Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

The letters' mere existence stands as evidence on their own.

Evidence of what?

Of their earliest known state of being. The only way this can change is with the positive claim, and the burden of proof being met.

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

But again, how does one prove a negative?

One way is by showing that denial of the negative implies a contradiction.

Or, since we're talking inductive reasoning here instead of deductive, by showing that denial of the negative implies a proposition that is, for some reason previously accepted, not credible.

But we can't apply that formula to this situation. If the earliest known state of being is precisely what we still have today, how then do we prove there was no interpolation? In it's current state, which is the state it's always been known to exist in, how can we prove it any further?

You cannot prove a negative such as this.

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

[Argument from silence] might never be a good deductive argument. It can be a very cogent inductive argument. And when we're discussing history, induction is all we have.

Sorry. I don't know what you mean by "just a singular fact."

We were discussing this in the context of neilgodfrey's argument. The singular fact was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Criteria 1: Text-critical evidence for interpolation

There is an inexplicable failure of Tertullian to cite the Son of David reference here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

If we didn't have a criteria for validating an argument from silence we could just say any silly old thing and expect it to be believed.

I have some criteria. I think they're pretty good, and I think Doherty meets them.

Not when he's forced to alter text he doesn't.

spamandham · 07-02-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Why are you wasting people's time by posting arguments you can't even support due to a lack of knowledge of it all? Since you can't answer the questions, we've gone to Price himself.

http://webulite.com/node/1796

If he doesn't answer in 48 hours, we'll email him. Satisfied now?

No, I'm not satisfied. You've ignored all other points to obsess on this one nit.

You are not interested in historical inquiry. You're only interest is in satiating your own ego.

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Why are you wasting people's time by posting arguments you can't even support due to a lack of knowledge of it all? Since you can't answer the questions, we've gone to Price himself.

http://webulite.com/node/1796

If he doesn't answer in 48 hours, we'll email him. Satisfied now?

No, I'm not satisfied. You've ignored all other points to obsess on this one nit.

You are not interested in historical inquiry. You're only interest is in satiating your own ego.

What I'm going to prove is whether or not your post reflects the truth of Price's position, and you'll be hearing it from the horse's mouth.

Stay tuned ... :wave:

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 10:54 AM

The following is a critique of the 2nd stage of Earl Doherty's position, which he entitled Who Was Jesus Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

But is this Son a recent historical man? Has he been revealed to the world through his own life and ministry? No, for as we saw in Part One, neither Paul nor any other early Christian letter writer presents us with such an idea.

Rather, the Son is a spiritual concept, just as God himself is, and every other deity of the day. None of them are founded on historical figures. The existence of this divine Son has hitherto been unknown; he has been a secret, a "mystery" hidden with God in heaven (e.g., Romans 16:25-27, Colossians 2:2). Information about this Son has been imbedded in scripture. Only in this final age has God himself (through his Spirit) inspired apostles like Paul to learn—from scripture and visionary experiences—about his Son and what he had done for humanity's salvation. And this Son was soon to arrive from heaven, at the imminent end of the present world.

Firstly, Part One has been contested not only by us at Team FFI, but confuted with textual evidence which Doherty's only recourse was to attempt to hand-wave it away with the red herring of an accusation of interpolation. This constant insistence of interpolation here, or interpolation there, without a shred of decent evidence forces his argument to retreat from all that is reasonable. With Doherty then "changing his mind" in regards to his position, it demonstrates his uncertainty with whatever he himself believes the truth to be.

Although the Son (Christ) is indeed a spiritual concept, it does not preclude the existence of a human Jesus. The assertion that no "deities" (plural) were founded upon historical persons obviously does not preclude other religions, since Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic. Because of this, his assertions are incorrect as the Romans deified many historical persons, and since Christianity became Hellenized in the Greco-Roman environment, we have precedence to support the deification of Jesus as well.

