EarlDoherty

Well, I have no influence over what you refuse to let Romans 16:25-26 say, but it's pretty clear to me. But your 'solution' to the "mystery" is something others have attempted, but unfortunately the texts do not bear that out. The only one that suggests anything of the kind is Eph. 3:5. Certainly, Romans 16:25-26 does not. Nor does Col. 2:2 (and Col 1:26 is a different point entirely). You are also forced to deny that Gal. 1:11-12 means Paul's gospel as a whole, or that somehow Paul meant only a *part* of his gospel (you are very good at reading words and ideas into a text which are not there), a position I find untenable and have argued that many times. It means you have to take 1 Cor. 15's "kata tas graphas" as meaning "as prophesied in scripture" which is an idea Paul nowhere else discusses or gives us examples of (between something found in scripture and a life event of Christ which fulfilled it: that's the very thing which Romans 1 fails to specify, in fact it says, as I earlier pointed out, something quite different, it 'pre-announces' Paul's gospel); and you are tying Paul in knots between a "gospel" he got from no man and a "gospel" he supposedly got from others, both on different subjects.

Of course, these sorts of objections apply to all the rest of the epistles, too, not just the Pauline corpus.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

It is just fascinating to see that even though the very NT Canon shows that Jesus being born of a woman was still fathered by the Holy Holy Ghost both in gMatthew and gLuke that it is still be argued that "being born of a woman" in the Pauline writings means Jesus was human.

How absurd!!!!

It is clear that the Pauline writer attempted to historize the resurrection of the Myth character called Jesus Christ by claiming he was the LAST to SEE Jesus after he was raised from the dead when NOT one single person ever SAW Jesus Christ of the NT alive.

What we have before us in the Pauline writings are PACKS of LIES for the glory of God.

The Pauline writings do NOT represent actual historical accounts with respect to the character called Jesus Christ, the resurrected Son of God.

Without Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings we would fundamentally have four versions of Myth fables.

TedM

Well Earl, it has been a while since I've looked at it all...and I can't take the time again now..for those who wish to see what I came up with 5 yeasr ago, go to this link http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...top20/id5.html.

Earl, you have put in so much time and research, and many of your ideas are worth discussing. If I were you I'd do the following: Pick 100 (or more) scholars that are under 40 and send them your book along with a personal note from you. Being right in front of them and 800 pages in length surely a number of them will read it--which should speed up scholarly discussion significantly and up the caliber of folks you are interacting with to above amateur status.

Just a thought. Ted

judge

What the fuck is odd about a jew thinking that this would come from the hebrew bible?

EarlDoherty

I have no idea what you are getting at. Clearly, you failed to understand my point.

Earl Doherty

Doug Shaver

You mean, the text is everything? To discern a writer's thinking, we need consider nothing but what he wrote?

archibald

Double post

archibald

But I have already said I have? I have read as much of your stuff as I have studied the texts and read stuff by Don, and I'm not claiming to be an expert on any of them. To be fair, I have limited myself to the website. If you want to ask me why I'm not sure about investing in a book also, I can go into that in detail if you like. As ever, I read reviews extensively before deciding to purchase a book.

Actually, if your website was not so apparently detailed, I would have considered ordering the book instead.

Yes Earl, I do get all that. my specific question was how many other mythical figures have been described, literally or otherwize, as being descended from a human.

And David is not the only citation. There is Adam, in Roman 5. The same issue applies, since Adam may be suggested as not having been thought of as anything more than symbolic, but when Paul says Adam is being used as a symbol in the passage, it does not seem to mean that he thinks Adam was not human, especially as he also compares Adam to Moses, and uses the greek word for human throughout, does he not? You may correct me if I am wrong in saying that. My Koine Greek is not strong. :]

Again, I am familiar with this, and I accept that Plutarch includes a 'Platonic realms' interpretation, and this in fact is why I aked Don for clarification as to whether plutarch does indeed end up with a preferred interpretation in which Osiris is specifically 'incarnated in the aer'. Which I haven't had clarified yet. But I did have other questions.

1. How good an analogy is it? How many points of agreement are there between the stories?

2. If Plutarch and Paul are somewhat contemporaneous in their perspective, why does Paul not make it more clear, as Plutarch does, that he is setting his figure (in Paul's case his pre-crucifixion Jesus) in such a realm? Why the numerous references to a seemingly earthly or human Jesus, albeit without a lot of biographical detail? It's not as if he's averse to mentioning them (the upper realms) when he says he ascended into one, presumably from earth. And before you ask, yes I am aware of the 'crucified by the rulers of this age' issue, but this is hardly explicit. See for example TedM's points on page 1 of this thread (how would demons not know who he was, and Paul using archontes only one other time in the 'authentic' epistles, in this case Romans, and in this case apparently referring to human rulers) and particularly in not saying that demons cannot act on earth in any case, and more to the point, such a reference seems to be outweighed by the number of references to seemingly earthly or human references for Jesus.

