Gavriel, you selectively quoted a segment of Ephesians 4:9-13 out of context to make your point. Here’s what is says in full:
“When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.”
Nothing factual about that phrase once we understand the context.
Ah yes, Gal 4.4 “Made of a woman” (not born!). The desperate last hope of historicists…
Who says AoI was written by an apprentice of Paul? AoI only indicates that the belief of a celestial son of God sacrificed in the lower heavens existed during that time period (first and early second century). Now read 1 Cor 2:6-8 with the realization that “the rulers of this age” are Satan and his demons, and you may get the connection.
That’s it for me. Nice hearing your views/Tony
Tony said
Gavriel, you selectively quoted a segment of Ephesians 4:9-13 out of context to make your point. Here’s what is says in full:“When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.”
Nothing factual about that phrase once we understand the context.
Ah yes, Gal 4.4 “Made of a woman” (not born!). The desperate last hope of historicists…
Who says AoI was written by an apprentice of Paul? AoI only indicates that the belief of a celestial son of God sacrificed in the lower heavens existed during that time period (first and early second century). Now read 1 Cor 2:6-8 with the realization that “the rulers of this age” are Satan and his demons, and you may get the connection.
That’s it for me. Nice hearing your views/Tony
I do not say whether Ephesians is factual or not, only that its author thought that Jesus had an existence on earth and Hades, and if you include the context like you do, you get the complete Pauline formula (heavenly pre-existence, earthly existence with death and even higher elevation to Heaven again). This is something that the author had learned from Paul, and Paul says so even more clearly (Phil 2:6-9). Paul may have been wrong, but he definitely thought that Jesus had a period on earth as a human.
According to the best experts in biblical Greek “made of a woman” is equivalent to “born of a woman” in that context. What else should it mean? It is a statement that says he was born a Jew, because in Judaism the Jewishness passes from the mother.
AoI is not first century and bears thus no witness to a belief in the Jesus of a lower Heaven before the canonical gospels. In addition you have to make rather speculative interpretations of AoI to arrive at a crucifixion in a lower heaven. Ehrman has an interesting chapter on it in his “Forgery and Counterforgery”.
1 Cor 2:6-8 may bear witness to the belief that the real rulers of earth are demonic. If you assume that the “rulers” in this verse are demonic powers, it does not follow that they are ruling a demonic empire outside earth, but rather that they are behind the rule of earthly powers. This conforms to the views of apocalyptic Judaism, in which Satan and the demonic powers temporarily are acting on this world in a warlike situation, for some time, until God and the good powers again have the upper hand.
gavriel, you’re kinda wasting your time. Tony is just regurgitating the Cliff’s notes version of Richard Carrier’s work. Fortunately Carrier is a lot smarter than his disciples and I do look forward to reading his book at some point.
Some of the passages from Paul’s authentic letters that most testify to Jesus’ historicity are not the ones that these folks most fight over. I already mentioned Paul’s argument in Romans about the “First Adam” which doesn’t work unless both Adam and Jesus are real people. Another passage I reference is 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16.
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.
Interesting that Paul blames the “Jews” and not the Romans but he does place them in Judea and equates their treatment of Jesus and the prophets with his own treatment, none of which seems to have taken place in outer space.
Does anyone know if Carrier has commented on these passages?
Stephen said
gavriel, you’re kinda wasting your time. Tony is just regurgitating the Cliff’s notes version of Richard Carrier’s work. Fortunately Carrier is a lot smarter than his disciples and I do look forward to reading his book at some point.Some of the passages from Paul’s authentic letters that most testify to Jesus’ historicity are not the ones that these folks most fight over. I already mentioned Paul’s argument in Romans about the “First Adam” which doesn’t work unless both Adam and Jesus are real people. Another passage I reference is 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16.
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.
Interesting that Paul blames the “Jews” and not the Romans but he does place them in Judea and equates their treatment of Jesus and the prophets with his own treatment, none of which seems to have taken place in outer space.
Does anyone know if Carrier has commented on these passages?
Not sure if I’m wasting my time – this is my favourite hobby 🙂 It is as fun to debate mythicists as certain Christian fundamentalists. Strangely, they often display the same tactics.
The mythicist approach to 1. Thess 2:14-16 is that it is an interpolation, and they back it up with references to respectable works (See Raymond Brown’s Introduction , Ch 18, ending section, which summarizes all the pros and cons). One argument is that the ending refers to the fall of Jerusalem, hence a later Pauline follower fabricated the whole passage to give support for a more direct Jewish responsibility, weakening the responsibility of the Romans. Another is that there is an alleged contradiction between 2:14-16 and Rom 11:26.
I once asked Ehrman, on the blog, what the ending could mean, and he said he had no idea, but that he thought that the whole passage was authentic.
Gerd Lüdemann has an interesting discussion of the passage in “Der älteste christliche Text. Erster Thessalonikerbrief”. It is also available in English, I think.
