"furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

"furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by Giuseppe »

... it is only the furthest outreach of
matter (or the sublunar world) which is
strongly negated
https://books.google.it/books?id=Ow0VAA ... oQ6AEICzAA



I'm quoting from this text not in virtue of an interest about the immediate context of these words, but as a mere example of the immediate association between the construct "furthest outreach of the matter" and the "sublunar realm" (in the intention of the author of the quote, surely a definition meant to refer uniquely to the region of the "air").
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by Giuseppe »

I found very conclusive the following words of Richard Carrier:

And when it comes to admitting what he himself believes, Plutarch says the exact opposite of what you take him as saying: "it is not right to believe that water or the sun or the earth or the sky is Osiris or Isis...but as the work of Isis and as the image and reflection and logos of Osiris..." (64 = M377a-b) and he immediately disparages those who interpret Isis and Osiris as mere natural phenomena as tiresome and wrong (65 = M377b-d), and says the correct view is that Osiris is not a past king or a force of nature, but an actual God in heaven, and instead of being a metaphor or having actually been killed on earth, he is routinely (54 = M373a) supernaturally killed "in the outermost areas" of the sublunar realm (78 = M382e-383a). Ultimately, Plutarch believes they are real gods (e.g. 26 = 361c, 27 = M361e). So you are wrong to see him offering only the two options you describe--he himself rejects both
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 230&page=4


Afterall, it's very logical:


1) the "matter" is the sublunar realm,

2) in the sublunar realm, the earth is in the middle, the "air" around its boundaries

3) therefore, the "outmost areas" are the region of "Air.



The Pauline author of Ephesians mentions where Jesus descended:

7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it[a] says:

“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
This reflects the view of the Ascension of Isaiah:

You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by archibald »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:44 am This reflects the view of the Ascension of Isaiah:

You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition
You're aware even Earl Doherty now apparently accepts that A of I Probably says Jesus came to earth.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by Giuseppe »

archibald wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:08 pm

You're aware even Earl Doherty now apparently accepts that A of I Probably says Jesus came to earth.
You are placing falsely on the mouth of Doherty words that he never said.

In the his answer to Bart Ehrman (a criticism that is clearly chronologically later than the Doherty's answer to GakuseiDon, at any rate an answer misinterpreted by you), Doherty seems clearly persuaded that the Ascension of Isaiah says Jesus came to the region between the earth and the moon and nec plus ultra.
Ehrman claims that Revelation shows that Jesus “was one who ‘lived’ and who ‘died’ (1:18).” It “portrayed Jesus as ‘the lamb who was slain’ for salvation (5:6).” This, of course, is based on the unjustified assumption that any reference to ‘living’ and ‘dying’ can and must only relate to a person on earth in history; gods living and dying in a mythical setting or in the spiritual world is an idea that is simply dismissible, despite all evidence to the contrary in pagan and Jewish sectarian writings of the time, such as Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris and the Ascension of Isaiah. (See JNGNM, chapter 12.)
https://vridar.org/2012/05/25/14-earl-d ... ism-pt-14/
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by archibald »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:48 am You are placing falsely on the mouth of Doherty words that he never said.
Rubbish.

The author of your favorite theory made a significant concession about the reading of one of the theory's important texts, which text Carrier had called 'a template for a celestial Jesus' (paraphrased). Accept it and move on, or don't. It's up to you. I'm not having (another) stupid discussion about it.

You can still say, as Doherty did (after accepting the point) that you then view the text as having been interpolated. There is arguably no good case for this other than that under a certain theory a certain bit would need to have been an interpolation, but you can still opt for that. And Doherty can also try to have his cake and eat it by saying that the extant text(s) is/are inconclusive, but only after he has said that it/they 'probably' refer to earth.

The bottom line is that like Carrier, you should arguably now, unless you disagree with Doherty and Carrier or want to have your cake and eat it regarding the extant version(s) of what is for them a key text, be citing a supposed non-extant version of it which might have said something different. Just citing A of I won't cut the mustard any longer.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by Giuseppe »

archibald wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:14 am
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:48 am You are placing falsely on the mouth of Doherty words that he never said.
Rubbish.

