jgibson000

I'm not sure why I should do this -- at least just yet (even assuming I had such a definition), or even whether you have any right yet to ask me to do so, since

1. I'm not the one who has been making the assertion that the NT speaks of the "pre-existence" of Jesus, and, more importantly, since

2. you have yet to answer the questions I put to you regarding whether or not the T. Moses. T. Lev and Qumran texts I presented to you -- texts in which the assertions made about Moses and certain sacred things are formally and lingusitically and thematically cut from the same theological cloth as are the NT texts you say speak of Jesus' "pre-existence" -- show that your definition of "pre-exitence" is something that would be accepted by those in the first century who made the claims they did about Moses and the Sabbath/Feast of Weeks and the Tabernacle (and, BTW, the written Torah as well) being already in existence before or at the creation of the world".

In other words, the issue is not what my definition of "pre-existence" is, but whether the one you have given us is in any way consonant with, and confirmed (or disconfirmed) by what the evidence in T. Moses T Lev and the Qumran literature shows was the way 1st century Jews thought they were saying when they proclaimed, as they do in the texts mentioned, that a person or a thing exised at or before the creation of the world.

So is it or isn't it? What do you think the authors of T Mos T Lev and 4Q 400-407 were actually saying about such evidently non "pre-existent" people as Moses and such contingent and earthly and "within human memory/in time" begotten things as the Tabernacle and the Sabbath/Feast of weeks (or the Torah) when they proclaimed this person and these things to be "pre-existent"?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Should? Why? How am I in any way obliged to do so, especially since the issue in question is whether or not your definition is what stands behind ,and is being asserted in, the NT texts in which you claim to find the idea. In othe rwords, what's going on here is an examination of whether there is any reason to accept what you have claimed to be the case in the matter at handr. How I might define "pre-existence" is therefore irrelevant.

And why, even if I were to do so, should I back up, let alone be willing to back up, what ever it is I might say with "my reputation"? Would't it be far more appropriate and pertinent to back it up with arguments?

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

I don't think you understand Paul's view of Jesus as a human. His silence about earthly career of the Redeemer is a principled stance; 'we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer' 2 Cor 5:16, and even more emphatically in 1 Cor 2:2, 'I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified '. Based on this then, when Paul says in 2 Cor 1:11: if someone preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached,....it is hard to argue that it is a Jesus other than the one that Saul was obssessing about, as a smart urbane Greek, and a pious Jew: Jesus, the fool and blasphemer, some of whose strange antics and pronouncements would later make it into the gospels as "dissimilarities".

Paul, (the genuine Paul, that is) is again very consistent about the correctness of the crucifixion: Jesus was crucified legally; it was a just requirement of the law (Rom 8:4) and no man is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11). That this rule was inclusive of Jesus of the flesh is attested by 2 Cor 13:4 '...he was crucified through weakness'.

Yes, the cross is a scandal and it is a folly ! But Paul believed he received a revelation ('somatically') and those earthly rulers, whatever their relation to demons, did not know what they were doing when they killed Jesus. For if they had wisdom (that Paul had) they would have understood 'the glory' or the incredible states of exaltation (that Paul felt, 2 Cor 12) during his NDE was really Jesus Christ's real nature, that of the Redeemer. Not stranger fiction than Caligula was a reality, and definitely far more edifying.

Paul believed that God crucified Saul mystically, alongside Jesus (Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20) to resurrect him as Paul to spread the word of the glory of the Lord.

So if Pilate really did crucify Jesus, it was for a cause. The Roman legal code did not recognize the defense of "insanity". But seen rationally, that is what it was, to Saul and Paul, except Paul had the whole picture - seen from the inside. "God made him sin, who knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, not just the rulers, but Jesus himself, in human flesh, did not know what he was doing.

That's what Paul says,...or is there anything I missed ?

JS

Ted Hoffman

It appears that Rick entered the discussion midstream because the first time I cited Morris, I indicated that I was relying on Kirby. I have indicated that I see no reason to distrust Kirby regarding Morris. Hence when I indicate that Morris says X, it should be obvious that I got that info from Kirby, unless (a) I indicate otherwise or (b) what I am stating is outside what Kirby states regarding Morris.

