Toto

They seem to be part of a vision which does not take place on earth. On p. 61, the vision does seem to go into the stars:

From just reading this, it appears to me that this whole vision, including the caves, is part of some starry higher realm. You want to place the caves in a lower realm because of your interpretation of Platonic geography. I don't see any indication from the text that this is required. :huh:

I think you are avoiding Doherty's main points.

aa5874

You have not laid out any historical evidence of Jesus because if you did posters would have noticed.

You like other HJers repeat the fallacy that HJ is the best explanation for the available evidence when the available evidence clearly without contradiction state the origin of Jesus.

HJ is based on your imagination or belief NOT the available evidence.

We know the majority of the available evidence and they are the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny. The available evidence in these documents are overwhelmingly in support of Jesus as a God/man who born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

I think it is time for HJers to stop making known erroneous claims about the available evidence if they want to appear credible and has some veracity in them.

You appear to be just a believer or perhaps a missionary, who believe Gods are real and you really don't need the available evidence.

You rely on the Pauline writings as evidence for an HJ when the Pauline writer clearly stated he was NOT the apostle of a man, but from Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead. The Pauline writer also claimed his gospel was NOT from man.

And further you cannot even show, using any credible external sources, that any Pauline writer actually lived and died in the first century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Your continuous assertion is bogus.

The available evidence says virtually nothing about a man called Jesus Christ, not even the forgery in Josephus since IT was raised from the dead.

GakuseiDon

Agreed.

Plutarch talks of a chasm. The spirits are above it, "clustering together like birds" and being affected by odors "wafting up". If they stay where they are too long, the soul takes on moisture, and sinks down to earth into rebirth. (They don't sink down into a sky cave into rebirth) Are we agreed?

The writer continues:

The spirit said that by this opening Dionysus went up to the gods, and afterward led Semele up by the same way, and that the place is called Lethie.

The place -- that opening that the spirits are looking down at -- is explicitly identified as Lethe, the Place of Oblivion, in the Underworld. Dionysus rescued Semele, his mother, from the Underworld. So the cavern can hardly be detached from the ground. Fair reading?

I'm more than happy to get back to your other points, once we can clear the above up.

Toto

That still doesn't locate the chasm on earth.

This is all taking place in a vision that sounds like anticipatory science fiction space travel. There are shooting stars and spirits with fleshy elements. I would not expect anything to be attached to the ground, or reality as we know it.

I doubt that the above is subject to being cleared up. And I suspect that if it were, you would just find some other irrelevant point to worry about.

GakuseiDon

Well, I always tell people to not take my word for things, and investigate them for themselves. It's easy to convince people on the first part; not so easy on the second.

So credit to you and anyone else who has looked at this for themselves, even if they've drawn different conclusions to me. Thanks Toto!

I'll answer the other points in your earlier post after I finish work (just on lunch break at moment).

GakuseiDon

Yes, but I'm questioning Doherty's specific interpretation of a passage. It doesn't matter whether Plutarch is a perfect example of anything, it is Doherty's interpretation that I am questioning.

Again, irrelevant. I've given the passage that Doherty uses. That's the one I am questioning.

Definitely, in the air.

Nothing really. It is consistent with how others like Paul use "flesh". And it is consistent with my criticism: anything that contains earth or water naturally sinks to the earth.

No. Anything taking on flesh naturally descends to the ground, as the example above tells us. That's why impure spirits -- those taking on earth or water -- flittered around graves. But spirits didn't need flesh in order to stand in front of you. The docetic Jesus didn't appear to have flesh at all. So this is nothing to do with doceticism.

The docetic Jesus was the latter: a spirit that others perceived to be a real person on earth.

True enough. On the other hand, if I have captured the point this time, as I think I clearly have, then this would increase the odds that I caught the point in previous times. And if your reading of Plutarch is insufficient here, then I suppose vice versa.

I'll let others decide if my critique of that passage is fair.

Toto, I have grasped his theory; I wonder if you have, based on your comment below. Would you like to summarize his "Sublunar incarnation theory" for me?

Guilty as charged. That's because the examples on p 150 have nothing to do with the passage I was critiquing.

Sigh. I have never never ever raised a problem with things like thrones and cities being in the SUPRA-lunar realm. But how many of those things above were in the SUB-lunar realm?

I've repeated this complaint so many times that... well, I can't think of a pithy saying to complete this thought, but I sure it would have been both devastating and funny at the same time.

That's what makes me wonder how much memory you retain of your posts to me, Toto. Hey, where's that $100 I lent you?

Toto, why should I care what is in the SUPRA-lunar realm? Spell it out for me, please.

