Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 04-02-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Both, Earl, both. Scripture and history. History is the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.

Sorry mh, but you have absolutely no proof or evidence that the crucifixion of any Christian Jesus was modeled on that of Antigonus, let alone that the JC story was in any way meant to *represent* that of Antigonus. Crucifixion always involves being bound to a cross, flogged and slain.

More important, you have even less proof or evidence that the crucifixion of *Paul's* Christ Jesus was in way seen as related to that of Antigonus, or any other human in history. Unlike the Gospel passion story, the passion of the epistles (Paul and several other writers) offers not the slightest detail that could be related to an earthly event, no trial, no flogging, no reaction by onlookers, no burial in an earthly location, no empty tomb, nothing.

I do not understand your obsession with a role for "history" in early Christianity's faith. I have long acknowledged that elements of the Gospel story could have been influenced by elements of the time. But if all that entails is that the Gospel character Jesus was informed by apocalyptic prophets of the day, his miracle working modeled on claimed miracle working by all and sundry kingdom preachers of the time, his crucifixion reflecting standard execution methods by the Romans for anyone perceived to be a rebel or trouble-maker, you are saying absolutely nothing of significance. Of course such contemporary and historical elements are going to play a role in any fictional story. They can't help but do so. How could nothing in one's cultural context past or present not appear even in a creation of fiction? Otherwise, it's *science*-fiction, set on some other planet at some future time, and even then there will inevitably be things present that are familiar to the writer and his readers.

But note that in the epistles, not even these familiar kinds of elements are present, except for the manner of Christ Jesus' death, and I have demonstrated at length in my book that crucifixion could be envisioned, like all manner of suffering and death, as taking place in the upper world, so on that score there is nothing to prevent Paul and other cultists from envisioning Jesus' suffering and death as happening in the spiritual realm, revealed in scripture. There is nothing that can be identified as "history remembered" in even the Gospel passion story, let alone Paul's. If such activities had taken place on earth in his view, the epistle writers wouldn't be constantly appealing to scripture as the source of their knowledge, they wouldn't show an utter lack of any traditions about that death relating to a placement on earth (even if entirely fictional), not to mention about a postulated human identity and life story.

Your fixation on introducing "history" into the earliest Jesus 'story' as found in the epistles is entirely baseless. And if you are one of those who think to place all the epistles post-Gospels, well, you know my opinions on that idea. (See last sentence in previous paragraph, for one of them.)

Earl Doherty

Duvduv · 04-02-2012, 06:18 PM

BUt even according to the HJ model they could have had a belief about a fellow who was a suffering martyr figure for whom they would seek proof in scripture. So I am not sure why Psalm 53 and others wouldn't do the trick. Justin Martyr is always finding "proof" for his historical Jesus in Jewish scriptures. Even if "Paul" thought the very idea of a crucified savior was foolishness for gentiles, he also says that for those "called" it is power and wisdom.
And of course not all gentiles would think the same way, i.e. women, slaves, etc. On the contrary, they would sympathize with the idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Abe, that's exactly the point. People can be creative any way they like to find what they happen to be looking for. Whether that be Psalm 53 or anything else. They can pick and choose which prophecies they prefer. They can interpret things as they wish. Rabbinic Judaism has specific traditions for messianic prophecies, but obviously the early sects, including DSS disagreed.

Thus, in the case at hand, they could easily predict their suffering servant Messiah, which is why I don't understand Bart Ehrman's logic, aside from any empirical issues involved.

I think plausibility is important. We can either believe that Christianity followed typical patterns of the period or we can believe that Christianity was invented with many incredible strokes of ingenuity. If they started with a belief in a crucified messiah and they needed to fit him with "messianic" prophecies, then Isaiah 53 is strongly expected to be the passage that they would turn to, even if most of it is in past tense, the passage is not traditionally messianic, and their messiah did not have offspring. On the other hand, if instead they needed any sort of messiah, then Isaiah 53 would NOT be expected to be the passage they would turn to, and we know largely because Paul tells us explicitly, as Earl Doherty pointed out, that a tortured messiah was "a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23). Slain messiahs were a periodic occurrence in first-century Palestine, and they were actual human beings, not mere myths.

cornbread_r2 · 04-02-2012, 06:53 PM

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24: 25-27 NIV

Just curious how you all think the story of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus fits into all of this. It seems that by the time Luke was written, Christians had already found a way to explain why Jesus wasn't really a failed Messiah. TIA

ApostateAbe · 04-02-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornbread_r2

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24: 25-27 NIV

Just curious how you all think the story of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus fits into all of this. It seems that by the time Luke was written, Christians had already found a way to explain why Jesus wasn't really a failed Messiah. TIA

Yes, I suspect that it would be almost immediately after the crucifixion that Christians fit Isaiah 53 to Jesus, and very shortly after that they would have formulated the myth that Jesus was resurrected based on their reading of Isaiah 53. I model early Christianity as a strong personality cult, and members of personality cults will believe almost anything using any argument in place of believing that their leader was actually a failure.

