EarlDoherty

(continued-part 2)

Following up his general denial, Don goes on to look at individual savior gods. But it is hardly proof against my contention that Attis was castrated “in the air” (as he puts it) that he simply cites the description of the standard Attis myth, which began as a primordial on-earth story and continued on the popular level in much the same vein. As I said, his refusal to take into account my focus on what was the cultic interpretation of that story has skewed his review.

At his own peril (for he is actually presenting evidence on my behalf), Don appeals to the 4th century Sallustius who was one of those philosophers who rendered the traditional myth of Attis allegorical, just as Plutarch had done. But allegory is still an interpretation, an attempt to find meaning and significance within the mythical tale, something that the cults themselves would certainly have been doing. Whether the cults saw them strictly as allegory or not, we don’t know, but they were essentially engaging in a similar exercise for their own cultic purposes. And what sort of interpretation did Sallustius put on the Attis myth? Don does us the favor of quoting it:

Like Don, I have bolded passages I like. How does Sallustius read the elements of the traditional myth? The “river Gallus” signifies “the Galaxy, or Milky Way,” an element in the heavens. The Mother gives Attis “celestial powers.” The creation of the lower world involves the upper world bestowing its generative powers upon it. Sallustius has elsewhere (I quote him in both books) stated that the myths represent “timeless processes,” that the story of Attis represents “an eternal cosmic process, not an isolated event of the past.” In other words, it has nothing to do with events on earth. The original myth has been transplanted. While Paul may not have styled the Christ event as something eternal or a timeless process that didn’t actually happen (he believes in its heavenly literality), he is offering it as a heavenly thing, just as Sallustius was to do.

Sallustius’ comments about demarcation lines involving passion and processes of generation are mirrored in his contemporary Julian the Apostate. In both books I quote him on views such as this, referring to levels of the heavens:

and as I paraphrase him (p.114):

Again, here we have an interpretation of a cultic savior god myth in terms of heavenly realities, heavenly realities which had their effects on earth, a dual system involving paradigmatic counterpart relationships, as I highlight in salvation systems both Christian and pagan. And yet we are not to envision anything similar in the way the mystery cult rituals applied the myth, nothing that could so interpret them as events in the heavens? None of this is evidence justifying a reading of the cultic myths in terms of a heavenly placement? Don hasn’t even come near to presenting a case excluding such a thing. (In fact, this is an echo of his past backpedaling on this board over the issue of whether human-like activities of divine entities were allotted to layers of the heavens (as in my Enochian quotes), by restricting his exclusion of them to the area below the moon. Neither of his attempted exclusions makes much sense, let alone enjoys evidence in its favor.

In regard to his quote from Sallustius, Don says:

Obviously, there is something seriously amiss here. Sallustius does have a ‘world of myth’ in mind. That world is in the heavens. That is where his “timeless spiritual processes” take place which he claims the traditional Attis myth represents. That traditional myth is acknowledged, in its original thinking, to have taken place on earth, by a river in Phrygia. But that myth was in existence long before Attis became part of a savior god cult. Its former state and its traditional reading tell us nothing about what the Attis cult was to make of it, how it came to interpret the myth. Sallustius is one who tells us that, in some circles at least, it underwent a philosophical transformation and transplanting to some sort of reality (those spiritual processes) in the heavens. Nor is the principle disproven in regard to Christianity just because Paul didn’t render that spiritual reality as simply allegory for non-literal processes.

A separate issue is involved in Don’s other comments above. He questions whether there was a river Gallus in the heavens, or shepherds and nymphs, just as he has thought to discredit a heavenly crucifixion by pooh-poohing the idea of cross and nails in the heavens. Well, I devote a few pages to that issue as well, demonstrating that earth-type artefacts are indeed envisioned in the heavens, though we cannot know exactly how literally or constituting what material the ancients, or any given sect, may have viewed such heavenly counterparts. (None of this discussion does Don attempt to deal with.) I have several times asked Don if he thinks the famous “heavenly Jerusalem” contained buildings, or cobblestoned streets. In all those Jewish sectarian accounts of ascents to the heavens by prophets and the like, wherein the vision contained accounts of things like thrones and crowns, did the writers regard these things as allegories only, as not actually existing in some form—perhaps some kind of spiritual form—in the heavens? What about the heavenly scenes in Revelation, which involve scrolls and mounted horsemen? I never get an answer, probably because Don realizes that in well-known cases like this, it would be difficult to argue that all these writers and their communities took the Plutarch and Sallustius approach: oh, these things don’t really, can’t really, exist anything like we describe them, the heavenly Jerusalem isn’t really an entity in heaven, it has no reality, we’re just using the idea as representing some timeless and unknown spiritual process. Yet the line gets drawn on this side of the crucifixion of Christ in the firmament: no wood and nails, you know.

