Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 02-03-2013, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo Bookaroo

Grog:

To help you, here are the 22 post numbers of "JesusMysteries" which I have excerpted for my digest.

Jake Jan 8 #68418

...

I think it is evident to all, Roo, that this undertaking of yours is simply a direct personal attack on me. Not on my arguments, including the ones contained in this "digest" of yours, which you have made no attempt to address, but on me personally. All this work, for something intended as 100% ad hominem. It's a poor substitute for proving me wrong.

My apologies to Hermann and Jake were not "meek." I explained my reasons for some of the remarks I made, some of which lay at Jake's door (and which he chose to continue on FRDB), and added an official "apology." There was nothing meek about it.

And believe me, there is nothing that I said to Jake that was any more objectionable than the mountains of shit that I have taken on this board by the likes of you and many others. So drop the 'holier than thou.' You are tarred with your own hypocritical brush.

I don't expect to see any rebuttal from you to my two recent postings. Other than, perhaps, your usual rants against my writing style. That is about all you are capable of.

Earl Doherty

Earl

I respectfully request that you and Buckaroo would henceforth drop reference to me out of your multi-site flame wars.
This whole shambling mess is an embarassment, and maybe the moderators should consider locking these threads? aa has already said everything helpful on the subject. THe good discussions by Maryhelana, Roger, and Stephan could be split off into another thread.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle · 02-03-2013, 08:17 AM

One should note that the idea of the pre-Christian heavenly redeemer, which was popular among scholars in the early twentieth century, is now largely abandoned.

See for example Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 02-03-2013, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In the interest of fairness, I did finally find a reference to a 'heavenly crucifixion' akin to what Doherty is suggesting. It comes from Birger Pearson's discussion of the original Greek text of the Acts of Archelaus:

Quote:

A certain virgin comely (ώραία) and well-adorned attempts to despoil the archons that had been borne up and crucified in the firmament by the Living Spirit, and she appears to the male archons as a beautiful woman, but to the female archons as a handsome and lusty young man. The archons, whenever they look at her in her beautiful appearance, are overcome with the passion of love, and unable to grasp her they burn terribly, out of their minds with the pangs of love. Whenever they run after her the virgin disappears. http://books.google.com/books?id=67a...aia%22&f=false

Pearson and Stroumsa and King all suspect that ώραία is something more than a mere adjective. It is a reference to the primordial figure of Norea/Horaia. But for our purposes the "crucified in the firmament by the Living Spirit" reference which should draw our attention.

Great book (I also own a hardcopy), but I thought you didn't like Birger Pearson.

DCH

stephan huller · 02-03-2013, 08:29 AM

No we're friends. I got him to admit - in an email - that Stephen Carlson's use of low image black and white photos was both puzzling and troubling. He thinks there is other evidence to support forgery. But he was taken aback by that revelation. He's a really smart guy and Baarda once told me (when I was telling him that Pearson didn't check Carlson's use of the photos) that he is one of the best scholars of this generation. Really smart guy.

aa5874 · 02-03-2013, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Bottom line in all this Hebrews discussion is - Hebrews can't be used to disprove the JC historicists position. Hebrews contains no 'smoking gun'. No 'time bomb' to topple the JC historicists. The JC historicists have to be 'attacked' on their home ground - the gospel JC story. Firing off dud ammunition, convoluted interpretations from Hebrews or the Pauline epistles, is just one huge waste of time...

The very meaning of "smoking gun" shatters Doherty's claim.

'Smoking Gun'---A piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence.

Doherty admits Hebrews 8.4 is ambiguous which EXACTLY OPPOSITE of a passage that is supposed to be a 'Smoking Gun'.

This is Doherty arguing that Hebrews 8.4 is AMBIGUOUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

.... You’ve ignored the fact that a competent Greek scholar (considering that you don’t think I’m one) has declared the tense of the key parts of verse 4 ambiguous. And I’ve clearly pointed out that the general grammatical rule in the use of the imperfect tense would place the thought in the present.

The problem is, the general grammatical rule is not secure here, and an understanding in the past would be just as legitimate as one in the present. If you don’t believe me, believe Ellingworth or the translators of the NEB....

Hebrews 8.4 cannot be INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence.

Hebrews 8.4 cannot be a 'Smoking Gun'.

Doherty must have known the meaning of Smoking Gun' yet continue to make his absurd claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...Before anyone jumps on me - yep, Hoffmann has no historical basis upon which to date 'Paul'...

Even if Hoffman employs Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The author of Acts never stated or acknowledged that Saul/Paul wrote any letters to Churches.

The Church that claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches also claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed and simultaneously argued that Paul was executed under Nero.

An Apologetic source also admitted that the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation of John.

There is absolutely NO basis, No credible evidence, to even think that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

EarlDoherty · 02-03-2013, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One should note that the idea of the pre-Christian heavenly redeemer, which was popular among scholars in the early twentieth century, is now largely abandoned.

See for example Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Andrew Criddle

I think you've missed the gnostic scholarship of the late 20th century which came to the position that gnostic redeemer myths like those of the Apocalypse of Adam, or the Apocryphon of John, or the Paraphrase of Shem were pre-Christian and rose independently of Christianity. I don't know of anyone in the field these days who would interpret Derdekeas or The Third Illuminator as derived from Christianity's Jesus or even the Pauline Christ. That would be naive apologetics.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 02-03-2013, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Sorry, aa, I’m still alive and kicking. God spoke to previous generations through the prophets to be read in scripture. Otherwise, there would have been no “speaking in the past” beyond the lifetime of those prophets. Do you really think that is what the writer means???

In perfect parallel, God in these last days (the present) speaks to us by his Son also in scripture, namely a new reading of scripture in which the voice of the heavenly Son is perceived, examples of which are given all throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, while never offering the voice of the Son on earth.

Where do you hear the voice of the Gospel Jesus in Hebrews, aa? Can you give me even one example? (Even 5:7 offers the ‘voice’ of the Son from scripture, in case you didn’t notice.) Or does that lie outside your mandate to merely scream at those who disagree with you?

Earl Doherty

I find it very hard to follow someone when they write as if something like this is fact

Quote:

God spoke to previous generations through the prophets to be read in scripture ...

In perfect parallel, God in these last days (the present) speaks to us by his Son

It's deductive interpretation based on the text and hopefully good common sense. It's done all the time in NT scholarship. Sometimes with good results, sometimes not. IOW, it's an argument. (Are you familiar with those, Mac?) Just as my contention that there is no other way to interpret 8:4 is an argument, a challenge to prove me wrong by offering a better counter-argument. When that fails (and so far it has), certain people fall back on ad hominem attacks, accusing me of being dogmatic and closed-minded. I'll open my mind to any counter-argument that makes sense and is in turn un-counterable. As I said before, "dogma" or dogmatic "fact" is something adopted without support in verifiable evidence or reasonable interpretation of a text. I have never declared any such thing.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 02-03-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One should note that the idea of the pre-Christian heavenly redeemer, which was popular among scholars in the early twentieth century, is now largely abandoned.

See for example Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy

Andrew Criddle

I think you've missed the gnostic scholarship of the late 20th century which came to the position that gnostic redeemer myths like those of the Apocalypse of Adam, or the Apocryphon of John, or the Paraphrase of Shem were pre-Christian and rose independently of Christianity. I don't know of anyone in the field these days who would interpret Derdekeas or The Third Illuminator as derived from Christianity's Jesus or even the Pauline Christ. That would be naive apologetics.

Earl Doherty

But, Scholarship today regard your position as naive or in error. Hebrews 8.4 is not considered a smoking gun for a heaveny Jesus by many many Scholars whether HJ or MJ.

Appealing to Scholarship does not help you at all.

EarlDoherty · 02-03-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In the interest of fairness, I did finally find a reference to a 'heavenly crucifixion' akin to what Doherty is suggesting. It comes from Birger Pearson's discussion of the original Greek text of the Acts of Archelaus:

Pearson and Stroumsa and King all suspect that ώραία is something more than a mere adjective. It is a reference to the primordial figure of Norea/Horaia. But for our purposes the "crucified in the firmament by the Living Spirit" reference which should draw our attention.

Spiritual, heavenly crucifixion stories are just that, stories. They cannot be verified. OK, fine for parallels etc, the Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below. Theological, or philosophical, interpretations can handle that type of comparison.

Sure, let Doherty keep his heavenly, not on earth, crucifixion for his Pauline JC figure. The issue here is Doherty's dogmatic insistence that Hebrews and the Pauline epistles know nothing about the gospel JC crucifixion story. And it's this Doherty position that has driven the ahistoricist/mythicist position into a cul-de-sac. Doherty has to back out of this position if he wants to be a player in moving the ahistoricist/mythicist position forward.

And you consider yourself a player, maryhelena?

And exactly what kind of 'verification' do you expect for a heavenly crucifixion story?

And are you actually subscribing to Hoffmann's (and Ehrman's) contention that the Gospels are based on oral traditions going back before Paul? Where do you address, let alone rebut, my arguments against this in my response to Ehrman's book?

That's what "players" do, mh, they engage with the arguments of those they disagree with, not just indulge in empty rhetoric and pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook. See my definition above of what constitutes "dogma."

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 02-03-2013, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In the interest of fairness, I did finally find a reference to a 'heavenly crucifixion' akin to what Doherty is suggesting. It comes from Birger Pearson's discussion of the original Greek text of the Acts of Archelaus:

Pearson and Stroumsa and King all suspect that ώραία is something more than a mere adjective. It is a reference to the primordial figure of Norea/Horaia. But for our purposes the "crucified in the firmament by the Living Spirit" reference which should draw our attention.

Spiritual, heavenly crucifixion stories are just that, stories. They cannot be verified. OK, fine for parallels etc, the Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below. Theological, or philosophical, interpretations can handle that type of comparison.

Sure, let Doherty keep his heavenly, not on earth, crucifixion for his Pauline JC figure. The issue here is Doherty's dogmatic insistence that Hebrews and the Pauline epistles know nothing about the gospel JC crucifixion story. And it's this Doherty position that has driven the ahistoricist/mythicist position into a cul-de-sac. Doherty has to back out of this position if he wants to be a player in moving the ahistoricist/mythicist position forward.

And you consider yourself a player, maryhelena?

And exactly what kind of 'verification' do you expect for a heavenly crucifixion story?

And are you actually subscribing to Hoffmann's (and Ehrman's) contention that the Gospels are based on oral traditions going back before Paul? Where do you address, let alone rebut, my arguments against this in my response to Ehrman's book?

That's what "players" do, mh, they engage with the arguments of those they disagree with, not just indulge in empty rhetoric and pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook. See my definition above of what constitutes "dogma."

Earl Doherty

icardfacepalm:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2013, 08:17 AM	#222
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One should note that the idea of the pre-Christian heavenly redeemer, which was popular among scholars in the early twentieth century, is now largely abandoned. See for example Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy Andrew Criddle

02-03-2013, 08:29 AM	#224
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No we're friends. I got him to admit - in an email - that Stephen Carlson's use of low image black and white photos was both puzzling and troubling. He thinks there is other evidence to support forgery. But he was taken aback by that revelation. He's a really smart guy and Baarda once told me (when I was telling him that Pearson didn't check Carlson's use of the photos) that he is one of the best scholars of this generation. Really smart guy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.