Amaleq13

I don't see any difference between attempts to describe the Trinity and attempts to describe events taking place in a spiritual realm.

How do you know this?

I honestly do not understand your problem with this. Nailing the law to the cross is clearly a metaphor for the implications of the sacrifice (according to Paul) that does not, in any way, appear to require locating that sacrifice on earth. Whether Christ was killed on earth or in the lowest heaven, Paul claims that his death and resurrection has consequences with regard to the Law.

I don't understand how anyone can honestly examine and discuss Paul's beliefs while ignoring or, worse, denying that magical thinking is at the heart of it all. This is especially true if one is specifically interested in understanding the specifics of his theology. I see your questions as no different from asking exactly how what one does to a voodoo doll causes harm to the represented individual.

I agree that their thought was likely intelligible to them but I also think you are trying to hold them to a standard of intelligibility to us that is unreasonable given the incomplete nature of our information about their beliefs and, your protests notwithstanding, the magical nature of the beliefs under consideration.

God participated in the nailing in that he sent his Son to be nailed. Christ did the nailing in that he willingly allowed himself to be nailed despite having the power to escape. I don't see why those explanations would not have been perfectly intelligible to them.

This is a liguistic quibble that I doubt they would ask. "Delivered up" means the same as "handed over" though the Scriptural background would suggest God as the one doing the handing/delivering.

Again, this seems to be a question related to your issues of intelligibility but I don't see any reason to assume the ancients would have wondered the same thing. A body can be buried in a spiritual realm that is somehow corporeal and there is a significant difference between the fleshly form taken on by God's Son and the original form of that Son.

I agree but you have to keep in mind the difference between what was intelligible to them and what is intelligible to us. It seems to me that you are confusing the two. I suspect that for many specifics, we simply aren't told enough by Paul to guess how the ancients made sense of them.

That is not what I've been saying. I'm saying it is entirely possible, if not likely, that they were entirely willing to believe on faith that the lowest spiritual realm was somehow corporeal yet somehow different without being capable of specifically explaining the details. This is where the Trinity analogy is clearly applicable. Christians firmly believe in the Trinity but they really cannot explain exactly how the three entities are both separate and a single entity. They can offer analogies or metaphors but they cannot put into words an explanation for how it actually works. It is a matter of faith.

On the contrary, I think it is academicially irresponsible to ignore the fact that the beliefs under consideration are ultimately magical in nature and do not attempt to describe events or concepts that can be held to the same standards as attempts to describe the material world.

That is exactly my feeling when someone wants to ignore the fact that we are talking about beliefs in magic when attempting to discuss the intelligibility of the details.

That said, let me say that I think Doherty does make claims that are more speculative than they are based on positive evidence. The question is whether there is evidence which contradicts his speculation and I have found Paul to be too ambiguous (from a 21st century perspective) in his wording to allow for a clear contradiction.

Amaleq13

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to explain anything away by recognizing we are dealing with magical thinking. Given a context of magical thinking, we should not be surprised if we find certain concepts described in rather ambiguous ways that defy a detailed understanding nor should we assume that the ancients even had a more detailed understanding.IMO, it is not fair to expect the ancients to be capable of explaining in detail their beliefs when there are ample examples of beliefs held today that cannot be explained in detail.

krosero

Like you say, agreeing to disagree seems to be best at this point. Clivedurdle wrote about magical thinking and Amaleq said it was "exactly" what he was trying to say. I called it a magical thinking clause and you said that was "exactly" what you were trying to say. There are two worldviews here very far apart. The arguments over magical thinking seem to boil down to, "I think this would be quite intelligible to the ancients," and "I think that this would not be intelligible to the ancients." It seems to boil down to a difference in worldview, and at this level the constant back-and-forth has become fruitless and even boring.

I suggest that this life of the celestial Christ as I reconstructed it be tested against other historians' reconstructions of the heavens as the ancients understood them. That is a subject I know little about, which is why I have only run tests against the Bible.