We find the same sort of heavenly reality interpretations (if also allegory) of the myth of the savior god Osiris in Plutarch. One of the features of his Isis and Osiris is that it discusses the myth on both levels, the ‘historical’ legend of Osiris as a king of Egypt in primordial times, and the ‘heavenly’ reading which Plutarch gives it. Don seems to think that in pointing to the former in Plutarch’s dissertation that he has eliminated the latter from contention. He admits that there is an allegorical dimension in Plutarch’s analysis, but he declares that “If the ‘average pagan’ thought in terms of the myths playing out above the earth in anything other than allegorical terms, then Plutarch didn't appear to know about it.” But Plutarch’s object is to present the allegorical reading in order to persuade people like the priestess Clea that literal belief in the Osiris legend is the wrong route to follow. The latter clearly is what the average person-in-the-street believes and what Plutarch is intent on countering. Don suggests that if the mystery rites of Osiris had their own interpretation within the cult itself, Plutarch should have addressed that as well. But this would run up against the secrecy rule, and there is no reason why Plutarch should have broken it, or why he would wish to address it for his target readership. Besides, for those in the know, his allegorical rendition of the traditional myth itself would have served to comment on any secret interpretation within the rites.

(continued below)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

(continued-part 3)

Don will discuss Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris in greater detail later in his review, but now he takes time out to address his favorite document (mine, too!), the Ascension of Isaiah. Those on this board may remember that he recently became fixated on the phrase “in your form” in chapter 9. In his review he had focused on this as an unmistakable reference to the descending Son being at some point on earth if he was seen as adopting human form, since if crucified in the firmament, he would supposedly have adopted the form of the evil angels of that location. For the purpose of this thread, I am not going to go into any comprehensive detail on this. Suffice to say that the Ascension is a document that underwent many editings and insertions over the course of its development, in its several manuscript lines, and to base any allegedly slam-dunk argument based on nitty-gritty wording in such a document is a shaky procedure (as it is in the early Christian record generally). At this very point in the text (in chapter 9), there is an apparent insertion by some Gnostic editor in regard to Christ remaining “in that world for 545 days.” On the “Vision of Isaiah” thread, I had this to say (posting #59), and I’ll let that stand for now as a response to this part of Don’s review:

Yet another example of his review’s skewed nature which I referred to earlier is to be seen in Don’s appeal to Justin:

Well, not too many second century apologists (up to 180) seem to have believed that Christ was incarnated on earth, but yes, Justin was one who did. But what are the gods whom Justin is comparing his incarnated Christ with? In the First Apology passage quoted by Don, Justin mentions Jupiter, Mercury, Aesclepius, Hercules. There is no mention of Osiris, Attis, Mithras, and certainly not any context of the mystery cults. The mention of Bacchus (Dionysos) is to his traditional role as part of the Olympian pantheon, not to his cultic dimension as a savior god. I have never said (not even in The Jesus Puzzle) that the traditional figures of Greek mythology were transplanted to a heavenly world. Moreover, in the context of the point which Justin wishes to make, that certain features of his earthly Jesus paralleled certain features of the Greek gods, he required that the latter took place on earth, even if in a primordial time. Pointing to heavenly events by the Hellenistic savior gods (if Justin were a party to the cults’ interpretations of their myths, which is by no means sure) would not have served his purpose.