Also, the assertion of "the existence of this divine Son has hitherto been unknown; he has been a secret" is not well received by many Jews at this point in time, and certainly not at the time of Christ. Many anticipated a Messiah, and many believe(ed) he would/will be the Son Of God as per Psalm 2.7; Prov 30.4. The Jews themselves anticipate(ed) a Messiah who would be human, and the existence of this "Son" was certainly not unknown to them.

This concludes the first point of this critique.

Regards.

Team FFI

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 12:07 PM

The following is a critique of the second point of Earl Doherty's position, which he entitled Who Was Jesus Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

If we remove Gospel associations from our minds, we find that this is exactly what Paul and the others are telling us. God is revealing Christ (as in the Galatians quote above), apostles inspired by God's Spirit are preaching him, believers are responding through faith. Ephesians 3:4-5 shows us the main elements of the new drama. "The mystery about Christ, which in former generations was not revealed to men [not even by Jesus himself, apparently], is now disclosed to dedicated apostles and prophets through the Spirit [by divine revelation]." God's Spirit, the divine power which inspires men like Paul, is the engine of the new revelation. All knowledge comes through this Spirit, with no suggestion that anything has been received from an historical Jesus and his ministry. (Part One dealt with Paul's few "words of the Lord", perceived communications from the spiritual Christ in heaven.)

The words of the first century writers never speak of Jesus' arrival or life on earth. Rather, they speak of his revelation, of his manifestation by God. 1 Peter 1:20 says: "Predestined from the foundation of the world, (Christ) was manifested for your sake in these last times." Here the writer uses the Greek word "phaneroo", meaning to manifest or reveal. Romans 3:25 says: "God set him forth (Christ Jesus) as a means of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." Here Paul uses a verb which, in this context, means "to declare publicly," reveal to public light. God is revealing Christ and the atonement he has made available to those who believe. Other passages, like Romans 16:25-27, Colossians 1:26 and 2:2, Titus 1:2-3, contain similar statements about the current unveiling of long-hidden divine secrets, and the careful eye that reads them can see that no room has been made for any recent life and work of Jesus.

It is God and scripture which Paul regards as the source of his inspiration and knowledge. Look at Romans 1:1-4. Paul has been called into the service of preaching the gospel. And note how this gospel is described. First it was announced beforehand in scripture by God's prophets. It is the gospel, Paul's message about the Christ, that has been announced in scripture, not Christ's life itself. Second, that gospel is not any that Jesus preached; rather, it is God's gospel, and it is about his Son. Again, all this is the language of revelation. Data like that in verses 3 and 4 of Romans 1 (to be addressed later) are part of what is being revealed, and this information has been found in scripture, which God's Spirit has inspired men like Paul to read in a new, "correct" way. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which points squarely to scripture as the source of Paul's doctrines about the Christ. (The phrase "according to the scriptures," while traditionally interpreted as meaning 'in fulfillment of the scriptures,' can instead entail the meaning of 'as the scriptures tell us' or 'as we learn from the scriptures.')

Paul and other Christian preachers are offering salvation, but it is through a Christ who is a spiritual channel to God and one who has performed a redemptive act (the "atonement by his blood") in a mythical setting. We will look at both the medium and the act in a moment, but that act is not part of what has happened in the present time. Rather, the present is when the benefits available from this act are being revealed and applied: the forgiveness of sin and the guarantee of resurrection, "effective through faith" in the gospel. All this is the universal manner of expression in first century Christian epistles, and even beyond; one that ignores any recent career of Jesus and focuses all attention on those appointed to carry God's newly-disclosed message.

Firstly, Doherty again begins by asking that we remove text from the equation, so that his point can be made. He wants any evidence that contests his position to be suppressed, and discarded. Then he suggests that Ephesians 3:4-5 supports his argument, while completely ignoring the fact that within the very same Ephesians we have Paul preaching the resurrection of Christ in Ephesians 1.20. It seems to us that if Christ was but a spirit, how then could Christ die and be resurrected from this death? If Doherty is going to use one or two verses to support his argument, yet reject the plain text of the rest of the letter, then once again it is demonstrated that he is ignoring and/or discarding evidence. This cherry picking of verses, while suppressing/ignoring evidence from within the same letters is a method that can prove anything we want to prove, but since evidence is being discarded from the story as a whole, then what is being done is a tragic injustice to the truth of the matter. For did not Marcion do the same? Earl Doherty is attempting to establish a belief system that Jesus was a myth, and re-design Paul's philososphy to suit his objective. Is this not what Marcion did? The Gnostics? How is what Earl Doherty doing any different than creating a new religion?

