Chris Weimer

Clive - did James and Cephas believe that about Jesus? Is the Dalai Lama fictional? Were the Pharoahs fictional?

Toto

Your answer to Doug seems to miss the point.

Your answer is incoherent. You need to look at it from the point of view of a second century Christian who has only the text. How does he know, and why does he care, whether the central figure was historical or an enhanced historical figure or pure allegory?

You think that this has something to do with personal salvation. But I suspect that personal salvation, then as now, was more of a spiritual experiece, not the results of reading the text.

You just refuse to accept the explanations that have been given. You are so fixated on the idea that the issue of historicity was important in the first century, and Doherty's mythicist Christians must have been "converted." If you think about what a muddle most beliefs are, it's not clear what needs to be explained.

That is the spin that modern historicists want to put on the question. But it doesn't make sense to me.

So what is your theory? Originally he was a human, then was mythologized into a divine son of God, then people doubted that he was even real? All in 100 years, with no record of this?

Clivedurdle

What evidence do you have who James and Cephas were and where is it from? This isn't brother of the lord is it again when lord often refers to God?

http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/BD86.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/22-44.htm

TedM

We don't know if Paul met or saw him in person or knew of him as a person irrespective of whatever visions or revelations he may have had later, so this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Not provable.


You know that's not what we are talking about here...surely


Now, Clivedurdle, you're getting all worked up. I just want to know what you have to say in response to these questions:

I"m asking you guys to state your case for the 4 things I listed that are necessary in order for Doherty to be right about Jesus' origins and about the gospels. Is anyone up to the challenge?

1. What was necessary for the Doherty-Jesus group to have died out without a trace in the manuscript evidence?

2. What was necessary for audiences to have accepted gospels as fictional without us having evidence that they ever did?

3. What was necessary for audiences to have believed the gospels were real after an original understanding that they were fictional, without us having any manuscript evidence of this metamophisis?

4. What was necessary for us to have no record of a clash between these 3 groups that had very different beliefs about Jesus?

TedM

You wrote:
I am assuming that the issue as to whether Messiah of the Jews that they were worshipping had visited earth to set up an earthly kingdom led by the Jews or not as had been expected was an important issue in the church, yes. Christ wasn't a name. It literally meant Messiah. And the Messiah was expected come to earth. How would any other assumption make any sense? Further, Doherty says that knowledge of Jesus as being the exact opposite--not on earth at all was so widespread that Paul didn't need to mention it. Clearly those who believed that had a lot to defend against the overwhelming expectation of others...Given those two points I certainly would expect a complete reversal--putting Jesus on earth as had been the original expectation would have harshly received by the Doherty Jesus people, defending their position and that of their leaders, Paul, James, John, Cephas, Apollo, etc.. who surely held the same belief regarding Jesus' life location. You seem to think it's no big deal, since beliefs are all muddled and people change their beliefs easily or some such idea. Is that your position?


I don't think we are getting anywhere. I respect your opinions though, so I'm curious how you would answer my questions:


I"m asking you guys to state your case for the 4 things I listed that are necessary in order for Doherty to be right about Jesus' origins and about the gospels. Is anyone up to the challenge?

1. What was necessary for the Doherty-Jesus group to have died out without a trace in the manuscript evidence?

2. What was necessary for audiences to have accepted gospels as fictional without us having evidence that they ever did?

3. What was necessary for audiences to have believed the gospels were real after an original understanding that they were fictional, without us having any manuscript evidence of this metamophisis?

4. What was necessary for us to have no record of a clash between these 3 groups that had very different beliefs about Jesus?


I don't see how anyone can deny that those 4 things must have happened in some manner for the Doherty theory of origins to be correct. I'm simply asking how they could have happened without leaving any evidence.


We aren't connecting on this. Doherty claims that everyone he was writing to knew Jesus wasn't historical and that is why he didn't need to explain his life in the sphere, or parallel universe or what have you. To have such a dogma of faith change requires a reason for such change that makes sense. I haven't seen one from you yet, or did I overlook it?


I haven't studied the docetist issue, but suspect their beliefs are clear and not a "spin" by modern historicists. Do you know otherwise?




What are you talking about? There is a record--all in 100 years--that he was human, but was also believed to have divine qualities and that docetists came along and doubted the human element, preferring to conclude that he only "appeared" to be human. I am baffled by your question. Is that my theory? It seems to be more supported by the record then the idea that he was mythological and then converted to be human within 50 years by means of a passion play written by a genius.

ted

Gamera

People write stories all the time, but very rarely do people take consciously fictitious narratives constructed as a fictitious narrative as historiography. Indeed, there is no example of it that I know of.

Myths are not consciously constructed fictitious narratives, but much more culturally complex narratives whose origins aren't ever known, or at least whose origins aren't traceable to a single text by an author trying to write a myth.

One of the reasons most historicists find the mythicist position implausible is the lack of parallel developments of other narratives. If some linguistic/narrative rules led the Jesus myth to evolve into the Jesus of history, one would expect to find similar examples all over the world. But you don't. Historical narratives and consciously fictitious narratives seem to keep the genre difference pretty rigorously.

Clivedurdle

They haven't - Pauline xianity - which is the Doherty Jesus group - merged with a more earth bound group - they basically only changed the location - not important.

Fiction is a modern word - they all believed in gods and the interactions of gods and humans - they also loved stories!

You are misunderstanding my position. Everyone always thought it was all real - including miracles heaven hell four angels of apocalypse etc! Please read the new testament!


We have loads of evidence! John 21, Docetism, loads of other early xian writers that do not talk of an earthly hrist, other gospels that talk of Jesus turning clay into sparrows. All of this should be treated equally.

Toto

The Jews who thought that the Messiah would be a military leader were not the founders of Christianity. So this is actually a point against an earthly Christ.

Can you give a cite for this? I don't think that is how Doherty puts it.

You are turning into a broken record. I've given my answer.

This seems to be an argument from your failure of imagination.

No we are not connecting. Where does Doherty claim this? He finds many positive indications that Paul was speaking of a spiritual being. It is the historicists who claim that everyone knew that Jesus was a person so there was no need to supply any biographical detail.

We only know about the docetists from their enemies, so there is no way their beliefs can be clear. Freke and Gandy have decided that docetists were mythicists. Doherty thinks that they were a transition between mythicism and historicism.

I notice that you have a habit of throwing ideas out before you research them. May I suggest that you do a little research before making such sweeping claims?

The "record" is the orthodox rewriting of history, which happened in the end of the second century. If you are stuck with that, there's not much to discuss, is there?

TedM

Clivedurdle, thanks for directly addressing my questions.

We don't know if they merged or not, but I'll agree it is a possibility. If that occurred what was necessary for the merge to have occurred without leaving a trace of such a merge in the manuscript evidence--or do you maintain that there is such manuscript evidence of a merge?


So you don't think they ever thought the story was not true and was really just a play created from a playwriters mind?



Same response as number 2.



Not sure I get that. To my knowledge nowhere does a record exist where a Doherty Jesus group acknowledges that a historical Jesus origins group existed or vice versa, other than in 1 John where a group that says Jesus didn't come in the flesh is mentioned. However, I think according to Doherty opposing group was denying not that Jesus had flesh on earth but that he had flesh in the other sphere, so it was not really a "historical Jesus" group. Therefore it is disqualified from this conversation.

Unless you can show that Docetism was the same as Doherty-Jesus followers, your mention of it is not applicable. Nor are writings that don't specify an earthly Christ unless they discuss the existence of opposing views (ie an earth Christ).

ted

Chris Weimer

Ha! You're learning. Well-done.