Kapyong

Gday,

Looking at GakuseiDon's comments about Doherty claims being not supported well -

Example from GakuseiDon -
(Hmm ... Doherty claimed they "perform acts which brought sanctity and salvation". Not exactly the same as "carried out their myths", but I think the theme is clear.)


Heavenly Regions with Beings, Things and Actions

Well, to start with, I think it has been well established that by Paul's time these basic beliefs were widely known and believed by many (with variations) :

• there are multiple regions, or spheres, or planes of existence (e.g. the Air Beneath the Moon, or the 3rd heaven, or the firmament, or 3 or 7 or 10 or even 365 heavens.)
• Earth is at or near the bottom, a Heaven is at the top, various planes in between
• Spiritual beings exist in the higher planes - good and evil (e.g souls, demons, angels, Satan, giants.)
• Spiritual actions take place in these higher planes (e.g. punishment and imprisonment.)
• Heavenly objects exist in these heavenly worlds (e.g. mountains, rivers, trees, lakes of metal, raging waters, fire, crowns, thrones, garments.)
• There are connections between worlds above and below (as Above, so Below.)

That's 2/3 of the way to Doherty's claim already I'd say.

Will you so stipulate, G.Don ?


Godly Actions in Heavenly Worlds

4 Ezra has a 1st C. example of a Son of God acting in heaven - on heavenly Mount Zion a Son of God places crowns on immortal souls and gives them palms :

"[42] I, Ezra, saw on Mount Zion a great multitude, which I could not number, and they all were praising the Lord with songs. [43] In their midst was a young man of great stature, taller than any of the others, and on the head of each of them he placed a crown, but he was more exalted than they. And I was held spellbound. [44] Then I asked an angel, "Who are these, my lord?" [45] He answered and said to me, "These are they who have put off mortal clothing and have put on the immortal, and they have confessed the name of God; now they are being crowned, and receive palms." [46] Then I said to the angel, "Who is that young man who places crowns on them and puts palms in their hands?" [47] He answered and said to me, "He is the Son of God, whom they confessed in the world."

There a Son of God acts in heaven to give rewards to believers. Pretty close to Doherty's claim.


Doherty gave some examples -

Apuleis meets the Gods of heavenly worlds :

"I entered the presence of the Gods of the under-world, and the Gods of the upper-world, and stood near and worshipped them."

There gods meet believers in a heavenly place, presumably to their benefit - but no mention of Godly Actions.

Eugnostos the Blessed has various Gods ruling heavenly planes, which provide types for likenesses below.

Hermes was mentioned as playing dice with the Moon IIRC ?

Isis and Osiris - maybe, have to look closer after Don's critique is posted maybe.

Ascension of Isaiah - More very soon.

Conclusion :
There certainly were various worlds, spheres, planes etc. believed by the ancients which were filled with spiritual beings and things and actions and which fit with Doherty's World of Myth. 2/3 of Doherty's claim is clearly shown by many examples - pagan, Jewish and Christian (e.g. Rev.!)

However - the 'last 1/3' - the specific notion that gods acted for our salvation in such a world of myths is NOT shown very clearly, but the hints and fragments that Doherty has collected do show that such a view is quite plausible and supported partially.


"How strongly does the evidence support Doherty's case on his page 4 comment above?"

Overall- Moderately.
(Because the 'first 2/3' is so well supported and implies and supports the last 1/3.)


Yet - I agree that Doherty may have somewhat overstated his case in some of his claims, but I think he has presented a good case, which is fairly well supported by the evidence.

Sometimes I think G.Don can be over-critical, I hope the discussion stabilises and continues. Especially with his obvious interest and knowledge.

AoI is coming soon, then I guess I'll have to do I&O next.
Nothing so much fun as reading ancient books...


K.

... no no ... I'm serious :-)

GakuseiDon

Good stuff, Kapyong! Could I ask a moderator to split out Kapyong's post into a new thread, perhaps called "Evidence for a World of Myth"? I'll answer over there.

My review should be officially up by then; perhaps for your I&O post you could address my comments about Carrier's use of Plutarch?

>< Isn't it the best!!!

