bacht

Makes sense to me.

I thought the Pauline letters were the most suspect texts in terms of possible manipulation by later catholics. I don't know how anyone can tease historical details out of material that's closer to propaganda. It's really more like reading the evolution of catholic doctrine in response to heresy.

aa5874

And, once Marcion's Christ had NO flesh then his Christ would NOT have been likely to be called Jesus an earthly name given to male Jews born of Jewish women.

The Pauline writers used the earthly name "JESUS" over 200 times and claimed he was crucified, shed his blood, and was RAISED from the dead.

And, even further the Pauline writers STRESSED that without the resurrection of JESUS salvation could not be acheived.

It would be expected that MARCION would have propagated that his CHRIST had NO earthly name, was NOT crucified, could NOT have shed any blood and that it was NOT necessary for his CHRIST to have died and resurrected for the salvation of mankind.

The Pauline writers must make Jesus a God/man where as Marcion's CHRIST was the heavenly son of another God greator than than the God of the Jews.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Good point about the problem of forgery. This doesn't quite solve the problem, but brings up an interesting second problem. The first problem is knowing what is the actual reference for "Born of a Woman". The second problem is knowing if this is an interpolation. Both seem difficult to determine objectively without more specific dating information.

My guess would be that it is not an interpolation as "Born of a virgin named Mary," would be easily available to any later Christian interpolater.

It is often difficult to know reference of names, as a name may reference several things or a single thing may be called by several names.

In the movie "Gunga Din" we have two opposite characters, Gunga Din -- loyal, childlike Indian servant who admires the British, and "the Guru" -- savage worshiper of the bloodthirsty Goddess Kali and implacable enemy of the British. Both of these characters look like and appear to reference the historical person Mahatma Gandhi.

In the 1984 movie, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," the two characters from Gunga Din have metamorphised into "Short Round" (a Chinese boy) and "Mola Ram," neither of which are references to Gandhi, but are references to the earlier movie characters.

In the same way, the terms "Jesus" and "Christ" may have been references to different things before becoming references to the character in the gospel stories. In fact, it may have been the earlier references to heavenly characters that caused the character in the fictional gospel stories to be named "Jesus" and "Christ". Paul may be referencing the heavenly character/s and not the character in the gospel stories. We know the term Christ predated the character in the gospel stories and some evidence suggests the term "Jesus" did too.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Are you claiming that the Pauline writings are similar to the scripts for a movie where the scripts may be altered at any time and that there may be various versions of the scripts?

It would appear to me that Jesus was NOT a term but a name of Jewish males. We have many persons called Jesus in the writings of Josephus from a madman to a murderer.

It is not at all unusual for names of persons to have some meaning which has NO bearing whatsoever on the person's character or achievement.

Thousands, perhaps millions of people are called Jesus. The meaning of the name is irrelevant.

I find it completely fascinating that the Pauline writings are treated as some hieroglyphic mystery code WHEN they are just writings that were introduced to attempt to corroborate the non-historical resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writers with the author of Acts are just a team of inventors for the Church.

The author of Acts claimed there were thousands of Jesus believers before the Fall of the Temple and the Pauline writer claimed he PERSONALLY persecuted Jesus believers and CREATED HAVOC in the Church. See Acts 8. 1-4 and Galatians 1.13.

What an invention by "Luke" and "Paul".

By the way, it would appear to me that the Pauline writings are NOT really filled with interpolations but were the FINAL SCRIPTS for the movie called the RESURRECTION of the DEAD.

EarlDoherty

Well, Don, considering that virtually every one of the items you go on to list here, which allegedly provide “a broad sketch of Jesus’ life,” is addressed by me in my book to demonstrate that they do not do such a thing within the context of the mythicist interpretation, I sincerely hope that in your review you address and counter my discussion of every one of them, and of much more besides. (You certainly don’t suggest here that you have done so, or have even taken notice of them.)

Otherwise, your review will simply be more of the same from every HJ defender we’ve had the (mis)fortune to encounter here: a resounding failure to address the arguments and counter-arguments of mythicism in any substantive way while simply continuing to state the same timeworn and long discredited misreadings of the non-Gospel literature.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

I don't mind so much if you talk condescendingly and arrogantly toward me. I deserve it, and I am happy to return fire. GakuseiDon does not deserve it. You should be thanking him for giving your book such attention. I know I would certainly love it if my own fringe theories were picked apart with such attention. You seem to be operating under the common assumption that any argument that is addressed by a mythicist (especially you) is an argument that is successfully struck down, and that is a fallacy that I observe much too often, all the more aggravating since the mythicist counter-arguments tend to be little more than unlikely ad hoc explanations.

EarlDoherty

Abe, it is indeed touching that you come to Don's defense, but you obviously have not had the long experience with him that I and others on this board have enjoyed. You do not know how Don goes about "picking apart" my arguments and those of other mythicists--however, I will not try to enlarge on that here. But I am not being arrogant, I am reacting to the indications which Don has given, not only now but over the last several months since he announced he was buying and reviewing my new book, that this will be anything but a proper or substantive engagement with the case I put forward in it. I am simply trying to keep him honest ahead of time.

You say: "You seem to be operating under the common assumption that any argument that is addressed by a mythicist (especially you) is an argument that is successfully struck down, and that is a fallacy that I observe much too often, all the more aggravating since the mythicist counter-arguments tend to be little more than unlikely ad hoc explanations." But once again, I have to ask you, how can you judge whether or not they have "successfully struck down" the opposition or whether they are only "unlikely ad hoc explanation" if you haven't investigated them?

Please give us a detailed list of exactly what mythicist material you have read. Then maybe we can start to discover whether you have actually understood and engaged with it.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

I am guilty. I have read only half of Robert Price's Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, sections of your website, sections of Acharya S's website, and thousands of posts of devoted mythicists (and superskeptics who use mythicist arguments) on Internet forums. There will probably never be a time that I actually read any of your books. Therefore, anyone who believes that I should read your books before ever talking about your arguments should probably just ignore what I am saying. Acharya S and her devotee seem to use the same sales technique as you--nobody is qualified to criticize her arguments unless they read her books, and of course hardly anyone can read her books unless they buy them. Does that actually work? It has to work at least a little. It worked on GakuseiDon, and he still gets no slack.

Doug Shaver

I don't think you have to read his books to talk about his arguments. I do think you should know what his arguments are before you talk about them, though.

If you can know his arguments without reading his books, more power to you, but I haven't seen much evidence that you know anything of the sort.

bacht

Yes. Earl has written two books using the mythicist approach, and has engaged quite a few inquiries on his website and here. He has defended his research patiently and lucidly to amateurs and pros alike. Whether Abe agrees or not he has to allow that Doherty has "paid his dues" and has earned the right to a respectful hearing.