Now, Don might have a point to make if he asked why, on the salvation-process level, he did not compare Christ’s death and rising role with that of the other savior gods, at which time he might have made reference to the difference in venue for those activities. But he does not. He also attempts a reverse case in regard to Celsus. But here, too, he fails to make any clear distinction between traditional Greek mythology and the interpretation of the savior god myths within the cults, so it is difficult to know whether Don is aware of such a distinction in Celsus, as preserved by Origen. As in the case of Justin, Celsus is dealing with the Gospel accounts of an earthly Christ, and he too is anxious to demonstrate that the Christians have produced nothing new in the details of that story. The fruits for such a comparison lie in the traditional Greek mythology, not in the mystery cults’ use of their mythology, and so the former is what Celsus would have focused on for his own purposes. He, too, like Plutarch, would have avoided delving too deeply into the secret knowledge of the mysteries, if he was even familiar with it on a personal basis. We could also note that Celsus does not highlight a particular and very important difference between the Christians’ Jesus on earth and the Greek gods on earth: that the former took place within recent memory while the latter were events of a distant past. That contrast Don would accept, and yet he does not question why Celsus fails to present it.

As a finale to his review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man Don takes on Richard Carrier and his 2002 review of The Jesus Puzzle, with special emphasis on Carrier’s support for my “sublunar incarnation” theory. This is another of Don’s longstanding bugaboos. Let me reiterate once again that I have never, including in The Jesus Puzzle specifically advocated that Paul and other early cultic Christ-ers believed that Jesus was crucified “in the heavens below the moon.” They may have had in mind that specific location, or they may not. They do not say so. What the evidence does indicate, however, is that they regarded Christ as crucified somewhere in a spiritual dimension, not on earth in a specific historical time and place. Given the Platonic cosmology of the era, we can feel pretty secure that this spiritual dimension had something to do with the layers of the heavens (Hebrews even makes a passing reference to them). But there was a lot of variety in exactly how those layers were perceived, their number and nature and what could go on in them, as many of the examples I gave in my “World of Myth” chapter indicate. For some Jewish sects whose documents we possess, suffering and death could go on in layers of the upper heavens, not only below the moon. So we cannot be sure just how Paul viewed the death of the Lord of glory at the hands of the rulers of this age.

The “sublunar” theory is presented as a principle. It is an essential element of the pervasive concept of a division between the perishable and the imperishable and what could go on in both realms. It is a kind of common denominator into which the salvation theories of the day, both Jewish/Christian and pagan, can be understood within the context of Platonic cosmology. The descending god must come down to an area of the universe in which he can undergo suffering and death, to the sphere of corruption and change. In his descent he takes on a likeness to lower forms, including humans. Incidentally, the “in your form” of the Ascension 9 is not necessarily an ironclad reference to human incarnation, even as an editorial insertion. The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

Don finds fault with Carrier’s support:

Don is being his usual stickler self here, demanding an identical parallel or it’s no cigar. First of all, he is being overly literal in regard to the term “incarnation.” It is not being used by Carrier or myself (actually, I never use the term at all in regard to the cultic Christ) to have the same meaning as the orthodox incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, born into a human life. Changing form as one descends into a lower level of the heavens is not incarnation, nor is the descent of Inanna into the underworld. The term is being loosely used by Carrier to signify the descent into a lower world, and the changes that this entails. Nor does it have to be specifically below the moon, in either case. It is the basic set of concepts that is common to both, and in that sense it is indeed a “proof-of-concept.” This is yet another case of Don doing his usual thing, setting up straw men he can then reject for not being strictly consistent with the issue.

Now he goes on to Carrier’s presentation (and mine) of the ‘proof-of-concept’ in Plutarch. He quotes Carrier:

Now, would it not have been the right thing to do to quote Plutarch here, to show how Carrier has “rearranged” his words in some misleading fashion? And why is Don drawing on Carrier’s use of these words at all, when the book he is supposed to be reviewing quotes all the same passages (JNGNM, p.146-8), in—hopefully—no misleading rearrangement of words?

