Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Kapyong »

Gday toejam,
toejam wrote:For me, the view that makes the most sense out of Paul's letters is that he thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel of somesort who had himself incarnated here on Earth, "born of a woman under the law" etc., and it was this double-whammy of being angelic but 'one of us' that opened the door for human salvation. I just don't see how Carrier's proposed Pauline theology works if Paul thought Jesus was crucified somewhere else other than here - i.e. how that would affect humanity down here.
The key to understanding Carrier's view of Paul's theology is in their cosmology.

Ancients saw the universe as divided in two - beneath and above the Moon :
Image

Everything changeable or corruptible was below the Moon, including the earth.

Paul saw it very similarly, with the division being the firmament (which included the Moon) :
Image

With the perceptible world of change being beneath the firmament.

This leaves a region of Air or lower heavens which is beneath the Moon but still above the Earth. SOme authos saw this as PART of the firmament. Overall all I think Paul say his cosmology somewhat like so :
Image

Looked at slightly differently, Paul's mention of the Third Heaven suggest he saw it perhaps like so :
Image

In the lower heavens or Air are all the demons such as the 'Prince of Powers in the Air' (Satan) and all manner of other beings - demons, angels, spirits. As well as the 'Jerusalem above' and other images of earthly things - 'As Above So Below' as the Ascension of Isaiah has it.

Which is where Christ descended to be crucified - in the Lower Heavens or the Air Beneath the Moon :
Image

Because this Lower Heaven, the Air Beneath the Moon is part of the fleshly corruptible world and because it contains heavenly images of what is below on earth, a crucifixion there achieves salvation for us below.


Kapyong
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by toejam »

I understand what Carrier's hypothesis is. I just see it as a stretch. Paul never says Jesus was crucified in the 1st Heaven. In the multiple times he mentions Jesus' crucifixion, he never qualifies it with "... in the 1st Heaven". On the contrary, we get all this talk of him being a descendent of David, born of a woman under the law, the man from heaven etc. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. All of this makes better sense if Paul thought Jesus had been incarnated here on Earth, as one among us.

If the Earthly realm contains copies of what is above, what was the copy of the heavenly crucifixion? - dare I suggest the Earthly one!

That said, your diagram here is an excellent tool for helping people understand the Carrier/Doherty thesis.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Blood »

Kapyong wrote:Gday toejam,
toejam wrote:For me, the view that makes the most sense out of Paul's letters is that he thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel of somesort who had himself incarnated here on Earth, "born of a woman under the law" etc., and it was this double-whammy of being angelic but 'one of us' that opened the door for human salvation. I just don't see how Carrier's proposed Pauline theology works if Paul thought Jesus was crucified somewhere else other than here - i.e. how that would affect humanity down here.
The key to understanding Carrier's view of Paul's theology is in their cosmology.

Ancients saw the universe as divided in two - beneath and above the Moon :
Image

Everything changeable or corruptible was below the Moon, including the earth.

Paul saw it very similarly, with the division being the firmament (which included the Moon) :
Image

With the perceptible world of change being beneath the firmament.

This leaves a region of Air or lower heavens which is beneath the Moon but still above the Earth. SOme authos saw this as PART of the firmament. Overall all I think Paul say his cosmology somewhat like so :
Image

Looked at slightly differently, Paul's mention of the Third Heaven suggest he saw it perhaps like so :
Image

In the lower heavens or Air are all the demons such as the 'Prince of Powers in the Air' (Satan) and all manner of other beings - demons, angels, spirits. As well as the 'Jerusalem above' and other images of earthly things - 'As Above So Below' as the Ascension of Isaiah has it.

Which is where Christ descended to be crucified - in the Lower Heavens or the Air Beneath the Moon :
Image

Because this Lower Heaven, the Air Beneath the Moon is part of the fleshly corruptible world and because it contains heavenly images of what is below on earth, a crucifixion there achieves salvation for us below.


