Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 02-20-2007, 05:34 AM

Gregg, you've claimed a few times that Doherty provides evidence for his position. I've offered a few times to look at his strongest piece of evidence together. Personally I don't think you've investigated Doherty. Like many Doherty supporters, you've read him, but I just doubt that you've gone through and investigated what he has actually written.

So, I'll repeat my offer here. IYO, what is his strongest piece of evidence? Or what do you regard as his most convincing piece of evidence? Let's investigate this together!

From a historicist perspective, I think the claims by Paul that Jesus was "born of woman" and by the author of Hebrews that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah are quite convincing that they had a historical Jesus in mind.

The only thing I ask is that we actually investigate Doherty's comments. No long list of rhetorical questions, please. You've said that Doherty has actual evidence -- let's start looking at it.

Malachi151 · 02-20-2007, 06:45 AM

The "born of a woman" passage is absolutely nothing, in fact it works against historicist claims.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

Quote:

Here Paul is writing to a group of Greeks whom he had previously visited and preached to. This group of people was apparently continuing to celebrate old rites and were falling away from Paul's teachings and were no longer believing in Jesus Christ, as Paul discussed in an earlier section in Galatians 3. Paul then stated that there are no longer distinctions between Jews and Greeks, and that thus the Jewish god's promise to Abraham now applied to everyone.

Then Paul goes on to tell an allegorical story about two women who give birth to children, and Paul says that these women represent covenants, and the woman of the promise, "corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother." The woman that Paul is talking about is an allegorical woman, not a real woman, and in fact this passage provides further evidence that Paul's Jesus was not a historical person. Paul says that the Son of God was born under the law, but the law is in heaven, he is talking about the heavenly covenant.

If Paul were talking about a real woman here, and Jesus' earthly birth, then why does he give no details about the matter? Why not say that he was born to Mary or that he was born in Bethlehem, or anything else? He clearly isn't giving a historical account of anything, but his lack of detail, here and throughout his writings, works against the claim that Paul had knowledge of a historical Jesus. Furthermore, if Paul is describing Jesus' birth in an allegorical way, corresponding to "the Jerusalem above", this only further undermines the notion that Paul could have viewed Jesus as having been born on earth.

In addition to all this, with all of Paul's discussion of the law in Galatians 3 he never once says "Jesus said..." or "Jesus made it known that..." or "Jesus abolished the law....", etc., Paul goes into theological discussions based on the scriptures about law and faith and covenants, developing his own explanation for why the law had been abolished. This is one of many examples where we would expect Paul to have used the teachings of Jesus to make his point if there had been a Jesus who had teachings to cite. Paul doesn't do this however, in all of Paul's discussion about the law and faith and salvation and covenants, etc., he never presents words of Jesus or presents Jesus as the person who made these things known, instead Christ plays a cosmological role in a heavenly drama that brings about salvation through faith, as relayed through scriptural allegories and revelations.

As for Hebrews, #1 who cares, Hebrews is a later written anonymous work. #2 being "of the tribe of Judah" certainly doesn't establish a historical view, angels and such were also ascribed to being of the tribe of Judah, though I don't know off hand if that exact phrase was used.

"Born of a woman" or "of the tribe of Judah" don't convey a historical setting. They may perhaps convey an earthly being, but not necessarily a historical being.

Nothing in either of these works places Jesus in any historical context. You can't read those works by themselves, not knowing when they were written, etc., and conclude that Jesus lived at any given time, in any given place or interacted with any given people.

What about the other passages however, which contradict a historical view of Jesus?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#7

For example:

Quote:

Romans 10:
1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [the Israelites] is that they may be saved. 2 I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

... 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ 16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word about Christ.

GakuseiDon · 02-20-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The "born of a woman" passage is absolutely nothing, in fact it works against historicist claims.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

There is nothing there that addresses the "born of woman" expression. You've kind of swept it under the carpet. Pointing to a later passage that does not even use "born of woman" is meaningless, unless you can show why it has meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

As for Hebrews, #1 who cares, Hebrews is a later written anonymous work. #2 being "of the tribe of Judah" certainly doesn't establish a historical view, angels and such were also ascribed to being of the tribe of Judah, though I don't know off hand if that exact phrase was used.

Can you show me where "tribe of" anything is used of a non-earthly person? I mean, that is the key question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

"Born of a woman" or "of the tribe of Judah" don't convey a historical setting. They may perhaps convey an earthly being, but not necessarily a historical being.

What is the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Nothing in either of these works places Jesus in any historical context. You can't read those works by themselves, not knowing when they were written, etc., and conclude that Jesus lived at any given time, in any given place or interacted with any given people.

All I'm concluding is that Jesus was an earthly being. I'm not trying to conclude anything else at this stage. Jesus as an earthly being would be proof against Doherty. It may not disprove your particular mythicism, but I'd like to keep this thread about Doherty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What about the other passages however, which contradict a historical view of Jesus?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#7

For example:

How does that contradict a historical view of Jesus? Did Jesus visit Rome, IYO? Not sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

Malachi151 · 02-20-2007, 07:46 AM

#1 earthly and historical are two different things. The letters of Paul plainly say a few times that Jesus is a human, that he had flesh, etc. (And why would anyone specify that a person had flesh exactly? An odd thing to feel the need to specify if talking about a real person, as opposed to a theological concept). Plenty of figures in Mediterranean mythology are earthly, and some even pseudo-historical, but saying something like "and Apollo came down from the heavens and danced across the surface of the waters, before setting his eyes on Persephone and making love to her in the garden," etc., conveys an earthly event, but not a historical one.

