Ted Hoffman

Reponding to Metacrocks Loud Bangs

This is a brief assesment of Metacrock's work Jesus Puzzell[sic]

Almost No Christian Writings Before Mark?

Metacrock writes:
Crossan places up to 13 documents before Mark (not that I agree with him on all of them):

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess] (50 CE),
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal] (52-53 CE),
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor] (53-54 CE),
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom] (55-56 CE),
5. Gospel of Thomas I,
6. Egerton Gospel,
7. Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325,
8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 [P. Oxy. 1224],
9. Gospel of the Hebrews,
10. Sayings Gospel Q,
11. Miracles Collection ("imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John. Of the seven miracles in John 2-9, the five in John 5,6 (two),9,11 which have Markan parallels, appear in the same order in Mark 2,6 (two),8 and Secret Mark")
12. Apocalyptic Scenario (now imbedded in Didache 16 and Matthew 24),
13. Cross Gospel (now imbedded in The Gospel of Peter)
14. Gospel of the Egyptians (known only from six patristic citations)
15. Secret Gospel of Mark

Irrelevant. The Jesus Puzzle is not "Skeptics on the Net"
Again, irrelevant. The Jesus Puzzle is not "Skeptics on the Net".
Practical Matters Dont Require Jesus' Teachings: A Clash of Teachers

Metacrock writes:This, conversely means that Jesus never taught on "practical matters of church life - that is why Paul never referred to Jesus". This is false. Praying during the sabbath is not a 'practical matter of Church life' And divorce?

Both Paul and Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God. In fact, in certain instances, they contradicted each other: in the Gospels, Jesus rose up in flesh and blood and even showed his wounds to the doubting Thomas - and everytime he raised people from the dead (Lazarus and Jairus' daughter) he got them to eat, proving it was a physical resurrection and that the body needed immediate nourishment. After resurrecting, Jesus himself asked for food. Jesus was showing that flesh and blood will go up to heaven. Paul, in direct contradiction, taught that flesh and blood can never enter the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 15:50).

Paul also taught about forgiveness (2 Co 2:7, Gal 6:1), loving one another (1Th 4:9, 2Co 2:7). Many times, Paul linked his teachings to the Laws of Moses and to the Old Testament or divine revelation, but never to Jesus' earthly ministry or his 'famous' parables yet Jesus also taught about forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35, John 20:23, 1 John 2:12; 1:7) and loving one another (John 13:34-35, Matthew 22:37-40 - love your neighbour as yourself). Yet, not even once did Paul ever rely on Jesus, or refer to what Jesus taught. Jesus taught on divorce in Matthew 5:31. Paul did too in 1 Cor. 6:16 yet the latter never borrows anything from Jesus.

This shows that Paul was unaware that Jesus had taught anything anywhere.

Retell the Gospel Stories? Hell No, says Paul

Metacrock writes:Doherty never asks for a "retelling" of Gospel stories. This is a strawman.

Lets take a guess: The Epistles Were Either Few, or Just Got written

Metacrock writes:This argument is patently incorrect. Most of the epistles were written before Mark.

Paul Knew about The Gospels

Metacrock writes:First of all, the dating is wrong. Secondly the quoted passage contradicts Gospel narration. Jesus never appeared first to Peter according to the Gospels which indicate he was first seen by "the women".
This is iredeemably wrong. In any case, what 12? wasn't Judas dead?

Metacrock writes:Jonah Came out of the Whale's Belly "On The Third Day" and this is "formulamatic" and therefore Historical

Metacrock writes:Yes it does, but we have no reason to believe that the crucifixion and burial are based on historical events. You also need to make up your mind whether Jesus was buried or entombed.

Jonah was in a whale's belly, which can be compared to a tomb, for three days and nights. "On the third day" he came out a changed man. I will allow Metacrock to ponder what we learn from Jonah's story and how Matthew may have interpreted it. Does Metacrock know why, according to Paul, Jesus remained on earth for 40 days after his resurrection while at the same time the Israelites wandered in the desert for 4o years, and Moses spent 40 days on Mount Sinai, and Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness and that God gave the city of Nineveh 40 days to change?

New Testament Scholars like Paula Fredricksen have not accepted the crucifixion of Jesus as narrated in the Gospels. Crucifixion was preserved for political insurrectionists (Jesus was not one) and even then, they got crucified together with their followers, not alone. Yet Jesus was allegedly crucified alone and his followers allowed to go scot free. Some even got paid instead, like Judas (30 pieces of silver).
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also kept records of crucifixions that Romans carried out, yet there is not one record of a crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazareth.

The shadowy character Joseph of Arimathea, clearly, in a literary critical sense, was a deus-ex-machina character introduced to move the plot further (there is no place in early Judaea called Arimathea). Plus there is not one Christian who ever, mentioned, visited or knew the location of the alleged empty tomb for the purposes of veneration or remembrance. This shows us that even the early Christians like Paul never knew of this alleged tomb.

Herod Existed Therefore Jesus Existed

Metacrock writes:It does not follow. Galatians was written before the Gospels. The authors of the gospels may have picked their characters from the early Christians or early christian writings. This can explain the Presence of 'Peter' in Mark's gospel, just like it explains the presence of Pilate.

Metacrock writes:False dichotomy plus strawman.
"Strength of belief" does not equal "historical basis for belief".
We have people who drove planes into buildings recently. They died for their beliefs. They believed they were Allah's martyrs. That belief doesn't make the 23 virgins they receive upon Martyrdom real. It just means they are true believers in whatever cause they see themselves championing.

The Testimonium Flavianum is Authentic - Any Scholar Arguing Otherwise is Deceptive

Metacrock cites Doherty: Metacrock writes:The authenticity of the TF is not something I will waste time debating with anyone, however ignorant and tone deaf to NT Scholarship anyone may be.

Metacrock writes:What "other page"?

