Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-18-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

You're mixing two things here: evidence for Paul's thinking and evidence for a HJ.

People back then thought that Hercules and Attis lived on earth. They are still myths.

If Paul claims that Jesus had some human, earthly, fleshly aspects, then that is evidence for what Paul believed. Best explanation: Paul thought that Jesus was a man who had lived on earth....

You seem to be promoting propaganda rather than the Pauline writings.

The very Pauline writings SHOW what "Paul" claimed.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

"Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a Man.

The Pauline Jesus was in the Form of God and was EQUAL to God.

Php 2

Quote:

.... 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God......

When will you end your propaganda?

We have the Canonised Pauline writings.

Please, you won't get anywhere by making UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

In antiquity ANCIENTS thought GODS could FORGIVE Sins.

Even the DEIFIED EMPERORS of Rome did NOT REMIT the Sins of Mankind.

In antiquity, the Pauline writers claimed Jesus Christ could REMIT the Sins of Mankind.

The Pauline Jesus was God's OWN Son, God IN THE FLESH, without a human father.

Stringbean · 09-18-2011, 10:47 AM

New Testament itself is the strongest evidence that jesus was not a real person.

(1). Pauls Epistles demonstrates that Jesus life story is a concoction .
(2). There is no certianty Paul ever lived.

Encylopedia Biblica states:

"It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend as made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians."

Christian authority admits invention has done its work in manfacturing at least part of the life of Paul.

(1). Christian scholars rejection of the Pauline Epistles as spurious.
(2). Existence of Paul questionable?

1 Cor 15.3-8

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Further the accomplishments of this bible jesus only requires belief and that belief is in a non historical act.

archibald · 09-18-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I don't dispute that the concept of the cult deity has some human, earthly, fleshly aspects to it.

But that doesn't amount to a concept of a human being, or evidence of a human being.

The whole muddle comes about because the HJ idea is a rationalistic account that HYPOTHESIZES a human being as the root of the mythical story - whether the sketchy story in "Paul" or the more fleshed-out story in the gospels.

Where is the reason for introducing such a hypothesis? Upon what evidence does the hypothesis that there was a human being seem plausible?

There's nothing there. As aa keeps rightly insisting, the entity being spoken of throughout the NT Canon is mythical - born of a virgin impregnated by a spirit, blad-de-blah-de-blah.

The only reason anyone even thought such a hypothesis plausible (and not that the story is just like any other myth that has some fleshly, earthly aspects to it - e.g. like the Krishna myth) is because at the end of the 19th century some rationalistic Christians wanted to keep their cake and eat it.

They were too rationalistic to believe the myth, but they thought they could still preserve something called "Christianity" by hypothesizing an ordinary human being at the root of it.

It's total bollocks. There isn't a single connection in ANY of the evidence we have, between some person who might be considered a reliable witness, and another human being called "Jesus" - nobody we can historically pin down who heard a human Jesus' words, nobody we can historically triangulate who spoke to him, touched him, felt him, heard of him preaching at the time. Nothing. Not a sausage.

So why hypothesize the fellow? Yes, it's a vague possibility, but there are other, far more plausible scenarios (mine, for instance

).

The whole thing in "Paul" is just mystical stuff - it's blatant proto-gnosticism, it's what later developed into what was later called "Gnosticism". It's about personal salvation through good works, attunement and eventually some kind of mystical ascent/union. That effort the individual makes is the cry "Abba, Father!" God hears that cry and redeems his Son from the slavery of matter (i.e. the person realizes their oneness with Christ, their "immortality", their essential union with God - that is the "resurrection", the mystical union, akin to satori or whatever, in other mystical traditions).

Christ it's so fucking obvious, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with some real human idiot called "Jesus" who walked the earth and was crucified by the Romans at all. That comes later, as part of a sub-sect's attempt to capture the movement by connecting their forebears with the deity's time on earth. That's what gives the ILLUSION of a human being to us rationalists, that bit of jiggery-pokery.

It's a 50 CE version of Eckhart Tolle. Something that gave its earliest followers powerful personal epiphanies, not some vague bollocks promise about some vague afterlife nonsense or some eschatological tosh, but something real and powerful like a drug that affected their lives in unforgettable ways. What picture does "Paul" give of what went on in the congregations? - it's bloody occultism, plain and simple.

