Jesus from Outer Space

[maryhelena]

Fortunes of war. The occupied peoples had their chances. The Irish got most of our island (and for a brief time, until Brexit, no borders marking the partition, except some faded painted strips in the roadways - looks like victory to me.) The Jewish uprising turned out less well. Still arguably a better shot than they had in the 30's

Victory to join the EU socialist superstate and become a vassal? You sold yourselves out
Sure, that is a great victory that songs will be made for years to come

the EU socialist superstate

for a moment I wondered what on earth you were referring to, with that expression. Is really in this way that you Americans see EU?

OK guys - lets not get carried away with modern politics.

Of course, politics matter - but for this thread within the context of the gospel story!

The point of mentioning Irish history, a people living under British occupation for many a long year, was to demonstrate how past historical events are remembered in modern times. My argument is - we do it today - so why not the gospel writers?

For instance: one only has to move the crucifixion story to 36/37 c.e. and a 100 year link to 63 b.c. is in view. Pilate in Judea to 36/37 c.e.

Crucifixion in A.D. 36: The Keystone for Dating the Birth of Jesus

Nikos Kokkinos

https://www.academia.edu/42949214/Cruci ... h_of_Jesus

Kokkinos is author of The Herodian Dynasty.

And Josephus? He had a field day with the dating and remembering Hasmonean history. (..and if Greg Doudna's article re Hyrancus II has relevance re a connection with John the Baptizer - Josephus is not so much placing an event out of it's historical time slot - he is simply remembering past Hasmonean history......)

https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... yrcanus_II_

======================================================================================
For anyone interested in how Ireland remembered the events of 1916 - video below from the 2016 remembrance day - the original 1916 Proclamation of the Republic of Ireland is read out next to the GPO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOelQgx ... e=youtu.be

[maryhelena]

Both amazon and google books now have limited preview of Richard Carrier’ new book: Jesus from Outer Space.

….lets consider the proposal of another minority group in academia, the defenders of the view that Jesus was a violent revolutionary, a member of the Judean ‘’zealot party’’, who was later whitewashed by his followers into a pacifist spiritual leader. Advocates of this view include Fernando Bermejo-Rubio….

….Jesus’ use of war imagery is likewise all symbolic fiction, teaching by parable and using physical warfare as allegory for spiritual warfare……There is no more history than any of these other details are. So there’s no way this is a ‘’remembered’ event in a militant Jesus’ life.

Contrary to the zealot hypothesis, the Gospel authors were taking the whole phenomenon of violent messianic pretenders and inventing a Jesus as their opposite, to teach that only those who ‘’get it’’ shall thus find salvation, the rest damnation.

…..So when we come to compare the zealot hypothesis not with completing hypotheses of historicity but with the competing hypothesis I’ve laid out here, the futility of the enterprise become even more clear………… contrary to advocates of the zealot hypothesis, or any other hypothesis, we don’t need a ‘’political’’ reason for the teaching that Jesus was ‘’hung as a curse’’ to atone for the world’s sins……

…We already have a fully plausible mystical, and cultural spiritual reason for that. Just as we don’t need a ‘’political’’ reason to explain the murders of Osiris or Romulus or Inanna or Bacchus…

The opening paragraph quotes from the Talmud re Jesus the Nazarene being hanged and stoned around 75 b.c.

‘’This is the earliest real mention of Christianity in any surviving Jewish text. Only one slight problem. The Talmud says this occurred somewhere around 75 b.c. That’s almost a hundred years before the Romans even took control of Judea, and a full hundred years before Pontius Pilate was put in charge of it….

What about the loss of Jewish sovereignty with the Roman siege and capture of Jerusalem in 63 b.c.?
What about the scholars suggesting that Pilate was in Judea from 19 c.e.?


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3 ... le Jesus

[Giuseppe]

Thanks maryhelena. The surprise is already in the prefaction:

By the end of this book, you'll understand why it's reasonable to suspect Christianity began in dreams and visions of a celestial man facing a celestial fate, and that stories of his being a Galilean preacher evolved far later. We can't know that for certain. But as everything surveyed in this book makes clear, we do not actually have the evidence we'd normally need to rule out this alternative explanation of the origin of Christianity. It's a thesis remarkably consistent with all the evidence we have. Which does seem improbable... unless it's true.

(my bold)

Only a honest and competent scholar could write these words.

