Toto

The Queen's Conjurer on Amazon UK

The Queen's Conjurer on Amazon USA

GakuseiDon

That's why we need to be as accurate as possible when describing their beliefs, Clive. And that's my concern with Doherty's approach to the sublunar realm: the idea that a 'fleshy sublunary realm separate to our reality' just didn't exist.

The problem is that people reading his book have come away feeling that they've understood Middle Platonists' beliefs in this regard.

Not long ago, you wrote: "Now now, isn't it clear that the MJ position has a sacrifice in is it the third heaven?" Now, I can tell you that such a concept is inconsistent with Middle Platonist beliefs. Could Paul have thought that? Sure, why not. But if someone is appealing to interpreting Paul in terms of Middle Platonist beliefs, then it is possible to talk about whether certain ideas are compatible or not.

Similarly, the idea of a sublunar dimension in which 'fleshy' activities away from the earth can take place fails for the same reason. Those who read Doherty's book came away with the idea that this was a dimension separate to our own reality. In that dimension the ancient Greeks and Romans placed the activities of their gods. That was where Attis castrated himself with a knife, and where Zeus stands in snow or sunshine on Mt Olympus.

The problem is there is no evidence that Middle Platonists believed in such a dimension. At least, none that I've found.

This was investigated by Muller and others. Muller said that there was no higher and lower worlds under the firmament, and we went through a debate, where apparently Richard Carrier, TedH and Earl all disagreed with this position.

And now, incredibly, Ted H posted this earlier in this thread (my emphasis):

Carrier has noted that the "sublunary sphere" was a catch-all phrase referring to the realm of the earth, everything below the orbit of the moon, which had been imagined even since Aristotle as being the realm of change and decay... Per Aristotelian cosmogony, the purpose of the spheres was to rotate and hold the planetary bodies. There being no body between the earth an the moon, the ancients would have had no reason to believe there was another sphere between these two bodies. Recall that I stated earlier that the "sublunary realm" was a catch-all phase for everything below the orbit of the moon, including the earth.

Now, that is exactly what Muller said he found! There is no separate sphere between the earth and the moon. There is no extra-dimensional "sublunary realm" separate to our own.

I think Earl conceded this (in the AoI thread), and now talks about things in terms of "different locales": firmament and the earth. Fair enough. I'm looking forward to his evidence regarding 'fleshy' occurances in the firmament. (And I hope that others interested in the Jesus Myth idea are also looking into it to confirm or reject the idea).

But the idea that there is a 'sublunary realm of flesh' that forms a separate dimension to earth does NOT reflect Middle Platonist views. Let's not use the excuse that their beliefs were 'alien' to impose our own modern ideas on them.

Clivedurdle

I'll accept a universe where the daemons and everyone are not actually separated from the earth - the comment about men carrying a stick to bury their wotsits because the LORD walks in the camp proves that was their belief.

Is it a later idea that put heaven into a spiritual realm, maybe as a reaction to the growth of science?

The catholic encyclopedia is misleading by referring to "Jewish thought" - was it specifically Judaic? I doubt that!

Maybe there is a need to look closely at the alleged sayings of Jesus about things coming out of mouths and washing insides and outsides to check do they really match modern ideas (which by the way have probably only replaced these daemons with germs - the vast majority of bacteria are benign or needed) or was it another part of the thinking about a universe where the four elements are aer water, fire and earth, and where gods are intimitaly involved with us?

Are there any commentaries that link all the Bible to the various beliefs that were around, like zoroastrianism? Instead of a secular perspective, a full blown mythical perspective - but again myth feels too gentle a word, - an anthropological bible commentary, covering the same areas as Golden Bough but with current concepts?

Toto

I guess I agree with Doherty that the standard historicist interpretation of the Historical Jesus shows some of the same jockeying and jerry-rigging of the paradigm as the Ptolemaic model. If this is the extent of the analogy, I don't see the need to drag Galileo or the Inquisition into it - there's a big difference between dismissing something out of hand or shouting it down, and threatening death or torture to save one's soul from heresy. Godwin's law is not invoked by the mention of Albert Einstein's difficulties in getting his ideas accepted, even though Einstein was a refugee from Hitler's policies.

All that said, I will open the question of what to do with this thread. My idea had been to split out the contention over process and try to salvage the rest, but the opening post is a little pugnacious, even after being edited, and the rest is a little hard to separate.

I will entertain suggestions either in thread or by PM.

I will also propose two new rules for this forum:

Thou shalt not refer to thy opponent as an apologist unless he uses that term for himself.

Thou shalt not compare thy opponent's arguments to creationism or other intellectually disreputable theories.

rlogan

FWIW, if Saint Doherty is still out there...

Your material is going to inspire vitriol because it cuts too close to the bone.

You're going to live with it, and that's just the fact of the matter. Sorry if you felt that there was not enough support for you. Personally, I have an extremely high regard for the work you've done.

I consider it an advantage, actually, that the apologists get so much leeway here. It's like training with ankle weights.

Taking on Kata Sarka is going to be a tough road with those looking for a historical basis in the mythical mileau, obviously.

The fact that the term is used at all is problemmatic from a perspective of historical inquiry. Consider if one was reading along in Josephus' works, or Suetonius, or whomever, and read gobbledygook preacher-speak like "according to the flesh".

It would be a signal to me that we are already in the bizarro-world of glassy-eyed voodoists and there is little sense in taking whatever text accompanies "according to the flesh" as some kind of objective "OK, we're turning off the fantasy for this next sentence" disclaimer. The fact that there is this "disclaimer" in the first place is a demonstration we are not discussing history to begin with.

jgibson000

So far as I can see, I never said he did. So why you bring this up is beyond me. He did however call me "a historicist, self-righteous believer" among other things (i.e., Greek incompetent) and he did lump me in not only with Christians, but with Christans whose wont it is (he claims) to lie.

For what it's worth, I've never here used the terms "Enron" or "accountants" or the expression "cook the books", let alone applied them in any way to anyone, including Earl or Richard. Nor have I ever compared the persons of Earl or Richard Carrier to Creatinionsts. What I have done, as a sober reading of my posts here show, was to note that certain people's arguments often show strong resemblances in tenor, tone, form, and substance to certain of the arguments that have been employed by creationists. I'm sorry if you think that this is the same thing. But in my eyes, at least, it is most certainly not.

So I'd be grateful that if you are going to excoriate me, that you at least get the grounds on which you do it straight, and not twist my words into something I did not say in order to have grounds to do so.

Now, on the other matters you raised:

We'll have to agree to disagree that I impugned anyone's scholarship. I've criticised for sloppiness and for (apparently) inexcusabale incompleteness, yes. I've argued – and more importantly – actually pointed to evidence that indicated, if not demonstrated, that it showed pattens of argumentation that were unscholarly and fallacious, yes. But that's not impugning scholarship. That's what is typical in scholarly crtiques of another's claims. Impugning someone's scholarship is to make false claims about it and what motivates it.

And as to your claim that Ted/Jacob has not impugned mine -- well, that's something else that we'll have to agree to disagree on. But see below on his charge about my credentials.

Best not to, at least on List and certainly not in any detail, lest I'm accused of spouting it myself But you did ask, so I hope that I won't be taken to task for asking what, if not vitriol, you'd say appears in the language and the tone that he adopts when he calls krosero and GDon my " ... um, buddies" and when he notes that he is certain (he'll "bet") that I must be " laughing [my] a__ off" " at how "my buddies" have come to my defense and because I know that all the while I've caused him and other " poor" atheists to "discuss over how to manage" me "without offending [my] delicate habits and ruffling [my] scholastic demeanour", and that I hold myself to be an "important presence".

And what else but vitriol do see in his charge that I should not be listened to on the matter of KATA SARKA because the atheists here "have no no reason to believe [I am] even competent enough in Greek that [I] can distinguish cooked from uncooked kata sarka interpretations!", especially when Ted/Jacob has publically stated that the degree of one's training in Greek is irrelevant on this particular issue "because an argument stands on its own merit, not the credentials of the people propounding it".

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblic...s/message/8801

Is this really not apparent?

Yours,

Jeffrey

Toto

You used the term "cook" as in cook the books, which is clearly defined as falsify, in regard to Richard. Your attempt to wiggle out of this by redefining the term does not really work. The term "cook" is associated with corrupt accountants, personified by the recent Enron scandal.

What I find objectionable is your comparison of Earl's arguments with those of either creationists or oddball scientists - because your only point of comparison seems to be that they both complain that the establishment does not take their work seriously. As has been stated several times, both true and untrue ideas have at times been rejected by the establishment. This is irrelevant to Earl's main arguments.

impugn: attack as false or wrong.

Calling someone's arguments "unscholarly and fallacious" seems to fit this. Using the word "cook" implies dishonesty.

I realize that debates among scholars on their own turf can be very rough. But we have slightly different rules on this board.

krosero

TedH, I was not offended by the use of the word "fundies," but I did reflect later on whether it would be worth talking about for clarification's sake.

You did not point the word at me, but I'm one of those whom you've identified as being cut too much slack, and I assume that those are the same people as the "fundies" you referred to.

I count myself a liberal Christian (and a Catholic). On the web I've debated literalists, supported same-sex marriage, and called the Iraq war unjust. As you can guess from one of my posts, Carl Sagan has been a longtime favorite author of mine (one of my inspirations in becoming an amateur astronomer); and I have no problem with atheists who respect religion (and who can criticize religion respectfully). I have even called myself an atheist for a brief time in my life, and I regard that time as a legitimate exploration -- not a place of spiritual perdition (far from it, actually).

And I have never learned anything about Don or Roger (the other two whom you listed as supporting Jeffrey) that would make the term fundamentalist seem to me like a remotely appropriate description.

I don't take offense at the term, but I suggest you don't use it; it's incorrect.

And I understand you were letting off steam in your post, but you need to respond (in private reflection or public debate, it does not matter) to the fact that those who supported Jeffrey in this thread were not fundamentalists.

Yes, you were letting off steam, but these are personal aspersions. Just plain old trash.

Amaleq13

Regardless of the outcome on these two suggested additions, I want all the rules rewritten with a "Thou shalt not" preface!!

krosero

I am favorably disposed to these suggestions. But I've never been sure that the best way to influence behavior is to make rules. There is a legitimate way to use the word "apologist", and to make comparisons and contrasts (as opposed to polemical or facile equations) to anything; the key is whether the speech is intentionally insulting. We obviously need a lot more discussion about it if we're going to edit the rules.