Metacrock

I'm sorry. I think you state an innacruacy. Eusebius did not deny that Papias knew desciples of the Lord, or Apostles. He may have doubted that he knew the Apostle John, but Elder John was a disciple of the Lord.


I agree. But how many did he have to know just to prove that Jesus was a real guy?



[quotes]That, too, is questioned in the same article linked above. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius understood Papias' "presbyters" to be disciples of the Disciples" or perhaps even one more generation removed.[/quote]



That's possible. But I believe he says EJ and A knew the Lord. I have to look it up.

here is the quote from the aticle:


papias, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.


So he does say they were disciples of the Lord. Now I know it may be that he didn't talk to these guys, but only quoted them from talking to "the presbyters" who did apparently know them. But he certainly talks like he knew them. He says "Elder John used to say..." As though he heard him with his own ears.



This is not an argument from silence. What the Papias thing? The argument that no one questioned his existence is an argument from silence. But it's also another way of saying there is no evidence for Doherty's theory. There's a difference in that, and basing the theory itself upon a gap in knolwedge. AGree?



No my so called argument from silence is just the recoginition that there's no evidence for Jesus being fictional. No one ever made the calim so there's no reason to assume it. But, there are examples of people of late Antiquity debuncking theories. Tacitus expossed false resurrections.


Do you think they doubted the Greek fables? Can you show me who said that? Because i dont' believe it since Justin argued purposely that they are the same.



Do you think that means he thought Jesus wasn't a real person? That would only be logical if Christ was his proper name. Christ meant "messiah." So he's saying "you invent a Messiah for yourself." He didn't say you invented the person you think is Messiah. So he's saying they invented his Messianich credentials not his personatiy and being as a historical individual.



Yea but without that there's no evidence even possible. I mean there's no evidence for Doherty's theory. So there's no point in making it.But even so the only possible evidence would be someone saying "Jesus didn't exist." But no one does.So why believe it?


I still have no gotten any kind of clear answer from any of you. Why believe the theory?

Peter Kirby

I've seen this enough times that I'd like to see the proof (not just the authority of Koester, great though it is).

It's enough to point out the page numbers, if it is from ACG or his intro. It's probably worth it's own thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

I have three sections on Doxa where I go into it at length. I give multiple page numbers in those sections. Here are links to a couple of them. But really, you need to read the whole book, becasue the entire appendix is the work of another scholar on Diatesseronic studies, and he goes into it throughout the book. The book being Ancient Christian Gospels


http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20.../pre_mark.html



http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...ergospels.html


the other is currently linked on Jesus myth pages as Jesus Puzzell 2


bascially 215-224, and 240 and there abouts. But there are many places Koester uses this material throughout the book.

spin

Just two points:

1. the banal stupidity of asserting that because something has always been a particular way means it must be so means that the inequality of women in all societies should correct and that people from the third world are inferior people. However, this is still an unsupported assertion that Metacrock is unable to justify and is incapable of seeing that it is illogical.

2. as xian scholarship is responsible for maintaining most of the literature which has survived from the classical past, we have no hope of knowing what was originally written in that literature to know what pagan writers may have asserted about Jesus, especially when one remembers that as a writer like Porphyry was so successful in his attacks against xianity that none of the more important church fathers were able to respond to him and there were two imperial attempts to burn all his literature. This turns Metacrock's assertion into a veiled argument from silence.

You are wasting time with his lack of argumentation.


spin

unknown4

I'm not sure it's accurate to say no one ever believed Zeus existed after the current era began. Did everyone who believed that Zeus existed suddenly stop doing so when Jesus was supposedly born?

Also, the usual way of dismissing miraculous claimants in the past was not to try to refute the existence of the alleged person performing the miracles, it was rather to attribute them to God/good gods (if you happened to agree with the miracle worker), or Satan/bad gods (if you didn't), or trickery. Look at how the early church fathers and even the New Testament treated those who supposedly did miracles, even those outside of the then "orthodox" Christian faith. As a general rule, did they deny them? Not from what I can tell. There wasn't very much of an interest in denying the historicity of an account, because one could just simply attribute it to an evil source (or the hidden powers of nature). So, there's no particular reason why people would have even tried to argue that the Jesus of the gospels wasn't historical. As for the lack of people questioning the historicity of Jesus, why should you be that surprised? Look at the history of Christian and Islamic civilization. What would have happened to a scholar in Christian dominated Europe, say, in 500 AD, who said that Jesus didn't exist? What would happen today in Saudi Arabia if someone said Jesus didn't exist? For much of history, it would not have been wise for those living in Christian or Islamic countries to question Jesus' existence, would it have?

