Solo

So IIUC, if Ted says Paul attributes the crucifixion of Christ to lack of wisdom (such as he and his pneumatics possess by God's grace) then the fact Paul does not clearly spell out that such wisdom may be available also to demons outside of human agents, can be seen as Teds arguing from silence. If Ted fails to read into the text something that you cannot demonstrate as being there, he is simply silent about it. But that's an absurd way to argue, Earl. Demonstrably absurd !

The fact of the matter is that the archontes in 1 Cr 2:8 cannot stand for 'demon spirits' outside of humans, because the cognitive and grammatical structure implies either volition or fate, by which one accepts or receives wisdom. But demonic spirits cannot do either. They can be expelled but they cannot convert into something else than that which they are by definition: malevolent, destructive entities. Paul might have as well written: 'if demons weren't demons they would not have molested my theological abstract'. But my point is, he didn't.

I don't think this will pass even among your admirers after what you have just shown here.


For you, maybe. I don't have any problem ignoring idiots whenever I damn please.

Jiri

Solitary Man

Are you unable to use ancient genre? What was the reception history of the texts? Where are the earliest examples of this text located?

Amaleq13

I think you'll have to ask the possessor of the alleged power.

It was not clear that such information is necessary for the alleged power to work but the assertion appeared to indicate nothing else was needed.

TedM

What the followers of Doherty may not have considered is that virtually ALL of his interpretations of Paul's references to Jesus' life (ie from birth to death) are arguments from silence. That is, Paul is silent with regard to explaining either in the verse itself or the surrounding context the kind of life Doherty says Jesus had: One in a parallel universe in the skies!

Here are the verses I'm referring to that one reasonable would assume are referring to a human being who had lived and walked this earth. No one in their right mind would reasonably expect Paul to explain that when he says Jesus was a man, was descended from David, had a body, was crucified that he was talking about a real human being who had lived on earth: It would understandably be assumed by the reader. A "non-standard" interpretation however, would beg a clarification SOMEWHERE, would it not? Yet, none is given. Doherty explained that to me once by saying that his readers all would have understood the location and allegories he used. Well, with that kind of logic one could come up with ANY theory about Jesus: One could say that Paul's Jesus lived in the collective subconscious minds of true prophets during the Babylonian exile or some such thing!

These verses, and the surrounding contexts are all silent with regard to Paul's type and location of Jesus' "life":


PAUL:

Romans, 16 chapters

* Was a direct descendent of King David, and his father Jesse. 1:3,15:12
* Was in the flesh 1:3,8:3, 9:4-5a
* Shed his blood 3:25, 5:9
* Was put to death 4:25
* Was a man 5:15, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19
* His death was an act of righteousness 5:18
* Was buried 6:4
* Was crucified 6:6
* Had a body 7:4
* Suffered 8:17
* Was of the Jewish race 9:5
* Was a stumbling block to Jews 9:33 Gal 5:11 says the stumbling block is the cross
* The stumbling took place in Zion (Jerusalem) 9:33
* He will come from Zion (Jerusalem) as a deliverer 11:26
* Somehow persuaded Paul that thoughts make things unclean 14:4 possible teaching of Jesus}
* Did not live to please himself, reproached by man 15:3
* Became a servant to the Jews 15:8
* He died. 16 additional verses



1 Corinthians, 16 chapters

* Was crucified 1:13,23, 2:2, 2:8
* Is associated with a cross 1:17,18
* Was crucified according to the flesh by rulers (almost for certain speaking about men) of Paul's age (time) 2:8,
* His death was a "paschal lamb" sacrifice, implying that it happened during Passover Celebration. 5:7
* He expressly forbid divorce. (if Lord applies to him) 7:10
* He had brothers 9:5
* He commanded that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (if Lord applies) 9:14
* He initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup, in the same way as presented in the gospels This is my body which is broken for you.etc. 11:23
* Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. 11:23
* He had a body with blood 11:24,27
* Jesus was buried. 15:4
* He was a man 15:20-21, 15:45, 47,47,49
* He died. 5 additional verses


2 Corinthians, 13 chapters
* He suffered 1:5
* He was sinless 5:21
* He became poor 8:9
* He was meek and gentle 10:1
* He was crucified. 13:4
* He died. 3 additional verses


Galations, 6 chapters
* He had a brother named James, who later became a pillar in the early church. (if Lord applies to him) 1:19
* He was crucified 2:20, 3:1
* He died 2:21
* He fulfilled the OT curse of those hung on a tree 3:13
* He was born in human fashion of a woman 4:4
* He was a Jew 4:4
* He referred to God as his Father using the term "abba". 4:6
* Is associated with a cross 5:11, 6:12,14


