spin

I see no sign of any source that is earlier.

The scarce evidence suggests during the principate but before the Jewish War.

As the information doesn't reflect the real world, it's hard to see it having been written by Paul, but it could have been, for some opaque reason.


spin

EarlDoherty

I’m behind on checking in here, and will probably remain so. I find Kapyong’s charts very useful, as long as one does not regard every detail as somehow established according to the evidence. He is certainly right in pointing out that the ancients regarded the realm of corruptibility as a “location”, with different characteristics from those layers of heaven which belonged to the incorruptible. And it is also established that many things could go on in both types of layers (with little consistency, especially in Jewish sectarian writings), and my new book devotes considerable space to giving different accounts of these. The basic problem is, there seems to have been no agreement on the actual ‘schematics’. No more than anyone else, I don’t have a pipeline to the official picture of the heavens, mainly of course because there wasn’t one, which makes efforts like those of Kapyong ‘educated attempts’ at the best of times. No one, for example (that I’m aware of), locates the specific sphere for a Heavenly Jerusalem, and that was no doubt because there was no consensus on the heavenly schematic diagram.

I sincerely hope (though judging by many postings over the years it would seem that to a great extent he does) GakuseiDon is not faulting me—and claiming he has ‘slain’ my mythicist case—because I have not been able to provide the reader with a detailed and thoroughly coherent picture of the heavens and how the early Christ cult fitted its Jesus’ activities into it. I’m the first one to admit I haven’t and that it is virtually impossible to do so, given the nature of the evidence and the utter lack of ancient cosmological theories’ connection to any observable and testable reality. But that does not mean that one cannot create an arguable picture in its general outlines. If Don’s review is simply going to nitpick that my presentation of that aspect of the Jesus Myth fails to live up to modern scientific standards, it will be a waste of time for both himself and for us.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

I know that Aretas IV appointed himself king and only later applied to Augustus for ratification, but Augustus (reluctantly) did eventually ratify his accession to the throne. IIUC he is generally regarded as a roman client-king, although one with a maybe unusual amount of autonomy.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

This is what happens when people try to re-write the NT. Now, Kaypong is into PAULINE ASTROLOGY/ASTRONOMY.

Well since the 6th century Cosmas Indicopleustes in "Christian Topography" did use the Bible and Pauline writings to EXPLAIN the "Geography" of the HEAVENS .

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_09_book9.htm

Kapyong

Gday,

Please oh PLEASE let that be so.
;-)


K.

Juststeve

Yet somehow I think he'll waste more time on it, our time that is.

Steve

GakuseiDon

My criticism, as always, is that:
(1) You don't have evidence to support your "fleshly sublunar incarnation" theory
(2) The evidence we DO have is against you theory

You only start admitting this when people try to pin you down. Otherwise, there are stark statements in your book that imply that not only do you have evidence, but it is an established fact, as I point out in my review.

Since I have never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never ever made that criticism, despite your constant accusation of this (i.e. that I claim that it must make sense to US), the chances are small.

Here is a harsh truth: No-one cares about my review, other than you and me. And I have doubts about me, now that I'm at the end of the process. If my review can get a few people -- even people convinced by your books -- to ask "Hey, Earl, what's the evidence for this particular claim of yours?", then it will have done its job.

Here is another harsh truth: No-one really cares about your theories. Sure there are people who are convinced, usually people who know very little about the topic or even your theories. They think they have upgraded by moving from Acharya S to you. And they're like crickets: once you stamp on them by asking for evidence, they go silent. Only a handful (like Kapyong) are ever going to look into your theories and be able to talk about them in any meaningful depth.

And more power to them. How people thought back then is a fascinating topic. You cover a lot of that in your book, and I actually recommend "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" in my review for that alone. But now, I'm no more interested in having a serious discussion about a "World of Myth" than I am in having a serious discussion about an ancient advanced global Pygmy civilization.

Earl, you need a Huxley, a "Doherty's doberman", maybe even a Dave31 type, someone who knows your theories inside and out, to keep people interested in them. Anyone want to volunteer? Or maybe you could even present something for peer-review. That would be nice.

My review will be up on my revamped website around Tues next week, in my Reviews section. (Lots of typos and some links currently don't work, since I am still vamping.)

Kapyong

Gday Earl :-)

Hey, thanks for that, I appreciate it :-)
My main goal with these diagrams is to HELP the discussions along - I find a lot of argument is just down to mis-understandings and different use of terms. I suspect GakuseiDon and I were mis-understanding each other, and I think these diagrams may have helped that.

But I certainly don't think all my diagrams are all (equally) supported, I'll make that more clear here.

(Also - I hereby give you, Earl Doherty, full rights to use, copy and/or modify my diagrams.)

Yes, I think this basic dichotomy is well established by the period :


(The issue of 'location' vs 'metaphysical state' is complex - in more ancient times it was seen as essentially locational, but in modern times the planes are now seen as inter-penetrating states of existance. Around Paul's time it seems to have been changing from one t'other - leaving a very confused picture.)


I look forward to that.
My particular interest is the Air Beneath the Moon, in which Jews and Christians and pagans describe beings and actions (e.g. the Prince of Power of the Air, demons of the air, ancestors shades in the air.)

So, I think this basic cosmology is fairly well established at the time :



Yah, it's hard to get a clear picture, so I would say my Paul's cosmology is indeed more an educated guess :



Yah, a good look at the Heavenly Jerusalem shows that no-one gives the slightest hint where it is in specific terms (apart from being 'Above' and in 'heaven'.) I have sneakily changed my chart so HJ is in both/either places. :-)

Finally, my diagrams about journeys and the crucifixion are educated guesses at BEST - i.e. essentially my opinion, based on my understanding of the sources :


Earl - Do you think that particular diagram is at all useful? Do you think it's at least somewhat like how Paul saw it ? If you don't - I can handle it :-)


Well, I too sincerely hope that GakuseiDon returns with a scholarly review, and I hope it leads to more fruitful discussion. I even hope my diagrams help a little :-)

Frankly Earl, I think you have done some great work, but the negativity you've received must have been so frustrating. I really hope the compliments and scholarly discussion you get can outweight the Tims of this world.

My prediction -
Earl's "crackpot theory" will not be accepted by scholars in his life-time.
200 years from now - the sub-lunar incarnation theory will be a commonly discussed idea.
500 years from now - Jesus is considered a Myth, due to the now widely accepted "Doherty Sub-Lunar Theory".
:-)


Kapyong

GakuseiDon

Hey Kapyong, I've asked some knowledgeable people to give me feedback on my review by Monday. Would you be interested also in having a 'sneak preview'? Any feedback would be welcome, positive or negative.

All I ask is that you don't discuss it on-line before I put it on my website next week. The content is there, but I may move some sections around, re-include other sections that didn't make the initial cut, fix any remaining typos, etc.

aa5874

You don't understand.

I won't go away.