For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Mcreal]

It is imperative that the chronological order of writings in the NT be understood.

The Gospels or stories of Jesus, especially the Synoptics, predated all the letters in the Pauline Corpus.

If the writers called Paul actually preached and wrote letters directly to Churches before the Jesus stories called Gospels were known then it would be expected that the authors of the Gospels would have used or would be influenced by claims in the supposed letters.

There is simply no historical evidence that any of the NT Gospel writers were aware of or influenced by the teachings or preaching of the supposed Paul or attended any Church supposedly started by Pauline characters.

Yes, one would have expected the Gospels to more overtly refer to the Pauline texts: that they don't may reflect a few things. Both sets of texts may have arisen at the same time in separate communities.

Though, I think Robert Price proposes the Paulines are a joint effort by a few people in the 2nd century, including Polycarp & Marcion. It seems many of the Pauline epistles are represented in the Marcionite texts, though we only hear about that from Tertullian in the early 3rd century?? [eta: Passages of the Pauline epistles are represented in the writings of Irenaeus, and some think Tertullian's Adversus Marcion is based on a similar text of Irenaeus).

I think there have been a few people now suggesting the Synoptics arose out of the Marcionite community or their texts. J Dyson? Vincent?

Tom Dykstra's Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel (2012) draws connections between Paul and the Gospel of Mark.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B and all

Expressing views IS discussion.

Repeatedly expressing your own views, while ignoring responses - is NOT. You know that.

How can "crucified" happen in heaven, or seed of David be heavenly?

Very easily.
Can you explain why YOU believe a crucifixion can NOT happen in heaven Craig B ?

The Jewish view of heaven(s) contained all sorts of beings and actions and punishments -

• Satan being thrown out,
• millstones grind heavenly grain into manna,
• the Heavenly Jerusalem, Jerusalem above
• Michael pays cult to god
• a store of hail and rain
• souls and magic water
• Paradise in the Third Heaven
• many intercessary angels and demons that deal with humankind below
• Hebrews says Jesus 'passed through the heavens'.
• angels/demons struggle with each other, envying, plundering, violence
• the heavenly principalities and powers and authorities we must deal with,
• Paul's 'elements of the cosmos' (stoichea tou kosmou) which deceive
• visions of earthly things are in the heavens - 'as it is above, so it also on earth'
• rivers, lakes, palaces, gardens, burials - in heaven

In light of the many beings and object and events that DID (allegedly) happen in heaven Craig B - do you have ANY reason at all to give WHY a crucifixion could NOT happen in heaven ?

Apart from your own incredulity ?


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B and all

I have no idea whatsoever what any of the above means. It looks like gibberish.

You're a smart person, you know all those terms, you know all those concepts. Are you just here to abuse the stupid mythicist too ?


Kapyong

 

[annnnoid]

Gday Craig B and all


Repeatedly expressing your own views, while ignoring responses - is NOT. You know that.

Very easily.
Can you explain why YOU believe a crucifixion can NOT happen in heaven Craig B ?

The Jewish view of heaven(s) contained all sorts of beings and actions and punishments -

• Satan being thrown out,
• millstones grind heavenly grain into manna,
• the Heavenly Jerusalem, Jerusalem above
• Michael pays cult to god
• a store of hail and rain
• souls and magic water
• Paradise in the Third Heaven
• many intercessary angels and demons that deal with humankind below
• Hebrews says Jesus 'passed through the heavens'.
• angels/demons struggle with each other, envying, plundering, violence
• the heavenly principalities and powers and authorities we must deal with,
• Paul's 'elements of the cosmos' (stoichea tou kosmou) which deceive
• visions of earthly things are in the heavens - 'as it is above, so it also on earth'
• rivers, lakes, palaces, gardens, burials - in heaven

In light of the many beings and object and events that DID (allegedly) happen in heaven Craig B - do you have ANY reason at all to give WHY a crucifixion could NOT happen in heaven ?

Apart from your own incredulity ?


Kapyong

Every heard of a dude named Occam????

So where is this ‘heaven’…and how many crucifixions have been documented to have occurred there???

I think the exact number is …zero!

On the other hand…the Romans are reported to have crucified literally thousands.

So...when a document of the day mentions 'crucifixion'...what dimension is it most likely referring to??? 'Likely' by orders of magnitude probably measurable in light years????

It’s not incredulity…it’s just simple common sense. Something woefully lacking in much of your over-heated commentary.