There are four passages in the same vicinity within Isis and Osiris (sections 373 to 376), and while they are not given in the optimum order for our purposes, there is no confusing Plutarch’s handling of the “higher reading” of the Osiris myth. In 376D, he makes the Platonic distinction between the realms of corruptibility and incorruptibility:

In 375A, he says that Typhon, a Satan-like figure who represents the activity of evil, operates in the area near the orbit of the moon:

And what are these “outermost areas”? 375B makes that clear:

The “outermost part of matter” is that contained underneath the orb of the moon. And what does Plutarch locate there? We can expand on the second quote above:

This is a clear statement by Plutarch that he locates the ‘higher’ myth of Isis and Osiris in the “outermost part of matter,” namely the area below the moon. As for Carrier’s remark about the outermost areas being “where some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled,” this is also a reference—particularly in regard to the “continually”—to a passage in 373A:

Typhon, who is said to operate in the area below the moon, repeatedly causes the death of the body of Osiris (his soul remains in the upper heavens while his body has descended), while Isis brings about his resurrection in the same location. As I say in JNGNM, p.147-8:

So what exactly is it that Carrier has done to these various passages which creates Don’s alleged wrong impression? “Carrier has rearranged those words to make Plutarch say something he does not say.” What has Carrier said (or myself, for that matter) which Plutarch does not say? Don does not enlighten us with any concrete description of the matter.

The extent of what he does provide as rebuttal is as follows:

Well, we have just checked Plutarch for ourselves, and quite clearly Plutarch does say that Osiris dies (at Typhon’s hand) and resurrects (at Isis’ hand) in the sublunar heaven. And it sounds like Don is again insisting that he won’t accept anything but a literal meaning of the word “incarnation.” Incidentally, I have used the very same online translation of Isis and Osiris which Don has provided a link to, and as far as I can see, Carrier has used the same one. And I don’t know on which forum(s) “generally people agree that Carrier has misrepresented Plutarch.” It certainly wasn’t the FRDB, from what I recall of those discussions. (Perhaps it was the very reasonable and unbiased Tim O’Neil and his cronies on RationalSkepticism.)

(continued below)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

(continued-part 4)

Having dealt with Plutarch in the context of Carrier’s review of The Jesus Puzzle, Don now approaches Plutarch from his own point of view. He says he will be quoting from Isis and Osiris to “provide some idea of how the myths were viewed in Plutarch’s time.” He needs to be careful here, for showing how Plutarch interpreted the myths is not necessarily indicating how everyone else interpreted them. After dealing with the ‘historical’ legends of Osiris and Isis as rulers of Egypt, Plutarch shifts to interpreting the myths on a different level. As Don puts it:

There is nothing unusual about the ancients seeing the savior god myths as representing natural events and forces. The standard way scholarship has always analysed the myths is as a representation of the astronomical workings of the universe and of nature on earth, especially in regard to the cycle of the seasons and agriculture. (More recent scholarship has come up with some alternate proposals by which the myths could be interpreted, but that of the agricultural cycles does not merit abandonment.) Plutarch certainly leans in the direction of myth as allegory of natural events and forces, but lest Don overlook the point, such things are not restricted to earth itself. And in fact Plutarch is constantly referring to “nature” in the heavens, as Don has just noted in the above quote. To illustrate, he quotes Plutarch in 358e:

As Don has put it, Plutarch’s objections to certain “lurid parts” of the myth are that they impute to Osiris things which go against “the nature of the imperishable,” that of “the true divinity above the firmament.” In other words, there are elements of the myth which, as Plutarch sees it, relate to Osiris in his higher-heavenly state. In the last of my own quotes earlier, the “soul” of Osiris is regarded as “everlasting” and “imperishable,” while his “body” is subject to death and dismemberment. Such distinctions cannot be operative on earth alone. And Plutarch throughout that particular passage is concerned with the cosmological distinctions and relationships between the imperishable and the perishable, and the Platonic principle of the generation of the lower, “sensible and corporeal” world by the higher “good (and) superior” world. Thus they encompass much more than the “natural forces” of the earthly dimension. Clearly, Osiris in Plutarch’s view, in the allegory of his myth, operates at least in the heavens as well.

But what of the part about the legend of Osiris in regard to his “body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again”? Is Plutarch allegorizing this as representing forces of nature on earth? Not even Don tries to claim this. Plutarch’s context is the various interpretations of the Osiris myth which other philosophers have offered. “Thus among the Egyptians such men say that Osiris is the Nile consorting with the Earth, which is Isis, and that the sea is Typhon into which the Nile discharges its waters…” Or, as Don summarizes it, “Osiris is the Nile and moisture, while Typhon is the dry heat that is ‘anti-moisture’.” Note that these are not Plutarch’s own preferred interpretations, though he grants them respectability as the product of wise philosophers. Such passages illustrate that there was a variety of allegorical interpretation of the Osiris myth (just as there was of other savior god myths). It is that very variety, along with the literal approach of the person-in-the-street to seeing the myths as tales of the gods’ activities on earth which Plutarch criticizes, which makes it impossible to declare—as Don has often done—that the myths could be seen only one way: as tales set in a distant past on earth.