The author of your favorite theory made a significant concession about the reading of one of the theory's important texts, which text Carrier had called 'a template for a celestial Jesus' (paraphrased). Accept it and move on, or don't. It's up to you. I'm not having (another) stupid discussion about it.
The author of my favorite theory didn't make the concession you mean.
Unless you would call a 'concession' merely to say (the part in red):

One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that 'in your form' was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase 'they will think that he is flesh and a man'), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth. However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my 'World of Myth' chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?
In any case, the 'in your form' tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm

Doherty isn't conceding just nothing to a historicist reading of AoI. In the parts in red he points out the risk of making the following fallacious implication:

Jesus is described as one ''in human form'' -------> ''therefore'' he is probably on the earth.

This is simply wrong. Carrier and Doherty have explained again and again that the ''humanoid'' body of Jesus didn't make him a historical man, more than the humanoid body of the archangelic Logos of Philo didn't make the Logos real.

Please read here how Carrier explains the concept:

Can Paul’s Human Jesus Not Be a Celestial Jesus?

So GakuseiDon is particularly liar when he writes:

Doherty goes on to refer to other texts, though how that impacts on the implications of "probably a reference to earth" is not clear to me. The problem is that Doherty (and also Dr Carrier, who seems to be working from Doherty's analysis) missed that the Latin and Slavonic versions of AoI had "in your form" in it.
(my bold)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3769&start=10#p80395

I can accept that for a historicist apologist (like GakuseiDon and/or Archibald) it is 'extremely' difficult to deny the implication:

''to have a humanoid body ---> being on the earth''.

...What I can't accept (as something of basically dishonest) is that in the same quote (!) GakuseiDon writes:
The problem is that Doherty (and also Dr Carrier, who seems to be working from Doherty's analysis) missed that the Latin and Slavonic versions of AoI had "in your form" in it
If Doherty has just explained why for him a humanoid body (''in your form'') doesn't make Jesus a historical man, then he doesn't need a reading of the costruct ''in your form'' in the Latin and Slavonic versions of AoI to be persuaded by a historicist reading of AoI.


So there is no way to interpret these Doherty's words as a presumed historicist concession.


@archibald
You can still say, as Doherty did (after accepting the point) that you then view the text as having been interpolated.
Doherty has no need of considering the costruct ''in your form'' as an interpolation, since for him (and for Carrier) a humanoid body (the meaning of ''in your form'') doesn't make Jesus a real human being.


What you miss evidently is that for me (and for Carrier, and for Doherty), the Ascension of Isaiah is no a mythicist ''smoking gun'' considered alone as evidence.

Bt when I consider as evidence:

1) the fact that Osiris died in the 'outermost areas' of the sublunar realm (meaning: the region of the 'air')

2) the fact that Attis died in the 'outermost areas' of the sublunar realm (meaning: the region of the 'air')

3) the fact that the pauline author of Ephesians says that Jesus descended in the 'outermost areas' of the sublunar realm (meaning: the region of the 'air') and nec plus ultra,

4) the fact that in the Ascension of Isaiah there is written:
You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition
, therefore meaning, in virtue of the point 1, 2 and 3 above, that the ''world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol'' is placed in the region of ''air''

...then there are no more doubts that Paul believed that the death of Jesus happened in the 'outermost areas' of the sublunar realm. Period.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "ai

Post by archibald »

All wrong, starting at the opening line. And at best very confused, or irrelevant, thereafter.

Gosh, if you can't even read Doherty right, how on earth can you hope to read an ancient document?

It's a concession. It's not the death knell for the theory. But if you can't even see it's a concession, thats worrying.

Also, when you call people liars, I reckon it probably (to use a pertinent word) only signifies the strength of your emotional attachment to the issue. Sorry, not impressed.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by Giuseppe »

I insist:

For Doherty and Carrier :

1) Jesus is "in human form" in the Asc. of Isaiah

DOESN'T IMPLY THAT

2) Jesus is historical.

Just as:

1) Philo calls the Logos "Man" (not even "in the form of man"!!!)

DOESN'T IMPLY THAT

2) the Logos is historical.

Simple Logic.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: "furthest outreach of the matter" == "air"

Post by archibald »

I think maybe you're in the wrong thread. This one, which you started, was about earth vs air, not 'in human form'. :scratch:
Post Reply