Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 02-07-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

To expect a debate between mythicists and historicists in the second century is to import our modern materialist mindset back to those centuries. That wasn't part of their world view. It wasn't an issue that mattered. What mattered to them was whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or merely a similar substance.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Thank you Toto.

TedM · 02-07-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

This is getting ridiculous. How can Don continue to accuse me of selective reading when he tried to build an earlier case solely on me allegedly not having read Tertullian, and I have given him pages of response in which I do just that, demonstrating that Tertullian contributes nothing to alter my case. He mentions Ignatius, yet JNGNM contains an entire chapter on Ignatius. What, does that now leave "Melito" (whom I did not address in regard to the 2nd century apologists), and my whole case now supposedly falls down on that one omission? (Notice that Don does not take it onto himself to point out how Melito's extant literature would demonstrate that it would in any way be an "omission", or affect my claims about the 2nd century apologists!) What will it be next, the fragments of Hegesippus? Papias?

Doesn't anyone see what is going on here? The dishonesty is overwhelming. (You can all check out my last posting about him in the Vision of Isaiah thread.)

Earl Doherty

Earl, this is unfortunate. Don has always impressed me with his civility and honesty. I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt here.

On the other hand, you have every right after all the work you have done, to defend your work and what you regard as attacks against it. Don has mentioned a number of works in addition to Ad Nations (Shephard of Hermas, Ignatius, Clement, Melito) that he thinks deserve further investigation. If you feel you have addressed his points sufficiently already in your book then you only need say so.

Peace, ted

GakuseiDon · 02-07-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Doesn't anyone see what is going on here? The dishonesty is overwhelming. (You can all check out my last posting about him in the Vision of Isaiah thread.)

Earl, this is unfortunate. Don has always impressed me with his civility and honesty. I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Thanks Ted, but I can be a (playfully) sarcastic bastard at times. I wouldn't call myself dishonest though, since I believe that the evidence is on my side rather than Doherty's, so there is no reason for me to be dishonest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

On the other hand, you have every right after all the work you have done, to defend your work and what you regard as attacks against it. Don has mentioned a number of works in addition to Ad Nations (Shephard of Hermas, Ignatius, Clement, Melito) that he thinks deserve further investigation. If you feel you have addressed his points sufficiently already in your book then you only need say so.

Well said. As long as our arguments are out there and available, people will have the opportunity to examine the evidence and make up their own minds. The worst thing would be for people to take my word or Doherty's word for anything. Let's check things out for ourselves!

Sheshbazzar · 02-07-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You got what The Church Mafia chose to allowed you to have. Nothing more, nothing less.
If they did not choose to allow any particular text, argument, or view to survive, they made damn sure that it didn't. Where are these texts? Where is Jimmy Hoffa?
You can't produce Jimmy Hoffa's remains? Why do you need these similarly 'missing' texts to know that a crime was committed?

If there was no evidence of the existence of any apologetic writings against any heresies in early Christianity, then such an explanation may fly. But, as it stands, you must somehow explain how the apologetic writings against several heresies of the second century were preserved against the censorship of the church, but not the proposed heresy about a mythical/spiritual Jesus that was supposedly predominant in the beginning, believed by Paul, and lasted through to the second century and believed by more early Christian authors. Was the church especially fearful of that particular heresy, that they censored all mention of it, even the writings against it?

Do you at least understand why such a claim can be seen as difficult?

Given all of the other various 'heresies' that are mentioned and 'refuted'

The absence of such an obvious and likely one to be proposed by the opponents of Christiandumb, that Jebus was no more corporeal than any of the other gods, is made all the suspicious by its utter absence. It should be there, and in spades.

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If there was no evidence of the existence of any apologetic writings against any heresies in early Christianity, then such an explanation may fly. But, as it stands, you must somehow explain how the apologetic writings against several heresies of the second century were preserved against the censorship of the church, but not the proposed heresy about a mythical/spiritual Jesus that was supposedly predominant in the beginning, believed by Paul, and lasted through to the second century and believed by more early Christian authors. Was the church especially fearful of that particular heresy, that they censored all mention of it, even the writings against it?

Do you at least understand why such a claim can be seen as difficult?

Given all of the other various 'heresies' that are mentioned and 'refuted'

The absence of such an obvious and likely one to be proposed by the opponents of Christiandumb, that Jebus was no more corporeal than any of the other gods, is made all the suspicious by its utter absence. It should be there, and in spades.

OK, so the argument is that there is direct evidence for a bunch of other heresies in early Christianity, but not the heresy that Jesus was spiritual/mythical, and the best explanation for that silence is a very thorough and focused censorship by the church. Correct me if I am wrong. I am just trying to see if I understand you correctly, and then I will stop arguing with you and move on.

TedM · 02-07-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Given all of the other various 'heresies' that are mentioned and 'refuted'

The absence of such an obvious and likely one to be proposed by the opponents of Christiandumb, that Jebus was no more corporeal than any of the other gods, is made all the suspicious by its utter absence. It should be there, and in spades.

If everybody took for granted that the founder of Christianity had lived and died several generations prior, why would an opponent bother making an argument against it? What could he/she prove and who would even listen to such an argument?

And, if you are right, consider this: The more likely something is to have happened, the LESS likely that it would have been successfully suppressed! Suspicion or paranoia?

