neilgodfrey

Thanks Don. This thread has led me to follow links back to earlier posts and exchanges between Doherty and yourself and others, and having gone through your new "review of the review" I have gained a clearer understanding of Doherty's actual point. This is an area I had long been a slight bit iffy about wrt Doherty's claim, especially since my initial reaction to it was quite close to the themes of the "problematic issues" you raise here.

I have also had a chance to consult some sections of Dillon's book on Neo-Platonism. One of the several points of interest was his discussion of "kata 'physis'" via the index term "matter: potentially body" -- not quite "kata saka" but close enough to be of interest nonetheless. But while interesting, not decisive. The fact remained that by going back over older posts here by Doherty and yourself, and reading all afresh after some years absence from reading around this issue, I am no longer as sceptical of this particular point of Doherty's as I used to be.

I can see that where I had thought along the same lines as yourself I had in fact been misinterpreting Doherty's point about middle Platonism.

I know Toto wanted to cut this thread short given the earlier threads on this, but it's been of use to help me grasp Earl's point more clearly.

N

GakuseiDon

Hi Neil, That sounds very pertinent. If I've been misinterpreting Doherty's point about middle Platonism, then I'd like to hear more about this, either on this thread, a new one or via PM. Are you briefly able to say why in this thread?

On "kata 'physis'": Dillon is available from my State Library, so I will check up on that also. I can check the index as well, but if you could point to any usage in particular, that would be useful. Thanks!

GakuseiDon

FYI: I have emailed Richard Carrier on this thread.

Toto

I don't want to cut this thread short - I just don't want to have the same subject pop up again next month, as if it had never been discussed.

Please feel free to add commentary, especially if it clarifies the issues.

GakuseiDon

Toto, it hasn't been discussed. It has been ignored, it has been misrepresented, but it has never been discussed, if by that you mean two parties talking about the issues (Doherty being the only exception to this).

If it has been discussed, why do you continue to repeat that rubbish about "longitude and latitude"? It is obvious from the OP that I am clear where I locate it, and that it is the same location as the one given by Doherty and Carrier.

The issues are clear. There is nothing to suggest that the ancients of Paul's time thought in terms of "fleshly sublunar realms half way between earth and moon". There is evidence AGAINST that idea, some of which you can see in the OP.

I'll note again from Carrier's review (my emphasis):

"Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians... his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement)."

I agree with Carrier's comment here, and he IS representing Doherty's view from "Jesus Puzzle" correctly: Jesus had to come to the sublunar realm in order to take on flesh and die.

Now, note what Doherty said in this thread (my emphasis):

"Exactly how that world of myth was conceived varied from group to group and document to document. Arguing specifically about supralunar or sublunar, which you have always been obsessed with, is simply immaterial."

What do YOU think, Toto? If Jesus had to come to the sublunar realm to take on flesh and die, is "arguing specifically about supralunar or sublunar" something that is "simply immaterial"???

If neilgodfrey has insight to all this, I would love him to share that on this thread.

But spare me your platitudes about it already having been "discussed". Other than Doherty's equivocating, it has been ignored, fobbed off and misrepresented. It has not been discussed.

Here, you can answer me a simple question or two on the sublunar realm to begin our discussion: According to Doherty's theory, in order for Jesus to take on flesh, did he have to come to the sublunar realm? (IOW, has Carrier portrayed Doherty's theory correctly?)