Radorth

(It's the Christian's personal fault, again)

But that's not what ED says. Is it possible he's being irresponsible? He's not saying it came from dreams and visions over time, is he? Are you saying those who were direct disciples of Paul innocently jumped from some ethereal Jesus story to a voluminous, incredibly detailed story of Jesus in the flesh, in just one or two generations?

And then, in spite of viscious persecutions they kept on piecing together, redacting, "crafting," embellishing, all from hearsay and dimly remmembered legends? Wait a minute. I thought they all (including John now) pretty much "slavishly copied" it from Mark, and threw in a few parables unique to the Bible (and in all of literature IMO).

And of course if Mark is the main source, we cannot say we have a myth which simply grew over time, with many things added or subtracted, can we? If they were just "slavishly copying," how is it the story grew over time? And what exactly was the time in which it began and ended. These are fair questions that ought to be answered. And there's still the matter of proof...

No I think the skeptical historians quoted earlier would find in ED a gifted writer, but little less tendentious at the core than any other Jesus- myther. And they are the more to be trusted as they have no axe to grind. Durant pretty much shot down ED's theory in 1940, finding nothing in history to match it I assume.

Radorth

Steven Carr

I had written that even top Catholic scholars think 2 Peter is forged.


And Radorth moves the goalposts again.

He implied that sceptics were indulging in saying Peter's letters were forged simply because of sceptical prejudice.

When I point out that people devoted to the Bible who spend their lives studying it, and are deeply religious, and so the idea that Peter's epistles are forgeries is hardly a wild invention based purely on sceptical bias, Radorth moves the goalposts and changes the subject.

Iasion

Greetings Layman,


The case of Marcion is a strange one - I agree that Marcion did seem to believe that Jesus "walked the earth and interacted with his disciples".

Yet, like the Docetics ("illusionists") Marcion seem to also believe that Jesus was not physically present.

This distinction is a crucial piece of the puzzle, as Marcion's views stand 1/2 way between the original purely spiritual Iesous Christos and the later very tangible Jesus of Nazareth.

I'd like to discuss the subject of the multi-planar world view here, a subject that many seem to shy away from, perhaps thinking they will be tainted by the "supernatural" in some way.

Let me remind readers that we are merely having intellectual discourse on what some ancient people believed - no faith or any weird beliefs are required to discuss ancient world models.

For this unpopular multi-planar world view lies at the very heart of the issue, in my view.


The ancients saw the universe as made up of various layers - the divine at the "top", the earth at the "bottom" - the number of layers varies much as do the terms used - worlds, planes, layers, aeons, sephiroth even.

The basic idea that heaven is "above" and earth is "below" is still a commonplace in modern expressions like "down to earth" or "lifted up to heaven".

The specifics of the layers (remember, these are just models which help us to explain reality) varies across traditions - the Kabalists have their 10 sephira and 4 worlds, the chinese 5 elements, the theosophists 7 planes, the tarot 4 worlds etc.

Here is my approximation of the ancient world planar view, in 5 layers :

(Divine)
Spiritual (pneumatic)
Psychic
Astral (hylic)
Physical (sarkic)

More detail can be found here:
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ChristianTreeofLife.html" target="_blank">The Planes</a>
(I struggle to translate 'psychic' well - perhaps 'mental', 'emotional' or even 'formal'?)


This multi-planar world view helps to elucidate many cryptic comments - e.g. [*] Paul's pains to argue he is a "pneumatic" (which is higher than a "psychic")[*] Paul's claims he has reached the "third heaven".[*] Paul's contrast of the two types in Romans[*] Hebrews noting that Jesus is below the angels for a little while


Now,
I have argued that when Paul refers to Iesous Christos being crucified, this means :
the soul (Iesous Christos)
is incarnated (crucified)
in the body (on the cross)

This view clarifies Paul's comment about Iesous being crucified by the Rulers of This Age - which means that the process of the soul being incarnated is under the control of the beings of the Astral plane (age is patently a false translation of Aeon - read "plane" instead).


