Jesus from Outer Space

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: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:57 pm Concentric varicolored circles? That is not Outer Space.
That is the cosmology of the Ascension of Isaiah, isn't it? :popcorn:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:45 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:57 pmI recall that some people in the evangelical Christian circles in which I grew up believed that Heaven was located in a black hole ("up there") while Hell was well and truly located at the center of Planet Earth ("down there"). I asked my (pastor/missionary) parents about this, and they seemed to prefer more of an "alternate dimension" interpretation, as mentioned by Carrier in the highlighted section above, but they had nothing personal against the more literal interpretation of "up" and "down" in the Bible, and acknowledged it was possible. (I think my mom may have actually thought that way at some point in her life; I remember her observing that we cannot detect what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole, so..., you know..., it could be....)
A black hole sounds more like a place to locate Hell than heaven! Crushing weight, dark, inescapable...
Yes, in a sense, but a black hole is conceptually up from us! That is the key to the idea. It retains the Bible's directionality while acknowledging that our knowledge of what lies beyond our atmosphere has changed over time.
I often wonder how the idea of having the realm of the Gods literally located above you affected how people acted in those times. And then the change it had on people when they started to think that heaven wasn't in fact above them but somewhere else.
We still think in terms of "the Man Upstairs." People still point furtively downward when mentioning the place they would rather not be damned to for committing some peccadillo or other. Christians still raise their hands upward to pray to God. John Lennon knew he was replacing Heaven with the line "above us only sky," and in an adjacent line he still located Hell "below us." Cartoons still do the same often enough. We still imagine Jesus ascending into Heaven 40 days after his resurrection, passing through the clouds on his way upward; we do not imagine him disappearing through a vortex or stepping through a magic mirror into a parallel world.

Just because we have the intellectual capacity to imagine Heaven as an alternate dimension, not to mention the scientific necessity to do so if we happen to wish to keep the idea going, does not mean that we have completely lost our bearings on the ancient conception, it would seem.
The advantage of the word "heaven" is that, even today, the word conjures up the image of the abode of God and angels. "Outer space" loses that connotation. There is no advantage that I can see in using that term, other than a gimmick to get popular attention.
I hate the idea of using Outer Space to signify the ancients' conception of Heaven. And I am not always against gimmicks. This one, though....
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by GakuseiDon »

This is Dr Carrier's description of "outer space" in his OHJ, page 63:

I shall mean by outer space everything above the atmosphere as pres­ently known. In ancient understanding this included (a) everything in or under the 'firmament' (also known as the aer or 'sublunar sphere') extend­ing above the highest visible clouds all the way to the orbit of the moon, and (b) all the heavens beyond (also then known as the 'ether' or 'ethereal realm'). The notion that any of this region may have been a vacuum did exist at the time, but only as a controversial theory rejected by most religious cosmologists, and only embraced typically by atomists and others generally hostile to the supernatural. Most people of the time thought the aer extended all the way to the moon (while everything beyond that was filled with a breathable 'ether'), when in fact (as we now know) the real atmosphere extends only a minuscule fraction of that distance.

So when they spoke of beings and events 'in the air', they were often speaking of what we mean by outer space. This is even more obvious when they spoke of beings and events in the spheres of heaven above the moon. Accordingly, if an ancient author was speaking of what we call outer space, I will say 'outer space'. This does not mean I attribute to them a modern knowledge of the extraterrestrial vacuum. It only means they were thinking of realms beyond the terrestrial domains of mountains, clouds, and birds. For it was already common knowledge among the educated of the time that the moon's distance from the earth was hundreds of thousands of miles (see Element 34). So when they used terms that we often translate as 'air', they were often not referring to what we mean by 'the air' today but a far more vast and frightening realm of fantastic possibilities, which many thought was trafficked by gods and filled with strange animals or spirits (see Elements 36-38).

It's the weirdest thing: Carrier is describing "outer space" using perfectly good terms he could be using in his book. :confusedsmiley:

The issue is that using the term "outer space" as a catchall for everything in the air and above confuses two realms: the lower heavens (below the orbit of the moon) and the upper heavens. These were metaphysically two very different realms. And Carrier still needs to use 'heaven' to describe what he means, even with the use of 'outer space'.

