GakuseiDon

Can you name any pagan god who died where we have no details of the death given? And esp no details of his/her life?

Compare with GJohn 1:1-5. Why can't your quote (actually it is Col, not 1 Cor) apply to a Risen HJ as described in GJohn?

rlogan

Hopeless...

G.D. Please consider how silly this line of reasoning is, even if we grant you the specious underlying premise:

Greek Gods X, Y, and Z have detailed mythologies.

Therefore Jesus was a historical person.


What person's historicity has ever been established by this absurd kind of thinking?

Gregg

I'd like to know who keeps giving this "usual response." I haven't even asked Doherty (we correspond from time to time) but I would be willing to bet he would never say anything remotely like this in response to such a comment.

There's no reason to suspect that Paul doesn't tell us everything he knows about Jesus. It IS reasonable to expect that if there was an HJ, Paul would have known more about him and said more about him, if only to silence those pesky Christians going about claiming that Jesus never came in the flesh and/or was never crucified. But if Paul is talking about an MJ, why would you think he hasn't told us everything he knows? What more do you want/expect from him?Well, in Philippians Paul quotes a Christian hymn that states that Jesus wasn't even given the name Jesus until after his death and exaltation into heaven ("...even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."). Strange that he never tells us what his name was before.

It's probably true that you won't find many other passages in Paul that couldn't conceivably be applied to a risen HJ as well as a risen MJ. But anyway, Doherty's case is built on a lot more than Paul alone. Hebrews, for example, explicitly tells us that Jesus had never been on Earth and that his sacrifice took place in a heavenly sanctuary. In fact, it would have been worthless if it'd taken place on Earth, according to the author of Hebrews.What assumptions? Can you list them and explain why Doherty is unjustified in making them, and how any speculation he makes based on these assumptions is unreasonable?

Gregg

First, Doherty is trying to emphasize a point that people seem to miss over and over and over again. That doesn't mean it's a "weak" point. I see plenty of people on these boards use all caps every once in a while to emphasize a point when arguing with, say, creationists. Would you say that's because evolutionists don't make any good points, or because the creationists refuse to acknowledge them?

Second, sorry, but I have to agree with Doherty--it is those who hang their entire case of Jesus' historicity on this single passage from Galatians who have a "weak" argument. Doherty's case is not built on Paul alone.This single argument, in itself, is not meant to be "convincing." Doherty is simply demonstrating that there's no compelling reason to believe that Paul MUST be referring to James as a blood brother of Jesus.A good point and one that Doherty would probably acknowledge if you brought it to his attention. He doesn't claim to never make mistakes. It hardly demolishes his overall argument, though. This is a circumstantial evidence case--picking out a loose thread or two isn't going to destroy the rope. I have a strong disagreement with Doherty's take on Apollos (Supplementary Article # 1), for example, but even if he dropped that particular argument entirely it wouldn't noticeably impact the rest of his case.No, it wouldn't be "precisely." There is no way to know what Paul is trying to say with that degree of certainty, which is Doherty's point. When you look at this uncertainty against the paucity of any other apparent references to Jesus' human life, it makes the argument that Paul is using "brother" in a non-sibling sense much stronger.I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here, so I won't respond to it right now. Could you make it clearer for me? Thanks.

Gawen

GakuseiDon:
I have to agree with Gregg. Not that I am any expert at all or not to make it seem that I choose sides or "gang up" on you or any other believer of HJ. I am only now just starting Supplimentary Article #7 and when looking at the entire webite I don't think I'm even a 1/4 way through...and already Doherty makes a very strong case.


As Paul constantly seems to refer any mention of Jesus in the mystical/spiritual sense, just as he and all the other writers considered God as mystical, why can't Paul consider God AND Jesus both of the same vein? Paul doesn't say "Peace from our heavenly Father, God and from our Earthly/Heavenly Lord Jesus." There is no distinction here.

Originally posted by capnkirk:
I have to back up Gregg here as well, in his response to you. Emphasising ("Doherty argues for a synthesis of Jewish messianic/Son of Man/Suffering Servant, Greek neo-Platonist and Logos, and dying/rising savior god cult beliefs.")

Ipetrich:
Paul is writing from devine revelations mostly if not exclusively; why would he even need to visit these places? Doherty suggests that these places have no meaning anyway to Paul because all that happened to the Saviour happened in the spiritual/mystical realm.

Amaleq13

My understanding of Doherty's theory is that the belief did begin within Judaism. The first people to experience the Risen Christ were Jewish (e.g. James, John, Peter). Thus, the "roots" were not invented. This connection is certainly elaborated by later Christians to the point where the entire Old Testament is reinterpreted as filled with prophecies of Christianity. Novel faiths often struggle specifically because they are novel. Reinterpreting Jewish history as Christian history provided the new religion with instant ancient legitimacy.

Keep in mind that all the "trouble" apparently derives from the efforts of the author of a single text (i.e. Mark). What do you understand to be the motivation(s) of the author of Mark? Is there a reason apparent that does not follow from an a priori assumption for or against an HJ?

Amaleq13

That the author(s) of GJn equate an HJ with the Logos only serves to emphasize how incoherent the concept actually is. It does not make it any more likely that Paul shared such a belief.

I think rlogan addressed your question about dying/biography-less pagan gods quite well. I would only add that a true comparison would require writings representing the earliest formation of belief in a given pagan god.

