Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 05-15-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You are also completely ignorant of my entire case .....about a heavenly Christ who had not yet been to earth,

I have heard you 'case' sufficiently for years Earl. But by what I can read within the NT texts, your 'case' simply does not hold water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Quote:

12. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead

13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

21. For since by man came death, by man (the 'man' 'Jesus') came also the resurrection of the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

10. That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

('sufferings' WHAT 'sufferings' -in heaven? The only 'Jesus' that is known to have ever 'suffered', suffered ON EARTH in the days of Pontius Pilate, as told within the Gospels)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.) such an one caught up to the third heaven. ....

4. How that he was caught up into paradise, .... "

(He was ON EARTH to be 'caught up' into 'heaven' or into 'paradise'.)

WHERE Earl, did your 'celestial Lord 'Jesus'; "take bread, give thanks, and break that bread" ?

On that 'same night in which he was betrayed'? Was it 'night' in heaven ?

WHO was 'Jesus' talking to when he did these physical actions -in heaven- 'that (past tense) night' ?

WHO was -present- with 'Jesus' -'that night' -in heaven ?

WHO was it that "betrayed" him -in heaven- "that (past tense) night" ?

When he said; "said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

WHOM -in heaven- was he talking to ('that night') ?

WHOM was it that was with him -in heaven-, that he was expecting to eat the bread that he broke? and drink from his cup? ...'that night'?

HOW did 'Jesus' get crucified, die, get buried, and rise from the dead the third day (1 Cor 15:4) -in heaven ???

WHO was present -in heaven- to do the crucifying? or to bury Jesus -in heaven?

Does 'heaven' even have dirt or rocks to dig graves for dead gods in?

You gotta lot of explaining to do.

I do not buy your 'celestial' theory Earl.

It is more than just 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 that indicates that the writer(s) called 'Paul', knew the gospel of a man called 'Jesus',
a flesh and blood descendant of King David, who lived, ate, and drank with his human disciples, taught them the Eucharistic ceremony,
was crucified, died, was buried, and resurrected from the dead ON EARTH.

The writers called 'Paul' knew the written gospel, and incorporated 'earthly' human information about 'Jesus' from those written gospels into the composition of the fraudulent 'Pauline epistles'.

'Paul' of the 'Christian epistles' is a fake and a liar..

Sorry, shesh, but the more you write, the more you betray your ignorance of ancient cosmology and philosophy, not just of my own "case". To claim, for example, that it is only conceivable that a god could "die" on earth in human form, is one of your many unfounded naivetes. Your insistence on seeing terms like "death", "resurrection" and "man" as having no other application in ancient thought than to a human being simply shows the scope of your ignorance. And I have answered many of the points you raise above, but you simply ignore those responses, the mark of a mind set in concrete, unwilling to correct or even question its own deficiencies. You really do need to read Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Until then, I won't waste any more time on you.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar · 05-15-2013, 06:40 PM

The questions are right there, lined up in a row for you.

Deflection and insults, but no answers forthcoming. Figures.

Your book has failed persuade thousands that have read it, and have commented on it.

Can't say as its claimed too friendly of an audience even in this Forum of Skeptics and Atheists.

You are seriously deluded if you think that I will find it persuasive.

It would be interesting though, to take a survey of BC&H Forum participants and see just how many here accept your thesis.

Sheshbazzar

.

jdboy · 05-16-2013, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Hi Earl,

Are you Truthsurge at youtube? When i googled your name the picture looks to be a picture of Truthsurge. But Truthsurge seems to have a different take than yours.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthSurge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVfgV...A3872E8F6B9A8E

"Part 1 of a who-knows-how-many-parts-part series where I simply share my knowledge about the Jesus Myth theory as espoused by the likes of Earl Doherty. Part 1 is simply an overview of the main claims of the theory and a taste of the first piece of evidence that will be covered in part2A and part2B."

I guess Truthsurge is not Earl

EarlDoherty · 05-16-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The questions are right there, lined up in a row for you.

Deflection and insults, but no answers forthcoming. Figures.

Your book has failed persuade thousands that have read it, and have commented on it.

Can't say as its claimed too friendly of an audience even in this Forum of Skeptics and Atheists.

You are seriously deluded if you think that I will find it persuasive.

It would be interesting though, to take a survey of BC&H Forum participants and see just how many here accept your thesis.

Sheshbazzar

.

No answers forthcoming? My postings in this exchange with you have been loaded with answers, but you simply keep repeating your questions or your own statements which I have demonstrated are based on errors of scholarship and widespread ignorance. I can't do anything further, which is why this so-called debate is at an end.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-16-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Hi Earl,

Are you Truthsurge at youtube? When i googled your name the picture looks to be a picture of Truthsurge. But Truthsurge seems to have a different take than yours.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthSurge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVfgV...A3872E8F6B9A8E

"Part 1 of a who-knows-how-many-parts-part series where I simply share my knowledge about the Jesus Myth theory as espoused by the likes of Earl Doherty. Part 1 is simply an overview of the main claims of the theory and a taste of the first piece of evidence that will be covered in part2A and part2B."

I guess Truthsurge is not Earl

No, it's not me. I've watched only one of the videos by Truthsurge, the introductory one (maybe that's all there is?). I'm also not the one whose picture has been on the internet ("Is This You?") sporting a white beard, and looking far older than I do. I can assure you there are no pictures of me circulating anywhere. It's actually quite possible that I don't exist. (Perhaps Sheshbazzar would like to write a book demonstrating that.)

Earl Doherty (so he says)

Sheshbazzar · 05-16-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The questions are right there, lined up in a row for you.

Deflection and insults, but no answers forthcoming. Figures.

Your book has failed persuade thousands that have read it, and have commented on it.

Can't say as its claimed too friendly of an audience even in this Forum of Skeptics and Atheists.

You are seriously deluded if you think that I will find it persuasive.

It would be interesting though, to take a survey of BC&H Forum participants and see just how many here accept your thesis.

Sheshbazzar

.

No answers forthcoming? My postings in this exchange with you have been loaded with answers, but you simply keep repeating your questions or your own statements which I have demonstrated are based on errors of scholarship and widespread ignorance. I can't do anything further,

As you sign your name to each of your posts, anyone can simply type your name into the 'search this thread' bar and quickly locate those few exchanges between us in this thread.

Doing so will show that your postings in this thread have NOT been 'loaded with answers', but with insults, assertions, and evasions.

You HAVE NOT anywhere in this thread 'demonstrated' that my statements 'are based on errors of scholarship and widespread ignorance', You have only asserted such without addressing actual questions raised. 'read my book' is not an answer'.

Yes, you obviously 'can't do anything further', so just run away without addresing the questions.

Sheshbazzar · 05-16-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

WHERE Earl, did your 'celestial Lord 'Jesus'; "take bread, give thanks, and break that bread" ?

On that 'same night in which he was betrayed'? Was it 'night' in heaven ?

WHO was 'Jesus' talking to when he did these physical actions -in heaven- 'that (past tense) night' ?

WHO was -present- with 'Jesus' -'that night' -in heaven ?

WHO was it that "betrayed" him -in heaven- "that (past tense) night" ?

When he said; "said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

WHOM -in heaven- was he talking to ('that night') ?

WHOM was it that was with him -in heaven-, that he was expecting to eat the bread that he broke? and drink from his cup? ...'that night'?

HOW did 'Jesus' get crucified, die, get buried, and rise from the dead the third day (1 Cor 15:4) -in heaven ???

WHO was present -in heaven- to do the crucifying? or to bury Jesus -in heaven?

Does 'heaven' even have dirt or rocks to dig graves for dead gods in?

Who was it -in heaven- that 'betrayed Jesus that night?

Who was it -in heaven- (or your 'celestial realm') that took the dead body of 'Jesus' off from the cross, and buried him -in heaven- Earl ?

You got a few dozen other gods on hand at this 'heavenly' crucifixion?

Care to name which one -in your 'celestial realm'- it was that buried 'Jesus' ? Was it Hemes? Thor? Odin?

