Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 05-20-2013, 04:10 PM

:blank:

EarlDoherty · 05-20-2013, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.691-6

Appendix 11
The Curious Case of the Apology of Aristides
__________________________________________________ ______

.................................................. .......................

An indicator in the Syriac’s Jesus passage suggests that it has been derived from its Greek counterpart (see Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.10, p.265, n.1). But the Syriac’s lack of the passage critical of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus suggests that the latter in the Greek is an addition to it after the Syriac translation split off on its own line. This would lend support to a proposal I will offer that the basic Jesus passage was an addition as well, made earlier in time. In both versions, that passage fails to be integrated into the larger text; it differs markedly in tone and content, whereas without it the Apology shares the same atmosphere and lack of an historical Jesus with almost all of the other 2nd century apologists we have been examining. Moreover, the two respective Jesus passages appear in very different places in the two texts, whereas, with the exception of a short paragraph about the origin of the Jews which the Syriac also places in chapter 2 with its Jesus passage, the rest of the two texts follow the same order in their material. This situation is a dead giveaway that the paragraph on the Gospel Jesus was an interpolated floater, added to the original texts at different points in time but not establishing a firm or common placement.
.................................................. .............................................

Hi Earl

The differing positions in Greek and Syriac of both the passage about the origin of the Jews and the passage about the origin of the Christians seem related.

The Syriac has a set of brief introductions to the different ethnic groups followed by a more detailed discussion. In the Greek these brief introductions are abbreviated with some of the material moved from the introductions into the detailed discussions.

Andrew Criddle

And this tells you what? Can you be a little more analytical and make a more substantive case for whatever you are suggesting?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-20-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You have become as impossible as aa, Shesh, and I am hereby putting you on the same ignore notice as I've done him. It's long overdue. In fact, with the deterioration of the quality of posters these days, FRDB just isn't worth the effort.

Earl, putting people who question your theories on ignore does not accomplish anything for your theories. As you post your imaginative speculation and assertions on this forum they will get the treatment they deserve - in this case negative, rough, treatment. FRDB is no safe haven for your theories - if that is what you seek - then perhaps the more genteel environment of JesusMysteries would suit you better.

Earl needs this forum to promote his theory so it is impossible for him to ignore any poster who exposes his errors. You will notice every time he claims he ignores any one he immediately responds to their posts. The problem with Doherty's argument is that he relies on the very Pauline letters that he himself argues is corrupted. And not only that, the Entire Pauline corpus is a product of multiple authors without corroboration in the very Canon.

Ironic really - what Earl seems to think is his strength - his interpretation of the Pauline epistles - is his downfall. Earl has allowed his interpretation of the Pauline epistles to influence, to cloud, his interpretation of the gospel JC story. i.e. an interpretation of Pauline theology/philosophy is being used, by Earl, to interpret a JC story set in real time; a JC story set in historical time.

An historical time frame, an historical setting, does not grant the story set within it any historical value. That does not mean that the historical time frame was irrelevant to the creator's of the story. An author makes a conscious decision where to place a story. Consequently, in the case of the historical setting of the gospel JC story - that historical setting has to be addressed as to it's relevance for the creator of the JC story.

Theological or philosophical interpretations of the Pauline epistles cannot do that. They have nothing to offer for an investigation into the historical source, the ground zero, of the gospel JC story.

However grand ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles; whatever deep insights one may discern within those epistles - these are not avenues through which advances into the historical origins of early christianity can move forward.

The Pauline writer may well have developed and advanced the theology/philosophy of the early christians - that writer did not create the fountainhead that supplied the 'water' that enabled him to develop, to 'grow', a theological/philosophical movement. What the Pauline writer got from 'no man' was his own insights, his developments, of a JC story that was set in real historical time. The Pauline writer interpreted that JC story as having a relevance for a timeless theological/philosophical context.

Earl has the NT story back to front. The story is what it is. Ground Zero is a historical context. Ground Zero is not a Pauline magic carpet ride to a fleshly sub-lunar.

No, there are two ground zeros, as I have always made plain. One is the cult of the heavenly Savior Christ Jesus which Paul joined and became its most influential apostle. The other is the kingdom-preaching sect in Galilee represented in Q (which developed a founder figure for itself) and subsequently the Synoptics. I have no idea which one came first in time, we can't put a reliable date to either one, but the point is, they were totally independent. The Synoptic writers, beginning with Mark, syncretized the two sometime around the end of the first century. Neither of the two ground zeros had anything to do with Antigonus. And there is no reason to think that Mark's amalgamation was in any way inspired by Antigonus. That is Mh's imagination.