ApostateAbe · 04-02-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

BUt even according to the HJ model they could have had a belief about a fellow who was a suffering martyr figure for whom they would seek proof in scripture. So I am not sure why Psalm 53 and others wouldn't do the trick. Justin Martyr is always finding "proof" for his historical Jesus in Jewish scriptures. Even if "Paul" thought the very idea of a crucified savior was foolishness for gentiles, he also says that for those "called" it is power and wisdom.
And of course not all gentiles would think the same way, i.e. women, slaves, etc. On the contrary, they would sympathize with the idea.

I think my arguments will work only after one accepts that some ancient beliefs can be shown to be considerably more probable than other ancient beliefs. If all proposed ancient beliefs have equal (or unknown) probability, then of course all such arguments are useless.

Solo · 04-02-2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Which is why Paul had to counter Jewish objectors who called the idea of any "messiah" as crucified, a "folly". The fact that Paul did so (in 1 Cor. 1) is proof that Paul subscribed to a messiah who did *not* fulfill traditional expectations and who suffered death (which he never tells us took place on earth).

Paul called Christ crucified "offense" to the Jews and "folly" to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). The offense related specifically to the deuteronomic curse which is in invoked in Gal 3:13 : 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"--

He quotes Deu 21:22-23: let's see that

"And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; ....."

Paul's rhetoric would have been without effect if Christ's death did not relate to an offense under the law - i.e. to an earthly jurisdiction.

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv · 04-02-2012, 07:51 PM

Jiri, the epistles are not lacking in mixed metaphors, allegories, etc. Remember that mystical understandings of the scriptures are both literal and metaphorical and homiletical. Indeed he is simply reading the metaphorical understanding into the verses. As an Orthodox Jew I can see that because in areas of kabbalah and hassidism it is common, although far far away from anything in Christian sources of course.

maryhelena · 04-02-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Which is why Paul had to counter Jewish objectors who called the idea of any "messiah" as crucified, a "folly". The fact that Paul did so (in 1 Cor. 1) is proof that Paul subscribed to a messiah who did *not* fulfill traditional expectations and who suffered death (which he never tells us took place on earth).

Paul called Christ crucified "offense" to the Jews and "folly" to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). The offense related specifically to the deuteronomic curse which is in invoked in Gal 3:13 : 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"--

He quotes Deu 21:22-23: let's see that

"And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; ....."

Paul's rhetoric would have been without effect if Christ's death did not relate to an offense under the law - i.e. to an earthly jurisdiction.

Best,
Jiri

I find it such a fundamental point - yet somehow Earl can't get his mind around it. Without an earthly crucifixion, without a physical reality from which to develop his new insight into 'crucifixion' as having some value, 'Paul' has no case to make. 'Paul' turned the tables on crucifixion. In contrast to a valueless crucifixion, an earthly, physical flesh and blood crucifixion, value is to be found in a heavenly, spiritual, theological, philosophical, 'crucifixion'; such a heavenly 'crucifixion' has supreme 'salvation' value. One cannot have the Jerusalem 'above' without the Jerusalem 'below'.

Yes, Earl, is correct, that 'Paul's' JC is 'crucified' in a heavenly, spiritual or intellectual space. He is wrong that that such a spiritual/theological 'crucifixion' does not require an earthly counterpart. Without the counterpart of the Jerusalem 'below' 'Paul' cannot give his theology/spirituality of a heavenly counterpart, the Jerusalem 'above', any relevance.

And interestingly, George Wells gives Earl credit for 1 Cor. 2:8.

Quote:

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premise that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens. Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded”.

“Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../earliest.html

It's two crucifixion stories in the NT - the pseudo-historical gospel JC crucifixion story. And 'Paul's' heavenly, spiritual, 'crucifixion' story. In other words; a crucifixion that reflects physical reality, the gospel JC story, and a 'crucifixion' that reflects spiritual/intellectual philosophizing. The Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below.

maryhelena · 04-02-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Both, Earl, both. Scripture and history. History is the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.

