Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-13-2011, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

What do you mean "more to come" Don? You haven't said anything of any substance so far! Just a lot of "I don't agree with Doherty," and "I think the evidence is against him."

Of course, that has stood you in good stead for years, at least in your own mind.

Well, I did also accuse you of deflection and equivocation on direct questions.

My interest is in how pagans thought 'back then', and one of the criticisms I have about your book is that you don't clearly identify your controversial readings on the **pagan** side, so that your readers aren't aware when you are promoting a controversial view about early pagan thinking.

So my question is: Can you clearly identify for the forum readers here which elements in your theory on the **pagan** side is controversial? That is, what elements on the pagan side of your theory would you need to justify to modern scholarship?

I'll also open this up to any supporters who have read either of your books or websites: From reading Doherty's material, did you get the sense that some parts of this theory on the **pagan** side was controversial and not on the radar of modern scholarship?

maryhelena · 09-13-2011, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

(and no, I don't think Antigonus = a historical gospel JC. I do think, however, that the death of Antigonus, the manner of that death, was used as a 'model' for the crucifixion element in the gospel JC story.)

Yes. I am prepared to accept this as a possibility, if it is true. And, I think, 'stake' seems a good enough term to be at least entertaining the idea. :]

Especially if the writer says that no other Jewish King had been done away with in such a way. Which I would take to be significant. I presume the Romans executed lots of naughty Jews. If this was an exceptional method, all the more reason to consider whether it could have been memorable, or 'resonated' as they say in literature, which might have increased the chances of it being used as a 'model trauma'. Possibly. :]

Regarding Josephus, I'm not sure I know enough to be able to speculate whether he was trying to avoid giving away a vital precedent. I've never seen Josephus as Christian-friendly enough to think that would matter to him.

If, which I think is one idea often circulated, and with evidence cited from the OT in support, 'crucifixion' had particularly unappealing connotations for Jews, then he may have preferred to avoid mention (or perhaps his sources preferred to avoid mention) of the stake bit and emphasise only the beheading bit?

:thumbs:

Not to take this thread off it's OP........

Two academic studies that speak of Josephus as a prophetic prophet, ie. Josephus is not just a historian.

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine,The Evidence from Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rebecca Gray

aa5874 · 09-13-2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...The "Jerusalem" tradition has a high Christology. It emphasizes the meaning of the death of Christ. I'm not sure how James and Peter fits into this, and based on what you did to TedM, I'm not going to speculate, at least in response to you.

Of course you are speculating.

There is NO corroborative source for any "Jerusalem" tradition had a high Christology.

WE have no credible source even in the NT that reflect the TRUE Jerusalem tradition regarding any Christology based on NT Jesus.

The epistles of Peter, James and Jude are NOT known to have been written by anyone associated with a Jerusalem tradition

Based on the same Pauline writings, the Jerusalem Church was HIGH on the tradition of the LAW.

Ga 2:16 -

Quote:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified....

James 2:24 -

Quote:

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And in the epistle of James, there is ZERO about the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.

Even the very NT show that you are speculating when you claim that the Jerusalem" tradition had a high Christology.

archibald · 09-14-2011, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Whoops, sorry for introducing a rational scepticism criteria. This is clearly not that sort of forum.

criterion, not plural. This is THAT kind of forum.

I was impressed by your behaviour towards my posts in both fora.

Here's a typical illustration:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305902&page=2

Notice how Archibald replies to several messages at once, here in post 41:
spin, "....it was this post that got me thinking..."
Solo, "More good ponts";
TedM: "Good counterponts"

even a jocular note to MaryHelena.....

nothing at all, zero, to my post, #20.

Well, I understand. I wouldn't have replied to a moron like me, either.

So, it does not surprise me, then, that "archibald" ignores my post, #485, in this thread, just as he ignored my posts in the Rational Skepticism Forum, just as he did with post 20 in his own thread addressing interpolation in 1 Corinthians.

I claim archibald ignored my post 20, in his own thread, and my post 485 here, in this thread, not because my replies were such imbecilic rejoinders, but, rather, because archibald, intimately acquainted with the Rational Skepticism Forum, doesn't like to engage in the topics raised by my replies.

He would rather discuss ideas, attitudes, and motivations, rather than present and scrutinize data, to resolve contradictions. That's my take.

Good enough. He can write as he wishes. I pass. Next.... en suite.....

avi

Avi, I queried the basis for your high degree of confidence on this issue. That's all. By no stretch of the imagination do I consider you or anyone else here a moron, not even myself. :]

Your post no. 20 in the other forum was not to me, it was to hjalti, and since I was not clear then (probably still not entirely) in my own mind about interpretation of 11's and 12's, I opted not to step in, though I followed the exchanges between you, and Ted as I recall.

aa5874 · 09-14-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why don't you all stop focusing on your pet theories about my motivations and just deal with whether the speculations are reasonable or not?

A friend who is a writer has a badge which says "Fiction is more reasonable than reality". The important issue dealing with whether your "speculations are reasonable or not" is that they are just speculations. Where are your arguments based on tangible evidence??

But, isn't AGNOSTICISM based of the Premise that there is NO Tangible evidence?

Surely you have NO tangible evidence for what you say about Jesus or Paul that is why you are AGNOSTIC.

archibald · 09-14-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

So, it does not surprise me, then, that "archibald" ignores my post, #485, in this thread, just as he ignored my posts in the Rational Skepticism Forum, just as he did with post 20 in his own thread addressing interpolation in 1 Corinthians.

