Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 09-15-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Birds and demons had bodies. All things were made up of four elements: earth, water, air and fire. "Fleshly" creatures were made up of mainly earth and water; thus they were earth-bound (with even birds needing to return to earth eventually). Demons were made of air and fire, and so could float in the air. Earth-bound spirits had a little earth or water in them, which is why they hovered around grave sites. Having "earthly" thoughts (sexual, pertaining to the flesh) could also bind a spirit to earth.

How about blood? Is it significant that 1 John 5:1 says he came by water and blood?

Are you also saying above that the evidence only supports the concept of beings with flesh as being either humans on earth, or could earth-bound spirits also have flesh?

GakuseiDon · 09-15-2011, 12:30 PM

I haven't come earth-bound spirits being described as having "flesh" because their airy natures were mingled with earth and water. Tatian (below) rules out demons having flesh, claiming they were made from air alone.

Living things were made of the four elements. Flesh, for example, contained some of each element. Empedokles (450 BCE) wrote that:

Flesh is the product of equal parts of the four elements mixed together, and sinews of double portions of fire and earth mixed together, and the claws of animals are the product of sinews chilled by contact with the air, and bones of two equal parts of water and of earth and four parts of fire mingled together. And sweat and tears come from blood as it wastes away, and flows out because it has become rarefied... Sleep is a moderate cooling of the warmth in the blood, death a complete cooling.

Blood would fall into the same category as flesh: made up of heavier elements that are naturally weighed down. I'm not sure of the significance of blood in 1 John 5:1, I'm afraid.

Plutarch gives the various theories of his day with regards to how those elements 'move'. Anything made of earth and water had a natural tendency to travel in a downwards direction. Anything made of air or fire are 'carried aloft'. According to Plutarch:

Plato saith that it is neither heavy nor light in its own nature, when it exists in its own place; but being in the place where another should be, then it has an inclination by which it tends to gravity or levity.

Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light.

The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself.

Epicurus thinks that bodies are not limited; but the first bodies, which are simple bodies, and all those composed of them, all acknowledge gravity; that all atoms are moved, some perpendicularly, some obliquely; some are carried aloft either by immediate impulse or with vibrations.

Objects consisting of earth and water – including flesh – were naturally weighed down, and attracted to the earth. Things made of air and fire naturally floated.

Spiritual beings -- including daemons and disembodied souls -- were made from air or fire, which is why they could fly. As Plutarch writes:

He affirms that our soul is nothing but air; it is that which constitutes and preserves; the whole world is invested with spirit and air. For spirit and air are synonymous.

“Daemons” were beings made of fire and/or air who lived in the air as well as floating around locations on earth. They were regarded as an intermediate being between humans and the true gods above the firmament, and passed on messages from the gods to humans, and the prayers of humans to the gods. The pagan writer Apuleuis (Second Century CE) gives us this description (my emphasis):

Moreover, there are certain divine middle powers, situated in this interval of the air, between the highest ether and earth, which is in the lowest place, through whom our desires and our deserts pass to the Gods. These are called by a Greek name daemons, who, being placed between the terrestrial and celestial inhabitants, transmit prayers from the one, and gifts from the other...

Apuleius gives a description of the bodies of daemons. He writes:

But if the clouds fly loftily, all of which originate from, and again flow downward to, the earth, what should you at length think of the bodies of daemons, which are much less dense, and therefore so much more attenuated than clouds? For they are not conglobed from a feculent nebula and a tumid darkness, as the clouds are, but they consist of that most pure, liquid, and serene element of air, and on this account are not easily visible to the human eye, unless they exhibit an image of themselves by divine command.

Demons were evil 'spiritual' creatures – that is, made up of 'spiritual' elements of fire or air, weighed down by their own lusts. The Second Century Christian apologist Tatian writes:

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness.

Another Second Century apologist, Minucius Felix, writes:

The same man also declared that demons were earthly, wandering, hostile to humanity. What said Plato, who believed that it was a hard thing to find out God? Does not he also, without hesitation, tell of both angels and demons? And in his Symposium also, does not he endeavour to explain the nature of demons? For he will have it to be a substance between mortal and immortal--that is, mediate between body and spirit, compounded by mingling of earthly weight and heavenly lightness...