Also, have a look at this classic treatment:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(I cant make the link work, paste the complete URL into your browser)
Gavriel/Stephen Thanks for getting together on this one because dealing with historicists, one at the time, tends to be a boring waste of time. This is mostly due to their small arsenal of arguments, their inability to respond to facts, and their general lack of knowledge of the NT and real scholarship. So here goes:
“Tony is just regurgitating the Cliff’s notes version of Richard Carrier’s work”. Ouch, that hurts. The 14 point list is mine. Of course, neither one of you responded to it – because you can’t. I understand, you wan’t to move to your comfort zone and play the apologist, “look over there”, game.
“The mythicist approach to 1 Thess 2:14-16 is that it is an interpolation”. Wrong! It’s not a, “mythicist approach”! Instead, it is an accepted finding by the majority of qualified secular scholarship, (obviously, does not include you two). This anti-Semitic, Christian scribe created piece, is completely at odds with Paul’s views about himself and Jews in general. The last segment, “but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last” , likely refers to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 – at which time Paul would have been long dead.
Paul references to Jesus Christ being a man in Rom 5:12-21 is consistent with mythicism. Paul identified Adam, the man, as having brought sin in the world through disobedience. Consequently, sin had to be removed through another man’s sacrificial obedience. Paul qualifies his logic in Phil 2.7 that Christ was not actually a man, but came in the “likeness of man”. Also, in Rome 8:3, God sends his own Son, “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, to deal with sin. This pre-existent entity assuming human form – and in this form gets killed/sacrificed – is the basis of mythicism. Of course, the sacrifice did not take place on earth, and Paul gives no indication anywhere that it did.
“Not sure if I’m wasting my time – this is my favourite hobby” I could not agree with you more. Arguing with the defenders of an historical Jesus is exactly like dealing with Christian apologists. I often get a whiff of desperation though. Or maybe that’s just smugness, mixed with arrogance and ignorance. What do you think?
Tony said
Gavriel/Stephen Thanks for getting together on this one because dealing with historicists, one at the time, tends to be a boring waste of time. This is mostly due to their small arsenal of arguments, their inability to respond to facts, and their general lack of knowledge of the NT and real scholarship. So here goes:“Tony is just regurgitating the Cliff’s notes version of Richard Carrier’s work”. Ouch, that hurts. The 14 point list is mine. Of course, neither one of you responded to it – because you can’t. I understand, you wan’t to move to your comfort zone and play the apologist, “look over there”, game.
“The mythicist approach to 1 Thess 2:14-16 is that it is an interpolation”. Wrong! It’s not a, “mythicist approach”! Instead, it is an accepted finding by the majority of qualified secular scholarship, (obviously, does not include you two). This anti-Semitic, Christian scribe created piece, is completely at odds with Paul’s views about himself and Jews in general. The last segment, “but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last” , likely refers to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 – at which time Paul would have been long dead.
Paul references to Jesus Christ being a man in Rom 5:12-21 is consistent with mythicism. Paul identified Adam, the man, as having brought sin in the world through disobedience. Consequently, sin had to be removed through another man’s sacrificial obedience. Paul qualifies his logic in Phil 2.7 that Christ was not actually a man, but came in the “likeness of man”. Also, in Rome 8:3, God sends his own Son, “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, to deal with sin. This pre-existent entity assuming human form – and in this form gets killed/sacrificed – is the basis of mythicism. Of course, the sacrifice did not take place on earth, and Paul gives no indication anywhere that it did.
“Not sure if I’m wasting my time – this is my favourite hobby” I could not agree with you more. Arguing with the defenders of an historical Jesus is exactly like dealing with Christian apologists. I often get a whiff of desperation though. Or maybe that’s just smugness, mixed with arrogance and ignorance. What do you think?
The mythicist approach is to side with those critical scholars who think it is an interpolation. If you read my answer, you couldn’t have failed to notice that exactly this is my opinion, since I gave references to respected scholars who hold this view, including Pearson. The issue is thus debated, but I doubt that it is a majority view.
The “wrath” does in no way refer to the fall of Jerusalem, so this argument is particularly weak. It could be anything, for instance the disaster Easter festival in Jerusalem under Cumanus, being close in time to the writing of the letter, known from Josephus.
The passage is of course not anti-Semitic, it is directed against the leading men of the Pharisee and Saducee branches of Judaism, which is something quite different.
The “likeness of man” you refer to means of course incarnation in flesh on earth. It cant be anything else and Paul says clearly that Jesus was born a Jew. That is the only possible way to interpret it. If he meant to describe an existence in some other mystical sphere, he would of course have described this sphere and not left it to his readers to wonder. You just have to read Paul’s very detailed description of what a resurrected body is vs. an earthly body, to understand this, to realize that Jesus’ body once was earthly, in Pauls’s opinion.
gavriel said
The mythicist approach is to side with those critical scholars who think it is an interpolation. If you read my answer, you couldn’t have failed to notice that exactly this is my opinion, since I gave references to respected scholars who hold this view, including Pearson. The issue is thus debated, but I doubt that it is a majority view.