But since she refused to answer pertinent questions regarding the Antigonus connection here on this thread, I went to the "proper" one and posted my questions there, and I have now commented on her response.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-20-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The words of 'Paul' do not appear within the Gospels, but the words of the Gospels do appear in the writings of 'Paul'.
Without the Gospels known first 'Paul's' alleged Jesus quotations are entirely without context, and would be nonsensical.

I will limit myself to this comment, which I've had to make more than once: This has already been addressed and answered, more than once.

This is the prime reason why certain posters eventually get ignored.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 05-20-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...No, there are two ground zeros, as I have always made plain. One is the cult of the heavenly Savior Christ Jesus which Paul joined and became its most influential apostle...

Again, there is no author in the Canon who was influenced by a cult of heavenly crucified Jesus Christ in the Canon and ALL Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul or the Pauline writings do not mention such a cult or heavenly crucified Jesus.

I will show a partial list of authors in the Canon and Apologetics that mentioned, Jesus, Paul and the Pauline writings and we will see nothing of a cult of a heavenly crucified Jesus Christ was mentioned.

1. gMark

2. gMatthew

3. gLuke

4. gJohn

5. Acts of the Apostles.

6. Epistle of James

7. Epistles of Peter

8. Epistles of John

9. Epistle of Jude.

10. Hebrews

11. Revelation

12. 1st Clement.

13. Epistles of Ignatius

14. Epistle of Polycarp.

15. Aristides

16. Justin Martyr

17. Minucius Felix

18. Irenaeus

19. Tertullian

20. Clement of Alexandria

21. Hippolytus

22. Arnobius

23. Origen

24. Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The other is the kingdom-preaching sect in Galilee represented in Q (which developed a founder figure for itself) and subsequently the Synoptics.

"Q" is hypothetical and has not ever been found or mentioned by Apologetics.

And further, it is the EARLIER common material in the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew and gLuke that is the foundation of the Jesus story--Not the Later material only in gMatthew and gLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I have no idea which one came first in time, we can't put a liable date to either one, but the point is, they were totally independent. The Synoptic writers, beginning with Mark, syncretized the two sometime around the end of the first century...

There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a story of heavenly crucified Jesus since the time of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

There is no mention of a new religion or arguments against a new religion in the Roman Empire where Jews and Non Jews worshiped a crucified dead Jew as a God in Non-Apologetic sources before c 68 CE

There was simply no cult of an heavenly crucified Jesus in any century.

There were no Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem at all or anywhere in the Roman Empire in the 1st century based on the writings of antiquity.

maryhelena · 05-20-2013, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You have become as impossible as aa, Shesh, and I am hereby putting you on the same ignore notice as I've done him. It's long overdue. In fact, with the deterioration of the quality of posters these days, FRDB just isn't worth the effort.

Earl, putting people who question your theories on ignore does not accomplish anything for your theories. As you post your imaginative speculation and assertions on this forum they will get the treatment they deserve - in this case negative, rough, treatment. FRDB is no safe haven for your theories - if that is what you seek - then perhaps the more genteel environment of JesusMysteries would suit you better.

Earl needs this forum to promote his theory so it is impossible for him to ignore any poster who exposes his errors. You will notice every time he claims he ignores any one he immediately responds to their posts. The problem with Doherty's argument is that he relies on the very Pauline letters that he himself argues is corrupted. And not only that, the Entire Pauline corpus is a product of multiple authors without corroboration in the very Canon.

Ironic really - what Earl seems to think is his strength - his interpretation of the Pauline epistles - is his downfall. Earl has allowed his interpretation of the Pauline epistles to influence, to cloud, his interpretation of the gospel JC story. i.e. an interpretation of Pauline theology/philosophy is being used, by Earl, to interpret a JC story set in real time; a JC story set in historical time.

An historical time frame, an historical setting, does not grant the story set within it any historical value. That does not mean that the historical time frame was irrelevant to the creator's of the story. An author makes a conscious decision where to place a story. Consequently, in the case of the historical setting of the gospel JC story - that historical setting has to be addressed as to it's relevance for the creator of the JC story.

Theological or philosophical interpretations of the Pauline epistles cannot do that. They have nothing to offer for an investigation into the historical source, the ground zero, of the gospel JC story.

However grand ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles; whatever deep insights one may discern within those epistles - these are not avenues through which advances into the historical origins of early christianity can move forward.

