Vorkosigan

It's not exactly what Peter and I had hoped to see, Meta. Just look at your response to the "conspiracy of silence"'

Funny that he should mention a conspiracy of silence. Because that is just what his argument rests upon. Too bad no one ever told poor Early that argument form silence is not a devastating argument but basically proves nothing. Now he says that in Christian Writings earlier than Mark the Gospel story cannot be found. Isn't that odd, since there are almost no Christian writings before Mark, funny how that works. But of course he's assuming that Mark was written very late. Skeptics on the Net usually date the Gospels in accord with 19th century scholarship which put them into the second century or at the very take end of the fist. This scheme was disprove by the findings of John Rylands Fragment (cir. 120 AD) in Egypt which contains a few verses from John. Scholars today tend to date Mark contemporaneously with Paul's latter letters. Most Scholars vie for a date of composition for Mark around 60 A.D. Paul's letters are the earliest written in the New Testament, but not all of them predate Mark.Now he argues that the Epistles do not reiterate the material of the Gospels; no story of Jesus' birth, no Mary and Joseph, ect. This is such an amateurish criticism because it fails to account for the reason of composition of the Epistles. They are not preaching. The purpose was not to tell the flock as though for the first time, that which they already knew, but to deal with practical matters of church life. Paul did not see himself as formulating doctrine or as writing scripture, he was merely answering practical questions. The last line about how perplexing the silence is is so ironic considering he is basically admitting that this is all his argument is based upon. Doherty cannot offer a reason as to why Paul should have retold the Gospel stories, and doesn't seem to be aware even that he should.

Furthermore, most of the epistles were written after or around the same time as Mark. Jude is late, the Johonnie epistles are very late, Hebrews probably around 64, the Pasteroal epistles either after 60 or not by Paul and very late in the century (if that is the case). The Majority of Scholars place Mark around AD 60. So we are only talking about a handfull of epistles anyway.Nevertheless, Paul does reiterate some of the stories of the Gospels, or at least certain information. 1 Cor. 3 he repeats what scholars have come to recognize as an early form of creedal statement. This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried. Now why buried if he was just an ethereal being and if his crucifixion was by demons in the heavenly realm? Was he buried in heavenly dirt? Clearly this implies that he was flesh and blood, that this took place in space, time and history. IN Galations Paul tells of two meetings with Peter. Once when he first went to Jerusalem and again when Peter came to visit his ministry. Peter was, therefore, a real historical person. Therefore Jesus was a real historical person, unless one wants to believe that this Peter helped make him up maliciously and than died for his fantasy after years of being dedicated to spreading it.

1) There are no references to any scholarly publications.

2) The writing shows no familiarity with recent scholarship. For example, Rylands has been redated (see Schnelle's discussion of the Gospel of John) based on affinities with Egerton that place it in the second half of the second century. Most scholars put Mark not ~60 but ~ 70.

3) There are basic logical errors (dating Rylands at 120 does not refute a late first century or early second century dating of Mark or any other gospel).

4) It contains gross errors, such as "Doherty cannot offer a reason as to why Paul should have retold the Gospel stories, and doesn't seem to be aware even that he should" but Doherty offers many instances where it seems the Gospel stories should have been told. You might not think them acceptable, but you cannot flat-out deny such offers were made.

I could go on. Suffice to say that after your grand entrance, your arguments here fall far short of even the lowest apologetic standards.

You should take a gander at Layman's article on Peter's website here. This is a well-written piece, couched in plain and easy to read style, and buttressed by appeals to scholars. Such work is helpful to one and all. Did you realize that your "answer" to Doherty cites him nowhere in those opening paragraphs, except as an unexplored quote at the top? How can you criticize someone you don't even quote?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

LOL. Great work again. What did I tell you?

Steven Carr

I shall quote what is on your web page
'This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried.'

So Paul's 'remarkable amount of Gospel information' turns out to be just one thing? Remarkable!

And you have pretty much given up even trying to defend the claim that the quoted statement tells us that Christ was crucified.