Do you believe the stories of medieval Catholic miracles (I'm assuming you're not Catholic, but correct me if I'm wrong)? Was anyone in the past (before the Protestant reformation, that is) doubting them?

I wonder if any ancient historian ever tried to deny the miraculous claims of anyone by saying that miracle worker didn't exist. Since people in the past had little problem believing in miracles, why would they have tried to deny the miracle worker's existence?

Christians had control of much of what has come down to us for over a thousand years. It could be considered amazing that anything negative at all about Christianity has come down to us. It's possible someone did argue that Jesus didn't exist. Sure, it's an argument from silence in a sense, but when you had a group of people in control of copying texts, why would anyone expect a contrary history to have survived? What Christians would have copied and continued to copy a text saying "I lived in Jerusalem from 29 to 33 AD, I never saw an alleged Messiah called Jesus, nor his miracles, nor heard of anyone who had seen or heard of him. This Jesus didn't exist, he was a myth, all the miracles attributed to him were fables, he was not the Messiah, nor the Son of God. All of those who had the same experiences with these statements have signed below (here are 50 names confirming his story)." I'm not saying such a statement ever existed. What I am saying is that, what Christians would have maintained and copied such a document?

I don't find that the apparent lack of questioning of Jesus' existence (at least the Jesus of the Gospels) over "1800 years" meaning very much.

Ted Hoffman

Metacrock: why loud bangs? why do you have to take that attitude?

Metacrock wrote earlier: "I feel that I have to make noise" here

Metacrock: "Of course, casue [sic] I'm a peice of shit. us peices of shit are always wrong...this is not my feild [sic]...This is all hobby stuff. So I'm not an expert and I'm not up to speed...I haven't had time to update...I don't have time to deal with it...My falws [sic] do not make Doherty's stuff good!...I've been wrong before and I will be again...am in a weird mood..."

Ted Hoffman: By your own admission, you are not up to speed. You have stated that (to use your own words), "pieces of shit" like you are always wrong. You have indicated that you have no idea what you are miswriting about. You have indicated that you lack time to update the obsolete nonsense on your website and have no time to 'deal' with challenges that come your way. You evidently haven't read Doherty's book, you are ill informed, moody, ill-mannered, cannot compose coherent posts and are generally nasty.

You are not even confident about the claims you are making so why don't you just stop wasting everyones time [inflammatory words deleted]?

Toto

Mod's request:

After a long absense, Metacrock is putting on another display of how not to impress infidels with the transformative value of Christian conversion. There's no need to kick him when he is down.

Please take the high road and avoid insults. Please try to find some value in the discussion. You mods have only so much time to try to keep things from blowing up.

Ted Hoffman

Much obliged sir. Has he got his formatting right this time? I am aghast that Metacrock could post his website on this thread instead of providing a link. I provided a link to his website and I adressed arguments in his site.

Toto

If you think a particular post needs to be edited, use the report this post button. Thanks.

