Kapyong

Gday,

Apology accepted :-)
The argument from 'dying for their belief' is worthless.
I'm sure you see that now.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

I'm not offended.
But "admit it" ?
Mate - I don't BELIEVE his position 'makes much more sense'. That's why I don't admit something I don't believe.
It's just the ol' argument from incredulity, supported by millenia of inertia.


Well, are you going to present an argument about those 'straws' ?


Yes, it tells me that Christian books were sometimes interpolated, and here is an example. That is pretty much the ONLY historical tid-bit in Paul.

Meanwhile - the Jewish accounts say Jesus had 5 disciples and was stoned to death in Lydda after bringing black magic from Egypt hidden in a cut in his thigh.

What does that tell you?


K.

MCalavera

So now that I provided just one passage to show your claim to be wrong, you consider it an interpolation? Your arguments don't seem sincere. I'm trying to find the truth of what went on back in those days ... not play debate games.

It tells me they considered Jesus to be a historical person but that they made up supernatural stuff about him.

And, anyway, what Jewish accounts are we talking about here?

Toto

Are you aware that most scholars label this an interpolation? This is the only passage in Paul's epistles that shows such hostility to "The Jews" - and the phrase following it seems to refer to the destruction of the Temple, placing the writing of this phrase after 70 CE, well after Paul is assumed to have died.

MCalavera

Ok, let's say it's an interpolation. No biggie. My argument doesn't just rest on this one alone. What about all the other passages and verses in the Epistles that indicate that Jesus was believed to be a man by the Apostles? Is every one of them an interpolation?

I'm not a scholar, so I wouldn't be able to understand why most scholars label that passage I quoted as an interpolation. But I will have to trust them on that one.

MCalavera

Romans 1:1-6
Born of a descendant of David according to the flesh and resurrected from the dead.

Looks very human to me.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, I'm quite serious.
It's pretty much the only such passage, and it's widely considered interpolated. After that one we get down to the few classics which are rather less clearly historical :
1. seed of David kata sarka
2. born of woman
3. crucified by the archontes
Let us indeed attempt to find the truth, rather than play debate-games. Do you see how TedM's list of 90 is weak? None of them are clearly and obviously historical, even the top few are far from clear. Paul's writings are full of spiritual and heavenly references, of visions and revelation through the spirit. This argues that his ambiguous phrases should not just be assumed as historical, even if some think thats how they 'seem'.

It tells me the Jews had NO historical information about Jesus.


There are various references in the Talmuds (i.e. the Gemara, the later layer) and also other sources such as the Toldoth Jeshu. They are all late and highly variant. What we DON'T see is any early references, or anything historical - instead the Jewish references appear to be negative responses to the stories of the growing Christianity.


K.

MCalavera

TedM is just trying to as objective and intellectually honest as he can be. It's a shame you have to resort to some form of "aha, you said this phrase, therefore you got PWNED" argument to "prove" your point.

No, it's more like they DO refer to a human. But TedM is simply going easy with you. He did a good job listing the verses and passages that show Jesus to be human according to the Apostles.

Why? The first ones were too hard for you to argue against?

Why would you even want to think about the heavenly sphere/plane here? Just because you don't want to admit that your theory is flawed?

Tell me, were the ancient Romans crucifying criminals in the heavenly sphere/plane (whatever that is)? Or maybe the Romans never crucified anyone?

LOL, yep, definitely a METAPHORICAL crucifixion, eh?

No, that's not the real problem here, mate. The real problem is in your denial.

You're just arguing like the typical Christian/Muslim apologist when the opponent provides them with verses/passages or logical arguments that reveal how ridiculous their beliefs are.

TedM

The main problem I have with the Doherty interpretation of Paul is that as I've shown Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus in ways that anyone would refer to another human being, and he virtually NEVER qualifies those statements by making clear he is talking about the kind of heavenly man Doherty imagines he is talking about.

If it was just a few--or even a dozen such references I'd say there is some room for debate here. But 92 references just make that viewpoint look silly.

He NEVER says anything about Jesus having a life in some other 'world' than earth, nor how he came to that insight. He constantly quotes from the OT to support this or that about a Messiah-who would be normally seen as a man from God who came to earth. Yet, he NEVER indicates anything contrary to that concept, nor HOW he came to conclude all these various things pertaining to the Messiah happened elsewhere:

He NEVER explains that his flesh and blood wasn't human flesh and blood on earth despite repeatedly describing Jesus as a man, in the flesh, etc...
He NEVER explains how someone who lived and died in another world can represent or atone for human beings on this earth
He NEVER explains how he can be a Jew, descended from David, etc in this other world, yet argues for the spiritual benefits of those things.
He NEVER explains how Jesus can be in Zion (code for Jerusalem) as a stumbling block and offense to Israel yet not have been on earth.
He NEVER reveals a revelatory source for his information regarding the Lord's Supper, or who Jesus was talking to in that other world--something one would expect to be of interest by his followers.
He NEVER explains how he knew Jesus was meek and gentle.