3. Why are there apparently so few good examples of similar analogy? Yes, I know you cite more than one, but there are comparitively few, and I am not sure they can be strongly linked. When, for example, I look for other examples of earthly prophets who are seen as messianic claimants or just plain eschatological, I have no such trouble, which leads me to think that people following a real prophet is the norm, and tends to suggest that ambiguity and possibility alone do not alter the idea that a non-earthly prophet seems to be an unusuality, particularly if said prophet seems to be described as having acted recently. Are there many analogies for this? A few, maybe (John Frum, but he is arguably on a different scale and was not subject to much copious biographical detail so soon, or indeed at all). You don't need to tell me this is not conclusive. One could have been developed more than the other. I am simply noting that there are not many mythical figures who are cited, as far as we know, as historical in such an apparently short space of time. And you don't need to tell me there are some who think Jesus was real but not recent, since I have factored in these possibilities, which is why I used the word 'apparently'. :]


IMO, you really, really need to dispense with this sort of thing about supposed hostility, Earl. It's not a good point to use in a forum where there are so many atheists. It may even be patronizing to suggest that rational sceptics do not already give due weight to possible considerations of hegemony affecting their own thinking. And I assure you, I am not hostile to the idea of an MJ, in fact, as an atheist, I would be tickled by it. I am simply looking for a comparatively strong case. Emphasis on comparatively. Compared to the HJ case, I mean. As far as I am concerned, your theory is an interesting hypothesis, and I was, on hearing about it, initially curious and hopeful, and not at all taking any one side.

Has it ever ocurred to you that one possible reason your book is not taken all that seriously by academia is because it is not considered academic enough?

For example, something I have raised before, are Price and Wells et al similarly ignored? Also, if you think scholars are shunning you, have you tried Classical Historians? I for one would be encouraged to hear more professional support for the comparison between Plutarch's Osiris and Paul's Jesus.

In any case, it's entirely irrelevant to me WHY your theory hasn't survived peer review. It's just that in addition to all the other ways in which it is debated, I would like to see it peer reviewed and then I can better decide for myself.

GakuseiDon

There is also Abraham. AFAIK Doherty has never found any example to support his idea about "seed of X" referring to a non-earthly being, where "X" was an ancestor who was thought to be an earthly being.

I mean, it MAY be possible. But if the examples from ancient literature go one way and not the other, what other conclusion should be drawn? Using Paul himself, here are some citations:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made...

However Christ was, he appears to have been an earthly man who came sometime after Abraham. Christ didn't come in some remote past. He came sometime after Abraham.

No, he doesn't. Carrier is demonstrably wrong there, which anyone can verify for themselves. I look at Carrier's use of Plutarch to support "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory" (as Carrier puts it) as part of my review of Doherty's latest book here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view4.html#4.3

archibald

For me, this is exactly the sort of detailed review of the examples of myths offered by Doherty (and Carrier) which I like to study, and in a sense you are doing the job of my hypothetical Classical Historians, in their absence.

Incidentally, perhaps it was slightly unfair of me to ask Doherty for a point-by-point comparison of two stories (Paul's Jesus and 'Plutarch's' Osiris) because it appears it is/was more Carrier than he who uses words like 'blueprint'. Nonetheless, the comparison is not made any stronger if there aren't many comparisons, apart from a 'death'. Which, you argue, is not at all clearly seen as taking place in an upper realm at all.

Anyhow, you appear to make a decent case that neither Osiris, Attis, Isiah (as in the Ascension of Isiah) or Innana are really very good or clear examples at all, and unless I am much mistaken, what Carrier (about whom I was already unsure) says about Plutarch's conclusions may be awry. Which is not surprising, since I read Plutarch's Isis and Osiris and couldn't see it myself, though I admitted I could have missed it.

IMO, your article (which actually, I have a feeling I have read somewhere before, earlier this year, on another forum?) should be required reading for anyone wanting to really drill down into Doherty's and carrier's ideas concerning the 'world of myth'.

If Doherty or Carrier have responded, I would be interested to read of that also.

Edit: Oh and before Earl queries or assumes for a third time that I don't read his stuff, I would like to just add that I did read his rebuttal to Muller posted on page 12, but this didn't seem to go into as much detail concerning the 'other examples from the world of myth' as I had hoped. Also, it seemed (correct me if I am wrong) to be a bit older than your article. I think I am right in saying that in that rebuttal to Muller, Doherty quotes Carrier saying that Plutarch had a 'true' version with Osiris incarnated in the aer (many times), so it would be interesting to hear his side of that now. If he supports it with evidence, then you and I both will have to eat humble pie. :]

I believe Romulus got a mention in Doherty's link also (Doherty quoting Carrier again). Apart from not being a figure incarnated in an upper realm, this obviously again illustrates the fact that there is a difference between figures from the dim and distant past (which it seems Osiris also is, even to Plutarch) and those apparently from not so long ago. Evidenced examples of 'figures understood to be historical and from the recent past but who in fact were mythical' appear to be almost as scarce as hen's teeth. Certainly they are uncommon. What does this prove conclusively? Nothing, of course, but whatever happened to 'unusual claims need unusually good evidence'? I'm paraphrasing, obviously.