…if anything…the credulous argument would be – by a very wide margin – the suggestion that anything BUT the earthly domain is implicated.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, one would have expected the Gospels to more overtly refer to the Pauline texts: that they don't may reflect a few things. Both sets of texts may have arisen at the same time in separate communities.

Those who use letters under the name of Paul as historical sources typical argue [WITHOUT evidence] that the letters predate the Gospels.

The existing manuscripts and writings with stories of Jesus show that all letters under the name of Paul in the NT were very late embellishments.

The character called Paul was fabricated as a witness to the non-historical resurrection of Jesus but Paul as a witness of the resurrection was unknown in all the NT Gospels and even Acts of the Apostles.

In fact, Acts of the Apostles is evidence that letters under the name of Paul were extremely late writings since there is NOT a single reference to even a ten word phrase from the supposed letters by the supposed Saul/Paul anywhere in Acts of the Apostles.

Though, I think Robert Price proposes the Paulines are a joint effort by a few people in the 2nd century, including Polycarp & Marcion. It seems many of the Pauline epistles are represented in the Marcionite texts, though we only hear about that from Tertullian in the early 3rd century?? [eta: Passages of the Pauline epistles are represented in the writings of Irenaeus, and some think Tertullian's Adversus Marcion is based on a similar text of Irenaeus).

The letters atttributed to the fiction character called Paul are really anti-Marcionite writings fabricated after Marcion was likely dead or after c 175-180CE.



The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus appears to be a massive forgery or heavily mutilated by multiple unknown authors.

It is just absurd that a supposed presbyter and bishop of the Church would argue that Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE and still claim to know of the Pauline Corpus and Gospels where Jesus is claimed to have been crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE and that Paul preached Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

"Adversus Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a corrupted source. No Christian writer up to at least the end of the 4th century knew of any writing against Marcion by Tertullian.

Both Eusebius and Jerome mentioned the writings of Tertullian and nothing is mentioned of "Adversus Marcion". Also, Jerome and Euseboius admitted or claimed Tertullian wrote Against the Church. In addition, Jerome and Eusebius listed at least nine Christians who wrote Against Marcion however Tertullian is not listed.

Incidentally, in the opening passages of "Adversus Marcion" the author admitted that there were multiple versions and that copies were stolen, manipulated and published filled with errors.

"Adversus Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is indeed filled with mistakes--the claim that Marcion knew of and made use of letters under the name of Paul is total fiction.

"Adversus Marcion" was probably written or manipulated no earlier than the end of the 4th century or after Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus".

 

[David Mo]

Not so. I gave the evidence in another thread but I'll repeat it here:
On divine heavenly pre-existent patriarchs:
The Prayer of Joseph (1st or 2nd C CE):
Evidence that Moses was believed to be a heavenly, pre-existent being among Hellenistic Jews:
Burton Mack . . . reads Philo's discussion of Moses as indicating that Moses did indeed descend from heaven to take on a fleshly existence before returning to his divine status once again.
I quote from "Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenistic Synagogue" (Studia Philonica, 1972, 27-55)

Thank you for the information. I didn’t know this text. Philo is an endless source of surprises.

Nevertheless, The Prayer of Joseph seems very controversial. We cannot discard Christian influences. See here: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/prayerjoseph.html. Philo was not a very probable source for Paul, however theoretically possible by means of mediate sources.

Anyway, we can accept an esoteric/Neoplatonic Jewish current that claimed that Moses, Jacob and alia were heavenly messengers of God on the Earth. This doesn’t counter my previous arguments about what Paul claimed. An –improbable- knowledge of these sources would be a reason to attribute a similar status to Jesus Christ in parallel to the evident influence of Daniel’s “Son of Man”.

 

[Craig B]

Can you explain why YOU believe a crucifixion can NOT happen in heaven Craig B ?

I don't need to explain what I don't believe. You need to justify what you do believe. That's how it works. Your list is very strange. A few sources would be nice. Let's have 'em, if you want to mitigate my unwarranted "incredulity"

The Jewish view of heaven(s) contained all sorts of beings and actions and punishments -

Satan being thrown out
His whereabouts are given as "And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.[Job 1:7] The reference to Satan falling from Heaven is in Luke 10:18. Not a Jewish or Pauline source, eh?

The first mention of Satan in the OT is in 1 Chron 21:1, and in that reference "Satan" IS God.

millstones grind heavenly grain into manna,
Ref where? And so on

 

[dejudge]

The argument for an historical Jesus or the heavenly Jesus is hopelessly flawed since both arguments are directly based on the baseless assumption that letters under the name of Paul are historically credible with respect to claims about the character called Jesus and the apostles.