If you get a chance, read Minucius Felix's "Octavius". The first part has a pagan attacking the Christians. In this part, the pagan (actually the Christian author writing the part of the pagan) claims Christians better be careful about the afterlife -- wonderful imagery!:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../octavius.html

"Neither do you [Christians] at least take experience from things present, how the fruitless expectations of vain promise deceive you. Consider, wretched creatures, (from your lot) while you are yet living, what is threatening you after death. Behold, a portion of you--and, as you declare, the larger and better portion--are in want, are cold, are labouring in hard work and hunger; and God suffers it, He feigns; He either is not willing or not able to assist His people; and thus He is either weak or inequitable. Thou, who dreamest over a posthumous immortality, when thou art shaken by danger, when thou art consumed with fever, when thou art torn with pain, dost thou not then feel thy real condition? Dost thou not then acknowledge thy frailty? Poor wretch, art thou unwillingly convinced of thine infirmity, and wilt not confess it? But I omit matters that are common to all alike. Lo, for you there are threats, punishments, tortures, and crosses; and that no longer as objects of adoration, but as tortures to be undergone; fires also, which you both predict and fear. Where is that God who is able to help you when you come to life again, since he cannot help you while you are in this life? Do not the Romans, without any help from your God, govern, reign, have the enjoyment of the whole world, and have dominion over you? But you in the meantime, in suspense and anxiety, are abstaining from respectable enjoyments. You do not visit exhibitions; you have no concern in public displays; you reject the public banquets, and abhor the sacred contests; the meats previously tasted by, and the drinks made a libation of upon, the altars. Thus you stand in dread of the gods whom you deny. You do not wreath your heads with flowers; you do not grace your bodies with odours; you reserve unguents for funeral rites; you even refuse garlands to your sepulchres--pallid, trembling beings, worthy of the pity even of our gods! Thus, wretched as you are, you neither rise again, nor do you live in the meanwhile. Therefore, if you have any wisdom or modesty, cease from prying into the regions of the sky, and the destinies and secrets of the world: it is sufficient to look before your feet, especially for untaught, uncultivated, boorish, rustic people: they who have no capacity for understanding civil matters, are much more denied the ability to discuss divine.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, it's centuries too late, but from that text, here is my Cosmos of Cosmas :-)



The description is crude and simple, and twisted with religious views - as usual.


K.

GakuseiDon

A couple of nitpicks to start with:

One thing I've learned from debating Doherty over the years is that we need to be clear on terminology. I suspect that Doherty and I agreed on some things, but terminology differences made it difficult to show this.

For example: "plane of existence". Like the word "dimension" or "overlapping realities", I think it has a connotation for us that didn't exist back then. So unless we find the expression itself in translation, we need to be wary of applying modern-sounding terms. As I said, it is a nitpick, but best to avoid if possible. So "region" or "sphere" is okay (though I argued over "contiguous region" at one point, I think with Ted Hoffman). But unless you want to make a case that they thought in terms of "planes of existence" (and I would be interested if you did), we should be careful to avoid using words that may not have had the same meaning back then.

The other point (it is really just another nitpick) is I'd like to be careful about assigning something to "Doherty's claim" if it is something non-controversial. One of the things that I point out in my review is that Doherty isn't clear on whether statements he makes are controversial or not. For example, "demons in the air" is my claim as well, though that doesn't make it support my position against Doherty.

With that done, let me go through your points. My comments in blue:

• there are multiple regions, or spheres, or planes of existence (e.g. the Air Beneath the Moon, or the 3rd heaven, or the firmament, or 3 or 7 or 10 or even 365 heavens.) Multiple regions, yes agreed.
• Earth is at or near the bottom, a Heaven is at the top, various planes in between Various regions, agreed.
• Spiritual beings exist in the higher planes - good and evil (e.g souls, demons, angels, Satan, giants.) I don't think giants existed above. The **spirits** of giants who died in the Flood hovered around in the air, yes.
• Spiritual actions take place in these higher planes (e.g. punishment and imprisonment.) Concern here on your definition of "spiritual" actions. But certainly spirits could be punished, yes.
• Heavenly objects exist in these heavenly worlds (e.g. mountains, rivers, trees, lakes of metal, raging waters, fire, crowns, thrones, garments.) Above the firmament, yes. But above earth and below the firmament, no, with exceptions of use of air and fire (which were regarded as "spiritual" elements). This is definitely something that Doherty claims, but which is not represented in the literature AFAIK.
• There are connections between worlds above and below (as Above, so Below.) There are Platonic counterparts, yes. Depends on where you want to go with this! I know we disagree over on your new AoI thread

Is that actually being done in the Heavenly Mount Zion or on the earthly Mount Zion? It seems to be a vision, but I can't see that it is being done in the heavens. (Not that it affects things one way or the other, just interested.)

I'm not sure what claim you mean. Are you saying that there is any controversy here, and that Doherty's claim goes against consensus? I have no problems with virtually anything happening in the upper heavens, as long as it represents God's dominion. I wouldn't think that Satan would be able to go up there and crucify Christ, for example.

