FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-27-2006, 05:08 AM   #101
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Does this help?

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Thr...edUniverse.htm

Now, where was God, the angels and satan in this?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 07:02 AM   #102
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
How would someone rebut Doherty, IYO?
An effective rebuttal would demonstrate:

1. At least one of the alleged facts on which his argument depends is not actually true;
2. He has omitted from his analysis a crucial fact that is inconsistent with his conclusion; or
3. His argument is fallacious.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 06:57 PM   #103
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
An effective rebuttal would demonstrate:

1. At least one of the alleged facts on which his argument depends is not actually true;
While I agree with the following two consequential items,
IMO the term "alleged" or "purported" facts, in the first
place need expanding, so as to be thorough. I have
accordingly renumbered the final two items ...

I perceive the need to separately address those things
which are presented as "purported facts" from those
things which are presented in the structure of the
argument, as postulates, unexamined or otherwise.

Examples of these postulates include the following,
some of which may be applicable in specific theories
(whether they are HJ or MJ) others more general ...

ia) Epicenter: the existence of an HJ is viewed as an unexamined postulate.
ib) Epicenter: the existence of an HP is viewed as an unexamined postulate.
ii) Source Language: that the New Testament was written in Greek
iii) Apostlic lineage: that apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
iv) Transmission: that the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
v) Eusebius: that the historiology written c.314-324 is true and correct

Therefore, I'd refine your original series as follows:


1. At least one of the postulates
on which his argument depends
is not actually true.

2. At least one of the alleged [historical] facts
on which his argument depends is not actually true

Quote:
3. He has omitted from his analysis a crucial fact
that is inconsistent with his conclusion; or

4. His argument is fallacious.

Is this a reasonable refinement?
mountainman is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 12:12 AM   #104
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Is this a reasonable refinement?
In another context, it could be. For the present discussion, I think it is an unnecessary complexification.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 12:51 AM   #105
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
An effective rebuttal would demonstrate:

1. At least one of the alleged facts on which his argument depends is not actually true;
2. He has omitted from his analysis a crucial fact that is inconsistent with his conclusion; or
3. His argument is fallacious.
For (1), examples include:
* Usage of "born of a woman" (lots of examples where it applies to mortals, no examples where it applies to non-mortals)
* Usage of "born a little lower than the angels (one example applying to mankind, no examples where it applies to non-mortals)
* Justin Martyr's Trypho declaring that the Christ had not come
* Tatian as a non-HJ writer
* His comment that there was a “telling silence on the reputed founder” of Christianity in the second century
* The "kata sarka" debate (though I wasn't involved in this myself since I don't have the knowledge to do so)

For (2), I can think of several examples:
* his lack of analysis of the Jewish literature of the time for comparisons to Paul's Jesus (e.g. Philo's Moses)
* his lack of analysis of the Christian literature of the time for comparisons to the silence in Paul (the "silence" can be found over the first 3 or 4 centuries, well beyond the time that the gospels were known)

For (3), well, that is part of this thread. Doherty has said things like there was a sublunar realm where savior gods like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated; also that his own ideas about early Christianity "makes a good fit with the philosophy and cosmology of the time, and is supported by close parallels with mystery cult mythology". I would say that he is wrong about these things. But even if I'm right, maybe they aren't crucial to his thesis? Maybe early Christianity was unique in its views? If so, then Doherty's comments can't be falsified, thus it can't be said that it isn't true.

These are just off the top of my head.

Are any of these crucial to Doherty's argument? If not, can you tell me which facts are crucial to his argument?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 01:27 AM   #106
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Tatian is rather an odd bod to reference in this context! From the Catholic Encyclopedia

It is sed about Tatian

Seems a trifle contrary.
I think those relate to his Gnostic-type views from after he became a heretic. But they aren't related to the argument I'm making -- that Tatian and M. Felix attack on the Roman gods is a good indicator of what the Romans themselves believed, and it just didn't appear to include a belief that the pagan god myths were carried out in a sublunar realm.

Other apologists wrote similarly. Here is Tertullian:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian01.html

We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say, They are gods.

We protest and appeal from yourselves to your knowledge; let that judge us; let that condemn us, if it can deny that all these gods of yours were but men.

If even it venture to deny that, it will be confuted by its own books of antiquities, from which it has got its information about them, bearing witness to this day, as they plainly do, both of the cities in which they were born, and the countries in which they have left traces of their exploits, as well as where also they are proved to have been buried. Shall I now, therefore, go over them one by one, so numerous and so various, new and old, barbarian, Grecian,Roman, foreign, captive and adopted, private and common, male and female, rural and urban, naval and military? It were useless even to hunt out all their names: so I may content myself with a compend; and this not for your information, but that you may have what you know brought to your recollection, for undoubtedly you act as if you had forgotten all about them. No one of your gods is earlier than Saturn: from him you trace all your deities, even those of higher rank and better known. What, then, can be proved of the first, will apply to those that follow. So far, then, as books give us information, neither the Greek Diodorus or Thallus, neither Cassius Severus or Cornelius Nepos, nor any writer upon sacred antiquities, have ventured to say that Saturn was any but a man: so far as the question depends on facts, I find none more trustworthy than those 27--that in Italy itself we have the country in which, after many expeditions, and after having partaken of Attic hospitalities, Saturn settled, obtaining cordial welcome from Janus, or, as the Salii will have it, Janis. The mountain on which he dwelt was called Saturnius; the city he founded is called Saturnia to this day; last of all, the whole of Italy, after having borne the name of Oenotria, was called Saturnia from him. He first gave you the art of writing, and a stamped coinage, and thence it is he presides over the public treasury. But if Saturn were a man, he had undoubtedly a human origin; and having a human origin, he was not the offspring of heaven and earth. As his parents were unknown, it was not unnatural that he should be spoken of as the son of those elements from which we might all seem to spring. For who does not speak of heaven and earth as father and mother, in a sort of way of veneration and honour? or from the custom which prevails among us of saying that persons of whom we have no knowledge, or who make a sudden appearance, have fallen from the skies? In this way it came about that Saturn, everywhere a sudden and unlooked-for guest, got everywhere the name of the Heaven-born. or even the common folk call persons whose stock is unknown, sons of earth. I say nothing of how men in these rude times were wont to act, when they were impressed by the look of any stranger happening to appear among them, as though it were divine, since even at this day men of culture make gods of those whom, a day or two before, they acknowledged to be dead men by their public mourning for them. Let these notices of Saturn, brief as they are, suffice. It will thus also be proved that Jupiter is as certainly a man, as from a man he sprung; and that one after another the whole swarm is mortal like the primal stock.

