ApostateAbe

I have always wondered how you would explain that silence in the drastic shift in theology, Mr. Doherty, so that really does help. Do you think that the silence is at least a small problem for your theory? If the heresy was so threatening that to even talk about it would shed light on the critical weaknesses of the proto-orthodoxy, as you have said, then I would kinda expect that such a rhetorical advantage would pose a larger threat to proto-orthodoxy than the variations of gnosticism, or at least be in the same league.

Vorkosigan

Thanks. I was thinking that people would need to be sounded out beforehand.

Vorkosigan

judge

poor old Earl left to ad homs

That you think you've discussed it before on here doesnt mean I read it.

More ad homs from earl..he wants respect but is just left to ad hom those who see through him




All you have then is some flimsy argument from silence. No actual evidence.
You have no evidence that this alleged cult ever existed.
Suddenly 2000 years later you see what no one else has seen. An imaginary Jesus cult that of which all trace was lost.

You still have no evidence that your imaginary jesus cult existed.



Sorry Earl..there is still nothing like the "mythicism" you promote. You cant cling onto those straws hoping somehow they bolster your case.


So sad Earl..you cant win the argument so you just engage in more ad homs.



Earl the problem is not the evidence for the jesus being historical. the problem is that your theory is bogus. It doesn't fit with the evidence. Its not rational.

GakuseiDon

Dead??? By when?

• What about Justin Martyr himself? You believe that he converted initially to a Christianity that had no historical Jesus at its core?
• What about Tatian, writing "Address to the Greeks"? You believe that Tatian believed in a "Logos" Christianity, with no HJ at its core?
• What about Athenagoras of Athens, writing around the 180s CE?
• What about Theophilus of Antioch, writing around the same time?
• What about Minicius Felix, writing some time after 150 CE?

Weren't all the above non-historicists at one point or another? <edit>. I can't wait until serious scholars look over your comments about the Second Century writers.

I've already said that your opinion about Tatian is ridiculously stupid, so I won't belabor the point, other than to ask: When did Tatian, as a non-historicist, write his "Address to the Greeks", in your opinion? And did he give any indication that there was any other kind of Christianity around? Any indication that his 'non-Christ' Christianity was dying, even? Surely even you have to place him after Justin Martyr.

Let's look instead at Athenagoras of Athens. According to you:

* Athenagoras's apology is Logos-centric, whereas we would expect him to refer to a historical Jesus.
* No specific references to the Gospels, whereas we would expect such references
* No reference to 'Christ' or 'Jesus', whereas we would expect such.

Here is Richard Carrier on Athenagoras:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT. The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash (M 125), suggesting a harmonic source like the Diatessaron. But the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it.

Here is Athenagoras:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...oras-plea.html

But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong--nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government--you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.

There is no sense of any other "Christians" here. He is treating all Christians as a block. This is a bad move for a "Christian" who didn't believe in a Christ, while those others who believed in a Christ, either mythical and historical, were being persecuted!

Athenagoras continues:

If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if the accusation relates merely to our name--and it is undeniable, that up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian been convicted of crime--it will devolve on you, illustrious and benevolent and most learned sovereigns, to remove by law this despiteful treatment, so that, as throughout the world both individuals and cities partake of your beneficence, we also may feel grateful to you, exulting that we are no longer the victims of false accusation.

Home goal! Chance to disassociate himself from other Christians, missed.

What, therefore, is conceded as the common right of all, we claim for ourselves, that we shall not be hated and punished because we are called Christians (for what has the name to do with our being bad men?), but be tried on any charges which may be brought against us, and either be released on our disproving them, or punished if convicted of crime--not for the name (for no Christian is a bad man unless he falsely profess our doctrines)

So: "no Christian has been convicted of a crime", and "no Christian is a bad man unless he falsely profess our doctrines". Hey, what about saying "those Christs who believed in someone crucified under Pilate are falsely professing our doctrines! They are bad men! Persecute them!"

Athenagoras also talks about "prophets". But what are they prophecizing?:

But we have for witnesses of the things we apprehend and believe, prophets, men who have pronounced concerning God and the things of God, guided by the Spirit of God...

If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments--for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets...

But I leave it to you, when you meet with the books themselves, to examine carefully the prophecies contained in them, that you may on fitting grounds defend us from the abuse cast upon us...

The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?

Now, you and i are both agreed: there is something weird going on here. No doubt about it. But unless you want to date these all around the end of the First Century or early Second Century, that weirdness went on way after the Gospels were written and presumably after historicist Christians were around. Indeed, according to you, Justin Martyr himself converted from a Chrisitianity that had no Christ at its core, to a historicist one.

Earl, it would be good if you could place a date on when the ahistoricist versions of Christianity was "dead" by. 130 CE? 150 CE? 180 CE?

EarlDoherty

Don, we have debated the second century apologists ad nauseum for a number of years now, and I have answered your objections I don't know how many times, especially in regard to Tatian. I did it again in the course of my rebuttal to your "review" of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. I have had enough of it. In any case, the specific topic of discussion here was about the original Christ cult of Christianity and whether heresiologists of the time of Irenaeus would have had any knowledge of it let alone interest in it (it would indeed have been dead), and for that there is no evidence in the apologists. They were not Pauline-type cultists, with the exception of Justin once he encountered and accepted pre-canonical versions of some Gospels, and probably Tatian in a later phase of his life.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that, despite all your quotes from Athenagoras, you weren't able to supply a single one which reveals any hint of knowledge about an historical Jesus, let alone his sacrificial death. But your objection that Athenagoras could talk of himself and his circle as "Christians" with no acknowledgement that there were other types of 'Christian', is simply answered by pointing to Minucius Felix. He regarded himself as representative of 'Christians' and heaped scorn on presumably other circles who were said to worship a crucified man and his cross. All sectarian groups tend to regard themselves as the true representatives of whatever religion they profess, and if no incentive is provided to deal with other invalid groups, they get ignored.

Anyway, that is all I will bring myself to say on this matter. You can rant all you want, but until you start to actually deal with my position in an honest manner (which I don't ever expect will happen), I will ignore it all from here on in.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Earl, I'm more than happy to acknowledge that I am unable to supply a single reference to a historical Jesus in Athenagoras, since i believe it supports my position of an observable pattern in the writings of the time. But let's leave that aside.

You stated to Judge that by the time we encounter the earliest Christian heresiologists, the versions of Christianity that were ahistorical were "dead". So:

1. Can you give the name and date of the last piece of ahistoricist literature, in your opinion?
2. Can you give the name and date of the first piece of 'proto-orthodox' literature, in your opinion please?

judge

Excellent question, and I can see why a mythicist would want to avoid it. They need to remain vague about it.

They on the one hand need to leave enough time for all memory or evidence to be lost forever, and on the other hand not make it too late from the point of view of the men you mentioned..

There is no rational answer. Mythicism (of earls variety) is irrational.

Steven Carr

You want Earl to give an exact date for the Gospels?

Would you like him to also give a gene change by gene change history of how the bacterial flagellum developed, in line with how Dembski demands people give before he will accept evolution?

judge

It appears you dont grasp how important this is for Earl's theory. Earl wants us to believe that the first version of christianity was about a christ who existed in a sublunar realm and not on earth.

Somehow every last trace of this original version vanished, and Earl needs enough time (for one thing) for this to have happened. But he also needs to explain the things Don mentioned.
Earl is caught. He has no answer.
His theory is not rational.

Steven Carr

Repeating yourself is not an argument.

Perhaps you would like to take up Don's challenge and produce dates for the Gospels. After all, it is obviously a reasonable challenge , because Don is a reasonable man.

Show your working clearly.