Hallandale

Dear Toto,
Thank You for explaining this to me.
I was completely in the dark about this.

I started reading some of the stuff on the website you directed me to.
I had to give up because it made my head hurt.
I was a Christian for many years, and I was probably a typical Christian.
I could never get through all that intellectual stuff about Christianity.
I still can't.
So I think that people can write tons of books filled with logical, intellectual arguments against Christianity, and they will never convince any Christians to give up Jesus.

But let me tell you what convinced me that Christianity was a fraud.
As a Christian, I believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. No mistakes....no errors...every word God breathed...inspired by God.
But as I matured in Christ, I actually started to read the Bible.
That's when the trouble started. I started to find problems.
For example....
Is Peter the son of Jonah? [Matthew 16:17]
Or is Peter the son of John? [John 21:15]

Or did Abraham purchase the land at Shechem from the sons of Hamor?
[Acts 7:16]
Or did Jacob purchase the land at Shechem from the sons of Hamor?
[Genesis 33:19]

Now I discovered that there are explanations for these problems.
At first I thought the problems were my lack of understanding.
But finding problems only caused me to look deeper.
The more I read and compared the more errors I found.
Eventually I realized the Bible was not the word of God but the work of men.

I think Christians believe in Jesus because they believe in the Bible.
When they discover that the Bible is not what they thought it was....as I discovered....they should give up on Jesus, ...unless they are complete idiots.

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

TedM

Best to you, Nick.
ted

mikem

Hi Amalek. I did not say superficial. I was contrasting what I understand to be Doherty's view of an execution somewhere in the cosmos, in some kind of Platonic realm, with what I understand to be Paul's view of a very this worldly execution of a very human man. My point is that if Doherty's view is right, then he would have to explain why Paul was so specific about the form of execution. As I understand it, the myths of gods who are slain and rise again suffer a variety of forms of slaying, and I am not aware of any who are crucified. It just makes more sense to read Paul as refering to a historical event in Palestine. I apologise if I did not make my meaning clear.

mikem

Please see above. I have recently read Doherty's Jesus puzzle, and while I am impressed with his scholarship, I have reservations about his treatment of Paul. In my view, if he has misinterpreted Paul in this key passage about the world rulers crucifying the Lord of glory, then while there is still an argument to be made for a MJ, Doherty's case at least, is seriously weakened. I only say weakened at this stage because I have not yet read everything on his home site, and he may have answers I am not yet aware of.

mikem

Hmm. I think that the debated verses need a much wider framework that goes back to the beginning of the letter. Why is Paul writing this letter? From chapter 1verses 11 to 17 Paul is warning the Xtians at Corinth because they have started forming cliques, and Paul is telling them that there is no true division between them because they all belong to Christ. (Incidentally, the throw away question in verse 13 "Is Christ divided, was Paul crucified for you?" is a very strong indication that Paul is thinking of real flesh and blood crucifixion, not some cosmic event in some other dimension).

And then, in verse 18, Paul tells us where the real division lies, and it is between those who are perishing, and those who are being saved. Then he refers to the Old Testament to show that the worldly wisdom that rejects the gospel has been condemned by God. Paul contrasts the wisdom of this world with the folly of what is preached. And why is it rejected? The Jews reject it because it is a stumbling block. (They are expecting a triumphant messiah who will conquer their enemies, and what do they get? A man condemned as a criminal and hung on a cross. The greeks reject it because it does not meet their rational expectations.)

Paul then goes on to describe the believers in verses 26 to 31, as the foolish of the world who God hs chosen, and the source of their life is Christ Jesus, who "God made our wisdom". So Paul has identified wisdom with Christ, and foolishness with firstly the gospel, and then with the believers, who though foolish, paradoxically share Christ's wisdom.

Then we come to chapter 2. In verses 1 - 6 Paul is being self deprecatory, and is contrasting again human wisdom, which did not convince the Corinthians, with the demonstration of the Spirit and power, which did. He refers to another wisdom, which is revealed through the spirit, to the mature. He then refers to the rulers again in verse 8, telling the Corinthians that had these rulers understood this wisdom, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. He keeps the polarity going, to remind them that the true division is between believers and non believers.

The quote then introduces what follows: that God is the source of spiritual understanding. Since only any individual can really understand their own thoughts, so only God can truly understand himself, but he imparts his spirit that Paul's addressees can understand the gifts bestowed on them by God. This is taught them not by words of human wisdom, but by the spirit. But then in chapter 3 verses 1 -3. Paul rounds on the Corinthians, telling them that he could not address them as spiritual, but as fleshly, because they are still in the flesh while there is division and strife among them, and hence goes full circle back to the point he started with. The whole purpose of those first two chapters then has been to deal with the problem of division in the church and what he has said about Christ, and the rulers of the world has to be understood in this light. He keeps pressing home that the real division is between those who believe, and those who do not, and that while they have artifical divisions among themselves, they have not really understood the mind of God as imparted to them through the spirit. They are still spiritual children.

In this context, there was no reason why Paul would say anything about the life of Christ. He was not INTERESTED in trying to show what kind of death Christ died. That is incidental to his purpose. They would have known this already. Paul's incidental references to crucifixion show that he assumed this knowledge in them. It is clear from the context that any polarity Paul refers to is that between believers and non believers. His main concern was to explain to them why divisions among them were unacceptable. His main purpose was pastoral, not theological, in writing to them.

jakejonesiv

Why the limit to in or before the 1st century? Do you have a first century edition of the Paulinics?

Why the limit to either of the words ARCWN or ARCHONTES ?
Indeed, why the implied limit to the Greek language?

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Because the meanings of words often change over time,and what a word means in one era is not always what it meant in a previous one. And since meaning is determined by use, it is not good methodology to try to establish what a word meant or how it was used at a given time by pointing to usages and meanings that the word came to possess well after that time.

Because these are the words whose meanings people are making claims about. One cannot determine the meaning of one word by looking at the usage of totally different words.

.

Because that's the langauge that 1 Cor was written in.

Jeffrey

sodium

I think to understand the mythicist response we all have to turn in our Bibles to Psalm 22. Psalm 22 is, among others (especially Isaiah 53), one that is taken by modern Christians as a prophecy of Jesus's crucifixion. The similarities do seem strong, so we have either decide that the similarity is just coincidence, the Psalm really is a prophecy, the crucifixion accounts were adapted to fit the Psalm, or the crucifixion accounts were invented to fit the Psalm. Of course, mythicists favour the last interpretation.

Anyway, it's possible to think that early Christians might have hit on another form of execution (assuming they invented the story), but Psalm 22 makes crucifixion to be at least a pretty good fit.

Some choice parts.
22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

So here we have the pierced hands and feet, the bones out of joint, and the heat and thirst. The "humiliation" aspect of crucifixion is furthermore not something the early Christians would have viewed as simply an embarrassment, but is necessary if you choose to construct a form of death based on the Psalm.

GakuseiDon

Toto, there is no "sublunar plane" of the flesh (unless we are talking about earth). To talk about "fleshy sublunar realms separate or overlapping our own" is a modern idea relating to sci-fi concepts of parallel dimensions that Doherty is imposing on the text. I am surprised that Carrier doesn't also have problems with it, but his quotes from Plutarch indicates to me that he is having some problems with the idea. (Check his quotes from Plutarch and then Plutarch himself to see if there is any relevency to "a fleshy sublunar" realm) I'm hopeful that he will look into it further.

Middle Platonistic cosmology generally had a dual universe: a supra-lunar realm and a sub-lunar realm. The sub-lunar realm extended from the moon to the earth. People (formed from flesh) lived on the earth, and demons (formed from air, fire or similar 'spiritual' matter) lived in the air. From here:

Like Xenocrates and other Platonists, Ocellus understood the cosmos as divided in two parts, the supra-lunar and the sub-lunar, the gods existing in the former and daemons and humans in the latter. It is only in the sub-lunar regions, he argued, that generation and decay occurs, for it is in this region that "nonessential" beings undergo alteration according to nature.

Ocellus's views seem to be representative of the Middle Platonists who followed him.

If Paul said that Christ came in the flesh, it could only have been on earth. Period. Now, if Doherty wants to postulate that Paul had unusual, non-Middle Platonic views, then that's fine. But if he is appealing to common views of the day, then Paul is stating that Christ was crucified on earth.

I am slowly going through ALL Doherty's references on this (though the Theological Dictionary of the NT index is in Greek, which makes things extremely difficult for me to look things up!), and I have no doubt that I will be able to prove that Doherty's idea of a "fleshy sublunar realm" simply didn't exist and - more importantly - would NOT have made sense to Middle Platonists of the day. And that's because it is a MODERN concept that Doherty is imposing on the text.

jakejonesiv

Hi Jeffrey,

Thank you for taking the time to make a detailed reply. I do appreciate your encouragement to Stephen Carlson to publish his book "The Gospel Hoax."

Re: 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Since the Pauline epistles are second century forgeries, we should look to Marcion's useage.

According to Tertullian, Marcion interpreted the archons as evil spiritual powers, agents of the Demiurge.

But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion] argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it properly enough was unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil Himself.

Tertullian Against Marcion Book V

I have never understood why EDoherty insists that Jesus never descended below the sub lunar realm. There is no reason that a mythical figure can't be imagined to visit the earth, or the underworld for that matter. Ascension of Isaiah, chapter 9 not withstanding, I can't reconcile the sub-lunar halt with Ephesians 4:9.

We have evidence of an ancient near eastern myth of Inanna, who in manner similar to Phillipians 2:6-11, divests herself of divine attributes as she descends the seven gates and is subsequently executed and hung up by Ereskigal, ruler of the underworld. The mythical Inanna, subsequently returns to life, as Jesus is also said to do.

There are several parallels here between the Inanna (latter known as Ishtar) and Jesus myths. Both descend, are humbled, killed, and rise again. The may be a parallel between being hung up and crucifixtion but I won't press that. The seven gates through which Inanna must pass are similar to the gates of the Archons through which Jesus passes in latter gnostic myth. (We find the Lord of Glory entering the archonic gates in Psalm 24:7 LXX but I digress).

Now, why do I bring this up? The myth of Inanna predates Christianity. She is executed by evil spiritual powers. But since it was not written in Greek, you certainly won't find the words ARCWN or ARCHONTES.

Jeffery, thanks for you kind reply. I will leave the last word to you on this thread as you think best. I will appreciate any response.

Jake Jones IV