Kapyong
It's a common misconception that the Pauline writers thought all "flesh" was sinful. But when you read the letters sans apologist eisegesis, you find that isn't true at all. The Pauline writers mostly thought only Jewish flesh, specifically circumcision, was sinful. Physical circumcision was what caused you to sin. Becoming a Christian involved a baptism in water in which you took on the sinless flesh of Christos the sin offering. By not having a physical circumcision, you were given life in the Pneuma; unlike Jewish circumcision, which only brought sin and death with no hope of resurrection.

This is especially true in that prototypical piece of shrill Anti-Semetic hysteria, "Epistle to the Romans." The entire thing is basically a manual on how and why to hate the Jews. This is Christian apologetic nonsense of the highest degree, and it has nothing at all to do with a historic Jew from Tarsus (or anywhere else).

Of the 26 times that σάρκα is used in "Romans," the sense used breaks down to:

23 times Anti-Jewish diatribe
2 times referring to Kurios Christos
1 time to actual flesh

In Chapter 6 and 7, the writer specifically talks about his circumcised dick being a slave to sin. Simply because it is circumcised. No ambiguity here whatsoever.

Romans 1:3 N-AFS
GRK: Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα
NAS: [the Son, who was descended] from David according to the flesh
Jesus was circumcised

Romans 2:28 N-DFS
GRK: φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή
NAS: that which is outward in the flesh.
["For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical."]
Anti-Jewish; real circumcision is meaningless. Gentiles are already circumcised "on the heart."

Romans 3:20 N-NFS
GRK: δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ
NAS: no flesh will be justified
["For no human flesh will be justified in [God's] sight by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."]
Anti-Jewish; the Torah inspires sin.

Romans 4:1 N-AFS
GRK: ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα
NAS: [Abraham, our ancestor] according to the flesh, has found?
Anti-Jewish; Faith was reckoned to Abraham *before* he was circumcised.

Romans 6:19 N-GFS
GRK: ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ
NAS: of the weakness of your flesh...[and following]
Anti-Jewish; by being circumcised in the flesh, as Jews, your genitalia were a slave to impurity and iniquity; now you
re a Christian, your genitalia are slaves to righteousness.

Romans 7:5 N-DFS
GRK: ἐν τῇ σαρκί τὰ παθήματα
NAS: For while we were in the flesh, the sinful [passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our genitalia to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law...]
Anti-Jewish; Jewish circumcision aroused sinful passions.

Romans 7:14
NRSV: I am of the flesh; sold into slavery under sin.
Anti-Jewish; circumcision is slavery to sin.

Romans 7:18 N-DFS
GRK: ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ἀγαθόν
NAS: [nothing good] dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing...
Anti-Jewish; nothing good dwells in circumcision

Romans 7:25 N-DFS
GRK: τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας
NAS: [with my mind, I'm a slave to the law of God;] but on the other, with my flesh the law
Anti-Jewish; once again, nothing good comes from circumcision. Builds on 7:23's "I see in my genitalia another law at war with the law on my mind, making me captive to the Torah of sin that dwells in my genitalia."

Romans 8:1 Noun-AFS
GRK: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ
KJV: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Anti-Jewish; Christians do not follow circumcised Jews, but the Pneuma (Christos).

Romans 8:3 N-GFS
GRK: διὰ τῆς σαρκός ὁ θεὸς
NAS: as it was through the flesh, God
GRK: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ
NAS: of sinful flesh and [as an offering] for sin,
GRK: ἐν τῇ σαρκί
NAS: He condemned sin in the flesh,

3 "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh..."
Anti-Jewish; God sent his son in the likeness of sinful (Jewish; circumcised) flesh as a sin offering to condemn the circumcised (Jews).

Romans 8:4 N-AFS
GRK: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ
NAS: [so that the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not] according to the flesh but according to the Pneuma.
Anti-Jewish; God's son was crucified as a sin offering so that the Torah could be fulfilled in the pure, holy Christians.

Romans 8:5 N-AFS
GRK: γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες τὰ
NAS: [for those] who are according to the flesh set their minds [on the things of the flesh]
Anti-Jewish; Jews are sinful.