Ted Hoffman

Metacrock: hey you know what? You are a [insult deleted by mod]! Im not gong[sic] to waste my time answering your crap because you know anything. your alledged facts are nothing more than truisms and maxims gleaned from ignorant people on message boards. You dont' know the facts and your bs arguments here are incomprehensible. I can't even tell what the argumetns are becasue you do such a stupid job of dealing with them. little meaningless tag phrases and short hands that are supppossed to tell me somehting. forget it!
If the mods want to ban me, fine. That'll be a good going away present.
Ted Hoffman: I will ignore this childish outburst.
Metacrock: You can't conclude from a contraiction between a Gospel and a baptismal creed that Jesus never existed. That's absurd.
Ted Hoffman: I never did. Whats absurd is your strawman.
Metacrock: You forget that paul was quoting a baptismal fromula.
Ted Hoffman: Please explain how 'Cephas and the 12' is a 'baptismal formula'. Which works of scholarship inform your opinion?
Metacrock: Burried and entombed are the same thing in this context.
Ted Hoffman: A tomb and a grave are not the same thing - irrespective of context.
Metacrock: But you totally miss the point. the tag pharse "on the third day" always appears with every telling. No one every tells the story and says "on the forth day he rose" or on the "fith day" it's always the third day and always said like that "on the thrid day." So that indictes the facts were formed in stone from an early period, which is a good indication that they are based upon facts known to all.
Ted Hoffman: Being early does not mean being factual. Old fictions do not become facts because they are old and everyone knows about them.
Every Robin Hood source indicates that he dwelt in Sherwood forest and had little John as his friend. This does not make Robin historical or mean his dwelling in Sherwood forest was factual.
Metacrock: Moreover, the fact that Peter said he saw it all
Ted Hoffman: Saw all what? Fallacy of miccing arguments.
Metacrock: ..., and Peter met Paul, Peter knew Clement of Rome, and Papias and others, that is a good reason to assume the story is historical.
Ted Hoffman: It means Peter met Paul, Peter knew Clement of Rome, and Papias and others. It doesnt mean Jesus' story as found in the gospel is historical.
Metacrock: You appearenlty don't understand that the Jews loved midrash and they used in incessently regardless of weather they were telling history or telling a fictive tale. that doesn't matter, anyhting can be put in symbolic terms and that does not mean it wasn't real.
Ted Hoffman: Please respond to arguments made.
Metacrock: I don't know about Paula Fredricksen bu she sounds ignorant.
Ted Hoffman: She is a respected New Testament Scholar and a Boston University historian of ancient Christianity. If you don't even know the name, its embarrassing to have you yammering here mindlessly about NT issues.
Metacrock: The whole reaosn for the charge "king of the Jews" was that he was an insurrectionist.
Ted Hoffman: The gospels indicate that the High Priest(s) were envious of him and plotted to get rid of him. Have you read the gospels Metacrock?
Metacrock: The Romans killed Jesus, and they would not have done that if blaspehmy was the issue.
Ted Hoffman: Please provide some evidence for this empty claim.
Metacrock: No reason to supposse that Jo's list is exhaustive or that he claimed to get every single one Moreover you just ignore the fact that Jo does say Jesus wa crucified
Ted Hoffman: Josephus does not indicate that his list is incomplete. Please cite the sections of Josephus' works where he states that Jesus was crucified.
Metacrock: Totally irrelivant! Jo of A can be made up without Jesus being made up.
Ted Hoffman: If J of A was made up, there is no reason to believe Jesus was not made up.
Metacrock: See Cornfeld, Archaeology of the Bible Book by Book, 1976.
Ted Hoffman: Archaeology of The Bible (www.bibarch.com) is a Christian website with no scholarly respectability. They indicate that they believe that "Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, engendered in the human flesh of the virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit". This is standard Christian boilerplate crap.
Ted Hoffman: How can we verify Eusebius' claim that the Temple of Venus, which Hadrian erected, was on the site of Jesus' tomb?
Metacrock: We have allusions to second centruy records of the tomb being venerated in the first century.
Ted Hoffman: Please cite your sources.
Metacrock: You must have misunderstood. I don't think I argued that.
Metacrock wrote earlier: In Galations[sic] Paul tells of two meetings with Peter. Once when he first went to Jerusalem and again when Peter came to visit his ministry. Peter was, therefore, a real historical person.
Ted Hoffman Responded: It does not follow. Galatians was written before the Gospels. The authors of the gospels may have picked their characters from the early Christians or early christian writings. This can explain the Presence of 'Peter' in Mark's gospel, just like it explains the presence of Pilate.
Ted Hoffman: If you claim I misunderstood, state what your argument was.
Metacrock: you are totally fudging on the arguments here. I'm going to have to go back and look at what I said.
Ted Hoffman: I have pasted what you wrote. Please stop wriggling like a little girl and start dealing squarely the challenges put forth.
Metacrock: Well you could read the link. I have taken time to spell check most of that. But the post is SooOOOOoooo LooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOoong and everyone starts answering it immeidatly so a I can't keep up with the thread.
Ted Hoffman: This is a pathetic excuse and I reject it.
Metacrock: see why I'm retiring from message boards? I'm leaving Doxa up, but I'm not going to do this anymore. I've already announced it to my Christian friends.
Ted Hoffman: You have spewed plenty of obsolete nonsense and is incapable of handling the real issues. Your so called "Christian friends" must be ashamed at your cowardliness and incompetence.
You wont be banned (no, no, you are not getting away that easy), and you wont throw up your hands and walk away. And your insults wont shut this discussion down. Face the music.

THE SECTIONS OF MY OP THAT METACROCK IS YET TO RESPOND TO

Metacrock: Now he tells us "Paul and other early writers." Now what other "early writers" would those be?
Ted Hoffman: Writers of Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Odes of Solomom etc.
Metacrock: No other Christian writers that predate the Gospels even exist!
Ted Hoffman: Dead wrong. Plus, you missed the point. He wrote: "Paul and other early writers" not "Paul and other early writers that predate the gospels". Stop imagining things.
Metacrock: But if we through in 1 Clement..the earliest Christian extra-Biblical writing, we have already shown on the Canon and Revelation page how Clement speaks of Mary giving birth to Jesus
Ted Hoffman: Kirby has already decimated this one. But this is what I wrote: Cite the passage please. Here is 1 Clement
Metacrock: Now one gets then notion that they he is separating Christ Jesus from Jesus so that to point out instances where they do speak of Jesus as a man he might say "but that's not Christ Jesus." One can only hope he would not be lame enough to make this blunder.
Ted Hoffman: They or he?