To be incarnated (crucified) the Iesous Christos, which is an image of the divine, must DESCEND from its higher origins to the lower physical plane.

Earl mentioned the Vision of Isaiah as a key work, and I cited other books which list the various planes (often as journey UP and down the planes) such as the Vision of Aradeus, Dream of Scipio, and the dreams in Enoch and others mentioned on my site. To date I have not seen anyone pick up on these references, which is a shame as they help a great deal to explain the CONTEXT of Paul's and other's writings.


So, finally nearing the conclusion, we need to consider the Astral plane - the planes immediately above the physical. It may help for the purposes of analogy to consider the planes as existing on a spectrum - higher planes are less dense, and have higher frequency.

The Astral plane is closely tied to the physical - both are usually considered "sublunar" or lower worlds.

This Astral plane seems to consist of matter more subtle than physical, yet still within reach of (some) senses sometimes. This may be similar to what the Kabalists label Yesodic, or a spiritualist would call ectoplasm, or a new-ager would call etheric.

In short - a divine being, who has descended (become more dense, slowed his vibrations) to the Astral level, could still "walk the earth and interact with his disciples" as a sort of ghost or phantom - which is EXACTLY what Marcion is said to have believed.


So,
when Marcion said "Jesus came down to Capernaum" this is Gnostic speak for :

Iesous Christos descended the planes to the Astral plane - the plane just ABOVE the physical.


And we have specific, contemporary evidence that the phrase "Jesus came down to Capernaum" means Jesus descended the planes :

Heracleon, mid 2nd century :
The words, "After this he went down to Capernaum," indicate the beginning of a new dispensation, for "he went down" is not said idly. Capernaum, means these farthest-out parts of the world, the material realm into which he descended.

"Material realm" may mean the physical here, or it may merely include the physical with the astral - the clear point here is that the phrase "came down to Capernaum" is a Gnostic code for descending to a lower world or plane.


So,
the phrase "came down to Capernaum" is merely a gnostic allegorical term, and has nothing to do with a historical person actually visiting a real place.

Also note that Marcion's Gospel had :[*] NO genealogy[*] NO phrase "seed of David"

which also argues against Marcion believing in Jesus in any orthodox sense.


Quentin David Jones

Layman

Do you have any Marcionite scholars who agree with you? Everyone of them I have read, even the skeptical Knox, agrees that Marcion believed that Jesus descened to earth, taught, suffered, and died on the cross. Do you also explain away his writings about Jesus' sufferings and death on the cross as not having occurred on the earth? And why should I trust your believe that Marcion never intended to claim Jesus was present on earth when his contemporaries quite clearly thought that was Marcion's view?

Family Man

Do you ever stop with the self-pity?

What makes you think I care what Ed thinks? In case you haven't noticed, I'm not defending Ed. In fact, I could (though I won't, since I haven't read what has so upset you) concede that Ed is being wholly irresponsible and not change a thing I wrote. I don't see the advantage of replacing what I think with the credulous arguments you promote.

Um, no, since I believe there was a historical Jesus. I simply believe that most of what was written about him is mythical, such as the bogus birth narratives, or that absurd resurrection story, and that he certainly wasn't a god.

That's right, it was all persecution all the time. They couldn't stick their heads out the door without getting it chopped off. Where do you get these warped ideas about history?

A little bit exaggerated, but that is essentially correct. Are you aware that the writer of Matthew scoured the OT in search of "prophecies" he could incorporate into his narrative to "prove" his divinity. Thus the mundane report of a young woman giving birth (which no serious scholar considers a prophecy) in Isaiah 7:14 "miraculously" becomes the fulfilled prophecy of Matthew 1:22. The evidence that they were crafting, embellishing, and making stuff up is overwhelming. I'm going to replace evidence with your statements of personal incredulity? I don't think so.

No, not including John. However, John is so far removed from the HJ that E.P. Sanders wouldn't even consider it in his analysis as it was too theological in content. I don't know about you, but I'm talking responsible scholarship.

