ApostateAbe

Earl Doherty, I will let your arguments stand as they are. I was hoping to have a conversation with radius, that's all. Sorry if I misled you or anything.

radius

Sounds weird alright. But isn’t 'weird' religion's calling-card? Isn't the action in ancient religious narrative often located in unworldly realms? Sure, the idea that there is a separate realm of heaven where (believers believe) incarnation takes place is objectively bizarre within a modern secular culture; but it seems to fit quite well with a 1st century religious view. e.g. it is often observed that 2 Corinthians 12:2 sounds strange to a modern ear: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago - whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows -such a man was caught up to the third heaven."

Is it really so outlandish to conclude that Paul’s Jesus died and rose again "in the body" within this third heaven? Someone once said that the 'historical Jesus' was invented by the Enlightenment to combat the divine Jesus of christianity: it bears the hallmarks of modern thinking.

But even if Paul had written that he met Jesus on the corner of Market and Main and spoke sternly through a big brown beard in a booming Galilean accent etc, I can’t see how it would indicate a historical core inside the religious fervour. The main observation to be drawn from the silence of the earliest Christian writings, whether that silence is total or incomplete, is that the story of Jesus appears to have started as largely mythical and gathered pseudo-historical detail as it progressed – the opposite of euhemerism; and the opposite of the mythical veneer which gathered around the substantial historical biographies of the likes of Caesar and Alexander.

Why, in reading the various depictions of Jesus Christ, from the late pious fictions back through time, might one make the assumption that at some point the nature of these tall tales switches from pious fiction to fact? Or pious fiction with bits of fact?

Does that not rather assume the HJ of the gospels? If you had never read or heard of a gospel (or an Acts) and just had the early epistles, would the layperson immediately conclude that this was a man who had recently said and done things (monumental things or otherwise) in Galilee and Judea and been physically known by large numbers of people?

There are numerous points in the early epistles when one might reasonably assume that a few specifics about what the founder and god of the religion actually said and did, would be considered fairly necessary. Particularly given that the allegiance of the congregations sometimes seems to have been up for grabs. How did people as far-flung as Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Phrygia, Anatolia, and Thessalonica come to be so blase so soon about the omnipotent god who had recently walked around Judea and Galilee that they didn't 'need' to know anything about what he'd said and done while he was there? Why did those specifics become necessary later, and an appetite grow for them so much that multiple narratives and sayings were produced?

ApostateAbe

Religions are weird. Regardless of how weird religions are, an explanation for religious textual evidence that fits a known weird theology is generally much more likely than an explanation for religious textual evidence that fits no known theology. If we have ancient evidence that lets us know all about a known theology (the gospels and Paul telling of Jesus who was a man and became divine), and the other textual evidence in question elegantly fits it (Hebrews: "...in the days of his flesh, Jesus..."), then we should not be proposing outlandish models of ancient theology in order to explain that evidence. We already know what the author believed from the prima facie evidence, and it is a problem for anyone who claims silence of Hebrews about the human Jesus. You are free to speculate that maybe the ancient author meant something else, but you cannot claim silence if there is silence only when such speculation is assumed as fact. Not that you were claiming silence, but Earl Doherty and Kapyong were, and that is what the argument is about.

I am not using the phrase in Hebrews as an argument for the existence of the historical Jesus, but Doherty's myther model demands silence where no silence seemingly exists.

Related to that point, I did not mean to make the claim that the author of Hebrews should be trusted to make a historically-reliable claim about Jesus. The evidence is most directly reflective of what the author believed about Jesus, not about what the historical Jesus actually said or did. I am not assuming the historical Jesus--Jesus really could have been merely myth, and it doesn't affect the points I am making.

GakuseiDon

The question is whether it makes sense within the framework of ancient thinking based on our understanding built from the wider literature of the day. For example, there is no reason why ancient people couldn't believe that Mithras and Krishna were virgin-born and crucified, but we don't accept it because there is no evidence for it. Well, most of us don't accept it. Hi Dave31! :wave: Some jump through hoops to try to interpret early sources, to make them say what they want to say.

IMVHO we see the same with the scenarios proposed by Doherty. Can "in the days of his flesh" and other phrases be applied to a non-earthly figure? In order to weigh such readings, we need to view them in context of the wider literature.

So it isn't a matter of whether a certain reading is possible, since anything is possible. But the question is whether the reading makes the most sense in context with our understanding as built by the wider literature.

No more than that they thought Mithras was crucified. But let's put it this way. Doherty believes that early Christians thought that demons crucified Jesus. (Doherty himself doesn't see this as happening in the third heaven btw) So Jesus suffered, died and was resurrected. Do you see the Jews believing that this happened in the third heaven? Could Jews believe that Satan could sneak up into Heaven to crucify the Son of God? That's the question here.