Steven Carr

I offered Metacrock the chance to explain why Paul wrote what he did, and he responded only to one of them, saying that the Gospel story of the Great Commission was mythical or false or never took place.

Is Metacrock becoming a Doherty fan? This seems to agree with Doherty's analysis that puzzles in Paul are solved by concluding that the Gospel stories are later inventions.

Steven Carr

I liked this quote of Metacrock on that page :-
'This touching is most important because he is debunking the Gnostic heresy that Jesus we not a fleshly being but an ethereal illusory being (the very theory Doherty is touting).'

So there were some early Christians who believed the very thing Doherty is claiming that some early Christians believed.

Is this really a refutation of Doherty's claims?

Metacrock

You are wrong about the JR fragment. Becasue even if it does date to the middle of the second, and I've seen that, that would have nothing to do wth Mark. Thinking in Europe today has Johan as prior and early.

Quote:

Paul's letters are the earliest written in the New Testament, but not all of them predate Mark.Now he argues that the Epistles do not reiterate the material of the Gospels; no story of Jesus' birth, no Mary and Joseph, ect. This is such an amateurish criticism because it fails to account for the reason of composition of the Epistles. They are not preaching. The purpose was not to tell the flock as though for the first time, that which they already knew, but to deal with practical matters of church life. Paul did not see himself as formulating doctrine or as writing scripture, he was merely answering practical questions. The last line about how perplexing the silence is is so ironic considering he is basically admitting that this is all his argument is based upon. Doherty cannot offer a reason as to why Paul should have retold the Gospel stories, and doesn't seem to be aware even that he should. Furthermore, most of the epistles were written after or around the same time as Mark. Jude is late, the Johonnie epistles are very late, Hebrews probably around 64, the Pasteroal epistles either after 60 or not by Paul and very late in the century (if that is the case). The Majority of Scholars place Mark around AD 60. So we are only talking about a handfull of epistles anyway.Nevertheless, Paul does reiterate some of the stories of the Gospels, or at least certain information. 1 Cor. 3 he repeats what scholars have come to recognize as an early form of creedal statement. This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried. Now why buried if he was just an ethereal being and if his crucifixion was by demons in the heavenly realm? Was he buried in heavenly dirt? Clearly this implies that he was flesh and blood, that this took place in space, time and history. IN Galations Paul tells of two meetings with Peter. Once when he first went to Jerusalem and again when Peter came to visit his ministry. Peter was, therefore, a real historical person. Therefore Jesus was a real historical person, unless one wants to believe that this Peter helped make him up maliciously and than died for his fantasy after years of being dedicated to spreading it.

None of that is wrong.

1) There are no references to any scholarly publications.



There aren't suppossed to be. I told you I wrote that in 2000 or 2001. It was meant to be a summary of a summary. That's all it is. I don't have time to get invovled in the minutia of his stuff. He's got a lot there and it's too engrossing. I put this up as a part of a larger general response to the phenonema as a whole, the phenomena of Jesus Myther thinking, as it appeared back then. It wasn't meant to be a scholarly diatribe. I didn't ask anyone to dig it up either.



Now is that a the majority opinion today? Or is that another case of one guy says it so it's true because you like it? If true it doesn't matter because the point is about Mark.

Moreover, this is not my feild. I'm an amature on this stuff. I'm in history of ideas and I study the English enlightement. This is all hobby stuff. So I'm not an expert and I'm not up to speed. Guess what? Doherty is not an expert either. He's not qualified and not respected.



Yea it does because of the 20 year rule. That's always a rule of thumb, 20 years to circulate and tavel.






Ok so what? that' something I wote in 2001. Maybe he give them in 2001? I haven't had time to update. But even so, that doesnt' mean he's doing anything more than just going "I think he could have told it here..."



(1)Are you nuts? He has no historical evdience at all for his major point.

(2) He's not even qualified

(3) He has mythology working backwards.

(4) He tries to read back into the first century a kind of neo-platonism that didn't exist until the fourth, and then he makes that into gnosticism.

