Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 09-11-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

It' the historical thing I'm concerned with here, doing good history.

Explaining why Paul wrote what he did in the posting I gave previously would be a good step to doing good history.

Imagine if a Mormon wrote in 1850 how he was waiting for the Golden Plates to be revealed. Would this make us question whether Mormons taught that the Golden Plates had already been revealed?

Of course, Paul believed that Jesus had existed. But when, and what did Paul think of Jesus as having done? Paul wrote that Jesus was empty of divinity.

So how could he be the God figure of the Gospel of John?

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

So we can take it as a given you think Doherty is crap but you are unwilling to discuss the issue? Why exactly did you drop by?

I am glad your skepticial professor thinks JM is for idiots. Can you post his arguments here? I am sure that Ted Hoffman can cut them to pieces for us.

LOL. :notworthy :notworthy

Sure I'll discuss it here and now. I've already started. BTW the reason I came by was someone emialed me a link about this thread and we were laughing at the prospect of treating that guy like some kind of celebraty. Like he's Saul Below or something. And I just thought I'd take one last crack at the Sec Web before I vanish from the net and Metacrock becomes nothing more than by gone memory along with "Inside the Web", the bubble economy,and eight track tapes.

Peter Kirby · 09-11-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

You talking about me?

No, I wasn't. That wouldn't be very nice, referring to you in the third person and all. Wouldn't make sense either, given that I'd already linked your response (and it quoted paragraphs, not sentences). No, I was referring to someone who had got forwarded *my* twelve sentence capsule of EJD's thought, and then took that to be a sufficient basis for a rebuttal (and plenty of moralizing).

Is a debate something you actually want to do?

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Metacrock mischaracterises lots of things.

He writes :-

'This was probably taught to him during his first trip to Jerusalem. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter and then to the 12." Here we have a little summation of the Gospel which contains a remarkable amount of Gospel information. The phrase "On the third day" is formulamatic and indicates that the facts of the story were already set in stone. The statement tells us that Christ was crucified and buried.'

Those are not my words. That's a quote. I was quoting the great, the inimitable Bill. (William Lane Craig).

Quote:

Where does that say Christ was crucified? And where is an appearance to the 12 in the Gospels?

Why does it have to say it in the Gospels? It's clear from the formula that it was early. It reads like some sort of baptismal formula or something, for it to be enstanced in the chruch litergical canon so early it would have to be from the frist eschellon of witness testimony.

Quote:

Metacrock also wrote 'Of course the Talmudic material actually comes from a very early tradition contemporary with Jesus, but written in the Third century, handed down orally.'

Of course it does! And Metacrock will no doubt explain how he knows that.....

it's common knowledge. I can find any number of sites,including rabbinical sties that say it. The most "at my finger tips" documentation I can give off the top of my head is:

(1) Edersheim

(2) Stephen Neil (Interp of the Gospels 1864-1964)

I bet you could find even more sources on Doxa if you look.

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

How much effort is needed to refute Doherty's arguments?

There are millions of commentaries written on the New Testament.

Take http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/siltop20.htm

For example,
'James 5:10

Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. [NIV]
The little epistle of James probably has more silences per square inch than any other New Testament document, but none of them are as striking as this one. How could the writer not draw on Jesus himself as the best and most compelling example when urging his readers to show patience in the face of suffering?'

and
'Galatians 2:8
. . . [the Jerusalem apostles] acknowledged that I had been entrusted with the gospel for gentiles as surely as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for Jews. 8For God ["he"] whose actions made Peter an apostle to the Jews, also made me an apostle to the gentiles.'

How could Paul be unaware that it was Jesus who had issued the Great Commission to Peter?

'1 Corinthians 1:7-8

There is no gift you lack, while you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you till the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

Had not Jesus Christ just been revealed to the world only a few years earlier?

Surely to refute this , all one would have to do is look at a couple of commentaries, and they would surely have discussed these questions.

So that supports Doherty? Jesus didn't exist because the great commission is not authentic? Does that make sense to you guys? I think it's sort of straw man argument, but a wired one because rather than constructing an argument that substitutes for my argument to attack, it substittues for Doherty's argument to defend. But one could accep the argument and still believe in Historical Jesus. In fact I bet most modern Bible scholars do just that.

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

No, I wasn't. That wouldn't be very nice, referring to you in the third person and all. Wouldn't make sense either, given that I'd already linked your response (and it quoted paragraphs, not sentences). No, I was referring to someone who had got forwarded *my* twelve sentence capsule of EJD's thought, and then took that to be a sufficient basis for a rebuttal (and plenty of moralizing).

I see. i was not offended. I just wondered.

Quote:

Is a debate something you actually want to do?

best,
Peter Kirby

yea

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Explaining why Paul wrote what he did in the posting I gave previously would be a good step to doing good history.