I wrote:
Kirby wrote:
[Emphasis mine]

(1) From the above, it is clear that I am relying on Kirby as a source regarding Leon Morris. And I state so explicitly. If I had a copy of Morris' book, why would I rely on Kirby?

(2) As we can see, I never said that I have personally read, or have a copy of Morris. It is not my fault that Rick imagines all sorts of things.

(3) It should be obvious that my subsequent references to Morris allude to the same source (Kirby) unless otherwise stated.

(4) I don't care much about whether p.53 wins Rick's approval and p.53-54 does not. I see no problem with providing contextual information.

(5) Rick, please, just state the truth. You dont have to quibble desperately about page numbers to make me look bad. It is silly.

Ted Hoffman

Can you believe it? That a sane person can spend time, effort and bandwidth just to argue that citing p.53 proves that one has a book within five hundred feet from where they are and citing p.53-54 makes the book vanish.
Amazing shit. I want to smoke what he is smoking too. With this kind of Physics, one can beat the bozos talking about Telekinesis hands down and win a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Ted Hoffman

You are confusing perception with fact. A case can be perceived as overwhelming whilst in fact, it is not.
Right now, many do not find Doherty's case overwhelming. It does not mean it is, in fact, not overwhelming. And it does not mean it is, in fact overwhelming.
Doherty is talking about the argument. You are talking about numbers when you infer that he would have more supporters. I expect you to be above argumentum ad populum.
Whether the interpretations are "dramatic" or not is entirely a function of one's assumptions and background. Dramatic does not mean incorrect. That is a cultural issue. We would rather focus on the arguments, not people's impressions.
Could you be more specific please?
Nice blog. The transfiguration and 2 Peter really dont impinge on the MJ case.
Prove it.
Your doubt is your problem Rick, not Doherty's. Should everyone doubt because Rick is doubtful? Sheesh.
Talking about an inflated sense of self-worth (which is a good thing), your unsolicited advice betrays your need to impose your will upon others. I dont know how that can be used to make a judgement regarding your self-worth.

Rick Sumner

Certainly. Paul's gospel is the plan of God to save ethnic Israel. It is the mystery he discusses throughout Romans.

You miss the point, which is odd since I explicitly stated what that point was. Are you even reading the post through, rationally assessing what it says, and then offering comments on it? Or simply offering an ad hoc defense of Doherty without reflecting on the caveat being raised? It looks suspiciously like the latter, which really means that GDon was right--you are an albatross around Doherty's neck.

2Peter meets the criteria Doherty outlines for a text that is mythicist. An author who does not know the gospel stories. But it does know the gospel stories. So if the methodology can't tell the difference, why should I trust it? More importantly, since I already noted that this, and not the historicity of 2Peter or the Transfiguration is at issue, why did you fail to understand what was explicitly stated?

People don't doubt because I do. People doubt--overwhelmingly so--because they share my view.

Nobody has suggested that my doubt carries with it any merit, it is, quite clearly, my own opinion. That you don't realize what is being said--that people doubt it because the argument is weak, not because I doubt it, attests to what I said above--you're simply reacting, not rebutting.

The type of empty rhetoric you employ here will be discussed more fully below.

This ad hominem argument and the rhetoric above is customary Hoffman fare (and the reason that this thread is the first--and this post will be the last--time I've engaged you in well over a year), even moreso because it misses the point thoroughly, a tendency that you have exhibitted consistently throughout your time here. Does it not strike you as odd that even those who engage Doherty's theory in a substantial manner almost universally think you hurt his case more than you help it?

And there is no such thing as "unsolicited advice" when you post your thoughts to a forum. By doing so you are tacitly requesting and inviting comments on it.

Doherty has not issued a "slam dunk." That I am capable of having and justifying my "doubt" is testament to that. Cases as overwhelmingly solid as Doherty suggests his is are, by definition, beyond such reasonable doubt.