Hmmm... On Neil Godfrey's blog, he got it into his head that James McGrath and myself had problems with the idea of demons living in the air coming down to earth. No matter how many times I told him that this view was entirely non-controversial, he kept insisting that it was true and that it supported Doherty's claims and therefore we were wrong.

Part of this might be because demons living in the air is a new concept for many reading Doherty for the first time. Thus they see it as supporting Doherty somehow. However, no-one has a problem that people back then believed in a "Demon Haunted World".

It might help enormously if you can list out what is controversial about Doherty's case and what isn't controversial. I fear that saying heavenly actions taking place in heaven supports Doherty's case implies that it then goes against my case. But since my case is primarily about what happens in the sub-lunar realm, I'm not overly concerned about what goes on in the upper heavens. (If I said that most of what you have written above supports MY claims, then perhaps you might see where I am coming from.) Sorry to go on tangents like this, but I think it would be good to make sure we are on the same page going forward.

judge

Not shown very clearly? Or not shown at all?

Just where is it shown?





So overstating ones case is good?

And if one doesnt overstate ones case what is that?

judge

We should be as critical of Doherty as we would of a religious fundamentalist.
We should not treat doherty softly merely because he proposes mythicism.

Everyone whether they be a religious person of a freethinker should have to adhere to the same standard.

As yoiu admit to being a fan of Doherty, perhaps you are not being critical enough?

Kapyong

Gday,

Just very briefly before I head out to The Eastern Plaguelands :-)

A quick clarifying point, (agreeing with your comment about care with terms etc.)

I am focussing here on Doherty's claim which you quote and challenged - that

"these savior gods were thought of as having performed
acts in a mythical world,
acts which brought sanctity and salvation to their believers"

My examples of Acts in a Mythical World
(some of which bring sanctity and salvation to believers)

1. Thoth plays dice with the Moon
A God Acting in a WoM - yes.
(His believers got 5 days holidays :-) But S&S - no.)

2. Son of God crowns and gives palms to the spirits of believers, in heavenly Mt Zion {4 Ezra}
A God Acting in a WoM - yes.
(And benefits for the good souls - isn't that S&S for believers? aren't they the good souls?)

3. Ascension of Isaiah (minority MSS tradition) has JC descending to the firmament to be crucified.
A God Acting in a WoM - yes.
(The gathering of the souls of the righteous - perhaps sanctity and salvation?)
No doubt much discussion to come on this one :-)

4. Apuleis meets the Gods of the heavenly worlds.
A God Acting in a WoM - surely yes (they meet and receive worship from believers.)
(Sanctity and Salvation for believers - yes.)

5. Eugnostos has various godly beings ruling the heavenly worlds.
A God Acting in a WoM - seems like it.
(S&S no.)


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

I argue that Doherty's claim about
Gods acting in a World of Myth to bring salvation and/or sanctity to believers,
* has been shown directly: with some patchy evidence (see my post just before)
* and supported by: plenty of corroborating but less direct evidence, and argument.

Overall - I think Doherty's case is moderately well supported by the evidence, but not a slam dunk.

But hey - of course I'm am amateur judge, I can hardly claim much scholarship or pretend to be free from bias.

I just try to call it like I see it :-)


K.

GakuseiDon

Thanks, and apologies for being anal about this.

Kapyong: What is your definition of Doherty's "Mythical World". How does it differ from "upper heavens"?

The issue is this: I have no problem at all with any number of things happening in the "upper heavens". Thrones, crowns, cobble-stoned paths; all is good. As long as God's dominion is maintained, in charge and -- in Platonic terms -- pure and unchanging, then anything is fine.

It is only when we start to talk about death, suffering, evil, change, flesh, castration, crucifixion, etc, that we start hitting the issue of Doherty's mythical world.

So, can you explain Doherty's "World of Myth" concept, please? Both in terms of pagan beliefs and early (mythical) Christian beliefs?

Kapyong

Gday,

Well - it doesn't.
The Upper Heavens are part of that very Mythical World.
(I say 'part' to allow for other 'heavens' too, considering how different writers place things differently.)

Is this point our stumbling block, G.Don ?

Do you disagree with the Upper Heavens being a Mythical World where Gods can Act for the benefit of their believers below ?


K.

P.S.
It looks like I confused my Esdras - I quoted 1st C. 4 Ezra, but I think that is really from 2bd - 3rd C. 5 Ezra (start of 2 Esdras.)