Jesus was a Descendant of David

Metacrock: Be that as it may, let us point them out anyway. Romans 1:1 "Paul a Servant of Christ Jesus called to be an Apostle and set apart for the Gospel of God....regarding his son who as to his human nature was a decedent of David....!" Ephesians 2:14 "for he himself is our peace who has made the two one and who has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations..." Here we have a frank statement that Jesus was a flesh and blood being!
Ted Hoffman: No, metacrock, we don't. David lived many years before the putative birth of Jesus. This is not a biographical information. Mark tells us that Jesus was not a descendant of David. As usual, Paul is relying on the OT for this information. Why should we believe in Paul and not in Mark? Can you provide a genealogy of Jesus from David down to Jesus?

Besides, Paul writes 'descendant of David according to the flesh'. kata sarka has been interpreted by scholars like C.E.B Cranfield, International Critical Commentary, Romans, p.60, to mean "in his life span" - which would mean that in Paul's mind, Jesus incarnated during the times of David. While Doherty uses kata sarka to mean in the sphere of the flesh - which means that to Paul, Jesus reincarnated in a sublunar realm. C.K. Barrett in Epistle to Romans, p.20 supports Doherty's interpretation.

So the interpretation is debatable, however, the Phillipians passage where Jesus is an unnamed god who descends, suffers and is later exalted by being named Jesus is consistent with Doherty's interpretation if we picture the descent of Jesus in a platonic cosmogony similar to the one we find in the Ascension of Isaiah and in Clement of Alexandria's Stromata.

Metacrock: 2 Peter 1:16 "for we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye witnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory when the voice came to him from the majestic Glory, saying 'this is my son whom I love, with him I am well pleased' We ourselves heard that voice come from heaven when we were with him..." This is a clear and direct reference to the baptism of Jesus in the Gospels; a confirmation of the human Jesus of the Gospels.
Ted Hoffman: 2 Peter is a pseudoepigraph. Read Kummel's Introduction to the New Testament. Plus, it is dependent on the Gospels so cant be used as evidence since its the historicity of the Gospel Jesus, which is exactly what is at issue. I assume that you are familiar with independent attestation.
Metacrock: The opening lines of the First Epistle of John reiterates the basic concept of the Gospel's prologue, (1 John 1:1) "that which we have heard from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and which our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the word of life."
Ted Hoffman: List the historical details in this passage please. I put it to you that there is not even one historical detail in it.
Metacrock: IN other words, he's proclaiming like the Gospel that bares the same name "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He's saying Jesus was a man, we saw him, we heard him, we touched him.
Ted Hoffman: No, he does not. Your simplistic literalism pales incongruously to the high-level Christology we see in John.
Metacrock: This touching is most important because he is debunking the Gnostic heresy that Jesus we not a fleshly being but an ethereal illusory being (the very theory Doherty is touting).
Ted Hoffman: So now you are using passages you regard as polemical as historical evidence? Plus, as has been argued before, if there were Jesus Mythers in the first century, this would lend credence to the very position you seek to destroy. It demonstrates that you are confused and have not even thought about the ramifications of your claims.

Prayers, Petitions and Loud Cries

Metacrock: Moreover, the author of Hebrews, whoever that was (my personal favorite candidate is Pricilla) says "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way....During the days of Jesus life on Earth he offered up Prayers and Petitions with loud crys and tears to the one who could save him and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was s Son he learned obedience..." (4:15, 5:7). Whether Paul wrote Hebrews or someone else (Apollos, Andronicos, Junia, Pricilla, Aquilia) the author was clearly a Pauline Insider (according to mentions of Timothy in the last chapter) so this totally sinks the boat for the Cosmic Christ theory.
Ted Hoffman: Hebrews is a pseudonymous document and its a waste of time to speculate over who may or may not have written it. You are evidently unfamiliar with its unique Christology that smacks of Alexandrian platonism. Hebrews 8:4 says "If Jesus were on Earth..." and compares Jesus' present ministry in heaven with the high priest's ministry on earth and says how the former is more superior. This paradigmatic platonic parallel shows that the author pictured Jesus' sacrifice/crucifixion as something that took place in heaven.

Your reading above, is a gratuitous literal rendering of the text out of context that misses the point while importing assumptions from the gospels yet, the passage requires to be put in the context of the rest of Hebrews.

Hebrews 5:7 has been examined by several scholars already. G.A. Buchanan, in Anchor Bible, Hebrews, p.98, thinks that "the offering up petitions" is drawn from Psalms 116:1, which uses the same words. Doherty also mentions Hugh Montefiore, in Hebrews, p.97, who states that the phrase "loud cries and tears" is an elnargement on Psalm 22:24. Paul Ellingworth, in Epistle to the Hebrews, p.285 states that it refers to a "generalized use of the language and pattern of old testament intercession".