The “wrath” does in no way refer to the fall of Jerusalem, so this argument is particularly weak. It could be anything, for instance the disaster Easter festival in Jerusalem under Cumanus, being close in time to the writing of the letter, known from Josephus.
The passage is of course not anti-Semitic, it is directed against the leading men of the Pharisee and Saducee branches of Judaism, which is something quite different.
The “likeness of man” you refer to means of course incarnation in flesh on earth. It cant be anything else and Paul says clearly that Jesus was born a Jew. That is the only possible way to interpret it. If he meant to describe an existence in some other mystical sphere, he would of course have described this sphere and not left it to his readers to wonder. You just have to read Paul’s very detailed description of what a resurrected body is vs. an earthly body, to understand this, to realize that Jesus’ body once was earthly, in Pauls’s opinion.
Gavriel, unless you are an apologist, your defense of 1 Thess 2:14-16 is a lost cause. Beside Birger Pearson, scholars such as G.E. Okeke and Earl Richard also wrote on the subject. I noted an earlier post where you quoted Raymond Brown identifying the fall of Jerusalem as an argument for the final verse. Interestingly, when I write the same, you suddenly state that, “…does in no way refer to the fall of Jerusalem”. Is this a situational response? Just how biased are you? Let’s have a close look at the wording.
The last two words are, eis telos. Literally, to the end, with finality. So, what was final? The end? And even more importantly, what group would have used that term in context? The only qualifying event was the end of Judea as a Province and the end of the Jewish temple cult. Afterwards, it was the Christians who saw this event as God’s final abandonment of the Jews. No other event, including the one you mentioned, makes any sense. 1Thess 2:15-16 can only be a later, anti-Semitic Christian insert and not anything Paul wrote.
“The “likeness of man” you refer to means of course incarnation in flesh on earth”. Funny. So, how many unequivocal references are there in Paul’s letters for an earthly Jesus? Right… You do realize that we only have a fraction of Paul’s letters? If there were any letters which, as you state, “have described this sphere and not left it to his readers to wonder”, the orthodox church would have destroyed, and certainly not copied those! As it is, we have strong textual evidence for a celestial Jesus, and none for the Gospel Jesus within the Pauline corpus.
Please give me your scripture reference for “Paul’s very detailed description of what a resurrected body is vs. an earthly body”. I suspect 1 Cor 15, but I’m not sure.
Stephen said
Tony, really? That’s “Christianity in a nutshell”?The Jesus sect started…
Mythicists are always asking for evidence. Where is YOUR evidence? Poking holes in the historicist viewpoint does not mean your viewpoint is correct. Your first bullet is simply an assertion unsupported by any evidence. The Ascension of Isaiah is a text of doubtful provenance and our first complete copy comes from the late Middle Ages and is in Ethiopic although earlier Greek fragments survive. I mention all this because Mythicists frequently use these same criteria to question the historicity of the gospels.
The Jesus of Paul’s letters is the celestial one…
Clearly contradicted by a reading of the authentic Pauline letters. Have you done that? Depressing to encounter many Mythicists who have not. Watching a YouTube video is not enough.
…a literary invention called Jesus of Nazareth, who was based on Paul’s celestial entity…
Once again this is simply an assertion. Sure there is enough of a resemblance between the soteriology of Paul and “Mark” to make some scholars suspect an influence but their Christology is worlds apart. Paul thinks that Jesus was a pre-existent divine figure who became a human. (Paul’s entire argument about the first and second Adam in Romans makes no sense unless he thought they were real human beings.) “Mark” views Jesus as a righteous human who was adopted by God as his son. Both do share the belief though that Jesus during his earthly ministry was a human.
I’ve got evidence. It came from Nag Hammadi/Al Minya. Judas is the sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas and that points to a look at the Apocalypses of JAMES, whom Dr. Robert Eisenman brilliantly identified as the character covered by Judas in Acts 1. I took what he did and went into the Gospels to look for James as ‘Judas.’ It turns out that Judas is James wherever he occurs. The details are wildly fascinating. I can’t get enough. i’m having my book edited for submission to the Journal of Gnostic Studies at Rice U. In fact, I am asking for help from others who either know Coptic or have other contributions for this line of inquiry. “Misreading Judas” by Robert Wahler, on Amazon. Pdf available to serious researchers.
** you do not have permission to see this link **, I have no idea what you’re talking about but that’s ok. Submit your work for peer review by actual scholars.
Tony, you’re funny. Are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection?
…dealing with historicists, one at the time, tends to be a boring waste of time. This is mostly due to their small arsenal of arguments, their inability to respond to facts, and their general lack of knowledge of the NT and real scholarship.
