Toto

Hi Johnny - I'm afraid you've walked into a conversation about something else.

This thread is not assuming that the Bible was inspired by anyone. It's only about analysing and interpreting texts from the 1st-2nd century. Let's not get off on a tangent.

Johnny Skeptic

Is it not the intent of most participants on both sides of the aisle at this forum to reasonably prove or disprove that a good supernatual being inspired the writing of the Bible? Surely debates at this forum are not the same as debates that historians sometimes have regarding secular history. I communicate with Richard Carrier from time to time by e-mail and by telepone. I once told him that if fundamentalist Christians would stop trying to legislate religion, I would stop debating Christianity. If I recall correctly, he said that he would too. I assume that most participants at this forum are not nearly as interested in debating secular history as they are in debating the Bible. It seems to me that for the sake of being politically correct and not stepping on anyone's toes, most participants at this forum will not come right out and state their true intentions. Participants at other forums certainly come right out and state their true intentions. This forum might appear to some people to be a friendly little tea party, but surely for the most part, that is not really the case. After all, if Christians are right, skeptics deserve to go to hell regardless of their character.

Rick Sumner

No.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I find myself in the unusual position (at least lately) of having a few minutes to spare, so I'll comment more fully on Earl's comments to me above. The first, as already noted by Don and myself, had nothing to do with me, and is purest misrepresentation to associate me with any such debate. Let's look at the remaining two:

That Doherty has thoroughly missed the point is apparent. The problem isn't the word "desparate," it's the ascription of motive. We can ignore "desparately" fully, if we are so inclined. Why do they "want to see it?" What is their motivation? What do they stand to lose if it is read in accordance with Earl?

It's the same problem as before. They stand to lose nothing. It has precisely zero impact on "mainstream" scholarship at large how one reads the passage, a point readily attested by the fact that Earl himself is able to cite mainstream scholars who (though not entirely) read it his way.

If Earl doesn't see why this type of language is a problem (and has nothing to do with "color"), then I can safely say that he will continue to have the impact he already does outside of internet messageboards: None.

And I "refused" to address his arguments? What need have I to do so? I haven't said he's wrong either. Doherty implies there was some sort of invitation or obligation to do so, there emphatically is not--I have never offered an opinion one way or the other.

This is purest ranting rhetoric. And a disingenuous misrepresentation of what was said and clearly intended.

Earl rounded out his post with more misrepresentation:

He once again has worked me into a debate we're not having, a position I have offered no opinion on, and an argument I'm not making.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Earl Doherty. I happily invite the reader to assess whether or not he can be trusted to fairly represent his sources, given that he can't seem to follow a thread I've made but one contention on.

And he's unimpressed with his opponents? At least I understand his case. To paraphrase another famous author, be sure and get your facts first, after that you can distort them as much as you like.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

[Emphasis mine]
Peter Kirby:
[Emphasis mine]

[Emphasis mine]

jakejonesiv

Hi GakuseiDon!

This is quite an enlightened statement. I agree that there is little evidence for a historical Jesus, and questioning his existence is a valid line of inquiry.
So, I would like to ask you a question.

Let's assume for sake of argument that there was no historical Jesus.
If that is true, Where was Jesus crucified? Obviously not in reality, but I would like to hear your description.

Jake Jones IV

GakuseiDon

It depends on how far you want to speculate, I think. If you wanted to argue that Paul had unique ideas about cosmology, then it could be placed anywhere, but I think it would be impossible to prove or disprove. But if you wanted Paul to fit as close as possible to the views expressed in Plutarch and others, then I would say that Paul regarded Christ as a cosmological principle, with the crucifixion an allegory for something (perhaps self-sacrificing for God). But Paul just doesn't appear to be writing allegory.

jakejonesiv

GakuseiDon,

Thanks for considering the options when we look at the possible non historical origins of Jesus. A similar question would be "Where was Attis when he was castrated?"

The very fact that you can conceive of a scenerio in which Jesus didn't exist shows that you are much more open minded than some of Earl Doherty's critics. I had lumped you in with them, and for that I apologize. :blush:

And no offense intended to the true believers out there. This discussion is in the "hypothetical question" category. I don't care anything about Plutarch per se.

You have written something to ponder. Could "Paul" have been writing allegory? That is possible, but I agree, if so it isn't obvious. (Maybe that just makes it a good allegory :huh: ). In that case Jesus would represent a cosmological (or astrological) principle.

Could Paul have been relating a myth? That does seem to be a better fit, if we are looking for non historical origin of the Pauline Jesus. The Pauline Jesus is said to perform mythological deeds; dying, rising, salvation of the world (or at least the elect), etc. He is described in mythologcal terms "Son of God."

What is the difference between myth and allegory?
Do you think it possible that the crucifixtion could also be an evolution of myth? Thus Jesus' crucifixtion was mythical, but not in a "world of myth."

I take it that your biggest disagreement with Earl is that he places Jesus in the "sub-lunar sphere" which I presume, is the "world of myth." But if we remove Earl's sub-lunar limitations and allow Jesus deeds to be deemed to occur anywhere, is that something you could agree to as feasible?

Jake Jones IV

GakuseiDon

Paul talks about teaching 'milk' and 'meat', so maybe that is a clue.

I suppose it is possible.

The problem I have with Earl's "world of myth" is that there is no evidence for it in the thinking of the people of the time, and in fact the evidence we have would be against it. I don't think calling it "myth" would be any different. Many Romans believed that the myths of the gods were legends about people who actually lived but about whom legends developed, so if you want to argue that Paul was following them, then you would still have a HJ at the base. If you want to argue that Paul had his own unique views, then that becomes impossible to prove or disprove.

jakejonesiv

I think some people strive to interpret the stories (both pagan and Christian) hyper-literally.

Where was Olympus of the gods? The top of a literal mountain in northern Greece? Or an idealized heavenly place, a mythical mount?

If you say the latter, you have pretty much agreed with Earl's conception of a mythical realm.

And if you say the former, does that mean that all the gods said to be on Olympus were actual historical people who lived on the literal mountain? If not, why not?

Because that is the kind of argument (not from you GakuseiDon) that I often see; that Jesus was believed to be on earth and believed to be crucified on earth, therefore Jesus must be an historical fact.

Jake Jones iV