What this means is that we have no reason to believe that the Hebrews passages you have referenced above have any historical core. And even if they did, it would clash with the unique Christology in Hebrews. Note that, in Hebrews, there is no second coming, no resurrection and no eucharist.
Metacrock: There are many other examples but why go on?
Ted Hoffman: Because they have all been debunked.
Metacrock: Another verse in Hebrews (2:14) "since the children have flesh and blood he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death....for this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God and that he might make atonement for the sin of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted he is also able to help those who are being tempted."
Ted Hoffman: No historical details here. If there are, please list them. Inanna suffered too, was tortured and killed and went down to Hell for three days. In terms of historicity, it doesn't mean squat.
Metacrock: This clearly demonstrates the principle that the doctinre of the Pauline circle embraced a human Claris and a human atonement--his atonement had to be in the flesh to count!
Ted Hoffman: Wrong. Paul did not write Hebrews. It is not known who did.
Metacrock: Doherty says the Epistles never speak of Jesus as a flesh and blood man. But John actually makes this the ultimate test of faith. He says 4:2 "every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God..." So it was actually made the supreme test of faith to recognize that Jesus was in the flesh.
Ted Hoffman: "Come in the flesh" is not a historical evidence. Its an expression whose theological interpretation can be far ranging - and lacks a cut-and-dried way of interpretation. Read C.K. Barrett's commentary and on the interpretation of kata sarka.
Metacrock: The Letter to the Hebrews clearly stipulates that Jesus was a man, he had a life on earth, he was even tempted like a man.
Ted Hoffman: Wrong. See above.
Metacrock: None of the Biblical writers felt called upon to point out that Jesus' crucifixion was on earth and was an earthly flesh event, because no one channeled[sic] that and it would be totally illogical and unnatural to feel called upon to point it out.
Ted Hoffman: Unless of course you were a gospel writer and felt compelled to insert the doubting Thomas, touching and feeling the wounds of Jesus as an aside to tell the readers "blessed are those who believe but have not seen".

I wonder what we are supposed to learn from Thomas' story since everyone knew and believed in Jesus' crucifixion hook, line and sinker? Or was it ok to doubt the resurrection but not the crucifixion?

But what are the implications of Metacrock's argument above? It is this: If "it would be totally illogical and unnatural to feel called upon to point out" "that Jesus' crucifixion was on earth and was an earthly flesh event", then the writing of the gospels was "totally illogical and unnatural".

Metacrock: That would be like me suddenly telling you "you are reading a website right now, we are on the Internet."
Ted Hoffman: False analogy. Ever heard of Celsus? I wonder why Origen had to write a whole book dealing with his objections yet they were obviously invalid?
Metacrock: But all of these writers acknowledge that Jesus lived a life on earth as a man, so why would they not think he also died as a man?
Ted Hoffman: They don't "acknowledge that Jesus lived a life on earth as a man": that is what you are assuming but are incapable of proving. Let me give you a few early writers that "dont acknowledge" that Jesus lived on earth as a man: The writers of Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Odes of Solomom, Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Epistle to Diognetus[/i] (who states that God never sent anyone on earth), Theophilus' To Autolucus (who even poses the challenge: "show me even one who has been raised from the dead"), Athenagoras' A Plea For the Christians and so on.


Non-NT Writers Were Not Christians therefore we should Ignore them

Metacrock: As for the Assent ion of Isaiah, sorry that is not a canonical work. Whatever that writer thought it cannot be linked to the Biblical writers. There were many different kinds of Jewish Christian groups, and the NT writers were not responsible for them all.
Ted Hoffman: Which NT writers? There is only one NT writer: Paul. The rest are unknown.
Metacrock: Moreover, the passage in Hebrews 5:7 implies that the Crucifixion was on earth in our space/time. The author alludes to his suffering, to his anguish.
Ted Hoffman: hese are your own unfounded assumptions. I have referred to scholarly treatment of Hebrews 5:7 above and it doesn't support your erroneous assumption.