[maryhelena]

Richard Carrier: Jesus from Outer Space.

It's certainly strange that the Gospels hid the original Christian teachings of an eternal celestial being. Christians certainly had not changed in that belief - the belief that Jesus was an eternal starlord who descended, incarnated, and ascended back to his home above remained a constant for centuries. So why was it kept out of the Gospels? (Except by the authors of John, who at long last reincluded it, but only in a single introductory line.) This is a definite clue that the Gospels are allegories, they they intended to hide the true celestial doctrine - behind a veneer of earthly storytelling. The real truth, that Jesus was an archangel all along, whose actual ordeal took place in the sky, would be told only to initiates of sufficient rank. Everyone else would be told the 'front story' instead. Just as we know was the case in every other savior cult of the era. The average Joe would be shown the stage act, a tale like that told of Moses. The truth behind it would remain behind the curtain, to be revealed only to the elect - just as Jesus was made to recommend (Mark 4:11-12.

We can be certain of this. Because in what Christians wrote decades before the Gospels, and in every wave of writing after, Jesus is always an extraterrestrial who has lived among the stars since the dawn of time. He was imagined to have descended from the farthest reaches of outer space to assume a human body and submit to the forces of darkness so as to defeat them, joining in result a well known class of mythical supermen who underwent similar ordeals.

For example, in his letter to the Philippians, Paul says Jesus was a preexistent superbeing, who had a body of flesh manufactured for him so he could die (2:5-6)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id= ... q&f=false

If the whole NT story is a story that is all in the mind, in our imagination, a story with no relationship, no relevance, to our lived reality - then perhaps it's time to close the book and move on...

Talk of extraterrestrials, starlords, superbeings, archangels, is the stuff of fantasy. I'm beginning to think that Carrier's mythicist theory - while under academic language in On the Historicity of Jesus - can't actually stand the light of day when downgraded to simple language for the average Joe......in other words - in plain language the faults in the theory are clearly viewed....
===============================

Richard Carrier: ''Bermejo-Rubio’s book essentially defends the zealot hypothesis (that Jesus was a violent revolutionary, and the Epistles and Gospels whitewash this fact)

Richard Carrier: ''It's certainly strange that the Gospels hid the original Christian teachings of an eternal celestial being.''

[maryhelena]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3n ... q&f=false

Richard Carrier: Jesus from Outer Space..

In the chapter - A Plausible Jesus Is Not Necessarily a Probable Jesus - Carrier sets out his argument against Fernando Bermejo-Rubio and a ‘’group in academia, defenders of the view that Jesus was a revolutionary, a member of the Judean ‘’zealot party’

Carrier does this by reinterpreting gospel texts used by the proponents of the revolutionary theory. The result being one interpretation verse another interpretation. A merry-go-around of competing theories. A surprising argument for a historian, such as Carrier, to make.

But if progress is to be made in the search for early chrisitian origins then history has to take a primary role. It’s not good enough for Carrier to assert: ‘’There just isn’t any way to confidently get history out of the Gospels. Even if any is in there we can’t tell what’’. In the face of the Gospel challenge, Carrier so it seems, prefers to take a pass card.

Not so Fernando Bermejo-Rubio. He is aware of an inherent problem with his seditious Jesus theory. He has attempted to address it. In doing so he has challenged the work of the historian James S. McLaren. McLaren maintains that Judas the Galilean and the 4th philosophy are not historical. Thus casting a dark shadow over the theory of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio; his theory needs seditionists and revolutionaries during the consensus gospel time frame.

Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire
edited by John M.G. Barclay

Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora. Josephus’s Account of Judas.

James McLaren

This study shows that we can no longer assume that this Judas presented by Josephus is an historical figure who engaged in some activity in 6 CE. It is not simply a case of claiming that Josephus may have exaggerated the account of Judas’s career and its impact by adjusting a few details here and there. Rather, Josephus’s apologetic has constructed Judas, making him a vital part of the explanation of what happened in Judaea in 66-70 CE. Who he was, what he did and what he advocated, if anything at all, need to be established afresh, outside the framework provided in War and Antiquities. (108:)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9 ... n&f=false

See also Vridar
https://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-jos ... nst-rome/


So……two scholars taking the historical approach to Judean history. A history fundamental to the gospel story and hence to the origins of early Christianity. And yet, we have the main advocate of the mythicist theory nowhere to be seen in this debate.

