GakuseiDon

Hi Earl! Great to see you back here!

My problem with the above, is: exactly where was this great spiritual sea beyond the earth placed? As far as I can see, if you go by the views of the day (e.g. Ocellus's, as I discuss below), Paul would have had to have placed the crucifixion above the firmament (supra-lunar) or below the firmament (sub-lunar). Is it in one of those places? It can't be supra-lunar, where the angels and God dwelled, so it had to be below the firmament. But there is no evidence of "crucifixion" type activities happening below the firmament other than on earth. (I once suggested that we start a list of what the literature said about activities above the earth and below the moon. Perhaps we can return to that?)

If you are referring to Plutarch, then he placed the actions of the gods either on earth (as the "man in the street" view that he warns Clea against) or he regarded them as acts of nature, used as metaphors for the acts of gods.

Now, you can say that Paul had atypical views, e.g. that Paul thought the crucifixion happened in some other dimension, but I suggest that the onus is on you to show evidence for this. And I just don't think the evidence is there.

Can you tell which writers contradicted those views from that period of time? If you have writers who placed the actions of the gods in a "great spiritual and mythical sea beyond the earth" that either wasn't on earth or above the firmanent, I'd be very interested to see them.

Sure. I'm very interested in your input on this, too, since this is part of the debate we never really got around to.

This is the thread where I brought up Ocellus:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=143542

This is my quote:

From here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/midplato.htm
"Ocellus understood the cosmos as divided in two parts, the supra-lunar and the sub-lunar, the gods existing in the former and daemons and humans in the latter. It is only in the sub-lunar regions, he argued, that generation and decay occurs, for it is in this region that "nonessential" beings undergo alteration according to nature."

So the "daemons and humans" existed in the sub-lunar regions. This obviously extended to the earth.

The link is to a paper discussing the views of Middle Platonists generally. I used that quote from the article above because (IMHO) it neatly encapsulated the views of that time. AFAIK they are completely non-controversial. However, if you think I am incorrect, I'd be very interested in seeing views from Middle Platonists of that time that contradicts the above.

Ocellus Lucanus was a Greek philosopher who lived around 5 C BCE. The view expressed above is from the treatise "On the Nature of the Universe" which bears his name but was probably written around the 1st or 2nd C BCE. (Sometimes the author is referred to as Pseudo-Ocellus).

How does Paul's view of the cosmos differ from Ocellus's view (or the other Middle Platonist writers of that time, for that matter), in your opinion?

ible

Liebe Sven,

you probably believe in it, but yet without theological ramifications. you probably believe in a right and wrong, and when people do the wrong things, that is, theologically speaking, a sin. for instance, raping and killing a young girl, you would (probably) view as a hideously terrible, evil behavior. you are making a judgment that something is a sin, and you would probably suggest punishment of some kind for the perpetrator.

and there are nonAbrahamic religions that believe in stuff like sin. i.e. karma--you get what's coming to you, from whatever pollution you have, or have had in past lives. pollution, sin, --it's called by different things in different cultures.

i don't know about atonement. you may make a case that if monkey A took monkey B's banana, B hitting A over the head was justified in B's revenge, and that the revenge became known as atonement. but we probably don't see it as the kind of revenge/atonement we see in humans. the monkeys would fight over the banana, maybe over some female monkey, maybe fight to the death with the tribe. but i don't know if "sacrifice" would ever be instituted. say monkey A takes B's banana, and B chases after his mortal enemy A; along the way A eats it; when B catches up, A gives something in lieu of a banana, say a coconut, instead. a sacrifice, or an exchange, AFAIK isn't seen in animals (at least not ones that are "enemies;" there are probably exchanges that occur within a tribe, with hunting, picking off bugs from each other, etc.).

and so animals are quite a ways from "atonement," i think. and even if they were, they probably don't see the behavior as "sinful,"--the kind of behavior that steals from one party--and then what needs to be taken back. and they are far away from sacrificing food/animals to a god to repent of their sins--the life for a life, repent, and ask god to put its wrath on the animal instead of oneself. animals don't do these things. they probably think more along the lines of instinct; justice, revenge, etc., are what we place on their behavior, when they just want to get whatever desire they have at the moment fulfilled.

we humans aren't quite so different in wars, but we do have a higher (or perhaps lower) place that we go to, and that is fighting wars of ideology. fights about what is sinful, what is right, what is logical and true, etc. and not even in conflict as blatant as "wars"--but even in our conversations, arguments, here on IIDB.

other animals have hardly a care in the world about these things; or if they do, they don't show it. one question would be, "where do these things come from, that a concern for them arose in humans?" (it is, by nature, a question of mythology, since it concerns origins.) another would be, "what value do you attach to a mythology, or history (or hystorical mythology is probably the best) like Christianity that ties up all the knots about sin, judgment, punishment, atonement, and forgiveness?"