It is truly a travesty that the loudest proponent of an interesting (though in my opinion ultimately wrong) new approach to HJ research is so damaging to it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Alrighty. Bede can now step back into the field. No more substitutes for you this time Bede. Better come with your slippery-things toolkit because the rhetoric-proof jacket has been proven too porous to function and the they-share-my-view approach has been easily dispensed with and shown to be worthless. So thoroughly that your substitute has promised never to come back again. This does not look good.

JoeWallack

JW:
Relax Mr. Doherty, we've got your back here. Please proceed. Think of II as the Classic SciFi story The Weapons Shop where Emotions have no Power.

Of course Jeff wants to hurt you, not help you. But if you can Manage his Criticism than despite himself he will Ironically end up helping you accomplish your Goal just like "The Jews" helped "Mark's" Jesus. Just like the upcoming Trailer for The Sopranos, "You wanted the attention of [mainstream Christian Bible scholarship], now you've got it."

Pointing out that Jeff Misrepresented the Significance of 4.4 to your MJ Argument here, there and everywhere, having him first Ignore this obeservation, than when I repeated it only proving a link (to a Supplementary Article) and than when my Complaint was repeated by a Moderator (well, the Moderator) just quoting the Supplementary article and than having you come here and Confirm that Jeff Misrepresented the Significance of 4.4 to your MJ Argument reminds me of the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall.

Lance Burton, who is the top Magician in Vegas now, says that The Question that should be asked during his Acts is not "was it Magic" (many Magicians are Skeptics) but since it was a Trick, "Was the Trick well done?". So too with the MJ Argument, since it's Impossible to Prove with Certainty that Jesus was not Historical The Question is, "Is the Case for MJ well argued?".

Now I think that 4.4 is good evidence for HJ but I think you can be Defensive towards 4.4 and still make a Good argument for MJ because:

1) The elapsed time (2,000 years) creates a lot of General Uncertainty.

2) Statistically one phrase has limited weight. If there was a Verse saying "I believe in a Historical Jesus." I might reconsider.

3) Paul is dealing with complex and nebulous subject matter which creates Uncertainty as to the meaning of individual phrases.

4) Paul is biased so he might not always write what he really thought. His primary objective is to convince people to believe in his version of Jesus. He's notably dishonest when interpreting the Jewish Bible and indicates a willingness to altar what he says based on his audience.

5) The Christian Editor was Biased towards a Historical Jesus so any individual phrase could be a Forgery.

6) Concluding that Paul believed in a MJ doesn't have to be an all or nothing argument. If Paul Mostly believed in a MJ this allows for him to make a few references to HJ but still Conclude that Generally he believed in a MJ.

To be fair to Jeff, since he is Certain of a HJ he is going to take 4.4 as being more important to the MJ argument than Mr. Doherty is. At some point Jeff is going to stop and consider the relationship of his Mantra that Mr. Doherty does not deserve to be taken seriously and all of the serious posts he is writing in response to Mr. Doherty. Until that point is reached I would like to see Jeff Select a Specific argument made by Mr. Doherty, that Jeff and Mr. Doherty agree is Significant to the MJ argument, where Jeff thinks that Mr. Doherty is significantly wrong. I think this Thread on 4.4 has run its course and if Jeff picks something else to concentrate on we need a new Thread.

Related to all this it would be nice if Jeff had a primary objective of demonstrating that Mr. Doherty is significantly wrong on that Specific issue rather than Generally wrong on his MJ argument. All of the General accusations are just Distracting in trying to evaluate a specific argument. Hell, if Jeff could do that I might even start referring to him as "Jeffrey".



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jakejonesiv

I can't blame you for hiding out on this one, Dr. Gibson. If you ever gave an alternate explanation for the pre-existence of Jesus in the Pauline material, you would find yourself in a very deep hole.

So tell me, what is your explanation for the christological hymn in Phil. 2:6-11? Dunn suggests that the hymn may contain no thought of pre-existence "other than the pre-existence involved in the paradigm - that is, the metahistorical character of the Adam myth." Dunn, Christology in the Making (or via: amazon.co.uk), page xix.

Dr. Gibson, in your professional opinion, do you agree or disagree with Dunn on Phil. 2:6-11? Why or why not? If you do not fully agree, provide a fuller explanation.

Jake Jones IV