Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 08-31-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

... there is no evidence (as far as I know) whatsoever of early Christians believing in a non-earthly Jesus, ...

There were Docetists and other gnostics. There is disagreement over whether they believed in a "historical" Jesus. They seem to have believed in a Jesus who might have landed on earth from another sphere and was not subject to the laws of physics.

Personally, I have not seen any good evidence (yet) that any of those said that he wasn't on earth, even if they may have seen him as a ghost, or something not merely human, on earth, as you indeed say. Which would make him 'earthly'. That is to say, acting out on earth, rather than in any upper realm.

aa5874 · 08-31-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

... there is no evidence (as far as I know) whatsoever of early Christians believing in a non-earthly Jesus, ...

There were Docetists and other gnostics. There is disagreement over whether they believed in a "historical" Jesus. They seem to have believed in a Jesus who might have landed on earth from another sphere and was not subject to the laws of physics.

There is simply NO evidence in the Pauline writings that "Paul" claimed Jesus was NOT on earth.

We have the very Gospels which claim Jesus Christ was born of a woman yet was a complete MYTH.

It was totally unnecessary and erroneous to claim the resurrected Jesus Christ in the Pauline writings was not believed to be on earth.

GakuseiDon · 08-31-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It isn't the sting in the tail, it's the whole point. Did anyone talk along the lines of "seed of David", "from the tribe of Judah", "came from the Israelites", but was thought by them to have never been on earth at some point?

Well, I split your point into 2 :
1. Gods having human natures is common and obvious
2. SPECIFIC claims like Jesus' are NOT common and obvious

There are no other examples which are exactly like Jesus - so what?

I'm not asking for examples that are EXACTLY like Jesus. Just any with those markers that are generally perceived as 'earthly'.

For example, Paul describes Christ as 'the seed of David'. Anyone seeing that would take it to mean that Paul believed Christ was born on earth, since it implies Christ as a descendant of David. What I'm asking is something along those lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Oh no - I wasn't setting up any dichotomy. I just wanted to point out your challenge example was far too specific. Not being able to meet it means little - like the opposite challenge I cited.

Except that you were the one to bring up the point about heavenly beings having a 'human nature' but without being thought to be on earth.

I was responding to your point: "References to HUMAN attributes do NOT make a historical Jesus... Yes, Jesus had a human side - like many other heavenly or fictional or spiritual beings."

However, references to "seed of David", etc, are attributes that DO make Jesus historical (at least arguably in the eyes of someone like Paul who claims this of Jesus)

I can show many examples of this. If you can't show examples the other way, what should we conclude from that? What's the best way to proceed, in your view?

GakuseiDon · 08-31-2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

To look at this from another angle, if the ancients thought that their gods walked on earth, we don't take this as evidence that their gods were "historical" in modern terms, or that there were historical people behind the myths. So if the gospel writers thought that Jesus walked on earth, does this have any implications for the historicity of Jesus? Somehow I don't think it means that Jesus was actually historical.

Sorry to butt in, but yes, that's obviously true.

Not sure where it takes us, but it's true, as far as I can see.

Edit: But anyway, isn't Gakuseidon's point that there are no analogies for someone being (or should I say described as or believed to have been) descended from a human and yet being only spiritual?

Exactly so. And I agree with Toto. Hercules and Moses were thought to have been on earth, but we have no problem with the idea that they were mythical. If Paul thought that Jesus lived several hundred years before (as proposed by Wells, for example) then that would be one thing. But the combination of Paul arguably regarding Jesus as someone on earth and in Paul's recent past by itself is powerful evidence towards historicity. Not certainty by any means, but powerful nonetheless.

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Kapyong, that's the problem. All you have are Doherty's interpretations going for you. Any clever guy can force his own interpretations to fit into the Scriptures. But it doesn't mean they're right and that they're backed up by good evidence.