Don highlights another interpretation of the myth as given by Plutarch:

Please note that neither is this “eclipse” interpretation offered by Plutarch as his own. It is yet another put forward by “some” of those wise philosophers, adding another to the list of diverse and current interpretations of the myth. We can also note that this one applies to natural forces in the heavens, even the moon itself.

And where does Don go from here? Back to that passage in my final quote.

Well, not only is Don here begging the question by declaring that the reference at the opening of the above quote to Osiris’ body being dismembered is “on earth,” we saw earlier that a consideration of several passages throughout this part of the work would lead us in the opposite direction, to seeing the “dismemberment” story not as taking place on earth but in the heavens below the moon where Typhon operated. Just because Plutarch tells us of other interpretations by other philosophers which tie the allegory to earth does not mean that this one automatically has to as well. In fact, Don wishes to favor the interpretation that it represents what happens during an eclipse, which is an event which does not take place on earth. In the latter half of Don’s quote just above, the actions of Typhon in regard to eclipses is entirely portrayed as taking place in the heavens. It thus becomes very dubious and not a little contradictory for Don to declare that the dismemberment story takes place on earth. How can what happens during an eclipse be said to take place on earth? Don has tied himself in knots here.

Moreover, the context in the Plutarch quote about the body of Osiris being dismembered by Typhon (in the first half of Don’s above quote) has nothing to do with eclipses. It is, as I pointed out earlier, about the relationship between the spiritual and material portions of the universe; the creation of images from the former being converted into copies in the latter which are not permanent, but ‘overtaken by disorder and disturbance, driven from the upper reaches.’ These are cosmic events encompassing the entire universe, not merely earthly ones. Plutarch is analysing the myth in the context of this cosmic dimension.

I have placed a gap between the two parts of Don’s above quote, because running them together as Don does, separated only by a simple hiatus (…), creates the impression that the second follows more or less immediately upon the first. In fact, there are a couple of dozen lines of text between them, including a clear change of subject. Don seems to be trying to link the eclipse motif of the second part with the dismemberment motif of the first part. (Though to what end, I don’t know, as I’ve pointed out that any ‘eclipse’ event takes place in the heavens, not on earth, something the quoted text clearly presents.) In any case, that later passage is simply a detailing of some of the mischief which Typhon is guilty of, and is not in any way being related to the myth of Osiris’ dismemberment. This is another example of Don’s atomism.

Moreover, the passage containing the reference to Osiris’ dismemberment by Typhon follows on a previous paragraph which does a couple of things. First, it establishes that Plutarch is now on personally preferred ground. These are the allegorical interpretations which he supports. Second, his focus is not on eclipses, or on earthly events, but on abstract principles basic to the universe’s functioning. These may well be styled “natural forces” but they are not in any way tied to the surface of the earth or historical events:

This leads into that key paragraph: “It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they have a legend…” For Plutarch at this point, the focus of that legend is the role of Isis in reassembling the dismembered Osiris, for she is seeking the reestablishment of his former unity and perfection: “for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change.” This follows on that preceding paragraph in which Isis “yearns for and pursues” that “which is identical with the good.” This yearning, the “inclining toward the better” is not an isolated event (and certainly not an eclipse), but an ongoing process, something which she repeats. Thus, the tie Plutarch makes in the next paragraph with it being fitting that the legend involves a repetition of the process of dismemberment (the repeated action of evil in the world) followed by the regeneration of Osiris (Isis’ repeated quest to establish the good).