It's religion, the hard stuff, the stuff William James canvasses in "Varieties of Religious Experience", stuff that alters perception, alters thinking; not some vapid intellectual mincing around juggling with texts.

That comes much later, when the original impetus has died down and the movement becomes something semi-respectable that people send their second sons to join because they're such layabouts they can't do anything else.

George. I enjoyed reading your impassioned post. And I'll say it agian, you may have a coherent idea there. Unfortunately, it's speculative. The texts, on the other hand, no matter that they are not conclusive, do give numerous indications in one direction, and so are not quite so speculative.

One more thing. I think you are expecting too much evidence. To my knowledge, we have far more evidence for Jesus than for most other minor figures from the time, if not indeed from ancieent history generally, and I think we must assess the amounts of evidence relative to that. It is my understanding that lack of first or second hand accounts of someone saying they met someone who actually knew the person is an entirely common situation. What about John the Baptist? Theudas? The 'Egyptian' prophet in Josephus?

You know, ultimately, such things are missing even for major players, including Alexander the Great. Not that I am equating the two, but it is nonetheless true. And so I am not sure if your 'causal chain' is a reasonable objection.

Stringbean · 09-18-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I don't dispute that the concept of the cult deity has some human, earthly, fleshly aspects to it.

But that doesn't amount to a concept of a human being, or evidence of a human being.

The whole muddle comes about because the HJ idea is a rationalistic account that HYPOTHESIZES a human being as the root of the mythical story - whether the sketchy story in "Paul" or the more fleshed-out story in the gospels.

Where is the reason for introducing such a hypothesis? Upon what evidence does the hypothesis that there was a human being seem plausible?

There's nothing there. As aa keeps rightly insisting, the entity being spoken of throughout the NT Canon is mythical - born of a virgin impregnated by a spirit, blad-de-blah-de-blah.

The only reason anyone even thought such a hypothesis plausible (and not that the story is just like any other myth that has some fleshly, earthly aspects to it - e.g. like the Krishna myth) is because at the end of the 19th century some rationalistic Christians wanted to keep their cake and eat it.

They were too rationalistic to believe the myth, but they thought they could still preserve something called "Christianity" by hypothesizing an ordinary human being at the root of it.

It's total bollocks. There isn't a single connection in ANY of the evidence we have, between some person who might be considered a reliable witness, and another human being called "Jesus" - nobody we can historically pin down who heard a human Jesus' words, nobody we can historically triangulate who spoke to him, touched him, felt him, heard of him preaching at the time. Nothing. Not a sausage.

So why hypothesize the fellow? Yes, it's a vague possibility, but there are other, far more plausible scenarios (mine, for instance

).

The whole thing in "Paul" is just mystical stuff - it's blatant proto-gnosticism, it's what later developed into what was later called "Gnosticism". It's about personal salvation through good works, attunement and eventually some kind of mystical ascent/union. That effort the individual makes is the cry "Abba, Father!" God hears that cry and redeems his Son from the slavery of matter (i.e. the person realizes their oneness with Christ, their "immortality", their essential union with God - that is the "resurrection", the mystical union, akin to satori or whatever, in other mystical traditions).

Christ it's so fucking obvious, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with some real human idiot called "Jesus" who walked the earth and was crucified by the Romans at all. That comes later, as part of a sub-sect's attempt to capture the movement by connecting their forebears with the deity's time on earth. That's what gives the ILLUSION of a human being to us rationalists, that bit of jiggery-pokery.

It's a 50 CE version of Eckhart Tolle. Something that gave its earliest followers powerful personal epiphanies, not some vague bollocks promise about some vague afterlife nonsense or some eschatological tosh, but something real and powerful like a drug that affected their lives in unforgettable ways. What picture does "Paul" give of what went on in the congregations? - it's bloody occultism, plain and simple.

It's religion, the hard stuff, the stuff William James canvasses in "Varieties of Religious Experience", stuff that alters perception, alters thinking; not some vapid intellectual mincing around juggling with texts.

That comes much later, when the original impetus has died down and the movement becomes something semi-respectable that people send their second sons to join because they're such layabouts they can't do anything else.

George. I enjoyed reading your impassioned post. And I'll say it agian, you may have a coherent idea there. Unfortunately, it's speculative. The texts, on the other hand, no matter that they are not conclusive, do give numerous indications in one direction, and so are not quite so speculative.