Here are mine and Doherty's theories again. Let me know if you disagree with the description: Doherty believes that people thought that there were thrones and cities above the firmament. I believe this also.

Doherty believes that people thought that there was a "World of Myth" in the sublunar realm, where gods could be dismembered and Christ could take on flesh and be crucified.

I believe that there is no evidence that people thought that there was a "World of Myth" in the sublunar realm. They didn't think that their gods' myths occurred there. They had no concept that a god could take on flesh and be castrated or dismembered in such a realm. Anything made of flesh -- which contains earth and water -- is naturally attracted to the ground. Spiritual bodies, including souls, were made of air and fire, and so could float. But if they started to take on earth or water, they began to sink.

Doherty has no evidence for his theory, and I have evidence for mine. And it appears that his new material here supports my side, not his (though I know you disagree with this).

"No direct evidence". Oh, touche Doherty! I am rebutted brilliantly! The problem is that not only does he have no direct evidence, his indirect evidence is crap. And I have evidence to support my side.

maryhelena

Care to point out where I can read the FRDB definition of the mythicist position?

I'm not looking for what any individual posters think a mythicist position is - after all misunderstandings are to be expected there - but it would be interesting to know if this fourm has some sort of official position on the mythicist position.

The history of those who question the historical Jesus idea, does, I think, show that a mythicist position has never been set in stone...:constern01:

While the modern term 'mythicist' might not have been used for those early questioners of the historicity of Jesus - methinks no modern day mythicist would want to deny their historic link to these early frontrunners...

http://www.egodeath.com/drewshistory...m#_Toc51777087

dog-on

maryhelena, you are correct. The basic mythicist position, at least in my view, is simply that the gospel Jesus Christ is a myth.

An originator is a given. Who that was, exactly, is the question.

HJ, I think, names this originator Jesus.

maryhelena

And therein lies their first assumption....

An originator or an inspirer - could be either. But the inspiration idea seems to ring a bell with me. Such an inspirational figure might have ignited a spark plug in the brain of some other figure - and things rolled along from there. So, one could be looking at two historical figures that had a major part in early christian thought - and how could one define which one was the most important one? The idea or its grounding...

(no one, in their right mind, is going to set themselves up as the anointed one, the messiah, the savior etc - those are 'accolades' that others will bestow - as even Jesus in the gospel storyline asks of his disciples - who do people say that I am.....)

Take Nelson Mandela, for instance. A myth in the making, a living legend. At the end of the day, what he himself did can be questioned (his role in the armed wing of the ANC). But as an inspirational figure he, in Africa, and in many parts of the word, stands at the pinnacle of renown. A humanitarian figure par excellence. One can question just what exactly he did while president of SA. But that is, again, to miss the point - it is Mandela's life, his very existence, that is the inspiration to so many. Yes, he was the symbol of the anti apartheid movement - and it is as a symbol that Mandela will forever be remembered. That is his legacy - that at the right time and place such a figure as Mandela was able to capture the moment and inspire others to walk that long road to freedom with him.

Mandela is, of course still with us - but methinks the storytelling, in Africa at least, is only about to begin...Sure, the Mandela storytelling will most probably carry his name - for sometime at least. However, already, Mandela is most often referred to as 'Madiba' - so down the line - just for argument - the storytelling could easily drop the Mandela name - since that name can also carry some baggage - and the 'Madiba' name could become the focus of the future storytelling - with embellishment tagged on so that in time the 'Madiba' storyboard itself far overshadowed anything Mandela ever did. Later generations could then be asking the question - 'just who was Madiba' - and might well be surprised that the historical figure behind the 'Madiba' storyboard was not a bit like the embellished 'Madiba' of the storytelling - so much so that it would be impossible to make a simple equation. (Things like origin stories - obscure humble beginning having more resonance with the common folk than a royal connection might have).

I'm not suggesting the early christians did exactly the above...
Their interest was theological and prophetic from the start - not mere history but interpretation of that history. Hence, using a 'Jesus' storyboard would have been more involved than a simple 'Madiba' like story. But the general idea, an inspirational historical figure being the impetus for a theological/prophetic movement - is perhaps worth considering. And being a theological and prophetic storytelling - the 'meaning' of the storytelling going way beyond its historical core - that historical core gets shifted onto the back-burner.....

dog-on

Perhaps so.

I suppose the real issue is that, there may have indeed been a figure behind the myth, but no real evidence for who that might have been.

The stories and Christianity itself works just as well with or without an HJ, so positing an HJ as necessary simply because of them seems kinda weak, imo.