Romans 8:6 N-GFS
GRK: φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος τὸ
NAS: [to set the mind] on the flesh is death
Anti-Jewish; circumcision is death.

Romans 8:7 N-GFS
GRK: φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς
NAS: the [Jewish] mind set on the flesh is hostile
More of the same.

Romans 8:8 N-DFS
GRK: δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ
NAS: and those who are in the flesh [circumcised Jews] cannot [please God]
More of the same.

Romans 8:9 N-DFS
GRK: ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν
NAS: However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,
More of the same.

Romans 8:12 N-DFS
GRK: οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ
NAS: we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live
More of the same.

Romans 8:12 N-AFS
GRK: τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῇν
NAS: to live according to the flesh-- [for if you die, you will die]
More of the same.

Romans 9:3 N-AFS
GRK: μου κατὰ σάρκα
NAS: my kinsmen [Jews] according to the flesh, [they are Israelites...]
Seems complementary at first but quickly descends into Anti-Jewish diatribe beginning at 9:6. So once again Anti-Jewish.

Romans 9:5 N-AFS
GRK: τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν
NAS: according to the flesh [comes the Messiah], who is over all
Christos is circumcised.

Romans 9:8 N-GFS
GRK: τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτα τέκνα
NAS: That is, it is not the children of the flesh [Jews] who [are the children of God]
Anti-Jewish; Jews are not children of God. Gentile Christians are.

Romans 11:14 N-AFS
GRK: μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ σώσω
NAS: I might move to jealousy my flesh [mistranslation: fellow countrymen] and save some of them
Anti-Jewish.

Romans 13:14 N-GFS
GRK: καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ
NAS: [put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no] provision for the flesh in regard [to satisfy your desires]
Not Anti-Jewish. The only use of "flesh" not explicitly anti-Jewish.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Bernard Muller's list of historical references

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,

Bernard listed a series of evidence for Jesus being historical :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&p=14401&hilit=worldly#p14401

Here is his list, I will go through them one by one and see how they stand up to scrutiny :
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )
8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).
Here is my analysis informed by Carrier -
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:15).
Rom. 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by
grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
This does indeed say Jesus was a man, and seems like an argument for historicity.

Carrier disagrees and points out Phil. 2:7 where Christ came 'in the likeness of men', and was found 'in a form like man' and that he was only sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' in Rom. 8:3. His argument apparently that these comments about 'likeness" implies Rom 5:15 implied the same thing.


2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
Gal. 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. "
We know that a little further on Paul saw the gentiles as also figuratively of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) rather than literal sons of Abraham. So it's quite possible that Christ was also figuratively of the seed of Abraham, possibly in a similar way he was of the seed of David in the heavens.
Rom. 9:4-5 "Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
This is another troublesome kata sarka reference (concerning the flesh) and could have the Doherty/Carrier meaning of descending to the realm of flesh in the Air Beneath the Moon without incarnating on earth.
Rom. 15:12"And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust."
The context does indeed seem to mean Jesus is of the root of Jesse, even if he is not mentioned. But this can still be a reference to a superphysical personage - the root of Jesse descended to the Air Beneath the Moon, there is nothing here to say otherwise.
Rom. 1:3"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "
Carrier has detailed explanation for this in which he posits a supernatural sperm-bank in which God saved the sperm of David :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14498


3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
Gal 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
Carrier deals with this one at length, claiming the whole passage is allegory as Paul says explicitly. Paul no-where gives any clue he talking about a real woman :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14501

Carrier's comment :
"It's obvious to me that by 'born of a woman, born under the law' Paul means no more than that Jesus was, by being incarnated, placed under the sway of the old covenant, so that he could die to it (and rise free, as shall we). So the 'woman' here is simply the old covenant, not an actual person. Paul does not mean a biological birth to Mary or any other Jewess.
More follows ...
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Bernards list of historical references, part 2

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,

More on Bernard Muller's list of historical references to Jesus :

4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
Rom. 15:8"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:"
So JC was a minister of the circumcision - not very clear here - it does not necessarily mean he was a literal minister. Carrier says all it means is that Jesus had to be given a Jewish body (in the heavens) and appear first to Jews.



