Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

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

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:28 pm Still no demons and no archangels.
Celsius confutes you beyond any doubt:

Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. "

So Jesus was an Angel for both catholics and heretics in 2 century. The probability that Jesus was an Angel for Paul too can only increase.
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: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Here you can see how prof Hurtado is a real apologist, when he denies that Jesus is an Angel in Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Bernard Muller wrote:
But in Ro 13:3, these archontes can be identified as Roman authorities. I rather search in the Pauline epistles for the meaning of a word than in apocryphal literature. There is no evidence that Paul dug up in that kind of texts.
In Galatians, Jesus is also born of woman as a Jew, and a descendant of Abraham. And that's not implied.
I don't know where you're getting this from. Galatians does not say, hint, or imply that Jesus was born of a woman. Instead there a couple of implications that it is Paul who is reborn into the New Covenant.

Observe:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

emphasis added

Verse fifteen in the Greek reads thus:

Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ [θεὸς ὁ] ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ

It is Paul who is seemingly born to receive the Gospel of Christ solely. Indeed, no where in the authentic (read, Marcionite) rescission is Christ ever said to be born at all. The focus is always on Paul and how it is he especially chosen to be the Apostle.

Follow this up with Galatians 4:21-31:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Now going along with the Marcionite understanding, it was Christ who was sacrificed to free men from the Law. So who is it who is first to be born free?

Paul.

Now read John 3:1-8 with that in mind:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

As has been noted by Ehrman and others, John contains a play on words for again and above, thus allowing the verse to read "unless one is born from above". And where does Paul receive his revelation? According to 2Cor and ApocPaul...

... in Heaven.

So Paul is (re)born in Heaven under the New Covenant, and free from the old.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:38 am
I think that you should use a better meaning for "earth" in your same words: demons can't leave the sublunar realm (not only the mere earth).
They will be destroyed there. Ephesians 6:12 makes my same point:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms
Frankly, to interpret Paul I would base myself more on the words of who wanted to talk under his false name (like Ephesians or Colossians but not the Pastorals), more than on the DSS.
As I said it is complicated.
There is a difference between demons and angels as I already addressed.
Paul is aware of this.
The Book of Enoch was a source known and used by Paul.
I think we should now consider what Enoch is saying about the fate of angels.

*********************************
Book of Enoch, XXI
....2. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. 3. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. 4. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' 5. Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? 6. These are of the number of the stars ⌈of heaven⌉, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' 7. And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. 8. Then I said: 'How fearful is the place and how terrible to look upon!' 9. Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why hast thou such fear and affright?' And I answered: 'Because of this fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the pain.' 10. And he said ⌈⌈unto me⌉⌉: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they will be imprisoned for ever.'

**********************************

This abyss is a place that holds heavenly angels in middle earth.
Once you re-read what Paul is saying with this new set of eyes, things come into better focus.

Sincerely,

John T
Last edited by John T on Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

To John T.:

I Think that to interpret "I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible" as a place on the earth (and not as the more low place of the lowest heavens between the earth and the moon) is not correct. Enoch placed the hell in the Lower Heavens, just as Plutarch.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Joseph D. L.,
I don't know where you're getting this from. Galatians does not say, hint, or imply that Jesus was born of a woman.
Really! what do you make of Gal 4:4?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:35 am To John T.:

I Think that to interpret "I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible" as a place on the earth (and not as the more low place of the lowest heavens between the earth and the moon) is not correct. Enoch placed the hell in the Lower Heavens, just as Plutarch.
Yes, it sounds a bit phantasmagoric but consistent with a pool of molten lava in middle earth. You can't see the sky but there is no firm ground either. Still, Enoch makes it clear that the entrance to this abyss is located in a valley on earth.

**************************

Enoch XXVII

1. Then said I: 'For what object is this blessed land, which is entirely filled with trees, and this accursed valley ⌈⌈between⌉⌉?' 2. ⌈⌈Then Uriel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered and said: 'This⌉⌉ accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever: Here shall all ⌈the accursed⌉ be gathered together who utter with their lips against the Lord unseemly words and of His glory speak hard things.

****************************

My point is; Carrier apparently is not aware that there are different levels of earth as well as heaven. More over, once people factor in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the difference in theology of Paul and Gnosticism/mythicistism makes much more sense.

Carrier is being too clever by half.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Frankly, the "valley filled with trees" seems to be in the region of air, according to Book of Enoch. The fact that the upper heaven can't be seen by there is not evidence that it is on earth. The hell by definition is a closed/claustrophobic realm.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:34 am to Joseph D. L.,
I don't know where you're getting this from. Galatians does not say, hint, or imply that Jesus was born of a woman.
Really! what do you make of Gal 4:4?

Cordially, Bernard
A later interpolation. So I don't regard it.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Immemorial earthly Jesus versus recent celestial Jesus

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Also, one thing to point out, Bernard...

Justin did hold Christ to be an Angel.

He was the Angel that appeared in the Burning Bush, as well as the pillar of smoke. At numerous points in his Dialogue, Justin equates Jesus to other angelic figures, like those who appeared to Abraham and Jacob. He even calls the Angel who appeared to Jacob Christ. So wherein Justin is concerned Jesus was an Angel.
Post Reply