Metacrock writes:Lets stick to the arguments. Have you even read Doherty's arguments for the interpolation? If you have, rebut them. Now.
Metacrock writes:Metacrock writes:Argumentum ad hominem

Metacrock writes:Writers of Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Odes of Solomom etc.

Metacrock writes:Dead wrong. Plus, you missed the point. He wrote: "Paul and other early writers" not "Paul and other early writers that predate the gospels". Stop imagining things.

Metacrock writes:Cite the passage please. Here is 1 Clement

Metacrock writes:They or he?

Jesus was a Descendant of David

Metacrock writes:No, metacrock, we don't. David lived many years before the putative birth of Jesus. This is not a biographical information. Mark tells us that Jesus was not a descendant of David. As usual, Paul is relying on the OT for this information. Why should we believe in Paul and not in Mark? Can you provide a genealogy of Jesus from David down to Jesus?

Besides, Paul writes 'descendant of David according to the flesh'. kata sarka has been interpreted by scholars like C.E.B Cranfield, International Critical Commentary, Romans, p.60, to mean "in his life span" - which would mean that in Paul's mind, Jesus incarnated during the times of David. While Doherty uses kata sarka to mean in the sphere of the flesh - which means that to Paul, Jesus reincarnated in a sublunar realm. C.K. Barrett in Epistle to Romans, p.20 supports Doherty's interpretation.

So the interpretation is debatable, however, the Phillipians passage where Jesus is an unnamed god who descends, suffers and is later exalted by being named Jesus is consistent with Doherty's interpretation if we picture the descent of Jesus in a platonic cosmogony similar to the one we find in the Ascension of Isaiah and in Clement of Alexandria's Stromata.

Metacrock writes:2 Peter is a pseudoepigraph. Read Kummel's Introduction to the New Testament. Plus, it is dependent on the Gospels so cant be used as evidence since its the historicity of the Gospel Jesus, which is exactly what is at issue. I assume that you are familiar with independent attestation.

Metacrock writes:List the historical details in this passage please. I put it to you that there is not even one historical detail in it.
Metacrock writes:No, he does not. Your simplistic literalism pales incongruously to the high-level Christology we see in John.

Metacrock writes:So now you are using passages you regard as polemical as historical evidence?

Metacrock writes:Hebrews is a pseudonymous document and its a waste of time to speculate over who may or may not have written it. You are evidently unfamiliar with its unique Christology that smacks of Alexandrian platonism. Hebrews 8:4 says "If Jesus were on Earth..." and compares Jesus' present ministry in heaven with the high priest's ministry on earth and says how the former is more superior. This paradigmatic platonic parallel shows that the author pictured Jesus' sacrifice/crucifixion as something that took place in heaven.

Your reading above, is a gratuitous literal rendering of the text out of context that misses the point while importing assumptions from the gospels yet, the passage requires to be put in the context of the rest of Hebrews.

Hebrews 5:7 has been examined by several scholars already. G.A. Buchanan, in Anchor Bible, Hebrews, p.98, thinks that "the offering up petitions" is drawn from Psalms 116:1, which uses the same words. Doherty also mentions Hugh Montefiore, in Hebrews, p.97, who states that the phrase "loud cries and tears" is an elnargement on Psalm 22:24. Paul Ellingworth, in Epistle to the Hebrews, p.285 states that it refers to a "generalized use of the language and pattern of old testament intercession".

What this means is that we have no reason to believe that the Hebrews passages you have referenced above have any historical core. And even if they did, it would clash with the unique Christology in Hebrews. Note that, in Hebrews, there is no second coming, no resurrection and no eucharist.

Metacrock writes:Because you haven't even started.

Metacrock writes:No historical details here. If there are, please list them.

Metacrock writes:Wrong. Paul did not write Hebrews. It is not known who did.
Metacrock writes:"Come in the flesh" is not a historical evidence. Its an expression whose theological interpretation can be far ranging.

Metacrock writes:Wrong. See above.

Metacrock writes:Unless of course you were a gospel writer and felt compelled to insert the doubting Thomas, touching and feeling the wounds of Jesus as an aside to tell the readers "blessed are those who believe but have not seen".

I wonder what we are supposed to learn from Thomas' story since everyone knew and believed in Jesus' crucifixion hook, line and sinker? Or was it ok to doubt the resurrection but not the crucifixion?

But what are the implications of Metacrock's argument above? It is this: If "it would be totally illogical and unnatural to feel called upon to point out" "that Jesus' crucifixion was on earth and was an earthly flesh event", then the writing of the gospels was "totally illogical and unnatural".

Metacrock writes:False analogy. Ever heard of Celsus? I wonder why Origen bothered with his objections?

Metacrock writes:They don't "acknowledge that Jesus lived a life on earth as a man": that is what you are assuming but is incapable of proving.

Non-NT Writers Were Not Christians therefore we should Ignore them
Metacrock writes:Which NT writers? There is only one NT writer: Paul. The rest are unknown.

Metacrock writes:These are your own unfounded assumptions. I have referred to scholarly treatment of Hebrews 5:7 above and it doesn't support your erroneous assumption.

Everyone Knew Christ Died, Therefore Paul Should Never Have Mentioned it to Anyone

Metacrock writes:Nobody asked for details. This is a strawman. Going by your logic, Paul should never have even mentioned that Christ died (according to the scriptures) since everyone knew. But Paul does talk about it and even challenges those who dont believe. This falsifies your argument above.

Metacrock writes:It does not follow. You are merely assuming things. You are supposed to demonstrate what a crucified law has to do with earthly crucifixion.

Metacrock writes:You need to demonstrate this. Read "Son of God" as used in Odes of Solomon and Shepherd of Hermas Metacrock writes:Metacrock writes:Wrong. The key words are 'paradigmatic parallel' what happens on earth is replicated in heaven. Sacrifice to save the world (Christ) is paralleled with sacrifice for a tribe (High Priest).

