GakuseiDon

Toto, I think that is a reasonable expectation from our perspective.

judge

It's funny how on a forum supposedly dedicated to "logic" people use the word "logic" in this way as you do.
So the "logic" of the situation "inevitably demands it". Why? Because you say so?

You argument can't be refuted using logic or rational arguments, because there is nothing to refute.
It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

Just keep repeating it .."the logic of the situation inevitably demands it, " "the logic of the situation inevitably demands it," .." the logic of the situation inevitably demands it,"..." the logic of the situation inevitably demands it, "..."the logic of the situation inevitably demands it,"

GakuseiDon

Yes, and the funny thing is that logic DOESN'T demand it, if we are starting from the assumption that the Gospels are not necessarily accurate. After all, how can we conclude that Paul should have quoted Jesus on X if we don't know that Jesus said X in the first place? I've never understood that logic, and Doherty's book contains many examples.

Toto

So, was Jesus married? How could Paul not have mentioned this fact one way or the other when discussing marriage? That's the logical argument that you need to address.

Or pick some of Doherty's Top 20. Did Jesus teach his disciples to love one another? If so, why does 1 Thessalonians 4:9 say Now, about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

GakuseiDon

Why don't the Gospels depict Jesus as married or single? Fictional people can be married or single. Did ancient fiction novels depict their main characters' marital status? If yes, what do you conclude from this difference?

How do you know that Jesus taught his disciples that?

And so the logic collapses in on itself. Now it may be we are left with nothing, and I'm sure some here will be happy to leave it at that. But the logic being used there is still flawed.

Got any others?

Toto

I conclude that Jesus was a spirit. What do you conclude?

To be fair to Doherty, he does explicitly say that he is comparing the writings of Paul to the Gospel Jesus. His logic has not collapsed on itself.

But what are you left with? If you concede that the gospels are not a source, where is there a historical Jesus that anyone could recognize?

GakuseiDon

Heh??? :huh:

On the question of your lack of logic, I conclude that the prosecution rests.

That's not being fair, that is fair dinkum damning him! I'll quote from my review:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review1.html

Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early letters. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and that “critical scholarship... has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty finds significance in Gospel details that are missing in Paul:

The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)

I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?

Doherty's frequent references to Christian apologetic views gives the book a strange slant. He often brings up arguments by apologists (e.g. “Apologists place crucial importance on this passage, and it usually involves some form of special pleading” (page 76)), and I have to wonder: why? If the argument is bad, why not present the viewpoint of critical scholarship? And if the argument is good, what does it matter whether it is used by apologists or not?

The impression I gathered reading through JNGNM is that, for Doherty, addressing critical scholarship is less of a concern than addressing modern conservative Christian views of the Bible. That would be fine if the purpose of JNGNM was to critique modern conservative Christian views. But if Doherty wants his book to be taken seriously by critical scholarship as a new paradigm in which to understand Christian origins, I don't see the need for examining apologetic arguments if critical scholarship has moved in a different direction.

I suppose some of his more convinced readers might argue that critical scholarship in the area of Christian origins is no better than apologetics, but my point remains: if Doherty wants his theories to be addressed by critical scholarship, then surely he should be focusing on points raised by critical scholarship rather than those raised by Christian apologists.

Doherty underlines his approach when he writes:

Throughout this book, in the course of examining the silence in the epistles on the life and teachings of Jesus, we will look at all of the Gospel elements, without discrimination. This will include those which critical scholarship has cast doubt on, or even totally rejected—such as the apocalyptic sayings or the existence of Judas. (Page 28)

Evaluating elements that critical scholarship has already rejected does not seem a fruitful endeavour, especially if Doherty wants his work to be taken seriously by that same critical scholarship.

Irrelevant. I'm discussing Doherty's logic. Doherty can be wrong and there still be no historical Jesus.

Toto

You are avoiding the question of whether Jesus was married. How do you answer that?


It's not? Doherty is quite clear in his "Sound of Silence" that he is comparing Paul's epistles to the Gospel Jesus. He supports the rest of his thesis in other ways.

That's true. But you avoid the issue: if you don't have the gospels, you don't have a historical Jesus.

judge

How long have you believed in spirits? I had thought you didn't believe in the supernatural.

aa5874

Well, we have the gospels and the Pauline writings and no historical Jesus of Nazareth.

With the Gospels we have Mythology not history.

The historical Jesus should be in history books NOT myth fables.

It is clear that "Paul" BELIEVED Jesus Christ, God's OWN Son was NOT a man and that he was RAISED from the dead as described in Galatians 1.1.

Whether Doherty is right or wrong is really irrelevant to the WRITTEN evidence from antiquity.

The Canonised Pauline writings could NOT be heretical and contrary to the doctrine of the Church and still be Canonised.

It is completely contradictory for people here to argue that the Pauline writings have been interpolated and redacted to be compatible with the Church and still argue the very opposite that the Pauline writings are about a man.

The Church did NOT claim or teach that Jesus was a man when they used the Pauline writings and Church writers USED the Pauline writings AGAINST heretics who claimed Jesus was a man.