The impression Don creates in this concluding part of his review is of a disorganized wandering over the Plutarchian landscape, pointing to this or that feature of his surroundings—usually misinterpreted—in an attempt to back up declarations that are unargued, let alone clinched by supporting evidence: that Plutarch has no thought about a myth given a setting in the heavens, that no sublunar concept is present, that there is nothing here that could provide “proof of concept” for Doherty’s theory. Rather, by choosing to focus on this text, he has in fact provided material for examination which does those very things. The sublunar concept is indeed present, and is assigned to the activities of the evil Typhon, including his dismemberment of Osiris. Osiris is a descending god, in that his soul, his pure godhood, resides in the upper reaches, but his body has descended to undergo death and resurrection. Plutarch’s rendering of the myth relates to processes on a scale covering both upper and lower heavens, not earthly historical events. Unlike Paul, Plutarch may be envisioning his heavenly myth as allegory only, not literal events taking place in another dimension; we don’t have to worry about the availability of dismemberment tools used by Typhon, let alone spiritual nails and crosses. But that is beside the point. We were looking for placement of savior god myths in the heavens, with motifs that were in common with some of those in the Christ myth found in Paul. Whether those processes in the heavens were treated as literal or allegorical does not matter. Plutarch has given them to us.

This ends my reply to Don's review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. I'll be recasting it shortly for my Jesus Puzzle website, in the Responses to Critiques section.

Earl Doherty

TedM

You're saying it better than I was Steve. I still think some weight should be given to Act 18 where it is specifically stated that when Paul was in Corinth he was accused by Jews of persuading men to worship God contrary to law. I think the latter part of Acts is likely fairly accurate history, and I believe the 'we' parts are first-hand accounts. For me this ups the probability even more. Simplest explanation for me is that 'another Jesus' is equivalent to 'another gospel'.

At the time Paul wrote he was much more interested in his gospel about what the resurrection meant than in details about Jesus. This is most reasonably explained by the idea that Jesus was a flash in the pan charisma without an abundance of known theology. Especially given the universal plethora of early epistle references to Jesus as though he were a human being, and the paltry lack of references to him as being a being from heaven who lived and died in some other sphere in some unknown time frame. To me, the only way Earl is right with his theory is if there was a lot of doctoring to the early texts to remove/rephrase those 'cosmic' references (as they surely would have existed in much clearer form than what we have today), in order to form a more cohesive picture of Jesus, gospel-style. Yet, the very lack of this picture of Jesus in the earliest epistles suggest to me that such doctoring never occurred. My conclusion: It never had to occur because Paul's Jesus wasn't the one Earl thinks he was. There was no need for a 'revelatory' Jesus in Paul's writings--only for a 'revelatory gospel'. THAT'S the revelation Paul writes about--what his resurrection MEANT. The revelatory gospel was NOT about what Jesus did or said--whether that was in some other sphere or while on earth.

TedM

Your review of this passage surely addresses this but I'll comment anyway:

Does the following passage REALLY sound like it is referring to demons?:

Would the demons really have not crucified the Lord had they understood wisdom? Were the demons really good-natured souls who just didn't understand? Why doesn't Paul talk about those good-natured demons? Wouldn't you expect to see such a discussion? Was that doctored?

If Paul was talking about demons why does he then--in the very next verse-talk about the wisdom of MEN? IN FACT, why is the context from much of the preceding chapter that of a discussion of the wisdom of MAN? Doesn't the insertation of unwise demons--in the verse that mentions the crucifixion--in the middle of a discussion about wisdom given to MEN seem really out of place?



Where in Hebrews does the SACRIFICE occur in the heavenly sanctuary? I am not seeing that. Yes, Hebrews talks about heavenly copies and new covenant occuring in heaven, but the actual SACRIFICE is NOT described as happening in heaven. The sacrifice itself happens elsewhere--on a place that sounds a LOT like EARTH:

If these verses about Jesus being just like us, flesh and blood, were describing a happening NOT on earth, wouldn't you expect the writer to say so instead of saying 'when he comes into the world' with no explanation that he didn't mean THIS world? Earl says that savior cults were 'secretive' and that is why we don't know of the details of these heavenly happenings, but we have Hebrews right? Was the writer being secretive in his own writings? And, where is the scriptural support for the loud crying and tears the author says he gave up (presumably on the cross)? Where is the writer getting that from if it not from real events on earth?

And why, when the author is talking about a second appearance does he not qualify that the first appearance was somewhere else if not on earth?:

And why does he not offer any support for the claim that Jesus was descended from Judah, instead mentioning it as 'evident'. So too no clarification on how he could be descended from Judah yet never live on earth..More doctoring??