You’re still making assertions. You don’t seem to understand what would constitute evidence in these cases.
As far as 1 Thess 2:14-16, of course it’s an interpolation! It would have to be wouldn’t it! But we have no manuscripts that do not contain this passage. It might be an interpolation but to show it is you need such manuscripts. Until that point all we have is a difficult passage.
Same thing with any hypothetical relationship between Paul and Mark. Mark neither quotes Paul nor refers to him. Without that you simply can’t establish a relationship one way or another. All we can say is that Mark’s soteriology resembles Paul’s but his christology does not.
Tony said
Gavriel, unless you are an apologist, your defense of 1 Thess 2:14-16 is a lost cause. Beside Birger Pearson, scholars such as G.E. Okeke and Earl Richard also wrote on the subject. I noted an earlier post where you quoted Raymond Brown identifying the fall of Jerusalem as an argument for the final verse. Interestingly, when I write the same, you suddenly state that, “…does in no way refer to the fall of Jerusalem”. Is this a situational response? Just how biased are you? Let’s have a close look at the wording.
The last two words are, eis telos. Literally, to the end, with finality. So, what was final? The end? And even more importantly, what group would have used that term in context? The only qualifying event was the end of Judea as a Province and the end of the Jewish temple cult. Afterwards, it was the Christians who saw this event as God’s final abandonment of the Jews. No other event, including the one you mentioned, makes any sense. 1Thess 2:15-16 can only be a later, anti-Semitic Christian insert and not anything Paul wrote.
“The “likeness of man” you refer to means of course incarnation in flesh on earth”. Funny. So, how many unequivocal references are there in Paul’s letters for an earthly Jesus? Right… You do realize that we only have a fraction of Paul’s letters? If there were any letters which, as you state, “have described this sphere and not left it to his readers to wonder”, the orthodox church would have destroyed, and certainly not copied those! As it is, we have strong textual evidence for a celestial Jesus, and none for the Gospel Jesus within the Pauline corpus.
Please give me your scripture reference for “Paul’s very detailed description of what a resurrected body is vs. an earthly body”. I suspect 1 Cor 15, but I’m not sure.
I did not say that Raymond Brown counts The Fall of Jerusalem as one of the arguments in favour of interpolation. I added it to his list. Browns list is something like 1. The passage constitutes a second thanksgiving, 2. The hostile phrasing against “Jews” is untypical of Paul, 3. The “Wrath”-part contradicts Romans 11:25-6. He also gives a list of counter-arguments. I also gave a link to Pearsons much-quoted article, and finally referred to Lüdemanns refution of Pearson. Since I have never offered this passage as a conclusive evidence in favour of Pauls knowledge of an earthly Jesus, I think this is an honest position. But I think it is more likely that it is an authentic passage than not, so it carries some weight. It is possible to read it in several ways.
The Oxford Annotated NRSV renders eis telos as “at last”, and offers the alternatives “completely” or “forever”. That may refer to the Jewish leadership, but not necessarily the Jewish people in general . Paul is not foreign to using harsh expressions, like when naming Peter a hypocrite. He wasn’t even a systematic thinker and he did not develop a contradiction free theology. He may have changed his mind some times. The “wrath” could however be consistent with the “hardening” of Romans 11:25. Other places he also talks about the Wrath of God against Jews, see Romans 2:5 , which is to be understood in conjunction with 2:9. There are other verses as well.
Paul’s reasoning on earthly and resurrected bodies, Jesus being the first-fruit, only works if Jesus was resurrected from death in an earthly existence.
If there once existed plenty of Pauline descriptions of a non-earthly sphere in which the Jesus drama took place, then his followers would have developed their stories and traditions in that direction. It would have meant that the historicist ideas of the late first century came from elsewhere.
One of the killer arguments, in my eyes, is when Paul is referring to the wives of the brothers of the Lord. This particular argument of Paul only works if “the brothers of the Lord” is a small and very important group, so it cannot mean baptized Christians or community members in general.
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **, I have no idea what you’re talking about but that’s ok. Submit your work for peer review by actual scholars.
Tony, you’re funny. Are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection?
…dealing with historicists, one at the time, tends to be a boring waste of time. This is mostly due to their small arsenal of arguments, their inability to respond to facts, and their general lack of knowledge of the NT and real scholarship.
You’re still making assertions. You don’t seem to understand what would constitute evidence in these cases.
As far as 1 Thess 2:14-16, of course it’s an interpolation! It would have to be wouldn’t it! But we have no manuscripts that do not contain this passage. It might be an interpolation but to show it is you need such manuscripts. Until that point all we have is a difficult passage.
Same thing with any hypothetical relationship between Paul and Mark. Mark neither quotes Paul nor refers to him. Without that you simply can’t establish a relationship one way or another. All we can say is that Mark’s soteriology resembles Paul’s but his christology does not.