Philippians, 4 chapters
* He was in figure as a man, in human form 2:7,8
* He humbled himself 2:8
* He was obedient 2:8
* He died on a cross 2:8
* He suffered 3:10
* He died 3:10


1 Thess, 5 chapters
* Jewish authorities were responsible for Jesus' death. 2:15
* He taught about the end-time. (if Lord applies to him) 4:15
* He died. 3 additional verses


Colossians, 4 chapters
* His blood associated with the cross 1:20
* His body of flesh died 1:22
* In his body dwells deity 2:9
* Nailing associated with the cross 2:14
* He died. 2 additional references


ted

Gamera

Dear Solo,

No need for divination, just context.

Text 2:
"Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Barbara Goldsmith.

By the way, Goldsmith is a journalist, not a professional historian, which is why her social histories are filled with these kinds of journalistic descriptions and mind reading ("she felt the beginning of exaltation"). As she says in her introduction, she's more interested in the psychology of the people (i.e., their interpretation of events) than in the events, which is why her primary sources ar diaries and letters and recorded conversations (all of which may totally misrepresent actual events!)

Thus the book is in the genre of popular history or "social history." It is not a scholarly work, but a work of cultural interpretation/criticism, which takes historical events and personages as a spring board to discuss broader issues. While such works are interesting for the issues addressed, they aren't the best source of historical knowledge, but rather are explicitly historical interpretation.

Text 1:

I don't have enough of Text 1 to offer an opinion. Generally, before reading a text, you know the context (or you wouldn't read it), like who purportedly wrote it, and when, and for what audience. The signifiers of genre may be as straighforward as how long is it, what's it called, where you would buy it; or as complex as the style of rhetoric used.

So your attempt to take a passage out of context only shows the strength of my position that normally, you can tell historical fiction from history or other genres in a page or two, since holding the volume in my hand, I would have the context.

Solitary Man

That's a load of crap.

Toto

Gamera - didn't you mean, no need for divination, just Google?

And didn't you just move the goalposts?

We are talking about the gospels, and we don't know who wrote them or the context, or any of those other clues about what they were. We don't know the intended audience. But you were sure that you could tell whether they were history or fake history just by reading.

But, however much you diss her, if we had a journalistic account of a quality comparable to Barbara Goldsmith's for first century Palestine, historians would be way ahead of the game.

Gamera

Since I've totally rebutted your claim, you are reduced to straw men.

My position is that you can tell the genre is a page or two. You seem to have now conceded that fact, and have shifted the dicussion to a separate topic: knowing the genre, can you tell the historicy of the persons appearing in the genre.

I've already given the answer to that, but it seems to have gone over your head. There is no historicity to the characters in historical fiction. None. Zilch. Again, my advice to you is not to seek historicity in nonhistorical texts. It's the biggest mistake you can made.

Historicity is a concept that results from the relationship between readers and certain texts (i.e., historical texts). There is NO historicity to characters in nonhistorical texts.

I think your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you think historicity is some relationship between persons living and persons dead. It isn't. It's a relationship between readers and texts. Period

Ben C Smith

I had the same trouble, Gamera. A phrase search on Google (along with the sledgehammer hint supplied by Jiri not to include proper names in the search) revealed the identity of text 2 without difficulty. Text 1 must not be online anywhere (or anywhere that Google indexes... which is almost everywhere).

But... I am confused. Your previous discussions of identifying genre had nothing to say about the context outside the book itself. I doubt very many here would have much trouble distinguishing history from historical fiction if he or she were allowed to glance at which section of the bookstore or library the book came from. The words A Novel under the main title would be a dead giveaway. And knowing that the author is a heavy hitter in some history department might offer a clue, too.

This may be too modest a claim. If you have the kind of context you mentioned (author, where you bought the book, title), it may well be possible to guess the genre in zero pages. In fact, if the first page can be as ambiguous as text 1 was (to both of us), what good is looking to the first page at all?

Finally, if Jiri taking a passage out of context and all of us being unable to determine the exact genre shows the strength of your position, what would us being able to guess the genre instantly have done? Surely both contingencies, being opposites, would not strengthen your position. Would they?

Ben.

Solitary Man

To be clear, I'm talking about what everyone assumed to be Gamera's position (whether it was or not, I don't know), not your reaction to it.