1. The letters under the name of Paul are without corroboration in the very NT.

2. No NT writer was influenced by the supposed teachings in letters under the name of Paul.

3. There is not even a claim of date of authorship in any letter under the name of Paul.

4. All manuscripts with letters under the name of Paul have been dated no earlier than the late 2nd century.

5. Christian writers up to the late 3rd century did not mention Paul or letters under the name of Paul

6. Non-apologetic writers did not mention Paul or letters under the name of Paul until the 4th century.

7. Letters under the name of Paul are really products of multiple unknown writers with unknown date of authorship.

8. Letters under the name of Paul are compilation of fiction with respect to Jesus and the apostles.

9. The conversion of Paul as stated in letters under the name of Paul is fiction.

10. The teachings about the resurrection and post-resurrection accounts of Jesus in letters under the name of Paul are all non-contemporary fiction.

The abundance of evidence do show that letters under the name of Paul are very late fabrications [no earlier than the late 2nd century] and are not historically credible with respect to Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Craig B]

... 7. Letters under the name of Paul are really products of multiple unknown writers with unknown date of authorship.
8. Letters under the name of Paul are compilation of fiction with respect to Jesus and the apostles.
9. The conversion of Paul as stated in letters under the name of Paul is fiction.
10. The teachings about the resurrection and post-resurrection accounts of Jesus in letters under the name of Paul are all non-contemporary fiction.

I'd love to see comments on these points from anyone who feels inspired to make them.

 

[Mcreal]

I've seen commentary that letters in those days, such as Paul's, were unlikely to have been the length of a chapter, let alone a whole 'epistle'.

 

[vridar]

I've seen commentary that letters in those days, such as Paul's, were unlikely to have been the length of a chapter, let alone a whole 'epistle'.

They are indeed more comparable to the lengths of philosophical treatises.

 

[Craig B]

They are indeed more comparable to the lengths of philosophical treatises.

Which is I suppose what they really are, written in the form of letters of guidance and instruction to groups of followers. Long philosophical treatises were indeed written in ancient times, so I don't think there's anything hugely surprising about the length of Paul's works.

 

[Mcreal]

In addition, Jerome and Eusebius listed at least nine Christians who wrote Against Marcion however Tertullian is not listed.

Do you mean at least nine Christians wrote against Marcion?

or that nine Christians wrote works titled "Against Marcion"?​

 

[vridar]

Which is I suppose what they really are, written in the form of letters of guidance and instruction to groups of followers. Long philosophical treatises were indeed written in ancient times, so I don't think there's anything hugely surprising about the length of Paul's works.

I wonder what other philosophical treatises were written in the form of letters.

 

[Border Reiver]

The Jewish view of heaven(s) contained all sorts of beings and actions and punishments -

• Satan being thrown out,
• millstones grind heavenly grain into manna,
• the Heavenly Jerusalem, Jerusalem above
• Michael pays cult to god
• a store of hail and rain
• souls and magic water
• Paradise in the Third Heaven
• many intercessary angels and demons that deal with humankind below
• Hebrews says Jesus 'passed through the heavens'.
• angels/demons struggle with each other, envying, plundering, violence
• the heavenly principalities and powers and authorities we must deal with,
• Paul's 'elements of the cosmos' (stoichea tou kosmou) which deceive
• visions of earthly things are in the heavens - 'as it is above, so it also on earth'
• rivers, lakes, palaces, gardens, burials - in heaven

In light of the many beings and object and events that DID (allegedly) happen in heaven Craig B - do you have ANY reason at all to give WHY a crucifixion could NOT happen in heaven ?

Apart from your own incredulity ?


Kapyong

The OT does not refer to a life after death - heaven as a place where the souls of the departed go to be one with the deity is a Christian invention.

As for your list first, Satan is thrown out of heaven in the OT, this is again a Christian invention, and for the rest it is fairly common poetic language, not description of actual events.

 

[Craig B]

The OT does not refer to a life after death - heaven as a place where the souls of the departed go to be one with the deity is a Christian invention.

Kapyong's fascinating list makes the place look like the Old Curiosity Shop, as well as the Abode of the Divinity.

 

[dejudge]

The argument for an historical Jesus or an heavenly only Jesus based on letters under the name of Paul is most absurd.

Christian writers of antiquity used letters under the name of Paul to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus and all other teachings which were contrary to their claim that Jesus was the son of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father who was crucified after a trial by the Sanhedrin and Pilate and was later raised from the dead and was seen by his disciples/apostles

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Examine "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

Examine "Prescription Against Heresies" attributed to Tertullian.