But there are still some specific points to deal with, and let me start by noting the straw men used against my comments on magical thinking.

I did not say that magical thinking should not "be taken into consideration", nor was I, as you say later, "ignoring or, worse, denying that magical thinking is at the heart of it all." I have been conceding the intelligibility of a crucifixion in the lower heavens for argument's sake, and like everyone else I've been talking about beliefs in atonement, Trinity, resurrection, theism, demons -- all things that would be classified here as magical thinking. I never objected to anything like that, or to use another example of yours, the belief that doing something to a voodoo doll will harm a person. I do think, however, that there are levels of intelligibility, and that Christ nailing the Law into his own cross is perfectly intelligible (even though it's "magical thinking" !) under the HJ model, but far less so under the MJ model in all the ways I've been saying. That's a valid comparison, but all I keep hearing is that a mythicist Colossians would not be less intelligible to the ancients because their thought patterns just would not object to something like that.

This was your defense:

I have seen some fundamentalists use language this way before. I don't say this as an insult, and you can disagree: but I am reporting how this looks to me. They take the same kind of liberty with language: Christ "did" this in the sense that he "allowed it to happen to him." Right. God "participated" in the nailing in the sense that nailing occurred due to his earlier sending of the Son. Right. I'm sure that some commoners in the ancient world, without understanding of philosophical metaphors, would have found your explanations to be anything but straight talk -- even as a metaphor. Fiction, after all, has to have no less specificity than nonfiction; direct action and passive action are very different things, and it sounds shifty to pretend that they're not. If you think the ancients would not have any similar objections, we just disagree.

By "physical" do you think I meant completely the same as our world? I mean, if Doherty says something is corporeal in ANY sense, then it's corporeal in some sense. And what sense of "corporeal" excludes the physical? If it's super-powerful, it's still physical. If it's invisible, it's still physical. If it can disappear and reappear at will (like the resurrected Christ, the kind of concept you invoked), it's still appearing into physical realms and disappearing from them. If we become as vague as possible and say "in some sort of magical fashion, events in the spiritual realm impact our physical reality," then why does Doherty so confidently state that no one believed these things "really" happened? If a world that is "somehow coporeal", and is closest kin to the earthly realm, impacts our reality, why does Doherty believe that no one believed these things to "really" happen?

I want real-world specificity if Doherty says these things were thought to be corporeal in ANY sense. If he could be specific about WHAT sense, the corresponding real-world specificity is what I would ask for. But what sense does he want? Visible? Material? Flesh-like?

I said here that Doherty's two statements were incompatible and sloppy: you can't have an event that is "somehow corporeal" that did "not really happen." I've been asking him for a clear, coherent, explicit description of the realms. He is the one who is offering a description, after all. My own description would not be different from that of traditional historians and bible scholars: Hades, earth, and everything above. I'm sure the heavens were subdivided in many different ways, but I see no reason to use any particular scheme of subdivisions in order to hold up the HJ model. Doherty, on the other hand, needs subdivisions right at the start, and a particular understanding of them, in order to make sense of the Son's descent from the Father to somewhere near humanity.

I did not explain clearly what I wanted, which was for you to quote or paraphrase the points you were responding to, rather than simply replying with single words like "Faith". In this way, any person reading could follow the conversation. I was quoting both my points and your sometimes brief responses, which was tiring.

If the Corinthians thought this, Paul's response to them is still that the impossibility of the general resurrection would make Christ's resurrection also impossible. If Christ was a human, all of Paul's argument is clear, even sharp and pointed. If Christ was not, you have to reach for something very oblique:

So Paul is saying, "No, Corinthians, if you will not rise at the end of time, then Christ was not raised because his resurrection was the first fruits, and was not a one-time deal; his resurrection can only mean that you will be raised." I don't hear Paul getting into those subtle arguments, at least until v. 20. There he first mentions the first fruits, after saying in various ways that God did not raise Christ if the dead do not rise. The obvious sense is that Christ was dead; but if Paul is using a "first fruits" argument, he sure is late getting around to it. Rather, he seems to turn in v. 20 to a "first fruits" assurance: "he WAS raised, so you can expect the same." You say that the Corinthians accepted Christ's resurrection; well then, v. 20 is to say, "I have already established that denying Christ's resurrection is impossible; it happened, therefore you will be raised." How did he already establish it? Not through the "first fruits" argument. That does not appear until v. 20. Until then it's all about how Christ cannot live again if the dead do not live again.

