Continuing the discussion, I’ll address objections to points 5 and 6 and lastly point 4 (objections to Joel Pearson’s and my article No Evidence for Jesus Mythicism) as that is lengthiest.
5. The pre-Christian creeds (and we can add Romans 1:1-4 here too) also specify that Jesus was human when he died. Philippians 2 says Jesus “emptied himself”. The Epistle to the Hebrews says he was human as well, and Clement I says his life was taken “from the Earth”. It is on the Mythicists to point out where anyone says Jesus’ *human* life happened anywhere besides Earth (the realm where humans live).
6. “Paul himself never unambiguously places Jesus on earth” – he unambiguously says he was human numerous times and *never* says that his human life took place in a supernatural realm. A human on Earth with other humans is obviously less surprising than a human in the firmament so of the two, it would be more surprising if Paul never specified that latter.
The passage in Clement can also be translated “taken from the land of the living,” it is simply a euphemism for dying (mythicism ex hypothesi entails a Jesus as a revealed being said to die in a hidden location, either on earth or the sky).
If Paul had ever said this outright, that Jesus died in the sky, the later historicist sect would have tossed the letter or edited it, so this is a nonstarter. The best we can do is to find indirect clues to see what Paul meant.
Finally, allow me to quote myself so as not to misrepresent my own views:
“Regarding your assertion that human=on earth, it certainly is possible to theorize a mythical earthly Jesus (as the original article noted with the examples of other mythical messiahs). However, it is equally true that most angelic beings are thought to live in the sky. Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God details how Paul called Jesus an angel (Galatians 4:14) and it is clear that the ‘angel of Jesus Christ’ visiting John in Revelation is Jesus Christ (identified by the burns on his feet, signaling he is the son of man from the book of Daniel). Thus, there are two conflicting generalizations (is Jesus as ‘man’ to be thought earthly because most are or is Jesus as ‘angel’ to be thought celestial because most are?) with known exceptions on each end (Rev. 5:3 “And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book…”) means there were indeed men in heaven while it is also true angels could come down to earth. Likewise, Paul met a man once caught up to the third heaven and the Ascension of Isaiah (9:1) has Isaiah travel high into the sky before finally changing bodies in order to ascend higher.”
When someone really exists, saying things like “he was human,” or emphasizing that “he had a body,” is highly unnecessary (when else does that happen?). However, if that ‘person’ is instead a god who is known through private revelations, traditions and other esoteric ways of discovery, saying such a thing starts to make far more sense, as it does with Osiris who is also explicitly said to have a body.
4. “Philo of Alexandria came up with a similar figure” – Philo is actually describing the “Logos”, which is the form of God which engages with creation. [Note: LM wrongly and confusingly believes that what he says here somehow contradicts what I wrote originally. Not sure how he got this conclusion]. Also worth noting – it isn’t clear in Zech. that “the Branch” is Joshua or Zerubbabel or if it is a third, unnamed figure. Zech 6 says that two – the Branch and a Priest – will rule in harmony together and most interpreters understand Joshua to be the *Priest* who rules along *with* the Branch, not actually the Branch himself. Also though, Philo never uses any identifier besides Anatole (East/Sprout/Rises). It’s clear from the broader context that Philo is giving special emphasis to that word in particular, so the name Joshua doesn’t have any special significance here. Another point here though, is if this point is taken to its logical conclusion, the conclusion drawn would be that Christians identified Jesus Christ as Joshua son of Jehozadak, and there’s absolutely no feasible way to make *that* case.
Joshua (or Jesus, as Iesous is the greek name for both) son of Jehozadak (a name which means Jehovah (is) righteous). So there is a feasible way to make that case!
Take a look at what Philo says, which I have blogged on before:
Now, the following is an example of the former kind: “And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,” not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable. I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: “Behold, a man whose name is the East!” A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.
Philo is talking about a creator god, effectively. An archangel who carried out God’s plans for creation. As far as whether Zechariah thought the branch was Joshua or Zerubabbel; this need not be at issue here since we are talking about Philo’s reinterpretation of those scriptures, not their original meaning. The logos is the heavenly counterpart of all men on earth, not just one, so accordingly Philo’s logos is a king and a priest; a heavenly Zerubabbel and a heavenly Jesus (note the source I linked speaks of how Hebrews 7 “makes essentially the same argument” for Jesus’ priesthood as Philo makes for his logos; the coincidences here are piling up to a breaking point!). Philo also says Joshua/Jesus is “the name of the most excellent possible character” and the heavenly ‘man’ and creator god logos without a doubt fits that description.
