Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 11-11-2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

I feel Maryhelena is on the right track. The real origin of the supernatural was not in the fictitious creation of a celestial universe, which was only a linguistic interpretation by writers, but in a dualistic conception of human nature, reality versus spirituality.
Crucifixion and resurrection were played out as “ideas”, as mental images fuelled not by the cosmic video screen à la Doherty, but in the imagination of the faithful.

I don't know if that is what Maryhelena is saying, but the dualistic conception of human nature sounds more like Doherty's theory.

Actually, I think Roo got my position correct. "A dualistic conception of human nature, reality verse spirituality". Mind and Matter - that is all there is!

Doherty having, working from, a "dualistic conception of human nature" ? Surely then, if that is his position, he has no need, whatsoever, for any sub-lunar, out there somewhere in a cosmic heaven, crucifixion ideas??

ApostateAbe · 11-11-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo Bookaroo

ApostateAbe:

Quote:

So, any time you are ready, you can supply the evidence that ancient mystery cults believed in this "World of Myth" you have in mind. It is an extraordinary position, because I understand that we know hardly anything about what ancient mystery cults believed ("mystery" being a key word).

Note that, in the case of Mithras, Kenneth Humphreys has posted three extensive articles, reviewing and incorporating the best of the Mithras schorlarship, about 20 authors, on his site Jesus Never Existed:

The Invincible Mithras
The Gospel of Mithras
The Companions of Mithras

with a magnificent collection of pictures, which are nearly more illuminating than the text.
Nothing similar must be available for the other godly heroes, I presume.

Yes, I am happy to discuss any such material. And welcome to the forum.

Toto · 11-11-2012, 08:25 PM

I admit that I have a lot of trouble with the thinking of those times, and with modern attempts to describe it.

We don't believe in alternative realities, so we feel comfortable describing things as either real or happening inside the human brain, and that's all there is - but even modern people ascribe great powers to some things that are confined to the human brain.

I'm not sure how much of this dispute is over definitions.

Toto · 11-11-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo Bookaroo

ApostateAbe:

Quote:

So, any time you are ready, you can supply the evidence that ancient mystery cults believed in this "World of Myth" you have in mind. It is an extraordinary position, because I understand that we know hardly anything about what ancient mystery cults believed ("mystery" being a key word).

Note that, in the case of Mithras, Kenneth Humphreys has posted three extensive articles, reviewing and incorporating the best of the Mithras scholarship, about 20 authors, on his site Jesus Never Existed:

The Invincible Mithras
The Gospel of Mithras
The Companions of Mithras

with a magnificent collection of pictures, which are nearly more illuminating than the text.
Nothing similar must be available for the other godly heroes, I presume.

available here:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html

We have no surviving Mithraic texts - only archaeological remains. We have less information on the other mystery cults.

maryhelena · 11-11-2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

One of my frustrations is that when I press you on the pagan side of the equation you continually drag this back to Paul. But surely it is obvious that I am focused on the pagan side. I want people to examine your claims there. Let's see if the evidence supports your conclusion. Let's build a picture of what pagans REALLY thought back then. Then we can move to Paul.

OK, GDon - lets have it....

In simple terms, not a lot of details, what is your position on what the 'pagan side' of this discussion believed in. Just facts - as far as they are available. No interpretations of any assumed secret goings on within ancient cults.

I go into this on Page 4 of my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review4.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Earl, as far as I can make out, is suggesting a "relocation" of pagan myths to an other worldly location - not by the ordinary believer - but within secret parts of the cults. 'Indicators' being suggestive of this.

That's right. But originally Doherty said it was part of the conceptual world of "the average pagan" -- see my quote above. And now, in response to Ehrman's criticism, Doherty writes (my bold):

I needed to have stressed that it was only in the context of interpretations within the mystery cults themselves, and not those of the common man-in-the-street or the average writer speaking of the traditional myths (such as the historian Tacitus or the geographer Pausanias), that I am claiming that a reorientation to the upper world took place for the activities of the savior gods, under the influence of Platonism.

... which is remarkably convenient, since while we have the writings of educated pagans like Tacitus, we have none from the mystery religions.

If mystery religions did reorient the activities of the saviour gods, it would have been from ancient earth-based myths into allegories of natural forces, along the lines of thought at that time. We have good evidence from Plutarch and other Middle Platonists that an allegorical view of the myths developed. The Emperor Julian -- who was an actual mystery religion devotee -- had such an allegorical view. Part of the problem of Doherty's indicators is that he is trying to pass off allegorical views as 'indicators' of a "World of Myth". But where does the "World of Myth" fit in? Nowhere. The evidence we do have survives quite nicely without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Do you think that Earl's position would be far better if he left the pagan side of things behind - and just opted for 'Paul' being the originator of the idea of a "relocation" of ancient mythology to a purely spiritual/heavenly realm for his JC ideas?