The Pauline writer may well have developed and advanced the theology/philosophy of the early christians - that writer did not create the fountainhead that supplied the 'water' that enabled him to develop, to 'grow', a theological/philosophical movement. What the Pauline writer got from 'no man' was his own insights, his developments, of a JC story that was set in real historical time. The Pauline writer interpreted that JC story as having a relevance for a timeless theological/philosophical context.

Earl has the NT story back to front. The story is what it is. Ground Zero is a historical context. Ground Zero is not a Pauline magic carpet ride to a fleshly sub-lunar.

No, there are two ground zeros, as I have always made plain. One is the cult of the heavenly Savior Christ Jesus which Paul joined and became its most influential apostle. The other is the kingdom-preaching sect in Galilee represented in Q (which developed a founder figure for itself) and subsequently the Synoptics. I have no idea which one came first in time, we can't put a reliable date to either one, but the point is, they were totally independent. The Synoptic writers, beginning with Mark, syncretized the two sometime around the end of the first century. Neither of the two ground zeros had anything to do with Antigonus. And there is no reason to think that Mark's amalgamation was in any way inspired by Antigonus. That is Mh's imagination.

But since she refused to answer pertinent questions regarding the Antigonus connection here on this thread, I went to the "proper" one and posted my questions there, and I have now commented on her response.

Earl Doherty

No, Earl, you are so very wrong. There is only one GROUND ZERO - and that is terra-firma and historical reality.

How on earth can a fleshly sub-lunar 'spiritual' theory be a ground zero? Ideas come and they go. They are not permanent fixtures - something that is required for a ground zero context. Ground zero has to be in the public domain - available to all, acknowledged by all. Imaginative speculation such as a fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion - how is that going for you Earl? It's all in your mind and has no connection to physical reality nor historical reality.

As to your response to my reply to you on my thread - dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history and the gospel JC story - it was dismissal that I was expecting. Earl, you can't think outside the box you have got yourself locked into. That fleshly sub-lunar box is preventing you from getting real and engaging with the historical realities that were the backdrop to the gospel JC story.

Amazing really - how a mind can become so closed to realities and be content to live in it's own fleshly sub-lunar bubble of imagination.

As to your wish, stated on my thread, to 'leave it at that' - you don't, Earl, get the last word on my thread.....

Sheshbazzar · 05-20-2013, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The words of 'Paul' do not appear within the Gospels, but the words of the Gospels do appear in the writings of 'Paul'.
Without the Gospels known first 'Paul's' alleged Jesus quotations are entirely without context, and would be nonsensical.

I will limit myself to this comment, which I've had to make more than once: This has already been addressed and answered, more than once.

As your alleged 'answer' was little more than a vacuous dismissal in favor of more peddling of your personal line of contrived horse crap, your 'answer' was unaccepted.

Quote:

This is the prime reason why certain posters eventually get ignored.

If you wish to plug your ears and wear blinders, that's your prerogative _and your loss.

Like I'm troubled by being ignored by the likes of you? Hell, I'd consider it to be an honor. Go for it.
Others here who are not so blinkered will still continue reading and sharing our criticisms of your bass-akwards theory.

Sheshbazzar

EarlDoherty · 05-21-2013, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, Earl, you are so very wrong. There is only one GROUND ZERO - and that is terra-firma and historical reality.

How on earth can a fleshly sub-lunar 'spiritual' theory be a ground zero? Ideas come and they go. They are not permanent fixtures - something that is required for a ground zero context. Ground zero has to be in the public domain - available to all, acknowledged by all. Imaginative speculation such as a fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion - how is that going for you Earl? It's all in your mind and has no connection to physical reality nor historical reality.

As to your response to my reply to you on my thread - dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history and the gospel JC story - it was dismissal that I was expecting. Earl, you can't think outside the box you have got yourself locked into. That fleshly sub-lunar box is preventing you from getting real and engaging with the historical realities that were the backdrop to the gospel JC story.

Amazing really - how a mind can become so closed to realities and be content to live in it's own fleshly sub-lunar bubble of imagination.

As to your wish, stated on my thread, to 'leave it at that' - you don't, Earl, get the last word on my thread.....

As usual, Mh, you seem to be out of touch with reality. When the cultic Christ developed in some Hellenistic-Jewish minds, some of the mystery cults were already established, the Jewish scriptures were in existence (both in the "public domain"). What did that have to do with history when some people (coming before Paul, their identities now lost) were led to imagine that they had learned of a new heavenly Christ/Son revealed to them, inspired by both those sources? That imagined revelation was the ground zero of the type of Christ cult Paul belonged to, as he and virtually every other epistle writer tells us (for example, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Romans 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:1-4, 1 John 1, etc., etc.) Your adamant refusal to see that is not my problem, it is yours.