Some examples in where Carrier uses 'outer space' but uses 'heaven' and other terms to specify where he means. In each case, the use of 'outer space' seems redundant:

OHJ, page 45

... indisputably places Satan and his demons, the only 'princes and authorities and rulers and powers' of which it speaks, in outer space (yet still 'in this world', distinctly below the first heaven, and thus in the recognized realm of flesh and corruption
...
this Jesus Christ was being described as a preexistent divine being descending below the moon to be killed by sky demons in outer space.

Notice above that the words "outer space" aren't adding anything. They can be removed entirely without affecting the meaning. Similarly:

OHJ, page 192

Note that (as I've abundantly shown) at this point in history Satan and his demons were thought to live in the sky (hence in outer space);

OHJ, page 196:

And in fact the Revelation of Moses says Adam was buried in Paradise, literally up in outer space, in the third heaven complete with celestial linen and oils.

OHJ, page 197

This also means the original Tree of Life is in outer space (being in the very Paradise which is located in the third heaven), just as the true Temple and Altar of God are in outer space.

Last edited by GakuseiDon on Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:02 pm This is Dr Carrier's description of "outer space" in his OHJ, page 63:

I shall mean by outer space everything above the atmosphere as pres­ently known. In ancient understanding this included (a) everything in or under the 'firmament' (also known as the aer or 'sublunar sphere') extend­ing above the highest visible clouds all the way to the orbit of the moon, and (b) all the heavens beyond (also then known as the 'ether' or 'ethereal realm'). The notion that any of this region may have been a vacuum did exist at the time, but only as a controversial theory rejected by most religious cosmologists, and only embraced typically by atomists and others generally hostile to the supernatural. Most people of the time thought the aer extended all the way to the moon (while everything beyond that was filled with a breathable 'ether'), when in fact (as we now know) the real atmosphere extends only a minuscule fraction of that distance.

So when they spoke of beings and events 'in the air', they were often speaking of what we mean by outer space. This is even more obvious when they spoke of beings and events in the spheres of heaven above the moon. Accordingly, if an ancient author was speaking of what we call outer space, I will say 'outer space'. This does not mean I attribute to them a modern knowledge of the extraterrestrial vacuum. It only means they were thinking of realms beyond the terrestrial domains of mountains, clouds, and birds. For it was already common knowledge among the educated of the time that the moon's distance from the earth was hundreds of thousands of miles (see Element 34). So when they used terms that we often translate as 'air', they were often not referring to what we mean by 'the air' today but a far more vast and frightening realm of fantastic possibilities, which many thought was trafficked by gods and filled with strange animals or spirits (see Elements 36-38).

The issue is that using the term "outer space" as a catchall for everything in the air and above confuses two realms: the lower heavens (below the orbit of the moon) and the upper heavens. These were metaphysically two very different realms. And Carrier still needs to use 'heaven' to describe what he means, even with the use of 'outer space'.

Some examples in where Carrier uses 'outer space' but uses 'heaven' and other terms to specify where he means. In each case, the use of 'outer space' seems redundant:

OHJ, page 45

... indisputably places Satan and his demons, the only 'princes and authorities and rulers and powers' of which it speaks, in outer space (yet still 'in this world', distinctly below the first heaven, and thus in the recognized realm of flesh and corruption
...
this Jesus Christ was being described as a preexistent divine being descending below the moon to be killed by sky demons in outer space.

OHJ, page 192

Note that (as I've abundantly shown) at this point in history Satan and his demons were thought to live in the sky (hence in outer space);

OHJ, page 196:

And in fact the Revelation of Moses says Adam was buried in Paradise, literally up in outer space, in the third heaven complete with celestial linen and oils.

OHJ, page 197

This also means the original Tree of Life is in outer space (being in the very Paradise which is located in the third heaven), just as the true Temple and Altar of God are in outer space.

Very good point, especially with the counting of the layers of Heaven. How awkward would it be to count Outer Spaces? "Paul was caught up into the Third Outer Space." Well, what does that mean?

