Bede

For the ten thousandth time, yes. Toto has told you this too.

Yes, my mistake.

It is around here mate. After just a hundred posts, I suggest you don't lecture us about what things mean when we decided that years ago.

If Doherty is right, it is very surprising. But as you have no idea what his theory is, I'm not going to argue the point further.

Wrong again. As I tell my students ad infinitum, their essays must have an argument and they must defend it. Pissing around with a general discussion of the issues shows they can read, and might get a 2:2. Furthermore, I am always told my PhD thesis must have a thesis. It is the art of presenting a major argument sustained over 80,000 words. You have confused scholarship with dilettantism.

Anyway, I'm dropping this as I'm wasting my time.

Best wishes

Bede

Ruhan

You initially made this claim not me.

It was also unclear from your initial post that you were limiting it to Doherty. Why not just open this up to the Jesus Myth in general?

You obviously continued to confuse the two and thus your initial post became redundant. Someone had to point it out to you.

As I have said, you should have indicated that this discussion was limited to Doherty's view. If we remove Doherty from this discussion, then your point is still invalid as the lack of polemics on this topic means absolutely nothing. The MJ hypothesis can still exist with or without it.

This is not an essay and fortunately we are not your students. It's a discussion.

There is also more to scholarship than simply writing a thesis. Being fundamental about a view is not going to get you anywhere. We all have to acknowledge that we can and often do get it wrong. But I am sure you already know that as you seem quite sure of yourself.

Regards,

Ruhan

mountainman

Thanks Ruhan. In his original post he mentions Constantine twice
by name, as follows:

He refuses to countenance the undisputed fact that not one
of these "christian documents" found in archeological digs have
been graced with a scientific carbon-dating, and that the lot
of them are dated by a process called "paleopgraphy" or
"handwriting analysis", in the 1930's, or earlier.




Pete Brown

Amaleq13

From this earlier post.

mountainman

Amaleq13, you have locked a related thread here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=173606

I would like the thread reopened, because Bede now wants to
talk about Doherty, and not about his original subject.
(See the admission above).



Firstly, see my original response in which I have posted references
to the literature which was authored by Apollonius of Tyana
whom was calumnified by Eusebius immediately prior to its
deletion in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Secondly, research the suppression which attended the publication
of the biography of the life of Apollonius by Philostratus, c220 CE,
in the centuries over the last 1000 years. How the publication of
the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus, was invariably
prefaced by the Eusebian "Against Hierocles", as an antidote to
be always available with the poison.



Pete Brown

Iasion

Greetings,

No it doesn't.

The claim is that Jesus was seen as a spiritual being who lived and moved on the higher planes.

Nowadays we might think no such entity exists,
but back then,
people like Paul clearly thought Jesus DID exist - just not as a physical being.

How could a religion form around something that did not exist in ANY way?

It is only modern scientific thinking that argues non-physical entities do not exist at all.


Iasion

Amaleq13

Bede's potential self-derailment notwithstanding this already existing thread is the appropriate place for that discussion.

Ruhan

Greetings Iasion,

That is not the claim at all. Doherty claims that Paul believed that Jesus was a spiritual being who existed in some heavenly plane. This is neo-donastism. The MJ theory takes a step backwards and claims that the Jesus character was not historical and started out as a myth.

Doherty claims Paul believed this but from a historical point of view we have to accept that if the earliest Christians believed this and did not believe in a physical person, then we have to conclude that historically Jesus did not exist.

As I said to Bede earlier, there is a vast difference between the Jesus Myth hypothesis and the neo-donastic position of Paul in Doherty's theory. The MJ hypothesis claims that Jesus didn't historically exist but that a mythical character became accepted as a historical character over time. In arguing this theory Doherty asserts that the earliest Christians were neo-donatist. If Paul was a strict donatist then he would have believed in a spiritual Jesus living on earth.

Also Doherty might use the claim of Paul's neo-donatism to support his version of the MH hypothesis but the MJ theory could easily exist without it.

Regards,

Ruhan

S.C.Carlson

Neo-"donastism"? What's that?

Stephen

Iasion

Greetings,

What is neo-donastism?

How is this different from those who believed Osiris existed in some heavenly plane? Are they neo-donastics?


Pardon?
Earl Doherty is the foremost proponent of the JM thesis - he is the first author mentioned when MJ comes up.

Yet here you are claiming he is not an MJer.
Odd.

Can you please cite exactly WHO makes this claim?
WHICH MJer are you citing for these views?

It is true that there are various versions of the MJ thesis, but as far as I knew, they all started with the idea of a spiritual being who lived and moved on the higher planes.


Yes we do.


Then please explain what YOU think the JM theory is, and which proponent you are citing?

Then explain why you think Earl Doherty is not an MJer, when everyone else considers him the exemplar of MJers?

Which scholar considers Paul a "neo-donastic" ?


Pardon?
You just contradicted yourself.
First you say Doherty is arguing a spiritual Jesus (not an MJ), then you say he is arguing an MJ.

Frankly, I don't think you grasp the MJ theory at all.


What is a strict donatist?
Are you referring to docetism?

Docetism means ILLUSION.
Docetists believe Christ on earth was an illusion.

Paul did not believe Christ came to earth as an illusion.
Doherty does not claim Christ came to earth as an illusion.

Neither Paul nor Earl Doherty are considered docetists.

Paul apparently considered Jesus a spiritual being who never came to earth, although had an influence here through the spirit.

It appears docetists believed something slightly different (although it is hard to be sure) - that Jesus was a spiritual being who did come to earth and had an influence here.


Iasion