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

Since I didn't read your books, I am relying on what you claim is contained in your books, according to what you wrote in the OP. To rebut the accusation that you do not have sources for your knowledge about mystery cults, you say your knowledge about mystery cults comes from what Koester and Nilsson wrote, you quoted them in the OP, and you say the quotes are contained in the book. You did not say anything about other evidence contained in the book, though presumably the original evidence would be much more relevant than these quotes of scholars. Ergo, I conclude that your book does not contain such evidence.

The "sources" for my knowledge about mystery cults are the books by scholars that have been published on them, containing the primary sources which they have had access to. What, you expect me to completely ignore anything said, published, printed by anyone else on the matter, even recognized scholars in the field, and go to the sites, libraries, etc. which contain those primary sources and start from scratch by myself? Who the hell does that? Do you? Does Don? Does any critical scholar working in the field do that.

Yes, critical scholars do that all of the time. They read the original manuscripts (or good copies of them) and they see the archaeological evidence for themselves. If detailed studies about mystery cults are the primary sources of your knowledge, not introductory textbooks, then OK--those are the sources that you should cite. It is, in my opinion, damned stupid to quote a passing comment in an introductory textbook about evidence that is essential to one of your main theses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Do you even understand what you are going on about? Or is it just foaming out of your gut animosity toward mythicism.

I asked you if you had the capacity for rational thinking. I guess I've got my answer.

As of this moment, you are on my ignore list. And Don is one step away as well.

Earl Doherty

OK, so I take it that I won't be getting a review copy of your book.

I don't recommend that you put either myself or GakuseiDon on your ignore list. Well, especially not GakuseiDon. He is the central critic of your work in this forum, and conversations in the threads can become very difficult to follow if you have important people on ignore, regardless of whether or not they like what you have to say.

Toto · 02-07-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
OK, so the argument is that there is direct evidence for a bunch of other heresies in early Christianity, but not the heresy that Jesus was spiritual/mythical, and the best explanation for that silence is a very thorough and focused censorship by the church. Correct me if I am wrong. I am just trying to see if I understand you correctly, and then I will stop arguing with you and move on.

Consider the possibility that there were heretics who believed that Jesus never existed, but the heresiologists misstated their position for one reason or another.

Freke and Gandy who wrote the Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk) consider that the docetists were actually mythicists.

Quote:

The Pagan Daemon/eidolon doctrine casts light on the otherwise baffling Gnostic teaching known as Docetism or "Illusionism." [supr]41[/supr] The opponents of Gnosticism have portrayed ths as a rather strange belief that Jesus did not actually have a flesh and blood body, but only seemed to exist physically, and that he magically made it appear as if he was dying on the cross although in reality he was not. As usual, however, by taking the Gnostics literally, the Literalists completely miss the point.

The Gnostic Illusionist view of the crucifixion was not meant to be taken as a historical account of events. It is a myth that encodes the perennial mystical teachings that human being is made up of two parts: an earthly part which suffers and dies (the eidolon), and an extended spiritual witness )(the Daemon), which is untouched by suffering and experiences this world as a passing illusion.

Sheshbazzar · 02-07-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Given all of the other various 'heresies' that are mentioned and 'refuted'

The absence of such an obvious and likely one to be proposed by the opponents of Christiandumb, that Jebus was no more corporeal than any of the other gods, is made all the suspicious by its utter absence. It should be there, and in spades.

If everybody took for granted that the founder of Christianity had lived and died several generations prior, why would an opponent bother making an argument against it? What could he/she prove and who would even listen to such an argument?

You are making a faulty assumption here. Other factions in the Hellenic religious world did not take it for granted that their gods (or The Logos) was, or ever had been,
a corporeal entity which had ever lived in a human body. It is highly doubtful that they would simply willingly sit by and acquiesce to Christian claims that The Logos had ever been exclusively embodied in a single Jew, one unknown to history at that.

They undoubtedly objected strongly to any such an imposition, and to the underhanded theft of their concept of The Logos.
Thus it was absolutely imperative for the Church to at all costs suppress and destroy all evidences of any such dissent.

Quote:

And, if you are right, consider this: The more likely something is to have happened, the LESS likely that it would have been successfully suppressed! Suspicion or paranoia?

Once they had the power of The Imperial Roman Army to throw to the task, it would not be all that difficult to seek out the locations of these dissidents and destroy those few hand written documents along with their writers.
And employ the Roman Legions to terrorise the populace into conformity to 'catholic' doctrine.
Its not 'paranoia', This is the known and recorded way the Orthodox Church conducted herself.
And I submit that that is exactly what happened, and what they did.

GakuseiDon · 02-07-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Do you even understand what you are going on about? Or is it just foaming out of your gut animosity toward mythicism.

I asked you if you had the capacity for rational thinking. I guess I've got my answer.

As of this moment, you are on my ignore list. And Don is one step away as well.

Earl Doherty

OK, so I take it that I won't be getting a review copy of your book.

:lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I don't recommend that you put either myself or GakuseiDon on your ignore list. Well, especially not GakuseiDon. He is the central critic of your work in this forum, and conversations in the threads can become very difficult to follow if you have important people on ignore, regardless of whether or not they like what you have to say.

Thanks Abe. Actually, after spending time on this thread and on the "Vision of Isaiah" one, I think it is time for me to bow out of further exchanges with Earl. I think we are only going to annoy one another going forward.

My review is on my website, and Earl's response will be on his; so people will have something to start their own investigation into the issues if they have an urge to do this. As much as I've enjoyed posting on ancient thinking and early literature, it's time to turn to other things.

Earl, the floor is yours.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.