Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Jesus Christ from Outer Space

  1. Top | #1
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    11,831
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    28,660
    Rep Power
    87

    Jesus Christ from Outer Space

    Richard Carrier is working on a new book explaining Jesus mythicism: Jesus from Outer Space! The Price Review • Richard Carrier

    Its full title: "Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ"
    Outer Space pares down the argument of my extensive peer reviewed monograph On the Historicity of Jesus from nearly 700 pages to about 200. No footnotes, no digressions, minimal citations (it includes a page-by-page concordance to OHJ where you will find all of those things). And no math (or rather, no obvious math—it’s actually all there, but now hidden behind colloquial English). It also sticks to only the essential arguments and facts, so anyone reading it can’t resort so easily to the fallacy of “arguing against a minor point not even relevant to the conclusion” and claiming to have refuted its thesis (an otherwise common practice among critics).

    JFOS also re-frames and expands some of those key arguments for a mythical Jesus in ways that more clearly explain them, and more clearly show why they are hard to rebut, and that more decisively refute what have become “the usual rebuttals,” which tend to be misinformed and illogical. ...
    RC proposes that it is a good starter text for anyone interested in Jesus mythicism.
    New material includes a clear explanation, right out of the gate, of why this book’s “shocking” title is actually not anachronistic or contentious, but in fact entirely, contextually accurate—even if Jesus existed. That’s right. Even historicists must concede the first Christians believed Jesus was what they would then call an extraterrestrial. He did not come from “heaven” as an alternative dimension, in the way modern Christians believe. He literally came from outer space. As “heaven” then meant exactly that. As a preexistent being, Jesus lived among the stars, just beyond the orbit of Saturn. Until he descended—either to enter Mary’s womb (as historicists maintain the first Christians believed), or to enter a sublunar body-suit in the realm of Satan and his Legion (as the most defensible alternative maintains)—and then to be killed and rise from the dead, and return, literally, to the farthest reaches of outer space, to communicate with earthlings below in their dreams and visions.

    This is actually a mainstream consensus view. The only thing I’ve changed is that I’ve put it in plain English, rather than hiding it behind esoteric vocabulary and prolix phrasing. The rest of the book takes the same approach.
    Just outside of Saturn's orbit? That's from Ptolemy's cosmology. The celestial bodies reside on spheres that surround the Earth, in this order outward:

    (Earth), Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Fixed Stars

    The Earth and the celestial realm have different constituents. The Earth: earth, water, air, fire. The celestial realm: aether

    The chapters:
    1. Which Jesus Are We Talking about Exactly?
    2. There Is a Good Chance Jesus Never Existed
    3. A Plausible Jesus Is Not Necessarily a Probable Jesus
    4. All the Historians on a Single Postcard
    5. But Isn’t Jesus as Attested as Any Other Famous Dude?
    6. More Like All the Other Dying-and-Rising Savior Gods of Yore
    7. How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?
    8. The Cosmic Seed of David?
    9. The Peculiar Cult of the Brothers of the Lord

  2. Top | #2
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    11,831
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    28,660
    Rep Power
    87
    Of course, the discoveries of the last few centuries have made total hash out of that cosmology. It's not just heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, it's also direct observation. Like of meteorites and Moon rocks and Mars soil and Venus atmosphere. Also less direct observations, like spectra. One finds the same chemical elements *everywhere*. Also of observing orbits. Also of doing stellar-structure calculations.

    But Jesus Christ does not seem to have revealed any of that to his New-Testament-era followers. Nothing like "The Sun is a superhot ball of naphtha air that is bigger than the Moon's path around the Earth. Mercury, Venus, the Moon, and Mars are much like the Earth. Mercury and the Moon have no or water. All of Mars's water is frozen and its air is burnt air and only a hundredth as much as Earth air. Venus is covered with clouds and its air is burnt air a hundred times as much as Earth air. Jupiter and Saturn are both composed of naphtha air, but they are not as hot as the Sun, and the naphtha air is watery in them. Jupiter and Saturn have numerous celestial bodies moving around them, some of them as large as the Moon. Saturn has rings around it composed of chunks of ice. The fixed stars are suns that look faint because they are very far away."

