Ted Hoffman

This is correct. I exaggerated. Exaggeration withdrawn. My apologies.
Okay, these are Carrier's examples. Doherty's are too many to count:

1. Muller is wrong to imply there is no evidence the "higher and lower worlds" view "was believed by anyone in the first three centuries." The evidence for that is solid....Muller thus makes the mistake of thinking "the Platonic heaven" was "an upper space inhabited by ethereal 'universals'," etc. That isn't quite correct. First, Plato also envisioned physical intermediary deities that mediate between man and God (Symposium 202e-203a). But more importantly, it is the Middle Platonic view that Doherty is talking about, which is not a realm of universals (which are *not* ethereal, but literally without substance *or* location, at least per se). The Middle Platonic heavens are a material, physical place, with actual entities that live there and move between them (cf. Paul's trip to the 3rd Heaven in 2 Cor. 12; and just about anything Origen has to say on the subject). Indeed, this was a fundamental of Roman-period magic, which was entirely demonic, i.e. based on summoning and binding invisible demons that live in the aer (as opposed to natural magic, an invention of the early Middle Ages to bypass Christian accusations of Satanism).
2. So again [about descending and ascending gods] D. is right: Jesus was to descend to the *firmament*, then Sheol, *not* earth. Earth is never mentioned here (the phrase "that world" refers to Sheol, or at most the whole sphere below the moon, not earth specifically--see below). One might say that "technically" Jesus had to pass earth to get to Sheol, but that does not mean he stopped on earth, and it is certainly not said here that he did or was even supposed to--he is told to go to the f. and then Sheol. Period...I am quite certain D. is right here--he has the majority of scholars behind him, including the top experts on this very text. So M. is wrong to criticize D. for this.
3. The blood of the Lamb must be sprinkled on the altar. All readers would have *known* that--they didn't need to be told. Hebrews 9 definitely says Christ's blood was sprinkled on the Heavenly Altar. That certainly implies he was sacrificed in the Heavenly Outer Tabernacle. See Hebrews 9:23-24 - Christ is the "better sacrifice" who cleanses the "copy" in heaven of the altar on earth, who did not enter the earthly tabernacle but the heavenly one. Indeed, Hebrews 10 struggles to argue from ch. 9 that this is the very reason why Christ only had to be sacrificed once: because, being heavenly, and performed on the *true* altar, it is permanent, unlike the earthly sacrifices. After all, the "better versions" of things are always in Heaven. That is made clear throughout Hebrews, and of course by 8:1-2, which is why D. cites it (but also see 9:11).
   
   Again, M. is wrong. But D. can't prove that this was not mapped onto an earthly counterpart. Yes, there is a heavenly sacrifice, but maybe that only paralleled a real one on earth.

more here
Okey Dokey.
As Buttrick asks, if it were human rulers, " how could they have known the secrets of God's plan of salvation?"
When asked this, you dont answer the question. You duck it. Instead of challenging the reasoning behing the point, you erect a red herring:
The fact that it was a "secret" should obviate the fact that they didn't know. Paul would be an idiot to mention an obvious point like that. That Paul mentions it implies that it was significant, or remarkable in the scheme of things.
I Cor 2:1 has Paul say "When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God..." Commentators of NASB write: In other words, Paul is saying that God "outwitted" the demons in the "spiritual warfare". Humans are just pawns in the spirutual game between demons and god: by definition, they don't know and cannot know - except "enlightened" people like Paul. To be clear, Buttrick adds: Buttrick G.A., op cit., p.37-38
The defeat was on the cross.
This age (aeon) has spiritual (gnostic) connotations. One of course can choose to be tone-deaf to this. But one cannot get away with Paul's theological phraseology: these (archons, aeon) are 'spiritual' terms. You have to explain why Paul uses spiritual terms that are otherwise used to refer to spiritual beings, to refer to human beings.
In addition, as Jake Jones notes in JM: "But whether the unnamed Archons are spiritual or earthly, Pontius Pilate is not mentioned, and thus provides no historical anchor."
You have also sidestepped my argument without touching it. I argued:
The only "ruler" who was responsible for Jesus' putative death was Pilate - each "ruler" had an area of jurisdiction. How do you harmonize this with Paul's statements?

