Minimalist

Indeed....although many of the people who trumpet religion certainly do.

Roger Pearse

I wasn't discussing Earl Doherty, but the type of argument.

"Buy this widely-hyped book or else be quiet about what crap it is".

No, I shan't.

Rick Sumner

Justin and Tatian in particular stand out, since we need to assume a bizarre course of reversal and lagerheads fundamentally between teacher and student.

Doherty's general argument from silence forces him into this. If he concedes anything at all then his argument becomes reversible.

I can't help but think he'd be better off simply acknowledging that there may be circumstances where his argument can be reversed. It doesn't put him any worse off than anyone else; I can't think of any criteria without so much as a single one-off where it can be employed to a false conclusion.

The second century apologists ultimately don't matter directly to Earl's case though. Earl stands or falls on Paul. He needs several things to be true:

1) Paul's aims need to coincide with what Earl thinks they are. If this first premise is incorrect--if Paul is not writing with the aims and intentions of Doherty's paradigm--then Doherty's entire case from the Pauline epistles falls.
2) Those aims need to be served by mentioning certain things.
3) Paul doesn't mention them
Therefore 4) Paul doesn't know them.

Doherty is fortunate in that, prima facie, at least, and especially in translation, his first premise appears to be correct. I'm of the opinion that that has more to do with 2 millenia of Christianity than with anything Paul was actually saying.

Unfortunately in recent years both my interest and time have waned substantially, so I'm not sure that I can commit to have occasion to expand much more than that.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

youngalexander

Believing in ONE GOD is the mark of a Monotheist.

There is an entire century (3rd) of Christian art in which no representation of "the crucifixion of Jesus, the suffering of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus for salvation from sin" appears.

Perhaps this means that it is an even better post?

Solo

FWIW, I use this passage from Chap IX. of Octavius to argue that Paul's theology was based on the paradox of Jesus being executed as a lowly criminal ('scandal to the Jews, folly to the Greeks'). In Paul's piety, therefore, Jesus acts on earth were taboo (1 Cr 2:2). By M.Felix's time, of course, those who killed Jesus executed an innocent man and 'knew' that they were doing so. The stigma of the cross was removed. There may be the Paul-inspired Jesus prayer in Luke: 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, 23:34' but Luke read that only as 'bless those who persecute you' and not also as the fulfilment of Moses' law as Paul did. Unfortunately for Earl, M.Felix supports the thesis that Paul referred to a historical execution (recent in his time) and created a seemingly bizzare, paradoxical, meaning for it available only to God's elect, i.e. pneumatics who received the right Spirit from God, as interpreted by Paul.

So why did Paul consider the deeds and words of the earthly Jesus 'taboo' ? Simple: if Jesus was not executed justly - under the law - as Paul held (Rom 8:3-4), then Paul would not have been able argue his justification by 'faith'. The law of Moses would have held sway, and at worst the case of Jesus would have been a banal case of judicial murder (as Paul's opponents held). But Paul's own experiences with the Spirit taught him that one was powerless against God's edicts.
(If you are an atheist and you come back whole from an episode during which everyone considered you insane, and you realize NOW they were right, except they do not know the 'reality' of your brain playing tricks on you, you will be in a situation much like Paul's. Your understanding of Jesus's 'crimes' will be much different).

Jiri

Zaphod

I'm sure mg01 meant the Antiquities?

jakejonesiv

I have bought books that I ultimately, after reading, did not agree with. I could rant and rave about the "crap" of N.T. Wright's "Christian Origins and the Question of God" (merely a hypothetical example, mind you!) without reading it, and people would dismiss my opinion as uninformed.

Roger, if your posts on FREERATIO are any indication, the refuting of Earl Doherty is of some importance to you. Don't you owe it to yourself and those who read your words to offer an informed, up to date, opinion?

Best,
Jake

No Robots

No amount of chewing gum and bailing wire is gonna make that jalopy run.

DCHindley

Then you need chicken wire and spit!

DCH (lunch)

No Robots

Wow, dude, you must be under some serious surveillance. Way to keep up the fight, though!