Letters under the name of Paul are used to argue AGAINST those who claim Jesus was born of human parents or that Jesus was only spirit.

If Paul did actually live and did preach, teach and write letters to Churches that Jesus was human only or heavenly only then Paul would have been a known heretic and would be REJECTED just like all others were rejected as heretics.

The mere fact that there are many multiple writings AGAINST Heretics and that the so-called heresies were exposed then it must be that if Paul actually preached, taught and wrote the heresies that Jesus was only human or only heavenly that his writings would not be Canonised by the very Church who regarded a human only Jesus or heavenly only Jesus as a pack of lies from the devil.

Those who put forward the absurd ridiculous notion that letters under the name of Paul support the numan only or heavenly only Jesus seem not to have read or cannot remember writings AGAINST Heresies attributed to Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian.

The letters under the name of Paul are all compatible with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, the Son of God, made of a woman, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected on third day and was seen by people after the resurrection where Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

The Jesus in the Church Canon [including all letters under the name of Paul] is a figure of fiction who never ever existed.

If one examines the letters under the name of Paul it is quickly discovered that they are virtually void of chronology, that is, it is virtually impossible to determine the order in which they were written--the unknown authors made zero claims about date of authorship.

No NT Canon writing including the author of Acts corroborated a single sentence in the letters under the name of Paul.

How is it possible that NT Canon writings wrote nothing at all about letters under the name of Paul when Paul was supposed to be a primary founder of Churches in the Roman Empire?



All letters under the name of Paul were fabricated after stories of Jesus were known and invented no earlier than the late 2nd-3rd century.

In Christian writings it is claimed the supposed Paul died under Nero which would mean all letters under the name of Paul would be forgeries or false attribution since the character called Jesus of Nazareth was invented AFTER the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

 

[GDon]

Gday Craig B and all Can you explain why YOU believe a crucifixion can NOT happen in heaven Craig B ?

I can certainly give my reasons, Kapyong. I'll give them below.

The Jewish view of heaven(s) contained all sorts of beings and actions and punishments -

• Satan being thrown out,
• millstones grind heavenly grain into manna,
• the Heavenly Jerusalem, Jerusalem above
• Michael pays cult to god
• a store of hail and rain
• souls and magic water
• Paradise in the Third Heaven
• many intercessary angels and demons that deal with humankind below
• Hebrews says Jesus 'passed through the heavens'.
• angels/demons struggle with each other, envying, plundering, violence
• the heavenly principalities and powers and authorities we must deal with,
• Paul's 'elements of the cosmos' (stoichea tou kosmou) which deceive
• visions of earthly things are in the heavens - 'as it is above, so it also on earth'
• rivers, lakes, palaces, gardens, burials - in heaven

In light of the many beings and object and events that DID (allegedly) happen in heaven Craig B - do you have ANY reason at all to give WHY a crucifixion could NOT happen in heaven ?

The main issue that I have with a 'heavenly' crucifixion is that it needs to take place in an area where:
(1) Things can die ("fleshly realm", if you like)
(2) Satan has agency to act.

This rules out the upper heavens, where God lives. The idea that Satan could (for example) go into the Heavenly Jerusalem and crucify someone there is against the thoughts of the time. It would be like having Satan stronger than God. (Some gnostic sects might believe this, but their Satan is actually a good guy.) Many of the items in your list above are for things that happen in the upper heavens. There is no agency for Satan to act there, no death, so the upper heavens are ruled out.

This leaves the lower heavens, i.e. the firmament and the air below it. And there is just nothing in ancient beliefs (IMHO) that supports the idea of a place where someone could be crucified in the air. Dr Carrier believes the Ascension of Isaiah supports this, but he is wrong.

You've floated the idea of it happening in the Third Heaven, which is between corruptibility and incorruptibility, and I think that is stronger IMO than Doherty's and Carrier's ideas on this; but I'd still like to see you support this more. Simply giving a list of items that don't support what is happening in the Third Heaven doesn't count for much AFAICS.

I'm not saying you need to produce that evidence now. I'd like to see you developing it further, definitely. But what you have is just a start. Throwing out a list of items as though they support your theory is not useful, I'm afraid.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I suppose it depends on how much into neo-platonism were those guys. The pythagoreans and neo-platonics and the Xian gnostic offshoots had a whole system of, basically, parallel worlds. Even less mystical sources such as Aristotle assume the existence of elemental worlds and their inhabitants. (In fact, the planets HAD to be made of elements like air and fire, because if they were made of heavy stuff like earth and water, they'd fall down, see? It's just elementary logic, dear Watson.)