Your literal interpretation is what fails you. This age is not led/dominated by humans but by demons (princes of this age). Regarding this, R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy in The New Jerome Critical Commentary, 1990, p.782 write that: "Contemporary Jewish theology contrasted 'this world (age)' with 'the world (age) to come.' Paul echoes that contrast and sees the former dominated by satan (see 1 Cor. 4:4). Christ's 'giving' of himself has brought about the meeting of the two ages (1 Cor. 10:11) and freed human beings from 'this age'"

"This age" COULD refer to the entire history of man under Satan's domination. That, of course, includes the time contemporary to Paul also. But if Paul is referring to human rulers who crucified Christ, as you conclude, and if Jesus was a human being whom Paul had heard about, as you conclude, and if Christianity was a new religion, which seems evident, and if Paul's Christianity was anxiously expecting a return of that person to usher in a "new age", as you conclude, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul could have stated that Pontius Pilate killed Jesus. But instead, Paul blames unnamed spiritual beings for the death of Jesus. Therefore your chain of ifs results in a logical trainwreck.
The fact that Christ's crucifixion was unknown to Paul's audience (his Kerygma was essentially about Christ's crucifixion), the fact that Paul does not blame any human being for it, the fact that Paul knew about it from revelation and not historical sources is proof that it was a purely spiritiual event. What Paul writes is epistemically ahistorical.
Did you read Doherty's "parallelism of action"? Have you read about what what Gerd Theissen calls a "structural homologue" Sociology of Early palestinian Christianity, p.121?
Well, Paul and co. envisioned a layered universe. And stuff was happening in the upper layer in synchrony with what was happening here below. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains:
TDNT, Vol VI, p.416

Christs crucifiction, you see, happened in another layer in this superimposed universe. Common buggers could not discern stuff that was happening up there. Thats why Paul, and other people that claimed divine revelation, were able to reveal what was happening.
I believe your question is answered.
Because, TedM, as TDNT says, Paul lived in a "in a society to which the idea of a history which develops and moves towards a goal was alien." Stuff was happening here and now.
Again, question answered.
Or better yet, for you historicist, if Christ was the last Adam, what was Paul? Are you familiar with Philo's heavenly man concept?
Done.

Anything else you feel I have left out? Lets see...Your opinion, Ted, is conceptually threadbare and lacks a robust frame of reference. This is worsened the fact that it is methodologically defective and is informed and shaped by a mind that is not well instructed in biblical scholarship. That is why you do not manage to scratch the surface or "barely touch" (to use Rod Green's words) Doherty's thesis. You are like an incensed man attacking the sea by slapping the water at the beach while leaving the wide, unfathomable sea calm and unruffled.

Why not borrow a leaf from GDon: pick one plank of Doherty's thesis and slam it with everything you've got? That way, your efforts dont come off as superficial, impotent and underinformed.
And whatever you do keep away from JP Holding. Good luck with your Doherty assignment.

Vorkosigan

Tedrika, between this and JM, you got too many threads going on against too many people who know more about Doherty than you do. You should bow out of one or the other.

I took a look at your #13, Judas the Betrayer. If you don't mind, I'll just copy the whole text over. BTW, the layout is really nice -- the color scheme is great.

Let's look at Hebrews first:

It should be noted first, and fundamentally, Judas is not mentioned by name in any of the New Testament dcouments except the Gospels and Acts -- all documents whose authors knew GMark, where Judas first appears. This is important for several reasons.

First, there is good reason to think that Judas was invented by Mark. Ted Weeden, following Spong's argument in front of the Jesus Seminar, notes:

• "....Among the interesting parallels between the two biblical stories Spong notes are the following (267): (1) Joseph was handed over "by a group of twelve who later became known as the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel," (2) in "both stories [the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus] the handing over or betrayal was into the hands of gentiles,' (3) in "both stories money was given to the traitors- twenty pieces of silver for Joseph, thirty pieces of silver for Jesus," and (4) "one of the twelve brothers of Joseph who urged the others to seek money for their act of betrayal was named Judah or Judas (Gen. 3726-27)."

Thus, point 1 boils down to: Judas is a fictional creation of the writer of Mark, who wrote after Paul (if tedrika really demonstrates that Pauls knows Judas, he will have demonstrated that Paul knows a literary fiction created after 70. Silence might be safer.....). In any case, we would expect that no text that predates Mark would have Judas in it.

Are the Paulines silent on Judas? Yes -- he neither mentioned nor alluded to in any identifiable way. Weeden again notes that Paul, whose letters predate the Gospel of Mark in most dating schemes, does not appear to have known of Judas' betrayal. 1 Cor 11:23, where Paul is often held to have said Jesus was "betrayed" in reality says only that he was "handed over or delivered up" (parededideto). The passage is often translated with the Gospels in mind. Weeden points out that it is strange that if a trusted disciple in the inner circle did betray Jesus, Paul does not use that information to attack the "false/super apostles" in 2 Cor. 10-13, particularly in 2 Cor. 11:13-15 (13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.(NIV)).

In other words, Ted Weeden, a ranking Mark scholar, offers strong support for Doherty's view that the silences on Judas are strange. Tedrika's point on Greek...

• I find 8:32 as helpful to Doherty's position, but since it is only one verse and doesn't contradict the traditional understanding supported by the synoptics, we can't say for certain that "delivered up" is the intent here. It could be a reference to betrayal or "delivery" into custody by Judas, or other persons.

...is incorrect. There is another word in Greek that means "to betray" and it is not used in the New Testament, save in Luke, a later, perhaps the last, of the NT gospels. In all situations where this event is referred to, Jesus is not betrayed but "delivered up." This is important because in Mark there is no reason to suspect that Judas is not going to be among the disciples who see Jesus in Galilee. A careful reading of Mark will show that there is no reason to suspect Judas "betrayed" Jesus -- that is a bit of late legendizing. There is nothing in Mark that is inconsistent with Judas doing Jesus' will.

More evidence of Judas' fictionality is found in the early Christian writings, for they constantly reference "twelve" when there should in fact be only 11. Weeden observes that when Paul discusses the the resurrection appearances to various early Christian leaders in 1 Cor. 15, Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve"--- not "Peter and then to the eleven." Weeden argues that Paul's citation, which must date before the 50's, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and faithful body of original disciples whose original integrity is in tact. Weeden sees the election held for Judas' replacement in Acts to be a fiction, invented to counter the invention of the story that an insider betrayed Jesus into the hands of his enemies. In fact, in addition to the arguments of Price, the fact that the passage contains a reference to the Twelve, the only one in the entire Pauline corpus, when it should say 11. Recognizing this as an "error," numerous ancient manuscripts have been corrected by scribes from "12" to "11."

Other ancient Christian traditions that many scholars believe to be early, such as the Q traditions and the Gospel of Thomas, also do not appear to know the Judas story. Further, as Weeden observes, there is one Q saying, incorporated into Matthew, (19:28): where Jesus says "when the Son of the human shall sit on his throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is difficult to imagine how Jesus could be believed to have said that if the developers of this tradition had known of a betrayal by Judas. In Luke 22:21 Jesus sits down with the apostles and tells them that they will also sit on the twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel.

In other words, in addition to the silence in all the early sources, there is evidence of a second tradition that positively disallows the existence of a dastardly betraying Judas.

With this in mind, let us turn to Tedrika's case. First, here is the entire passage in context.

• 1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us
  2 while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.
  3 Consider how he endured such opposition from sinners, in order that you may not grow weary and lose heart.
  4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood.
  5 You have also forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons: "My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him;
  6 for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges."
  7 Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline?
  8 If you are without discipline, in which all have shared, you are not sons but bastards.
  9 Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not (then) submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?
  10 They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness.
  11 At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it.
  12 So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees.
  13 Make straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be dislocated but healed.
  14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
  15 See to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God, that no bitter root spring up and cause trouble, through which many may become defiled,
  16 that no one be an immoral or profane person like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.
  17 For you know that later, when he wanted to inherit his father's blessing, he was rejected because he found no opportunity to change his mind, even though he sought the blessing with tears.

Once we restore the whole passage it is easy to see where Tedrika's argument has gone astray. He writes:

Unfortunately, tedrika did not entirely get the analogy (not motif). Here are the key verses:

• 5 You have also forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons: "My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him;
  6 for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges."
  7 Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline?
  8 If you are without discipline, in which all have shared, you are not sons but bastards.

Who does the writer represent as "sons?" He is explicit: disciples. And he pushes this analogy to its absolute limit, even, calling those disciples without discipline "bastards." The thought seems inherently Pauline -- disciples are baptized as "sons of God."

Once we restore the context, it is easy to see that the Father-Son context is just an analogy explaining a "God-disciple" relationship. A person engaged in Looming Silence Detection (LSD) must surely see that Judas, the disciple who sold out his savior for thirty pieces of silver, is an even better "bitter root that spring ups and causes trouble" than Esau, who was no one's disciple. The author of Hebrews has chosen Esau because he does not know the Judas story, not because it is a better fit. There's no Potential Historical Part (PHP) here

This silence is heightened even more because further down the author goes on to reference Abel, betrayed and slain by Cain, his brother, and warns that we should listen to the one who warns, instead of turning away. This chapter is replete with themes of rejection by one close (cain slaying abel, Esau and his father) and would seem to call, somewhere, for mention of the legendary Judas. But we have......Silence.

. In fact, if you just type "Judas" and "Esau" sites will pour out of Google that connect the two. It is clear that many, many Christians have perceived a connection between the two:

• http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD...dalen_7-22.htm
  
  St. Louis Grignion of Montfort distinguished two types of human psychology: those who are like Jacob and those like Esau. St. Mary Magdalene is characteristic of one with the spirit of Jacob: she had a superior soul turned toward heavenly things and indifferent to the things of this world. Judas, the opposite, was a type like Esau. He not only sold his birthrights for a plate of lentils, but much worse, he sold his Savior for thirty coins.

and even Jack London:

• http://dawn.thot.net/scab.html
  Jack London's The Scab
  
  Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not.
  
  Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
  
  Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver.

This site even makes the same connection -- Esau, & Dad, Judas and Jesus, and Cain and Abel.

• http://www.qblh.org/~tala/LiberXIII/appI.html
  
  The fulfillment of both the myth and of the man must necessarily be an integration of two aspects of vital energy into one single individual. This interpretation is symbolized by Cain and Abel; later, by Jacob and Esau; then, by Jesus and Judas. Jesus confirms this by saying, "Now I tell you, before it happens, so that you may believe that I am he."

In other words, Hebrews picks up two legs of a VERY common comparison. Where's the third, Judas and Jesus? It ain't there, because the author doesn't know it. When you compare Esau and Judas references in subsequent writings, many people have connected the stories. Why not the author of Hebrews?

Of course, tedrika is free to see Esau as a veiled reference to Judas. But somehow I don't think a convincing case can be made. Hebrews never knew this literary invention.

Let's turn to 1 Clement. tedrika writes:

Again, the connection is simple once the letter is read in context. Here's Chapter 3:

• Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, "My beloved ate and drink, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked." Hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity. So the worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.

What was the problem? Well, sedition (that's betrayal) caused by envy. The context is damned clear. Envy is only half the issue, it has caused sedition -- and sedition is VERY related to Judas, the Ultimate Seditionist.

And if the reader has been paying attention to the thread of Cain and Abel and Esau and Jacob, what analogy is reached for? You guessed it! Right there in the very next chapter:

• For thus it is written: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and killed him." You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother. Envy made Joseph be persecuted unto death, and to come into bondage. Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow countryman, "Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? Will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?" On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their home outside of the camp. Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God's servant Moses. Through envy, David underwent the hatred not only of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel.

He also mentions Joseph, betrayed by his brothers. Joseph is the literary source for the Judas tale. The author of 1 Clement makes all sorts of connections -- all Old Testament -- the same made by Hebrews. No mention of Judas, though. The emphasis on envy masks the fact that the result of envy is betrayal. Surely Judas as the ultimate betrayer would deserve some mention here as an example of betrayal.

Of course, chaps 3 and 4 are only the beginning There are other references to sedition. Chapter 42 is particularly interesting. It starts out by comparing Jesus to Moses:

• And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, "a faithful servant in all his house," noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed?

So in this analogy, Jesus = Moses. But lo and behold? What happened to Moses? Sedition! Dathan betrayed him. The chapter goes on to narrate the tale of Aaron's appointment to the priesthood after a rivalry broke out for the position (ASIDE: in fact the betrayal of Moses by Dathan is a good general framework for the Judas legend. But that's the stuff of another post). Surely Judas should be cropping up somewhere in here as a handy reference! The chapter finishes:

• Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

If Judas really lived and betrayed Christ, the writer of 1 Clement would have needed to apologize for his conclusion that Moses was successful in preventing sedition among his followers where Jesus had failed. The parallel is irresistable.

But no! The author of 1 Clement goes on to observe in the very next chapter (which is 44, not 43, why?)

• Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Wouldn't this be a great place to mention how Judas caused a bit of strife by betraying Jesus and sending him to the cross? I mean -- isn't strife among the episcopate analogous to strife among the disciples? It would seem that the statement "the apostles knew...there would be strife" screams out for some mention of "I mean, look at their own ranks? Didn't Judas cause a bit of strife? Huh? Whaddya think, you seditious Churchmen at Corinth?"

But no -- the writer of 1 Clement can write 60 paragraphs on the issue of internal strife, sedition, envy, followers and leaders and betrayals, and Judas' name just refuses to pop up. I know that believers would like to think that it isn't there because it is the elephant in the room that everyone knows is there, but won't talk about, but from my perspective, that is one honking big elephant. Perhaps I'm simply on LSD, but it seems to me that the historicists have simply imbibed too much PHP.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

TedM had asked:
Arne in JM writes
This explanation answers your question and also makes it sufficiently clear that you are reading Paul backwards.