Copycat Saviour Figure Strawman Squashed Flat

Metacrock writes:"Copy cat saviour" is a strawman you, and Robert Turkell and Glen Miller and other internet apologists have been perpetrating over the internet as a challenge to Jesus Myth Theory and its expiry date has reached. Robert Price has taken it out and it will be done once and for all.

First of all, the argument is not that Jesus was a xerox copy of the other dying and rising saviour figures. And I will not argue that Christians made up the Jesus figure by necessarily copying from them.

The argument is, they belong to the same ideal type. They can be grouped under the same type because, whereas there are important differences, the similarities are likewise the same.

I will repeat here what I posted recently. If we take as an example, Asclepius was son of a God and mortal woman. He lived as a demigod (son of Apollo), healed many and raised people from death. We was killed by Zeus for blasphemy (raising the dead) but was resurrected and made immortal. From heaven, he would appear to his believers on earth.

Robert Price says, "Ideal types, as Bryan Wilson observes, are not Procrustean boxes into which phenomena must fit or be forced to fit. Rather they are yardsticks distilled from common features, yardsticks employed in turn to measure and make sense of the features the phenomena do not have in common. The differences are just as important as the similarities, which is why it is needful to study the various phenomena (in this case, ancient miracle-workers and inspired sages) each in its own right. Each is unique, but what they have in common with the other recognizable members of the same class will help us understand where they differ and why. Thus it is not helpful in studying the gospels to cross "Divine Men" off the list for gospel study either because the proposed members of the class are not all alike (as Jack Dean Kingsbury wants to do in The Christology of Mark's Gospel) or because there are also other elements besides that of the Divine Man in the gospels. Theodore J. Weeden (Mark: Traditions in Conflict) shows how Mark both presupposes and critiques the Christology of Jesus as a theios aner."

And before you launch to apples and oranges, Price adds: "...genres evolve precisely by means of "transgression" of genre conventions. What we are seeing in the Christian rewriting of Septuagint stories as Jesus stories is something like a mutant strain of what was happening over in the cousin religion of Rabbinic Judaism. An apple is not an orange. Neither is a tangerine, but it is helpful to compare a tangerine to an orange if you are trying to describe a tangerine. More helpful than comparing it to an apple or to saying it is like nothing else." here

Believe This, You will Believe Anything

Metacrock writes:If Logos can 'incarnate' one wonders why people even bother to study New Testament History. The fact is, if we accept the reincarnation of the logos, then we will have no reason to reject the platonic concept of emanation of the aeons and the twin pairs and the demuigre and the rest of the can of worms I am unsure Metacrock wants to be opened.
Because one we do that, we are no longer doing critical scholarship but are doing theology.

Attacking Prophesized Arguments

Metacrock writes:Here, meta is attacking arguments that don't exist. This is an advanced form of the strawman fallacy. It involves prophesizing what the opponent will argue and subsequently expending energy knocking down those prophecies. It is a shoddy practice only done by overly-imaginative and unfocused individuals who allow themselves to be carried away and as such it has no place in serious discussions.
Metacrock writes:What is the major contradiction?

Metacrock writes:How is this important? Red Herring.

Confusing Multiplicity With Authenticity

Metacrock writes:No it does not. If it does, demonstrate exactly how.

Metacrock writes:That may be because what you see as "the Proto-Markan Material" is John himself. John is a heavily redacted text but the important thing here is that John was aware of the gospels and used them.

On the Dating of Acts 'Liberal' Scholars and Metacrocks 'Own' Theory
Metacrock writes:Present the arguments please. Alternatively, present a list of scholars that support this early dating of Acts.
Those that support Doherty's dating:
1. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.124 - mid second century dating
2. J. T. Townsend, "The Date of Luke Acts", in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, p.47f. - mid second century dating.
3. J. C. O'Neill, in The Theology of Acts, p.21 - dates them c.115-130
4. Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p.167 - dates them circa 120.

Plus Luke seems to have copied Josephus which would push the date post 93CE.

Metacrock writes:This means nothing.

Metacrock writes:Luke Timothy Johnson is not a liberal source. He believes that God (a supernatural being) has a son (thus a demigod) who willingly came to die for our sins.

Metacrock writes:Who gave you permission to redefine the word 'liberal'?

Metacrock writes:This is unproven, irrelevant and smacks of a sales pitch.

Metacrock writes:Proven by which scholars?

Metacrock writes:We are not interested in your own theories right now. You are supposed to be debunking Doherty's theory - remember? Concentrate!

Metacrock writes:So, should the readers also 'fail to see'? If not, how is your failure relevant?

Ok, They Wrote Midrashically But Midrash is History
Metacrock writes:Nobody said Midrash is a lie.

Metacrock writes:Luke Timothy Johnson is a conservative scholar whose fringe ideas are indistinguishable from those of a local Parish priest.

Metacrock writes:Concentrate on Doherty. Not 'Internet Skeptics'. He has published books. Try to stay the course!

Metacrock writes:Scholarship that includes Faith in God!!!!???

Metacrock writes:Prove it.

Metacrock writes:Imputing motive. Logical fallacy.
Metacrock writes:Some scholars that take Doherty's theory seriously.

Rod Blackhirst Professor of Biblical Studies, La Trobe University, Australia
Darrell Doughty, Professor of New Testament
Robert M. Price, Professor of New Testament

Metacrock writes:Which scholars espouse this view? Please list them.

If You Cannot Rebut, Insult

Metacrock writes:Meta now attacks the person, not the argument.

Metacrock writes:And we should rely on you and not scholars?
Metacrock writes:Ad hominemization of the position.
Metacrock writes:Both.

Metacrock writes:Insults will take you nowhere.

Metacrock writes:No, it does not. It shows us that the identty of a character in the gospels was not known. How that translates to 'proliferation' you will have to demonstrate.

Metacrock writes:You have not demonstrated that it is absurd. Should we just believe your empty words?