I think that the Corinthians accepted Christ's resurrection; they were still in Paul's church, after all. They accepted that Christ, somehow, was able to do this, as God's son (in this debate we're calling this magical thinking); but it did not placate their fears for themselves. Even a human Christ would not placate such fears, because this human was, after all, a special one. Even more so if he was just celestial. So they accepted Christ's resurrection: then Paul tells them, "You accept this, you were taught this, with proofs and everything; yet you deny your own resurrection. I am telling you, if you deny your own, you've denied Christ's, too, which was like your own expected resurrection. I am telling you, God raises the dead, therefore Christ must have been raised. If God does not raise the dead, Christ was not raised -- and this goes against the belief you yourselves have accepted. Then your faith is in vain. No, hold to your central belief, and trust that these were the first fruits of what awaits you."

Even according to Young's translation your reading seems like an unnatural one. "I delivered to you first these things": i.e., "this was the first thing I taught you when I came to you. It's the central stuff." He's trying to get them to recommit to their faith. You're reading this: "I was the first one to tell you about these things, that Christ died..." Actually under your logic, Paul should be saying, "I was the first one to tell you about your faith; then others preached the same thing; we all agreed, and you believed; and these are the points of the faith." He actually says, "I taught you the points of the faith, which are these; we all preached them in agreement, and you believed." The order of his arguments does not support your reading, even under Young's translation. Under all translations, Paul goes directly into the creedal points, even using the connection "that", as if he were speaking in the same sentence.

Also, every other translation I've seen is explicit that Paul meant "matters of first importance". Not that there's anything wrong with Young's wording: he says, "for I delivered to you first," not "for first I delivered to you." Even the latter can mean, "for right at the outset, I delivered to you." I see nothing indicating, "I was the first to teach you."

Mere logic tells me. An ancient person who believes that a body is corporeal in ANY sense believes that the body obeys the rules in THAT sense. Doherty has yet to tell us what sense.

andrewcriddle

The Septuaging has hOTI KEKATHRAMENOS hUPO ThEOU PAS KREMAMENOS EPI XULOU for every one that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

When you use quotes, the implication is that you are repeating words that have been used by a given individual. This is simply not true with regard to "exactly". I realize this is essentially a quibble but it is inaccurate.

I don't think this is accurate, either. My position with regard to magical thinking as it relates to this discussion is that we should expect a certain amount of ambiguity in our ancient descriptions of such notions and it makes no sense whatsoever to try to hold Doherty accountable for failing to be more clear on such details.

And I have called into question the basis for your conclusion. I do not consider any of the "ways" you've mentioned to legitimately differentiate between the two positions. IOW, I see no problem with the use of the above metaphor in the context of Doherty's MJ model and you have said nothing that seems to suggest otherwise.

I have no idea where you get this but it isn't from me. I gave you specific responses that appear to be entirely intelligible within the context of Doherty's MJ model. Do you have any responses to what I've actually said rather than what I have not?

You seemed to be arguing that the statements could only be metaphors if they referred to events taking place in our physical reality but, IMO, you have offered nothing compelling to justify this position. Here, however, you seem to be arguing that the statements could not be metaphors regardless of one's position. You are confusing me.

Regardless of the position one takes, Christ did not literally nail the law anywhere and God did not literally hand Christ over to his executioners. Regardless of the position one takes, these statements can only be understood as metaphors. Whether Christ was sacrificed in the lowest heavenly realm or on Golgotha, Paul clearly believes that this act had significant consequences with regard to the authority of the Law and he expresses that belief with what seems to me to be the excellent imagery of nailing the Law to the cross. Again, IMO you have not offered any credible argument to show that Paul could not possibily have used such imagery in describing a sacrifice taking place in the lowest heavens.