5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
2 Cor. 8:9"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich."
But Christ was not literally rich at all - this seems to be referring to his being rich in spirit in the high heavens, and then descendeing to the lower heaven where he was poor in spirit, there being crucified. This is hardly a good historical reference.
Php. 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Being found in 'fashion as a man' NOT as a man - he humbled himself. This seems to refer to Jesus descending to the lower heavens and being humbled there, but not as a man. Not a good historical reference.

6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
Everyone agrees he was crucified - the issue is where? On earth, or in the Air Beneath the Moon?
The mere description that Christ was crucified does not mean he was crucified on earth at all - unles you asume that crucifixions can only happen on earth. But various actions and things happen and exist in the heavens, as we have seen - even a burial in the 3rd heaven (Adam)
1Cor. 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"
Merely preaching 'Christ crucified' is compatible with either theory - earthly or heavenly - it is not actual evidence for historicity.


7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )

Bernard quotes :
1) Ro 9:31-33 Darby:
"But Israel, pursuing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to [that] law. Wherefore? Because [it was] not on the principle of faith, but as of works. They have stumbled at the stumblingstone, according as it is written, Behold, I [God] place in Zion a stone of stumbling and rock of offence ['skandalon']: and he that believes [has faith] on him [Jesus, see 10:11 where Paul used the same quote] shall not be ashamed."
and :
2) Ro 11:26-27 Darby
"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob [Israel (Ge 32:28)]; for this is My covenant with them [Jews], when I take away their sins.""
Well, I don't see much here that actually places the crucifixion in Jerusalem at all. We have mention of the stumbling-block, and we have mention of Zion. But nothing that clearly places an earthly crucifixion in Jerusalem. Bernard has to invoked many other passages to try and make a connection, but this could all mean that the skandalon was merely the teaching of the crucifixion and the Deliverer comes out of the heavenly Jerusalem. Not a clear reference to historicity.


8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
This is a thorny issue indeed, but Carrier and Doherty argue that the 'brethern of the Lord' is a title for fellow worhsippers, not literal brothers. See below.


9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).

That people traveled with sister/wives has nothing to do with whether Jesus was historical at all.


10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).

Carrier writres at length on the 'brother of the Lord' :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&p=14620#p14618

He argues that 'brother of the Lord' is a title referring to fellow brothers in Christ. This may not be an reference to historicity at all.

11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).


It matters not what James was, if he was merely a titular 'brother of the Lord'. We can accept there was a person called James, without there being a Jesus Christ.


Kapyong
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,

So, now here is my summary of my analysis of Bernard's list :


1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
Probably an argument for historicity

2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
Not necessarily an argument for historicity

3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
Probably not an argument for historicity

4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
Probably not an argument for historicity

5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
Not good historical references.

6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
Sure he was - but where? Not clearly on earth at all.

7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here:
Not clearly historical references at all.

8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
Could easily be a titular reference, not literal.

9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
So what - not a historical reference.

10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
Carrier argues this and sinilar are not a literal references at all.

11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
Nothing to do with Jesus existing.

12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).
Nothing to do with Jesus existing.


Out of all that, we have several references not historical at all, several that are arguable, and one that seems historical. That's 1 out of 12 - the case for Jesus's historicity is not as strong as Bernard makes out.


Kapyong
Last edited by Kapyong on Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

