Toto

Fathom - it sounds like you take an adoptionist view of the HJ - you think that early Christians separated Jesus and Christ, and that Christ was a spirit who descended on the human Jesus at the Baptism and left at the crucifixion.

There were some early Christians who thought this way (probably the author of Mark), but this seems inconsistent with Paul's constant references to "Christ Jesus." Adoptionism was a minority doctrine, and condemned as heretical. Your references to the verses in the canonical gospels where you claim that Jesus thought that the Christ was outside of himself are not very persuasive in this regard; the proto-orthodox thought that Jesus was preexistent in any case, and those verses were part of a zen-like riddle.

Are you relying on Muslim scholarship for this?

In general, while you want to discuss Doherty, you seem determined to avoid trying to understand his argument. You prefer to take potshots and pick statements out of context. This makes this whole exercise not very interesting.

FathomFFI

No.

They are much mere persuasive than taking any Jesus myth approach, I assure you. Those verses have Jesus himself providing evidence of his belief that the Christ existed at the time of David, in spiritual form. Since we know that Jesus was a man who was born (whether you believe it or not is beside the point) then how are we to understand what he is saying other than what I have stated?

He refuted the Jews' claim that the Christ came from the line of King David, in case you haven't noticed. That was the purpose of showing him in existence at the time of king David, as opposed to being born through the line. This separates Christ from the person of Jesus, who did, according to all reports, come from the house of David. You'll notice he spoke of the Christ in the 3rd person, as if it were another entity. That's because the Christ is regarded as spiritual, while Jesus is regarded as physical.

With that understanding, then perhaps you can apply the same reasoning in understanding the comments of Paul, which totally support this understanding numerous times in his writings.

Below we see this precise theme of Paul being spelled out to you in startling clarity.

We follow that up with yet more evidence of Paul subscribing to the theme of separating the fleshly things from the spiritual things, and giving priority to the spiritual.

It's a theme that has been taught right from the beginning with Jesus, and right through Paul. There's nothing weak about this argument whatsoever.

Yet, you seem so offended if anyone were to critique his work. You rush to his defense as if your life depended on it, and deride anyone who opposes him. We understand his argument because it's child's play. What you don't like is the fact we are exposing it word for word, sentence for sentence, paragraph for paragraph, for the strawman it actually is.

We have demonstrated conclusively that it isn't us that are taking statements out of context, but it is Earl Dohery who is taking things out of context.

The near 1500 views disagrees with your claim that this thread is not interesting. If fact, the viewers find it very interesting.

And you say I'm taking pot shots?

:wave:

Regards.

Team FFI

Toto

I am not offended that anyone should critique Doherty's work. He himself has been asking for scholarly critique for some time. But your critique does not engage with him.

There is nothing wrong with Muslim scholarship. I hope you did not take that as an insult - it was not intended that way. Jesus is a figure in Islam, and I believe that Islam relied on some of the non-orthodox Christian sects in developing its beliefs about Jesus.

BTW - please stop using the waving smilie - it gets annoying.

Iasion

Greetings,


Let's consider some examples :


1 Cor 1:26-31
"Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise [kata sarka], not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth."

Here, "kata sarka" is usually translated "by human standards".
(Not "in regards to the body" or similar.)


1 Cor 10:18
"Consider Israel [kata sarka]. Don't those who eat the sacrifices have communion with the altar?"

Here, "Israel kata sarka" is usually translated "the people of Israel" or "the nation of Israel".
(Not "in regards to the body" or similar.)


2 Cor 5:16
"So from now on we regard no one [kata sarka]. Though we once regarded Christ [kata sarka], we do so no longer."

This "kata sarka" is often left as "after the flesh" in English, or sometimes translated as "from a worldly point of view".
(Not "in regards to the body" or similar.)


Romans 1:3
"...concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David [kata sarka]"

This "kata sarka" is sometimes translated "as to his human nature" or "as to his earthly life", or often left as "according to the flesh".


It is clear from these examples that the phrase "kata sarka" does not have one single "crystal clear" meaning as "in regards to the body".

Bible translators used various different translations with a range of meaning for this phrase.



Iasion

FathomFFI

It engages him directly, and the truth is he's completely avoiding it. That is evident.

Muslim scholarship on Jesus is extremely weak. Their Quran drew from several late gospels for references to Jesus, and doesn't address the canon hardly at all. You'll find more information regarding this from a series of articles I wrote and were published on the Faith Freedom International website.

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/ind...ticle&sid=1521

No problem.

Regards

Team FFI.

FathomFFI

You'll notice that every last example pertains to the corporeal.

EarlDoherty

‏Not very interesting? It’s a farce, from start to finish. I’ve read a lot of critiques of my work, right down to the most abject apologist, but this one is by far the most pathetically abysmal effort to date, intellectually trite and vacuous. Fathom is incapable of offering coherent, reasonable analysis, let alone knowledgeable counter-argument to my presentation.

He seems incapable of understanding the principle that we need to analyze the epistles separately without reading the Gospels into them; thus, my setting aside of the Gospels in order to do that becomes a “suppression and discarding of the text.”

If Paul talks about Jesus dying and resurrecting, or refers to his “blood,” this can only be to these things in a human state, which ignores my reams of argumentation and evidence that such things were capable of being regarded as taking place in a spiritual dimension and form. At the very least he needs to address and engage that position, not fatuously dismiss it as inconceivable even by the ancients. It’s an argument from his own personal incredulity, of course, and one which is shared by a lot of modern literalists who are ignorant about ancient philosophy or the mythicist case; it even trumps Bernard Muller, which is saying a lot. But I refuse to go into all that again for the sake of someone who embraces the same ignorance and cannot open his mind even a chink to try to understand it.

Then there is the totally laughable exegesis he brings to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, that the phrase “according to the scriptures” encompasses verses 5-6 (no scholar has ever suggested such a thing), that Paul knows of the appearances to Peter et al through such scriptures. And what are those “scriptures” in his view? “A written Gospel contemporary to Paul’s time”! Not only has he not chosen to follow virtually every orthodox translation and interpret “according to the scriptures” as “in fulfillment of the scriptures,” he actually accepts my own interpretation, but chooses to apply it to some allegedly existing Gospel around the year 50 which Christians now regarded as “scripture”. Not even the most ardent fundamentalist who attempts to suggest that Matthew (supposedly the first Gospel) was written in the 40s has suggested that any Christian at that time referred to or thought of it as sacred scripture. In any case, no critical scholar today, no mainstream NT researcher of any stripe, agrees that any Gospel was in existence by 50. Who are the scholars or ‘authorities’ that Fathom is drawing on here? Is he, an atheist-leaning secularist, aligning himself with that kind of naïve and extreme evangelical ‘scholarship’? Is that the level on which he is going to “totally destroy” the mythicist case?

As for my analysis of 2 Timothy 1:9, has he offered anything to counter or disprove the specific observations and arguments I make? Not a one. Just a declaration of how standard interpretation regards it (in other words, an appeal to authority), accompanied by a lot of sputtering and raving. To everything I say, it’s “no sense whatever…simply nothing credible about them whatsoever…way off the mark…he is creating a myth…does not stand up to scrutiny”…and on and on. Sound and fury, backed by nothing of substance. And we can look forward to a lot more of the same. It has become an unfunny joke taking up a hell of a lot of bandwidth.

The worst part of it is, as he has demonstrated from effort to effort, when he is shot down on one thing, he simply abandons it as though it never existed, and goes off on yet another tangent, like a resurgent Medusa who keeps sprouting new heads. I’d rather take on J. P. Holding. At least Holding knows something.

I have no intention of devoting any further time to this preposterous “critique”. I wasted this much in order to illustrate what I have, in case it wasn’t obvious to everyone already.

Earl Doherty

Iasion

Greetings,

Indeed it does.
It refers to the corporeal world, sphere, or life in a wider sense.

Which is completely compatible with Doherty's view that it means the lower sphere, or 'plane'.

But not with your claim that it means simply "in regards to the body".


Iasion

FathomFFI

That is simply not the truth, since all of the above have been done right from the outset, and quite in depth. My posts alone confute this assertion conclusively.

Who says I don't understand this? 99% of my critique of your work does not use the Gospels whatsoever, so how do you arrive at such an inaccurate conclusion? You yourself are using texts that you yourself do not accept as being authentic works of Paul, and you are using these pseudo texts to support the authentic ones?

How does that work, Earl?

What arguments? An outrageous and totally off-the-wall interpretation of 1 Timothy 1.9? This is the sum total of your "argument" and it comes with absolutely no support whatsoever. You cherry picked a verse that was just obscure enough for you to pull it out of context and then apply an interpretation that has nothing to do with the verse whatsoever when it's put right back into the context.

It's completely unacceptable, not only to me, but to world scholars. And that is why you are having problems getting your work critiqued by a recognized scholar. They won't waste their time with this, I assure you.

It's been engaged, and it's been exposed for what it is. It has no substance, and absolutely no credulity. My mind is wide open, and I do not view things from a literalist perspective by any means. It is with this open mind that I find so many holes in your position that I've lost count. I avoid many of the small ones, and just tackle the obvious ones. If I didn't do that, we would be here for a much longer time.

Are you certain about this? You've polled the scholars? It so obviously does encompasses verses 5-6 that it is not even an issue for discussion among the scholars. It is that obvious.

Let the viewers decide for themselves by simply reading the quote above. He's speaking about scriptures where Christ died for the sins, was buried and rose again on the 3rd day, and was then seen by Peter and the 12. He's talking about what is written in the scriptures, and all that he talked about are written in the Gospels.

It's a single sentence Earl. You can be confuted on this with just one single question:

WHERE in the OT scriptures is Christ dying for sins, buried, and risen again on the third day?

Notice that Paul is not saying "according to the prophets," but states directly "according to the scriptures." When Paul refers to the prophets, he tells you.

Let's see an answer to this.

Oh, and one other thing. Since we "cannot use the Gospels" on this, would you mind showing us where Paul refers to any prophet who mentioned all these events? We need to see justification from the words of Paul, correct?

Let's see it.


And yet you say this while Paul constantly speaks of a gospel? You say this when in 1 Corinthians Paul, practically verbatim, recites Luke 22.19 - 21?

Paul also tells you that Jesus was betrayed, but where in the OT can we find Christ being betrayed? Where does Paul allude to this?


There you ago again, assuming I am speaking of the canonical gospels. Are you trying to deny the existence of other gospels during Paul's time? Paul himself tells you numerous times of other gospels, so what's the problem?

It isn't my scholarship that is in question here, as I am merely an ardent student. It isn't even your scholarship that is in question here.

I have yet to decide whether or not to regard you as one, since nothing you've written so far impresses me to that end.

Bologna.

Here's the counter:

Tell me Earl, how do you kill the eternal? You don't. You've contradicted yourself.

I'm critical of your work because you offer scant evidence, if any evidence at all, to support your position. Any scholar I know would eat you alive on this, but I'm actually going easy on you.

A harsh critique does not propose to cuddle up to you. It is what it is, and if you don't like it, then don't write any more. That's the life of a writer, so chin up and take it.

You haven't shot down a single thing yet. In fact, you haven't said anything yet. You are avoiding the points I'm making and hiding behind your little wall of pride, and sniping back at me personally.

Ad hominems will take you no where in the eyes of the viewers, nor in the eyes of any scholars. There's no free ride on the road to establishing credibility. If someone promised you one, they lied. Welcome to reality.


Regards

Team FFI.

FathomFFI

I can't agree with this Iasion. If this were the truth, we'd have contradictions all through the epistles with that definition. It's simply not compatible with the philosophy over-all.

But it's okay to disagree.