Toto

That's not the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is to poison the waters.

Besides, creationists do not think that the mainstream is "hopelessly biased." They generally think that evolution is a product of Satan and the mainstream just wants to avoid Biblical morality. Mythicists have no such beliefs about historical Jesus scholars.

And at least one squeeled like a stuck pig when I made that analogy.

Yes, such is the nature of analogies used as insults.

Then it's not a relevant analogy, is it?

So you've just dragged the discussion off into a blind ally and brought some emotional reaction into the picture, while providing no insight into the underlying issues.

jgoodguy

It is propaganda intended to discomfort the JMers.

ApostateAbe

judge has just now self-banned, so he won't be rebutting. I can come to his defense, however. I went to that link, and he really does have the upper hand. Earl Doherty wrote:

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth; there are references to a “spiritual body” as in 1 Cor. 15:35f, and to “spiritual flesh” as in the Apocalypse of Elijah.

judge wrote:

Actually the phrase "likeness of flesh" occurs nowehere that im aware of. though I stand to be corrected.

You have misquoted Romans 8 to suit your purpose it seems. Romans 8 says ,

God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering

In Early Doherty's defense, you said:

judge - this is getting out of hand. What part of similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3...) is giving you such difficulty? If you don't get it, please PM me and stop littering this thread with your baseless allegations.

Only, Earl Doherty actually wrote "...'likeness of flesh,' and similar phrases...", not "...'likeness of flesh,' or similar phrases..."

This is an important point, because judge seems to have a superior interpretation of Paul. Paul's point seems to be NOT that Jesus had the likeness of someone human (which may imply that Jesus was not actually human), but that Jesus had the likeness of someone sinful (in order to be a sin offering). judge's interpretation seems to be plainly obvious when the relevant passage is reviewed, and Earl Doherty's interpretation requires the reader to seriously read between the lines.

Earl Doherty both misquoted the New Testament--when you put a phrase in quotes, then it means that same phrase is found somewhere else--and he reinforced his unlikely point with that misquote.

Toto

Doherty put quotes around the phrase to set it off as a phrase, clearly not because it was a direct quote. You can see this by looking at how Doherty does quote the NT, and by his use of the term "similar phrases."

As the discussion there goes into detail IIRC, Paul believes that all flesh is sinful. Later Christian apologists needed to invent a new category of sinless flesh for Jesus.

ApostateAbe

No. When you put a phrase in quotation marks and give a citation, then it is interpreted to mean that the same phrase appears in your citation. If not, then it is a misquote. I take this to be a very basic point about grammar, not just about ethical writing. Doherty's point would have seemed strongly damaged had he actually used the original wording of "...likeness of sinful flesh..." since Paul's point would have been made more clear. If Doherty had actually quoted the entire passage, then Doherty's claim would have seemed dead on arrival.
Yeah, I reviewed that stuff, too, and judge keeps the upper hand. I don't think it is relevant whether or not Paul always thinks of flesh as sinful--he probably did, except of course for Jesus--but it doesn't in the least bit affect the probabilities of the interpretation of Romans 8:3. The discussion should have focused on Romans 8:3, where Paul seems to make it clear what he means:

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

In other words, it is the likeness of sinful flesh, not just of flesh, that gets to the relevant point of Paul's theological claim. Paul's point was NOT that Jesus was spiritual but he had the appearance of flesh. Paul's point was that Jesus had the appearance of sinful flesh, not sinless flesh, so that Jesus was the appropriate person to condemn sin in the flesh.

This contrasts with Earl Doherty's interpretation. Again, Doherty said:

The mythicist reading of other documents, particularly in the New Testament, encounters references to Christ taking on the “likeness of flesh,” and similar phrases (as in Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2, the Philippians hymn), with no sign that this is on earth

Doherty's mythicist interpretation is bizarre, and his claim that there is "no sign that this is on earth" is highly ridiculous, because all flesh, especially all sinful flesh, that we know about, according to everything we understand about the world of Christian theology and history, attested many times over throughout all early Christian writing, is on Earth! What hypothetical claim in early Christian writings would Earl Doherty take as a sign that anything happens on earth, that can't also be interpreted to take place in his bizarre sublunar realm?

Toto

I disagree, but this is not the place to regurgitate that thread.

I consider Christian theology pretty bizarre, and the early Christian cosmology to be especially bizarre. Doherty does his best to try to explain it in terms that modern materialists can understand, but it really is bizarre. I mean, Paul thought he had been raised into the third heaven. What kind of drugs was he on? Why would you think that anything that man wrote could be read as straight reporting?

Of course, when Paul writes about meeting the so called pillars of the church, his whole tone changes. That happened on earth, somewhere.

ApostateAbe

Christian theology is bizarre. It does not follow that the best explanation concerning Christian theology should be bizarre with respect to the Christian theology. The best explanation for evidence concerning Christian theology should fit the known Christian theology, not fit something entirely new and different. It is as though Earl Doherty argues, Sure, all sinful flesh within Christian theology happens on Earth, but Romans 8:3 isn't evidence that Jesus was on Earth, because, you know, it could have been in the sublunar realm, instead. That is what makes for a bizarre, and therefore unlikely, proposition.

bacht

Christian theology evolved, it wasn't born complete sometime around 30 ce. They were still arguing about Christ's true nature centuries later (and perfect agreement was never reached).

Why shouldn't we assume that Christian history also evolved? Why not read Paul as a mystic or apocalypticist whose understanding of Christian roots was modified by later catholic apologists?

dog-on

Abe, who, exactly was Mark?

If you know, how do you know?


Let's start there.

blastula

I agree the quote is literally false for leaving out the word, but I don't see how that word goes against his point. Both cases would be the "likeness of" which is to mean not actual flesh. And even it were real flesh, since Paul sees all flesh as sinful, "sinful flesh" is the same as "flesh." Whether or not Doherty is correct about how Paul sees Jesus, the presence of omission of that one word in that verse is irrelevant.