No it wouldn't! It would be doing apologetics. but the answer is obvious my friend. Matt (great commission) wasn't written until after Paul died, so he never read it. nex case!

Quote:

Imagine if a Mormon wrote in 1850 how he was waiting for the Golden Plates to be revealed. Would this make us question whether Mormons taught that the Golden Plates had already been revealed?

I don't know. Maybe you better ask the LDS. Someone call Salt Lake! I have a geneology question to work out anyway. :huh:

Quote:

Of course, Paul believed that Jesus had existed. But when, and what did Paul think of Jesus as having done? Paul wrote that Jesus was empty of divinity.

So how could he be the God figure of the Gospel of John?

Paul didn't think that Jesus was empty of divinity, he thought that he emptied himself of the privilage that goes with divinity (phil 2:6). But That's neither here nor there. That's a come down from D's orignial position. He used to say, and may still say for all I know, that Jesus was totall ficitional and wasn't even thought of as historical until the second century.

Hey now there's a good idea. Someone needs to do some orwellian thinking about Doherty. How much has his theory been revised since, say, 1999?

Peter Kirby · 09-11-2004, 04:57 AM

As far as it goes, Van Voorst counted over 100 articles and books in the twentieth century questioning the existence of Jesus. In any case, among people who know about the sources and secondary literature, what's wrong with just discussing evidence? You'd come off better that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Weeeeeellll, historians just don't think that way. I mean no one is saying "man, we just have to get some proof that Napoleaon existed. I mean no one questions it, but until we get that formal proof, it's just going begging." No, they say "we don't need that, don't waste your time on a pointless question, no one questions Napoleon's existence so don't worry about it."

You don't have to think of it as a proof of existence, as a proof of existence is meaningless unless that which is shown to exist has some essence, i.e., you can't posit the existence of an entity without properties, but, rather, it must come with a description. What a historian could easily write is, "The basic facts about Napoleon, and how we know that they are true." This would be a helpful reference for the many debates over his aims and character and concerning the details of his life, where there is wide discrepancy of scholarly opinion and in primary sources.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

As far as it goes, Van Voorst counted over 100 articles and books in the twentieth century questioning the existence of Jesus. In any case, among people who know about the sources and secondary literature, what's wrong with just discussing evidence? You'd come off better that way.

There's nothing wrong with discussing anything. I've come to believe that Big Foot might actually be a surviving giganto pithicus, and I'm driving my GF crazy with the notion. She says "who cares!?? I want to talk about Sartre, remember Sartre? books, thinking? Learning??" It's a matter of priorities.

Besides I said before the 18th century. People in the 20th century will discuss anything. I hear some people are even thinking of voting for Bush! Maybe he's actually win the election this time--as oppossed to stealing it, but I hope not.

Quote:

You don't have to think of it as a proof of existence, as a proof of existence is meaningless unless that which is shown to exist has some essence, i.e., you can't posit the existence of an entity without properties, but, rather, it must come with a description. What a historian could easily write is, "The basic facts about Napoleon, and how we know that they are true." This would be a helpful reference for the many debates over his aims and character and concerning the details of his life, where there is wide discrepancy of scholarly opinion and in primary sources.

best,
Peter Kirby

Um, you may have missed my point. My point was, there's no reason to do it. No one questions it. Its' a dull point becasue no one doubts Napoleon existed. It's like spending a lot of time proving that JFK is really dead. Let's just assume he is dead and on with our lives, until something exciting and new about the conspiracy breaks.

There are no primary sources, no secondly sources, no thirdary sources, and no historical analysis until 1800 years latter that even question Jesus existence. To me that's a definate plus to, like the death of JFK question, just assume it. Jesus lived, JFK is dead, let's go on with our lives and reserach burning issues that need answering.

Metacrock · 09-11-2004, 05:22 AM

Now in my view, here would be a good question to ask about the historical Jesus that would be worth considering:

How closely related to the heterodox style of Judaism was the early Jesus movement? Did they have any real contact with Qumran. And as a follow up, how cloesly does the James chruch reflect Jesus actual teachings? Now I think those would be really worthwhile questions. You might actually get somewhere asking them too, although we still don't have any primary sources that would really cast light on it.

09-11-2004, 05:22 AM	#50
Metacrock Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 1,734	suggestion for future research Now in my view, here would be a good question to ask about the historical Jesus that would be worth considering: How closely related to the heterodox style of Judaism was the early Jesus movement? Did they have any real contact with Qumran. And as a follow up, how cloesly does the James chruch reflect Jesus actual teachings? Now I think those would be really worthwhile questions. You might actually get somewhere asking them too, although we still don't have any primary sources that would really cast light on it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.