Toto

The point is that Doherty theorizes that mythicism was not heretical in the earlist, first century Christianity. By the time the heresy hunters came along, the original mythicism was no longer on the scene - it had evolved into either orthodoxy (by historicizing the myth) or the various heresies that saw Jesus as something other than human, so there was no particular reason to expect a second century heresy hunter to be attacking first century mythicists.

I am not defensive, I am just trying to explain why this is not the devastating critique of Doherty that you think it is.

Vincent Guilbaud

Gamera said:
(Remember that the 'ecclesiastical authorities' are often deep into the 2nd century.)
Really?
I think it's quite the opposite and that it was the ecclesiastical authorities who had problems with Paul.
This is why:
- they modified his letters
- Luke (?) wrote The Acts of the Apostles:
(no clear evidence for it surfaces before 175 CE, in Against Heresies by Irenaeus)
In reaction to Gnostism and Marcion and by contradicting so much of Paul's epistles and giving him no trace of heresy, it attached securely the great apostle of the first hour to the Roman Catholic Church.
It reflects the Christian ecclesiastical movement centered in Rome during the mid-second century, one which was seeking to establish a new orthodoxy based on the historical Jesus recently generated by the Gospels.

Much of what passes for 'historical' interpretation of Paul and for 'objective' analysis of his letters
can be traced to the second century heresiologists.

If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic,
How could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher?

How could they say they are following his example
when they offer secret teaching of wisdom and Gnosis 'to the initiates?'

How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own,
citing his words as decisive evidence against the ecclesiastical doctrine of bodily resurrection?
E.Pagels

In the second century, the most important strand of Christianity (Marcion, Valentinian Gnosticism ...) which will be declared 'heretic', was claiming that Paul was their principal source of inspiration.
In Edessa as late as the end of the second century the unorthodox called Catholic Christians by the name of their bishop, just as if he were the teacher of some novel heretical group. So in Antioch in the time of Ignatius is is likely that his followers were a minority compared with the two heretical communities which he fought.

C.C. Richardson has described the docetism of Ignatius opponents thus:
This docetism implies an absolute denial of the Lord's humanity, a refusal to admit that he was a man (Smyrn. 5), and hence an overthrowing of his whole life and ministry(Eph. 7, Smyrn. 1 and 5, Trall. 9).
The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch (1935)

On the other side, some members of the branch of Christianity that will become the infamous orthodox Roman catholic church (still very popular today) regarded Paul as the great apostate and an arch enemy:
- church father Tertullian (who became heretic himself after his Montanist work) called Paul the apostle of the heretics adv. Marc. 3.5
- Paulinism is also attacked in the Clementine Homiliae and Recognitiones (see Hom. 17.19).
- Irenaeus claims in Against Heresies, 180 CE that:
Those who are called Ebionites . . . use the Gospel according to Matthew only,
and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

Everything in the attitude of Tertullian or Irenaeus, confirms the view that the Pauline writings arose outside of what became the orthodox Church tradition, but that that tradition found it convenient to appropriate them. So it becomes apparent that the Paul retained for Christianity was a domesticated Paul, Paul rendered more comfortable, an ecclesiasticized Paul.

At the same time, the influence of Paul on subsequent Christianity has been incalculable.
Not for nothing was he hailed a century ago as 'the second founder of Christianity'.

The ecclesiastical authorities simply couldn't make it without him and the other Epistle writers,
so they have claim them on their sides...

youngalexander

Perhaps not in the early centuries, but at least TedM knows now!

I like your Ring Species analogy, but I do not think that it quite works. In the first place Doherty argues for a 'riotous diversity', ie. parallel developments rather than serial as you are suggesting. Secondly, even if your ring were valid the analogy tells us that the two end species are different. Connected but different, as indeed a Mythic Jesus and an Historical one are!?
Well no it isn't. A myth maybe, but without a mythical Jesus.

Clivedurdle

My mythicist position may be slightly different to the orthodox one!

I see xianity - including Catholicism and Protestantism and all sects as being mythicist .

Look at a creed

I read this as describing a mythical beastie - a classic chimera - half god half man - oops xian math here - fully god fully man (early version of the Tardis).

Thus both ends of the ring species are myth the orthodox and gnostic. The argument is about proportions or amount of fleshy bit, but the existence of any spiritual bit makes the entire beastie mythological!

The Historical Jesus is a post enlightenment phenomenon, probably a mistaken attempt by deists and atheists to explain xianity. Xians arguing for an hj is automatically a serious heresy so I never understand why they do it.

But the mythical one is continually asserted by xians.

Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of the term supernatural. From the perspective of God everything is supernatural - including nature!

robto

So, just to be clear:

As far as anyone here knows, there are no reports of the heresiologists, and no extant "heretical" writings, that express the views Doherty ascribes to Paul.

Correct?

Clivedurdle

Incorrect.

I read Paul and Hebrews as clear evidence of Doherty's views. I strongly also reccomend Pagels the Gnostic Paul.

GakuseiDon

IMO the question should be broaden to: Was there ANY group -- pagan or Christian -- whose beliefs match up with Doherty's description myths being set in a "fleshly sublunar realm"?