WHY, if this happened in another sphere, was there any shame? WHO was he feeling shame in front of--the sinners who killed him? And WHO are these 'sinners' that killed him, if not people on earth. Were they the 'rulers of this age' of 2 Corinth--Demons? Would he have called demons simply 'sinners' here?

And why does the author say he suffered 'outside the gate' without qualifying that this wasn't an earthly place? Why even mention that as though he KNOWS that is where Jesus was crucified?:

It seems to me that Hebrews, with its deep reliance on scriptures to justify the redeemer-Christ Jesus, has many references that just don't square with your theory unless you want to propose that the work has been doctored to remove the parts that support you. If so, I'd say the doctors did a very good job in Hebrews, just as they did in 1 Cor 2.


While I'm at it, I'll address Earl's often repeated claim that Hebrews 8:4 outright says that Jesus never was on earth. Here's the verse:

Certainly one could see this as Earl does, as meaning 'if he had been on earth'. However, let's look at the context. 3 verses before, the author says

He is saying that after sacrificing, NOW Jesus is in heaven. He again says this in verse 6:

Since he is contrasting the old covenant with the new and is also saying that with the new covenant there is no longer a need for earthly priests, could 'Now if he were on earth'? not simply mean "if he was on earth NOW' -- he wouldn't be a priest (since he did away with the old covenant requiring priests)?

Wouldn't that be a more reasonable interpretation given all of the OTHER references to a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified outside the gate by sinners?

EarlDoherty

Ted, I've said it before, on this board and elsewhere, and I'll say it again. If people like you are so interested in disproving mythicism and me in particular, why do you not familiarize yourself with my writings? All your queries about Hebrews, for example, are answered in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. You might balk at spending $40 on it, but if you're not willing to find out what you're dissenting to, if you're not willing to educate yourself on the subject rather than expect me to be constantly repeating half my book, then you shouldn't be here, pontificating from a position of ignorance. This is why I feel no obligation to address everything raised by people like yourself, or judge, or Steve (both of them) or Abe. If I took the time to swat at every flea that buzzes around my head, I would have time for nothing else.

If I'm the Son of Satan, surely it's worth a little investment to see if you can find out how best to put a stake through my heart.

Whatever happened to the likes of Ben Smith? He hardly agreed with me, but at least he knew something and could put together a coherent argument. He didn't recycle timeworn old retorts which show a virtual ignorance of the mythicist case or what's required to deal with it.

Earl Doherty

show_no_mercy

It seems that some other apostles had come to Corinth and preached some other Jesus than what Paul preached and the Corinthians accepted it to some degree.

I'm pretty sure that's what Earl is talking about. Using Galatians as prior probability doesn't help because nowhere else does Paul talk about αλλον ιησουν. The phrase Paul uses for "another gospel" in both Galatians and 2 Corinthians is ετερον ευαγγελιον. Αλλος does not mean ετερος.

TedM

If all my queries about Hebrews are answered then maybe it really is worth the $40. I highly doubt they are answered sufficiently given the considerable writings of yours I HAVE seen on these issues, so I would be taking a $40 gamble, but the time I spend 'pontificating' perhaps WOULD be better spent finding out if they are answered given your understandable unwillingness to repeat them again here. Perhaps you can save me the money and tell me if you think you have sufficiently answered all my queries about Hebrews somewhere on your own free website. I'd prefer to go the free route.

sschlichter

Assuming I am one of the Steve's, I am a little confused by your response. I supplied what I feel are hints at what another Jesus is referring to, both from Paul. I am confident that any objective person would find then coherent and applicable, agree or not. You are certainly under no obligation to respond to me. So, one less person like myself to worry about.

Good luck with your book, though.

~Steve

sschlichter

What is the significance of that? the author is clearly using repetition to refer to the same thing. the one coming with another Jesus, a different spirit, a different gospel. verse 23 makes it apparent that we are talking about Hebrews who are followers of Christ. (verses 22-23).

point of fact, jewish Christians with another gospel are preaching justification by the law in Galatia. bye the way, Gal 1:7 uses allon.

probability is that we are talking about those preaching justification by the law. The next best theory by far is a shoulder shrug.