Everyone Knew Christ Died, Therefore Paul Should Never Have Mentioned it to Anyone

Metacrock: Now why would he feel called upon to explain that this was an earthly death? No one asserted otherwise, everyone knew the story, why should he go into elementary details?
Ted Hoffman: Nobody asked for details. This is a strawman. Going by your logic, Paul should never have even mentioned that Christ died (according to the scriptures) since everyone knew. But Paul does talk about it and even challenges those who dont believe. This falsifies your argument above.
Metacrock: This is so because elsewhere he says the law was nailed to the cross, that's how it was abolished. Now he doesn't need to tell them that Jesus died on earth in the flesh, but if he abolished the law in the flesh it only stands to reason that his death on the cross was "in the flesh" and therefore on earth and not in some cosmic realm.
Ted Hoffman: It does not follow. You are merely assuming things. You are supposed to demonstrate what a 'crucified law' has to do with earthly crucifixion. And remember that Paul stated that he died and resurrected with Christ.
Metacrock: But "Son of God" does not denote any sort of Cosmic being but clearly is a term of the Messiah.
Ted Hoffman: You need to demonstrate this. Read "Son of God" as used in Odes of Solomon and Shepherd of Hermas where it refers to an intermediary heavelny saviour figure.
Metacrock: Moreover, if as he says the deeds in heaven have their corresponding events on earth than it merely stands to reason that the Crucifixion would be on earth too!
Ted Hoffman: Wrong. The key words are 'paradigmatic parallel' what happens on earth is replicated in heaven. Sacrifice to save the world (Christ) is paralleled with sacrifice for a tribe (High Priest).

Copycat Saviour Figure Strawman Squashed Flat

Metacrock: his is merely the "copy cat savior" notion which is dispelled on the Jesus and Mythology Page...Those are merely universal archetypes and have no real significance as "copies."
Ted Hoffman: "Copy cat saviour" is a strawman you, and Robert Turkell and Glen Miller and other internet apologists have been perpetrating over the internet as a challenge to Jesus Myth Theory and its expiry date has reached. Robert Price has taken it out and it will be done once and for all.

First of all, the argument is not that Jesus was a xerox copy of the other dying and rising saviour figures. And I will not argue that Christians made up the Jesus figure by necessarily copying from them.

The argument is, they belong to the same ideal type. They can be grouped under the same type because, whereas there are important differences, the similarities are likewise the same.

I will repeat here what I posted recently. If we take as an example, Asclepius was son of a God and mortal woman. He lived as a demigod (son of Apollo), healed many and raised people from death. We was killed by Zeus for blasphemy (raising the dead) but was resurrected and made immortal. From heaven, he would appear to his believers on earth.

Robert Price says, "Ideal types, as Bryan Wilson observes, are not Procrustean boxes into which phenomena must fit or be forced to fit. Rather they are yardsticks distilled from common features, yardsticks employed in turn to measure and make sense of the features the phenomena do not have in common. The differences are just as important as the similarities, which is why it is needful to study the various phenomena (in this case, ancient miracle-workers and inspired sages) each in its own right. Each is unique, but what they have in common with the other recognizable members of the same class will help us understand where they differ and why. Thus it is not helpful in studying the gospels to cross "Divine Men" off the list for gospel study either because the proposed members of the class are not all alike (as Jack Dean Kingsbury wants to do in The Christology of Mark's Gospel) or because there are also other elements besides that of the Divine Man in the gospels. Theodore J. Weeden (Mark: Traditions in Conflict) shows how Mark both presupposes and critiques the Christology of Jesus as a theios aner."

And before you launch to apples and oranges, Price adds: "...genres evolve precisely by means of "transgression" of genre conventions. What we are seeing in the Christian rewriting of Septuagint stories as Jesus stories is something like a mutant strain of what was happening over in the cousin religion of Rabbinic Judaism. An apple is not an orange. Neither is a tangerine, but it is helpful to compare a tangerine to an orange if you are trying to describe a tangerine. More helpful than comparing it to an apple or to saying it is like nothing else." here
Metacrock: Rather than disproving the historical Jesus, it seems rather to confirm that the Historical Jesus could well be the incarnation of the Logos.
Ted Hoffman: If Logos can 'incarnate' one wonders why people even bother to study New Testament History. The fact is, if we accept the reincarnation of the logos, then we will have no reason to reject the platonic concept of emanation of the aeons and the twin pairs and the demuigre and the rest of the can of worms I am unsure Metacrock wants to be opened.
Because once we do that, we are no longer doing critical scholarship but are doing theology.

Lets Attack Fantasies since Reality is Unassailable

Metacrock: He tries to pin the whole of the whole of the Jesus story upon Mark alone as the single source, as though having a single original unified source is somehow invalidating. Of course if there were several different versions than you know darn well he would be saying "why are there so many different versions? That's a contradiction!"
Ted Hoffman: Here, meta is attacking arguments that don't exist. This is an advanced form of the strawman fallacy. It involves prophesizing what the opponent will argue and subsequently expending energy knocking down those prophecies. It is a shoddy practice only done by overly-imaginative and unfocused individuals who allow themselves to be carried away and as such it has no place in serious discussions.
Metacrock: But clearly there are different versions in terms of the small details, and they come form different sources. First, he makes a major contradiction when he says Mark was written first than copied by Matt and Luke with different teaching material.
Ted Hoffman: What is the 'major contradiction'?
Metacrock: He has no way of proving that Q didn't' come first.
Ted Hoffman: How is this important? Red Herring.

