In Aristotle, the Earth is the bottom of the heap. There is no discrete underworld. In Aristotle, God is not ‘in the heavens’ with the celestial spheres but beyond everything. Aristotle also denied the existence of an immortal soul. The soul died with the body, period. Paul is not an Aristotelian.
Carrier mentions justifications in at least one lecture. There are 3 upper heavens, an atmosphere heaven, a stellar heaven and a linitless heaven. Kings 8 maybe? He sources a few texts.
Carrier tried to shoehorn in a totally alien idea so that he could use a pejorative term like ‘outer space’ for heaven and so ridicule Christianity.
Well it is ridiculous. But he also provided a source that has the body of Adam buried on Mars. I'll have to go back and watch the lecture.
The colmology and cosmonagy is quite ridiculous and the upper heavens were literally in outer space.
In fact Carrier recently wrote a laymans 200 pg version of his main book called Jesus in Outer Space".
I already addressed this. [i[ginomai[/i] means to become, not to be manufactured. The link you provided for the word ginomai even gives the definition as ‘come into a new state of being’. All of the uses by Paul with respect to Jesus are Deponent, which is an active voice, not passive. Carrier is wrong.
Paul uses a different word for human birth than what he uses for Jesus (see below).
Also Rom1:3 and Gal 4:4 look to be documents that scholarship believes were doctored to fit a narrative, see below..
"Paul said Jesus “came into being from a woman,” and his surrounding argument implies that by this he meant from the woman “Hagar…an allegory” (Gal. 4:4; see
OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we must say Jesus is “from Mary,” not some generic “woman” in an argument about allegorical women. Notably Paul never mentions a Mary. Not in any creed he attests (see
OHJ, Ch. 11.4). So why is her name now important to affirm in the creed?
In both places Paul said Jesus was “made” (
ginomai) not “born” (
gennaô), by choosing the same word Paul uses to signal divine manufacture (of Adam and our future resurrection bodies), and never of human birth, in conspicuous contrast to the word Paul
does always use of human birth. Ignatius conspicuously reverses the vocabulary, and insists we now must say “born” (
gennaô) not “made” (
ginomai). Exactly the same way we know Christian scribes tried doctoring the manuscripts of Paul (in both Rom. 1:3
and Gal. 4:4 at the same time, thus proving they were well aware of the problem I’m pointing out:
OHJ, p. 580, n. 91; hence though both words can mean birth, Christians were aware Paul’s usage did not)."
The link you provided for
gennaô defines it as ‘beget’. All of the instances you cite are in the Passive Voice, which makes sense in context since the contextual emphasis in each case is not on the child but on the parent. In Galatians 4:4, the emphasis is on Jesus ‘becoming out of woman’, ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον, being born in a physical sense. In Romans 1:3,
You don't seem to understand Carriers work at all? This is his argument on Romans 1:3
"
- In Romans 1:3, Paul literally writes “concerning His Son, who came to be from the sperm of David according to the flesh.”
- Most modern translations do not render these words literally but “interpret” the words to say something else according to each team of translators’ theological assumptions, adding words not in the Greek, or translating words contrary to Paul’s usual idiom.
- We cannot answer the question with the data available whether Paul meant “sperm” (i.e. seed) allegorically (as he does mean elsewhere when he speaks of seeds and births, such as of Gentiles becoming the seed of Abraham by God’s declaration), or literally (God manufacturing a body for Jesus from the actual sperm of David), or figuratively (as a claim of biological descent—-even though Paul’s vocabulary does not match such an assertion, but that of direct manufacture). At best it’s equal odds. We can’t tell.
- Two (not just one) of those possibilities are compatible with Jesus never having been on earth, and since all three readings are equally likely on present evidence, and that is why Romans 1:3 doesn’t help us determine if Paul believed Jesus was ever on earth.
- Nevertheless I count this verse as evidence for historicity, ruling on the upper bound of my margins of error that it’s twice as likely Paul would write this if Jesus was a historical person than if he was not. And that’s quite generous, because…
Notice this is being counted as WEAK evidence FOR historicity.
PPaul’s works were clearly disseminated widely. Where are the manuscripts that show different wording for the passages that Carrier claims were changed? What evidence is there at all that changes were made? Not only is Carrier wrong but this sounds a whole lot like an invented conspiracy theory.
This clears up a lot. It's consensus among the historicity field that there are only 7 authentic letters. This is not Carrier's work and is the opposite of a "conspiracy theory". Textual analysis, writing styles and all sorts of literary clues aloow experts to see when a work is forged or altered.
Thirteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul.
[13] Seven of the
Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being
authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
[note 2] It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews,
[14] but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars.
[14][15] The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia
Incorrect. The phrase used is ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (Deponent again which is an active voice) which means ‘becoming human’ not ‘manufactured’. Carrier is once again relying on the inappropriate KJV translation ‘made’. It does not appear that he ever delved into the Greek. Carrier is wrong.
Paul said Jesus “came into being from David’s sperm” (
genomenou ek spermatos Dauid, Rom. 1:3; see
OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we have to say Jesus came “from the descendants of David” (
ek genous Dauid). Conspicuously, precisely the thing Paul never said.
How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus? • Richard Carrier
As stated earlier, Carriers’ PhD thesis was not at all related to scripture but to the history of science. There is no way he would have needed to study NT Greek or Hebrew for that. And again as I said in an earlier post, I see no indication that Carrier employed any knowledge of Greek in his dissertation. Carrier is not only wrong, it is clear that he is not being honest.
You have clearly spent no time investigating Carriers work since like 2011. He has stated in multiple interviews and debates that he is fluent in the Greek that the NT is written in.
As has been shown several times now, the KJV is incorrect in its translations. But English translations seem to be all that Carrier is able to deal with. The Gospel of Matthew, the first to offer a genealogy, is
Yes, the gospels which came later were wildly fictitious and created an Earthly story for Jesus.
Nothing contentious at all if one simply looks at the meaning of the Greek. Which I suspect that despite his claims he is unable to do, relying entirely on English translations.
Carrier is just wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20#reader_B00QSO2S5C
The intro explains what was meant bu upper heavens at the time. Others had mentioned several random passages during debates where he switched to the Greek form and explained what it meant. He said in a video he had to learn Hebrew, Greek - for the NT, Septuigant, histories, as well as several other languages and also reads tablets from Egypt, Syrian, Thracian and other tablets.
