aa5874

Your claims about the Pauline Jesus are repeatedly TOTALLY erroneous.

In the Pauline writers, Jesus came from HEAVEN, was BORN of the SPIRIT and was NOT an earthly man whether or not the claim was from the remote past.

Ga 4:29 - 1Co 15:47 - Ga 1:1 - How many times do we have to show that the Pauline Jesus was God Incarnate?

An earthly man has ZERO theological value in the Christian Faith and for the REMISSION of the Sins of ALL Mankind. You should KNOW that Christians (Jesus Believers) do NOT worship men as Gods.

The Pauline writings are about the God/Man character from HEAVEN called Jesus Christ whom "Paul" WITNESSED in a NON-historical state.

GakuseiDon

Yes, IMO Carrier is blatantly wrong in his conclusion about Plutarch supporting (as Carrier calls it) Doherty's "Sublunar Incarnation Theory".

Thanks archibald! One of the purposes of the review is to give some background to the issues, so that Doherty's readers understand that what Doherty proposes on the **pagan** side is actually very controversial. I'd found that many of his readers simply accepted that side without question, and thus then felt his controversial views on the Christian side were supported.

It's similar to the "Virgin-born and crucified godmen were a dime-a-dozen in those days" view that had been floating around the Internet a few years ago. People simply accepted that this was true. Once people actually started asking for evidence -- once they understood that what was being stated as true was not supported -- supporters found they actually had to look for evidence. And that is kryptonite to bad ideas.

There are still "Christ copycat" hardcore supporters, like Dave31, who will insist that critics should "Read the book! It has lots of footnotes and scholarly references! It's all there!", but that is inevitable. I think people are starting to feel comfortable about asking Doherty supporters for evidence, which can only be good: either they have the evidence and this gets put out there for all to see, or they don't have the evidence and this gets recognised. But his hardcore supporters can always simply accept Doherty's views and say "Read the book!"

Doherty responded to my review in a thread he started on FRDB here:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=297778

He has used text from that thread to create a summarized page on his website here:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...esDonJNGNM.htm

I've thought of replying to his response, but probably won't. I feel that after 6 years of debating Doherty I've covered to my satisfaction everything that needed to be covered. I'm hoping I can encourage others -- pro-Doherty or not -- to investigate the fascinating area of early pagan and Christian beliefs, as much for its own sake than anything to do with Doherty's theories.

Yes, Muller's review of TJP was written quite a few years ago now. I think it is the earliest and probably the best critique of Doherty's theories to date.

You can read Doherty's responses, including to Muller's and my reviews, on his website here:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/responses.html

Muller's and Carrier's views on Osiris incarnating in the air and Doherty's response is here:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesMuller1.htm

Kapyong

Gday,

EarlDoherty :
Romans 1:3 does not say that Jesus was “descended from a human being.” It says he was “of the seed of David” and he also says right there that Paul got this piece of datum from the scriptures....snipped for bandwidth...

archibald :
Yes Earl, I do get all that.

Kapyong:
No you don't.
You don't 'get it' at all.
You just REPEATED your mistake, then claimed you 'got it'.

He does NOT say "descended from a human" !
That is merely YOUR mis-representation.
Why can't you grasp that ?

Why do you insist on repeatedly mis-representing the data?
Even when it is pointed out to you?


K.

archibald

David (and Adam and Moses and Abraham) weren't considered human, or indeed earthly?

Oh by the way, the bit about getting the 'datum' (what is that, exactly?) from the scriptures is not persuasive either, given that the Koine Greek seems to say 'had been PROMISED in the scriptures'. By prophets. Prophecized. Going to happen at some future point. Which appears to have now happened. Not happened at the time, in the scriptures. Bit of a difference there.

archibald

Reading this at the moment.

So far, picking out possibly interesting citations as I go.......

Part 1:

1. Christianity borrowing stuff from earlier religions. I have no problem with this in principle. Makes sense. religion tends to evolve.

2. Mithras clearly described as eating a meal in a non-earthly realm? Interesting. but no citation.

3. Crucifixion could take place in the heavens (Ascencion of Isiah, chapter 7) have quickly (for now) scanned A of I chapter 7 and can't see this yet....


Part 2.

Mostly about 2nd C stuff and discussion about 'silences'. Skimming this (for now) since I am more interested in the myth analogies, at the moment.

Part 3.

Some interesting, if unconvincing stuff about trying to suggest a gap between Jesus supposed death and the supposed resurrection, and (equally unconvincing so far) to disconnect the supposed eschatological imminence from an eschatological prophet.....if it had had happened in an upper realm, there would be no 'gap' etc......


Anyhow, skipping on to the myth analogy stuff (for now, will reread all, nmore thoroughly later)...

Part 4.

Ah this seems to be the bit I am interested in.

So far...


1. Apuleius cited. Demons with characteristics. But no mention of flesh. yet.....

2. Actual cultic records don't exist. So we can't deduce from them....but still....

3. "From the evidence we do have, we may conclude that the cults, by and large, reinterpreted their savior-god myths as events that took place in a heavenly dimension, and not on earth.". No evidence cited, yet......

4. Ah. 'According to 2 Enoch 7, in the second heaven there are prisoners hanging and awaiting judgment.'. And, '......the latter (upper realm) imprisons giants who are the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 who had sex with the "daughters of men." ' Interesting Don, no?

5. '.....but the variety and inventiveness of thought gives us a window onto the conception of a multifarious universe in which just about anything could be envisioned as happening in the spirit world—including the crucifixion or hanging on a tree of a descending Son at the hands of demon spirits.' a bit speculative, maybe. Not directly evidenced (unless I missed it in A of I).

6. 'As I said earlier, I have always acknowledged that we have no direct, irrefutable evidence (such as the above), but I have explained why we don't have any such clearly stated evidence: because it was forbidden.'. No evidence. Pity. And confusing (to layman me). I thought he was citing evidence, in Enoch and A of I?

7. 'there isn't a single clear placement of Jesus' death and rising on earth,'. Maybe not, but there are a lot of references which seem to suggest he was earthly/human/man, and no mention of him not being so, pre-crucifixion.

8. '.....as in the Ascension of Isaiah's hanging on a tree in the firmament by the "god of that world," and on and on.' Is this the part I missed in reading chapter 7 of A of I?

9. 'Julian describes Attis' descent to the lowest spiritual level prior to matter, undergoing his death by castration. Who/when was Julian? Who/when was Sallustius ( I must look into this). It appears from what earl is saying that Attis might have been seen as having been castrated in an upper realm.

10. 'What about the heavenly scenes in Revelation, which involve scrolls and mounted horsemen?'. More stuff happening in non-earth?

11. Plutarch. And here, Doherty still seems to imply that plutarch had a 'preferred' version. Or maybe not. maybe he's not looking to Carrier any more, since he does only use the phrase, ' 'the heavenly' reading which Plutarch gives it.' ?

12. Plutarch again. 'Don suggests that if the mystery rites of Osiris had their own interpretation within the cult itself, Plutarch should have addressed that as well. But this would run up against the secrecy rule....'. pity, again. But at least we still have plutarch's reading.

13. '...And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons.'

14. What the evidence does indicate, however, is that they regarded Christ as crucified somewhere in a spiritual dimension, not on earth in a specific historical time and place.'. Not sure if this is safe to say.

15. Inanna gets a mention. My impression (It's late here and I''m suffering reading fatigue at this point, it must be admitted) is that Inanna doesn't offer much support to a mythicist. No incarnation in a sublunar realm? Some ambiguity, maybe?

16.Plutarch again. 'It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they [the Egyptians] have a legend that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again; for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change.'. It seems this might be happening in a non-earthly realm?


PHEW!

That's my first time around that particular rebuttal/responses, I think. Presumably it's recent, though not dated, that I can see. My first impressions? Doherty might indeed have more evidence of a 'world of myth' than I had thought before.

Whether it's persuasive that Paul had pre-crucifixion Jesus in such world is another matter. Too many seeming references to human/man/earthly/fleshly stuff for me, I think. I stress 'seeming'.

And no clear placement by Paul of pre-crucifixion jesus in an upper realm. Other than a few ambiguities about archontes etc. Maybe not enough.

Plus the apparent, and quite unusual (for myths) switch to earthly by the time of Mark, not that long after.

Don, I know you said you had finished with buttals (presumably that may be a word, though I have never used it before :]) and rebuttals with Earl, and I don't mean to extend your intentions. 6 years is a long time. So I will only say that if you wish to comment on any of the above, feel free. If not, I am honestly not sure how much longer I myself want to spend on this unresolveable topic.

aa5874

It is blatantly absurd to put forward the notion that myths cannot be considered human or earthly.

ADAM of Genesis is considered the first man but is MYTH and yet David was from ADAM in Hebrew Scripture.

archibald

So, you're saying Adam and David and moses and Abraham were seen as mythical and/or non-earthly? That is what I asked.

Whoops, sorry. Thought you were Kapyong. :]

Time for bed.

You can answer if you like. Even though I gave up responding directly to you a long time ago. Sorry. No personal offense intended. :]

Kapyong

Gday,

Paul does NOT say "descended from an earthly human".

It's archibald who says that.


K.

aa5874

It really does NOT matter what I say.

Let me show you what the Pauline writings state.


1 Cor. 15 The Pauline writer claimed ADAM was of the earth, EARTHY, but ADAM the first MAN was MYTH.

The sons of a MYTH are the very same MYTH including David and Jesus.


Well, I AM obligated to read your posts and expose your weak and flawed arguments. I really enjoy ripping them to shreds.

I am extremely delighted when you cannot contradict me.

archibald

:facepalm: