EarlDoherty

WHAT????

I've just offered an 814-page case, and you bought a copy of it. You've demanded a case. Why are you ignoring the one that's right under your nose? I hope you don't expect me to repeat it all here.

If you're going to maintain that I'm wrong about how people thought back then, you'd damn well better thoroughly address and counter (with more than bluster, which is all you're showing Maryhelena) my new chapters on the subject, such as "Conceiving the World of Myth," "Paul and the Heavenly Man," an expanded chapter on Hebrews, chapter 14 on the language of sarx, and much else besides.

When (or if) we ever get that promised review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, there had better be something of substance beyond the superficial, repetitive crap we've gotten from you for years.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, it sounds like you are over-reacting. GakuseiDon is still reading your book, for one thing, as he has stated in this thread. Secondly, he was talking to maryhelena, not you, there are many MJ theories out there, and you should not speak like you are the source of the best and most reasonable arguments that the MJ advocates have to offer (though you very well could be). In addition, you should not expect a review of your book until GakuseiDon finishes reading it. I look forward to it. Somebody has to do the dirty work, and I would say GakuseiDon is qualified for the job.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl! I've actually been trying to get people to look into your theory. If anyone wants to argue your case because they think you are right, I'm more than happy to go through it with them. But hey, guess what! No-one argues your case. No-one really understands it AFAICS. They just think you are right.

It would be like me just pointing people to Sanders "Historical Figure of Jesus Christ", folding my arms and ignoring any points raised against it. And then pointing back to it again.

That is exactly what I am doing right now. I've already read through your book once to see if you have anything new on your "Sublunar Incarnation Theory". Here's a preview: you don't. But I will be covering ALL the sources you use in those sections, to show this. It's taking time, but it's fun.

Interestingly enough, I had the same thought as I went through your book.

EarlDoherty

Well, Don, I can see that your comments have already sunk your review. And to think that I added a lot of that new material partly as a result of your demands to back up parts of my earlier case. Tsk, tsk.

Fun or not, I am expecting detailed and knowledgeable rebuttal to all that new material. Somehow, I don't think we're going to get it. But I'll be interested in how you handle your fixation on dismissing all those sources you refer to.

And if I've repeated myself over the years, it's because I'm still trying to get you to answer my arguments.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

It'll be a few months before I finish the review, probably around June. I'm in no hurry to do it. I'm not sure whether I am qualified or not, but I'm certainly an interested layman. My aim is to reveal is to provide the information that will allow others to check whether Doherty is right or not on his "World of Myth" concept. Whether anyone will use it that way is another thing -- probably not, I guess.

EarlDoherty

Does this mean you are admitting that you yourself are not qualified? If so, why do you pontificate about the impossibility of any reasonable case against an historical Jesus?

Earl Doherty

Toto

I think Abe said once that he believed in Acharya S's work, but then found that he lost some interent debates. This turned him off mythicism.

ApostateAbe

I take myself to be almost as well-qualified as GakuseiDon, but I am much more hesitant to give authors like you money.

Why do I pontificate...? you ask. I do that largely because the case for the historical Jesus is well-established, and those who argue in favor of a mythical Jesus tend to lose miserably, as far as I have seen. Though, I wouldn't go as far as to say that a case against the historical Jesus is an impossibility.

dog-on

Of course, here lies a problem.

So, let's look at the evidence itself.

We will start with Paul.

Were his works ever contested in antiquity?

What is the oldest copy we have?

Do we have any copies of his letters, individually and not in collected form?

Do the earliest copies of the epistles, that we have, also contain letters now thought to be written by someone other than Paul?

GakuseiDon

Well, let's look at one piece of new material (at least, new to me). On p 151 on your paperback edition, you write:

A certain Arideus [in Plutarch's "On the Delay of Divine Justice"] is carried in a vision to a higher realm among vast stars. Within that realm are caverns and trees and flowers.

I thought, "Really? Caverns and trees and flowers in the Sublunar Realm? Doesn't sound right. Anything containing earth or water has a natural inclination towards the ground, according to the ancients. What on earth is Plutarch saying?"

So I looked up Plutarch's work, which is fortunately on-line. Here is what he says:
http://www.archive.org/stream/plutar...0plut_djvu.txt

When the friend of Thespesius had thus spoken, he led him rapidly to a certain place that appeared immense, toward which he moved directly and easily, transported on light-beams as on wings, — until, coming to a large and deep cavern, he was deserted by the force that had borne him, and he saw other souls there in a like condition. Clustering together like birds, they flew round the chasm in a circle, but did not dare to cross it. Within, it resembled the caves of Bacchus, like them diversified with boughs of trees, and living green, and flowers of every hue; and it exhaled a soft and mild breeze, wafting up odors of wonderful sweetness, and producing an effect similar to that which wine has on those who drink it freely.

That's the cave reference. The spirits are obviously above it, "clustering together like birds" and being affected by odors "wafting up". But is the cave itself up in the air?

The writer continues:

The spirit said that by this opening Dionysus went up to the gods, and afterward led Semele up by the same way, and that the place is called Letlie [should be "Lethe"].

Lethe is the Place of Oblivion, which is in the Underworld. Semele of course was Dionysus' mortal mother, whom he rescued from Hades. So the cavern can hardly be detached from the ground. In fact, it extends upwards from the Underworld!

Now, what happens when these souls start to breath the moistured air?:

He did not suffer Thespesius to remain there, though he wanted to stay, but took him away by force, teaching him at the same time, and telling him how the mind is melted and soaked by sensual pleasure, while the unreasoning and body-like part of the soul, being thus nourished and made fleshly, calls up the remembrance of the body, and from that remembrance wakes a desire and longing that draw it toward another birth, or genesis, which is so called as being an inclination toward the earth in the soul that is thus weighed down and water-logged.

So: the "water-logged" soul has an "inclination towards the earth". What would have happened had the soul remained above the cavern? He would have dropped back down to earth, to be reborn. (He certainly wouldn't have dropped into a sky cave to be reborn!)

And this helps illustrate the issue I have with Doherty's Sublunar Incarnation Theory. Anything taking on flesh -- which is earth and water, according to the ancients -- has a natural inclination towards the ground. See also Clement of Alexandria:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hortation.html

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?

Now, those who are convinced by Doherty can just ignore what I wrote above. It is, after all, the same point as I've been making all along. So if I've been wrong all those other times, I must be wrong here.

For those who are on the fence: the cites are there to allow you to check what I've been saying. Hopefully my review will allow those interested to do that also.

It's going to look something like the above. See how two lines from you requires so much analysis. Not really complaining, but the review is going to take a lot of webpages.

Earl, you are incorrigible. You simply can't be corriged.