One more thing. I think you are expecting too much evidence. To my knowledge, we have far more evidence for Jesus than for most other minor figures from the time, if not indeed from ancieent history generally, and I think we must assess the amounts of evidence relative to that. It is my understanding that lack of first or second hand accounts of someone saying they met someone who actually knew the person is an entirely common situation. What about John the Baptist? Theudas? The 'Egyptian' prophet in Josephus?

You know, ultimately, such things are missing even for major players, including Alexander the Great. Not that I am equating the two, but it is nonetheless true. And so I am not sure if your 'causal chain' is a reasonable objection.

Quote:

we have far more evidence for Jesus

Hello, and those primary and contemporary sources are?

archibald · 09-18-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This thread has become unwieldly. Do you expect me to search through it for some unidentified post with points a through f?

Why don't you start a new thread?

Point taken. Done.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306547

Looks like stringbean may be my first visitor.

GakuseiDon · 09-18-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Now on to the Ascension of Isaiah. The good thing about this text is that it EXPLICITLY gives the form of the Beloved (Christ) as he descends down each level. He has the form of firmament creatures in the firmament; he has the form of airy creatures in the air. At some point he has the form of a man. Where does he have that form? I go into details in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", where I discuss his "World of Myth" concept: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view4.html#4.2

The AoI is powerful evidence against Doherty, in my view. But again, I'm only an amateur in this field, so I would encourage people to investigate the points in my review, and the points raised by Doherty in his book, to make the determination for themselves.

Finally, I have had time to read A of I chapter 9 again. :]

And I am still wondering where the 'crucifixion in an upper realm' is dscribed.

This seems to be the passage in question:

'10. But they sat not on their thrones, nor were their crowns of glory on them.

11. And I asked the angel who was with me: "How is it that they have received the garments, but have not the thrones and the crowns?"

12. And he said unto me: "Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive, till the Beloved will descent in the form in which you will see Him descent [will descent, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ.

13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.

14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.'

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ascension.html

(my bold)

But that isn't, surely, a description of a crucifixion in an upper realm?

That's right. Doherty simply reads it into the text. It doesn't exist in the extant Ethiopian text, nor in the more primitive Slavonic/L2 texts. Doherty needs to invoke the existence of the unseen hand of an unknown editor changing an undocumented text to get it to say what he wants it to say.

The text -- whether E,S or L -- has the Beloved (Christ) descending in the form of a man. It also gives the forms of the Beloved in the heavens, in the firmament, and in the air. None of those forms are in the form of a man. So what location is left? As I said, powerful evidence against Doherty's theories.

If you want to see Doherty dissembling at his best on the AoI to avoid the significance of this (he even trots out his good ol' "A writer composing a work about Isaiah’s vision of the Son’s descent could not fail to include something about his life on earth" crap), read the last few pages of this thread, including the comments by Andrew Criddle.

archibald · 09-19-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

But that isn't, surely, a description of a crucifixion in an upper realm?

That's right. Doherty simply reads it into the text. It doesn't exist in the extant Ethiopian text, nor in the more primitive Slavonic/L2 texts. Doherty needs to invoke the existence of the unseen hand of an unknown editor changing an undocumented text to get it to say what he wants it to say.

I have read that thread now. Very interesting. Personally, I think that if 'decend in your form' is, as it appears, addressed to Isiah, then it is cannot easily be set aside. I spotted what seemed like a bit of goalpost moving when it seemed to become more clear that 'in your form' was actually included in all the texts. It seemed as if what happened then was that an odd appeal was made to speculation about a possible, even earlier text in which it may not have been included.

At this point, if that is the standard methodology, I think it only fair to bring to the discussion my theory that the original version contained a chapter devoted to a very tasty recipe for goat stew.

archibald · 09-19-2011, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The problem is that Paul rarely talks about cosmology or the heavens (compare with 2 Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, Book of Revelation, etc, which are chockful with such talk). This appears to be a concern of later Christianity, possibly as Christ became 'more divine'. (According to Paul, Christ is appointed "Son of God" by the resurrection -- Paul doesn't seem to consider Christ as Son of God before that.)

So it is hard to get any idea of how Paul viewed the universe. He seems stunningly uninterested. He only mentions the sun, moon and the stars once, in the same passage (1 Cor 15:41). There are a handful of references to "heaven/s" (ouranos) and "heavenly" (epouranios), but Paul only enumerates the heavens once (2 Cor. 12:2). In all other uses, the word "heaven" appears to mean the abode of God. There are no "lower heavens" under the firmament, and Satan is "the prince of the powers of the air", which suggests a cosmology similar to the AoI. However, there is very little in Paul to help us with this.