We know that a little further on Paul saw the gentiles as also figuratively of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) rather than literal sons of Abraham. So it's quite possible that Christ was also figuratively of the seed of Abraham, possibly in a similar way he was of the seed of David in the heavens.
Figuratively (or honorarily) but still these Gentiles were earthly human beings. Oh, seed of David in the heavens makes sense? What next?
This is another troublesome kata sarka reference (concerning the flesh) and could have the Doherty/Carrier meaning of descending to the realm of flesh in the Air Beneath the Moon without incarnating on earth.
"kata sarka" means "according to the flesh", not in some lower heavens. Doherty got roasted on that one and I do not think Carrier is following Doherty here.
Carrier has detailed explanation for this in which he posits a supernatural sperm-bank in which God saved the sperm of David :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14498
And that makes a lot of sense!!! And we have no evidence a passage from 2 Samuel 7 was interpreted as such by anyone. Even Carrier admits it requires peshering and imagination to arrive at that conclusion:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p74.htm
Carrier deals with this one at length, claiming the whole passage is allegory as Paul says explicitly. Paul no-where gives any clue he talking about a real woman :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14501
Carrier is very imaginative and convoluted on that one:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p77.htm
A seed of David is not enough, a real woman is needed to make that Messiah. I suppose there are some in heaven!!!
So JC was a minister of the circumcision - not very clear here - it does not necessarily mean he was a literal minister. Carrier says all it means is that Jesus had to be given a Jewish body (in the heavens) and appear first to Jews.
Quite a bit far-fetched: Jesus being given a Jewish body (that is instant, Docetist, without going through birth and childhood) to go in the lower heavens so he could be crucified by demons.
And how he would appears to Jews? Levitating a few feet above earth and preaching?
But Christ was not literally rich at all - this seems to be referring to his being rich in spirit in the high heavens, and then descendeing to the lower heaven where he was poor in spirit, there being crucified. This is hardly a good historical reference.
Carrier thinks "poor" here means "poor of power".
Here I demonstrated that "rich" for Paul always means spiritual riches, when poor means material poverty.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p24.htm
Being found in 'fashion as a man' NOT as a man - he humbled himself. This seems to refer to Jesus descending to the lower heavens and being humbled there, but not as a man. Not a good historical reference.
But you said before Jesus was given a Jewish body. "in fashion" is said by Paul because he thought Jesus was foremost a heavenly spiritual deity, and being a man was an abnormal state for him. Same meaning for "in the likeness of sinful flesh".
Everyone agrees he was crucified - the issue is where? On earth, or in the Air Beneath the Moon?
The mere description that Christ was crucified does not mean he was crucified on earth at all - unles you asume that crucifixions can only happen on earth. But various actions and things happen and exist in the heavens, as we have seen - even a burial in the 3rd heaven (Adam)
What are the probabilities: crucified on earth (many were) against crucified in the heavens (who were?).
For the burial of Adam, see:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p17.htm
and
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p18.htm
Well, I don't see much here that actually places the crucifixion in Jerusalem at all. We have mention of the stumbling-block, and we have mention of Zion. But nothing that clearly places an earthly crucifixion in Jerusalem. Bernard has to invoked many other passages to try and make a connection, but this could all mean that the skandalon was merely the teaching of the crucifixion and the Deliverer comes out of the heavenly Jerusalem. Not a clear reference to historicity.
Paul wrote on his own and quoted OT in such a way that 'skandalon' is referring to the crucifixion ant it happened in the heartland of the Jews, Zion. That's very clear:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm
This is a thorny issue indeed, but Carrier and Doherty argue that the 'brethern of the Lord' is a title for fellow worhsippers, not literal brothers. See below.
I am involved with Carrier on a debate on this issue. I commented, Carrier responded (with plenty of insults, as usual). Then I answered that today (not published yet, under moderation). See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5899
Carrier writres at length on the 'brother of the Lord' :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&p=14620#p14618
I want to add that "the brothers of the Lord" means for Carrier just lesser Christians who were carrying the mail from one church to another, from one city to another city. And all that with a pompous title that Paul never gave to his own Christians, not even to himself or his helpers.

He argues that 'brother of the Lord' is a title referring to fellow brothers in Christ. This may not be an reference to historicity at all.
He argued that "James, the brother of the Lord" was James the brother of John (imagined but not specified as such by Paul), who himself was imagined later and specified as the brother of John, in the gospels and Acts (all fiction, therefore all imagined by their authors, according to Carrier).
OR
"James, the brother of the Lord" was just a lesser Christian (with a very pompous title!) who happened to visit Peter when Paul was there.