Spectacularly Confusing Multiplicity With Authenticity

Metacrock: So we have a variety of sources all offering the same material (Q, proto-Mark, Mark, Thomas, Egetron 2 and the epiphanies sources, however many there might have been). They all agree on the general events but offer different details to flesh out the picture. All of this spells an authentic evidential support for the events of the Gospels.
Ted Hoffman: No it does not. If it does, demonstrate exactly how.
Metacrock: Furthermore, the Johonine Gospel, even though it too draws upon the Proto-Markan material, has its own independent source none of the others share, which is clear since the material can be seen not to be found anywhere else.
Ted Hoffman: That may be because what you see as "the Proto-Markan Material" is John himself. John is a heavily redacted text but the important thing here is that John was aware of the gospels and used them.

On the Dating of Acts 'Liberal' Scholars and Metacrocks 'Own' Theory

Metacrock: Doherty could not be more off the beam when he makes his ignorant remarks about Acts. Here his amateurish nature truly shows. First of all, the vast majority of scholarship no longer assigns any of the NT books to the second century.
Ted Hoffman: Present the arguments please. Alternatively, present a list of scholars that support this early dating of Acts.
Those that support Doherty's dating:
1. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.124 - mid second century dating
2. J. T. Townsend, "The Date of Luke Acts", in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, p.47f. - mid second century dating.
3. J. C. O'Neill, in The Theology of Acts, p.21 - dates them c.115-130
4. Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p.167 - dates them circa 120.

Plus Luke seems to have copied Josephus which would push the date post 93CE.
Metacrock: Secondly, many liberals and all conversatives assign Acts to roughly the same period as Luke, which was part of the same account, around A.D. 80.
Ted Hoffman: Cite them. Plus, this is not about numbers. Summarize the arguments for dating Acts c.80CE.
Metacrock: See Luke Timothy Johnson, (The Writings of the New Testament) F.F. Bruce (The New testament Documents: Are They Reliable). The New Oxford Annotated Bible and Cornfeld (Archaeology of The Bible) both assign the work to Luke (these are two very liberal sources).
Ted Hoffman: Luke Timothy Johnson is not a liberal source. He believes that God (a supernatural being) has a son (thus a demigod) who willingly came to die for our sins. Someone who would have us believe that the ova can be fertilized without sperms is a crackpot. Plain and simple.
Metacrock: Johnson and Bruce do as well, and Johnson especially is the more liberal of the two.
Ted Hoffman: Who gave you permission to redefine the word 'liberal'?
Metacrock: Luke is the most trusted historian of any biblical writer
Ted Hoffman: Trusted by who? This is unproven, irrelevant and smacks of a sales pitch.
Metacrock: ... and his historical details is proven right down to the name of minor Roman officials which would not have been known in the...
Ted Hoffman: Proven by which scholars?
Metacrock: My own theory is that...<snip>
Ted Hoffman: We are not interested in your own theories right now. You are supposed to be debunking Doherty's theory - remember? Concentrate!
Metacrock: That is basically what I believe. I fail to see how that prevents Jesus from being a real historical figure or how it means the events didn't' happen.
Ted Hoffman: So, should the readers also 'fail to see' because tMetacrock has failed to see? If not, how is your incapacity to 'see' relevant?
Metacrock: This really shows what I've always said about these Internet skeptics, they are merely the negative of the fundamentalists.
Ted Hoffman: Concentrate on Doherty. Not 'Internet Skeptics'. He has published books. Concentrate!
Metacrock: Take a picture of a "fundi" and look at the negative and you have a picture of Doherty or Wells or Farrell Till. They can't understand the liberal framework, they think it's just like the Evangelical framework but with no faith. They are totally wrong, it's just a different set of assumptions, but 9 times out of 10 it also includes a strong faith in God!
Ted Hoffman: Scholarship does not require or desire "faith". Faith dismembers any scholarship activity from critical objectivity.
Metacrock: Everything they have done on Q is total guess work as to what they expect to find there.
Ted Hoffman: Prove it.
Metacrock: So if one finds "no Jesus in Q" it is probably because one was trying to find no Jesus in Q.
Ted Hoffman: Appeal to motive: logical fallacy.
Metacrock: And since no serious historian has ever taken the "No Jesus" theory seriously, it is highly doubtful that any Textual critics do (Other than Mack).
Ted Hoffman: Some scholars that take Doherty's theory seriously:
Rod Blackhirst Professor of Biblical Studies, La Trobe University, Australia
Darrell Doughty, Professor of New Testament
Robert M. Price, Professor of New Testament
Richard Carrier, a historian who has written the most thorough review of Doherty's book to date, does too.
Metacrock: There is good reason to assume that Q came from another community and was put together in Syria, with Markan material to make Matthew.
Ted Hoffman: Which scholars espouse this view? Please list them.