The thing to remember about Xianity is that it's NOT strictly a matter of Judaism and rabinical logic. That one is Judaism. Xianity is a syncretism of Hellenistic thinking and some very liberal interpretation of the OT, often no more than cherrypicking some phrases out of context to support the former.

So the question isn't as much if the notion of multiple heavens fits pre-greek Jewish notion, but whether the Greek thinking and THEIR multiple spheres of heaven AND multiple realities was actually dominant. And it was. By 300 BCE you find it even in rabinical Judaism, especially abroad, and by the 1st century CE, the notion of seven spheres of heaven was an integral part of even that.

Because the Greek culture and philosophy were basically that dominant. They kinda crushed other modes of thinking in the area.

Ignoring that aspect isn't going to be very helpful.

And let's get back to those spheres. We're not just talking about a third heaven, but 7 (SEVEN!) of them even in 1st century Judaism.

God's throne, the seraphim and the rest of the angels are in the seventh one (obviously), so really that's the only one you can rule out as being God's absolute domain.

By contrast, the first heaven (Vilon) is literally just the sky dome. Even its name means just "veil". And yes, it was supposed to be a hard physical barrier, so I don't see why someone couldn't get nailed there.

Araphel, the second heaven, is the "cloud". It's all that darkness, and is filled with lost souls and whatnot. It's not a place of God's greatest glory, let's just say.

Etc.

And again, everything beyond Vilon, beyond the first heaven, is literally beyond the sky dome that is Vilon. The idea that below God's throne would be in the atmosphere is just... uninformed, to say the least. There are full 5 heavens between the sphere of God's throne and the sphere of the sky dome, none of which are floating in the atmosphere.

 

[GDon]

Well, I suppose it depends on how much into neo-platonism were those guys.

Technically neoplatonism started in the 3rd C CE. Middle platonism covers the period from around 1st C BCE to the 3rd C CE.

The pythagoreans and neo-platonics and the Xian gnostic offshoots had a whole system of, basically, parallel worlds. Even less mystical sources such as Aristotle assume the existence of elemental worlds and their inhabitants. (In fact, the planets HAD to be made of elements like air and fire, because if they were made of heavy stuff like earth and water, they'd fall down, see? It's just elementary logic, dear Watson.)

Yes, heavy elements like earth and water fall downwards, while light elements like air and fire went upwards. Ironically enough some Greeks thought the heavens were filled with fire!

The Greeks believed that flesh consisted of a combination of the elements. For example, Empedokles believed: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/emp.html

Flesh is the product of equal parts of the four elements mixed together, and sinews of double portions of fire and earth mixed together, and the claws of animals are the product of sinews chilled by contact with the air, and bones of two equal parts of water and of earth and four parts of fire mingled together. And sweat and tears come from blood as it wastes away, and flows out because it has become rarefied.​

Since flesh contained earth and water, it was naturally weighed down to earth. So to me those mythicist theories that claim that "flesh" could exist in the air have a burden of proof that I don't think they can meet.

The thing to remember about Xianity is that it's NOT strictly a matter of Judaism and rabinical logic. That one is Judaism. Xianity is a syncretism of Hellenistic thinking and some very liberal interpretation of the OT, often no more than cherrypicking some phrases out of context to support the former.

I agree.

So the question isn't as much if the notion of multiple heavens fits pre-greek Jewish notion, but whether the Greek thinking and THEIR multiple spheres of heaven AND multiple realities was actually dominant. And it was. By 300 BCE you find it even in rabinical Judaism, especially abroad, and by the 1st century CE, the notion of seven spheres of heaven was an integral part of even that.

I agree.

Because the Greek culture and philosophy were basically that dominant. They kinda crushed other modes of thinking in the area.

Ignoring that aspect isn't going to be very helpful.

Definitely agree!

By contrast, the first heaven (Vilon) is literally just the sky dome. Even its name means just "veil". And yes, it was supposed to be a hard physical barrier, so I don't see why someone couldn't get nailed there.

Hmmm... Actually nailed to the firmament. It's an interesting thought.

Araphel, the second heaven, is the "cloud". It's all that darkness, and is filled with lost souls and whatnot. It's not a place of God's greatest glory, let's just say.

Interesting. I'm familiar with the ancient Greek thoughts on that, not so much with the Hebrew terms. There were various beliefs regarding the makeup of the heavens ABOVE the firmament. But I'm not aware of any where God is not in charge (i.e. demons have no agency) above the firmament.