If anyone knows of any passages within Paul that might help us decide what Paul's cosmology (esp his First Heaven and Second Heaven) might have been, please bring them out!

This observation interests me too. I can't help sometimes feeling that to some extent Paul is being squeezed into 'the world of myth genre' a bit like a square peg into a round hole.

The interesting thing about the rare occasion when he even shows basic awareness of such 'Platonic' things, 2 Cor 12:2, is that in this case he is not (as has sometimes been claimed, I think) saying that he 'ascended into an upper realm', but that he knows of a man who, 14 years ago, claims to have done, and that he (paul) doesn't know whether it was 'in body' or not. This does not suggest that he himself subscribes to the notion, in fact his apparent uncertainty seems to hint at unfamiliarity, and the next few verses seem to indicate that he is distinguishing his experience (his vision) from that man's.

Given this, coupled with a lack of clear references (only a handful of possible ambiguities) in his own writings, it does seem odd to say that Paul was setting his action in an upper realm. Whereas, as you, and Doherty, both agree, it's clear in the other examples.

Incidentally, it does make one wonder who this other guy was that Paul had heard of 14 years ago?

GakuseiDon · 09-19-2011, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's right. Doherty simply reads it into the text. It doesn't exist in the extant Ethiopian text, nor in the more primitive Slavonic/L2 texts. Doherty needs to invoke the existence of the unseen hand of an unknown editor changing an undocumented text to get it to say what he wants it to say.

I have read that thread now. Very interesting. Personally, I think that if 'decend in your form' is, as it appears, addressed to Isiah, then it is cannot easily be set aside.

Indeed. And the real kicker against Doherty in AoI is that it explicitly gives the form of the Beloved in the firmament and in the air... and it is not in Isaiah's form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

I spotted what seemed like a bit of goalpost moving when it seemed to become more clear that 'in your form' was actually included in all the texts. It seemed as if what happened then was that an odd appeal was made to speculation about a possible, even earlier text in which it may not have been included.

Yes, that's why I asked him about his comment that there was a 'range of options'. I have a feeling most of them would have been based on speculation rather than evidence.

And notice the signature appeal to what the text doesn't include. On that one page that I link to above alone, Doherty trots out that "they should have written more about a HJ!" rubbish three times (my emphasis):

... if we can accept that the bare alternative verse of the Latin/Slavonic version is closer to the original, we can hardly believe that this represented a knowledge on the part of that writer or editor about an earthly Jesus and a Gospel-like story attached to him...

... When he gets to the climax of the Son’s descent involving an incarnation on earth, if he knows an entire story containing a wealth of tradition (from the Gospels or otherwise) he is hardly likely to reduce it to a single anti-climactic phrase “he dwelt with men” which tells us nothing. A writer composing a work about Isaiah’s vision of the Son’s descent could not fail to include something about his life on earth...

... And as I also said, it is difficult to envision that if such an editor had any kind of view or developed tradition that Jesus had lived and died on earth, that he would have limited his treatment of that life and death to the virtual void on such a topic that is found in the Lat/Slav manuscripts...

Once you become used to looking for them, you will see these markers -- these appeals to the argument of personal incredulity -- often in Doherty's writings. It is the appeal he uses when he doesn't have evidence to counter a point against him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

At this point, if that is the standard methodology, I think it only fair to bring to the discussion my theory that the original version contained a chapter devoted to a very tasty recipe for goat stew.

:lol: Served with a garnish of sublunar parsley, no doubt!

archibald · 09-19-2011, 05:59 AM

Next up: Hebrews?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-18-2011, 10:47 AM	#582
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	New Testament itself is the strongest evidence that jesus was not a real person. (1). Pauls Epistles demonstrates that Jesus life story is a concoction . (2). There is no certianty Paul ever lived. Encylopedia Biblica states: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend as made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians." Christian authority admits invention has done its work in manfacturing at least part of the life of Paul. (1). Christian scholars rejection of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. (2). Existence of Paul questionable? 1 Cor 15.3-8 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. Further the accomplishments of this bible jesus only requires belief and that belief is in a non historical act.

09-19-2011, 05:59 AM	#590
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Next up: Hebrews?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.