Would we expect the story of a pagan god to be fully formed in its first written incarnation or would we expect it to develop from core fundamental beliefs to become more "fleshed out" over time?

Gregg

Not quite. If Doherty argues for any "ultimate" beginning for Christianity, it's found in Greek neo-Platonism with its multi-layered heaven and teaching about the Logos, later called the Christ, Greek for Savior. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles preached a uniquely Jewish version of Christianity, which, as it turned out, was the version that won out over the others.

capnkirk

GREGG!

You are overreacting. I actually agree with 95%+ of Doherty's analyses. I am not arguing against Doherty at all. A better description of my position would be triangulation. Doherty is defining the choices as A or B. I am proposing a choice C (that contains at least 95% of A). IOW, I find in his arguments that he focuses entirely on dismembering the "Xtian scholars" and their rather narrow views, and in doing so has ignored other possibilities. What follows is an illustrative short quote from Part 3 of The Jesus Puzzle:It is the second part of the statement that best illustrates the point I am trying to make here. This statement "would not have been regarded as the Messiah" reflects the Xtian definition of the Messiah, not the Jewish one. Time and again, he demolishes such "Xtian" viewpoints like they were the only ones that need to be demolished. From the viewpoint of any (non-Hellenized) Jewish group, messiah had never had any divine overtones. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint (c 200 BCE) used the same greek term (krestos) to describe David and any other "annointed ones" in the OT, as did the author of the Jewish text, Baruch, (c 200 CE) in reference to Simon bar Kokhba, again without any of the deific attributions that Xtians ascribe to it. So, even if the word krestos were present, one would be hard pressed to impute the significance that he attached to it.

My only serious disagreement with Doherty revolves around his construction of "Q". The exegetical layering of Q is problematic to say the least...since we are admittedly reconstructing a document solely on its echoes in GMatt, GLuke, GThomas. I am not arguing against Q per se; I am arguing that most of what is attributed to layer Q3 should be instead seen as much later interpolation and its source as being from Paulinist Xtians, and that doing so results in a somewhat different set of conclusions (or more particularly, exclusions).

This disagreement about the exegesis of Q is important because it is only his arguments that depend on Q that specifically preclude a HJ. The rest of his arguments can just as easily point toward an essentially non-violent, exclusively human, Jewish messiah who, since he didn't advocate violent insurrection against Rome, didn't manage to make the record books (or get all his followers executed with him), but did in fact exist. That Paul did know of him (and may have even persecuted his followers).

NOGO

This is a complete misrepresentation of Doherty's theory.

The point is not that there not many details the point is that

1) many things Paul says are contrary to the Gospels

and

2) Paul fails to mention something which he would have, had he known the Gospels stories.

In summary if we assume that the Gospels are history then Paul is hard to explain.

I will give you some examples.

Paul tells his follows to love one another (three times) yet does not mention that this came from Jesus as presented in the Gospels.
There are many examples like this (see Doherty's book) where Paul refers to the OT rather than the Gospel Jesus.
(by the way, I equate the HJ to the Gospel Jesus for this debate)

This is not a problem for JM since it is part of the JM theory that these sayings/events were attributed to Jesus later.

Paul tells us in several instances that Jesus was revealed to him through scriptures or directly from Jesus himself. He denies that he got this information from humans.

Romans 16:25-26
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Simply put, with an HJ we would have expected that Jesus himself revealed the above to the twelve and Paul would have learned of it through other apostles.

Complete in-line with the JM concept. Devastating for the HJ.

The Gospels emphasize Jesus' teachings which are detailed in the stories themselves. The parable of the sower is a good example of the emphasis placed on Jesus' teachings and their place in salvation. These teachings and their place in salvation are practically absent from Paul's letters and the rest of the NT. As I explained in the "Lord's Supper" Paul's view of Jesus' teachings come through inspiration and not through apostolic tradition.

Again this is not a problem with JM since there is no other record to which to compare what the heavenly Jesus may or may not have said to Paul or anyone else. We do have a record which Christians claim are about the HJ.

Paul did not see a human being on the way to Damascus. He saw a light. Luke tells us that Jesus had resurrected "flesh and bones" and went up to heaven with his human body, wounds and all.

If Paul would have seen a human shape with wounds Christians would have much better case.

Romans 1 and Hebrews 1 tell us that Jesus got his title of "Son of God" upon returning to heaven after his death and resurrection.
The Gospels portray him as Son of God from birth, at his baptism and throughout the his life.

... There is more ... see my latest posts on differences between the Gospels and Paul.

Given all these issues why should anybody believe that the reference point for all this verbiage is the life of an actual man. An historical Jesus would have placed a much firmer stake in the ground.

Religions, faiths, and myth tend to diverge with time. People get other ideas and communities split. With Christianity the divergence was practically immediate. The lack of an HJ is the cause.

Basically it goes something like this.

The Gospels emphasize the historical Jesus' teachings.
Paul gets his information from inspiration.

If we take these as models for a religion what we have can best be represented by the Catholic Church (former) and the Protestant Chruches (latter). If you admit that anybody can be inspired then you will have division and splits. Since the Reformation the protestant movement has split into a million sects without any end in sight and the reason is obvious.

It is therefore no surprize to me that Paul's faith and the Gospels diverge on many important issues.