Kapyong

Gday,

Do you have a point?
What matters is whether he is right.
Not whether he is a minority.
Every paradigm shift requires SOME maverick to start it off.

We KNOW that Doherty is flying in the face of the mainstream - and there are ALSO reasons to DOUBT the mainstream. But you endlessly trumpet the first point, and ignore the latter (the problem that nearly all the alleged scholars are Christians or dependent on Christians for their job - the kind of people who could not possibly be expected to suddenly go with the JMT. The most biased sample I can imagine.)

WHAT doesn't mean they're right?
You haven't given us any 'it' !

And you don't even KNOW what his evidence is !
You won't read Doherty's evidence.

So how can you know IF it's 'backed up by good evidence' if you don't know what the evidence is ?

Every post of yours amounts to :
1. the consensus disagrees with Doherty
2. Doherty is/could be, wrong

But we KNOW that - we hear it day after day after day - and not just from you. But you keep just repeating those truisms without ever actually getting into the discussion. We point you to Doherty's works so you can get involved, and you won't read it. Not more than 'an article' anyway.

Why bother posting if all you have to say is repeat these two points?
1. the consensus disagrees with Doherty
2. Doherty is/could be, wrong

Will you ever get involved with the meat of the discussion?


Ah - Point 2 - a claim that Doherty is wrong - WITHOUT any specifics. I fear you will never get involved with the details of the debate. Instead you'll pop in frequently to remind us :
1. the consensus disagrees with Doherty
2. Doherty is/could be, wrong


K.

archibald

The problem here is that John Frum is the only one who is supposed to have lived recently, and there is not nearly so much later biographical detail in that instance, which renders the concept as applied to Jesus somewhat, in fact very, unusual in the first instance.

Couple this with the fact that at best, interpretations of Paul are often inconclusive, and add in that there is no evidence (as far as I know) whatsoever of early Christians believing in a non-earthly Jesus, and you do not end up with a recipe for thinking MJ more likely, IMO.

GakuseiDon

It isn't the sting in the tail, it's the whole point. Did anyone talk along the lines of "seed of David", "from the tribe of Judah", "came from the Israelites", but was thought by them to have never been on earth at some point?

There's that curious false dichotomy. If it were "either Gospel Jesus or Doherty's Mythical Jesus" you would have a point. But it isn't. Wells might be correct. MountainMan might be correct, Constantine help us. If it is possible that there might not have been a historical Jesus but Doherty could still be wrong, then it is possible to discuss Doherty's theories on their own terms.

Okay.

EarlDoherty

And here's the link to my rebuttal to Muller's articles. Maybe you ought to check that out as well. Or do you only bother with material critical of mythicism? No wonder you know nothing about it.

This is a very detailed rebuttal, in three parts. It begins at:

here

I expect you to come back with some fresh observations about Muller in light of what I have to say. And some fresh observations about the mythicist case.

Or maybe not. Odds are you'll take a page from Don and simply ignore any counter to your 'facts'.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Who said anything about Jesus being crucified in a "Jerusalem above"? As far as I know, the heavenly Jerusalem was not included in the demons' sublunar realm.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

No, judge, that's how you'd LIKE to think that I think of myself. I very much think of myself as a scholar, which a good "amateur" is quite capable of being. And I don't avoid peer review. Those "peers" have made it quite clear that they will have nothing to do with me and would not give me a fair hearing in any circumstances. A little like yourself.

When you don't, won't or can't agree with someone else's opinions, it really helps to belittle them and their qualifications. That's the easy way out, isn't it?

Earl Doherty

archibald

Earl,

Fleshly incarnations doing stuff in sublunar realms.

Any precedents?

EarlDoherty

And how would you know? Have you read my "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man"?

Earl Doherty

archibald

It's not your qualifications, Earl, it's the lack of academic comment/input/critique/review.

Surely there must be some Classical Historians and professional philosophers you could go to and say, 'what's your take on my take of this Platonic realms narrative thing?'

And just out of interest, have scholars equally not addressed or been willing to review Wells, Price, and all the others too, going all the way back to the 18th and 19th centuries?

EarlDoherty

What "analogous narratives" do you have in mind? Original versions of pagan savior god myths which long pre-dated Platonism? Do you have inside information on how those myths were understood within the highly secret rites of the cults?

Have you read Plutarch's Isis and Osiris? Do you understand how Plutarch presents the heavenly version of that mythology, and how it indeed is very consistent with my interpretation of the early Christ myth? Have you read my rebuttal to what Don has to say about his interpretation of Plutarch?

How can you be aware of any of this if you refuse to read my writings?

Earl Doherty