judge

Hi , can you give an example of one of these quotes?

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, I'm interested.
And if it's a decent review, I'm sure others will be.


That seems overly harsh. I think think many people are interested in this theory, and in Earl's arguments for it. Certainly there has been a huge amount of discussion in the last decade or so. Although not so many mainstream scholars seem that interested yet. However, I think JMicism is on the rise, largely thanks to Earl.


Well that's rough.
I think Earl is miles apart from AcharyaS.


Hey - I thought YOU did :-)


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Sure, I'd be happy to quickly read it this weekend.
Send it my PM here I guess.
I will keep it to myself.


K.

GakuseiDon

Thanks Kapyong! I'll PM you shortly.

GakuseiDon

Sure. From Page 4 of his book:

The second resemblance was to a wide range of pagan savior gods found in the “mysteries”, the dominant form of popular religion in this period, going back to ancient roots. Like Paul's Christ, these savior gods were thought of as having performed acts in a mythical world, acts which brought sanctity and salvation to their believers. These cults had myths and rituals very much like those of the Christian movement. (Page 4)

Let me quickly add that I'm not saying Earl is trying to hide anything, or pull a fast one over people. He does point out that there is a lack of evidence on mystery religions. He writes on page 146:

This is the reason why we are groping in the dark to try to understand how the savior god myths were conceived within the cults. We have virtually no writings of the period on the subject to reflect those conceptions. Plutarch (end of the 1st century) is almost our only source from the turn of the era, and we must work through his personal disposition to render it all allegorical. (Page 146)

But a lot of people reading his book come away with the impression that "this is how it was". Here is one recent comment by a poster called Kent F: http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289760&page=11

"Jesus took on ”the likeness of flesh” in the lower regions of heaven. That's why he could be crucified there. It sounds odd today but that's what people believed, including ”Paul”."

People just don't pick up how little evidence and how much speculation there is in his book. My guess is that we will be in for a round of "it sounds odd today, but people back then thought in terms of mythical worlds in which their saviour gods carried out their myths." And to be honest, that could be a good thing... as long as they get asked for their evidence.

Perhaps we can open things up to people. Those who have read his website, or either of his books: How strongly does the evidence support Doherty's case on his page 4 comment above? Overwhelmingly? Marginally?

aa5874

This thread is about the overwhelming case for an historical Jesus yet people who believe Jesus was RAISED from the dead and ASCENDED to HEAVEN are POSING as HJers when their BELIEFS support MJ.

The NT Jesus THAT was described as resurrected and ascended to heaven is MYTH JESUS.

People who BELIEVE Jesus was some kind of Supernatural being and BELIEVE Jesus died and was RAISED from the dead for REMISSION of THEIR Sins SUPPORT MYTH JESUS.

It would appear to me that you are NOT making clear that you are not arguing that Jesus was a mere man. It would seem that You are NOT making it clear that you are NOT an HJer. You appear to be POSING as an HJer.

You seem to be arguing that Jesus was a real SUPERNATURAL God/man.

But, that is NOT the HJ argument. That is MYTHOLOGY.

spin

You can see how much of a client Aretas IV was with his war against Herod Antipas. Tiberius wrote to urge Vitellius to make war against Aretas. This doesn't indicate a client relationship. Josephus says, "Vitellius got himself ready for war... Proceeding from the kingdoms that were under the Roman yoke, he pushed towards Petra..." (AJ 18.120) Petra was outside the pale and Aretas was to be the target of a war.

It's not strange that a realm outside the spheres of a large power will perform the wishes of that power without being a client. About 60 years later Petra did get absorbed.


spin

Kent F

Marcion's version of Galatians didn't have the verse you quote. Why was that? Because it's a later interpolation.

According to the scriptures means old scriptures, like Hosea, Isaiah, Psalms and others. Hosea 6.2 has the "rise on the third day" bit. The mythical Jesus Paul is referring to is foretold there. It was his vision, his gospel, and he found confirmation of it in the scriptures. Paul is therefore "the one like Moses", the one who was believed to reveal the (hidden) meaning of the old law. His epistles were part of his new law. Stephan Huller claims that Paul's gospel was the one called Secret Mark, as Paul=Mark. That Paul was really named Mark, no problem with that, and no problem with that being transformed into the heretic Marcion. It makes sense. That this Mark also was the king Marcus Julius Agrippa, I can buy that as well since anyone claiming to have a new law, as Paul did, had to be someone with authority. But Secret Mark is harder to come to grips with, since it has a docetic Jesus, while the epistles have a mythical Jesus. But since both Huller and Doherty, two of my favorite authors, are contributing to this forum, maybe they can sort it out in a thread of their own!

Well, the correct reading should be the other way around: Luke is using words found in Paul. Because gLuke is of a later date. Paul says in this epistle (1 Cor 11.23) that he got the words from the Lord, not from Luke.

It has solved nothing. It amazes me that you, as an advocate of a theory that says almost everything in the NT is fake, take the words of Eusebius as the holy truth. The Swedish author Roger Viklund has shown that the words in the Testimonium are more in line with Eusebius way of writing than Josephus way of writing. So Eusebius is under suspicion as a faker! His claim that Paul knew of gLuke is just as faked. That's not my imagination, it's just simple logic.

The whole sentence in his Church history just oozes of fake: "And they say..." (Not a very trustworthy way of starting a statement!)...that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own (what does he mean, as if? Paul did speak of a gospel of his own, time and time again!) wherever, he used the words "according to my Gospel." (so "according to my" actually means according to someone else - yeah, right. That's an early example of Orwellian double-speak!)

Eusebius wanted to wipe out the belief that Paul had his own gospel because it was a threat to the authority of the Roman church. Paul's roots were Alexandrian, and that was the threat.

What you have is your own speculation based on the faker Eusebius.

Kent F

Yes, I too think that Paul's Jesus descended to a lower heaven where he took on the likeness of flesh and was crucified there. But why would Paul see Christ, the Messiah, as a heavenly being? What if he saw Jesus and the Messiah as two counterparts, one heavenly, one earthly? What if Paul's Christ was in fact called Chrestus, i.e. the good one, and that this heavenly figure was a messenger for the Messiah on earth? The Messiah would then be Paul himself. It would still make your diagram correct.

angelo

The diagram shows the thinking of the day [Paul's] which only goes to prove that the HJ is light years away from the MJ. Nowhere one looks can a glimpse of a HJ be seen.