If You Cannot Rebut, Insult

Metacrock: This is all coming from the Fundamentalist mind set which cannot grasp the liberal view and so imagines it to be a Testimony of doubt rather than real scholarship.
Ted Hoffman: Meta is now attacking a perceived hostile force while he leaves the argument untouched.
Metacrock: First of all, most of this alleged diversity is the brain child of modern scholarly (and un scholarly) speculation.
Ted Hoffman: Scholars dont engage in baseless speculation. Evidently, Metacrck doesnt know the first thing about scholarship.
Metacrock: Skeptics and Textual critics alike love gaps to fill in and can't resist the allure of speculation.
Ted Hoffman: Still baseless, tangential attacks leaving the arguments intact.
Metacrock: Most of this is the unbridled speculation of would be critics running rampant. There was a lot of diversity, but there is no basic reason to assume that the 12 Apostles were not real people or that the central historical events didn't' happen. This statement totally belies his earlier point about it all coming from one source and all of it being alike! Which is it?
Ted Hoffman: Both. The only confused person is you. Maybe you should get some help.
Metacrock: Moreover, his statement that the diversity is no where attested to in the evidence is silly and absurd.
Ted Hoffman: Empty insults that leave the arguments intact.
Metacrock: First there is the passage in Mark where the Apostles find a man casting out demons in the name of Jesus, but they don't know who he is. That in itself speaks to the proliferation of the faith even before Jesus died.
Ted Hoffman: No, it does not. It shows us that the identty of a character in the gospels was not known. How that translates to 'proliferation' is something you will have to demonstrate if you want anyone to take that claim seriously.
Metacrock: So the diversity of the situation is certainly hinted at by the evidence. But the question is, where else are they getting all of this? It is primarily the assumption of critics. The statement itself is absurd.
Ted Hoffman: You have not demonstrated that it is absurd. Should we just believe your empty words?
Metacrock: If there is no hint of it in the evidence maybe it is the fancy of textual critics!
Ted Hoffman: List some of them please and show us how their work is 'fancy'.
Metacrock: In order to dismiss Jesus as an historical figure, Doherty has to do mythology backwards. Most anthropologists and historians accept the notion that mythology is created around some core event that is "historical" in nature
Ted Hoffman: Wrong. It works either way: euhemerization or apotheosization. Each must be demonstrated on a case by case basis.
Metacrock: But over time the mythical qualities build. But here we have a myth starting out as mythological and than coming to be assumed as historical! This is totally illogical.
Ted Hoffman: Demonstrate that it is illogical. Labelling it doesnt transform it. For someone who makes bold statements and attacks scholars as having 'fancy imagination' your ignorance of euhemerism, which you have displayed in spectacular fashion, is absurd.
Metacrock: It makes far more sense, forma skeptical view point, to say that the grandiose cosmic doctrine was added latter to the basic factual story of a man who rebelled against Rome, had some nice religious ideas, and was excited because he was misunderstood
Ted Hoffman: It does not. In any case, what we are interested in is what the evidence says, now what Metacrock thinks makes more sense. In any case, you use 'makes more sense' in a subjective and arbitrary manner.
You make assumptions then say that your assumptions 'make more sense' while you should be demonstrating exactly why they 'make more sense'.
Metacrock: t makes far more sense, forma skeptical view point, to say that the grandiose cosmic doctrine was added latter to the basic factual story of a man who rebelled against Rome, had some nice religious ideas, and was excited because he was misunderstood. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.
Ted Hoffman: Which scholarly works advise you that things only get repeated and can never happen without precedent? So, World War I could never have happened because there never was any known world war before it?
Metacrock: Doherty totally misrepresents the nature of Midrash, portraying it as some sort of fiction writing. Midrash employs figurative speech,
Ted Hoffman: References please. You are redefining midrash now. Which we dont mind - just refer us to scholarly works that state that midrash involves employment of figurative speech.
Metacrock: ...and often the Talmud employs legend to make points, but that in no way means that Midrashic writing was just fiction writing
Ted Hoffman: We are discussing the NT. Pay attention.
Metacrock: He is completely oblivious to the works of Heggesipus
Ted Hoffman: Doherty mentions Hegessipus in p.219, p.220-1 and p.273. You have evidently not read his book. Your shameless incompetence is apalling and disgusting.