(5) He takes Appollus to be author of hebrews just to get out of the clealry damaging statments in Hebrews about Jesus life on earth, but Appollus is the worst candidate. Pricillia is a better candidate.

(6) Distorts Greek words to cover up clear contradictions

(7) ignores clearly uses of Gospel stories by Paul

(8) totally ignores scholarship on Paul's use of Gnostic langaue

(9) totally ignores hebrew ideas about the resurrection and tries to pass them off as Gnostic.

I could go on but that's enough. That's totally damaging. The guy is a flake. I am not the issue here, he is. How good does my stuff have to be to show that his is wrong? All I have to do is show he's wrong, and I do that clearly.



I know how to write an essay. I don't have time to deal with it. I wasn't trying to. I never passed this off as great scholarship. Why don't you just open your eyes and look at what's there. this is how Doherty get's to be a star. When people point out how flawed his stuff is all his little groupies do is go "well you aren't offering anything that could win the noble prize." My falws do not make Doherty's stuff good!

Metacrock

We have always known that Gnostics (not christians, liars who pretended to be in the faith but weren't) claimed that Christ didn't come in the flesh. That is nothing new. If you knew anything about it, which you clearly dont'. you would know that they did not deny that a figure called "Jesus of Nazerath" was born and walked the earth and lived with humans. that is far cry from the mythological existence that Doherty and Jesus mythers claim. You are distorting the ideas because you can't handel the facts.

Metacrock

Holy sacred Doherty.

He's so brilliant, everything he says is true! Why? Becasue nothing will hurt big mean preacher man more than disproving his sacred faith. Doherty gives us the ability to pretend that Christianity is a lie, and that's too precious to let go of no matter how stupid he is! that's the only reason you are defending him.

(1) tomb was venerated from first century

(2) Other archaeological evidence indicates Jesus family in Nazerath in frist century.

(3) extra biblical writters knew major players in the drama.

(4) Only one version of the story rightr down to minute detials such as phrases like "rose on the third day."

(5) everything around Jesus was historical including the people he was suppossed to have known.

(6) the major players never change with any telling before the fourth century.

(7) no one ever questioned histrical Jesus, not even his ememies.

(8) Not evidence or any reason other than your desire to destroy christianity to even think it could be true. So no reason to consider it.

(9) HJ has historical presumption, you have not one centrilla of evidence to overturn the presumption.

(10) everything he says about the dates are wrong.

(11) 1 Clement proves that Jesus was concieved of as historical figure in 90s.

(12) Papias proves Jesus so concieved in 110-120. That's got allow travel time so we can push it back even further.

(13) the Koester stuff on pre Mark shows empty tomb and historical Jesus written sources as early as AD 50. You didn't read part 2.

Part 2 is where the scholarly sources are. You conviently forgot to read that.

Steven Carr

But it was YOU who wrote that this Gnostic idea was the very theory that Doherty is touting! I quote you - 'This touching is most important because he is debunking the Gnostic heresy that Jesus we not a fleshly being but an ethereal illusory being (the very theory Doherty is touting).''

And now you say that the very theory that Doherty is touting is a far cry from what Doherty claims!

Do you ever read what you write?

How can you say that a gnostic heresy is the very theory Doherty is touting and then say that this gnostic heresy is a far cry from what Doherty claims?

Steven Carr

What archaeological evidence places Jesu family in Nazareth in the first century?

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xti...b/silence.html has some interesting remarks on the tomb.

'James D. G. Dunn expresses this argument in these words:

Christians today of course regard the site of Jesus' tomb with similar veneration, and that practice goes back at least to the fourth century. But for the period covered by the New Testament and other earliest Christian writings there is no evidence whatsoever for Christians regarding the place where Jesus had been buried as having any special significance. No practice of tomb veneration, or even of meeting for worship at Jesus' tomb is attested for the first Christians. Had such been the practice of the first Christians, with all the significance which the very practice itself presupposes, it is hard to believe that our records of Jerusalem Christianity and of Christian visits thereto would not have mentioned or alluded to it in some way or at some point.'