GakuseiDon

And just a reminder: the heavenly City of Jerusalem, etc, existed above the firmament. People placed their gods there, but had different ideas about what existed there. However, they were fairly uniform about what existed below the firmament, and there was nothing like a heavenly City of Jerusalem in the air below the firmanent in the literature anywhere AFAICS. Theophilus writes about "birds flying in the firmament", Tatian and others about demons in the air, but nothing like crucifixion.

Now, you've said that I have a failure of imagination here, but I shouldn't have to imagine it. Or rather, there is no way that I disprove that Paul imagined this. But I can show that Paul is consistent with other Middle Platonists of his day. Like Philo's view of Moses, for example, Paul believed that Jesus was a pre-existent being who enacted a new covenant with God on earth, and then went to heaven, perhaps bodily. That is a precedent in the literature. What is the precedent in the literature for Paul believing in a "great spiritual and mythical sea beyond the earth"?

Sven

It's "lieber", but thanks anyway for you trying German.

If it does not have theological ramifications, it's not sin. It's really as simple as that.

Umm, no. Because sins are quite different things in different religions, and wrong things are quite different things for different people and different societies. It's simply impossible to equate these two things.

And there have been societies in the past in which raping young women by the chef priest (or whatever) was considered quite normal, i.e. right. By your logic, it would not have been a sin then.

Remember? I didn't say I don't believe in "stuff like sin". I said I don't believe in sin. Sin = "something wrong with theological ramifications". Got it?

This is overly simplistic. Two things:
1) you somehow managed to miss the important parts in my argument. I'll repeat it, and this time bold the important parts:
"As for atonement and rightness, you can find the roots of these in other primates: They probably evolved, because they provided a benefit for a social species."
In ever more simpler words: What we see in other primates is the simpler version of what we have; in the human lineage, these traits became more sophisticated.
2) You should read up on evolutionary literature. It's quite illuminating on these things.

See point 2.

I rather wonder how often this behavior is seen in humans...

See point 1 and 2.

As billions of humans also don't do. See above.

As (at least) hundreds of millions of humans also don't do.

[snip comments moving away from the point]

EarlDoherty

One of the reasons why I have no interest in reopening a major debate with you, Don, is because in the last one I was unable to get across to you that all these claims you make around Middle Platonism do not, contrary to your insistence, discredit my own presentation. I am quite willing to acknowledge that Pseudo-Ocellus (as far as he goes) may well represent the basic essence of Middle Platonic views of the universe, and I have never said that any writer contradicts that essential view. What I have said (or should have stated more directly) is that some writers contradict your usage and conclusions from that view, namely that crucifixion of a descending deity could not take place anywhere below the moon except on earth itself, or that somehow this sublunar region was so monolithically homogeneous that such an event could not be placed anywhere but on earth. Or to put it more properly, that no one, including any early Christians or proto-Christians or Jewish sectarians, could ever have thought or believed that the crucifixion of a deity could take place in some other area of that sublunar region other than the surface of the earth. Certainly “Ocellus” offers no such pointed analysis, nor does any other writer of the time. And we certainly can’t claim that Paul (whom you seem to want to make out to be the quintessential Middle Platonist!) could never have done so either. That’s you (and others) trying to read such restrictions into the matter.

By the way, I think we should make it clear (and it might have helped if you had done so from the beginning), that Ocellus lived in the 5th century BCE, that the fragments (and they are not extensive) attributed to him come apparently from the 1st century BCE and are forgeries intended to provide a Pythagorean root for Platonism, and are preserved only in a 5th century CE writer, Joannes Stobaeus. So it’s a bit misleading to pontificate on “Ocellus” as though he were the final word on the matter and fully dependable as an authoritative voice for Middle Platonism. Also by the way, I note that Mr. Moore, whom you are quoting, places “Ocellus” in the 2nd century BCE. So there seems to be a lot of woolly knowledge and presentation surrounding this fellow.

This is what John Dillon has to say in The Middle Platonists (p.119):

So again, neither the writer nor the writings ought to be held up as some kind of overriding authoritative voice, which is what you have been trying to do.

I prefer to quote voices we do have in extant texts which demonstrate my own claims. I repeatedly tried to do this with Plutarch and Julian, and especially the Ascension of Isaiah, and all I got in return was a dogged insistence on Ocellus.

I pointed out this passage in the Ascension (7:9-10):

Which clearly shows that this writer did not regard the sublunar realm as homogeneous, that spiritual activities (i.e., by spirit entities) could go on in a firmament area which is distinct from on earth, and that the two locations could be distinguished and compared. Why not postulate that Paul was more akin to this type of thinking? No reason at all not to, whether he was a Middle Platonist or not. I am not interested in further semantic arguments around this. The text is clear. Compare 11:23, where the Son, from earth (where a generally acknowledged interpolation in 11:2-22 places him), “ascended…into the firmament…and all the angels of the firmament, and Satan, saw him and worshiped.”