#1 Godly Attributes, Knowledge

Introduction

I show below that Tedrika's rebuttal against Doherty's first sound of silence is based on fallacious reasoning and that the arguments he employs are logically defective. I also demonstrate that the passages that he cites do not support his claims. TedM addresses the wrong argument and therefore leaves Doherty's argument untouched. His poor conceptualization of the argument at hand inexorably yields him an irrelevant conclusion.

Formatting Suggestions

As far as formatting is concerned, I suggest you remove the # symbol. Its jagged look makes it appear out of place and it adds no meaning to the text. It is also important to preserve the proper formatting when you cite the passages. Having the brackets dropping off like we have with respect to "[NEB" makes your work appear poorly done. You dont want to appear tacky in the eyes of critics. Your Biblical passages have been copied and pasted in a hurry: the verse numbers are glued to the text without spaces and readability is compromised. Take care of that.
One more formatting suggestion: there is too much white space between your paragraphs. Now, onto the meat:
There is no such word as relevancy.
Doherty does not argue that this passage is "the place to discuss the arrival of Jesus on earth only recently". Paul is simply supposed to say that Father’s invisible attributes were manifest in his own incarnated person (or son) on earth. To be sure, Doherty writes:
You have therefore failed to address Doherty's argument. His argument is that it is perplexing that in a passage where Paul is explaining how God's invisible attributes have been made visible, Paul makes no allusion to a historical Jesus. Doherty's argument is broad: mention of any allusion to a HJ by Paul would do - not necessarily the "recent arrival" of Jesus on earth. But you instead attack an argument that says Paul should have mentioned Jesus "recent arrival" on earth: an argument that is not the one Doherty made. Though the presumed recency of Christ in Paul's mind would make the argument more compelling as Doherty implies, it is not central to the argument.

Secondly, you use the conclusion you should arrive at as an argument. This makes your argument circular. It relies upon its own proposition (in this case, the recency of Jesus' alleged coming) in order to support its central premise (that Paul needed not mention a HJ). For your argument to be valid, we have to first accept the disputed recent arrival of Jesus on earth. Your argument is therefore false.
This argument also fails for the above reasons.
You have provided no clear and objective method for determining when the historical Jesus should, or should not be alluded to. This means that your judgement about "the time to mention Jesus as God's revelation" and the time not to, is arbitrary and arrived at on a purely subjective fashion.
This renders your argument impotent as a rebuttal. For your rebuttal to have some value, either provide a method, or provide examples that demonstrate that guilt discussions warrant mention of an earthly Jesus as God's revelation and salvation discussions do not.
You dont do this. Your argument is therefore groundless and ergo ineffectual.
None of these are historical references to Jesus. Rom 14:4 does not say Jesus was a teacher. In fact, it says nothing about teacher. Neither does Rom 7:10. Have you checked these passages? Neither does 1 Cor 9:14
The rest of the Biblical passages you list under 3. Related information in other early writings lack explanatory material that ties them to your argument. That section appears gratuitous and as I have shown above, rife with errors. Perhaps you have included them purely for effect, or for nuisance value for anyone who cares to go through them.
I shall therefore squander no more time on them.

You conclude:This is an irrelevant conclusion: even if we agree that "the other early writings which Doherty gives attention to in his top 20 appear to portray an earthly Jesus...", that does not impinge on Doherty's argument for the first sound of silence, which is that Paul shows no conception (in Romans 1:19-20) that Jesus on earth had been a reflection of God himself and therefore a manifestation of the Father’s invisible attributes in his own incarnated person or in his own son. The rest of your conclusion is an empty claim that lacks supporting arguments.

This first section is therefore a total failure as a rebuttal attempt. The calm vanguard of the 19 solid silences stares back at us placidly. Undisturbed. Becalmed by its ponderousness. Daring overwrought critics to ruffle it. Its looming presence envelops the epistolary landscape. Circling in helicopters overhead, the teeth-gritting historicists gaze wildly at their blank PHP monitors, frustrated by failure. Their LSD sirens beep frantically. It is the reign of silence.

Ted Hoffman

Let him walk the talk.
In my imagery, I have borrowed your Looming Silence Detection (LSD) and Potential Historical Part (PHP) then allowed the historicists to have high tec devices for detecting Looming Silence and PHPs. One is what they dont want: the other, they desperately need. Their equipments have gone crazy and they are tearing their hair out.

TedM

I appreciate the responses, and as time permits intend to address them all. It will take some time however.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Do you believe that Jesus performed wonders and miracles? If he didn't, then isn't Christianity a false religion?

TedM

I accept. Let’s try to keep exaggerations out of the discussion, as they just clog it up. Muller certainly isn’t a degreed scholar but I think his work has great merit. His explanation for Daniel’s 70 sevens, for example, shows impressive insight. As far as I know he is the only person in the last 2000 years to explain the 70 sevens as literally referring to 70 “sevens� and not weeks, and as such to be able to tie the coming of the anointed to the actual year LIBERAL scholars have claimed. To dismiss work as a waste on the basis that people aren’t scholars and make mistakes is to potentially miss some important ideas and insights. It remains to be seen of course whether I have had any of either.


Thanks for taking time to find those. I will respond with respect to their relevancy to the issue at a future time (perhaps soon). And, while “relevancy� isn’t in the on-line dictionary (you say it ain’t a word), the fact that it is found in more than 4 million google search results is good enough for me. For those who would like to look for themselves into whether the 3 are relevant examples, they can go here: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html



I meant to say “couldn’t have� instead of “could have�. My point wasn’t clear. I assume Buttress is arguing against the idea that Paul is referring to HUMAN rulers, since Paul attributes to them a REASON for crucifying Jesus that couldn’t have applied. I see two problems with this argument. First, Paul doesn’t attribute a reason for crucifixion. Rather he gives a reason for them NOT to have crucified Jesus had they known of it. Paul is SILENT as to what the reason for the crucifixion was. Secondly, Buttress’ argument can just as easily be applied to NON-HUMAN rulers also: “How could he possible be referring to NON-human rulers if they were “outwitted� in “spiritual warfare� (to use your words) because they couldn’t have known God’s plan of salvation?“. His argument doesn’t help him. It simply is a flawed argument.


I already pointed out that the only other place Paul uses the word “archons� is in Romans 13:3, which is clearly NOT a “spiritual term�.


First, I never argued that Paul was referencing Pilate or any specific person or group of persons. How do you get “rulers in other nations of the world� from “rulers of this age�? I guess you are focusing on the plural use of ruler. I see no reason to preclude the idea that he had Jewish authorities in minds also.



As Muller points out, Paul’s authentic epistles don’t refer to the age as being ruled by demons. He says it is ruled by Satan himself Therefore, there is no justification for saying that “archons� are demons. It is certainly possible that Paul had in mind human rulers influenced by Satan, the god of “this age�. Your own viewpoint that to Paul “Humans are just pawns in the spirutual game between demons and god“ is not far from my own. It’s just that you aren’t applying it here, and I am.


He could have also mentioned a lot of other specific people in that discourse: In 1:20 he could have mentioned a specific “wise man, scribe and debater of this age�--a Plato, a Philo, a Socrates, or a local man familiar to the Corinthians to whom he was writing. In 1:22 he could have mentioned specific Jews that demanded signs and Greeks that seek wisdom. In 1:23 he could have mentioned specific Jews who thought the idea of a Messiah being crucified was “folly� to which he referred. In 1:26 he could have mentioned powerful men of noble birth against whom he was contrasting the Corinthians. Paul is an ideas man. He wasn‘t writing about specific people. He was writing about the contrast between human wisdom and God‘s wisdom, now perceived through the spirit. He wasn’t giving a history lesson, Ted.


The only FACT is that you can’t prove anything you just asserted.



Ok, let’s get to the point. WHEN did this supposed dual-crucifixion occur? Long ago, or recent to Paul? My point was that I see no need for much time to elapse between the crucifixion and the revelation to Paul. Isn’t Paul’s silence about some elapse of time (something that surely people would have questioned) a possible clue that there was no lapse of time? Doherty’s suggestion that I read somewhere that there is no time involved--that it is some kind of “universal crucifixion� is not to be found in Paul’s writings, no matter how much you want to talk about dualistic worlds and “superimposed spheres.� It’s the product of “creative imagination� indeed.


Thanks for explaining it to me. Too bad Paul didn’t explain that in his 72 pages of writings. Even your own explanation implies that it happened recently--“was happening up there� implies a time element, and recent.



You misunderstood the question. The question is why Paul would say that he was the LAST to have seen Jesus, when some 20 years had passed? Do you really think in a world full of people having visions and revelations--especially one in which a new cult was getting people very excited--that noone in the 20 years after Paul’s revelation of the resurrected Christ would have had their own similar revelation? And that Paul would refer to his own experience as “as to one untimely born�? Your answer doesn’t explain this kind of reference by Paul.



