Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-29-2011, 01:13 AM | #41 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
|
Quote:
He needed a man to counteract the effects that another man - Adam - wrought. Hence his Saviour had to be a man. He needed a way of removing the Law. Hence his Saviour had to be born under the Law. He needed a Messiah. And Messiahs were of the ancestry of David. Hence his Saviour was of the line of David. None of this is history. It is just theological reflection, asserted as fact. Jesus was born of the seed of David. How could that be an historical fact? DNA testing? No, it was just theology. How could somebody who existed before Abraham be born of the seed of David? Easy. Theology doesn't have to be consistent. Paul could assign any human qualities he deemed necessary to his Saviour. It no more makes his Saviour a real flesh and blood person than stories of God wrestling with Jacob. It is called anthropomorphising. |
|
08-29-2011, 01:16 AM | #42 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
Like I said, it's all pretty simply laid out by the author. |
||
08-29-2011, 02:30 AM | #43 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why do you keep bringing this up as though I disagree with you? :huh: |
||
08-29-2011, 04:30 AM | #44 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Dillon & Middle Platonism
As is my habit, I'll continue to ignore the bickering over everything and nothing.
As long as we are speaking of myths, even Middle Platonists used them too. The Timaeus contains a story about the creation of the cosmos that Plato admits is not definitive, just probable. Here is what Dillon says about the "Dominant Themes in Middle Platonism": [page 45] 2. PHYSICSI have to begin working, but it might be nice if someone (else), anyone, would comment about how any of this relates to Earl's account. DCH |
08-29-2011, 09:05 AM | #45 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
I suggest if anyone isn't clear about what it is you claim as my failings in regard to Middle Platonism (actually, my case is more about Platonism in general than too much specific to so-called Middle Platonism) they can simply read my response to your wretched review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man which I posted here in installments early this year and then placed on my website: here, especially Part 4. There (as I have to a great extent in DB debates over the years) dealt with your constantly repeated claims surrounding the mystery cult myths, your laughable contentions about what Plutarch says in Isis and Osiris, and anything else you've claimed about my deficiencies in understanding ancient thinking. You're welcome to bring up your arguments specifically and in detail here again, but without you doing that, there will be no "investigation" and the only thing you will have proved is...well, I'll leave it to others to fill in the blank. That way, I won't get into trouble with the mods. Incidentally, DCH has demonstrated that much of what constitutes the interests of Middle Platonism, in the context of what John Dillon discusses in his book, is largely irrelevant to the specific issues in our debates, the nature of God, the soul, creation, etc. Let's face it, Don, for you the only 'middle platonistic' issue that has been of any interest to you is the "sublunar realm where Jesus could have been crucified" idea (which I don't necessarily attribute to Paul in that specific a literality of location) which you roundly reject, despite my presentation of reams of evidence that can be used as 'proof of concept' (or, if you like, 'indication of concept') in my new book, not only in pagan thought but in many documents of Jewish sectarianism. The latter, incidentally, you tend to ignore, to focus on your fixation on a lack of trees and nails in the firmament, and the fact that when we look up toward the moon we can't see such things. Other than general declarations which woefully lack specifics (and now still do, despite my challenge) your constant mantra that "Middle Platonism doesn't support Doherty" is really nothing much more substantial than that. Earl Doherty |
|
08-29-2011, 09:10 AM | #46 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
Quote:
And it isn't as though NO professional scholar agrees with us. I can sort of understand writing off Richard Carrier as a lightweight novice, but Robert Price is neither novice nor lightweight. And questions like this are not decided by a show of hands, either. Quote:
But at this stage of my research, this is only a very strong impression that I've gotten. A more detailed defense will have to wait until I can take the time for a more thorough analysis of Dillon's work. Quote:
The offer is appreciated, but I'd actually prefer to keep it public. Of course, if you have anything to say or ask that you think is nobody else's business, then by all means your e-mail will be welcome. The address is on my Web site, just in case it has escaped your notice. |
|||
08-29-2011, 09:15 AM | #47 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
AND THERE ARE NO HISTORICIST WRITERS IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY. Quote:
|
|||
08-29-2011, 04:26 PM | #48 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But when someone (e.g. Doherty, Acharya S) says that the early Christians had X beliefs that were consistent with the cosmology of their contemporaries, that early Christianity can be explained via an understanding of pagan beliefs, then I become interested and the debate can move forward. Did the contemporariness believe X? What are the differences, what are the similarities? Very interesting stuff. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
08-29-2011, 04:36 PM | #49 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course it depends on which of us is correct in how we interpret the pattern. My point is though, either way, the pattern exists. If those silent Second Century apologists were arguably historicists, then this should set our expectations on how we see First Century silences. |
||||
08-29-2011, 05:52 PM | #50 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
My expectation is still that if there were a historical Jesus in the first century, the likelihood is that someone would have mentioned some detail of his life. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|