jakejonesiv

I see. You guys are off on some tangent regarding Earl's theory, or possibly some misrepresentation of it. In either case, that discussion is rather too narrow for me, so I will look for another thread.

Best,
Jake

jakejonesiv

Sounds good. Which one?

archibald

Here's the other thread.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306656

GakuseiDon

Heh? That's what Doherty writes: the majority of extant Second Century apologists didn't believe in a Christ figure, not even a Pauline MJ one. Doherty concludes that they believed in an abstract Logos figure. Doesn't that answer the question you raised?

You wrote "That would be an odd sect that disbelieved in its own divine entity. I think any sect worthy of being labeled "Christian" would believe that Christ existed in some plane of existence, in some manner or another." Well, Doherty disagrees.

Doherty writes here (my emphasis):
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

The forms of non-historical faith among the apologists we have been looking at in the latter half of the century should not, strictly speaking, be referred to as involving a mythical Jesus. Athenagoras & Co. are not "MJers" because they don't have any Jesus at all. The Logos itself is a mythical entity, but not in the same way. They don't have a sacrificial redeemer figure such as the one at the center of the Pauline cult, and this may to some extent be true even of Diognetus. No one among the apologists I have presented ever declared that they had a Jesus who was an entirely mythical figure. Rather, they had a Logos who was a revealing emanation of God... It may be that no pockets of mythical Jesus faith survived by the latter second century... The philosopher-apologists of the second century belonged to a Logos religion, in which the Son was not a Jesus-Savior figure but only an abstract heavenly force, a part of God. As such, they would not have raised the ire of the heresiologists, for whom they may have blended into the general philosophical background. If they never brought up a Jesus or Christ (and remember that those apologists defined "Christian" in terms of anointing, not any Messiah, spiritual or human), why would the heresiologists have especially remarked on them?

Doherty's view is, those Logos "Christians" didn't believe in a Jesus or even a Christ, so the heresiologists wouldn't have been interested in branding such Christians as heretics.

mountainman

Nestorius in the 5th century reports that there were heretical sects that insisted that the fictional nature of Jesus was an opinion based on the truth and ancient opinion. But Nestorius was censored by Cyril and anathemetized.


Hellenism, Judaism, Stoics, Platonists, Pythagoreans and another 75 non christian sects in the 4th century were considered to be heretical. While they each believed in heir own conception of divinity, none of these sects were christian. What did they think of the Bible?

Arius thought Christ was a 'figment'.
Julian thought Jesus had taken up his abode with Incontinence.

These opinions were burnt and censored by the heresiologists.

gurugeorge

No, it's not that "we should expect" it's that "THERE ISN'T".

So whatever gives you the idea of a real human being? Apparently, you're easily pleased by some mentions of earthly incarnation, avatar, components or aspects of a divine being, as if earthly incarnations, avatars, components or aspects of divine beings weren't ten a penny!

Yes, in the absence of external, triangulating evidence for a real human being at the root of the Jesus myth (of the kind we would want for any other historical figure before granting them some historical plausiblity - and we're not asking for much), my hypothesis, based on (amongst other things, including that background in Bauer, etc.) 1 Corinthians 15 is that "some people got the idea" - that's just what "According to Scripture the Messiah blah de blah de blah, and we've all had this revelation" suggests, in the absence of external, triangulating evidence for a dude.

Again, Ben's move that GDon quoted has the logic the other way round from what it should be.

There is absolutely no logical force in claiming that the reason for an absence of evidence for X in Y's writings is because Y's mind worked a certain way, UNLESS it can be independently shown that X existed.

Then yes, sure, it's plausible that his mind must have had some quirk that made him not mention X, etc. etc. His mind must have had that quirk because we independently know that X after all existed.

In the absence of that kind of external, triangulating evidence, you're just trying to boostrap X into existence by guessing that Y's psychology happened to favour his not mentioning X, so, but, erm, argal, erm
... X ... uhhh ... existed.

Whu ...?

Don't you see there's no logical force there whatsoever? It's a complete joke!

Solo

Don, I think you underestimate Earl's skill as a humorist.

He admits certain truth to the assertion that it was 'impolitic to speak of Jesus of Nazareth' (by people like Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus) even though the 2nd century pagan ill-will to a cult worshipping an executed criminal, Earl says, is an idea of modern scholarship. Nonetheless, "[those] factors did exist",(....hold your chair if you tend to horse-laughter): " but there is no intimation by the apologists themselves that such factors are the reasons why they remained silent on the historical Jesus". (JNGNM, p 486)

Kinda makes one wonder whether the bolshevik history's collective failure to give reasons for the silence on Lenin's acceptance of Kaiser's money to take Russia out of WWI. could be seen as a proof that it never happened.

Best,
Jiri

jakejonesiv

Ireneaus too? :huh:
Or does he count only as a heresiologist?

Jake

aa5874

Well, look in DOHERTY'S book.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and a woman, the word that was God, and the Creator that was CRUCIFIED under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

What else are you looking for?

HJ of Nazareth?

You will NOT find such a character in the NT or DOHERTY.

GakuseiDon

No, not Irenaeus, as we have no extant apologetic defence.

Doherty sees the following Second Century apologists who wrote letters at a time when they called themselves "Christians", but they didn't believe in a specific entity called "Christ", not even a Pauline MJ one:

• Tatian (when he wrote "Address to the Greeks")
• Theophilus of Antioch
• Athenagoras of Athens
• Author of the Epistle of Diognetus
• Minucius Felix

In addition, Doherty analyses Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" and concludes that Justin originally converted to a form of Christianity along the same lines: no HJ or Pauline MJ, just an abstract Logos figure.

So I haven't misrepresented Doherty's theories, which seems to have been your initial reaction. It does sound quite incredible, doesn't it?