Philo’s ideas explain NEITHER the Paul’s use of the words “last� or “Adam (man)“. First of all, Philo never even uses the term “heavenly man�. This is Doherty’s term, and it can be misleading. As Doherty points out, Philo never referred to a MAN in heaven. In fact Doherty admits “For Philo, this emanation, this Logos, was not a separate divine being.� It’s more of a concept.

However, Philo did refer to the Logos residing in Moses, as individual ON EARTH. If Paul was influenced so heavily by Philo’s ideas, he certainly never reveals it since he NEVER refers to the heavenly WORD, or LOGOS as pre-existing with God at all and certainly not as the very Christ crucified that he talks about numerous times! Are we to believe that Paul took such concepts and applied them to a heavenly being that Philo never references without giving even a clue that he had done so? Paul’s “last Adam� sounds a more like Philo’s Moses (a man on earth) than a “heavenly man� Philo never says existed. So, Paul borrows from a philosophy that doesn’t mention a separate heavenly being without giving reference to such borrowing, and then refers to this being as a “man� without ever saying “oh, he really isn’t a man. He’s just a heavenly being.�. Sure, creative imagination can reconstruct this. Or, we can take the words at their face value since there is no direct support from Paul..


Let’s not get too sidetracked here: The point remains that all of your theorizing about heavenly men and dual worlds says nothing helpful with regard to WHEN the crucifixion Paul refers to occurred. Your own words implied that it was recent, which is what I said the passage “appears“ to say. Your REAL objection then appears to be the idea that the crucifixion wasn’t of a “man� or by “human rulers�, even though the best that you can come up with to support that are objections that are easily explained about the passage itself, a few passages that aren’t in Paul’s authentic epistles, and vague similarities to the philosophy of Philo. That is hardly a cut and dried case, TedH. IMO the 92 times Paul refers to Christ in words that normally are reserved for human beings WITHOUT saying that he is REALLY talking about an “ideal� man who existed in a “superimposed universe� is the glaring SILENCE that would be unexpected if Doherty’s thesis were true.

I see no point in continuing a discussion about the archons. Let is suffice that this particular objection to my opinions is not a very good example.
It remains that my interpretation is reasonable, AND supported by scholarship. I would prefer to not continue a discussion about dualistic worlds either. Let‘s stick to the topic at hand. To that end, I'll move foward with replying to your other post as well as Vorkosigan's. I'll address yours first, since his poses a more difficult challenge. It may take a few days though.

ted

GakuseiDon

TedH, where are demons ever referred to "princes of this age" or "princes of this world"? I've seen Satan described as the "Prince of this world" or "Prince of the power of the air" or "Prince of demons", but I haven't come across any passage (up to now, at least!) that unequivocally has "princes of this age" refer explicitly to demons.

I know TedM covered this also, but 'archon' is certainly not a 'spiritual' term. It just means 'ruler'. That's why I think that you can't just automatically associate "demons" with "rulers of this age". I'd be interested in the context of any passage that did that.

EarlDoherty

Well, now I'm getting mad. Is it responsible behavior--assuming that apologists understand the meaning of the concept--for Ted to simply declare something which could easily be checked and found out to be false? Or does he know it's false and hopes to get away with it?

From Philo's Allegorical Interpretation of the Law I, chapter XII (31), taken from The Works of Philo, complete and unabridged translated by C. D. Yonge, p.28:

"And God created man, taking a lump of clay from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life: and man became a living soul." The races of men are twofold; for one is the heavenly man, and the other the earthly man. Now the heavenly man, as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earth-like essence. But the earthly man is made of loose material, which he calls lump of clay. On which account he says, not that the heavenly man was made, but that he was fashioned according to the image of God; but the earthly man he calls a thing made, and not begotten by the maker."

If Ted is going to make a statement like: "Philo never says...", one presumes he does so on the basis of knowing Philo's writings, or at least having consulted an Index of them and looking up the term "man". At the very least, if he is going to claim that I am wrong about Philo, he might think of checking my Index to the Jesus Puzzle to see if I offer some support for my statement. In my Index under "Philo", it says, as plain as day:

"...Heavenly Man, n.65"

In Note 65, also as plain as day, I offer most of the above quote, with a specific reference to its source in Philo's writing, as above. This is absolutely irresponsible. Can we trust anything which Ted says, even when stated with the appearance of complete confidence and apparent knowledge, or does he just make things up as he goes along? Is he worth debating with at all?