I just found about a site by Bernard Muller. Don't know much about the guy, but it's a very interesting site. Here's the link to a response he made to Doherty's work, showing how Doherty added his speculations to whatever evidence he used for his theory and treating "his speculations" + "evidence" as "better evidence" ... which is not a valid equation scholarly speaking.

http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html

And here's the link to my rebuttal to Muller's articles. Maybe you ought to check that out as well. Or do you only bother with material critical of mythicism? No wonder you know nothing about it.

This is a very detailed rebuttal, in three parts. It begins at:

here

I expect you to come back with some fresh observations about Muller in light of what I have to say. And some fresh observations about the mythicist case.

Or maybe not. Odds are you'll take a page from Don and simply ignore any counter to your 'facts'.

Earl Doherty

Earl, you need to quit with making these sneaky remarks about how we don't read your material, especially that I took the time to read your article that Toto linked me to previously and now I took the time to read through your rebuttal to Muller. So please stop with these remarks about me or Don or whoever because making any negative claims about any of us will not make your arguments all of a sudden right.

As for your book, I do not have the time and motivation to read something I have a strong guts feeling is full of bad interpretations and scholarship (judging from what you've posted and from your online articles/rebuttals) so I'm not going to spend money on such a book.

This is not to say I refuse to read your material because, what do ya know, I've already read some of your material thanks to some of the links posted in this thread, and, therefore, I think I'm confident enough to judge whether or not your book is worth me paying money for.

About the rebuttal, as expected, you provide no counter evidence from any of the relevant primary sources. All you did was appeal to Carrier and provide yet again more interpretations, speculations, and imaginations in addition to having a personal go at Bernard Muller.

Oh, and what is this quote about?

Quote:

"What we have here is a failure of imagination."

That's exactly what we want to avoid as best as possible.

We're not discussing how to write a good novel here.

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Sorry to butt in, but yes, that's obviously true.

Not sure where it takes us, but it's true, as far as I can see.

Edit: But anyway, isn't Gakuseidon's point that there are no analogies for someone being (or should I say described as or believed to have been) descended from a human and yet being only spiritual?

Exactly so. And I agree with Toto. Hercules and Moses were thought to have been on earth, but we have no problem with the idea that they were mythical. If Paul thought that Jesus lived several hundred years before (as proposed by Wells, for example) then that would be one thing. But the combination of Paul arguably regarding Jesus as someone on earth and in Paul's recent past by itself is powerful evidence towards historicity. Not certainty by any means, but powerful nonetheless.

Yeah.

If Jesus wasn't real, then we need better explanations [that are in favor of a MJ] for elements in the NT canon indicating a HJ.

There are so many things in the Gospel accounts, for example, that don't seem to make much sense for a MJ. Why do they tell us, for example, that Jesus failed to heal the sick in one passage? What's the point?

Toto · 08-31-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... If Paul thought that Jesus lived several hundred years before (as proposed by Wells, for example) then that would be one thing. But the combination of Paul arguably regarding Jesus as someone on earth and in Paul's recent past by itself is powerful evidence towards historicity. Not certainty by any means, but powerful nonetheless.

Powerful? More like pathetic, as far as evidence.

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... If Paul thought that Jesus lived several hundred years before (as proposed by Wells, for example) then that would be one thing. But the combination of Paul arguably regarding Jesus as someone on earth and in Paul's recent past by itself is powerful evidence towards historicity. Not certainty by any means, but powerful nonetheless.

Powerful? More like pathetic, as far as evidence.

Not when combined with the lack of contemporary evidence of the opposing Jews denying the existence of Jesus and many other factors.

Toto · 08-31-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Powerful? More like pathetic, as far as evidence.

Not when combined with the lack of contemporary evidence of the opposing Jews denying the existence of Jesus and many other factors.

There is a total lack of contemporary evidence of Jesus, so why would you expect evidence of Jews denying the existence of Jesus? :huh:

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Not when combined with the lack of contemporary evidence of the opposing Jews denying the existence of Jesus and many other factors.

There is a total lack of contemporary evidence of Jesus, so why would you expect evidence of Jews denying the existence of Jesus? :huh:

When Paul was preaching Jesus, why don't we have the opposing Jews in his day denying the existence of his Lord?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.