Secondly, Doherty attempts to explain 1 Peter 1.20 and Romans 3.25 to justify his theory of Christ being but a spiritual entity. Yet, again we see within his very quote of Romans the words as a means of atonement by his blood, which obviously refers to the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Unless Earl can demonstrate with any precedence that Spirits are capable of bleeding, we are at a loss to explain his usage of this verse. Indeed, when we also add in his 1 Peter 1.20 assertion, we cannot help but see that in the very next verse of 1 Peter 1.21 we have the author preaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which demonstrates that the word "manifest" used in 1 Peter 1.20 is clearly understood to mean to appear physically, as opposed to appear figuratively, or through revelation. Again, we see Doherty cherry picking verses while completely ignoring the surrounding verses which clearly illustrate their meaning.

Thirdly, we once again see Doherty cherry-picking verses to propagate his position, while once again totally ignoring the evidence which can be gleaned from other verses immediately surrounding the text in question. He is asserting that the gospel which Paul preached is only what was revealed by God's prophets, and not any gospel Jesus preached. He then attempts to justify this position by asking us to examine 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. This was a very bad choice again, for when we examine 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, we cannot help but be amused with what is said in the very next couple of verses of 1 Corinthians 15:5-6, in which it says in the context of what is written in the "scriptures" that he was seen by Peter and the 12, James, and hundreds of others. Are these scriptures somewhere in the OT?

This clearly demonstrates that Paul was not only using OT scriptures, but using a written gospel contemporary to his time. Therefore, this example of Doherty's cherry-picking has totally backfired, as all it has proven is that Paul used the contemporary Gospel as his scriptures.

This concludes the critique of the second point of Earl Doherty's position.

Regards.

Team FFI

spamandham · 07-02-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

No, I'm not satisfied. You've ignored all other points to obsess on this one nit.

You are not interested in historical inquiry. You're only interest is in satiating your own ego.

What I'm going to prove is whether or not your post reflects the truth of Price's position, and you'll be hearing it from the horse's mouth.

Stay tuned ... :wave:

i.e., you're interest here is merely in trying to score debate points.

I doubt Price will respond within your 48 hour deadline, if at all. But to increase the probability, I added a comment to your post over at the BibleGeek to give Dr. Price the reference I provided to you.

I wonder why you didn't include it.

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

What I'm going to prove is whether or not your post reflects the truth of Price's position, and you'll be hearing it from the horse's mouth.

Stay tuned ... :wave:

i.e., you're interest here is merely in trying to score debate points.

I doubt Price will respond within your 48 hour deadline, if at all. But to increase the probability, I added a comment to your post over at the BibleGeek to give Dr. Price the reference I provided to you.

I wonder why you didn't include it.

I alluded to it, and since its his book, I'm sure he'd know.

FathomFFI · 07-02-2008, 01:30 PM

The following is a critique of the third point of Earl Doherty's position, which he entitled Who Was Jesus Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

We can now gain a clearer understanding of Paul's Christ Jesus and the sphere of his activity. The pseudo-Pauline 2 Timothy tells us (1:9) that God (!) has saved us through his grace, "which was given to us in Christ Jesus in eternal times."

There are two key phrases here. First, the term "in Christ" (or sometimes "through Christ") which Paul and others use over a hundred times throughout the epistles: it can hardly bear on its slender back the sweeping meaning some scholars try to give it, namely as a kind of compact reference to Jesus' life, ministry, death and resurrection. Check its use in other passages, like Ephesians 1:4, 2 Corinthians 3:14, and especially Titus 3:6: "(God) sent down the Spirit upon us plentifully through Jesus Christ our Savior."