If Ted really knew the first thing about Philo, he would know that Philo was not a systematic thinker, and that he often contradicted himself, describing certain concepts in one way in one writing, in another way in another. Ideas in one place are not always compatible with ideas in another place. Philo’s Logos was not a distinct divine being like Paul’s Christ, but he could still interpret the ‘dual’ creation passages in Genesis in terms of a heavenly man and an earthly man, because that was the meaning his Middle Platonistic outlook imposed on the text. Out of those two creation accounts he drew the creation of two “men�, the heavenly and the earthly, the latter being Adam. There was no necessary contradiction in Philo’s mind. The problem exists in Ted’s, because he has a defective understanding of the concepts involved, probably because his apologetic and confessional stance will not allow him to investigate further: they are simply too threatening. I might add that this ‘dual’ anthropos in Philo is a clear pointer to the meaning of the ‘first’ and ‘last’ Adam/man in Paul’s discussion of the earthly and heavenly, the physical and spiritual, figures in 1 Corinthians 15:44f. It indicates very directly that Paul’s Christ was not an earthly figure but an entirely heavenly one. Regardless of whether Paul’s circles had more ‘concretized’ the heavenly man/Logos concept over that of Philo, the two sets of ideas are essentially the same, showing derivation and evolution. But this understanding, which I have laid out in detail in my website article Christ as “Man�, is undoubtedly too threatening as well, even though it is fully supportable from the text.

Ted is also dead wrong on the following:

What does Ted think this is:

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came to be and we through him.�

The idea of “Jesus Christ� as the entity through whom all things came to be, namely as creative agency, is part and parcel of the Logos concept, its central essence, and the “we through him� is the equally Logos-type concept that we are made in the image of God’s image, namely the Logos.. (God emanates his ‘first-born’ and man is in the image of that first-born, though Philo makes it clear that this is not in a physical sense.) It is also PRE-EXISTENCE. Ted might have understood this if he had read Philo more deeply (if at all), and understood Logos philosophy in Middle Platonism a little more than superficially (if at all). It matters not if Paul does not use the term itself, the idea is resident in Paul’s thinking as expressed in the texts. Just as it is, I might add, in the opening verses of Hebrews: “…the Son who is the effulgence of God’s splendour and the stamp of God’s very being, and sustains the universe by his word of power,� which sentiments can also be found in Colossians 1:15-20. This is Logos philosophy pure and simple (related also to Jewish personified Wisdom, the two being joined together in Hellenistic Judaism).

Is Ted going to claim that the “Jesus Christ� of 1 Cor. 8:6 is not the same as the “Christ crucified he talks of many times�?

Apart from the blatant errors in the above, the latter sentence says it all. This is the direct indicator of the apologist’s approach, the limit of their understanding. We heard it from Bernard Muller as well who, if not an apologist, also showed the same degree of abysmal understanding of the thought of the time, and apparently the same degree of naïve confidence that he didn’t have to delve any deeper than his own “face value� reading of the text.

TedM

What was I thinking this morning when I wrote that? Have I gotten a big head from having "reviewed" the Top 20? Do I think that the review qualifies me to be some kind of expert? I honestly don't feel like some kind of expert--not on the 20 silences, not on anything. But I sure acted like one this morning. I guess I was worked up a bit, and did allow myself to over-reach to make my case. I was careless, and it was absolutely irresponsible. I'm truly sorry, and embarrassed. I deserve to feel foolish, and I do. I apologize to you Earl, to TedH, and to all readers here.

What happened was I jumped to some inaccurate conclusions based on what I had read about Philo from your site just this morning. I clearly should have stuck to the main topic here and not allowed myself to get off course on the positive elements for your thesis. I should have remembered that I am not qualified to critique the positive evidences for your thesis, and not have ventured into that territory with such unsupported confidence in my attempts to support the argument at hand.

I need to stick with what I have looked at, and it is the writings you have referenced for your Top 20. Any "discoveries" while reviewing the Top 20 are limited to just those items, and in no way make me an expert or scholar on the Top 20, and of course they don't make me any more qualified to address other topics that I have not studied either. I'm not a scholar. I'm an amateur who was just curious about how valid those 20 most critical silences might be. The review may have a few new ideas to some, but I see it more as a primer for those who wish to look into the subject more closely.

I hope my review isn't misleading to anyone, as my comments this morning were. I welcome reviews like TedH's, and Michael's on specific items. That's how I and others here can learn. Thanks for setting me straight Earl, and helping me to be a lot more careful in the future.

ted