These impure spirits, therefore--the demons--as is shown by the Magi, by the philosophers, and by Plato, consecrated under statues and images, lurk there, and by their afflatus attain the authority as of a present deity; while in the meantime they are breathed into the prophets, while they dwell in the shrines, while sometimes they animate the fibres of the entrails, control the flights of birds, direct the lots, are the cause of oracles involved in many falsehoods.

Clement of Alexandria writes of impure spirits, weighed down by an earthly and watery nature, and condemned to flit about graves and tombs. He writes:

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?

None of them that 'sank downwards by their own weight' were described as having flesh for that reason, as far as I have read.

(Note that much of the above is from my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man". Doherty responds to some of the above here: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...esDonJNGNM.htm)

gurugeorge · 09-15-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

1. Personally, I'm not trying to figure out, at this point, whether Jesus was mythical or real, only whether Paul seems to be describing him (and by extension, thinking of him) as earthly, or in an upper realm. Robin Hood may not have existed, but he wasn't concieved of as being sub-lunar, if you see my point of enquiry.

Yes, I see what you mean. I'm more interested in the question of "WAS Christ purely mythical or a human being mythicized?". In that context, Doherty's "sublunar" interpretation of the evidence isn't the only one (although it's a damned interesting one in its own right). There are lots of possible ways of "being mythical" that involve all sorts of mixtures of "based on real person" or "totally made up", "based on mystical experience", or "urban myth" - and various ways of a myth "just growing".

But how does "Paul" conceives his cult deity? Well, he certainly conceives of him as an entity he's spoken to in visionary experience, an entity that has given him his "gospel". That much is secure. That is, in fact, the strongest positive identification we have, everything else is just vague or ambiguous.

That should be the starting point, IMHO. Where do we go from there?

I would suggest the obvious path, based on the evidence, is to view the cult as starting from mystical experience and visions. It's much more in line with how most religions we know of start, anyway.

TedM · 09-15-2011, 03:37 PM

Don,

That is a classic response. Very detailed and interesting stuff. Thanks for putting the time into it.

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I haven't come earth-bound spirits being described as having "flesh" because their airy natures were mingled with earth and water. Tatian (below) rules out demons having flesh, claiming they were made from air alone.

Living things were made of the four elements. Flesh, for example, contained some of each element. Empedokles (450 BCE) wrote that:

Flesh is the product of equal parts of the four elements mixed together, and sinews of double portions of fire and earth mixed together, and the claws of animals are the product of sinews chilled by contact with the air, and bones of two equal parts of water and of earth and four parts of fire mingled together. And sweat and tears come from blood as it wastes away, and flows out because it has become rarefied... Sleep is a moderate cooling of the warmth in the blood, death a complete cooling.

Blood would fall into the same category as flesh: made up of heavier elements that are naturally weighed down. I'm not sure of the significance of blood in 1 John 5:1, I'm afraid.

Plutarch gives the various theories of his day with regards to how those elements 'move'. Anything made of earth and water had a natural tendency to travel in a downwards direction. Anything made of air or fire are 'carried aloft'. According to Plutarch:

Plato saith that it is neither heavy nor light in its own nature, when it exists in its own place; but being in the place where another should be, then it has an inclination by which it tends to gravity or levity.

Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light.

The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself.

Epicurus thinks that bodies are not limited; but the first bodies, which are simple bodies, and all those composed of them, all acknowledge gravity; that all atoms are moved, some perpendicularly, some obliquely; some are carried aloft either by immediate impulse or with vibrations.

Objects consisting of earth and water – including flesh – were naturally weighed down, and attracted to the earth. Things made of air and fire naturally floated.

Spiritual beings -- including daemons and disembodied souls -- were made from air or fire, which is why they could fly. As Plutarch writes:

He affirms that our soul is nothing but air; it is that which constitutes and preserves; the whole world is invested with spirit and air. For spirit and air are synonymous.

“Daemons” were beings made of fire and/or air who lived in the air as well as floating around locations on earth. They were regarded as an intermediate being between humans and the true gods above the firmament, and passed on messages from the gods to humans, and the prayers of humans to the gods. The pagan writer Apuleuis (Second Century CE) gives us this description (my emphasis):

Moreover, there are certain divine middle powers, situated in this interval of the air, between the highest ether and earth, which is in the lowest place, through whom our desires and our deserts pass to the Gods. These are called by a Greek name daemons, who, being placed between the terrestrial and celestial inhabitants, transmit prayers from the one, and gifts from the other...

Apuleius gives a description of the bodies of daemons. He writes:

But if the clouds fly loftily, all of which originate from, and again flow downward to, the earth, what should you at length think of the bodies of daemons, which are much less dense, and therefore so much more attenuated than clouds? For they are not conglobed from a feculent nebula and a tumid darkness, as the clouds are, but they consist of that most pure, liquid, and serene element of air, and on this account are not easily visible to the human eye, unless they exhibit an image of themselves by divine command.

Demons were evil 'spiritual' creatures – that is, made up of 'spiritual' elements of fire or air, weighed down by their own lusts. The Second Century Christian apologist Tatian writes:

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness.

Another Second Century apologist, Minucius Felix, writes:

The same man also declared that demons were earthly, wandering, hostile to humanity. What said Plato, who believed that it was a hard thing to find out God? Does not he also, without hesitation, tell of both angels and demons? And in his Symposium also, does not he endeavour to explain the nature of demons? For he will have it to be a substance between mortal and immortal--that is, mediate between body and spirit, compounded by mingling of earthly weight and heavenly lightness...

These impure spirits, therefore--the demons--as is shown by the Magi, by the philosophers, and by Plato, consecrated under statues and images, lurk there, and by their afflatus attain the authority as of a present deity; while in the meantime they are breathed into the prophets, while they dwell in the shrines, while sometimes they animate the fibres of the entrails, control the flights of birds, direct the lots, are the cause of oracles involved in many falsehoods.

Clement of Alexandria writes of impure spirits, weighed down by an earthly and watery nature, and condemned to flit about graves and tombs. He writes:

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?

None of them that 'sank downwards by their own weight' were described as having flesh for that reason, as far as I have read.

(Note that much of the above is from my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man". Doherty responds to some of the above here: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...esDonJNGNM.htm)

Vincent Guilbaud · 09-15-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

4. Ah. 'According to 2 Enoch 7, in the second heaven there are prisoners hanging and awaiting judgment.'. And, '......the latter (upper realm) imprisons giants who are the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 who had sex with the "daughters of men." ' Interesting Don, no?

The issue here is that Enoch is referring to the Supra-lunar realm (or above the firmament; or 'the true heavens'; various terms are possible, but in short it is the domain of God).

Don, the book tells us clearly that the fourth heaven contains the course of sun and moon (chapter 11).
So, doesn't this make the first 3 layers described previously below the 'firmament'?

Can you please explain your claim that:
"Enoch is referring to the Supra-lunar realm (or above the firmament;"

Book of Enoch

Thanks

aa5874 · 09-15-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....But how does "Paul" conceives his cult deity? Well, he certainly conceives of him as an entity he's spoken to in visionary experience, an entity that has given him his "gospel". That much is secure. That is, in fact, the strongest positive identification we have, everything else is just vague or ambiguous.

That should be the starting point, IMHO. Where do we go from there?

It is rather pointless asking rhetorical questions.

The fact of the matter is that the claim of a Sub-Lunar crucifixion of Jesus is COMPLETELY unsupported by the NT Canon, the Pauline writings, or the Church.

We really have NOWHERE to go but to SOURCES of antiquity.

One cannot argue TWO contradictory positions that the Church manipulated and Interpolated the Pauline writings to make it compatible with their doctrine and that the Pauline writings are Heretical AFTER being manipulated.

Once it is CLAIMED that the Pauline writings were Manipulated, REDACTED and heavily interpolated by the Church to REFLECT NON-HERETICAL teachings then it is NOT expected that the Pauline writings would still contain the Heresy that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-lunar.

Doug Shaver · 09-16-2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, when Doherty writes the following in "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Some of these circles--though again not all--envisioned this Jesus as having undergone self-sacrifice in the supernatural world, the same realm where the activities of other savior gods of the era were now seen as having taken place. (Page 85)

Did that match with what you understood the pagans believed before you read his book? It didn't take you by surprise?

I said it was consistent. I didn't say anything about a match.

What surprised me when I first read Doherty was the extent to which, according to him, hellenistic philosophy had influenced early Christianity. I had, at that time, only the barest inkling that there was any connection at all between Christianity and pagan thought. I was vaguely aware that "logos" was some kind of Greek notion, and that was about extent of my education in such matters at that time.

Of course I knew better than to take Doherty's word for everything he said, and that is why I undertook to investigate what I could with the resources available to me. It pretty soon became apparent that, up to a point, much of what Doherty says is pretty much the mainstream consensus. Christianity actually is heavily indebted to hellenistic philosophy, which is something I didn't know before reading Doherty.

GakuseiDon · 09-16-2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, when Doherty writes the following in "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Some of these circles--though again not all--envisioned this Jesus as having undergone self-sacrifice in the supernatural world, the same realm where the activities of other savior gods of the era were now seen as having taken place. (Page 85)

Did that match with what you understood the pagans believed before you read his book? It didn't take you by surprise?

I said it was consistent. I didn't say anything about a match.

What surprised me when I first read Doherty was the extent to which, according to him, hellenistic philosophy had influenced early Christianity. I had, at that time, only the barest inkling that there was any connection at all between Christianity and pagan thought. I was vaguely aware that "logos" was some kind of Greek notion, and that was about extent of my education in such matters at that time.

Of course I knew better than to take Doherty's word for everything he said, and that is why I undertook to investigate what I could with the resources available to me. It pretty soon became apparent that, up to a point, much of what Doherty says is pretty much the mainstream consensus. Christianity actually is heavily indebted to hellenistic philosophy, which is something I didn't know before reading Doherty.

And that's fair enough. I'm less concerned with people agreeing with Doherty (Doherty isn't wrong at every point), and more that people just don't accept what he claims without researching the issues for themselves. If you've looked into Doherty's theories and found no major issues with them, then that's great.

GakuseiDon · 09-16-2011, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The issue here is that Enoch is referring to the Supra-lunar realm (or above the firmament; or 'the true heavens'; various terms are possible, but in short it is the domain of God).

Don, the book tells us clearly that the fourth heaven contains the course of sun and moon (chapter 11).
So, doesn't this make the first 3 layers described previously below the 'firmament'?

Can you please explain your claim that:
"Enoch is referring to the Supra-lunar realm (or above the firmament;"

Book of Enoch

Thanks

Hi Vincent. It's probably a question better addressed to Doherty: i.e. in the Enochian scheme, where would Satan and the demons have reign to crucify the descending Son? That's the important point of Doherty's theory, as Carrier believed as well, as indicated in Carrier's "Sublunar Incarnation Theory" section in his review of Doherty's book. Does Enoch help with this question?

archibald · 09-16-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yes, I see what you mean. I'm more interested in the question of "WAS Christ purely mythical or a human being mythicized?". In that context, Doherty's "sublunar" interpretation of the evidence isn't the only one (although it's a damned interesting one in its own right). There are lots of possible ways of "being mythical" that involve all sorts of mixtures of "based on real person" or "totally made up", "based on mystical experience", or "urban myth" - and various ways of a myth "just growing".

Yes it's damned interesting.

Dare I suggest.....as a species, with a thick brain cortex....and all our attendant capacities for imagination and narrative....do we generally prefer colourful explanations? It's as if mundane ones just aren't enough.

I will not detour into talk of UFO's or 9/11 (incidentally, did you know that 60 million copies of 'Chariots of the Gods' have been sold worldwide?) because, well, someone will take offense at the suggestion, which I only mean as a background observation. :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But how does "Paul" conceives his cult deity? Well, he certainly conceives of him as an entity he's spoken to in visionary experience, an entity that has given him his "gospel". That much is secure. That is, in fact, the strongest positive identification we have, everything else is just vague or ambiguous.

Vague, yes, but me, I don't think it's as vague and ambiguous as some others. Mainly for the reasons I listed yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

That should be the starting point, IMHO. Where do we go from there?

I would suggest the obvious path, based on the evidence, is to view the cult as starting from mystical experience and visions. It's much more in line with how most religions we know of start, anyway.

That is a very interesting comment about 'how most religions start', and I don't think it's off the mark. And could be linked, as a general observation, back to the 'powers of imagination' just above. One might even add a tendency to see ghosts. :]

Having said that, I'm not sure we would concur on what the 'evidence' is in this particular case. The text strongly suggests that this was not, in fact, the 'start'. Almost all the other evidence suggests that it was not the start. I think that is hard to get around. It can be debated, obviously, but I'm not convinced that it doesn't involve a longer series of unevidenced hoops or a more unusual set of circumstances than 'there were some followers before Paul'. It's not certain, of course.

