Ted Hoffman

Vinnie's post was very commendable and I think he deserves a substantive response - which I will not provide at this moment. I suffered lack of connection for most of the day yesterday and have been unable to respond meaningfully.

I want to use this thread to address issues that were raised. As a myther, its important for me to see to it that those challenging the christ myth hypothesis have their arguments addressed.

GakuseiDon and Layman,
I had earlier posted:
And you responded that my statements were incorrect.
The above was clearly a mistake on my part. It was meant to read that the apologists who existed before Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen fail to mention a HJ in their defenses of Xstianity to the pagan - except for Justin Martyr
the apologists I had in mind (those who didnt mention a HJ) were the ones I listed in my next paragraph:
Either way, I accept the correction.
But my arguments regarding Marcion rejecting a HJ still stands. A docetic Jesus and a mythical Jesus, are, in principle, the same animal.

Just remember: Jesus Mythicism argues that Jesus never existed as a flesh and blood man but as a mythical being. My argument was that a HJ was never mentioned by the early apologists. My mea culpa is an admission that the early apologists mentioned him, that they mentioned him does not prove that a HJ existed. They were not eyewitnesses and their beliefs have no probative value about the existence or non-existence of Jesus.

I wanted to be clear about that because I can see there are chances issues could get mixed up and posters might think my mistake has impacted on MJ hypothesis. It has not.

There is still NO EVIDENCE that a HJ existed.

These are the issues HJ proponents must face
Is it Layman's argument that the place where Paul had an epiphany should be venerated? - by who? by Paul or by Paul-worshippers?
Are you arguing that Paul's individual experiences and the events surrounding Paul's life are of equal importance to Jesus' experiences?
Was Paul a saviour figure? Was he regarded as a messiah? Was Paul the son of God? Was Paul's second return expected?
The idea is diametrically absurd. Paul, and the significance of events surrounding Paul are not comparable to those of Jesus.

Because Paul was just a channel. Where Paul was or what Paul was is irrelevant because visions are not locale-dependent. They dont take place on a rock but in the head. This is unlike crucifiction, birth, death and burial.
More importantly, all glory was to Jesus.
He was a spirit. Human flesh is not spirit. A Jesus who is a spirit is consistent with MJ.

Which controversy? Between the Orthodox christian church (communities) and Marcionism?
What controversy does the term "Marcionite controversy" generally refer to?

I will not argue midrash. This post, in my considered judgement, is posted without much thought. Instead of ignoring it completely, for his effort, I will award the_cave some marks: 1/10. The grade is F.

They still had nothing to venerate.

Who made this argument? - " in the Christian corpus of the first century"?

I have addressed this statement before. The differences are not an explanation. HJers offer the differences as an explanation.

And the fact that there is veneration later simply tells me that there is veneration later - right? Darn, why didn't Fredricksen see this brilliant point? How dare she use it as an explanation as to why there was no veneration earlier!

Vinnie, that was a great post. Since its directed to Doherty, I will let him respond.

*suggestion to the mods
At least for this thread, I suggest you simply delete posts that may derail the thread. Anyone dissatisfied can complain at the complaints and bugs forum.

Layman

Are you saying you typed in the wrong names or are you saying you did not know any better at the time? You clung rather desparately to your original statement so I'm assuming it was the latter.

It appears that there are huge holes not only in your knowledge of early Christianity, but in your purported understanding of Doherty's own theories.

They are nothing of the sort. Marcion believed Jesus existed here on earth. He believed he did miracles. That he taught. That he walked around and interacted with people. In other words, he believes in a historical person named Jesus who did most of the things the Gospels say he did. That he thought Jesus was made out of some other stuff does not make him a Jesus Myther.


I'm afraid you are missing the point. Doherty does not just say Jesus did not exist. He says that Christianity started out with specific beliefs about a spirit being who descended into the lower celestial realm to do things that sounded like he was a person. If there is insufficiecnt reason to believe that, the Jesus Myth fails--whether or not Jesus existed is a actually a separate question.

That is funny. It was a very important issue when you posted about it. Now that you know you were in error it's irrelevant? I'm skeptical.

This is question begging.

By Jesus worshippers. Would they not venerate the places that God himself revealed his ultimate salvation plan? The place that the few, the proud, the apostles, were contacted by God in their visionary experiences?

According to the JM, Jesus had no experiences. At least not on earth. But he was revealed by God to Paul and a few select others. Surely the place of the greatest revelation ever, greater even than at Mt. Siani, would be worthy of veneration?

They would not be worshipping Paul, but Jesus and/or God.

Not Paul. Jesus and God. Those were the places chosen by God to reveal his ultimate salvation plan. Surely this is at least as signficant as God revealing the Ten Commandents? More so in their mind? Surely they would at least venerate such places of glorious revelation? God himself chose these places, afterall.

It's not about Paul, per se, it's about Jesus and God's only point of contact with the early Church. Catholics gather to venerate several places where people have visions of the virgin Mary? Visions no one else can see many times. Obviously this is an individual "visionary revelation" (as Doherty calls it)? Such places are deemed worthy of veneration now. Why not then?

Or is God less important than Mary?

Read this to get a better understanding of the Marcionite controversy:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/marcion.html

The orthodox church argued long, often, and hard with Marcion. But ignored those who even more radically departed from their faith?

Seems unbelieveable.

Ignatius had nothing to venerate? Tertullian did not? Origen could not have? Why no mention of it by Clement of Alexandria? These guys--as you now admit--believed in the HJ yet are completely unconcerned with veneration or relics. Why?

Ted Hoffman

Layman,
You thinking I know nothing is not news. If I recall correctly, you have repeated that mantra 50 times now. It speaks more about yourself, and about the issues that you deem important, than about the subject at hand.

About Marcion, there is nothing to add if you think historical people can be made out of some other stuff than flesh and blood.


The spirit that descended was mythical. The descent mythical. The death and suffering as salvific acts were mythical. A spiritual being is non-actual - thus mythical.

You can fail to believe in the Platonic cosmogony. Christ Logos does not necessarily entail a Platonic cosmogony. In fact, the cosmogony is quite superfluous - its just important when drawing parallels with other mythical gods like Attis and for providing a complete picture of the mechanism of death and resurrection of the gods - in the Platonic mind set.

One can actually argue, contrary to your statements, that the non-existence of a Historical Jesus is a very strong pillar for the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

Thats what you thought. And thats why I wanted to alert you about it.
God worked through the son. The son was the word made flesh.

Thats right. Thats why there is no tomb, no Jerusalem, no Mary etc until scenes, a birth place and places are invented later.

Why? I don't recall any Mount Sinai incident in the fabricated life of the HJ.

To bring in Catholics is to open a can of worms. Bottom line is that what would be venerated would be what happened to Jesus - who, by many Christians, is still regarded to have been God in the likeness of man.

Good question. I could ask you the same question.

rlogan

I want to try one more time to make clear that Doherty does not have a monopoly on "the" mythicist school. Here is a piece in our library, for example:

The Truth About Jesus: Is He A Myth? by M. M. Mangasarian (1909)

In that piece, the basic idea is that religion is a child's story and that science is the province of men. Any event that cannot be true scientifically is a myth.

So layman with respect to your comment above that Jesus' appeared in front of Paul - that would be bullshit in this "myth" approach. Not this metaphysical business - just pure tripe.

In this piece, he introduces Moses as a person who made up bullshit about talking to God in order to control his people. Now there's an approach that makes perfect sense to me.

Tertullian can put forth an academic paper arguing for the "Christ" without believing a word of it, but rather needing a consolidation of the religious movement for other purposes.

I have stressed numerous times all the fraud and deceit in the Catholic church for exactly that - power, control, wealth - nothing at all to do with the supposed message of Jesus.

I see this element lacking in any discussion of the "myth" approach here. By what logic of human nature are we asserting that these people are free from ordinary human motivations such as greed, envy, lust, etc. Special pleading. The altruistic goody-goody apostles and Church fathers.

I think one can criticize Doherty for not stating the obvious - that much of the gospel accounts were myths with a cunning design, not a metaphysical backing. Deceit.

So when you come back to this veneration thing that is another reason for someone like Paul the obscure not to "venerate" any particular place or thing. He had no veneration, period.

So "myth" should not be construed as to mean some narrowly defined set of motivations or interpretations. It's a story. Might even have an element or two that is true. But the Doherty vision, or your interpretations of his vision are not "the" myth school.

There are numerous publications from more than 100 years ago with this general belief. There were Jews at the time of Christ that had this view. They eyed with disdain this group of interloping blasphemers. They were not adherents of Doherty. The arguments they put forth have nothing to do with Doherty. Doherty does not take their stance in his view.

So the "JM" is a far broader school than Doherty's and criticisms that exclusively rely on a narrow "JM" brand are not falsifications of "myth".

What falsifies "myth"? Positive evidence.

GakuseiDon

The only difference is that a Marcion's Jesus actually walked the Earth. He was physical being, like the angels that met Lot in the OT. Those angels had bodies, just not human ones. Do you see the difference? Marcion believed in a HJ, but just not a human one.

OK, let's look at them.

Theophilus:

You said, "[Theophilus] ridicules pagans for believing dead men could resurrect". Well... no. From this link, you can see he is ridiculing pagans for not believing!:
Athenagoras:

True, he doesn't mention the names Jesus or Christ at all. But aren't you saying there was a MJ? So why isn't this just as much a problem for mythicists as it is for historicists?

Epistle to Diognetus:

The Epistle to Diogentus doesn't mention the names "Jesus" or "Christ". But you can see in this link that he places the Son of God on Earth amongst men, and not in a lower celestial plane:
Tatian:

This is the most interesting of all! As you say, Tatian doesn't mention Jesus or Christ. But, as you also say, Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr, who DID believe in a HJ! So we have someone exposed to the beliefs of a HJ, but doesn't mention the names "Jesus" or "Christ". Unless Tatian became a mythicist (but even then, why no mention of the names), this gives strength to the notion that the apologists of the day were more interested in pushing the philosophical aspects, i.e. the so-called "embarrassment" scenario. I'll be interested in your thoughts on this.

GakuseiDon

All may be true, rlogan, but note that this thread *is* about Doherty's theory. Some of the issues you've brought up are off-thread, and would cloud the issues that we are addressing. Perhaps you could start a new thread on those subjects?

rlogan

On the contrary, GD - I understand what you mean. I am actually saying that the Doherty work is lacking in this respect. It is a critique of Doherty, although I have directed the attention to the evil one.

He should not have such a narrow definition of "Myth", especially in light of the fact that this "school" has been around for not one century or two centuries - but quite literally for thousands of years.

Thus, in my view the Doherty work can be improved as a representative of the "myth" school not by offering just one narrow "myth" view - but by allowing for alternative scenarios that are also precisely compatable with "myth".

I have seen it argued elsewhere for example on a recent thread that the "one-state/one religion" approach of the roman government would be a tool to quash Jewish isolationism and individuality. (Just an example of alternative motive by religious leaders other than purity and charity).

However - since you have expressed the concern, I'll defer.

CJD

It is no small point; in fact, it is a perfect example of how historiography is treated at times by folks like Jacob Aliet, that is, lightly, and with little discernment.

Marcion, as has been stated, believed in a docetic Christ. He denied the physical birth of Jesus, but argues that he descended as an adult from heaven. So much for your Marcion-mythicist, Jacob. Further, the docetic Christ was the chief Aeon (or that which emanated as personified attributes from the Supreme Being or "Abyss"). As such, this Christ Jesus only appeared to be human, but in reality he was wholly spirit (again, so much for your myth). This wholly spirit Christ came to deliver the spirit of humankind that was imprisoned by the flesh (how can human flesh imprison a myth?). Thus redemption was equated solely with liberation of the spirit. Redemption comes, so Marcion, through a mystical experience, or gnosis. Keep in mind that his shortened N.T. included the gospel of Luke (save the birth narrative). The very real actions of a very real spirit (phantom) on earth was what Marcion believed about the Christ.

You stand corrected.

Regards,

CJD

Layman

Actually, the fact that you have proved me correct with such a huge blunder proves me correct. I am exonerated of false accusations!

I thought you said that you wanted to meet challenges to the Jesus Myth head on? Marcion believed Jesus existed here on earth. He had a ministry. He said hello to people. He taught. He did miracles. This is completely inconsistent with the Jesus Myth idea.

The issue is NOT whether Jacob Aliet believes that spiritual beings can be non-actual. The point is that Marcion believed that a spiritual being was actual and existed on earth and did the things Jesus was said to have done.

How much studying have you done on Platonic cosmogony? Other than Doherty I mean?

The point is that Doherty does NOT just assume an absence of evidence proves Jesus did not exist. He argues that affirmative evidence of early Christian belief proves the early Christians did not believe Jesus existed. To his credit, he lays out a case. That case is subject to criticism. I have no doubt that as the responses grow and get discussed, that Jesus Mythers will have to move on to some new theory.

Bottom line. You thought it important enough to write one of your more coherent posts. To keep on defending. Now that you know I was right it's not important to you.

This hardly responds to my point, which is that there was something very special about those places that God revealed his Son. Yet no one seems to care.

I think we are all familiar with the JM by now.

Are you trying to understand my points? Just as Mt. Sinai was a place of God's revelation, so too were the places were God revealed his Son to the apostles. Places of God's holy revelation should have been venerated according to the JM. Yet even the JM fails to explain its own lack of veneration.

Why would not the place and occasions of God's special revelation of his Son to the Apostles not be considered special?

Or you could ANSWER the question and then ask me the same question. What is your answer?

My answer is that belief in a historical Jesus is not necessarily synonymous with interest in relics and site veneration. The evidence is simply overwhelming that many many Christians who JMers and HJers agree affirmed belief in a HJ were not interested in such things. Or at least left behind no evidence of such interest.

Layman

Ah, the retreat from Doherty begins. That didn't take long.