Perhaps a little less clear, but still arguable, is the descent sequence in chapter 9, which almost certainly places the descending/disguised Son in Satan’s firmament when he is seized and hung on a tree by “the god of that world”. Nor am I interested in further argument about there not being trees in the upper air. Whether the Heavenly Jerusalem is above or below the moon is immaterial (no pun intended), the point is it existed in a spiritual form, and I offered other argumentation to demonstrate that the ancients were quite capable of envisioning spiritual counterparts in the heavens to things on earth, whether cities, trees, castrating knives or whatever. And just because a couple of sophisticated philosophers speak of allegorical interpretations does not belie their background views of the universe or the likelihood that others less sophisticated, the person-on-the-street believers, could not have seen things more graphically.

My phrase “a great spiritual and mythical sea beyond the earth” was simply my poetic way of referring to the heavenly spiritual realm in general, which played such a part in the thinking of the time, and not just by philosophers. Since the matter bore absolutely no relation to reality, it would not be surprising that different people, different sects, would make use of the concept in different ways, maybe some of them even in contradictory or at least inconsistent fashion. That was my basic point, one which I couldn’t seem to get across to you, and that nothing “Ocellus” or any other writer might have said would disallow this.

As some poster a few months ago said (it may have been Michael Turton), don’t expect me (i.e., Earl Doherty) to impose order and exact science on a fundamentally irrational doctrine such as the Platonic universe was. Even in our scientific age, presentation of the various ‘realities’ where religion is concerned is anything but uniform and sensible.

My reason for intruding on this thread at this time was simply to clarify my position on what Paul may or may not have thought. In regard to the lunar divide and his placement of the mythical Christ’s crucifixion, we cannot be sure, since he never specifies. But if the view of 1 Cor. 2:8 is essentially correct, that “the rulers of this age” refers to demon spirits who controlled that divide between sublunar and purely spiritual realms, he may well have placed it below the moon. My position doesn’t stand or fall in the clarification of that point.

The other reason why I won’t get involved in protracted debates here is that I am, at long last, working on my revisions and expansion of The Jesus Puzzle for a Second Edition. I don’t know how long it will take (possibly several months), particularly as I am still experiencing ill effects from the eye trouble that somewhat disabled me this past winter, and I’d rather be devoting my reading and computer time to this research and writing. Incidentally, I will be at the library of a major Theological Seminary here next week, and they happen to have a French translation of the actual text of (Pseudo) Ocellus there (or rather of Stobaeus which contains it), so I will look it up to see exactly what Mr. O has to say on the subject of the sublunar realm. If anything interesting emerges, I’ll let you all know.

My best to all,
Earl Doherty

Clivedurdle

I am puzzled by the rules you are postulating for the earth, firmament and above. I assume we are all agreed on this type of basic model?

http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview....%20the%20earth

(fifth post down).

One of the available text books, used as a primary source by two monotheistic religions, describes a god walking in the garden, showing his bum, being like a fire or a still small voice, being the almighty, being with us, I am that I am and other ways. There seems to be no problem with this god interfering in day to day life in person.

There are other interesting rules and comments - demons do not like to get wet for example, stars like leaves, that it is possible to role up the sky. Baptism seems like a wash off the demons ritual.

Remember they were not bronze age goatherders - we are well into the iron age to start with and there are some impressive technologies and ideas available, including thinking earth air fire and water look like the basic elements and then there is the world of the humans and the world of the gods. But they interact all over the place, breath, spirit, rauch - same word.

I do not see in this huge complex of a continuously interacting universe - where spirits are causing the sun to rise every day - why it is so necessary to divide off the planet's surface from the sub lunar realm from above the firmament, and assume that to them the planet was any more real than the spiritual plane - to them they were both equally real.

When a smith took earth, heated it with fire, fashioned a sword and cooled it with water and used bellows to make the fire hotter, he was thought to be a magician able to control the magical properties of these elements. Read up about John Dee, his experiments were carried out with religious rituals - he thought he was changing the spiritual and the material realm.

We now no longer believe in angels keeping the stars up nor magical properties in iron ore and fire. There were no rules at the time that sacrifices had to be in heaven, if anything there was a strong belief that actions on earth caused changes in the heavens, so actions like the eucharist are a repetition on earth of the heavenly sacrifice - do this in remembrance of me! The eucharist could be understood as the earthly symbol of this heavenly act, later on a human jesus was invented - probably as a play.

