Father of Jesus was not the Jewish Creator God. That does not mean that those were necessarily the original beliefs, but surely there were letters attributed to Paul and Gospels that plainly stated these things.
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by davidmartin »

such as that Jesus was an incorporeal spirit who came to earth directly from heaven
why is a Jesus needed for that, isn't that the same thing as the holy spirit?
rgprice
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by rgprice »

I think Ascension of Isaiah tells something like the oldest version of the story: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... nsion.html

12. And he said unto me: "Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive, till the Beloved will descent in the form in which you will see Him descent [will descent, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ.

13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.

14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.

16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].

17. And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.


17. And so I saw my Lord go forth from the seventh heaven into the sixth heaven.

18. And the angel who conducted me [from this world was with me and] said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah, and see the transformation and descent of the Lord will appear."

19. And I saw, and when the angels saw Him, thereupon those in the sixth heaven praised and lauded Him; for He had not been transformed after the shape of the angels there, and they praised Him and I also praised with them.

20. And I saw when He descended into the fifth heaven, that in the fifth heaven He made Himself like unto the form of the angels there, and they did not praise Him (nor worship Him); for His form was like unto theirs.

21. And then He descended into the forth heaven, and made Himself like unto the form of the angels there.

22. And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form.

23. And again I saw when He descended into the third heaven, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the third heaven.

24. And those who kept the gate of the (third) heaven demanded the password, and the Lord gave (it) to them in order that He should not be recognized. And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form.

25. And again I saw when He descended into the second heaven, and again He gave the password there; those who kept the gate proceeded to demand and the Lord to give.

26. And I saw when He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the second heaven, and they saw Him and they did not praise Him; for His form was like unto their form.

27. And again I saw when He descended into the first heaven, and there also He gave the password to those who kept the gate, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels who were on the left of that throne, and they neither praised nor lauded Him; for His form was like unto their form.

28. But as for me no one asked me on account of the angel who conducted me.

29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs, and they did not praise Him there; but they were envying one another and fighting; for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles.

30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them.

31. And He gave no password; for one was plundering and doing violence to another.

And I think whoever wrote the first Gospel that we recognize knew of a story like this and it was the basis of their narrative, in which they described Jesus descending from heaven to take on a disguise, which is why the Gospel of Mark has Jesus trying to hide his identity. And the purpose of Jesus in the original story was to defeat Satan and save the captured souls of the righteous. But later versions of the story transformed the death of Jesus into a sacrifice and when that happened people started to think that Jesus had to be real flesh, not just an "angel in disguise" in order for the sacrifice to be valid, and thus began the movement to perceive Jesus as a "real human being".

Also confusion emerged over who the "god of this world" was. I think this language was present in the earliest Christian literature, BUT that it meant Satan. There are writings from Qumran that call Satan the "Lord of this world", so such a statement is in line with forms of Jewish thought. But it is also to misinterpret as meaning a different god.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Michael BG »

dbz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:37 am
Michael BG says
November 7, 2023 at 9:37 pm
Please can someone provide a link to where Richard Carrier discusses that 1 Cor 15:12-22 do not refer to a human Jesus?
db says
Everybody agrees that Paul attributed a human body to Jesus. The debate is how, where, and when did Paul and the early apostles understand the how, where, and when!
[Per the fact that Paul calls Jesus a man] This entails Paul believed Jesus was (briefly) human—but we already agree on that. That’s already entailed by mythicism. The question is not whether Paul thought Jesus wore a human body. It’s whether he wore it on earth. And Paul never says he did. Plain and simple.
--Carrier (16 December 2017). “On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review”. Richard Carrier Blogs.
Thank you for the link to Richard Carrier’s discussion of Daniel Gullotta Review of his book.
I couldn’t see Carrier discussing 1 Cor 15:12-22.

My longer reply can be found -

https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhuman ... mment-9767
dbz
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by dbz »