You seem to use it in that way, yes. It is just as misleading to use "corporeal" to refer to the spiritual realm without adding "somehow". The "somehow" is the whole point of my complaint against your critique. You want Doherty to be more detailed about the beliefs of his source than the source is and that makes no sense to me.

Paul doesn't explain exactly how spiritual bodies differ from physical bodies. He just insists that they do. You seem to me to be holding Doherty accountable for Paul's ambiguity.

Where does he say that? Doherty states that they didn't believe it happened on earth but they certainly believed the events happened in the lowest heaven.

I quoted your question and offered my response. I'm not clear on what else you want included but it wastes bandwidth to reprint everything preceding. I think if someone follows the thread from the beginning, there is no confusion. If you can't recall what lead to a given statement, you might have to scan back in a thread to recapture the line of argument but that doesn't waste bandwidth.

It doesn't seem "oblique" to me but maybe GDon can offer more information.

I agree (though it is magical thinking regardless of the context because God is a magical entity) but I still don't understand why this should be considered a problem for the MJ position.

I'm not sure why it is "unnatural" but regardless of whether it was intended to mean Paul was the first one to tell them the information or that this was the first information Paul told them, I see no basis for identifying it all as centrally important. I would think that the things Paul continues to focus and elaborate upon are the only things that can considered as centrally important.

Please explain what logical argument lead you to the conclusion that "the ancients knew that "corporeal" bodies, however filled with supernatural powers, still obeyed some rules that corporeal bodies always obey."?

Specifically, what rules do corporeal bodies "always" obey even when they are believed to exist in a spiritual realm and how do you know this?

This would certainly be consistent of them but it really doesn't support your assertion. You referred to apparently universal rules for corporeal bodies and asserted that the ancients would apply those even to the bodies of entities in the lowest spiritual realm. What evidence do you have for this assertion? Where do you find the ancients restricting similarly "somehow corporeal" bodies (eg demons, angels) as required to adhere to certain rules governing corporeal bodies on earth?

I agree that it would be great if Doherty could produce an example of someone writing from within the context of a Platonic worldview who provided a specific, detailed description of how the spiritual realms differed from our physical reality but I'm not sure any such statement exists. If it doesn't, and I really don't expect that one does, how does it become Doherty's responsibility to provide one?

Amaleq13

So we can assume Paul obtained this notion from the Greek translation rather than the Hebrew?

NOGO

First, what you are saying is that your desire for more information is a sincere one. But that is hard to believe. You admit that you only read half of Doherty's book. If you had read all of what Doherty has written then I would give you the benefit of the doubt. As it stands you are a bit shy of a pass.

Second, what you seek is a logical and comprehensive story failing which you can declare that nobody would believe it. Thus it must be wrong.

My point is that Christianity as we know is not logical and not comprehensive and I still can't understand why anybody believed in the past as in the present.

I must tell you that I am not in complete agreement with Doherty.

krosero

I'm not sure I'm following either so I'll try just to answer your question from scratch here. It's not true that the statements in Colossians could not be metaphors regardless of one's position. If the MJ model says that Colossians is a metaphor for a corporeal event which Paul describes physically (as well as metaphorically, probably), then Colossians works as a metaphor, in the way I've been using that word. I'm not sure Doherty has ever laid it out this way before.

