GakuseiDon

No, I don't think "kata sarka" is proof of Jesus of Nazareth. As I've said, it is not a problem for other versions of mythicism.

Yep. As I said in my last post to you, Doherty being wrong doesn't mean "QED historical Jesus".

That's right, it's only a problem for Doherty mythicism. Other versions of mythicism are not invalidated.

GakuseiDon

Hi dog-on, As you are sympathetic to mythicism, I would be interested in your thoughts on the points raised in my OP. Are the comments I made about Inanna and Plutarch's Osiris accurate? Have I represented Carrier correctly, IYO?

Toto

Christianity and alchemy split

Toto

Some off topic posts centering on reviews of Doherty's new book have been split off here

dog-on

Sure, but I think you are reading too much into what Carrier is actually saying. He seems to be making an analogy that says that events described as physical did, indeed, happen in places other than, specifically, on earth, in mythology of the time.

He specifically says, regarding Inanna:


So when you say the following:

I am confused as to why you said it. Sure it's under that heading in his review, but he specifically says why he used it and it is not for the reason you have given it.

Regarding this:

Here is the reference:

It seems to me that this is exactly what Plutarch is saying.

GakuseiDon

That's fine, but I said it because it is true: nowhere does Inanna provide an example of a sublunar incarnation. That to me is one of the controversial parts of Doherty's theory, and thus why (I assume) Carrier has a section called "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory".

Looking at the analogy offered by Carrier: Yes, Inanna represents an example of a dying and rising god. And there are other examples (like Dionysus). Nor do gods or men dying in the underworld appear controversial. The part I'm missing is how it helps Doherty's Sublunar Incarnation Theory, which IS controversial. What part of Doherty's theory is supported by a god who resurrects in the underworld?

dog-on

I do not know enough about the sublunar incarnation theory to specifically comment.

I simply pointed out where I thought you may have misread Carrier.

Toto

Carrier never says that Inanna incarnates in a sublunar realm. He uses that example to show the thought patterns in classical pre-Enlightenment times, in which events happened in some indeterminate area of space and time. You as a post-Enlightenment person seem to want to locate every event precisely, and you assume that all first century religious adherents would also want to know the longitude and latitude of Inanna's incarnation.

I think that a lot of thought patterns from this time are lost to us, and I think that Carrier is just saying that Doherty's interpretation is a possibility.

This review was written in 2002. In the meantime, Carrier has revised his views on mythicism, has gotten his PhD from Columbia, and will be publishing a book next year on the historicity of Jesus. I would suggest waiting for that.

GakuseiDon

The Sublunar incarnation theory is that Christ took on flesh in the "sublunar realm". (Technically the sublunar realm stretches from under the moon down to the earth, but in this case it means somewhere above the earth and under the moon.) Doherty theory is that Jesus Christ was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form.

Now, the problem is that there is no evidence that people thought in those terms. Flesh was made of earth and water (with a little air and fire), and earth and water were regarded as 'heavy' elements, which is why demons "acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sink downwards by their own weight". People didn't think fleshly beings or anything made of earth lived in the sky, but that is the implications. And Doherty doesn't just put Christ there, but also the myths of Attis being castrated and Mithras slaying a bull. But there is no evidence for any of this.

I don't think I have misread him. I'm critical of the applicability of his analogy. Carrier suggests that a god dying and resurrecting in the underworld is "proof of concept" for something along the lines of Doherty's theory. But my claim is that it isn't, and here is why:

Imagine that the "proof of concept" is a myth about a god dying and resurrecting on earth. Would this be a "proof of concept" for Doherty's theory? No, because it doesn't address the controversial part: sublunar incarnation.

So, what about a myth of a god dying and resurrecting in the underworld? It's the same thing: the controversy isn't whether a good can resurrect in the underworld, but whether they can incarnate and resurrect above the earth. That's the problem, and that's what we need a "proof of concept" for.

Now, Doherty didn't have any evidence for his sublunar incarnation theory in his old book (if anyone wants to discuss his indirect evidence in a new thread, I'd be more than happy to join in), which is why IMO Carrier had to go outside the book to find a "proof of concept". He may have lots of new evidence in his new book. But taking Carrier's review on its own terms, there is a large problem with his Inanna example.

GakuseiDon

This crap again. What rubbish. Please find any email where I've even hinted that I assume that. If not, apologize. I'm sick and tired of my comments being misrepresented.

A sublunar incarnation should include the following:
1. A sublunar location
2. An incarnation

For (1), Carrier states in his review that it is: "a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth". That's fine with me.

Sure, that's what he says, and that's exactly what I am questioning. Carrier's examples do not support an incarnation in a sublunar realm. I don't see how Inanna's death in the underworld supports it, and Carrier has read Plutarch incorrectly on this.

I look forward to any further that Carrier writes on this topic. But since people (including you) are still pointing to his review, let's get back to that.