Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

[rgprice]

@Michael BG As I've said in this thread many times. Simply citing Paul is meaningless. The opening of canonical Romans is clearly a late orthodox interpolation. These passages are not present in the Marcionite version of Romans.

As for the descent of Jesus from heaven, see my thread here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11172

Clearly the opening of Mark and the Transfiguration scene are related. Look at how this relates to Ascension of Isaiah. As I discuss in the thread I linked above, the beginning of Mark and the ending of Mark are parallels. The ending of Mark has: "“Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen;"

This is evidence that in the original version of the Gospel of Mark (not the current canonical version), Jesus was not introduced as "Jesus of Nazareth from Galilee", but Jesus the Nazarene and that is was not the Spirit that descended onto Jesus but that it was Jesus who descended. In the opening Jesus descends and at the end he rises.

In Mark 9, Jesus shows the disciples his "true form", i.e. he removes his disguise or lets them see him without his disguise, in the form that he descended from heaven.

That Jesus is transfigured in the second instance indicates that Jesus was transfigured in the first instance. Why is Jesus transfigured? Ascension of Isaiah explains it. Jesus is transfigured as he descends through the heavens and comes to earth as a disguise so that the "lord of this world" a.k.a. Satan, will not recognize him. This is why the identity of Jesus is supposed to be a secret in Mark, because Jesus is in disguise to hide his heavenly origin.

So my contention is that the opening of canonical Mark has been modified from some earlier form of the narrative. In the original form of the narrative it was Jesus himself who descended. The current form of the narrative is indeed adoptionist, because it has been modified.

At least that's what I'm arguing here. Is it a slam dunk? No, but very little is this type of thing. I think more clearly, the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4 does indicate that it was actually John the Baptist who was driven into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, not Jesus, and the fact that it is supposed to be John the Baptist who is tempted by Satan, not Jesus, shows that the opening of Mark has been revised from some earlier form. The reviser who modified the opening didn't recognize that the Parable of the Sower referred to the opening and thus didn't do anything about the Parable of the Sower, leaving it in place as a clue to the original form of the opening.

[dbz]

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?

Paul understands that Jesus emerges from a human corpse which is cast off like a butterfly abandoning its chrysalis. The emergent Jesus then recruits apostles on Earth, like Paul, who bear witness that Jesus is the son of the father power god and the mother wisdom god dyad.

[RandyHelzerman]

Paul understands that Jesus emerges from a human corpse which is cast off like a butterfly abandoning its chrysalis. The emergent Jesus then recruits apostles on Earth, like Paul, who bear witness that Jesus is the son of the father power god and the mother wisdom god dyad.

i always found it pretty hard to nail down exactly what Paul thought about the afterlife; can y ou point me to the chapter/verse you are getting this from.

[dbz]

i always found it pretty hard to nail down exactly what Paul thought about the afterlife; can y ou point me to the chapter/verse you are getting this from.

Rather than chapter&verse, my speculation is that a circumstantial case may be made that Paul is engaging in a religious syncretism with “middle platonic” philosophy and mystery cults that also have savior god myths.

Walsh argues that Paul's native tongue/first language is Greek and that he uses “middle platonic” philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

Doherty discusses Middle Platonism as one of the intellectual matrices to the New Testament epistles.

---

--Godfrey, Neil (29 September 2010). "Middle Platonism -- a few basics". Vridar.

I have stated that I do not use a Platonic interpretation of the pagan mystery cult myths as the primary evidence, let alone the only evidence, for such an interpretation of Paul and his view of his Christ Jesus. The latter is not reliant on the former.

It is the presentation of the Christ cult itself in the epistles which leads to an interpretation that Paul’s faith centers around a heavenly Jesus acting in a supernatural setting. Naturally, the broader philosophy and cosmology of the time provides us with the background against which we can interpret early Christian thinking (just as mainstream scholarship uses it in many ways), and identifying similar ideas in the mystery cults and their own savior god myths provides us with some corroboration for such an interpretation of the epistles’ world and mindset.

---

--Doherty, Earl (30 July 2012). "Bart Ehrman vs. Earl Doherty. Part 29 of Earl Doherty's Response to Bart Ehrman's Case Against Mythicism". Vridar.

[Michael BG]

Carrier discussing 1 Cor 15:12-22.

Paul talking about Jesus being born “of a woman.” . . . I argue that this occurs in a speech … 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.

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, … (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.

This is Carrier saying the same thing as I have quoted him saying.

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 15:51 amended to show only links to one verse), in fact it’s a body God has already built for us and has waiting for us in heaven (2 Corinthians 5).

It would be very helpful if you state which paragraph your quotations are from. This one is from the second paragraph under “The Orphic Background”.

Verse 37 “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.”
Verse 40 “There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies”
Verse 42-44 “42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Paul is saying just like a seed grows into something different from a seed (for example a tree, or bush or a flower) an earthy body turns into a heavenly body and a natural body is raised as a spiritual body. Carrier is not using these verses to say Paul says God has built for us a heavenly body.

