No Robots

Lost me here. Please rephrase.

Solo

Mostly ? interpolation ?

It does look like Paul was having complex temporal lobe seizures. It has been now known for a while that these occur in non-epileptics as well and are somewhat prominent in bipolars. For a while, patients with seizure-lke symptoms but without epileptoid trace have been referred to as pseudo-epileptics (popularly "pseudos"). Take a peek at the diagnostic issues with non epileptic attacks if you are interested.

No-Robots and I had shown here samples of Paul's writing in which he adorns himself with the mystical properties of Christ (his angelic nature, Gal 4:14, and suggested pre-existence in Gal 4:12). So apparently, Paul himself considered himself a spiritual concept too.

Socrates is quoted in Phaedrus as saying that life's greatest blessings come to us through madness (μανια). The Greeks knew then what the feminist jurists of today don't seem to grasp. Any time a male has a hard-on he is temporarily insane. At any rate, Paul's was a different certificate: the Apollonic prophetic variety. The ancients did not, by and large, have a problem with that either. That is if they were not outright intrigued by the method in it.

Today, one of the world's most prominent experts on the medical issues of people who are Touched with Fire (or via: amazon.co.uk) is herself a medicated manic-depressive (she actually prefers to be called that to "bipolar").

What can I tell you: for all I know tomorrow it may be you who wakes up and thinks he is Jesus Christ, and then finds out, to his dismay and shame, that it was just something funny going on with the neurotransmitters. I wish you safe return to earth. Hope YOU bring us back something interesting !

Jiri

jjramsey

But why would Jews who are trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts balk at deifying a human, which has some partial precedents in Judaism, while accepting the deification of a spirit being, which might suggest an even stronger compromise with paganism?

GakuseiDon

Here's the rub: there doesn't appear to be any literature AT ALL to support the idea that the pagans believed that their gods acted in a sublunar realm. So, when you say that it was consistent with what you knew at the time, I think that maybe you mean that it wasn't inconsistent with what you knew. I strongly doubt that you came across the idea that pagans talked about gods acting in a sublunar realm before you read Doherty (or comments sourced from him) -- I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong in that assumption.

This is often the pattern I've found when debating Doherty supporters. It's similar to those who believe that "virgin-born crucified gods were a dime-a-dozen in those days" -- it's not inconsistent with what they'd heard. Even after seeing that the evidence doesn't really support them, they're still not convinced -- after all, I can't prove that someone, somewhere didn't believe in such a thing. So they come away saying that it may not necessarily be inconsistent with what they'd heard.

People come away reading Doherty's book convinced that this is how pagans thought in those days. Well, maybe some pagans did. I really can't prove that they didn't. But I can show that there is definite evidence that some didn't think that way, i.e. they thought that the gods acted on earth, or the tales were legendary or allegorical, and thus didn't occur at all. Could some have thought that Attis was castrated or a bull was killed by Mithras in some sublunar realm? Sure. But there is a complete absence of such literature. That's why (on this topic at least) I've said that (1) there is no evidence to support Doherty, and (2) what evidence we do have goes against him. Are you aware of ANY evidence that supports the notion that pagans believed that Attis was castrated in a sublunar realm, or Mithras killed a bull there? If not, how can it be consistent with what you'd heard before reading Doherty?

One suggestion is to start with an examination of Carrier's comments supporting Doherty on this in his review. You don't even need to read Dillon to check them. Have a look at the passages in Plutarch that Carrier believes indicates that some believed that Osiris was dismembered in a sublunar realm, and you can see that Carrier's comments simply aren't supported. I started a thread here that highlights this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=175903

dzim77

Sorry, I probably shouldn't rush a post on my way out the door like that.

In Gal 4:14 Paul is referring to a real event, namely, the Galatians receiving him with kindness and respect. He uses exageration to say that they received him as if he were an angel or Christ himself.

Paul's references to a divine Christ are generally not in the same context. Paul puts forth a developed, extensive Christology. Christ is an atoning sacrifce. Christ is holy. Christ is righteous. Christ is our savior. There's no comparitive language.... As opposed to this one verse you have cited in Galatians 4:14 which is a clear use of figurative exageration by Paul.

To say anything more than this we will have to discuss specific passages.

spamandham

Probably not Jesus, but maybe the Fonze.

Amaleq13

Can you provide examples of mystical references using this same phrase?

spamandham

Gal 4:4, possibly.

If you wish to accept the rule "anytime you see 'born of a woman' anywhere in 1st century Greek writings, it is necessarily not being used in a mystical sense even when found within a mystical context of a mystical writing", you are welcome to do so.

I don't think it's that simple, regardless of my inability to provide examples of 1st century Greek mystical writings in which this phrase is unequivacably used in a mystical sense. :huh:

Doug Shaver

Could I trouble for a source where I could verify that?

Doug Shaver

Don, your assurance that when I've completed my research, I will see how right you are, is noted.