    One doesn't have to reveal *everything* that we have discovered in the last few centuries. Just enough to show that one knows what the Universe is actually like.

  3. Top | #3
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    4,514
    Rep Power
    16
    The two cosmologies are entirely different, it is not accurate to say that they believed in an "outer space" equivalent to the modern concept, or that Jesus came from there. He's not putting it in "plain English" at all, he's mixing and matching ideas from centuries apart. I notice from the chapter headings that the book is not, for the most part, about the same topic as the title, which he gets to only in the penultimate chapter and then abandons for the finale. Writing a whole book on the subject would have required some actual research into ancient perspectives on astrology.

  4. Top | #4
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    899
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,785
    Rep Power
    74
    From his old writings:
    https://www.richardcarrier.info/Hist...y_of_Jesus.pdf
    This incarnation, death, and burial took place in outer space just below the moon
    He sometimes says that Jesus was an angel or archangel....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richar...r#cite_note-71

    Something not really related is Carrier saying that there could have been mass hallucinations of Jesus
    https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14255

    I think mistaken identity would be more likely...
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...esus-sightings

    I'm not a fan of Carrier in general though I haven't read his material in depth.

  5. Top | #5
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,592
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,631
    Rep Power
    80
    I liked this:

    Quote Originally Posted by From link in OP
    This is a basic requirement of effective argumentation, particularly given what we know of the neuroscience of inherent human irrationality. If you defend the same conclusion with a hard-to-rebut argument and an easy-to-rebut argument, the human tendency is, neurologically, to attack the easy one and then conclude—even literally convincing themselves—that they have therefore refuted the conclusion. Even though they never touched the strong argument for it. The conclusion we must draw from this scientific information about human behavior is: never include weak arguments for a conclusion. If you don’t need them, simply bin them. You will literally be hurting your case, making it less likely to gain adherents, otherwise.

    Price is aware of the principle, concluding he thinks I am “trying to shorten [my] line of defense by granting as much common ground to [my] opponents as [I] can,” ...

  6. Top | #6
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    4,514
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    I liked this:

    Quote Originally Posted by From link in OP
    This is a basic requirement of effective argumentation, particularly given what we know of the neuroscience of inherent human irrationality. If you defend the same conclusion with a hard-to-rebut argument and an easy-to-rebut argument, the human tendency is, neurologically, to attack the easy one and then conclude—even literally convincing themselves—that they have therefore refuted the conclusion. Even though they never touched the strong argument for it. The conclusion we must draw from this scientific information about human behavior is: never include weak arguments for a conclusion. If you don’t need them, simply bin them. You will literally be hurting your case, making it less likely to gain adherents, otherwise.

    Price is aware of the principle, concluding he thinks I am “trying to shorten [my] line of defense by granting as much common ground to [my] opponents as [I] can,” ...
    Oh, I hate nothing so much as a person using weak arguments to defend a position I agree with.

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,778
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,585
    Rep Power
    64
    Yeah, makes me think of Lee Stroebel's "Case for Christ." There are lots of weak arguments in that book. When I see how insanely weak one of his arguments is I feel like I can dismiss his entire case immediately because that weak argument is so easy to see through.

    The book would be more convincing if he'd just stick with the strong arguments in it.

    Unfortunately that would leave the book devoid of content.

    Maybe that's not so unfortunate after all.

  8. Top | #8
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,592
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,631
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Yeah, makes me think of Lee Stroebel's "Case for Christ." There are lots of weak arguments in that book. When I see how insanely weak one of his arguments is I feel like I can dismiss his entire case immediately because that weak argument is so easy to see through.

    The book would be more convincing if he'd just stick with the strong arguments in it.

    Unfortunately that would leave the book devoid of content.

    Maybe that's not so unfortunate after all.
    An online acquaintance gave me a copy many years ago thinking it would bring me to Jesus. I think I read most of it then it went to the round file. You're right about the weakness of the arguments.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •