Toto

As I tried to explain to Jeffrey, I don't care about the sublunar fleshy realms. He may be correct, but if Doherty is wrong on this, it does not mean that there is any credible evidence that a historical Jesus existed, much less that Christianity has any historical basis.

Richard Carrier was the one who said Doherty had the best explanation. You might have to wait for his book.

My impression of your arguments is that you think that these Middle Platonists were following a logical system of thought, and that you can impose your own logic on them to decide how they would have thought on a particular matter. I think this may be a fatal flaw - I don't think that there is much logic there, or that Paul would necessarily have applied these ideas in a logical manner. It's like trying to find a logically consistent basis for current American conservatives, who are a strange blend of libertarians and Christian theocrats. Would a 40th century observer be able to explain that system of thought?

And you can't seem to discuss this without throwing out some insult to someone.

You can email your criticisms directly to Carrier.

I sense your frustration. You think this is an important question. But I don't know of any mythicists who would change their religious orientation if it were finally shown that a historical Jesus existed.

GakuseiDon

Then let me ask you, have you seen anything in Middle Platonist writings consistent with how Doherty portrays Paul's Christ, e.g. "crucifixion in a fleshly sublunar realm"?

GakuseiDon

Agreed.

I looking forward to it.

No, though that is what Doherty continually accuses me of whenever we try to discuss beliefs back then. If you could quote me where I've done that, I'd appreciate it since I agree that's wrong. I definitely agree that it doesn't have to make sense to US, but it should make sense to THEM. The issue is trying to determine what actually did make sense to them. I agree it's difficult, but I don't think it is impossible. That's one reason why trying to find evidence from primary sources is so important. What other option do we have?

:huh:

Toto

But isn't that what you do when you say This implies that Middle Platonists made those sorts of distinctions consistently and had some fixed idea of location comparable to our idea of latitude and longitude, where things can't be in two places at once.

But, here's a sampling of that strange worldview:So you want to know where a Middle Platonist would think that Jesus lived? Maybe driving a chariot around the heavens, but allegorically walking around the Sea of Galilee? Or would that be vice versa? Who knows?

GakuseiDon

I'm asking, in this case. Doherty is making claims about Middle Platonism. Are his views supportable? Saying "who knows?" may be an appropriate answer, but hardly provides support for Doherty. Many people think that Doherty DOES have support for his views, just as some think that Acharya does, and some think that Freke & Gandy do (these are not meant to be inflammatory comments, btw, but an analogy that I hope makes an important point). If people knew that "who knows?" was the best answer to the question of "Is Doherty correct?" then they might take his speculation with a grain of salt a little more.

It's a good question, but probably better addressed to Doherty.

Toto

I sense a basic failure to communicate here. I did not intent to provide direct support for Doherty. I wanted to question your assurance that you understood Middle Platonic thinking so well that you could show that Doherty's interpretation was so obviously wrong.

My "who knows" was meant to apply to anyone, including the Middle Platonists - the implication was that their thinking was so muddled that even they might not have been able to answer the question.

The only point it makes is that you want to associate Doherty with with people who are not taken seriously here. What was that point? Why not say it directly?

Why do you think that people do not take his speculation with a grain of salt? Especially since this is an inherently speculative field, is it not? I don't know anyone who treats Doherty as a god or a guru.

GakuseiDon

Well then, do we know whether there is evidence that they thought what Doherty claims they thought?

The point that there are people who believe that Doherty's theory about what pagans believed about "sublunar realms where the gods carried out their myths" is supported from evidence, whereas in fact it isn't. I draw the parallel that some people believe that Freke&Gandy have evidence to support their "Osiris-Dionysus crucified", but they don't. Is that parallel reasonable, IYO?

Some treat him as though he has already established that pagans thought the way he claims they thought. Paul and early Christian writings are viewed through that lens. I'm claiming that Doherty needs to establish that pagans thought that way in the first place. AFTER that we can look at Paul.

Toto

It's a matter of interpretation - we can't read their minds, we can only read what they wrote, and wonder what drugs they were on.

No, it is not. Please stop it.

Freke and Gandy in effect are passing on what might be viewed as urban legends - 19th century ideas about ancient mythology that might not stand up to scrutiny, or might stand up only if you adopt a certain mentality and redefine words. Doherty has proposed a thesis and written a book about it and presented his evidence. You don't find the evidence persuasive and others do. The two situations are very different.

Who exactly? Why don't you argue with them specifically?

andrewcriddle

Middle Platonism is a strange world view from a modern standpoint but IMO the passages about Plutarch and Albinus exaggerate the strangeness. (The Numenius passage seems straightforward.)

Plutarch is putting forward a cosmology in which the Universe is the result of the interaction of a principle of Order and a principle of Chaos. One could rewrite this in a way that seems quite modern. (Call the principle of Chaos entropy and the principle of Order something like the unified field equation.) What makes Plutarch seem weird is his sugestion that the myth of Isis and Osiris is not really a lurid story of family life among Egyptian Gods, but is actually an allegory about Plutarch's cosmological theories. This seems weird and may be deeply misguided, but Plutarch represents a tradition in which lurid stories about the Gods must really mean something edifying, no matter how much re-interpretation is required.

Albinus is talking about what modern spiritualists/occultists call an astral body but as a good Platonist is influenced by Plato's imagery of the chariot. IE from a modern point of view his actual ideas are distorted by the need to claim that Plato really said the same thing.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

I'm honestly not trying to cheese you off, but the situations are the same, I'm afraid, except that Doherty IS the 19th C equivalent, where his theory "the pagans thought their gods' myths played out in a sublunar realm" is the urban myth. People read his book and are convinced that that urban myth is actually true. Why? Because of the evidence? Here is an unpleasant truth: Doherty doesn't present any evidence for this. Read his book. Ignore his comments about Paul and early Christian writings, and concentrate on his evidence from pagan writings. You'll be shocked by how little evidence he produces, and even that little offers no direct support for that idea.

Where did the idea that pagans thought like that come from? Did ANYONE think it before Doherty? (I think Doherty said that he got it from some early 20th C mythicist, but not sure of the details) Did Christians wipe out all references to this from pagan writings as well?

I have, up until recently. But it has no more effect usually on such people than trying to get Acharya supporters to look into her claims of a crucified Krishna. Usually the response is "Read his book" or "He has presented that evidence. You just don't find it persuasive". I will start one final thread on Doherty on this board, and then I think it will be enough.