A good on-line summing-up of the debate on 1 Thess 2:14-16 is given here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **, I have no idea what you’re talking about but that’s ok. Submit your work for peer review by actual scholars.
Tony, you’re funny. Are you familiar with the psychological concept of projection?
…dealing with historicists, one at the time, tends to be a boring waste of time. This is mostly due to their small arsenal of arguments, their inability to respond to facts, and their general lack of knowledge of the NT and real scholarship.
You’re still making assertions. You don’t seem to understand what would constitute evidence in these cases.
As far as 1 Thess 2:14-16, of course it’s an interpolation! It would have to be wouldn’t it! But we have no manuscripts that do not contain this passage. It might be an interpolation but to show it is you need such manuscripts. Until that point all we have is a difficult passage.
Same thing with any hypothetical relationship between Paul and Mark. Mark neither quotes Paul nor refers to him. Without that you simply can’t establish a relationship one way or another. All we can say is that Mark’s soteriology resembles Paul’s but his christology does not.
gavriel said
A good on-line summing-up of the debate on 1 Thess 2:14-16 is given here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen,
So, you are saying you don’t know the Nag Hammadi Library? It’s pretty famous. It contains all the evidence necessary for mythicism. The NT Gospels are all derived fiction, from a variety of sources. I just found the origin of “the Betrayal.” It’s over. Christianity is not a valid teaching at all. The gnostics had the truth. Just go here and read anything you see: scienceofthesoul.org My website: judaswasjames.com
Sahansdal said
So, you are saying you don’t know the Nag Hammadi Library? It’s pretty famous. It contains all the evidence necessary for mythicism. The NT Gospels are all derived fiction, from a variety of sources. I just found the origin of “the Betrayal.” It’s over. Christianity is not a valid teaching at all. The gnostics had the truth. Just go here and read anything you see: scienceofthesoul.org My website: judaswasjames.com
Great website with a nice layout. But it does not tell us anything about your reasoning. The best you can do is to explain it HERE.
gavriel said
Great website with a nice layout. But it does not tell us anything about your reasoning. The best you can do is to explain it HERE.
You’re joking off course. It’s Go Daddy, ’cause it was cheap. I know nothing about web building (obviously). I only cite it to link to the reviews, which I am proud of, and the Amazon booksite. I can’t paste here. In fact, I get thrown off Bart’s Blog regularly for less.
I am not interested in anything, including book sales, except calling attention to the new information that will end the Christian myth. It is really rather simple. I am writing, with an editor, a paper for the SBL and the Journal of Gnostic Studies. I’m not interested in peer review, since I have none. No scholar I’ve seen is an expert on gnosticism. That’s also evident. They would have recognized that JUDAS is the “man who bears me” in the Gospel of Judas – not Jesus! But I need to cover the bases and proceed as a scholar would, or else get consigned to oblivion.
Listen to me. Just this one fact is enough to sink Christianity. If Judas is the sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas, and he is, how can Jesus be? There can’t be TWO. Even though, if there was a Jesus, he would have been a sacrifice, the way literature works, there would not have been two of them in the narrative. The canon is derived from the gnostic Apocalypse of James story of mastership succession. This is easy to prove, and I do so in my book, Misreading Judas. You can have it free by contacting me at my website. Judas is a stand-in for James the Just, a fact I learned from the great Dr. Robert Eisenman, an acquaintance and unwitting ally. He shows ‘Judas’ is James in Acts 1. I just went to the Gospels to look for more. And I certainly found it. At last count, 24 individual details that show a connection from the gnostic Apocalypses to the canonical ‘Betrayal of Christ’ story. “Hail, BROTHER!” shows the gnostics are the originators of the story. (More are from the back cover of the book on the website.) That and several other reasons I go into at length. No one knows the terminus a quo for the Nag Hammadi texts. We don’t even have a good handle on the Gospels, or any of these authors, either, both gnostic and canonical. It is like operating on a kidney remotely from Guam. Knowing anything for certain about these texts is difficult. What isn’t is learning the theology. The theology is decidedly mystic, and is available in great detail in the writings of modern mystics from RSSB (www.rssb.org). The CHURCH was the boogyman. THEY altered the story by writing (commissioning) and collating the New Testament Gospels. They are clever, inventive, masterful, creative FICTION disinformation.
Stephen said
I find it best to discipline our wild imaginings with recourse to actual scholarship.
A good article on Carrier by the eminent scholar Larry Hurtado is provided on his blog here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
There are also several follow-up postings later in December, same place, equally readable.