This was my slip-up. A few hours ago I was writing an analysis of the passages in Doherty's book which I identified as contradictory and saw that he said that the mythical events concering Mithras and such were not regarded as happening in history or on the earth, not that no one regarded them as "really" happening. So I slipped up, but I'm not sure the confusion is entirely my own. When Doherty says that the events of the Mithras myth and such were not regarded as historical (p. 122), you have to wonder: did not the ancients regard the events in the air as part of their history, especially if those events were close? Perhaps the events were of divine origin, but still they could belong to the history of matter: birds certainly could travel in the air and be a part of "history", to the ancients. A rock that fell from space would be regarded as part of their history. I'm not really concerned here with what exactly they thought, though: I'm saying that if Doherty uses the word "history" and doesn't define clearly its relation to the events of the air, someone can be confused. It can appear that Doherty is saying these events were regarded as not really happening in any material, historical sense. If what I've written here is still unclear, I'm almost finished with the analysis and you'll see these points repeated there, along with a clearer statement of what I believe Doherty's contradictions and lack of clarity consist of; it should address many of the questions you asked me here, for instance about why Doherty should be asked to produce a clearer model.

Agreed.

I would think that he elaborated only on issues that he felt compelled to write to his communities about, because they came up. Romans is an exception here, but Corinthians has Paul putting out all sorts of fires. Do you think Paul would mention the Last Supper anywhere in his letters if not for the abuse of the meal in Corinth? Yet it's the central act of remembrance, the central cultic meal; it must have been something he meditated on continually, especially if it's correct that Paul "received" the Last Supper in a vision. So I don't accept your argument here: the burial was one of the central things, by Paul's own statement.

It would be useful here to recall why we're discussing Corinthians at all. I argued that Colossians seemed to contradict the idea of a burial, and I also asked generally what a burial in the lower heavens could mean. You did not accept that the burial was a central item of the Christian story. So I brought up Corinthians.

Now, in the HJ model I can see why Paul doesn't bring it up more than once. There were no disputes about its occurrence, for one; and it was a pre-resurrection event, which meant that Paul did not witness it. Most importantly, I think we all agree that Paul was more concerned with spiritual and heavenly matters than with history. That does not mean, however, that other Christians would not find the earthly burial central or compelling; certainly it is an iconographic moment in Western culture. But in the MJ model, the burial is a celestial or "spiritual" event. Why does Paul, concerned as he is with heavenly and spiritual matters, not show more interest in the idea that his Lord was "buried" in the lower heavens? Maybe the best defense for the MJ model here, ironically, is that there simply were no disputes about it so Paul never brought it up.

Your questions here are responding just to the opening sentence of my argument, as if I never attempted to provide what I thought was logic. I did provide it in my next sentences, to which you responded with:

I hope my argument will be more clear in my next post. I will try not to make it too long.

krosero

A person seeking to rebut another person's ideas is necessarily interested sincerely in understanding the ideas correctly so that he won't be told, "You've misunderstood," which wastes time besides being justly embarrassing. And when I did post this thread, I had only Josephus, the Gospels, the apologists and a few other things still left to read, and I will be finishing all of those, too.

GakuseiDon

The pagans in Second Century argued that bodies that had been dispersed either threw time or violence couldn't be resurrected, since a new body would have to be created, in which case it wasn't the original body being resurrected. I'm not sure if the arguments that Paul is arguing against are along similar lines; but if so, then Paul would have had to have been arguing for a physical resurrection. Paul referring to Christ in this context would be interesting.

Amaleq, one thing that I think Doherty has got wrong is the idea that the sublunar realm was effectively a 'spiritual realm' that formed a separate dimension. In fact, from what I've read, the sublunar realm was effectively that - the space between the earth and the moon.

The earth was transitory and changing. The elements beyond the orbit of the moon were eternal and unchanging. The air in between was where the eternal and the transitory met, and formed a mixture of both. This was where the demons and other spirits lived (though the demons rested in mountains sometimes). These beings had corporeal bodies, though of a different nature to our own. They didn't exist in a separate realm, but right here with us. Thus they could see and interact with us.

You can see this idea in 1 Cor:
"For I think that God has set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men" (1 Cor. 4:9).

Also in Eph 2:
2And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience

From what I understand (and maybe someone who has more knowledge than me can comment), if Doherty is right, then Paul would have had to have believed that Christ was literally crucified in the area between the earth and the moon. Given that Christ was buried, I just don't see that this is possible in the air. It could only have been done on earth.