I'll note that this isn't about the historical Jesus, i.e. Doherty being wrong doesn't mean there was a historical Jesus.

dog-on

Why Jews? Why not non-Jews reinterpreting Jewish writings, as the evidence seems to show?

radius

In the wider picture of ancient religion and culture the supernatural action tended to take place in supernatural territory. Even in the Christian tradition, we see multiple references to such realms (Paul’s Third Heaven is just one example: if memory serves, in the Acts of Thomas a heavenly personage takes us on a tour of 6 layers of Hell). The early epistles appear to fit more naturally within that picture: they focus entirely on the high-level mystical stuff – redemptive sacrifice, eternal life etc.

Given that they do not specify the where and when, it is not incompatible with the historical clothing which the gospel stories later wrapped around these tropes; however, while it is possible, it is precisely the wider literature and culture that suggests the Christ of the early epistles is an immanent and mystical being rather than a recent historical person.

It is possible that Paul's congregations had no interest in a human Christ who had recently walked among them and in the physical company of other church 'pillars', and preferred instead to hear of visions, the teachings of the Lord and oracles and quotations from the LXX - but the 'instead' does not seem likely. After centuries of Christianity we tend now not only to back-read the gospels into Paul, but at a more subtle level to expect linear historical narrative and see alternatives as ridiculous.

Yes, YHWH had himself a son in the first place (then sacrificed him to himself) - but doing any of that stuff in a supernatural place…well now, that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?
That is true.

GakuseiDon

Well, not just the early epistles, but also those going to the end of the Second Century. (I'm not sure if you've seen the posts where I discuss this here).

In order to evaluate this, I think we'd need to have a view of what literature was written by mythicists and when, and what literature was written by proto-orthodox historicists and when. And then we can see where they overlap in time and space, compare the differences -- if any -- in terminology and approach, etc.

I don't know if you regard "Hebrews" as mythicist literature or not, but it is often pushed by mythicists as such. In Hebrews, we find the following:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...brews-kjv.html

4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God...

So, Jesus Christ "passed into the heavens" from somewhere, presumably from somewhere else that is NOT the heavens. Would you agree that this is what Hebrews appears to be suggesting here?

Continuing:

2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Would you agree that this reflects Jesus as he was before he passed into heaven? And appears to suggest that Jesus was a man like us?

Continuing:

5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Would you agree that this appears to reflect events from Jesus' life, wherever it was spent? That at that time, Jesus WASN'T perfect? And that perfection only came by suffering and death?

Continuing:

7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Would you agree that this appears to reflect Jesus' parentage?

Finally, one of the reasons that Hebrews is pushed as mythicist literature is because of the lack of historical details, which is not what we would expect. But if it was found that it was most likely written by a proto-orthodox historicist (even if you personally don't believe this to be the case), how would you see it affect our expectations in what we would see in other early literature?

I agree that we would expect linear historical narrative. It is difficult to get our heads around the idea that people back then didn't write the way we do today. No doubt about it.

Cities, thrones, fondue parties, anything like that I think is compatible with their ideas of heaven (though only really good fondue parties!) Heaven is God's domain. But Satan going up into the true heavens and crucifying the Son of God? No, given the beliefs of that particular time, I think such a reading is nigh impossible. But if you have texts to support such a view (please, no "human nature" responses, which is what mythicists here tend to give), I'm very happy to go over it with you.

EarlDoherty

This is rank ignorance.

Hebrews 4:14 does NOT say that Jesus "passed INTO the heavens," let alone imply that he passed into them from somewhere which was not the heavens. The verse says: "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has GONE THROUGH [the verb dierchomai, the "di-" being a contraction for dia] the heavens." Not only can this accommodate going from one layer of heaven into another, namely from the bottom layer to the top, it conspicuously implies that earth is not included in this 'passage', since it is not mentioned. In fact, the author is making the statement that "we have a High Priest who has gone through the heavens..." Didn't we have a High Priest who was also on earth, and wasn't that an important aspect of his work? Not according to the writer of Hebrews.

(The only translation I can find which offers "into the heavens" is the KJV, which is simply a matter of reading into the text what the translators wanted to see or assumed was meant. The Greek in no way justifies such a reading, as any other translation shows.)

How do you have the gall, Don, to pontificate against mythicism when your own ignorance and misrepresentation of the texts is so blatant? Where do you get the balls to heap scorn and ridicule on mythicists like myself when you castrate yourself at every turn? It is unfortunate that I seem to be the only one here who can call you out on these egregious errors which there seem to be no end to in your arguments. The most amazing part is that you seem incapable of shame, no matter how many times you are exposed. You really are a piece of work.