Those are absurd questions that don't even survive the laugh test. So Matthew and Luke couldn't add to material that they copied from Mark? Are you aware that scholars have found that 90% of Mark is in Matthew? Then he added the birth stories, the post-resurrection appearances, and some teaching material. Do you seriously expect us to think that copying and embellishing are two mutually exclusive activities?

It's matter of evidence. You don't appear to have any for your position.

I don't know about Ed and Durant, but Sanders, Grant, Brown, Crossan, and every other HJ scholar certainly shoot down your theories.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Radorth

Yes, including John. Read Doherty before you make such statememts. Read the thread title if you want to know what I'm talking about. What are you talking about? But I'm glad you pointed out how many scholars disagree with ED anyway. Not that skeptics ever agree on anything, much preferring to bat novel theories around.

No. You missed the point in your rush to judgement. But again, you unwittingly invalidate another of Dohert's claims. Thanks again.

We weren't talking about my position.

Radorth

Radorth

Huh? I stick to the thread well enough. This one's about conspiracies of NT writers BTW. I was responding to an assertion that II Peter is a forgery and I said before the evidence was inconclusive either way.

And please quote me directly instead depending on a biased memory.

Radorth

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Family Man

Radoth --

Oh, I see. You can only argue only against Jesus Mythers. Anyone else who points out that the gospel writers made stuff up, which you seem to take great offense to, need not apply.

Got news for you. Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark. A great deal of material was added. The gospel writers certainly "lied" in the sense that they added stories that nearly everyone concedes are not true. The only real difference between HJ scholars and Jesus Mythers is that the latter carry the point farther than the HJ Scholars do.

You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that what I've written above is wrong. All you have done is make an argument from personal incredulity (gosh, they were so busy being slaughtered they couldn't have possibly made stuff up).

As for Doherty, I doubt he needs me to argue his position for him. Why you think I'd be concerned about that is quite a mystery.

Iasion

Greetings again,

Hmmm.. you didn't actually READ my post did you?

And are you really unaware that Marcion's name is closely attached to the "phantasm" theory?

e.g. Tertullian Ag.Her.Apx.Ch6 :
"...Christ he[Apelles] neither, like Marcion, affirms to have been in a phantasmal shape, "


Your post shows you still have no idea what the argument is - I look forward to discussion with an interlocutor who has even the the vaguest idea what the multi-planar theory is about.


I argued at length that to "descend to earth" is Gnostic terminology for : descend down the planes of existence.

And that is exactly what Earl argues for Jesus - a being who descended from the highest planes to the one just above the physical.

And thats is just what Marcion claimed according to contemporaries - e.g.

Hippolytus, Hereries 7 : "Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ... independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues."


What Marcion SPECIFICALLY denied was that Jesus was actually born physically, according to several contemporaries :

Tertullian, Ag.Her.Ch.33 ..."denied that Christ was come in the flesh," .. Marcion maintained;

Origen, "On John, Ch.10" - "Marcion .. rejected His birth from Mary, and declared that as to His divine nature He was not born of Mary,

Tertullian, Res.Ch.2 "...they have achieved their first error in the article of His very flesh; contending with Marcion and Basilides that it possessed no reality;"


They occured on earth but, in phantasmal or astral form according to Marcion.

I have made it as plain as day that Marcion did NOT see Jesus as being a physical being, even if he was a phantasm that could be spoken with.



Present,
but NOT PHYSICALLY !
do you still not grasp the distinction ?

I have clearly shown that Marcion's contemporaries explicitly associated Marcion with the phantasm theory, that Jesus was a non-physical being.


Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings all,

Here is a wonderful little contemporary tidbit describing the descent down the planes :


Here it is crystal clear that "He" is descending down the planes and manifesting a body for each plane made of the stuff of each plane - and then returning them when he rises back.

Starry and Airy bodies refer to the bodies worn on the corresponding higher planes - Airy means Pneumatic and Starry means Astral.

Please - is there ANYBODY out their getting any of this?


Quentin David Jones