Actually, that is very perceptive of you. Yes, I do. In fact, I think that this will be Richard Carrier's approach in the book he will publish in 2013. Carrier holds Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" as (from memory) 90% speculative digression. I doubt he will be using many of Doherty's 'indicators' on the pagan side (though Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris" will almost certainly be in there.)

Thanks GDon - I'll have a look later today (one of my bridge mornings ....)

My interest in mythology is not very deep......I like to get things to basics and once I discern the base I tend to stick with that - and allow others to get involved with the subsequent developments. With regard to the JC story the basic myth is the dying and rising god myth. A myth that goes back, as far as is known, to the Innana Sumarian myth. That's really the only myth that I've taken onboard....

Roo Bookaroo · 11-11-2012, 08:56 PM

GakuseiDon:

Quote:

"I regard your work as pretty much irrelevant now that Carrier is taking up the challenge of moving the mythicist position forward in the book that he is publishing next year. As far as I know, Carrier will be using the descending-ascending god model rather than the "World of Myth" concept. It means your concept will be consigned to the fringe theories graveyard, along with astrotheology, and only supported by die-hards who don't really care one way or the other, as long as the answer is "no historical Jesus".

Please have a look at Gilbert Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion, (1925) which "traces the growth of Greek religion from its beginnings until its flowering in the major schools of philosophy".
You may already have it on your shelves. He was an Australian who moved to Oxford, and also lectured at Harvard.
His historical analysis of Greek religion is extremely insightful.

You've been too shy with your own criticisms, presenting scalpel-like critical comments, but always refusing to draw a firm conclusion, and asking the reader to "make up his/her mind".

Which I always felt unfair, since you were the one to select the arguments and the supporting texts, hence you were the best qualified to state a conclusion.
After all this is the task of the would-be scholar: you are free to select your argumentation, but you must have the guts to speak up your mind so that reader can rely on your judgment.

Then you will argue: But I am not a scholar, I am a quote picker, no more. But that is self-deception. You do play the role of a scholar in that short scene where you come on stage.
It does not matter if you don't know Greek. Gilbert Murray will provide you with the best translations. You can trust him more than anybody on this forum.
So I hope you will now overcome your instinctive reluctance to commit yourself.

aa5874 · 11-11-2012, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

This book-length rebuttal by Earl Doherty to Bart Ehrman's much anticipated and unexpectedly disappointing case for an historical Jesus ("Did Jesus Exist?", published March 2012) first appeared in installments from March to August 2012 on the Vridar blog (under copyright), and is now being offered in e-book form, with extensive minor revisions. It addresses virtually every claim and argument put forward by Ehrman in his book, and demonstrates not only the faultiness and inadequacy of those arguments, but the degree to which the author has been guilty of a range of fallacy, special pleading, and clear a priori bias against the very concept of mythicism and those who promote it. In "Did Jesus Exist?" historicism has demonstrated the bankruptcy of its case for an historical Jesus, while in "The End of an Illusion" Earl Doherty has both exposed the failings of Bart Ehrman's book and further developed the case for the non-existence of any traditional founder of Christianity.

I thought this thread was about the "disappointing case for an historical Jesus in "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

It is clear to me that Gakuseidon and ApostateAbe are not able or willing to expose the contradictions, logical fallacies and mis-representations found in "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

Let us NOT be diverted from the OP.

I have identified many, many contradictions, logical fallacies and mis-representations in Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

Examine page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?".

Ehrman declares that "the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world.."

But he immediately states, "we are regrettably hindered in knowing what the authors of these books originally wrote".

Ehrman is illogical and contradicts himself. He admits he does NOT really know the contents of the original Gospels but still argues that they are among the best-attested.

But it gets worse.

Ehrman KNOWS the NT accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small.

Ehrman mis-represents himself.

The Gospels cannot be well attested at all. It is the complete opposite.

The Gospels are among the worse attested books from the ancient world.

1. Examine page 181 of "Did Jesus Exist"

Quote:

It is also true that we do not known who wrote the Gospels.

2. Examine page 182 of "Did Jesus Exist?"

Quote:

It is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small.

3. Examine page 184 of "Did Jesus Exist?"

Quote:

It is true that the Gospels are riddled with other kinds of historical problems and that they relate events that most certainly did not happen.

maryhelena · 11-11-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

I think Paul regards both Jerusalems as currently at least partly on Earth. The Jerusalem from Mount Sinai is found in the temple worship in the physical city of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem (from) above is present among the followers of Christ. (To say that the Jerusalem above = the Christian church is maybe to use post-Pauline ideas but IMO Paul means something similar.)