When are we going to be free of you? (I'm beginning to think it's me who never will be!)

Rest assured, if Ehrman produces the wretched product which everything he has said so far would seem to promise, that I will pull no punches with him either.

Earl Doherty

judge

Until, of course, you told us these mean quite the opposite from their plain reading and how these opposite meanings just, in an amazing coinicidence, happen to support your theory of an early christian cult of which all evidence is lost.
Its trully amazing. there was a first version of christainity, but all evidence is lost, and that early version, just happens to require that the plain meaning of words should be rejected and the opposite meaning.
Why on earth you cant get this accepted in peer review is beyond me.

So we are supposed to accept that "the days of his flesh" doesn't refer to an earthly life, and that "of the seed of david according to the flesh" doesnt mean a physical descendent, and that "born of woman" doesnt mean a normal earthly birth.

No! Your strange interpretations point instead to a cult you think existed but of which we have no evidence.

And most amusingly, here on a rationalist discussion board hardly anyone pulls you up on this nonsesne. :huh:

GakuseiDon

Gosh! What a miss for the early proto-orthodox Christians! Imagine not knowing their own language well enough to know that 'dierchomai' meant just 'passing through' the heavens rather than 'into the heavens'! Thank God for Earl! Two thousand years later, and Earl knows the truth! Even more, it supports a ridiculous reading of his! Hallelujah!

Earl, I have balls I haven't even used yet. Which is kind of sad, now that I think about it.

Look, you modern-day Galileo, isn't it bizarre that your supporters don't want to look through your telescope? That they just take your word for it that there are moons revolving around Jupiter? It's not like you are winning supporters amongst the intelligentsia. It's more like your supporters are amongst the ignornantsia, who have no idea whether you are talking truth or talking crap. God forbid they should investigate this for themselves! <edit>

Let's take a look through your telescope at Hebrews. You say "passing into the heavens" should be "passing through the heavens"? <edit> I have your book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" right in front of me now. On page 69, you write about Hebrews 13:

Here the author.. has Jesus dying "outside the gate," more than likely meaning the gate of Heaven.

So, if Jesus is "dying outside the gate", and this means "outside the gate of Heaven", then how the heck is this "passing through Heaven", <edit>? Do you think you are going to get away with that crapulence when talking to ME? You can treat your supporters as ignoramuses if you like, but I have read through your works as well as then originals, in English translation at least. This is the text in Hebrews, you merchant of misrepresentation:

Hbr 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

So, you have Jesus suffering OUTSIDE the gate of Heaven, and then claim that Jesus was just passing THROUGH Heaven? What the hell is he supposed to be OUTSIDE of, then, according to Hebrews? You goddamn peddler of pseudo-scholarship.

Earl, your <edit> supporters can't see through your ad hoc arguments, but I can. Let's press this home, shall we, <edit>. Here is what Hebrews writes on "ouranos" ("the heavens"). Your supporters can double-check this if they like. God knows whether they will(!), but they certainly can:

Hbr 9:24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, [which are] copies of the true, but into heaven [eis ouranos] itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Well, according to you, Christ was just "passing through", right? When the Hebrews author writes "into Heaven", maybe he means into some OTHER Heaven, right? <edit> Does the author of Hebrew ever refer to earth, heaven, and some OTHER heaven? No. Just heaven and earth. <edit>, check this out for yourselves! I challenge you! Read through Hebrews for yourself, and tell me what it says about heaven and earth!

Good God, yes. I doubt anyone else really understands where you are coming from. I think I have spent more time on your nonsense and torturous readings than any of your supporters. That's why so few reply to our correspondence. They sigh a sigh of relief: Doherty has answered, and all is right with the world!!! <edit>

And that's why it is pointless for me to respond to your remarks on this board. No-one cares to question you. For them, "skepticism" is about OTHER PEOPLE's beliefs, apparently. Throw objectivity out the window! Even those convinced that you are right and you are sitting on the scoop of the century -- no historical Jesus! -- somehow leave it to OTHER people to show the way. Forgive me for being under-impressed, <edit>.

Thanks! And keep in mind that, according to YOU, I am 99% mythicist! Not to forget those atheists who think you talk crap, you talker of torturous eisegesis.

And I have no doubt you will. And your supporters will be urging you on from the Internet sidelines. Go Earl! Just believe! Don't question! You will always have a home on FRDB, where skepticism is what people do about beliefs OTHER than theirs. <edit>. Come back any time!