Furthermore, it would not even work to specify the planetary orbits by number, since anyone we might be quoting from antiquity would probably be using the Ptolemaic system (counting outward from the Earth: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), which would not work from our modern point of view.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by GakuseiDon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 pmI hate the idea of using Outer Space to signify the ancients' conception of Heaven. And I am not always against gimmicks. This one, though....
How about: "Jesus was a being from outer space who was euhemerised on earth..." :D
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Giuseppe »

It is incredible what envy and hostility towards a genius causes people to write in this thread.

They believe that by changing names to the things, the nature of the things can change.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:17 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 pmI hate the idea of using Outer Space to signify the ancients' conception of Heaven. And I am not always against gimmicks. This one, though....
How about: "Jesus was a being from outer space who was euhemerised on earth..." :D
:facepalm: :lol:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:17 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 pmI hate the idea of using Outer Space to signify the ancients' conception of Heaven. And I am not always against gimmicks. This one, though....
How about: "Jesus was a being from outer space who was euhemerised on earth..." :D
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

double post
Last edited by maryhelena on Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Post by maryhelena »

Richard Carrier's use of the term 'outer space' to denote the non terra firma context reflected in the writing of Paul is unfortunate. Such a term conjures up images ranging from E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, who wants to go home, to Star Wars and flying saucers. Outer space, in our modern world, is a place of science fiction.

Ancient people did not have movies to fuel their appetite for the unknown beyond the horizon. Instead they told stories, myths and allegories. But their stories no more had a claim on reality than do our modern science fiction movies. What is relevant to both is the power of our imagination. We can imagine many a wonderful thing. However, we don't live in our imagination. It's a bonus that keeps us striving intellectually while logic endeavours to harness it's wilder fantasies.

Both the gospel story and the writings of Paul are imagined stories. It is not enough, in our modern world, to simply repeat the stories. The stories need updating if they are going to have relevance for our modern world. What ancients believed is time dependent. Today, we are better able to articulate what ancients strived to grasp. In other words; whatever we think was in the minds of ancient people, whatever we think was in the mind of Paul, needs to be articulated in modern language with modern concepts of the human mind.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7141#p111447

If the writings of Paul do not reference a 'heavenly crucifixion', i.e. a spiritual or intellectual crucifixion, then as Paul says, if Christ is not raised up your faith is in vain. No human physical resurrection is possible. The human dead stay dead. Therefore, there can be no value whatsoever in a human crucifixion. The only value that a crucifixion, an execution, a killing, can have is if that crucifixion takes place in our spiritual capacity - which is of course our intellectual capacity. Life, death and rebirth are not elements of our physical bodily nature. They are aspects of our evolutionary intellectual capacity.

George Wells:

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premiss that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens. Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded........

Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

''But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded.''

If you have an earthly crucifixion then you have a corresponding 'heavenly' crucifixion. If you have a 'heavenly' crucifixion then you have a corresponding earthly crucifixion. However, it is only one crucifixion that has 'salvation' potential, 'salvation' value. And that is the spiritual, the 'heavenly, the intellectual crucifixion. Resurrection, rebirth, is spiritual, it is intellectual. Not in some outer space but within the intellectual capacity that is part of our human nature.

The gospel Jesus is a literary figure. As such this figure can die, resurrect, and go to heaven any day of the week. Logic - and science - tells us that our physical bodies are just not made that way. Consequently, the gospel Jesus story is not preaching value in a human sacrifice. Our humanity fails us if we attempt to place value upon a human crucifixion. Logic fails us if we view the gospel story as historical. The value in the gospel story is not 'salvation' via a human sacrifice. The value of the gospel story is that it embeds, as it were, the spiritual story, the story of intellectual life, death and rebirth, to a specific time and place. Terra firma - where history has left it's trail of man's inhumanity to man - and crucifixions than shame us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While it is easy to knock Richard Carrier - and Doherty - re their celestial crucifixion - it is foolhardy to be thrown off course by their use of terms more suited to science fiction. Look past the terms being used and focus on the intellectual reality that they are inadequately reflecting.
Last edited by maryhelena on Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply