EarlDoherty

I seem to need to touch base with you periodically, in a largely futile attempt to keep you honest. So...

You are perfectly right. Two different stories, two different contexts, though the one containing a crucifixion on earth may well owe a debt to the one that took place in the heavens. But then, you go off the rails:

You have supplied nothing but the vaguest and inconclusive of argument that Mark's story of a crucifixion on earth owes anything to Hasmonean/Jewish history. Let's be clear on that. In fact, I see zero evidence for any intended link to Antigonus whatever.

And I'm quite sure that those NT scholars would equally turn a deaf ear to any theory that Mark is reflecting the crucifixion of Antigonus, a claim for which you supply no evidence.

Yes, this is the way traditional NT scholarship views the crucifixion in the Gospel story: it was a literal, earthly, terra-firma execution of an historical Jesus. But neither you nor that scholarship have supplied evidence that the gospel story was originally presented as an account of such a literal, earthly, terra-firma event, while mythicism has made a good case, taking into account the pre-Gospel record in the epistles and in the Q tradition, that it was presented as no such thing.

However, if I detect it correctly, you seem to be giving more credence and independence to the Pauline side of things, a faith movement in its own right owing nothing to the gospel story. Perhaps even with a Jesus who was never on earth? If so, that's progress, mh!! (For which I guess I'm going to have to take the credit.)

Earl Doherty

outhouse

Not just traditional NT scholarships viewed Jesus as a human being who walked the earth.


Paul obviously viewed Jesus as a man who died a earthly death. As did all the unknown gospel authors. Paul desperately wanted to be a real apostle from what he believed to be a man that walked the earth. Because he came into the movement after Jesus life, he had to claim he was sent forth by spiritual divine revelation, you know what we would call "human conscious thought"

Its underplayed that dreams, thought, and even day dreams were viewed as divine inspiration to these primitive people who lived mythology for medicine and science they didn't know or understand, let alone the mythology in theology they ALL lived their lives by.

The Epistles and authors of the gospels make it very clear their Jesus was a man who died for their sins after a earthly Passover and death by Pilate.


Had Paul and these authors followed any sort of celestial Jesus before crucifixion, they would not make you jump through mental hoops just to be forced to imagine in a off hand way, their celestial thoughts. Their intent was clear in the deity they built.


I do applaud your research and find it adds another dimension worth exploring, and a good read and interesting. I just don't see it as any sort of plausible replacement hypothesis. I also applaud you for giving a whole replacement hypothesis which places you in a rare group.

EarlDoherty

"Paul obviously viewed Jesus as a man who died an earthly death"???

Would you like to back that up with some evidence from the texts, rather than what amounts to your own argument from personal incredulity? The only mental hoops required here are to place Paul's Jesus on earth.

(And if all you are going to quote is "born of woman" or "brother of the Lord" you can forget about wasting my time.)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

The story of Jesus in the NT Canon is set around 6 BCE--33 CE. The time period of the story remains fixed until some other story is found. And in the story of Jesus, the son of God, he supposedly performed miracles, walked on the sea of Galilee, transfigured, was crucified, died and resurrected on the third day.

We cannot isolate one story about Jesus without taking into consideration the other supposed details just like we cannot just ignore all the witnesses or accept only ONE witness without taking the additional details into account.

It would be totally unacceptable to reject the details of Pilate or Tiberius simply because NONE are found in the Pauline letters.

The details of the Jesus story are found in the Gospels whether or not the stories are true.

The stories of Romulus allow to argue Romulus was not a figure if history.

We have the stories of Jesus and it clearly and ambiguously state that Jesus the Son of God was on earth in Judea.

The fact that the Pauline letters contain very little of the Jesus cannot be the fundamental criteria to date the Pauline writings early because it can also be seen that supposed LATER Gospels and Epistles do not mention the Life of Jesus or do NOT mention Paul, or the Pauline letters.

1. The Canonised Gospels must predate all the Pauline Epistles because they do NOT mention Paul and the Pauline lettersl.

2. Acts of the Apostles must predate all the Pauline letters because they do not mention them.

3. All the Non-Pauline Epistles must predate all the Pauline letters because they do not mention Paul and the Pauline letters except 2 Peter which is admitted to be a forgery.

4, Revelation of John must predate Paul and the Pauline letters because it does not mention PAUL and the Pauline letters.

5. But we also can show that it is the Pauline letters that are without corroboration and without influence.

6. And even worse, the Pauline letters have been deduced to be manipulated.

7. Doherty himself argues that the supposed authentic letters of Paul are mutilated sources.

8. The Pauline theology is FAR more advanced that even the Jesus of gMark.

9. gMark's Jesus preached Salvation by the Law--Not by Sacrifice and the Resurrection.

10. The Pauline theology is similar to the Later gJohn but went even higher than the Johanine writer.

The argument that the Pauline writer represents early Christianity of the Jesus cult is by far the weakest of weak arguments.

Once we place the Pauline writings AFTER 180 CE they are no longer problematic--but expose fraud and fiction.
There is no real evidence from antiquity that supposed early Jesus cult Christians argued that Jesus was never on earth and crucified in a heavenly.