Duvduv · 05-16-2013, 09:11 PM

And if there is no evidence that the epistles were actually written by a single individual with a singular intention, then they are of no use in supporting the mythicist theory at all because it could be argued that that the content of interpolation/composites was simply done to intersperse pre-existing letters with Christ references.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....Earl, I think, over the years, I've said this many times - you have, in your theories, only half a story about early christian origins. You have a theory re the Pauline writings. You don't have a theory on the gospel JC story that can be demonstrated to have historical relevance. i.e. you only have a theory on half of the NT story. You have an interpretation of 'Paul's interpretation of the Jesus story. Your interpretation, via 'Paul', is thus second-hand down. What is necessary is to deal with what the Pauline writer had to deal with - the story that proceeded him: The Jesus story - a story that is now preserved in the gospels.

Doherty has gone beyond the evidence by accepting the Pauline writings as credible when he himself has argued that Pauline writings regarded as authentic are interpolated.

It is completely unacceptable for Doherty to argue that the Pauline writings are manipulated as we have them today and then INVENT his own sequence of events.

Effectively, Doherty's position on early Christianity is actually based on a known and admitted discredited source--the Pauline Corpus.

The earliest story of Jesus, the Son of God, in the short version of gMark tells us that Jesus was on earth, and was baptized by John, did miracles, walked on the sea, transfigured was crucified under Pilate and resurrected.

There is nothing AFTER Jesus resurrected.

The history of the character called Jesus would have been easily recognized as fiction if the Pauline letters were not composed.

The Pauline letters were composed to HISTORICISE the Resurrection of Jesus.

Only the Pauline writer in the Canon claimed he was a Witness of the Resurrected--No other author claimed to be a Witness.

aa5874 · 05-17-2013, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And if there is no evidence that the epistles were actually written by a single individual with a singular intention, then they are of no use in supporting the mythicist theory at all because it could be argued that that the content of interpolation/composites was simply done to intersperse pre-existing letters with Christ references.

Your line of argument is not logical. We don't know who wrote Genesis but it has been reasonably deduced that the characters Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were figures of Myth--Just like Jesus.

Again, it has already been deduced that the Pauline letters had multiple authors.

The Pauline writings as have been found and dated support mythology/fiction not history.

The Pauline corpus in the Jesus cult Canon is the flagship of fraud, forgery, false attribution and manipulation.

Effectively, the Pauline writings have no negative effect on the MJ argument.

It is claimed in the Pauline corpus that Jesus was the second Adam--A Quickening Spirit that was raised from the dead on the Third day.

It is universally accepted that written statements about any matter can be examined for credibility.

The Pauline letters as we have them today are essentially either a pack of lies or packs of mythology.

There was NO Jesus cult of Christians in the time of supposed Paul. There was no Jesus cult in Jerusalem before c 67 CE.

Duvduv · 05-17-2013, 11:23 AM

Not only is it worth considering that different epistles were written by different people but also that single epistles were composites of more than one type of text, i.e. a pre-existing monotheistic-friendly letter with interspersed references to the orthodox Christ in development.

That being the case, the individual letters do not have the basis for being considered single documents with single intentions of an author. Therefore, seeing a mythicist notion in the epistles would be reading something into that is not there.

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

05-15-2013, 06:40 PM	#212
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The questions are right there, lined up in a row for you. Deflection and insults, but no answers forthcoming. Figures. Your book has failed persuade thousands that have read it, and have commented on it. Can't say as its claimed too friendly of an audience even in this Forum of Skeptics and Atheists. You are seriously deluded if you think that I will find it persuasive. It would be interesting though, to take a survey of BC&H Forum participants and see just how many here accept your thesis. Sheshbazzar .

05-17-2013, 11:23 AM	#220
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Not only is it worth considering that different epistles were written by different people but also that single epistles were composites of more than one type of text, i.e. a pre-existing monotheistic-friendly letter with interspersed references to the orthodox Christ in development. That being the case, the individual letters do not have the basis for being considered single documents with single intentions of an author. Therefore, seeing a mythicist notion in the epistles would be reading something into that is not there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.