2 Cor 5:1 “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands” seems to be using tent as a metaphor for body. Therefore it can mean once our earthy body ends God gives us a heavenly body. It has to be an act of God or everyone would get a heavenly body. Resurrection is not automatic and it doesn’t happen when someone dies (see 1 Cor 15 references you give), it only happens at the end of time.

• Comment by Richard Carrier October 12, 2023, 5:37 pm

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.

I Cor 15:20-28 does not mention Satan or a lower sphere. It states that Christ at the end of time will destroy “all dominion, authority and power” and the last to be destroyed is death. Therefore he will end all earthly kingdoms with their sovereignty, authority and powers at the end of time, and when everyone has a heavenly body there will be an end to death.

Dbz why didn’t you post your response to my post on https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhuman ... mment-9768 on that website?

[dbz]

I Cor 15:20-28 does not mention Satan or a lower sphere.

[T]he fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. ... The first eleven verses contain the earliest account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the New Testament. The rest of the chapter stresses the primacy of the resurrection for Christianity.
[...]
[Resurrection of the dead (15:12–58)] In verses 12–19, Paul . . . adduces the fundamental importance of the resurrection as a Christian doctrine.

---

"1 Corinthians 15". Wikipedia.

Cf. "The Resurrection of the Dead" 16 for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen, 17 and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins; 18 then, also, those having fallen asleep in Christ did perish; 19 if in this life we have hope in Christ only, of all men we are most to be pitied. 20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead -- the first-fruits of those sleeping he became, 21 for since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead, 22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, 1 Corinthians 15:12-22 - Young's Literal Translation". Bible Gateway.

• As I understand, you are unsure of Carrier's viewpoint per what Paul's viewpoint was per 1 Corinthians 15:12-22 "The Resurrection of the Dead" viz. whether or not Paul is referring to a human Jesus.

Carrier's viewpoint is that Paul understood Jesus rising/emerging from a human corpse.

[dbz]

Dbz why didn’t you post your response to my post on https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhuman ... mment-9768 on that website?

Michael BG says November 9, 2023 at 9:37 pm

@db #23
I don’t understand why you didn’t post your reply quoting Richard Carrier here [@freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhumanist].

• Using <[...]> tags per HTML and other features while posting quotes are more convenient here.

[dbz]

...post your response to my post on https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhuman ... mment-9768...

Carrier writing about Rom 1:3 (‘descended from David according to the flesh’) and Gal 4:4 (‘born of a woman, born under the Law’) says, “. . . I deem to be four times more likely if historicity is true, than if mythicism is true” (last paragraph under the heading “Paul’s Celestial Jesus”).

---

--Comment by Michael BG—November 10, 2023 at 7:32 pm—per "'Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed' review: Chapter 9, Part 3". Geeky Humanist. 30 June 2023.

Cf. Gullotta never mentions to his readers that I actually count these passages as evidence for historicity! That’s right. I weigh them as increasing the odds of historicity fourfold. In other words, these passages about a potential mother and father I deem to be four times more likely if historicity is true, than if mythicism is true. Even after documenting all that uncertainty and ambiguity in them I just mentioned. That Gullotta thinks I argue for mythicism with these passages is therefore evidence he doesn’t understand what I even argued. And accordingly, he never responds to my actual argument. I say these passages are four times more likely on historicity than mythicism. Does he think it should be eight times? Twenty? Why? Let’s hear him make the case for why he thinks they should increase the probability of historicity even more than I already let them increase it. And how much more he thinks they should increase it. No such case is in this article. He doesn’t even know I used these passages as evidence for historicity! Much less grasp how my case for their ambiguity affects our probability judgment. --Carrier (16 December 2017). "On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review". Richard Carrier Blogs.

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?).

---

--Carrier (16 December 2017). “On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review”. Richard Carrier Blogs.

• Carrier's upper bounds derive from his a fortiori probabilities.

Argumentum a fortiori (literally "argument from the stronger [reason]")

---

"Argumentum a fortiori". Wikipedia.

[All] my a fortiori probabilities . . . I meticulous prove are facts, not conjectures (e.g. OHJ, Chs. 1, 4, 5, and 7).

---

--Carrier (18 October 2021). "How to Correctly Employ Bayesian Probabilities to Describe Historical Reasoning (Jesus Edition)". Richard Carrier Blogs.

• But what Carrier actually teaches is disputed.

Carrier's upper bounds derive from his a fortiori probabilities.

Regardless, the claimed upper bounds are not representative of his own view of the confidence with which he rejects minimal historicity (and therefore rejects all that implies it). Since subjective probability represents nothing more or less than somebody's own personal view of the confidence with which that person accepts or rejects uncertain propositions, it is the lower bound and only the lower bound which Carrier teaches.

[Michael BG]

And I think whoever wrote the first Gospel … 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?

As for the descent of Jesus from heaven, see my thread here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11172

You assert that Mk 1:9 it is odd because Mark describes Jesus by where he comes from. I would argue that this is Marcan editorial work which is lacking in Mk 1:24 where Mark is using a tradition where Jesus is called by his correct name Jesus (the) Nazarene. It would have been odder if Mark has just said Jesus without saying where Mark thinks he came from. This is what John does in his gospel “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him” (Jn 1:29). Later John has “We have found him … Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (Jn 1:45). The Greek word απο here translated as “of” is the same word used in Mk 1:9 between Jesus and Nazareth.