#2 The business about "born of a woman" is allegorical. What Paul said about being "born of a woman" is related to the allegorical tale of the two women, the one woman corresponding "to the Jerusalem above," who is "our mother" and the mother of Christ, under the law.

#3 The passage from Romans was talking about the Jews. It was answering the question of whether or not the Jews of Judea should be held responsible for not becoming Christians, and Paul was saying that people questioned whether a people could be held responsible for something they had no knowledge of. How can the Jews be held responsible for not becoming followers of Christ since they have never heard about Christ he asks. Then he answers rhetorically that they have heard about Christ, through the apostles.

Obviously this whole discussion makes no sense at all if the Gospels were in any way true or if Jesus were a person who had been gallivanting around Galilee and Judea performing miracles and was arrested and killed by the Judean Jews.

Malachi151 · 02-20-2007, 08:08 AM

Here is the passage from Hebrews:

Quote:

Hebrews 7:

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' " 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

I would certainly not call this a historical reference, its not even clear that this is talking about an earthly Jesus, much less a historical one.

Again we have nothing but quotations from old scripture and theological claims, no historical information. The entire basis of what is being said comes from existing scriptures. Was Jesus a real high priest? No, of course not. This Jesus was definitely not a real high priest, so we already know that this whole discussion involves figurative language. This is all figurative and theological talk, with no basis in reality.

It is obvious that Hebrews treats Jesus as having been earthly, that is a major part of the work, but the earthly nature of Jesus is attested to through scriptures, and the "words of Jesus" are all quotes from old scriptures, and there are no historical details.

Hebrews 5:7 is a good example of designating Jesus as earthly, also earlier when it says he was made "lower than the angels", etc.

GakuseiDon · 02-20-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#1 earthly and historical are two different things. The letters of Paul plainly say a few times that Jesus is a human, that he had flesh, etc. (And why would anyone specify that a person had flesh exactly? An odd thing to feel the need to specify if talking about a real person, as opposed to a theological concept). Plenty of figures in Mediterranean mythology are earthly, and some even pseudo-historical, but saying something like "and Apollo came down from the heavens and danced across the surface of the waters, before setting his eyes on Persephone and making love to her in the garden," etc., conveys an earthly event, but not a historical one.

"An earthly one, and not NECESSARILY a historical one", yes, I agree. But the only reason to assume that it isn't a historical one is by ruling it out in advance. Generally, an earthly event implies a historical one. The Romans thought that their gods appeared at some point in history. If you want to use Roman gods as an example, then the example implies historicity. For example, Jupiter has a tomb in Crete, Hercules lived around the Trojan War, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#2 The business about "born of a woman" is allegorical. What Paul said about being "born of a woman" is related to the allegorical tale of the two women, the one woman corresponding "to the Jerusalem above," who is "our mother" and the mother of Christ, under the law.

No, it isn't. I mean, it just ISN'T. That passage has nothing to do with the "born of woman" concept. It appears about 14 verses later, and to build a connection that links the idea back to "born of woman, born under the law" is simply adhoc. How do you go about proving such a thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#3 The passage from Romans was talking about the Jews. It was answering the question of whether or not the Jews of Judea should be held responsible for not becoming Christians, and Paul was saying that people questioned whether a people could be held responsible for something they had no knowledge of. How can the Jews be held responsible for not becoming followers of Christ since they have never heard about Christ he asks. Then he answers rhetorically that they have heard about Christ, through the apostles.

Obviously this whole discussion makes no sense at all if the Gospels were in any way true or if Jesus were a person who had been gallivanting around Galilee and Judea performing miracles and was arrested and killed by the Judean Jews.

If the Gospels are in any way true, then Jesus sent out the disciples to tell people about him. I honestly can't see how you can refer to the Gospels as a cross-check, and then be surprised when Paul writes that "And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?". That's what you have highlighted in your article. Where does that disagree with the Gospels? I just don't see it, I'm afraid.

GakuseiDon · 02-20-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Here is the passage from Hebrews:

I would certainly not call this a historical reference, its not even clear that this is talking about an earthly Jesus, much less a historical one.

Again we have nothing but quotations from old scripture and theological claims, no historical information. The entire basis of what is being said comes from existing scriptures. Was Jesus a real high priest? No, of course not. This Jesus was definitely not a real high priest, so we already know that this whole discussion involves figurative language. This is all figurative and theological talk, with no basis in reality.

It is obvious that Hebrews treats Jesus as having been earthly, that is a major part of the work, but the earthly nature of Jesus is attested to through scriptures, and the "words of Jesus" are all quotes from old scriptures, and there are no historical details.

