from Ascension of Isaiah, ch11
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html
AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."
2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.
15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.
17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.
18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).
20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:
21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.
22. And the angel who conducted me said: "Understand, Isaiah": and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.
23. And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped.
/////////////
This is the writing which Carrier refers to as being evidence of a primary Christianity believing in an angel instead of a human Jesus who lived something like reported in Mark.
This writing describes Jesus as a supreme angel and also refers to the Holy spirit of God as a supreme angel. It goes through some elaborate levels of heaven to reach him at first and then to describe this Angel descent through the heavens and finally being born to Mary. The birth sounds more mythic than real doesn't it. It also describes the nearest heaven as a place of fighting and petty jealousy
Like most any fiction it describes relationships which are felt to have reality with images from the imagination.
It is pretty clear the story is add on to what is read in the gospels. I do not see Carrier's vision here but perhaps if you delete the part about being born you can focus on the angel imagery and make some point that that view of preexistent Jesus is a bit different than in John.
I am thinking about this as I just finished Ehrman's How Jesus Became God in which the early view of Jesus as angel who became a man is considered as probably Paul's understand though Paul does not nail this down.
Is there supposed to be a difference between God and the Angel of God? People might consider more than one simple answer there.
///////
I will return to this to review further thoughts on Ehrman's book. It might help my brain if nothing else.
birth of Jesus in the imagination
-
huckelberry
- God
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm
Re: birth of Jesus in the imagination
I found Ehrman's discussion of the ideas of an angel of the lord as a springboard for Christian thought about the risen Jesus to be helpful for historical understanding, helpful for theological understanding as well.
Ehrman makes a point that he is not going to show the truth or lack thereof for the basic Christian doctrine of resurrection and glorification of the crucified Jesus. He thinks these points are beyond what can be demonstrated. He is also clear that though he started as a fundamentalist believer he is no longer a believer beyond thinking that Jesus has represented human values of real importance.
Despite some desire to be even handed he presents some material which can function as strong arguments against doctrinal Christianity. First he make a point that Jesus being buried after crucifixion is very unlikely. Normal procedure for such criminals was to be left on the cross or put in a mass grave. I first ran into this idea from Crossan (Historical Jesus) who though Jesus was devoured by dogs and there was no tomb to find empty. Not a very respectable image, wont be put in church , but has historical likely hood. Ehrman believes it is clear that early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead and was exalted in heaven. There is good evidence for the belief but it is likely based upon visions not the physical images of tombs and eating fish which appeared later.
The last portion of the book tracks the second century and beyond fights and clarification of what the exaltation in heaven meant. It is perhaps easy to see those fights as power motivated and trying to force a unity.
For me what jabs doubt at my belief the most is the simple description he make of Jesus apocalyptic prophet as expecting divine termination of this earthly life and the destruction of all the bad people and Rome. Jesus taught insurance ethics to avoid the destruction. It is clear that those were general apocalyptic beliefs. They are right there in the book of Revelations as well as other related works of the kind. It seems to be what fundamentalist are expecting to happen soon.
Since I was a youngster I have read the gospels differently . I have read Jesus presenting an alternative. He presents a path to the kingdom of God embracing the whole world by changing how we treat each other. The kingdom of God was about to be revealed by Jesus dying to stand for what he preaches, care and forgiveness. I have , off and on, been reading N T Wrights view which is a thorough going view that Jesus completed what he promised and intended. The destruction in view was Jerusalem and its military aspiration. (not meaning Rome should be substituted for Jerusalem) The coming near of the kIngdom was replacing temple sacrifice with Jesus life death and resurrection.
I find Ehrmans view trivializes Jesus intention. I can consider that even if chasing an erroneous hope Jesus could have seen important dimensions of human relations and ethics. They are important but not beyond human awareness. Jesus though mistaken could have started a myth that people look toward to take those values more seriously. (rather like a Christmas Carol inspiring people even if Scrooge and ghosts are just fiction)
My believing is along the line of Wright's view. Jesus did accomplish his mission. It feels a bit like a tightrope perhaps.The gospels contain statements which seem a bit tangled from this point of view. I think people late first century still wanted an end of the world second coming when those bad folks are destroyed, sort of like some views and hopes now. I think it is possible Jesus was looking down an entirely different path.
Ehrman makes a point that he is not going to show the truth or lack thereof for the basic Christian doctrine of resurrection and glorification of the crucified Jesus. He thinks these points are beyond what can be demonstrated. He is also clear that though he started as a fundamentalist believer he is no longer a believer beyond thinking that Jesus has represented human values of real importance.
Despite some desire to be even handed he presents some material which can function as strong arguments against doctrinal Christianity. First he make a point that Jesus being buried after crucifixion is very unlikely. Normal procedure for such criminals was to be left on the cross or put in a mass grave. I first ran into this idea from Crossan (Historical Jesus) who though Jesus was devoured by dogs and there was no tomb to find empty. Not a very respectable image, wont be put in church , but has historical likely hood. Ehrman believes it is clear that early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead and was exalted in heaven. There is good evidence for the belief but it is likely based upon visions not the physical images of tombs and eating fish which appeared later.
The last portion of the book tracks the second century and beyond fights and clarification of what the exaltation in heaven meant. It is perhaps easy to see those fights as power motivated and trying to force a unity.
For me what jabs doubt at my belief the most is the simple description he make of Jesus apocalyptic prophet as expecting divine termination of this earthly life and the destruction of all the bad people and Rome. Jesus taught insurance ethics to avoid the destruction. It is clear that those were general apocalyptic beliefs. They are right there in the book of Revelations as well as other related works of the kind. It seems to be what fundamentalist are expecting to happen soon.
Since I was a youngster I have read the gospels differently . I have read Jesus presenting an alternative. He presents a path to the kingdom of God embracing the whole world by changing how we treat each other. The kingdom of God was about to be revealed by Jesus dying to stand for what he preaches, care and forgiveness. I have , off and on, been reading N T Wrights view which is a thorough going view that Jesus completed what he promised and intended. The destruction in view was Jerusalem and its military aspiration. (not meaning Rome should be substituted for Jerusalem) The coming near of the kIngdom was replacing temple sacrifice with Jesus life death and resurrection.
I find Ehrmans view trivializes Jesus intention. I can consider that even if chasing an erroneous hope Jesus could have seen important dimensions of human relations and ethics. They are important but not beyond human awareness. Jesus though mistaken could have started a myth that people look toward to take those values more seriously. (rather like a Christmas Carol inspiring people even if Scrooge and ghosts are just fiction)
My believing is along the line of Wright's view. Jesus did accomplish his mission. It feels a bit like a tightrope perhaps.The gospels contain statements which seem a bit tangled from this point of view. I think people late first century still wanted an end of the world second coming when those bad folks are destroyed, sort of like some views and hopes now. I think it is possible Jesus was looking down an entirely different path.
Re: birth of Jesus in the imagination
Does BE still have an episcopal Christian believing wife?
If so as he grows older my prediction is that he will re-embrace the Jesus of the gospels especially John.He will admit in his later years,according to my prediction,that he over thought the subject and that in the end was not satisfying to his own spiritual journey.
This is just my opinion based on not more than 10 emails of
My questions to him which he graciously responded to over the years.
As a believer I hope my prediction comes true.
k
If so as he grows older my prediction is that he will re-embrace the Jesus of the gospels especially John.He will admit in his later years,according to my prediction,that he over thought the subject and that in the end was not satisfying to his own spiritual journey.
This is just my opinion based on not more than 10 emails of
My questions to him which he graciously responded to over the years.
As a believer I hope my prediction comes true.
k