I have provided plenty of evidence and argument, including a thorough survey of the cosmology and heavenly imaginings of the period, to justify a heavenly venue for the activities of the new savior Christ Paul believed in. You haven't done the slightest to discredit those arguments except to simply heap scorn on them (most people's recourse). It is also not my problem that you and others cannot get your minds around ancient thinking and their views of the universe. By ridiculing them, you only demonstrate your own lack of knowledge. I, on the other hand, have pointed out the many problems involved in your claims about Antigonus, asking questions which you simply avoid answering.

This has become a joke.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-21-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The words of 'Paul' do not appear within the Gospels, but the words of the Gospels do appear in the writings of 'Paul'.
Without the Gospels known first 'Paul's' alleged Jesus quotations are entirely without context, and would be nonsensical.

I will limit myself to this comment, which I've had to make more than once: This has already been addressed and answered, more than once.

As your alleged 'answer' was little more than a vacuous dismissal in favor of more peddling of your personal line of contrived horse crap, your 'answer' was unaccepted.

Quote:

This is the prime reason why certain posters eventually get ignored.

If you wish to plug your ears and wear blinders, that's your prerogative _and your loss.

Like I'm troubled by being ignored by the likes of you? Hell, I'd consider it to be an honor. Go for it.
Others here who are not so blinkered will still continue reading and sharing our criticisms of your bass-akwards theory.

Sheshbazzar

Shesh, when an answer is "unaccepted" it has to be demonstrated WHY it is unaccepted, with counter-argument presented. Simply calling it "horse-shit" is not the proper way to "unaccept" it on a discussion board. Nor is simply repeating your argument that I have answered as though that answer was never made, also not the way to go about it.

"Sharing our criticisms"? You don't MAKE any criticisms of my arguments except to call me names. And you certainly don't engage with any of my counter-arguments against your positions. You are a disgrace to any DB.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-21-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, Earl, you are so very wrong. There is only one GROUND ZERO - and that is terra-firma and historical reality.

How on earth can a fleshly sub-lunar 'spiritual' theory be a ground zero? Ideas come and they go. They are not permanent fixtures - something that is required for a ground zero context. Ground zero has to be in the public domain - available to all, acknowledged by all. Imaginative speculation such as a fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion - how is that going for you Earl? It's all in your mind and has no connection to physical reality nor historical reality.

As to your response to my reply to you on my thread - dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history and the gospel JC story - it was dismissal that I was expecting. Earl, you can't think outside the box you have got yourself locked into. That fleshly sub-lunar box is preventing you from getting real and engaging with the historical realities that were the backdrop to the gospel JC story.

Amazing really - how a mind can become so closed to realities and be content to live in it's own fleshly sub-lunar bubble of imagination.

As to your wish, stated on my thread, to 'leave it at that' - you don't, Earl, get the last word on my thread.....

As usual, Mh, you seem to be out of touch with reality. When the cultic Christ developed in some Hellenistic-Jewish minds, some of the mystery cults were already established, the Jewish scriptures were in existence (both in the "public domain"). What did that have to do with history when some people (coming before Paul, their identities now lost) were led to imagine that they had learned of a new heavenly Christ/Son revealed to them, inspired by both those sources? That imagined revelation was the ground zero of the type of Christ cult Paul belonged to, as he and virtually every other epistle writer tells us (for example, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Romans 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:1-4, 1 John 1, etc., etc.) Your adamant refusal to see that is not my problem, it is yours.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. No "imagined revelation" is a ground zero for anything at all.

Quote:

I have provided plenty of evidence and argument, including a thorough survey of the cosmology and heavenly imaginings of the period, to justify a heavenly venue for the activities of the new savior Christ Paul believed in. You haven't done the slightest to discredit those arguments except to simply heap scorn on them (most people's recourse). It is also not my problem that you and others cannot get your minds around ancient thinking and their views of the universe. By ridiculing them, you only demonstrate your own lack of knowledge. I, on the other hand, have pointed out the many problems involved in your claims about Antigonus, asking questions which you simply avoid answering.

This has become a joke.

Earl Doherty

The joke, Earl, is on your fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion speculation. That is a theory that has taken the ahistoricist/mythicist position and the search for early christian origins into a dead-end. That position, that theory, is the fundamentalist version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position. It is a position that has brought unnecessary disdain and ridicule upon that position.

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

05-20-2013, 04:10 PM	#311
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	:blank:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.