Michael BG wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:48 pm Carrier discussing 1 Cor 15:12-22.
[It] seems likely that Carrier has never discussed 1 Cor 15:12-22. Paul states that humans know that resurrection is possible because Jesus Christ was the first human to be resurrected. The logic of this is that he was resurrected from earth as Paul’s readers will be. Carrier writes, “Key to Paul’s entire argument is that Jesus had to be brought into the world of flesh, just as we are” (second paragraph under the heading “Paul’s Celestial Jesus”). This seems to be an argument against his position that Paul doesn’t believe Jesus Christ arrived on earth as I would argue that the world of flesh is the earth.
Comment by Michael BG—November 9, 2023 at 9:37 pm—per "'Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed' review: Chapter 9, Part 3". Geeky Humanist. 30 June 2023.
Cf.
Paul talking about Jesus being born “of a woman.” . . . I argue that this occurs in a speech that, following ancient canons of rhetoric, is building an argument to a conclusion, about how Jesus’s incarnation saves us, by taking us out of one realm (of flesh) and anchoring us in another (of heaven). Key to Paul’s entire argument is that Jesus had to be brought into the world of flesh, just as we are. It’s our commonality on that one fact that is the linchpin of Paul’s argument.
--Carrier (16 December 2017). "On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Paul put it plainly: “If Christ has not been raised” from the dead, then “your faith is futile: you are still in your sins; and those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost” (1 Corinthians 15:17-18).
[...]
Even the most liberal sects of Christianity, which downplay the literal details of the resurrection as likely mythical and merely symbolical (1 Corinthians 15:12-22), depend on at least the idea that Jesus got saved from death, enjoying an eternally healthy life in some other dimension, just like we will (if we follow him). Which was Paul’s point: Christianity is of no particular interest, if it does not offer any rescue from death; and if even Jesus wasn’t rescued from death, no one else is likely to be.
--Carrier (1 May 2021). "Pearce's New Take-Down of Resurrection Apologetics Is a Must-Have". Richard Carrier Blogs.
  • "The logic of this is that he was resurrected from earth as Paul’s readers will be"
Carrier argues Paul understands Jesus to descend, die, and rise on the sub-lunar sphere called “Firmament”—NOT Earth.


Comment by Richard Carrier June 30, 2018, 12:23 pm, "Paul says the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of the general resurrection (in 1 Cor. 15:20)..."
Paul hedges around it, but is nevertheless pretty clear in saying the body that dies is not the one that rises, that the new body will be made of new material (1 Corinthians 15:37-55), in fact it’s a body God has already built for us and has waiting for us in heaven (2 Corinthians 5).
--Carrier (23 February 2020). "Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?". Richard Carrier Blogs.
As far as Paul appears to know, the first time Peter and gang ever saw Jesus was after Jesus died, and they only knew he died from scripture (this is, after all, literally what 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 says; but see my survey of all the evidence in OHJ, Chapter 11.2, 11.4, and 11.8).
--Carrier (10 October 2023). "Things Fall Apart Only When You Check: The Main Reason the Historicity of Jesus Continues to Be Believed". Richard Carrier Blogs.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28: the Kingdom of God is the extent of God’s power across the entire cosmos, interrupted by warring powers (Satan et al.) wrestling for control over the lower sphere (inclusive of Earth), resulting in the evil of Death (through a complicated esoteric theological process Paul tries to articulate elsewhere, like Romans 7-8).

Jesus represents the breaking out of the Kingdom of God into this warred-over sphere, enabling his “spiritual” warriors to now cast out demons and be rescued from Satan’s “kingdom” via resurrection and so on.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Michael BG »

rgprice wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:56 pm I think Ascension of Isaiah tells something like the oldest version of the story: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... nsion.html


And I think whoever wrote the first Gospel that we recognize knew of a story like this and it was the basis of their narrative, in which they described Jesus descending from heaven to take on a disguise, which is why the Gospel of Mark has Jesus trying to hide his identity.
Where does Mark describe Jesus as descending from heaven?

Rom. 1:3-4
[3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh [4] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Has Jesus ‘adopted’ as Son of God by his resurrection.

Mk 9:2-4 and 7
[2] … Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, [3] and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. [4] And there appeared to them Eli'jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.

[7] And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is my beloved Son; listen to him."

Has Jesus 'adopted' at the Transfiguration.

Mk 1:9-11
[9] In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. [10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; [11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Has Jesus ‘adopted’ as Son of God at his baptism.

Mark has two adoption traditions in his gospel but nothing about him descending from heaven.

In Q there are Wisdom traditions which could have been developed into the idea that Jesus was the pre-existent Wisdom figure and could be the background to the hymn in Phil 2:5-11.
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by davidmartin »

with Jesus as non-corporeal he does blend in with both wisdom and the holy spirit or the 'power of God' or 'son of God'. all same thing?
where this leaves a human person is as a prophet or revealer of the above. he is not Jesus at first but later is said to be this power literally in the flesh
a hybrid of mythicist and historicist perhaps
the Jesus of John is very much presented as a prophet in the early layer and the later layer kind of makes it all literal
seems to me you can run with all this and still end up with a prophet guy
Post Reply