And that's fine, esp if they were trying to convince people that Jesus was the person who was predicted in the OT. What else could they say? "This isn't in the OT, but... " You can tell how eager the Christians were to find things in the OT by how they used OT passages. Is the crucifixion of the Messiah really in the IT, in your opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Hebrews 5:7 is a good example of designating Jesus as earthly, also earlier when it says he was made "lower than the angels", etc.

That's right. A curious expression to use, since Psalms indicates it means humanity. In other words, there are enough markers there to indicate "earthliness". I also suggest that this strongly indicates historicity.

Niall Armstrong · 02-20-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If the Gospels are in any way true, then Jesus sent out the disciples to tell people about him. I honestly can't see how you can refer to the Gospels as a cross-check, and then be surprised when Paul writes that "And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?". That's what you have highlighted in your article. Where does that disagree with the Gospels? I just don't see it, I'm afraid.

Are you just pretending to misunderstand Malachi151 here? The last thing he'd wish is to do is use the Gospels as a "cross(sic!)-check"!

But if you first believe the Gospels are true, then the Judaean Jews have not only heard of Jesus, many of them have actually heard him directly, and Paul is necessarily talking through his posterior. Since we have no reason to believe Paul would do such a thing, this is another example of the Epistles contradicting the Gospels. This is a lot less complicated than any sub-lunar discussions! But don't give up there!

jakejonesiv · 02-20-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... For example, Jupiter has a tomb in Crete, ...

"The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."
Epimenides.

Jake Jones IV

Gregg · 02-20-2007, 10:11 AM

I would consider it, G'Don, but I think it would be a pointless exercise. A few weeks back I started to do a long post about the Ascension of Isaiah. I looked on Doherty's site for some information I knew was there, and I encountered the debate you, Doherty, and some other IIDB posters had about the Ascension. If the Ascension of Isaiah, which explicitly refers to levels of heaven and of divine figure descending through the levels of heaven, disguising himself in various ways; which explicitly refers to the evil angels that rule the firmament, and so on, does not count as one piece of evidence in your book (keeping in mind that it is only ONE piece of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case), then I don't know what can. The gospel-like bit tacked onto the end of the Ascension is so obviously an interpolation one doesn't need to be a scholar to see it. It makes no sense in context.

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

02-20-2007, 05:34 AM	#1
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	For Gregg: Let's investigate Doherty together! Gregg, you've claimed a few times that Doherty provides evidence for his position. I've offered a few times to look at his strongest piece of evidence together. Personally I don't think you've investigated Doherty. Like many Doherty supporters, you've read him, but I just doubt that you've gone through and investigated what he has actually written. So, I'll repeat my offer here. IYO, what is his strongest piece of evidence? Or what do you regard as his most convincing piece of evidence? Let's investigate this together! From a historicist perspective, I think the claims by Paul that Jesus was "born of woman" and by the author of Hebrews that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah are quite convincing that they had a historical Jesus in mind. The only thing I ask is that we actually investigate Doherty's comments. No long list of rhetorical questions, please. You've said that Doherty has actual evidence -- let's start looking at it.

02-20-2007, 07:46 AM	#4
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	#1 earthly and historical are two different things. The letters of Paul plainly say a few times that Jesus is a human, that he had flesh, etc. (And why would anyone specify that a person had flesh exactly? An odd thing to feel the need to specify if talking about a real person, as opposed to a theological concept). Plenty of figures in Mediterranean mythology are earthly, and some even pseudo-historical, but saying something like "and Apollo came down from the heavens and danced across the surface of the waters, before setting his eyes on Persephone and making love to her in the garden," etc., conveys an earthly event, but not a historical one. #2 The business about "born of a woman" is allegorical. What Paul said about being "born of a woman" is related to the allegorical tale of the two women, the one woman corresponding "to the Jerusalem above," who is "our mother" and the mother of Christ, under the law. #3 The passage from Romans was talking about the Jews. It was answering the question of whether or not the Jews of Judea should be held responsible for not becoming Christians, and Paul was saying that people questioned whether a people could be held responsible for something they had no knowledge of. How can the Jews be held responsible for not becoming followers of Christ since they have never heard about Christ he asks. Then he answers rhetorically that they have heard about Christ, through the apostles. Obviously this whole discussion makes no sense at all if the Gospels were in any way true or if Jesus were a person who had been gallivanting around Galilee and Judea performing miracles and was arrested and killed by the Judean Jews.

02-20-2007, 10:11 AM	#10
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	I would consider it, G'Don, but I think it would be a pointless exercise. A few weeks back I started to do a long post about the Ascension of Isaiah. I looked on Doherty's site for some information I knew was there, and I encountered the debate you, Doherty, and some other IIDB posters had about the Ascension. If the Ascension of Isaiah, which explicitly refers to levels of heaven and of divine figure descending through the levels of heaven, disguising himself in various ways; which explicitly refers to the evil angels that rule the firmament, and so on, does not count as one piece of evidence in your book (keeping in mind that it is only ONE piece of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case), then I don't know what can. The gospel-like bit tacked onto the end of the Ascension is so obviously an interpolation one doesn't need to be a scholar to see it. It makes no sense in context.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.