The other thing is that there is a difference between a mystical experience of God and seeing the ghost of a prophet.

09-15-2011, 12:30 PM	#542
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	I haven't come earth-bound spirits being described as having "flesh" because their airy natures were mingled with earth and water. Tatian (below) rules out demons having flesh, claiming they were made from air alone. Living things were made of the four elements. Flesh, for example, contained some of each element. Empedokles (450 BCE) wrote that: Flesh is the product of equal parts of the four elements mixed together, and sinews of double portions of fire and earth mixed together, and the claws of animals are the product of sinews chilled by contact with the air, and bones of two equal parts of water and of earth and four parts of fire mingled together. And sweat and tears come from blood as it wastes away, and flows out because it has become rarefied... Sleep is a moderate cooling of the warmth in the blood, death a complete cooling. Blood would fall into the same category as flesh: made up of heavier elements that are naturally weighed down. I'm not sure of the significance of blood in 1 John 5:1, I'm afraid. Plutarch gives the various theories of his day with regards to how those elements 'move'. Anything made of earth and water had a natural tendency to travel in a downwards direction. Anything made of air or fire are 'carried aloft'. According to Plutarch: Plato saith that it is neither heavy nor light in its own nature, when it exists in its own place; but being in the place where another should be, then it has an inclination by which it tends to gravity or levity. Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light. The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself. Epicurus thinks that bodies are not limited; but the first bodies, which are simple bodies, and all those composed of them, all acknowledge gravity; that all atoms are moved, some perpendicularly, some obliquely; some are carried aloft either by immediate impulse or with vibrations. Objects consisting of earth and water – including flesh – were naturally weighed down, and attracted to the earth. Things made of air and fire naturally floated. Spiritual beings -- including daemons and disembodied souls -- were made from air or fire, which is why they could fly. As Plutarch writes: He affirms that our soul is nothing but air; it is that which constitutes and preserves; the whole world is invested with spirit and air. For spirit and air are synonymous. “Daemons” were beings made of fire and/or air who lived in the air as well as floating around locations on earth. They were regarded as an intermediate being between humans and the true gods above the firmament, and passed on messages from the gods to humans, and the prayers of humans to the gods. The pagan writer Apuleuis (Second Century CE) gives us this description (my emphasis): Moreover, there are certain divine middle powers, situated in this interval of the air, between the highest ether and earth, which is in the lowest place, through whom our desires and our deserts pass to the Gods. These are called by a Greek name daemons, who, being placed between the terrestrial and celestial inhabitants, transmit prayers from the one, and gifts from the other... Apuleius gives a description of the bodies of daemons. He writes: But if the clouds fly loftily, all of which originate from, and again flow downward to, the earth, what should you at length think of the bodies of daemons, which are much less dense, and therefore so much more attenuated than clouds? For they are not conglobed from a feculent nebula and a tumid darkness, as the clouds are, but they consist of that most pure, liquid, and serene element of air, and on this account are not easily visible to the human eye, unless they exhibit an image of themselves by divine command. Demons were evil 'spiritual' creatures – that is, made up of 'spiritual' elements of fire or air, weighed down by their own lusts. The Second Century Christian apologist Tatian writes: But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness. Another Second Century apologist, Minucius Felix, writes: The same man also declared that demons were earthly, wandering, hostile to humanity. What said Plato, who believed that it was a hard thing to find out God? Does not he also, without hesitation, tell of both angels and demons? And in his Symposium also, does not he endeavour to explain the nature of demons? For he will have it to be a substance between mortal and immortal--that is, mediate between body and spirit, compounded by mingling of earthly weight and heavenly lightness... These impure spirits, therefore--the demons--as is shown by the Magi, by the philosophers, and by Plato, consecrated under statues and images, lurk there, and by their afflatus attain the authority as of a present deity; while in the meantime they are breathed into the prophets, while they dwell in the shrines, while sometimes they animate the fibres of the entrails, control the flights of birds, direct the lots, are the cause of oracles involved in many falsehoods. Clement of Alexandria writes of impure spirits, weighed down by an earthly and watery nature, and condemned to flit about graves and tombs. He writes: How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms? None of them that 'sank downwards by their own weight' were described as having flesh for that reason, as far as I have read. (Note that much of the above is from my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man". Doherty responds to some of the above here: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...esDonJNGNM.htm)

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.