Ethan Blanset? I know this is off-topic and I would have emailed, but you don't have an address registered, but does the name Robb Reames mean anything to you (be kind, I'm him). Didn't you go to South High school? Did you have a sister that was in my class ('84)?

Anyway, email me if you wish to tell me we know each other or I'm clinically insane. Your name sounds very familiar, but that was decades of THC ago...

You've only left me two choices, so clinically insane it is. My high school wasn't called South and my sister graduated in '86. It sure would be fun to run into an old high school chum, though. I guess this is as close as it gets.

Just to correct you on this point Toto, a disciple is a "student", and since you have apparently studied Doherty's site and books, I consider you to be one of his students.

And here I would ask a courtesy. When you declare my arguments to be unconvincing (BTW, the summary is Doherty's, not mine), I would appreciate it if you would offer an actual critique of my points, or even one or two of them. A carte blanche statement like what you have made above, coupled with a lack of demonstrating that you actually understand either Doherty's argument, nor my counters to that argument gives you the appearance of an individual that has placed his faith in Doherty's authority and research.

I do not expect a detailed rebuttal, but even a partial one would be helpful. As a suggestion, take my presentation of evidence against Doherty's claim (piece #1) that "the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem." After all, Doherty effectively admits that they do mention Jesus as a human man that recently lived and died in piece #5. Here he claims that these are merely instances of the authors giving Jesus "human characteristics".

To me, he has created a perfectly circular argument. On the one hand, the authors are said to have never referred to Jesus as an actual person. On the other, they have sometimes given Jesus "human characteristics". How would one go about refuting this argument in your view?

A second critique you may wish to respond to is when I challenge Doherty's assertion that Josephus' references to Jesus are (a) "universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion" and (b) the second "shows signs of later Christian tampering".

Having read Doherty's material, could you offer a defense of these assertions? Did you find an example of the "universal acknowledgement" that Doherty is talking about in (a)? Have you done any independent research on the claim that Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus shows signs of being significantly alterted by Christians?

Thanks,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 22, 2001).]

I am disappointed that no one has chosen to defend Doherty's work thus far on this thread. Never the less, I will offer my thoughts on the last 4 "pieces" of the puzzle as soon as I have completed my post (probably tomorrow).

As for myself, I will accept Doherty's participation on this or any other thread the same as I would for any other member of the boards. My only terms is that the discussion must be public, and that neither of us will be censured (unless liable or slander is committed of course). Personally, I don't care how many people wish to participate in the thread (for or against me), although I certainly appreciate Doherty's limited time, and how he could be quickly overwhelmed by challenges from too many postings.

As a final point, I certainly hope that no one here thinks that I have presented a full listing of all of my objections or supports for my belief that The Jesus Puzzle and its web site are in serious error. My intent on this thread was to begin a discussion by covering off Doherty's summation of his own points (presented verbatim), then to trigger a broader discussion from those posts. If no one will step forward and defend his work here, then I will wait for his answer to my challenge, and see what develops.

In the meantime, I hope those reading this thread, and who have an interest in the subject are doing research of their own, and learning what they can.

Thank you. And good night.

Nomad

Toto

No, Nomad, I'm not going to play your game. I have read Doherty's book, but I am not his student. I can't present his material any better than he himself can. And if he himself is going to put in an appearance here, I would be wasting my time, which has grown very short recently.

Hello Toto

It is fine that you do not have the time to put up an adequate defense of your own beliefs in these matters, however, I think it is a mistake to consider a discussion on this subject to be merely a game. I come to these forums to debate and to exchange ideas. When someone dismisses my arguments, but fails to explain the basis of that rejection (beyond saying that they find it unconvincing), I am left to wonder at their lines of reasoning.

I will wait for Doherty to appear, of course, but until he does, I think it is not unreasonable to ask those that find his work to be solid to offer explanations as to what they like about his ideas (and why they reject the criticisms of those ideas).

Thanks again though, and good luck at work.

Nomad