Sorry mh, but you have absolutely no proof or evidence that the crucifixion of any Christian Jesus was modeled on that of Antigonus, let alone that the JC story was in any way meant to *represent* that of Antigonus. Crucifixion always involves being bound to a cross, flogged and slain.

Check out this thread:

The historical crucifixion of Antigonus as a model for the Jesus crucifixion story

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=290377

Quote:

More important, you have even less proof or evidence that the crucifixion of *Paul's* Christ Jesus was in way seen as related to that of Antigonus, or any other human in history. Unlike the Gospel passion story, the passion of the epistles (Paul and several other writers) offers not the slightest detail that could be related to an earthly event, no trial, no flogging, no reaction by onlookers, no burial in an earthly location, no empty tomb, nothing.

It's a counterpart that is necessary for 'Paul's' theology/spirituality of a heavenly 'crucifixion'. The Jerusalem 'above' requires a corresponding Jerusalem 'below'.

Quote:

I do not understand your obsession with a role for "history" in early Christianity's faith.

I now have an 'obsession' - Earl, this is not a good way to communicate with me.....:angry:

Quote:

I have long acknowledged that elements of the Gospel story could have been influenced by elements of the time.

And you have long refused to name names and events.

Quote:

But if all that entails is that the Gospel character Jesus was informed by apocalyptic prophets of the day, his miracle working modeled on claimed miracle working by all and sundry kingdom preachers of the time, his crucifixion reflecting standard execution methods by the Romans for anyone perceived to be a rebel or trouble-maker, you are saying absolutely nothing of significance.

*If* - very big *if* there, Earl. Your statement is simply assertion.

Quote:

Of course such contemporary and historical elements are going to play a role in any fictional story. They can't help but do so. How could nothing in one's cultural context past or present not appear even in a creation of fiction? Otherwise, it's *science*-fiction, set on some other planet at some future time, and even then there will inevitably be things present that are familiar to the writer and his readers.

I've been waiting - what is it - well over 10 years now - since you made that reply to me on your website - for clarification of your remarks.

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths. However, just because certain models were drawn on, this does not constitute the existence of an historical Jesus.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I'm waiting Earl, waiting for you to name names, name the historical people, that were important and relevant to the gospel writers.

Quote:

But note that in the epistles, not even these familiar kinds of elements are present, except for the manner of Christ Jesus' death, and I have demonstrated at length in my book that crucifixion could be envisioned, like all manner of suffering and death, as taking place in the upper world, so on that score there is nothing to prevent Paul and other cultists from envisioning Jesus' suffering and death as happening in the spiritual realm, revealed in scripture. There is nothing that can be identified as "history remembered" in even the Gospel passion story, let alone Paul's. If such activities had taken place on earth in his view, the epistle writers wouldn't be constantly appealing to scripture as the source of their knowledge, they wouldn't show an utter lack of any traditions about that death relating to a placement on earth (even if entirely fictional), not to mention about a postulated human identity and life story.

The Jerusalem 'above' requires a corresponding Jerusalem 'below'.

Quote:

Your fixation on introducing "history" into the earliest Jesus 'story' as found in the epistles is entirely baseless. And if you are one of those who think to place all the epistles post-Gospels, well, you know my opinions on that idea. (See last sentence in previous paragraph, for one of them.)

Earl Doherty

Now I have a 'fixation' - my Earl, but you sure like to come down with negative comments on those who disagree with you....:huh:
---------------------------------
footnote: Check out the chart in this thread:

HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

MrMacSon · 04-03-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.. I'm waiting Earl, waiting for you to name names, name the historical people, that were important and relevant to the gospel writers.

Surely none of those historical people are clear.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-02-2012, 06:53 PM	#43
cornbread_r2 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 166	25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24: 25-27 NIV Just curious how you all think the story of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus fits into all of this. It seems that by the time Luke was written, Christians had already found a way to explain why Jesus wasn't really a failed Messiah. TIA

04-02-2012, 07:51 PM	#47
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Jiri, the epistles are not lacking in mixed metaphors, allegories, etc. Remember that mystical understandings of the scriptures are both literal and metaphorical and homiletical. Indeed he is simply reading the metaphorical understanding into the verses. As an Orthodox Jew I can see that because in areas of kabbalah and hassidism it is common, although far far away from anything in Christian sources of course.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.