Tony said
The evidence for a mythical Jesus is overwhelming. It is in Paul’s letters, and I’ll list it below. But let me address some of your other points first. There is nothing doubtful about AoI. The document clearly echos the beliefs of Paul. Have YOU actually read Paul? If you had, you would not make such brazen statements!Of course, you’re likely reading the Gospels back into Paul. Common mistake of wannabee NT scholarship. No, neither “Adams” in Romans are historical figures… Of course, the Christology of Mark and Paul are worlds apart. Mark pulled Paul’s celestial Jesus down to earth and place him between the Baptist and Pilate. Good move on Mark’s part, but the evidence of his Pauline sourcing shows in his Gospel. Here is a list of evidence taken from Paul’s letters which you’ve apparently overlooked:
1) Paul’s letters show no knowledge of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. References to the imminent arrival of a celestial Jesus Christ – the Lord, are always, and only, in future tense – he is to come, to arrive etc. Nowhere does Paul state that Jesus will return, come again, or gives any other indication of an earlier earthly residence of Jesus Christ.
2) Nowhere does Paul state where, or when, the death and resurrection of Jesus took place.
3) None of the Jerusalem Church members Cephas (Peter), John and James, or anyone else, are ever identified as followers (disciples) of an earthly Jesus.
4) Paul never identifies Jesus Christ as a preacher, teacher, or a leader of any Palestinian religious movement.
5) Nowhere are Paul’s “the twelve” from 1 Cor. 15:5 identified as disciples. That misplaced notion comes from reading the Gospels into Paul’s letters. Peter (Cephas) was not part of the twelve.
6) Paul does not identify where, or when, the bread and wine ceremony in 1 Cor 11:23-26 took place – or whether it even occurred on earth, Paul claims he received his information about the ceremony through a vision from Jesus.
7) Paul states that his knowledge about Jesus Christ came through direct revelation from Jesus Christ and scripture only – and not from any person. Gal. 1:11-12 and Rom.16:25-26.
8) There is no evidence that other apostles obtained their knowledge about Jesus Christ by means other than revelations and scripture as in 1 Cor. 15: 3-8.
9) Paul describes Jesus’ crucifixion in Gal 3:13 as having been hanged from a tree. The scripture reference is to Deut. 21:22-23. The OT verses deal with the postmortem display of executed criminals and not the Roman execution method. “Hanged from a tree” in Greek (stauros) will be translated as “crucifixion”.
10) In 1 Cor 2:6-10 Paul tells us who killed Jesus-without specifying a time or location. Jesus was “crucified” (see 9) by the “rulers of this age” (archonton tou aionos toutou). By using the term “rulers of this age” Paul refers to the supernatural powers of Satan and his demons who live in in the firmament, and not to earthly authorities. Apparently, these supernatural powers were ignorant and mistakenly killed Jesus – and by doing so are doomed to perish.
11) Elsewhere, in Romans 13:1- 4, Paul states that earthly authorities are servants of God who can do no wrong. Good conduct need not fear, but wrongdoers will be punished by God servants. Here Paul contradicts the Gospel’s claims that Jesus was not guilty of a crime, and unjustly executed – another indication that Paul Jesus Christ is not the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels.
12) In Rom. 8:22-23 Paul promises his followers adoption by God. Consequently, in Rom 8:29 God’s firstborn Jesus will be surrounded by many (adopted) brothers. They are, “the brothers of the Lord”.
13) A key part of Paul’s belief was a soon to come end-times cosmic battle when Satan his Demons and death, are defeated and subjugated by the celestial Christ. Since Christ had assumed human form in the firmament, his sacrifice nullified death introduced by the disobedience of Adam. 1 Cor. 15:20-27.
14) The late first century manuscript, “The Ascension of Isaiah”, describes the crucifixion, (hanged from a tree), and resurrection of a celestial Jesus in Satan’s world. It fits Paul’s Jesus story well. On the other hand, The Pauline narratives remain a difficult fit for an historical Jesus.
This is assumption after assumption.
“1) Paul’s letters show no knowledge of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. References to the imminent arrival of a celestial Jesus Christ – the Lord, are always, and only, in future tense – he is to come, to arrive etc. Nowhere does Paul state that Jesus will return, come again, or gives any other indication of an earlier earthly residence of Jesus Christ.”
What would be definitive to you to convince you that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus? You need to prove that all of the passages are conveying a cosmic Jesus. The burden is on your plate to prove as to why it’s more probable that James the Brother of the Lord is more likely just a non-apostolic Christian. It’s on your plate to prove that all passages that seem to very strongly point toward a historical Jesus are really pointing towards a celestial being.
“2) Nowhere does Paul state where, or when, the death and resurrection of Jesus took place.”
Why would he? This is easily explained away with the fact that this information could of already been known, and there would have been no reason to repeat himself. If there were passages like “He was crucified in Jerusalem.” then you would say this was a Christian interpolation to fight against mythicism. A natural reading 1st Corinthians 15 would clearly show that Jesus was buried and raised on Earth. There is no reason to think otherwise unless you show it.
“3) None of the Jerusalem Church members Cephas (Peter), John and James, or anyone else, are ever identified as followers (disciples) of an earthly Jesus.”