Vincent Guilbaud

Instead of arguing against the evidences presented in this thread
or many others, including books for several years, robto said dogmatically::frown:
Nope. Incorrect

Like a Gnostic, Paul

- claims to have ascended as far as the third level:
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. 2 Corinthians 12:2

- writes of a Gnosis which can be taught only to the "fully initiated":
we speak of Sophia among the initiated. 1 Corinthians 2:6

- defends the secrecy of the Inner Mysteries by asserting that he has heard:
ineffable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 2 Corinthians 12:4

- claims his gospel not from historical events or human teachings but from God's revelation :
Galatians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, 3:6, 10:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:4, Romans 1:1, Colossians 1:25, Ephesians 1:1, Titus 1:3

- offers a prayer that your love may more and more be bursting with knowledge (or Gnosis). Philippians 1:9

- writes of to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge (or Gnosis) of God's mystery,that is, Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom (or Sophia) and knowledge (or Gnosis). Colossians 2:2-3

- claims mystical knowledge by revelation of the Mystery was made known to me. Ephesians 3:3

- puts the emphasis on understanding, not on dogma:
The letter kills, while the spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

- preaches a message that is clearly mystical and allegorical
he writes of being raised up to heaven and enthroned with Jesus
not as some hoped-for afterlife reward, but as something, which he and other Christian initiates have already experienced. Ephesians 2:4-7

- describes stories in the scriptures as allegories, Galatians 4:24 and writes of events as symbolic. 1 Corinthians 10:6

- doesn't believe in the resurection of the dead or of the flesh
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 15:50
but in a spiritual experience that can happen right now:
Behold, now is the acceptable time;
behold, now is the day of salvation. 2 Corinthians 6:2

- writes of participating in his suffering and sharing in the form of his death,
and so being resurrected from the dead. Philippians 3:10-11

- preaches that Jesus' death is not an event in the past, but a perennial mystical reality.
Through sharing in Jesus' death and resurrection each christian initiate can themselves die to their lower self
and be resurrected as the Christ or Logos:
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies
also through his Spirit which dwells in you. Romans 8:11

- writes I have been crucified with Christ: from now on I live no more, instead Christ lives in me. Galatians 2:20

************************************************** ******
Paul describes himself as having been assigned by God the task of delivering his message:
the secret hidden for long ages and through many generations,
which is now being disclosed to those chosen by God.

And WHAT IS THIS SECRET ?

Is it that the Messiah came on earth several years ago in Galilee,
teached and worked miracles, died in Jerusalem and returned from the dead?

NO

It is perennial mysticism of Gnosticism and the Pagan Mysteries:
that within each one of us is the one Soul of the Universe,
the Logos, the Universal Daemon, the Mind of God.

The secret is:
THE MESSIAH IS IN YOU

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share for the sake of his
body, which is the church, [the body of Christ is the church!] in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.
Of this church I became a minister according to the stewardship [term common for priest in the Mysteries of Serapis] from God which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.
To them God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
We proclaim him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.
For this end I labor, striving with all his energy, which so mightily works within me.
Colossians 1:24-29

Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy Was the original Jesus A Pagan God?

Want to know more?
http://www.FromChristToJesus.org

Roger Pearse

Actually it is correct.

To show otherwise you have to produce the description of Doherty's beliefs attributed to a heretic from somewhere in the Fathers.

All you're doing at the moment, as far as I can see, is trying to say that the NT is a gnostic text, by selection, omission and misrepresentation. That isn't true and isn't the question anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vincent Guilbaud

Dear Roger Pearse,

First, thank you very much for having gone a little bit further
than your answer on my previous post about the HJ about one year ago:
Typical of the vicious cercle around the Bible:
people are following a tradition to make these texts the words of God,
and the same people are also responsible for validating the veracity and authenticity of this tradition...

But from my numerous evidences inside the Pauline Epistles
your answer:
is still ridiculous.

Are you really interested by the truth?
I'm not sure since you show us every time a such incredible bias.

Then you end it stupidly with:
the question of this thread is:
Is there any early Christian heresies whose beliefs match up with Doherty & mythicist

Well All epistles writers do,
but they were not Christian heretics
because there was no such appellations in this early time,
and no real central Christian doctrine.
Anyone could see, hear, feel and receive Christ inside them.

These Christians were not even Jewish heretics for a long long time:

There was a slowly growing chasm between Christians and Jews, rather than a sudden split.
Even though it is commonly thought that Paul established a Gentile church,
it took centuries for a complete break to manifest.
...
There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of "heretics" in general,
or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135.
...
Bar Kokhba Revolt 132-135
Many historians believe the revolt was the most notable event
in the split between Judaism and Christianity.
...
Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues for centuries.
...
The true end of Jewish Christianity occurred only in the fifth century.
Those remaining fully faithful to Halacha became purely Jews,
while those adhering to the Christian faith joined with Pauline Christianity.
Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy
and imposed itself on the previously Jewish Christian sanctuaries,
taking full control of those houses of worship by the end of the fifth century.

wikipedia Origins_of_Christianity Split_with_Judaism

On this subject, Paul Eric Blanrue, a French historian, should pubish this year a book:
When Christians were Jews

At its roots, Christianity was a mutation of Jewish belief due to
- Jewish visionary texts and messianic expectation
- platonism and Logos
Read the Tab Logos in 'But, Is this Dying & Rising Savior Cult Based On a Recent Man ?'
- Gnosticism
- pagan mysteries
none of these concepts are based on recent historical event,
Showing us that your religion must have honestly began with a mythical Christ.

All the best,

Vincent Guilbaud

From Christ To Jesus