And what, from the text of any Pauline letter, can you supply in support of this? As far as I’m concerned, this is on the level of scholars like Harold Attridge who declare that the entire “heavenly sanctuary sacrifice” in the epistle to the Hebrews is plain and simple a metaphor for Calvary. This is nothing but wishful thinking on Attridge’s part, for nothing in the letter points to this, and the writer’s whole comparison between the heavenly and earthly sacrifices works entirely against it. This is why the epistle to the Hebrews with its sacrifice in the heavenly world and a Christ revealed solely in scripture is so illuminating and useful for mythicism and such a problem for historicism.

I can’t go along with this tendency to ‘reinterpret’ ancient mythology in terms of modern apologetic techniques which not even theologians can get across with succinct credibility. It’s all done in the interests of rescuing and spin-doctoring ancient thought in light of modern sensibilities, like rendering the creation myth in Genesis as allegory. (Nor can I sympathize with maryhelena’s seizing of Andrew’s straw to find a way to anchor Paul’s crucifixion of Christ on earth. Neither does she have a single piece of text—other than the widely-judged interpolation in 1 Thess. 2:15-16—in a Pauline letter, or any other epistle writer of the first century, to support it. But I do have to acknowledge her increasing ability to emulate modern theologian-babble.)

Earl Doherty

Earl - I don't think you have ever, over more than 10 years, understood or grasped any point I have ever made!

I'm pretty sure that everyone on this list that has read my posts knows that I don't support the idea of a gospel crucified JC as being historical. How on earth you can come up with your above statement - that I want to "find a way to anchor Paul's crucifixion of Christ on earth" beats me...

And as for this "modern theologian-babble" thrown my way - Earl, don't you see the atheist symbol next to my username? Anyway, who says what is not relevant - it is what is said that has to be considered.

As for your "maryhelena’s seizing of Andrew’s straw" remark - here is a previous post of mine - from a thread entitled: Earl Doherty's Hebrew 8:4 challenge.

[T2]

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....37#post7285137

Perhaps there are three issues here:

1) The Jerusalem below.
2) The Jerusalem above.
3) A link between them.

A human sacrifice, a crucifixion, an execution, on earth, has no rational or moral value. It can only be interpreted as such from a philosophical or theological perspective i.e. within the Jerusalem above. Thus, your OP is upholding this premise. The crucifixion is earthly but it's value is perceived to be a spiritual, an intellectual or philosophical value. The sacrificial offering is made in the heavens...

If one rejects an earthly sacrifice, one is, in effect, breaking the link between matter and spirit, between body and mind. Yes, of course, our minds have their own 'mind' - we can think stuff up that has no connection to reality. But that is our second nature, as it were. Our fundamental nature is the link, the cooperation between these two elements of our human nature. And it's that fundamental, raw, linkage that allows for our minds to sometimes go a wandering...

So, with the JC sacrifice issue - first must come what you have outlined above. A physical earthly human sacrifice, crucifixion, execution. The perceived value, the theological/philosophical value, is offered in the heavens. It's value is understood intellectually, philosophically. Human sacrifice has no earthly value. Value only comes about within an intellectual, spiritual, context.

That's step one as it were....

Step two - which is where Earl seeks to go.......is that once step one has been made then we can let our minds go a wandering....The Jerusalem above can be a parallel to the Jerusalem below. Intellectual sacrifices of outdated mental images can be 'crucified' - that's the story of intellectual evolution. The problem for Earl, his "missing piece", is that one can't get to step two before we take step one...

(and no, as I'm sure anyone reading my posts knows only two well.....JC is not historical - so there is no historical crucifixion of that gospel figure. But there was a historical figure executed by Rome - the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c.)

[/T2]

aa5874 · 11-11-2012, 11:31 PM

Let us not divert from the OP.

This thread is about the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman claims "the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world" yet Ehrman himself will discredit almost every story about Jesus in the Gospels.

Examine page 326 of Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman claims gMark's 11. 15-16 version of the disturbance at the Temple is "completely Implausible".

Ehrman himself discredits the Gospels and mis-represents himself.

Clivedurdle · 11-11-2012, 11:45 PM

Do we need to be clearer about a timeline here and what concepts existed when?

Quote:

How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution of land and water on the globe? What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches, dogheaded people? This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages. Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so. The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues. By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledg...e_locale=en_GB

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

11-11-2012, 08:25 PM	#133
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I admit that I have a lot of trouble with the thinking of those times, and with modern attempts to describe it. We don't believe in alternative realities, so we feel comfortable describing things as either real or happening inside the human brain, and that's all there is - but even modern people ascribe great powers to some things that are confined to the human brain. I'm not sure how much of this dispute is over definitions.

11-11-2012, 11:31 PM	#139
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Let us not divert from the OP. This thread is about the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claims "the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world" yet Ehrman himself will discredit almost every story about Jesus in the Gospels. Examine page 326 of Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claims gMark's 11. 15-16 version of the disturbance at the Temple is "completely Implausible". Ehrman himself discredits the Gospels and mis-represents himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.