Rick Sumner

I'm not wondering why Merrit's Neurology doesn't link semantic aphasia with psychopathy (it doesn't. I checked). You are wondering why Philo doesn't mention things.

The best way to answer your questions about expectations from Philo would be to read the man. If I may paraphrase Sandmel, Philo is an apologist and a preacher. He is no historian.

If an historical Jesus existed, the NT reflects exactly the type of literature we should expect to find. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone in history are exempt from discerning the nature of content based on that.

What sets Doherty's argument apart from the usual tripe one sees among the crusading secular is that he embraces the Christian record. Rather than saying "They're biased and don't count!"--an indefensible position--Doherty says "The NT provides evidence for my position." While I'm not persuaded, there is definitely a difference, and a reason his approach is good, while most others are not.

I'm going to assume, given your postings here, that you understand why "cold fusion" is a horrible analogy to historical criticism. If I'm in error, let me know, and I'll expand accordingly.

In the 1960s there was a truly bizarre cult at a ranch in California. We know a fair bit about the cult's leader before his movement, and a great deal about what happened to him after the movement. We know very little with any measure of certainty about what happened during his ministry. This despite the fact that he is a household name: Charles Manson.

Every source we have is biased. Often considered our best source, Linda Kasabian had immunity, but no guarantee she would get custody of her children, something--by her own admission--she was conscious of throughout the trial.

Sadie Atkins testified before the grand jury, flagrantly lied, and then recanted anyway. Sandra Good is still a follower. Tex Watson found Jesus, but apparently can't remember what all happened if his book is any indication. Manson's own book is the last place anybody looks.

Our first "gospeler," Bugliosi, is subject to his own biases, and flagrantly far too trusting of Linda Kasabian. The story he ultimately pieces together is somewhere between bizarre and fantastic, though it nonetheless obviously has at least some measure of truth to it. Possibly a large measure.

At the end of the day, we can't trust anything anybody says. Every piece of evidence needs to be analyzed critically, because the lot of them are biased toward Manson, toward their own self-interest, toward a bizarre tendency to lie for lying's sake. For the icing on the cake, other interviews are with people who are mentally disabled, and still others who are barking mad.

We reconstruct leaders based on the words of their followers all the time. Often it's a necessity. I refuse to believe that Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption on this, and refuse to grant that we do not need to analyze that record by virtue of a silly allusion to Santa Claus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

dog-on

So why not Paul?

Rick Sumner

Huh?

dog-on

As founder. More a Joseph Smith then a Charles Manson.

Rick Sumner

What could possibly make you think my post had anything to do with either encouraging or precluding that idea? It has nothing to do with it.

:huh:

dog-on

I didn't say it did. I just asked you the question.

You said:

My question was simply why we should not view Paul as the founder, based on the literature we have.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Rick Sumner

You weren't unclear. It just isn't relevant to any point I'm making. My response to avi had absolutely nothing to do with who a founder was, unless you quote mine it. Your question is a non sequitur.

dog-on

As this is a Doherty thread and you have made comments like the above, I am simply asking you to support it, as I also do not believe that "Christian origins alone deserve a special exemption".

Rick Sumner

You're obviously getting confused. My comment had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed, whether Jesus was the founder of Christianity, or whether Paul moonlighted as a stripper. It had to do with whether or not we can use the Christian record to determine Christian origins. If Paul was the founder of Christianity, well, we should be able to trace that through the Christian record too.

Sorry, I'm not chasing down your pet theory right now, nothing I've said has anything to do with it.

dog-on

I am not confused. Simply answer the question implied by your last sentence. That is all I asked you...