You seem to have not read Mk 1:5 “And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins”. When John baptises Jesus they are in the River Jordan not the wilderness. The wilderness implies desert and there are no rivers in the desert.

I would argue from Josephus that John was not arrested before Jesus started his teachings.

Then we are told that Jesus "came to Galilee". But we were just told that Jesus came from Galilee.

We are not told Jesus has come from Galilee in verse 9. We are told “came Jesus of Nazareth” which is in Galilee, not that he has just come from Galilee. If Mark has a tradition that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordon and other traditions that Jesus worked in Galilee then it makes perfect sense for Mark to tell his readers that Jesus after his baptism and testing went to Galilee. John has “The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip” (1:43). Three days later he is at Cana with his mother (2:1). I think these are odder than what Mark has, but being odd is not a criteria for concluding they are an interpolation into the gospel.

Fundamental Christians accuse New Testament scholars as rejecting parts of the New Testament as interpolation or unhistorical because they dislike them. This seems to be your methodology.

Indeed to quote you, you “are barking at shadows”.

(With reference to Marcion’s gospel being based on Luke I think there is no question as it contains lots of verses which are only in Luke and not in Mark or Matthew. For example it includes Jesus being sent by Pilate to Herod.)

Therefore your answer to my first question is that Mark does not describe Jesus as descending from heaven, but John does, therefore a lost version of Mark did.

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

You address the first adoption In Mark’s gospel by saying that if verse 1:9 is removed then Mark does not have John baptise Jesus in the Jordan. And so doesn’t have Jesus adopted at baptism because the baptism isn’t in Mark once you have removed it.

the beginning of Mark and the ending of Mark are parallels. The ending of Mark has: "“Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen;"

This is evidence that in the original version of the Gospel of Mark (not the current canonical version), Jesus was not introduced as "Jesus of Nazareth from Galilee", but Jesus the Nazarene and that is was not the Spirit that descended onto Jesus but that it was Jesus who descended. In the opening Jesus descends and at the end he rises.

The gospel of Mark ends at 16:8 with “And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” not at verse 6 – “And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; Jesus who you are seeking, the Nazarean, the crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him”.

Once you have removed Mk 1:9 what is left reads very oddly – “And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove upon him.” The two “he”’s you say refer to John, but then the “him” must also refer to John and not Jesus because he hasn’t been introduced yet. In your version the Spirit is descending on John. Jesus is not introduced until verse 14.

In Mark 9(:2-7), Jesus shows the disciples his "true form", i.e. he removes his disguise or lets them see him without his disguise, in the form that he descended from heaven.

That Jesus is transfigured in the second instance indicates that Jesus was transfigured in the first instance.”

What first instance? There is only one transfiguration in Mark’s gospel.

You assert that the second adoption is not an adoption, but do not address the words from heaven, “This is my beloved Son; hear him” (9:7c) which are a parallel to the words in 1:11 “You are my beloved Son; I approve of you”

the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4 does indicate that it was actually John the Baptist who was driven into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, not Jesus, and the fact that it is supposed to be John the Baptist who is tempted by Satan, not Jesus, shows that the opening of Mark has been revised from some earlier form. The reviser who modified the opening didn't recognize that the Parable of the Sower referred to the opening and thus didn't do anything about the Parable of the Sower, leaving it in place as a clue to the original form of the opening.

Another assertion. This time without you even putting forward a case for it.

Is it a slam dunk? No

It is a very long way from a slam dunk. It seems to be a theory without any arguments for it.

You haven’t mentioned if you have a view on the Q source.

[Michael BG]

I Cor 15:20-28 does not mention Satan or a lower sphere.

[T]he fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. ... The first eleven verses contain the earliest account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the New Testament. The rest of the chapter stresses the primacy of the resurrection for Christianity.

This is not an argument against what I wrote.

Carrier writes, “Paul says the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of the general resurrection (in 1 Cor. 15:20), which excludes it having happened hundreds of years ago. He is treating it like an imminent sign the end of times has begun” https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-26212. I found this interesting.

[Resurrection of the dead (15:12–58)] In verses 12–19, Paul . . . adduces the fundamental importance of the resurrection as a Christian doctrine.

As I understand, you are unsure of Carrier's viewpoint per what Paul's viewpoint was per 1 Corinthians 15:12-22 "The Resurrection of the Dead" whether or not Paul is referring to a human Jesus.

Carrier's viewpoint is that Paul understood Jesus rising/emerging from a human corpse.

You have not provided a link to Resurrection of the dead. I agree with “In verses 12–19, Paul . . . adduces the fundamental importance of the resurrection as a Christian doctrine.”

I would expect all Christians would agree that a person can’t be resurrected until they are a dead human corpse. Also it seems likely that Carrier would write that Paul believed that a human Jesus was crucified on another plane (see previous posts by me of Carrier's view than Paul has a human Jesus).