Solo

Oh, don't be coy, dog-on ! What do you think Paul is doing pointing to his body and saying "Geez bin there" ?

Come on ? Don't be a wuss !

How so ? Why would a mystery hidden for ages revealed to Paul automatically signify the end of the world ? Why would not these revelations from a loving God that Paul receives be made of some value here on earth - which after all is God's creation ?

Yeah right, the salesman syndrome again : guy thinks everything he had before JC was worthless shit, he doesn't get laid, he insists on working for a living while the other apostles are making dough, and live easy and he is a salesman to you ? A guy who collects money for saints in Jerusalem who won't see him? How come in all those years he can't close that deal ?

Vyser si voko, kreténe !

Jiri

maryhelena

Don't worry Solo - I'm not about to get myself tangled up with interpretations - they are two for a penny. Each to his own...And you know what - I don't think this is a fault in the NT - on the contrary that is its great charm - and takes the whole thing almost to the level of genius! Mystery, complexity - all great fun and games - if kept in perspective.

My real interest is trying to get to the originators and not to be side-tracked by the puzzles they have set up....

dog-on

Ok, it sounds a lot gnostic.

Perhaps such was the fad, at the time. Perhaps Paul didn't originally view the world as God's creation. Maybe he was talking about a different God. At least some, from that time, thought so.

All preachers are saleman. Haven't you noticed?

Get behind me, Jiri! :Cheeky:

Solo

I see, a man who sticks to his guns....

Or maybe you are just making things up....


I don't watch television that much.

It looks like you might be kidding yourself about a lot of things.

Jiri

dog-on

Better mine than yours.

Then again, maybe I'm not.


I go in spurts.
:devil:

Toto

[staffwarn]This thread is deteriorating. Please keep you emotional reactions under control.[/staffwarn]

EarlDoherty

Well, there he is. Jeffrey is here, after all, twisting my words as he usually does. I do not consider an invitation to be an invitation when it "comes through" Jeffrey Gibson. Jeffrey relayed to me what he claimed to be Hoffman's intention to invite me to submit a paper at the next meeting. That was the sum total of what I heard about it. Nothing came from Hoffman himself or anyone else who was part of the Project.

And Toto is right. An invitation to "attend" by sitting in the Peanut Gallery is not an invitation to take part.

So, I stand by what I said. I was not invited in any way to be involved in The Jesus Project. Rumors coming through third parties don't count if they are not subsequently backed up officially.

Jeffrey, how about finally putting your money where your mouth is? Send me an address and I'll send you a free copy of my new book. You can take whatever time you want to READ it, then publish a critique showing that you have done so and are able to knowledgeably engage with my mythicist arguments.

That's an outright challenge. Surely, with all that you have said about me, you are willing to take up that challenge.

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

I do? Could you please provide me with specific examples not only of of my having done this, but of regularly doing this?

Funny how your letter to me about how you were going to take up Hoffmann's offer and were intending to submit something to the JP and follow Hoffmann's restrictions re wording etc., indicates otherwise.

So are you saying I was lying about this, despite my reproduction of Hoffmann's e-mails?

So nothing came from Price, ever?

Actually what you said was that you were not invited to be "involved" in the JP "in any way" (nice of you to now leave that bit of your own words out). So even an invitation to attend is an invitation to be "involved" in some way.

And of course, as Bob Price has and will testify, his invite to you was hardly to attend.

Ummm ... You've had my address for sometime now -- in my private e-mails to you.

In any case, "where my mouth is now has nothing to do with the mysticists case. Rather it's with your claim that you were never invited to be invoved in the JP in any way.

I'd be grateful if you keep straight what issue is under discussion.

JG

Toto

[staffwarn]I will close this thread if this line of dialogue continues[/staffwarn]

gurugeorge

That's not really a problem: the simplest explanation is that "Jesus" was an entity seen in visionary experience (the reverse of lucid dreaming: i.e. dreaming while awake).

People have visions all the time; most religions start this way (e.g. consider the multitude of "shamanisms", "nature worship" religions and "ancestor worship" religions; then "biggies" like Islam, Vajrayana Buddhism, Celestial Masters Daoism). AFAICS visionary experience is by far the most common type of origin for religions, following this basic pattern: deity gives person message, person promulgates deity's message.

And not just religions, but even some ancient philosophies (e.g. Parmenides).

In fact, to my mind, this sort of explanation is far more probably correct than the contorted explanation that some person existed who was impressive enough to be (relatively) immediately deified, but not impressive enough for anyone to remember anything about him.

No progress will really be made on this matter academically until this sinks in - but it will take a few more years of cognitive scientific investigations for it to really sink in with academia. (I'm thinking of the kind of stuff Thomas Metzinger and Susan Blackmore do.)