Metacrock writes:List some of them please and show us how their work is 'fancy'.

Jesus Becomes Historical

Metacrock writes:Wrong. It works either way: euhemerization or apotheosization.
Metacrock writes:Demonstrate that it is. For someone who makes bold statements and attacks scholars as having 'fancy imagination' your ignorance of euhemerism, which you have displayed in spectacular fashion, is absurd.

Metacrock writes:It does not. In any case, what we are interested in is what the evidence says, now what Metacrock thinks makes more sense. In any case, you use 'makes more sense' in a subjective and arbitrary manner.
You make assumptions then say that your assumptions 'make more sense' while you should be demonstrating exactly why they 'make more sense'.

Metacrock writes:Which scholarly works advise you that things only get repeated and can never happen without precedent?

Metacrock writes:References please. You are redefining midrash now. Which we dont mind - just refer us to scholarly works that state that midrash involves employment of figurative speech.

Metacrock writes:We are discussing the NT. Pay attention.
Metacrock writes:Doherty mentions Hegessipus in p.219, p.220-1 and p.273. You have evidently not read his book.

Conclusion

Metacrock's work is a poorly thought out, poorly written (but we cut him some slack for this) and poorly formulated article. It is full of strawman arguments, empty claims and errors taken as fact. It lacks depth of analysis and at every stage, the patent lack of thought rears its ugly face in the work. Metacrock's main undoing is relying on his own assumptions to challenge Doherty. He seems to assume that a big mouth will make up for strong arguments.

There is not even one argument, not even one argument, in Metackrock's assemblage that challenges Doherty's thesis. This is remarkable for someone who is so loud, arrogant, rude and full of insults. He contradicts his arguments severally, like he starts by stating there are "almost no Christian writings before Mark" yet he later produces a number of them. This means that so long as he is occupying an opposite position to Doherty's, he takes that position even if it destroys his own position. In a childlike manner, he loses concentration and digresses to irrelevant side-issues and demonstrates total lack of discipline in his work.

Bernard Mullers lengthy work gets a C+, With Layman's work a C- and Metacrock's work an E (or an 'F' if 'F' is the lowest grade).

Next internet critique please?

Metacrock

why loud bangs? why do you have to take that attitude?



Metacrock writes:

Crossan places up to 13 documents before Mark (not that I agree with him on all of them):

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess] (50 CE),
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal] (52-53 CE),
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor] (53-54 CE),
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom] (55-56 CE),
5. Gospel of Thomas I,
6. Egerton Gospel,
7. Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325,
8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 [P. Oxy. 1224],
9. Gospel of the Hebrews,
10. Sayings Gospel Q,
11. Miracles Collection ("imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John. Of the seven miracles in John 2-9, the five in John 5,6 (two),9,11 which have Markan parallels, appear in the same order in Mark 2,6 (two),8 and Secret Mark")
12. Apocalyptic Scenario (now imbedded in Didache 16 and Matthew 24),
13. Cross Gospel (now imbedded in The Gospel of Peter)
14. Gospel of the Egyptians (known only from six patristic citations)
15. Secret Gospel of Mark


Irrelevant. The Jesus Puzzle is not "Skeptics on the Net"

Again, irrelevant. The Jesus Puzzle is not "Skeptics on the Net".[/quote]


What? I dont' see your point. My point is that Doherty makes it sound as though there is a whole corpus preceeding Mark, and it is really just a few documents, aside from the Paulines, which are the thing under dispute. So the silence of the Paulines on the subject of Jesus fleshly existence is not that significant and there is no "conspiriacy of silence."

Gospel of Thomas helps my case emensely since in it Jesus says "I came in the flesh."



there was no church! Those were Jewish practices and he's addressing them as the Jewish law, he's not talking about how to have a Christian chruch because it didn't exist yet. All you can do here is defend argument from silence, which is always a limited and fallacious. Argument form silence is never a strong argument, and that's what you defend here.





Jesus didn't say flesh and blood will enter the kindgom. He told Marry not to touch him because hadn't yet assended to the father. But both Paul and Jesus agree in that Paul shows that resurrection body is a glorified body. I have a page on that.


http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/...s_sub_men.html

Here is the more germain page on "no body theory" of Res.


http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/ResIII.htm


It is a spiritual body but not ghostlike. Read the link.


Just plain wrong! ON my Jesus Puzzell 2 page I have a chart showing over 12 enstances, which Koester brings up, where Paul directly alludes or refurs to the Gospels and to Jesus parables and other teachings. Koester also assumes that Paul must have had a saying source similar to Q or his own compilled source to be so total right on with Jesus' teachings.


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/editpost.php...post&p=1824561



. Pauline References.


First, there is no reason for Paul to include such references since the epistles are not an attempt to convert pagans, but letters to churches dealing with practical and theological matters. Secondly, Paul was an intellectual, a thinker and a theologian. His concern was theology. He sought to answer the hard questions about the faith which were not answered by mere repetition of the basic facts of Jesus life. Why should he go into detail about Mary and Joseph and Christ born in a manger when he had more lofty matters to deal with? Finally, he wasn't present during the ministry of Jesus and he was not an eye witness, it is doubtful that he he ever saw a copy of Mark, or any of the other Gospels, so he may not have known all the facts or all the sayings. But he knew enough to formulate a theology. Granted it is a lofty theology, he does have something of a "cosmic Christ," but Paul's Christ is not a Gnostic redeemer, and Paul does demonstrate many times a basic awareness of the core Jesus story. But we should not expect to find it in great detail. This is argument from Silence and proves nothing. I will argue that not only do we find many direct contradictions to Doherty's views, that the Gnostic redeemer myth is bunk, and that Paul saw Jesus was a flesh and blood man who lived in history, but that some traces of the Gospel theology and material come through in Paul's understanding.





1). Knowledge of the Crucifixion

1 Corinthians

1: 22-23 "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for Wisdom (23) but we preach Christ crucified..."