1st Corinthians 15 mention “the twelve”, and it’s not a great leap to say that this is the same 12 in the Gospels. This twelve is distinguished from the other apostles who were not in the 12 in the creed. Once again, Paul’s intent is to convey theology and correction to his churches. It would seem odd for him to start talking about Cephas and the others past. It’s not his point.
4) Paul never identifies Jesus Christ as a preacher, teacher, or a leader of any Palestinian religious movement.
He never identifies Jesus as being a celestial being who was crucified in the heavens. You’d think that in all of his letters that he would have mentioned something like that. So your argument of silence is weak. Paul only speaks of Jesus as the resurrected Jesus. He only relies on information he receives from the Lord. So even if he heard the gospel from Peter, he would not tell his church or trust that information.
“5) Nowhere are Paul’s “the twelve” from 1 Cor. 15:5 identified as disciples. That misplaced notion comes from reading the Gospels into Paul’s letters. Peter (Cephas) was not part of the twelve.”
Amazing. The Gospels are complete fiction therefore mythicism. You have to prove that the Gospels relied on Paul for historical information. It’s your job to prove that the Twelve in the Gospels are plucked from Paul’s letters. This idea that all Christians had Paul’s letters is silly. Where is the evidence?
“6) Paul does not identify where, or when, the bread and wine ceremony in 1 Cor 11:23-26 took place – or whether it even occurred on earth, Paul claims he received his information about the ceremony through a vision from Jesus.”
Yes, it is vague. But that’s not a mark in favor of mythicism. It’s a mark in favor of Paul saying he has a received revelation about something Jesus partook this. Paul only uses revelation because to him that’s the only thing that’s certain.
“7) Paul states that his knowledge about Jesus Christ came through direct revelation from Jesus Christ and scripture only – and not from any person. Gal. 1:11-12 and Rom.16:25-26.”
That’s not completely true. Paul knew of the Gospel before he received the Gospel. Otherwise how could he have persecuted the church? Paul had to have heard of Christianity and it’s beliefs in order to vigorously persecute it. Paul said he was a former blasphemer. So that means that he had a negative view of their beliefs even before he was a believer.
“8) There is no evidence that other apostles obtained their knowledge about Jesus Christ by means other than revelations and scripture as in 1 Cor. 15: 3-8.”
Another baseless assertion. Proof? The Gospels paint a completely different picture of how the disciples learned about Jesus, and it doesn’t require your weak argument from silence. Paul maybe the first sources, but he isn’t the only one. Paul’s silence is not an argument for mythicism.
“9) Paul describes Jesus’ crucifixion in Gal 3:13 as having been hanged from a tree. The scripture reference is to Deut. 21:22-23. The OT verses deal with the postmortem display of executed criminals and not the Roman execution method. “Hanged from a tree” in Greek (stauros) will be translated as “crucifixion”.”
Again another assertion. Paul is writing to Greek speakers. They would have understood what Paul meant by “stauros”. Is it also a coincidence that this happened to be a very prominent form of punishment by the Romans? Regardless, it’s not a leap by any means to say this meant crucified in the Roman sense.
“10) In 1 Cor 2:6-10 Paul tells us who killed Jesus-without specifying a time or location. Jesus was “crucified” (see 9) by the “rulers of this age” (archonton tou aionos toutou). By using the term “rulers of this age” Paul refers to the supernatural powers of Satan and his demons who live in in the firmament, and not to earthly authorities. Apparently, these supernatural powers were ignorant and mistakenly killed Jesus – and by doing so are doomed to perish. “
I disagree completely. Again Paul’s language may appear strange to us, but if you follow the whole argument it wouldn’t even make sense if demons were the ones responsible. The context is about human wisdom. Wisdom that is foolish in God’s eyes. Paul even says “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this “aeon”. These are humans, they are the ones who are foolish. If a man can be “the debater of this age”, it isn’t a stretch say that the rulers of this age are humans. I agree that if these people believed Jesus is the Christ then they wouldn’t have crucified him. Would you crucify someone who is God’s anointed?
1st Corinthians 1
“
The Wisdom of God
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who [** you do not have permission to see this link **]are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
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? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the [** you do not have permission to see this link **]Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For [** you do not have permission to see this link **]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1st Corinthians 2
2 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the [** you do not have permission to see this link **]rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 [** you do not have permission to see this link **]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But [** you do not have permission to see this link **]appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.“
“11) Elsewhere, in Romans 13:1- 4, Paul states that earthly authorities are servants of God who can do no wrong. Good conduct need not fear, but wrongdoers will be punished by God servants. Here Paul contradicts the Gospel’s claims that Jesus was not guilty of a crime, and unjustly executed – another indication that Paul Jesus Christ is not the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels.”