Such references do not speak of the recent physical presence of Jesus of Nazareth on earth. Instead, Christ—the divine, heavenly Son—is now present on earth, in a mystical sense, embodied in the new faith movement and interacting with his believers. Like Wisdom and the Logos, he is the spiritual medium ("in" or "through Christ") through which God is revealing himself and doing his work in the world. "In Christ" can also refer to the mystical union which Paul envisions between the believer and Christ, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17.

But where and when had this intermediary Son performed the redeeming act itself?

Christ's self-sacrificing death was located "in times eternal," or "before the beginning of time" (pro chronon aionion). This is the second key phrase in 2 Timothy 1:9 and elsewhere. What is presently being revealed is something that had already taken place outside the normal realm of time and space. This could be envisioned as either in the primordial time of myth, or, as current Platonic philosophy would have put it, in the higher eternal world of ideas, of which this earthly world, with its ever-changing matter and evolving time, is only a transient, imperfect copy (more on this later). The benefits of Christ's redemptive act lay in the present, through God's revelation of it in the new missionary movement, but the act itself had taken place in a higher world of divine realities, in a timeless order, not on earth or in history. It had all happened in the sphere of God, it was all part of his "mystery." The blood sacrifice, even seeming biographical details like Romans 1:3-4, belong in this dimension.

The above assertions go far beyond reason, as the cherry picking and butchering of scripture continues to no visible end. He uses Ephesians 1:4, 2, while totally ignoring the resurrection of Christ in the same chapter in Ephesians 1:20; he uses 2 Corinthians 3:14 without understanding that the entire chapter speaks of how physical people become transformed into spiritual beings, just like Jesus; and then finishes with Titus 3.6 in which he is saying that, if Christ is but a spirit, then God sent down Spirit through another spirit named Jesus? And then he say that "such references do not speak of the recent physical presence of Jesus of Nazareth on earth?'

How does a spirit get crucified and resurrected from the dead? Paul constantly speaks of the eternal nature of the spiritual Son of God, Christ, so how does this eternal spirit get crucified and raised from the dead? How can anything eternal die? This is contradiction in thought for a certainty. Yet when we think of a historical person named Jesus as being the physical vessel which contains the spiritual Christ, Son of God, then Paul's beliefs come together to form a picture which totally destroys the image portrayed by the Jesus Puzzle.

Suddenly, there is no puzzle at all. Dohertys inability to successfully explain away the numerous and frequent references to a physical person named Jesus which are found even within his own quotes of verses, and verses surrounding those quotes, is by no means a puzzle either. It just cannot rationally be done while holding on to the myth that Jesus himself was a myth. The only Jesus myth in all this is the myth being invented by Doherty, and others like him. By cherry picking scripture, and ignoring mountains of evidence, he himself is creating a myth; one which simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Although Paul states that Christ is present with him at that point in time, he is referring to the spiritual sense without precluding a previous physical sense. Doherty's use of 2 Timothy 1:9 to illustrate his point is overwhelmed with textual evidence that even Jesus himself recognized the eternal nature of the spirit of Christ, and of that spirits pre-existence before the physical Jesus came to be, as Jesus illustrated very clearly in Mark 12.35 - 37; Matt 22.42 - 45; and Luke 20.42 - 43. Doherty's inability to separate Jesus from Christ- the physical from the spiritual; the Son of Man from the Son of God, in an effort to understand the philosophy of Paul, as well as Jesus, is the very reason why his writings are so easily contested.

Doherty's vain attempt to show the death of an eternal spirit occurring in "eternal time" is way off the mark- and a complete contradiction in terms- with his use of 2 Timothy 1:9, since that verse does not even relate any sense of that assertion whatsoever. 2 Timothy 1:9 speaks about a purpose God had in the pre-existence in which Christ was to be marked out to perform at a future time. Doherty's assertions here are so far off the mark, and so ill-supported, that there is simply nothing credible about them whatsoever.

This concludes the critique of the third point of Earl Doherty's position.

Regards.

Team FFI

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.