Rick Sumner

This is exactly the question, and indeed the question at large in HJ research: Allison is right, what we move towards is greater and greater plausibility, ultimately no more or less than that. Which is precisely why suggestions about the mountains of evidence that support the mythicist case, against the "few problematic" passages that don't are patently false. Too much is subject to intrepretation to have any sort of legitimate claim to such a landslide victory.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

Dr. Gibson,

James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (or via: amazon.co.uk), just so happens to contain discussion of the alleged the pre-existance of Moses on page 71.
The issues are not nearly so simplistic as the formulations of your questions imply.

Since you recommended Dunn in connection to the pre-existence question before I ever commented, and since you claim these texts are significant in the debate, it is your responsibility to expound on them.

Jake Jones IV

Doug Shaver

How many supporters does it take to validate an argument?

Rick Sumner

I'm not challenging that his argument is "valid," I'm challenging that it's overwhelming. It's a reasonable expectation that an overwhelming argument has according support.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Doug Shaver

OK, fair enough.

Well, I'm no slouch at arguing semantics. I think you make a good point, but I would make some allowance for the time it can take for even an overwhelming argument prevail against almost 2,000 years of intellectual inertia. Half the people in the United States still question evolution, and they are not by a long shot all Bible-beating fundamentalists.

Rick Sumner

Half of the people in the United States are not scientists. Among those who are, evolution is nearly unanimous. Among Biblical Scholars, even counting those who have engaged Doherty's theory, his is rejected with near equal unanimity. This doesn't make a comment one way or the other on whether or not his theory is correct, rather it makes a comment on whether his case is as overwhelming as he thinks it is.

And variations on the Jesus Myth have been around for a very long time. Doherty's tweaked it a bit, but it's not a new enough argument to suggest that it hasn't had time to gain speed. Evolution had gained considerable momentum in the same period. The Jesus Myth simply hasn't, outside of internet discussion boards. I'm not saying that's fair, just saying it's the way it is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

I think I need to clarify something here.
1. Doherty has published his book. That means his book is available for purchase by anybody interested on understanding his thesis regarding a mythical Jesus.

2. Secondly, Doherty has an up-to-date, detailed website wherein he outlines his hypothesis.

3. Doherty occasionally participates in debates in lists like TheJesusMysteries and Xtalk, alongside IIDB. He is therefore available for clarification for people that have a befuddled understanding of his thesis.

What the above means is that Doherty's case has been presented comprehensively by Doherty himself and not by an agent, or spokesman that Doherty has employed. As such, the following statement is nonsensical and illogical - unless of course, we live in a world where I posess the only copy of The Jesus Puzzle and Doherty's website is unavailable and Doherty himself incommunicado for whatever reason:
When MJ opponents have allowed their imagination to provide them with a convenient anti-MJ idea, they subsequently get fixated upon that incorrect idea, and after being proved wrong, they then proceed to blame me. Look at the following example:

Jeffrey posted the following rant:
Now, Doherty has made his position clear and we can see that Jeffrey was attempting to strawman Doherty's argument so that he can knock that strawman down and claim he has "nailed" Doherty. I have pointed to Jeffrey, more than once, that what is sufficient for the mythicist case is that the meaning of archontes means demons. How the demons executed their will depends on whether a particular author assumes a HJ or not. More than once.

For Jeffrey, I had posted:
I repeated:
How can I help such an individual?

Just to be clear, I do not speak for Doherty. He is better knowledgeable about his thesis more than me and is more articulate regarding his theory.
There is no bloody way in hell that I can damage his case, any more than a neighbour of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's can damage the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Lets not be silly.

jgibson000

If you'll look at what I asked you about T Moses 1.14 etc., it was not who discusses these passages or where a discuussion on them can be found, but whether you agreed that within them stands the same understanding of "pre-existence" of Moses, the tabernacle, and the Sabbath/Feast of Weeks that you think the NT texts which apparently speak of the "pre-exitence" of Jesus/the Christ/the Logos attribute to these figures.

So what you write above has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In fact, it appears to display an avoidance on your part of answering what I asked you.

Am I to think that you have no answer to the questions I posed? If not, what is your answer?

So far as I can tell I never implied they were. In fact, if I implied anything, it was that it was just the opposite. But whatever the nature and character of the issues might be

(and note, that if it is the case, as you state, that pre-existence claims are actually asserting something other than a person's or objects' literal and concrete existence "in heaven" before the creation of the world, then your assertion about the import of the claims concerning Jesus/Christ/Logos of Jesus may be wholly inaccurate)

may I have your answer to what I asked you? to wit:

I wonder then if you'd agree, then, as it seems you should given your definition of what apparent "pre-existence language" used of Jesus/the Christ/the Logos/ is asserting, that when the author of T. Moses speaks, as he does, of Moses as one who was "prepared from the beginning of the world, to be the mediator of [God's] covenant" (1:14). he was asserting that the entity we refer to as Moses existed in a real sense, with identity, before the creation of the world, let alone before the time of the events described in Exodus?

Or when the author of Jubiless asserts that the Sabbath (2:30) and the feast of weeks (6:17-18) were observed in heaven from the creation that Jubilees that we should take these litearrly as assertions that they really existed in a real and concrete sense before their observance by Israelites in post exodus times?

Or when the authors of the Angelic Liturgy and of T. Levi speak, as they do, of the Tabernacle as a reality already in heaven from before the creation (4Q400-4007; 11Q5-6, T. Lev 3:4-8), they believe and are asserting that that Tabernacle existed concretly above the earth before Moses erected it during the wilderness wanderings?

I'd be grateful for your direct reply.

Are you saying that, in your eyes, these texts are not significant for the debate? That they do not give us insight into what first century Jews were saying and were up to when they spoke of someone or something as "pre-existent"?

Are you actually saying that in langage, form, and function they are not of a piece with, do not form or inform the background of, and thematically are not cut from the same theological cloth as, the texts which you adduce as asserting the "pre-exsistence" of Jesus/the Christ/The Logos?

I'll need to know the answers to these questions before I "expound" upon these texts, even if I were to think that your asserting that I am obliged to do so is not a wholly illegitimate tactic on your part to avoid your repsonsiblity to support your claim (see http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Shif...urden_of_Proof), and that it actually is my duty to discuss them in any way.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

We know why his case is rejected by the mainstream. It is rejected for social, not academic reasons. The so-called mainstream comprises individuals that have cornflake certificates from theological seminaries and have confessional interests. Indeed, some have sworn to believe in a historical Jesus.

We know that that rejection has no link whatsoever with whether it is indeed the case that his thesis is, upon examination of the arguments (not public opinion), woverwhelming.

No contemporary mainstream scholar has taken his/her time to address and consequently debunk Doherty's theory. This is a complete departure from how scientists are handling Intelligent Design theory. This speaks volumes.

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, why dont you take up this challenge?