CHAP. XI.

And since, as you dare not deny that these deities of yours once were men, you have taken it on you to assert that they were made gods after their decease, let us consider what necessity there was for this. In the first place, you must concede the existence of one higher God--a certain wholesale dealer in divinity, who has made gods of men. For they could neither have assumed a divinity which was not theirs, nor could any but one himself possessing it have conferred it on them. If there was no one to make gods, it is vain to, dream of gods being made when thus you have no god-maker. Most certainly, if they could have deified themselves, with a higher state at their command, they never would have been men.
Tertullian doesn't even hint here that the myths took place in a sublunar realm. Did people die in a sublunar realm, according to Doherty? Yes -- but Tertullian plainly places the gods' deaths on earth. The obvious pagan rejoinder -- "hey, our gods acted and died in a sublunar realm, turkey!" -- doesn't appear to have occurred to any Christian apologist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDon
One of the frustrations of debating Doherty is that he uses terms without clearly identifying a meaning, or the meaning changes depending on the argument. One of my examples comes from here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset26.htm. Doherty describes the "spiritual dimension", but does it include the earth, or is it in some other dimension altogether?
I stated in a previous post that I find 'theological speak' difficult to comprehend. Here is an example. I am a physicist. I have an understanding of 'dimension', just as I have an understanding of 'energy'. Yet, I encounter many divers usages of these terms which do not accord with my understandings. My problem is, that if I encounter those terms in a scientific context, then I know what they mean. In a theological (or other) context...? There seems to be no consistency or definition.
Youngalexander, there is no theological context. The concept didn't appear to exist in Paul's time, at least as a translateable term. It is a modern concept that Doherty has retrojected into the writings of that time. Hence the confusion when using it. It means something to Vork, it means something to Taiwanese shaman, and it means something to "Xena Warrior Princess" fans. But I doubt that it would have meant anything to the pagans of the time, unless they considered the Isles of the Blessed in the Canary Islands as another dimension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDon
Unfortunately this side of Doherty's theory seems to get ignored or swepted away, since everything inevitably comes back to Paul and early Christian writings. It's fair enough that those should be the main focus, but it is also worth pointing out that Doherty time and again claims that pagan beliefs support his version of early Christianity (as the above quote shows). I'd like to suggest that this simply isn't the case, and if I am right, then Doherty needs to reframe his case accordingly.
After a few years reflection, and observation of considerable debate (notably by yourself), I certainly think that this question needs tightening up.
Yes -- Doherty has time and again appealed to pagan beliefs for support. I think we need to determine whether this is the case or not. If it isn't, then it would be prudent to re-examine those arguments where Doherty has appealed to pagan beliefs, to see how this affects the overall validity of those arguments. Of course, it might be that Doherty's case still stands. But lets remove the "pagan beliefs support Doherty" plank, if in fact they don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Um, well the reason for my direct quote (of you - quoting Doherty), and the caveat, was to avoid 'sublunar'. I am more than happy to drop 'spiritual dimension' provided that we are considering "the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven". Seems to cover both geo and helio-centric perspectives.
I appreciate the difficulties here. For example, even "spiritual" means something different to us than it did to people in the First Century, so we need to be careful when using that fairly specific term.

I have no problem with "sublunar", as long as it is understood to mean that part of the world under the moon, rather than a "separate fleshly dimension". I've also used Doherty's "world of myth", which Doherty places in the "sublunar realm", though most people just think I mean "myth" when using it so it can also cause confusion. So if it is okay, let's use "sublunar realm".
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 09:43 AM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
I have no problem with "sublunar", as long as it is understood to mean that part of the world under the moon, rather than a "separate fleshly dimension". I've also used Doherty's "world of myth", which Doherty places in the "sublunar realm", though most people just think I mean "myth" when using it so it can also cause confusion. So if it is okay, let's use "sublunar realm".
Is there any ancient evidence indicating that a supposed "sublunar realm" (is that even an ancient term?) did not include the earth?

Just wondering; I haven't been following the debate closely.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 10:00 AM   #108
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tertullian
...since even at this day men of culture make gods of those whom, a day or two before, they acknowledged to be dead men by their public mourning for them.
Is Tertullian our only reference for this?
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 10:06 AM   #109
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson View Post
Is there any ancient evidence indicating that a supposed "sublunar realm" (is that even an ancient term?) did not include the earth?
To my knowledge, no. And especially not in the the text that E.D. adduces as something that supports/illustrates his view -- the Ascension of Isaiah.

Jeffrey
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 10:17 AM   #110
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Is Tertullian our only reference for this?
By no means. See Seneca the Younger's Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii and Tacitus Ann. XII, 69 among others.

JG
jgibson000 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:27 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.