2:2 "For I resolved to know nothing among but Christ and him crucified."

2:7 "No we speak of God's secret Wisdom. A wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rules of this age understood it for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

[Now of course Dhortey says that this is secret Gnostic wisdom and the rules of this age are demon powers in the heavenly realms where Paul's cosmic Christ was crucified, not on earth not in the flesh. this is manifest nonsense. The "wisdom" is "secret" because the manner of Jesus' atonement was so out of keeping with anything the Jews were expecting. And the "rulers" of this "age" could easily be words used of earthly powers and temporal epochs, and they were used so all the time. Rule is merely the word Archon which means commander, or first. And Aeon means age, a time period.

Paul certainly knew the resurrection and the crucifixion. there are too many references to mention. In fact these terms, "crucifixion" and "resurrection" are almost synonymous for Paul with the term "gospel." He never mentions one without the other and constantly defines the gospel as "the gospel that Jesus was crucified and rose form the dead." It's practically on every page of his epistles.

It will be seen further that Paul does refer to the concrete story of Jesus in the Gospels]



2) sayings, images and metaphors of Jesus used in Paul's writings.



1 Corinthians 3:6
The Metaphor of seeds and sowing


Romans 9: 33
Here Paul quotes Jeremiah 8:14 about the stumbling stone,
which Jesus also quoted, and that was a standard Messianic reference. Matt

1 cor 7:10
Ruling against divorce
Mark 10: 11

1 cor 7:25
No Dominical command


1 Cor 9:14
Support for Apostles
Q /Luke 10:7

1 Cor 11:23-26
Institution of Lord's Supper
Mark 14

1Cor 14:37
command concerning prophets


1 Thes. 4:15
Apocalyptic saying


Romans 12:14
Blessing of the Persecuted
Q/Luke 6:27

Romans 12:17 and I Thes 5:15
Not repaying evil with evil
Mark 12:12-17

Romans 13:7
Paying Taxes to authorities
Mark 9:42

Romans 14:13
No Stumbling Block
Mark 9:42

Romans 14:14
Nothing is unclean
Mark 7:15

1 Thes 5:2
Thief in the Night
Q/ Luke 12:39

1 Thes
Peace among yourselves
Mark 9:50

Romans 12:18
Have peace with Everyone
Mar 9:50

Romans 13: 10
Do not judge
Q /Luke 6:37


__________________________________________________ ______________________



These quotations prove that the Jesus tradition, including the actual saying sources, in some form had to exist before Paul ever penned a word of the epistles we have come to know. Why would a disembodied, mythological, cosmic Gnostic redeemer mystery cult figure have a corpus of sayings? None of the other ones do. In Mythology of the pagan world some of the characters have "lines" especially in plays written about them, but we don't' find people memorizing and quoting their words, because they didn't really have any. They weren't real people so they never really said anything. But the Jews hung upon every word of their great Rabbis, and the early church memorized Jesus sayings and repeated them regularly in a formalized oral tradition; one which clearly existed before Paul's writings. Jesus had to be a flesh and blood human.



3) Demonstrates direct knowledge of the Last Supper

11: 23 "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks broke it and said 'this is my body which is for you do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper took the cup saying 'this cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.'" [here we have a direct reference to Gospel material. This not only indicates that the story existed in at least some form before the writing of Mark, but also that Paul understood that Jesus was a material human being that ate and drank, and had a body. Therefore he must have understood the crucifixion as existing in space and time]





4) Paul understood the Resurrection as Physical!


1 Cor. 15: 3 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that the appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve..."
[Here is an extremely interesting passage, most scholars think it a permeative creedal statement. First, if this is so, it demonstrates a physical crucifiction and resurrection in space and time as circulated teaching among the early church prior to the writing of Mark. Why physical? the phrase "according to the scriptures" probably means Isaiah 53 and perhaps Zachariah 11:10. In terms of resurrection it probably refurrs to Isaiah 53:10 and perhaps to verses about the resurrection of all Israel since Paul extrapolates that Christ was the first fruits. But one thing it most emphatically does not mean is a non-bodily existence and crucifixion for Christ! Such an idea of a Gnostic redeemer crucified in the heavily realm is totally removed form the OT! It is absurd to think that it could be anything other than a physical crucifixion and resurrection when linked to Hebrew scriptures! Moreover the creedal statement also times Peter and the 12 to the tradition which is one more link to the world of the canonical Gospels]

1 Cor. 20-22 "More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, or we have testified about God that he raised Christ form the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised form the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also though a man. For as in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive..."

[The concept of the fristfruits; Messiah was to raise all of Israel when he retired in triumph (see Messiah page--Edersheim) But Jesus' resurrection was like a dress rehearsal, a token guaranteeing deposit in the future when he returns. This is the Jewish concept of resurrection, they were not cognizant of the "firstfrutis" concept, that is Paul's innovation. But note: the Hebrew notion was for that of a physical bodily resurrection not a strange spiritual Gnostic affair. Moreover, note the parallelism between Christ and Adam (also in Romans) the whole schemata to totally ruined if Christ is not conceived as a man, a flesh and blood human who really died and really rose again. In this passage he calls Christ "a man" someone with corporeal existence and historical existence. All this talk of "If the dead are not raised" has no mentioning if the "resurrection" is nothing more than a bodiless survival of the soul after death! [/quote]














What a totally fallacious statment! Even if he didn't allude to Jesus' teachings, which he does that would be nothing more than an argument from silence.It's also absurd since he was clearly aware that Jesus was the object of worship, why would he assume the object of worship, the decendent of a flesly line (Romans 1:3) and Messiah, had not teachings?

Ok now you guys give me a chance to answer this whole thing, which I will do in sections, before you start in on my argumetns, ok?

Intelligitimate

Meta, you clearly haven't even read Doherty's book, let alone anything on his website besides the intro pieces to his theory. It's like picking up a book and critiquing the dusk-jacket; no one cares Meta!