Anyway, so be it, if anyone wants to believe these far-fetched explanations in order to prevent (or raise doubts about) Jesus' historicity. I prefer to keep my sanity and the following describes a lot more an earthly human Jesus than a heavenly one:
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )
8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

toejam wrote:I understand what Carrier's hypothesis is. I just see it as a stretch. Paul never says Jesus was crucified in the 1st Heaven. In the multiple times he mentions Jesus' crucifixion, he never qualifies it with "... in the 1st Heaven". On the contrary, we get all this talk of him being a descendent of David, born of a woman under the law, the man from heaven etc. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. All of this makes better sense if Paul thought Jesus had been incarnated here on Earth, as one among us.

If the Earthly realm contains copies of what is above, what was the copy of the heavenly crucifixion? - dare I suggest the Earthly one!
In other words - the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above. Earth and heaven. (or - physical reality and intellectual reality..). So, two crucifixion stories. The gospel story about a Roman crucifixion and a Pauline story about a celestial 'crucifixion'. The theological heavenly Jerusalem 'crucifixion' does not, cannot trump, the earthly crucifixion in the Jerusalem below. Physical reality is paramount - without it the mind cannot go a-wandering......
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by maryhelena »

From amazon.com

Reviewer Stuart Murray

But there is a fatal problem: according to Carrier, Jesus began as a celestial being. In that case, the inventors of the myth had absolutely free rein to invent any kind of figure that they wanted. They could have had Jesus defeating his enemies in the celestial realm, and no one would have been able to disprove it, precisely because it was in the celestial realm. Instead, we have a Jesus whose story seems to be stubbornly constrained by the facts of history.

In a response Carrier made this statement:

Finally, it is not true that "the inventors of the myth had absolutely free rein to invent any kind of figure that they wanted." They were constrained by prophecy (including prophecies of a dying Christ, e.g. Dan. 9, and a dying atoning savior, Is. 53, etc.)

http://www.amazon.com/review/R7E3RW0K83 ... hisHelpful

Ah, as I've previous said, once the Carrier-Doherty theory goes this route, Dan.9, then it becomes a Catch-22. Why? Because, although Carrier wants to use Dan.9 for a dying messiah scenario - invisible celestial crucifixions don't cut it for prophetic fulfillment. Fine, if all one wants to do is see a reflection of the Dan.9 dying messiah within the celestial crucifixion scenario - but a reflection needs an actuality. In this case, the historical reality of a crucified messiah figure.

Interestingly, in the conclusion to his book, Carrier leaves open the questions of Dan.9. Remarking on the fact that the Jews had embraced the idea of a dying messiah he writes:

Page 614

They had even invented and embraced a dying messiah in their own scriptures (Dan.9.26 - even if not the messiah, certainly a messiah:.....

my formating

So, however much Carrier wants to read a spiritual dying messiah from Dan.9 - he does not, and cannot, rule out a historical dying messiah figure from this prophecy.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Bernard,

Without arguing subtleties, there are some obvious problems with your list :
Bernard Muller wrote: 8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).
Cordially, Bernard
Firstly, item 9 has nothing to do with Jesus' historicity - whether they or literal brothers or celestial brothers of Christ, they would still have sister/wives. Strike that one.

Secondly, the fact that James lived for a long time (item 11) is irrelevant - he could do that even being a celestial brother of Christ. Strike that one too.

Thirdly, whether James was important (item 12) is irrelevant to Jesus' historicity - he could be that even if he was a celestial brother of Christ. Strike that one too.


Then you have combined Jesus brothers into multiple items - really it's just one :

8) Jesus had brothers, including a famous one called James.

Your 12 boils down to 8 in practice :
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )
8) Jesus had brothers, including a famous one called James.

I mentioned various problems above, not all of them were addressed, but how ever you count, it's far less than 12.

You score is :

Probable Historicities : 1
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).

Possible Historicities : 5
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )
8) Jesus had brothers, and one famous one called James.

Doubtful Historicities : 2
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).

So out of all that I calculate ONE decent evidence for Historicity, with the all rest being at best possible, at worst doubtful. The evidence for Jesus is once again shown to be under-whelming to say the least.


Kapyong
Post Reply