Toto

Except that you haven't done so.

If you think a psychology book would help, go ahead.

TedM

Toto, next time if you aren't willing to interact with speculative reasons for something after you ask me to give them, please refrain from asking in the first place.

archibald

I'm loving the accusations of 'speculation' and 'arbitrariness'. My irony-meter has burnt out. lol. I'm sorry, but is ANYBODY doing any actual science here?

Those who have evidence, please stop hoarding it, FFS. It could be useful!

Whoops, sorry for introducing a rational scepticism criteria. This is clearly not that sort of forum.

Note to self: suggest site name change to admin.

Toto

I don't see this issue as revolving around any difference between modern and ancient people.

This seems to be a popular idea, but I still find it hard to imagine what would bring these two factions together. Although there have been stranger bedfellows, as they say.

And what associates Paul with the "Jerusalem" tradition? That usually refers to James and Peter, and I think most people associate the Ebionites with that line.

aa5874

A miracle is NOT the only possible connection. In fact, miracles are not known to have actually happened.

On the other, it is far more possible that we have a connection with mythology. After all, Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Myth is a possible connection.

GakuseiDon

Hi archibald. I haven't forgotten that I promised to address your points from earlier. I still haven't had a lot of time to put something together. I've given some responses below, but I will follow up in a discussion on the Enoch literature and Ascension of Isaiah in a day or two.
Yes, definitely. I consider it evidence against Doherty, though only weak evidence. It does help provide background though to why his theory is probably wrong.

Yep, and that's interesting also. That's part of the 'Doherty two-step'. The tempo changes when you press him for evidence. "I have evidence!" "Well, no, I don't have evidence. I have indicators". Then back to "I have evidence", followed by "Well, my statement in The Jesus Puzzle was too stark." And so on.

And as you've found out, if you question Doherty, he starts getting nasty. I can't wait for him to give Ehrman the "Doherty treatment!"

I think the Ascension of Isaiah is powerful evidence against Doherty, as I'll explain in my next post.

Julian and Sallustius were allegorists, writing 300 years after Paul. They thought the myth of Attis was set on earth; however, the myth didn't happen, either on earth or in an upper realm. Instead, the myth is allegory for the actions of cosmic forces.

Does an allegorical approach support Doherty? I believe it doesn't; he believes it does. He could go for peer-review, to get the opinions of experts on the subject, but that's been discussed enough I think.

It is an allegory of the actions found in nature. Here is the context:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/D.html

It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they have a legend that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again;305 for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change. The images from it with which the sensible and corporeal is impressed, and the relations, forms, and likenesses which this take upon itself, like impressions of seals in wax, are not permanently lasting, but disorder and disturbance overtakes them, bbeing driven hither from the upper reaches, and fighting against Horus,306 whom Isis brings forth, beholden of all, as the image of the perceptible world. Therefore it is said that he is brought to trial by Typhon on the charge of illegitimacy, as not being pure nor uncontaminated like his father, reason unalloyed and unaffected of itself, but contaminated in his substance because of the corporeal element. He prevails, however, and wins the case when Hermes,306 that is to say Reason, testifies and points out that Nature, by undergoing changes of form with reference to the perceptible, duly brings about the creation of the world. p133cThe birth of Apollo from Isis and Osiris, while these gods were still in the womb of Rhea, has the allegorical meaning that before this world was made visible and its rough material was completely formed by reason, it was put to the test by Nature and brought forth of itself the first creation imperfect.

Again, Doherty would claim this supports the idea of a "World of Myth". I claim it doesn't. The myth is set on earth; but the allegory is about how the myth reflects the workings of nature. If someone wanted to claim that Paul was an allegorist, then Plutarch could be used to support such a notion; but then the claimant would need to deal with the ultimate issue that Doherty also fails at: reconciling such a belief with the statements in Paul. Paul does not come across as believing the crucifixion as allegory.

I don't think it is unresolvable. I think we can compare Doherty's theories against what we know from the literature of the day. IMHO if we do that, we find that the evidence we do have on the pagan side doesn't support Doherty, and in fact goes against him. But I have no training in the languages or scholarly credentials, so I'm always a little embarrassed to make that call. I'm an amateur who has read a lot of primary sources in English translation and a lot of secondary sources. I wouldn't expect people to take my word on anything for this. Is it worth me encouraging Doherty to get rid of his arguments against apologists and write something for critical review, even if it doesn't go for peer-review? Probably not. Anyway, more to come on Enoch and AoI.

EarlDoherty

What do you mean "more to come" Don? You haven't said anything of any substance so far! Just a lot of "I don't agree with Doherty," and "I think the evidence is against him."

Of course, that has stood you in good stead for years, at least in your own mind.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

That is a naive, if not foolish, approach.

The "Jerusalem" tradition has a high Christology. It emphasizes the meaning of the death of Christ. I'm not sure how James and Peter fits into this, and based on what you did to TedM, I'm not going to speculate, at least in response to you.

aa5874

Of couse there are independent sources that a HUMAN Jewish Messiah was expected at around 70 CE.

Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus Histories 5 all attested that the Jews expected HUMAN beings, NOT heavenly Spirits, as Messianic rulers.

It was the failed expectation of the human Messiah that appears to have caused the invention of the Spiritual Messiah.

The Pauline resurrected Messiah is a LATE invention unknown to the Jews, Philo, Josephus, Vespasian, the Emperor of Rome, Titus, the Emperor of Rome, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Hadrian, the Emperor of Rome, Simon BarCocheba and others..

At least up to the death of Simon BarCocheba, considered the Messiah, c 135 CE there is no credible historical source of antiquity that can establish that there was an expectation of an heavenly Jewish Messiah.

Virtually all of history DENIES any 1st century expectation of heavenly Spirits as Jewish Messianic rulers.

Human Jewish Messianic rulers were considered a DIRECT threat to Roman RULE.

avi

criterion, not plural. This is THAT kind of forum.

I was impressed by your behaviour towards my posts in both fora.

Here's a typical illustration:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305902&page=2

Notice how Archibald replies to several messages at once, here in post 41:
spin, "....it was this post that got me thinking..."
Solo, "More good ponts";
TedM: "Good counterponts"

even a jocular note to MaryHelena.....

nothing at all, zero, to my post, #20.

Well, I understand. I wouldn't have replied to a moron like me, either.

So, it does not surprise me, then, that "archibald" ignores my post, #485, in this thread, just as he ignored my posts in the Rational Skepticism Forum, just as he did with post 20 in his own thread addressing interpolation in 1 Corinthians.

I claim archibald ignored my post 20, in his own thread, and my post 485 here, in this thread, not because my replies were such imbecilic rejoinders, but, rather, because archibald, intimately acquainted with the Rational Skepticism Forum, doesn't like to engage in the topics raised by my replies.

He would rather discuss ideas, attitudes, and motivations, rather than present and scrutinize data, to resolve contradictions. That's my take.

Good enough. He can write as he wishes. I pass. Next.... en suite.....

avi