This seems weak to me. It’s clear he isn’t saying that earthly authorities could do no wrong. I seriously doubt Paul thought this either. Paul is stating that we should submit to God’s sovereignty which includes the rulers he puts in. Surely Paul didn’t think people like Herod the Great, or his son was perfect. He’s saying all in power are there because God is sovereign. He says pay your taxes and submit to law. He is referring to that the “authorities” are not a terror to law abiding citizens. Not that they are perfect. The Gospels do not presume that Jesus was guiltless under Roman law. Jesus was free from sin and wasn’t lying about being a King. Under Roman law anything that rises against Caesar is punishable.
“12) In Rom. 8:22-23 Paul promises his followers adoption by God. Consequently, in Rom 8:29 God’s firstborn Jesus will be surrounded by many (adopted) brothers. They are, “the brothers of the Lord”
In a technical sense, but the only two examples clearly point toward a real Jesus. Carrier’s definition that “Brothers of the Lord” refer to non apostolic Christian is an assumption. Yes we are related to Christ, but we are related to Christ because of Christ. He could argue that the apostles are also brothers of the Lord. There is no reason to at all to believe that it was used to put a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians. In Galatians 1: Regardless of how you translate the passage, whether James is an apostle or not, it doesn’t defeat the point. The point is that there is a James, who is called THE Lord’s brother. Not “a Lord’s brother”, Not “Our brother James”, not “James who is in Christ”, but James the Lord’s brother. The definite article is in there in the Greek. In 1st Corinthians 9 Paul is arguing for his apostleship/apostolic rights, and says “Do we not have right to take a believe right like the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas”. If we were looking at it at face value then yes, this would be a plausible interpretation. However, in context the argument only makes sense if he is referring to people who have special status in the church. (He is after all talking about apostolic rights.) If you read it like Carrier, you would have to say “Do we not have the right to taking a believing wife like the other apostolic believers (also brothers of the Lord), non-apostolic believers (only brothers of the Lord), and Cephas (who is the lead apostle and also a brother of the Lord in a technical sense.) So it doesn’t hold to say that Paul is only referring to Christians. All of these people are baptized Christians so he has to add an ad-hoc view that it must be a distinction between Apostolic Christians and Non Apostolic Christians.
“13) A key part of Paul’s belief was a soon to come end-times cosmic battle when Satan his Demons and death, are defeated and subjugated by the celestial Christ. Since Christ had assumed human form in the firmament, his sacrifice nullified death introduced by the disobedience of Adam. 1 Cor. 15:20-27.”
Another irrelevant point. You are reading the ascension of Isaiah into Paul. Nowhere does Paul say that Jesus died in the firmament. Nowhere does it say he was killed by Satan. Evidence please.
“14) The late first century manuscript, “The Ascension of Isaiah”, describes the crucifixion, (hanged from a tree), and resurrection of a celestial Jesus in Satan’s world. It fits Paul’s Jesus story well. On the other hand, The Pauline narratives remain a difficult fit for an historical Jesus. “
A highly problematic document and it’s very unclear if he was crucified in the firmament. The text is so garbled that it really is impossible to know what the original was. I will study this one up more, but this is not a new document. So none of what Carrier says is new.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
James McGrath has written on the Ascension of Isaiah. He is very convincing in the way that all of the language of the AoI is docetic not a mythic view. He also points out something that I feel a lot have not pointed out.
I am no scholar. I am a mere neophyte, but Richard’s view is unconvincing. Please feel free to correct. I may be wrong about some things, something Richard Carrier could never admit.
gavriel said
I do not say whether Ephesians is factual or not, only that its author thought that Jesus had an existence on earth and Hades, and if you include the context like you do, you get the complete Pauline formula (heavenly pre-existence, earthly existence with death and even higher elevation to Heaven again). This is something that the author had learned from Paul, and Paul says so even more clearly (Phil 2:6-9). Paul may have been wrong, but he definitely thought that Jesus had a period on earth as a human.
According to the best experts in biblical Greek “made of a woman” is equivalent to “born of a woman” in that context. What else should it mean? It is a statement that says he was born a Jew, because in Judaism the Jewishness passes from the mother.
AoI is not first century and bears thus no witness to a belief in the Jesus of a lower Heaven before the canonical gospels. In addition you have to make rather speculative interpretations of AoI to arrive at a crucifixion in a lower heaven. Ehrman has an interesting chapter on it in his “Forgery and Counterforgery”.
1 Cor 2:6-8 may bear witness to the belief that the real rulers of earth are demonic. If you assume that the “rulers” in this verse are demonic powers, it does not follow that they are ruling a demonic empire outside earth, but rather that they are behind the rule of earthly powers. This conforms to the views of apocalyptic Judaism, in which Satan and the demonic powers temporarily are acting on this world in a warlike situation, for some time, until God and the good powers again have the upper hand.
When Paul is saying the rulers of this world crucified Christ, this probably means the Romans were “under the influence of Satan,” and hence crucified Christ. In this regard, Paul similarly writes: “4The god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4).”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)