I claim archibald ignored my post 20, in his own thread, and my post 485 here, in this thread, not because my replies were such imbecilic rejoinders, but, rather, because archibald, intimately acquainted with the Rational Skepticism Forum, doesn't like to engage in the topics raised by my replies.

Avi, sorry, but that's just not right. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with not liking to engage in certain topics. And I didn't ignore anything. At all.

I read your post 485, and well, I just didn't reply to it in detail. It's not the first, the only, or the last time I or anyone else has ever done that. In fact, it's not an indicator of anything. For all you know, I might simply not have felt I needed to strongly disagree with each part? In fact, as I recall, I didn't (strongly disagree) with the individual points, just the conclusion. If you particularly want me to address something, I gladly will. But, I got the impression we weren't going to have a mind meet on this. In fact, in light of what you have said, I will do a more complete reply , hopefully later this afternoon. :]

Btw, I hope you realise that this: :] is my attempt to be friendly, which is why I've used a lot of them while exchanging with you.

Sometimes I might use them in a cheeky way, I suppose, but not in this case.

dog-on · 09-14-2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yea, it's a good one.

What I am not sure about is whether, or not the word used is actually a form of 'stauroo', or something else. I do not have a Greek version to check.

Greek and French text at Dion livre49

Quote:

Ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε, τὸν δ´ Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας, ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.

the word used is σταυρῷ

Andrew Criddle

Well, then yes, looks like Paul's word... σταυρόω

Thanks Andrew.

EarlDoherty · 09-14-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri

Doherty's attempt to swing Q in his favour is nothing if not laugable. The only utility that Q has, is to manufacture strata of tradition which are closer to the historical Jesus….That its silly, self-validating, methods do not have any solid ground to stand on has been well demonstrated recently by Marc Goodacre (The Case Against Q ( via: Amazon UK )). Like the the Strowger Switch , which dominated telephone exchange technology into 1970 even though it was known to be an unsound design for decades, Q only stands because of its 'installed base' of academic believers.

Well, I’m glad that I kept you laughing, Jiri, through my half a dozen chapters on Q in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. (You did, of course, read my new book before making such a statement.) Perhaps you would like to actually address in substantive fashion some of my argumentation on the existence of Q to demonstrate how it lacks any solid ground to stand on. Perhaps you would also like to actually deal with the significant problems I (with support from Kloppenborg and others) show in regard to Mark Goodacre’s case. Oh wait, I forgot. You don’t actually rebut opposing arguments. You merely pontificate against them, just as you did in your many dismissive references to my analysis of Hebrews 8:4, without making any attempt to demonstrate its failings.

Whether the existence of a Q is an asset to historicists ought to be beside the point. That should not determine an a priori negative attitude toward it on the part of mythicists, as is too often the case. Q stands or falls on the neutral evidence for and against it. It “stands” on the basis of being the best and least problematic explanation for the common material in Matthew and Luke. And on it supplying a window onto the most coherent picture we can come up with of the non-Pauline side of what became a composite Christianity, a picture, incidentally, which I have demonstrated did not include an historical founder figure at its root.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 09-14-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

My interest is in how pagans thought 'back then', and one of the criticisms I have about your book is that you don't clearly identify your controversial readings on the **pagan** side, so that your readers aren't aware when you are promoting a controversial view about early pagan thinking.

So my question is: Can you clearly identify for the forum readers here which elements in your theory on the **pagan** side is controversial? That is, what elements on the pagan side of your theory would you need to justify to modern scholarship?

Aside from this query being a bit too woolly to get a specific handle on, most of our exchanges in debates over the years, including your recent review of JNGNM, in regard to Platonism and the mystery cults, etc., and their influence on the Pauline type of Christ cult, have revolved around what you seem to be getting at above. And believe it or not, a good part of the material in the first half of my new book was written with you and your opposition in mind. I am hardly going to try to embark on rehashing all of that all over again, especially as my experience with you shows that nothing I say will ever make the slightest dent in that ingrained opposition, let alone get you to budge on your repeatedly repetitious objections which I've answered countless times in the past.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon · 09-14-2011, 02:19 PM

Earl, it has nothing to do with our on-going debates over the years. It's for those who are interested in your theories but have no real knowledge of early pagan thinking. I'm not asking you to prove anything here, so you don't need to rehash anything. In fact, my criticism is that you **don't** identify what parts of your theory on the pagan side is controversial, leading your readers to believe that those parts are non-controversial. Let's lift that veil.

Again: Can you clearly identify for the forum readers here which elements in your theory on the **pagan** side is controversial? That is, what elements on the pagan side of your theory would you need to justify to modern scholarship?

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

09-14-2011, 02:19 PM	#530
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Earl, it has nothing to do with our on-going debates over the years. It's for those who are interested in your theories but have no real knowledge of early pagan thinking. I'm not asking you to prove anything here, so you don't need to rehash anything. In fact, my criticism is that you don't identify what parts of your theory on the pagan side is controversial, leading your readers to believe that those parts are non-controversial. Let's lift that veil. Again: Can you clearly identify for the forum readers here which elements in your theory on the pagan side is controversial? That is, what elements on the pagan side of your theory would you need to justify to modern scholarship?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.