Are Judas the Galilean and the “Fourth
Philosophy” Mere Concoctions?
The Limits of Josephus’ Inventiveness

FERNANDO BERMEJO-RUBIO

It has been sometimes argued, however, that both Judas and the Fourth Philosophy were not historical realities, but merely inventions of Josephus. According to James McLaren, they would have been created by the apologetic interests of the historian, who moved backward in time sixty years the ideology of resistance to Roman rule which in 66 caused the Jewish War (with the active involvement of Josephus himself), as a means of exonerating himself and the priesthood of any responsibility. Such a proposal is indeed intriguing. Given that Josephus is the only source mentioning a “Fourth Philosophy,” and that the often tendentious nature of his work is all too obvious, the hypothesis according to which Josephus invented the movement is not wholly unreasonable at first sight, and should be carefully evaluated. Was the Fourth Philosophy a real thing or rather a mere fabrication? Since a clear answer to this question is extremely relevant for the history of first-century Judaism, and given that I do not know any serious examination of such a proposal, the aim of this article is to survey the claim that Judas and the Fourth Philosophy were invented by Josephus, and to provide a full explanation to why this contention is ultimately unconvincing

This article is not uploaded to academic edu but will automatically download pdf from this link.

Download Download PDF - Scripta Classica Israelica


Methinks Fernando Bermejo-Rubio needs to go back to the drawing board. He needs to move his seditious 'Jesus' back beyond the consensus gospel time frame - all the way back to when the Hasmoneans challenged, rebelled, were seditious and revolutionary against the power of Rome. It is the memory of those days that the gospel writers saw fit to include in their literary, composite, Jesus figure.
-------------------------------------------

The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures?

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.

Full marks to historian James McLaren

[Giuseppe]

Richard Carrier explains why this strange cover:

It’s an original painting by artist Rena Davonne. It’s intended to be psychadelic-conceptual, in keeping with the mystical and hallucinatory origins of the religion, and the mod-style feeling of the title. It evokes an aesthetic and an abstraction; it shouldn’t be taken literally.

But the elements are indeed a silver spaceship-like cross descending from the stars toward earth (if you look closely, to Palestine in particular) through a geocentric universe as seen through the eye of the mind, in Philo’s sense (Philo describes how the universe looks differently to those who can see with the mind; most of which features are invisible to ordinary sight). You are seeing the rings of the cosmos, occupied by their corresponding geocentric planets, lit up according to their respective harmonies and ethereal elements.

Among the “planets” so schemed is the sun. So the star you see way off above left is the True Star, after which all stars are but mere copies (as Philo explains in his works). In Christian conception (e.g. as Ignatius describes), at the resurrection Jesus became that True Star and shines from the heavens to the eye of the faithful (and Satan and all other celestial beings are compelled to bow thereto).

If all of that sounds bizarre, it is. Actual ancient conceptions of how the universe looked and worked were that psychedelic and bizarre, a fact most modern interpreters don’t know or forget. Which is an underlying theme of the whole book. Hence it’s a theme of the conceptual art fronting the book. Rena did an outstanding job.

(my bold)

The part in bold confirms my view, that the cover is deliberately derisory against the early Christians.

I love when Carrier is so similar to Charlie Hebdo in this satyrical use of images!

[Bernard Muller]

... 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

In OHJ, page 45, Carrier put the words I bolded in Hebrews Ch. 11. But I could not find them here or anywhere else in the NT.
Did I miss something?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

That single passage (1 Cor 2:8) is very crucial. The silence about the humans being involved in the crucifixion of Jesus is even more strong, when we observe that Luke 24:20 uses the same term, Archontes, only, not "of this Aeon":

"Archontes" means Roman authorities in Ro 13:3

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

That single passage (1 Cor 2:8) is very crucial. The silence about the humans being involved in the crucifixion of Jesus is even more strong, when we observe that Luke 24:20 uses the same term, Archontes, only, not "of this Aeon":

"Archontes" means Roman authorities in Ro 13:3

but only demons can rule "this age".

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.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

[Bernard Muller]

1 Co 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
αἰῶνος can mean "epoch" of the earth, as also here:
1 Co 2:7
1 Co 2:6 "Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away."
Even more obvious:
1 Co 3:18 "Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise."

Cordially, Bernard