Perhaps you'd like to take up Kirby's offer of a free copy of Doherty's book in exchange for a review? At least then there would be a reason to read through your typo-ridden critique.

[Off topic comments deleted]

Metacrock

Metacrock writes:
Doherty never asks for a "retelling" of Gospel stories. This is a strawman.

Lets take a guess: The Epistles Were Either Few, or Just Got written

Metacrock writes:
This argument is patently incorrect. Most of the epistles were written before Mark.

Paul Knew about The Gospels


You forget that paul was quoting a baptismal fromula. So it wasn't his saying, but that of some chruch community that he leanred it from. He probably didn't have "the Gospels" in the form that we have them, they hadn't been written (if we buy the conventional dates of Mark in AD 70 and Pual died in AD 64). But he would have had saying sources, and perhaps the corss Gospel, the signs Gospel and some of those hypothetical works that Crosson talks about.

You can't conclude from a contraiction between a Gospel and a baptismal creed that Jesus never existed. That's absurd. Besides the literurgical nature of the creedal statment can make room for inaccuracy in facts.






Metacrock writes:

Jonah Came out of the Whale's Belly "On The Third Day" and this is "formulamatic" and therefore Historical



Burried and entombed are the same thing in this context. But you totally miss the point. the tag pharse "on the third day" always appears with every telling. No one every tells the story and says "on the forth day he rose" or on the "fith day" it's always the third day and always said like that "on the thrid day." So that indictes the facts were formed in stone from an early period, which is a good indication that they are based upon facts known to all. That is reason enough to believe that the crucification and res are based upon historical events. Moreover, the fact that Peter said he saw it all, and Peter met Paul, Peter knew Clement of Rome, and Papias and others, that is a good reason to assume the story is historical. He never contradicted it and never told them "I wasn't there, where did you get that idea?" The four daughters of Philip also told it frm their father's witness.






I don't see how you can conclude from that that no one took Jesus as historical. You appearenlty don't understand that the Jews loved midrash and they used in incessently regardless of weather they were telling history or telling a fictive tale. that doesn't matter, anyhting can be put in symbolic terms and that does not mean it wasn't real.



I don't know about Paula Fredricksen bu she sounds ignorant. The whole reaosn for the charge "king of the Jews" was that he was an insurrectionist. That was the whole point of cricifying him rather than stonoing him. The Romans killed Jesus, and they would not have done that if blaspehmy was the issue.


No reason to supposse that Jo's list is exhaustive or that he claimed to get every single one Moreover you just ignore the fact that Jo does say Jesus wa crucified (yes, the TF is so defensable. it's so inexcusable to mouth thos elittle bromides about it being made up when the vast majority of scholars agree that it's authentic and they always have, and now there's even more convenced thinking on it than ever before).








Totally irrelivant! Jo of A can be made up without Jesus being made up.




that's just a total misconception. We have allusions to second centruy records of the tomb being venerated in the first century. We alos have the great Israeli archeaologist Galyiaah Cornfeld saying that the tomb was vinerated in the frist century. Putting up the temple of Venus over it was a bad idea because it marked the spot. Modern Archeaology (Corbo in 69) found the temple. But how did Constantine know to look for a temple of Venus? Because pilgrims learned from Jewish Christians as ealry as the second century that the Venus temple marks the spot. That was put up in 134 so the site was already old venerated at that time. See Cornfeld, Archaeology of the Bible Book by Book, 1976.

Herod Existed Therefore Jesus Existed


You must have misunderstood. I don't think I argued that.



you are totally fudging on the arguments here. I'm going to have to go back and look at what I said. but hat's nonsense.

Metacrock

I asked you to give me a chance to get all this answered before you chim in. Now are you going to play fair or not???

I don't have time to waste on that idiot. I've read his website,. I could spend the rest of my life answering his minutia and his crap. He's full of it. His assertions about Apollos and form of Gnsoticism that dien'st exist until the foruth century which he tries to read back into the first, and so forth. I dont' have time for it. The basic assertions he makes are put in by HIM n his own site in that summary in those 12 paragraphs. That's enough to see that he's full of it!

you guys attacked my page so stop compalining.

Metacrock

hey you know what? You are a [insult deleted by mod]! Im not gong to waste my time answering your crap because you know anything. your alledged facts are nothing more than truisms and maxims gleaned from ignorant people on message boards. You dont' know the facts and your bs arguments here are incomprehensible. I can't even tell what the argumetns are becasue you do such a stupid job of dealing with them. little meaningless tag phrases and short hands that are supppossed to tell me somehting. forget it!

If the mods want to ban me, fine. That'll be a good going away present.

Metacrock

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE




Funny that he should mention a conspiracy of silence. Because that is just what his argument rests upon. Too bad no one ever told poor Early that argument form silence is not a devastating argument but basically proves nothing. Now he says that in Christian Writings earlier than Mark the Gospel story cannot be found. Isn't that odd, since there are almost no Christian writings before Mark, funny how that works. But of course he's assuming that Mark was written very late. Skeptics on the Net usually date the Gospels in accord with 19th century scholarship which put them into the second century or at the very take end of the fist. This scheme was disprove by the findings of John Rylands Fragment (cir. 120 AD) in Egypt which contains a few verses from John. Scholars today tend to date Mark contemporaneously with Paul's latter letters. Most Scholars vie for a date of composition for Mark around 60 A.D. Paul's letters are the earliest written in the New Testament, but not all of them predate Mark.Now he argues that the Epistles do not reiterate the material of the Gospels; no story of Jesus' birth, no Mary and Joseph, ect. This is such an amateurish criticism because it fails to account for the reason of composition of the Epistles. They are not preaching. The purpose was not to tell the flock as though for the first time, that which they already knew, but to deal with practical matters of church life. Paul did not see himself as formulating doctrine or as writing scripture, he was merely answering practical questions. The last line about how perplexing the silence is is so ironic considering he is basically admitting that this is all his argument is based upon. Doherty cannot offer a reason as to why Paul should have retold the Gospel stories, and doesn't seem to be aware even that he should.

Furthermore, most of the epistles were written after or around the same time as Mark. Jude is late, the Johonnie epistles are very late, Hebrews probably around 64, the Pasteroal epistles either after 60 or not by Paul and very late in the century (if that is the case). The Majority of Scholars place Mark around AD 60. So we are only talking about a handfull of epistles anyway.Nevertheless, Paul does reiterate some of the stories of the Gospels, or at least certain information. 1 Cor. 3 he repeats what scholars have come to recognize as an early form of creedal statement. This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried. Now why buried if he was just an ethereal being and if his crucifixion was by demons in the heavenly realm? Was he buried in heavenly dirt? Clearly this implies that he was flesh and blood, that this took place in space, time and history. IN Galations Paul tells of two meetings with Peter. Once when he first went to Jerusalem and again when Peter came to visit his ministry. Peter was, therefore, a real historical person. Therefore Jesus was a real historical person, unless one wants to believe that this Peter helped make him up maliciously and than died for his fantasy after years of being dedicated to spreading it.


Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE



He says the first clear reference to Jesus as a man because Josephus says "if it be lawful to call him a man..." sarcastically alluding to the notion of his Messianic mission. But in fact in terms of proof that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man this, and not Tacitus is the first statement, penned in the 90s A.D. But notice how our skeptic has slanted the words to imply that earlier references just saw him as an ethereal being. This is important because it plays into Doherty's theme of Cosmic Christ. AS for the notion that Tacitus may not have known any real information on the existence of Jesus but just took the Christians word for it, and that several other "important writers are silent" this is totally disprove on the Historical Jesus page. Now he says that the first allusion of Josephus to Jesus is "universally acknowledged to be latter Christian insertion." AS we have seen on the other page, previously mentioned, this is totally false, and clearly he is distorting the evidence. It is far from "Universally recognized" and that doesn't even apply to the Arabic text of Josephus but mainly to the Slavic Josephus. Doherty majors in deception! Of course the Talmudic material actually comes from a very early tradition contemporary with Jesus, but written in the Third century, handed down orally.



Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST



Now he tells us "Paul and other early writers." Now what other "early writers" would those be? No other Christian writers that predate the Gospels even exist! Presumably he's talking about the other epistles. But if we through in 1 Clement..the earliest Christian extra-Biblical writing, we have already shown on the Canon and Revelation page how Clement speaks of Mary giving birth to Jesus, the Virgin birth and other such views which clearly mark Jesus out as a Man, and spell out the rudiments of Christian doctrine. Clemens's Letter to me Church of Rome is dated in 95 A.D.As for the Epistles, he says that they "never identify these entity called 'Christ Jesus...' as a man who lived and died in recent history." Now one gets then notion that they he is separating Christ Jesus from Jesus so that to point out instances where they do speak of Jesus as a man he might say "but that's not Christ Jesus." One can only hope he would not be lame enough to make this blunder.

Be that as it may, let us point them out anyway. Romans 1:1 "Paul a Servant of Christ Jesus called to be an Apostle and set apart for the Gospel of God....regarding his son who as to his human nature was a decedent of David....!" Ephesians 2:14 "for he himself is our peace who has made the two one and who has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations..." Here we have a frank statement that Jesus was a flesh and blood being! 2 Peter 1:16 "for we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye witnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory when the voice came to him from the majestic Glory, saying 'this is my son whom I love, with him I am well pleased' We ourselves heard that voice come from heaven when we were with him..." This is a clear and direct reference to the baptism of Jesus in the Gospels; a confirmation of the human Jesus of the Gospels. The opening lines of the First Epistle of John reiterates the basic concept of the Gospel's prologue, (1 John 1:1) "that which we have heard from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and which our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the word of life." IN other words, he's proclaiming like the Gospel that bares the same name "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He's saying Jesus was a man, we saw him, we heard him, we touched him. This touching is most important because he is debunking the Gnostic heresy that Jesus we not a fleshly being but an ethereal illusory being (the very theory Doherty is touting). He is saying Jesus was a man, flesh and blood "historical" figure!

Moreover, the author of Hebrews, whoever that was (my personal favorite candidate is Pricilla) says "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way....During the days of Jesus life on Earth he offered up Prayers and Petitions with loud crys and tears to the one who could save him and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was s Son he learned obedience..." (4:15, 5:7). Whether Paul wrote Hebrews or someone else (Apollos, Andronicos, Junia, Pricilla, Aquilia) the author was clearly a Pauline Insider (according to mentions of Timothy in the last chapter) so this totally sinks the boat for the Cosmic Christ theory. There are many other examples but why go on? Another verse in Hebrews (2:14) "since the children have flesh and blood he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death....for this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God and that he might make atonement for the sin of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted he is also able to help those who are being tempted." This clearly demonstrates the principle that the doctinre of the Pauline circle embraced a human Claris and a human atonement--his atonement had to be in the flesh to count! This so called secret of Christ that Paul mentions is merely the reality that he was the Christ, the Messiah. Doherty tries to turn Paul into a Gnostic, which he clearly was not. But even moreso John was not. This is crucial. Doherty says the Epistles never speak of Jesus as a flesh and blood man. But John actually makes this the ultimate test of faith. He says 4:2 "every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God..." So it was actually made the supreme test of faith to recognize that Jesus was in the flesh. This is how closely the evidence adheres to Doherty's theory.



Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM



As we have just seen nothing could be further from the truth! The Letter to the Hebrews clearly stipulates that Jesus was a man, he had a life on earth, he was even tempted like a man. None of the Biblical writers felt called upon to point out that Jesus' crucifixion was on earth and was an earthly flesh event, because no one channeled that and it would be totally illogical and unnatural to feel called upon to point it out. That would be like me suddenly telling you "you are reading a website right now, we are on the Internet." This we already know. But all of these writers acknowledge that Jesus lived a life on earth as a man, so why would they not think he also died as a man? The mention of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary to offer sacrifice is not a picture of Jesus' death on the cross, but assumes that already. This is a picture of what Jesus did after his death and before his resurrection. It may be a metaphor for one thing, but assuming it is a "real spiritual event" it happens as a result of his death. And since Hebrews is a Pauline circle work we may take this as the ideas of the Pauline circle and thus Paul's idea. As for the Assent ion of Isaiah, sorry that is not a canonical work. Whatever that writer thought it cannot be linked to the Biblical writers. There were many different kinds of Jewish Christian groups, and the NT writers were not responsible for them all.Moreover, the passage in Hebrews 5:7 implies that the Crucifixion was on earth in our space/time. The author alludes to his suffering, to his anguish. To his seeking to be saved from death during his life on earth. So why would his death not be on earth?Paul says several times, over and over again, Romans 5-6, Gal. 1:1 and many other places that Jesus was crucified, that he died for the ungodly. Now why would he feel called upon to explain that this was an earthly death? No one asserted otherwise, everyone knew the story, why should he go into elementary details? There is also ephasians 2:14 already sited about destroying the law in his flesh, which is obviously an allusion to the death on the cross. This is so because elsewhere he says the law was nailed to the cross, that's how it was abolished. Now he doesn't need to tell them that Jesus died on earth in the flesh, but if he abolished the law in the flesh it only stands to reason that his death on the cross was "in the flesh" and therefore on earth and not in some cosmic realm.



Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE



First of all, he does have a point about Platonic influences upon Hebrews in the Intertestamental period. But there is no way to corollate that with the beliefs of the early church. The verse he quotes in Romans 1:3 says "as to his human nature was a decedent of David and who through the Spirit of Holiness was declared with Power to be the Son of God." These are not earthly types of heavenly qualities, he is merely reinterpreting the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. Paul says frankly he had a human nature and a divine nature just as the creeds assert. This is merely a statement of Jesus' Christ's incarnation as the enteral Logos. But "Son of God" does not denote any sort of Cosmic being but clearly is a term of the Messiah. While the Jews expected the Messiah to be pre-mundane, this in no way cancels Jesus' humanity. In Fact Doherty has to overlook the first part of the passage to make that assertion. Moreover, if as he says the deeds in heaven have their corresponding events on earth than it merely stands to reason that the Crucifixion would be on earth too!



Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES



This is merely the "copy cat savior" notion which is dispelled on the Jesus and Mythology Page. Similarities overblown or totally fabricated. For example, most of these did not overcome dealt (as Osiris living as a mummy is that overcoming death?) and others made no pretense at it such as Hercules. Moreover, sharing communal meals is a rite of almost all world religions, the sharing of food is a universal symbol of unity an friendship. The idea of having a special relationship with the deity, why do you think they call it religion! Come on! Those are merely universal archetypes and have no real significance as "copies."



Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON




Gee its so widespread it almost makes one think it actually happened some time doesn't' it? Like some expectation is programed in us. It's a universal Archetype. That doesn't preclude God actually fulfilling it through a fleshly savior! Moreover, he cannot connect proverbs to Greek thought of the Hellenistic period. But Logos is connected to the Hebrew Concept of Memra, the presence of God. This is echoes throughout the OT in terms of God's presence, the Shekinna Glory, and so on. In fact he is merely laying out the framework for my Hebrew conception of the Trinity which I give on the Trinity page. Rather than disproving the historical Jesus, it seems rather to confirm that the Historical Jesus could well be the incarnation of the Logos. But what Doherty probably wants to imply was a conscious effort to copy is merely sencrinicitous and archetypical and in no way disproves, but rather bolsters Christian doctrine!

spin

1.

[deleted for consistencey - spin is correct]
2.

spin to Metacrock:

As one mildly dyslexic to another, I do wish you'd get over it and force yourself to proofread what you write. If necessary write it in Word, or similar, and run a spellchecker. It will stop some of the silly comments coming your way and make your writing more readable. As it is, you tend to alienate your audience, stimulating Pavlov's Dog type reactions of the "this ideot can't even spill" variety -- if you get me.

Another gripe: your formatting tends to make your posts unfollowable. It would be nice if you get the hang of clear formatting. Often you mix different posts in such a way as to make it impossible to know what the new material is.

So if you could get the hang of using code such as

{quote]old text{/quote]


(using a "[" at the beginning instead of a "{", and you get:

), you can then make your comment outside the quote and what you say will be easier to read.

(And I have little sympathy for your uncritical acceptance of Christian interpolations in Classical works, but you've got enough on your hands at the moment.)


spin

Metacrock

Why would you say that? I've just proven that all the misconceptions Hoffman argues are lies. He says Paul give no indication of knowing anything of Jesus teachings, and I show Koester has a whole chapter on it, and I show a chart with over 12 examples and then some. Celary you don't know what you're talking about.

I think you guys have a lot of cleches and trusisms that you just tell each other all the time and neve bother to check the facts. Like the Bs assertion that no tomb was ever venerated. It's well proven that a tomb was vinerated form the frist century, it's even proven which tomb it was because they found the temple of Venus under it. So that's just a truism whch Lowder or someone started and everyone assumed it was fact.

[deleted for consistencey]

Metacrock

[deleted for consistency]


2.



Well you could read the link. I have taken time to spell check most of that. But the post is SooOOOOoooo LooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOoong and everyone starts answering it immeidatly so a I can't keep up with the thread. So that just means more quick typing and more mistakes.

see why I'm retiring from message boards? I'm leaving Doxa up, but I'm not going to do this anymore. I've already announced it to my Christian friends.






I'm just dying to know what you think you are saying there.