Earl's Jesus story is just a "scholarly" invention based on the very sources that Doherty himself argues were manipulated

To this day, Earl cannot provide any actual source of antiquity that argued Jesus was crucified in some kind of heaven.

But, I am not really interested in Earl's flawed interpretation but a written source of antiquity that CORROBORATED it.

There is zero attestation for Doherty's claim that Jesus was crucified in some kind of heaven and was believed to have never been on earth.

Coroboration, attestation and sources of antiquity are all virtually missing for Paul]s letters.

outhouse

I apologize for not reading your book and knowing your stance better.

I don't think Paul or any author knew Jesus mother or brother and I view these as mostly fiction, so I wouldn't use those.



Well, there is the biological lineage from David through Mary, Paul claims.

Does Paul not claim Jesus is the true Jewish messiah? not a celestial one.

Did the Passover Jesus died at with possibly 400,000 people in attendance who were still alive when Paul was writing think Jesus death was celestial? or earthly? Why would Paul write a celestial Passover death and resurrection, and not mention it at all! when so many were actually there and witnessed his death and could catch Paul in a lie if it never happened on earth?


Did Paul or did not Paul view, Jesus as the "son of god" ? a term for mortal emperors in which the gospels often parallel the Emperors divinity. Such as speaking in front of large mythical crowds like the "sermon on the mount" or the Star sign on Augustus coin's used in Jesus birth mythology?




For your side, Paul definitely viewed Jesus as living in heaven, but only after his human death and resurrection.


Earl I think you have done justice over Maccoby and his cosmic savior religion by taking it on fully from start to finish. I just don't see it.



The resurrection of Jesus was important to Paul. So much so if he placed this in a celestial environment, why didn't he make it obvious?

outhouse

Sorry, here is a passage

1 Thessalonians

2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:



How were these murderous Jews that killed Jesus celestial Jews?

Sheshbazzar

Must have also been 'celestial' Jewish prophets that these celestial Jews killed.

And 'Paul' must have been 'celestial' too as he was being persecuted by these 'celestial' Jews

That's it! None of the NT happened on earth! Everyone in the texts was 'celestial'! and it all happened in heaven!
Jesus wasn't crucified on earth, and the Apostles and Paul were all 'celestial' and never preached on earth!
Wow! all textual and historical problems are forever solved with Earl's fits-all 'celestial answer for everything'.



.

Toto

A very good case can be made that this is an interpolation. Most of the scholars who argue that this is an interpolation are not mythicists; they just notice that the attitude in the section towards the Jews is at variance with what Paul writes in other places about the Jews. See
EarlyChristianWritings

I Thess. 2.14-16 has often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. The following arguments have been based on the content: (1) the contradiction between Romans 9-11 and 1 Thess. 2.14-16. (2) The references to what has happened to Jews as a model for a Gentile Christian church. (3) There were no extensive persecutions of Christians by Jews in Palestine prior to the first Jewish war. (4) The use of the concept of imitation in 1 Thessalonians 2.14 is singular. (5) The aorist εφτασεν (has overtaken) refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

There are other reasons there.

maryhelena

Methinks, Earl, it's you that have gone off the rails. You have nothing but your assumptions that the "crucifixion on earth may well owe a debt to the one that takes place in the heavens". Pure assumption....:huh:
The "vaguest and inconclusive ....argument" that Hasmonean/Jewish history was relevant to the gospel writers is outlined in the chart in this thread:

History Rejects the Assumption of a Historical Gospel Jesus Figure

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

See the chart above. History cannot be wished away from a search for early christian origins.
And you, Earl, are unable to supply evidence that history was irrelevant to the writers of the gospel JC story. Pauline speculation based upon your own assumptions is not going to further the ahistoricist/mythicist position. All your Pauline theories have done is stall any forward movement in that direction.
Wishful thinking there, Earl. I have never posted anything that suggest that the 'Pauline side of things' had nothing to do with the gospel story.

Let me make this very very clear. My position is that the gospel story of a figure that was crucified on terra-firma, under Pilate, is a story that preceded the Pauline writing.

As to the Pauline JC being a spiritual entity - there is no NT scholar that I am aware of, that rejects this interpretation of the Pauline writing. Your theory has added nothing new to that position. All your theory is advocating is that the Pauline JC was 'crucified' in the fleshly sub-lunar. A position that has not, and will not, gain acceptance from NT scholars. Why? The gospel crucifixion of JC story is primary. Reject that and any Pauline interpretations are blowing in the wind.

Yes, I hold to a 'crucifixion' in the heavenly Jerusalem, the Jerusalem above. My position is philosophical not mythological. It bears no resemblance to a crucifixion in a fleshly sub-lunar. So, Earl, no credit going you way. :huh:

aa5874

Again, you have highlighted that the Pauline writings are extremely problematic.

The fact that there are contradictions in the Paul letters do not help the credibility of the Pauline letters and suggest the Pauline letters are products of multiple authors.

One cannot presume that the Pauline writings were written before c 68 CE simply because Paul contradicts himself.

Now, if both mythicists and historicists admit the passage is at variance with other statements in the Pauline corpus then it is a consensus that the Pauline letters cannot be trusted.

The Pauline letters are internally inconsistent and were not corroborated by the other authors of the Cannon.

That is all.