It seems to me that if all these events occurred in another sphere he would have a NAME for that sphere, and would reference it by that name when talking about Jesus--at least ONCE in all the 92 references! Doesn't it seem glaringly odd that there is no such reference? To me the clear conclusion is that it is because such a place only exists in the mind of Doherty and those he has convinced of his imaginative theory!

I'll add to that a few specifics about which I think the JM arguments are quite weak:

The 'brothers' references. Paul refers to the 'brethren' as in being brothers to each other, but he never discusses in detail a special group that is known as 'brothers of the Lord', and there is no record of such a group other than actual physical brothers of Jesus of Nazareth. One had the same name Paul references in Galations (James). Paul so nonchalantly mentions James as the Lord's brother. One would think if he was in a special group he'd say 'one of the Lord's Brothers'. It also seems odd that he would single out James from Peter and John. Why weren't they the Lord's Brother too? Just sounds to me more likely to be the first thing readers would assume--biological relationship.

Galations 4:4 Born of a woman, born a Jew. Paul again states this nonchalantly as a known fact. He sees no need to explain how Jesus was born from a woman or as a Jew in another sphere. Aren't there obvious questions that would arise? Where in Paul's defense of his theology does he even show that anyone was asking about this other world and Paul's claims regarding various happenings in that world? Why doesn't he talk about where he got all that from?

2 Cor 2:9 says the rulers who put him to death would not have done so if they had the wisdom of God. This makes sense given the context that is talking about wisdom from God given to man. If it is talking about heavenly rulers Paul not only fails to make that distinction (despite quoting a verse about them that identifies them as human beings), but he also fails to explain why those beings, those dark spiritual forces who rule this world, would have been not crucified Jesus had they understood God's wisdom. This is highly unlikely.

Once someone decides that 'man' doesn't REALLY mean 'man', that 'flesh' doesn't REALLY mean 'flesh', 'buried' doesn't REALLY mean 'buried' in the normal senses of the word, and that it can ALL apply to happenings in another world, then as long as there is nothing explicitly stated to contradict that idea, he can get away with all kinds of things.. However, it doesn't negate the very real fact that there are glaring omissions when all of the various references are lacking in anything one might expect to support the theory: explanations of HOW or WHY he uses the terms that apply normally to humans, explanations of the other world-where it exists, how it reflects our own world, small references that place the events in that other world (ie 'the heavenly crucifixion'), and the source(s) of this information he has derived--esp when it is clear he is quoting constantly from the OT in other places. When you sit back and examine all of the evidence with a clear head, you realize that it is a bunch of creative, non-falsifiable, malarkey.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

NOW you have some basis for concluding why it is that I don't support the JM theory: It's the lack of evidence I would expect to find in support of it. IMO my arguments from silence are stronger that Doherty's arguments from silence.

Ted

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, first let's look at Paul's comments a bit further on :
Romans 16:25-27

Glory be to God who has strengthened you, through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through his [God’s] revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God that all nations might obey through faith—to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

So, Paul tells us his gospel and proclamation about Jesus was previously a mystery, but has now been disclosed though revelation of the scriptures - i.e. to PAUL (through his personal revelations,) who has now come to understand the truth found in the scriptures - the truth about Jesus.

So, on to the key passage :
Romans 1:1-6

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son,

Paul opens by saying that HE has been set apart for the previously promised Gospel of God. This Gospel is about Jesus Christ the Son of God. (And the source of that Gospel is the holy Scriptures.)

And here is what Paul learned about the Son through his new understanding of the mystery previously hidden in Scriptures :

* who was born the seed of David according to the flesh,
* who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness,

Paul learned about this being from revelation of the scriptures, and this being Jesus Christ has two different sides :
who was born the seed of David according to the flesh,
who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness

In my view - Jesus had to have a fleshly side to complete his mission - to descend to the 1st Heaven (the Air Beneath the Moon) to be crucified by the Prince of Powers of the Air.

The phrase "Seed of David" is hardly a slam-dunk for historicity when Paul can refer to the Gentiles as the metaphorical "Seed of Abraham".

Human? Sure - Jesus had a human side.
Fleshly? Sure - Jesus had to descend to the realm of "flesh" - which inlcuded the Earth and the Air.



But physically historical?
Nope.
Not actually in the text - just assumed.


K.