Don't forget to put the cat out and placate the gods!

ible

Lieber Sven,

(Deshalb es ist liebe fuer feminin, und lieber fuer Maenner, nicht wahr?)

and i'm saying that it's not just a "sophistication" that occurs, but some new thing appears. guilt, perhaps, or something else, that we just don't see in animals. and there are two views of evolution, i guess. one view which is considered incorrect nowadays--that we are the top of the pyramid, and other animals are "primitive,"--and another view that every specific species is at the top of their respective pyramids. so it'd be a wonder to me why there wouldn't be other creatures that sacrifice and what not, like we humans do.

and yes, people in different cultures have different views of morality. but you might find out that you agree with the Bible's morality (as a whole), it's views of what is right and wrong--even if you don't agree with its punishments. stuff like the 10 commandments (and it's not just something to keep the people in check, but if the priests, and the kings/presidents followed these rules--you show a spark of anger at the chief priests who had raped women), and in the NT, "love your neighbor as yourself," with its views of forgiveness and mercy. if you agree that there needs to be punishment of some sort, judgments on specific wrong-doings, and yet forgiveness on other times, too--well, i think you agree to the whole storyline or plot behind the Christian Bible.

does it make Christianity more or less historically probable, or more true in any sense, if it seems to match up with (a few) people's idea of sin, judgment, and punishment, and forgiveness?

GakuseiDon

I'm not postulating rules for what people believed at that time, I'm pointing out what the literature tells us about those beliefs.

GakuseiDon

(My emphasis in the above) Thank you. That is an important concession, and I appreciate that. It is a point that I've been trying to make for a while.

If we are talking about views about the sublunar realm around Paul's time, then I disagree. AFAICS the literature is pretty clear about what people believed regarding the sublunar realm, and that is because they could see it when they looked up. There was some speculation about what went on around the Moon, though, where the corruptible and temporary met the incorruptible and permanent. But that speculation had nothing to do with "fleshy activities" relating to the gods AFAIK (Carrier's badly used quote from Plutarch to the contrary).

Earl, once again, I have to ask you for those writers around Paul's time who had differing views of the sublunar realm. I think you have your interpretation of AoI, which in my view supports me more than you. I certainly don't see AoI saying anything different about the sublunar realm. Do you have other writers saying different things about the sublunar realm that relate to your thesis of "fleshy activities" or "world of myth"?

No, I'm certainly not trying to read restrictions into the matter. You can claim that Paul believed whatever you like. My point is that there is no precedent in the literature to support your view about Paul. And that unfortunately weakens your case a lot IMHO.

People who support your thesis generally believe that you are representing Paul as holding the common beliefs of the day. I think that it is important to point out that there is no support in the literature for a "fleshy sublunar realm" or "world of myth". Not in AoI, not in Philo, not in Plutarch, and there is no reason to suppose that it exists in Paul. That is, Paul is understandable in the Middle Platonist views of the day. If you want to propose that Paul believed something different, then I would like to see the literature to support that. I don't want to have to imagine what Paul believed.

Earl, if you read the link I gave earlier to our debate, you will see that I'm not saying, "Ocellus said it, therefore its true". I'm saying, "This is representative of the beliefs of Middle-Platonists of the day regarding a 2 tier universe", a point that you appear to agree with when you said above "I am quite willing to acknowledge that Pseudo-Ocellus (as far as he goes) may well represent the basic essence of Middle Platonic views of the universe".

Well, if you thought I was misleading you, I apologise. I already knew that a 2nd C BCE work couldn't have been written by a 5th C BCE philosopher, but since the author is generally referred to as "Ocellus", I never thought there would be a problem using that name (in the same way that the author of the Gospel of Mark is usually referred to as "Mark"). No deception was intended.

Again, if you read our last debate on the link I gave, I'm using Ocellus as representative of the views of the day regarding the supra-lunar and sub-lunar realms. It wasn't because Ocellus said it, it is because that was the belief at that time. Could other people (like Paul) have had different beliefs about the sublunar realm? Sure! But I don't want to have to imagine it -- I'd like to see the literature supporting that. That's a point I've tried so many times to get across to you. Paul is perfectly understandable in terms of the literature of the day. There is no need to suppose he had differing beliefs about the sublunar realm, e.g. "world of myth".

If you read the link, there was no "dogged insistence on Ocellus" other than the nicely succint quote regarding his views of a 2 tier universe. Do Plutarch, Julian and AoI agree with Ocellus in this respect? (AFAICS they do).

The debate on AoI has been done to death elsewhere, and I'm no more interested in revisiting it than you, I'm afraid, Earl.

Sure. Anything is possible.

Thanks Earl. I'll look forward to what you find out. Best of luck to you, and I hope we can hear from you again soon!

ObiKenobi

Even if the Avest is wrong, or contradictory, in many places; how would the Ahura Mazda (or plug in Zeus, Allah, etc, etc into the same sentence and it still applies) myth arise? The same way you brush aside those other myths are the same reason why we brush aside your mythology.