Toto

I only pointed to his review because it was the only peer review available. The question was whether there had ever been a peer review of Doherty's work.

I don't know that I have misinterpreted you. If I have, it was not deliberate. Are you not saying that your objection to the sublunar theory includes the element that Inanna's incarnation could not be located in a sublunar realm? Does this not imply that you expect these first century religious adherents to have some precise geography in mind?

GakuseiDon

As per Carrier's description: "a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth". More "precisely", anywhere from under the moon and above the earth.

Here is what you wrote:

"You as a post-Enlightenment person seem to want to locate every event precisely, and you assume that all first century religious adherents would also want to know the longitude and latitude of Inanna's incarnation."

Where have I assumed that??? It's just the same kind of crap misrepresentation that comes up on this.

You say I'm obsessed by this, but how the hell would you know? You don't appear to have read anything I've written on the topic, if you really think that I've been assuming what you say I assume. So show me where I've assumed that, or apologize. Thanks.

Toto

I think you are obsessed with this because you started another thread on it. You made vague accusations against Carrier but you wouldn't provide a detailed case until I challenged you. You keep saying that Carrier has misinterpreted Plutarch, but it is only your misreading of Carrier that misinterprets Plutarch. You keep saying that Inanna did not incarnate in the sublunar realm as if that is a point against Carrier, but Carrier never says that Inanna incarnates in the sublunar realm, as if you can't follow Carrier's argument.

I am trying to make sense of why you are doing this. Do you understand Carrier's point? Do you think that the first century religious adherent in the street had a precise geography in mind of the layers of the heavens?

Have you read Sagan's Demon Haunted World? Do you realize the difference the Enlightenment made in how we think about the world?

EarlDoherty

You have always missed my point, Don, though I’ve been trying to explain it for years. I have long admitted (and explained why) that there are no cases to be found outside early Christian writings of a direct usage of kata sarka to refer to the state or location of a savior god operating in the spiritual realm, whether above or below the moon.

What I have done, and do so at much greater length in my new book, is present the case that the entire picture of those early Christian writings (and many non-Christian writings) justifies an interpretation of phrases like “kata sarka” as referring—in cases relating to Christ—to such a state and location. The language and imagery as a whole throughout the epistles and other early writings outside the Gospels points to a thought world of mythical activity by Christ and other heavenly beings located beyond earth. Exactly how that world of myth was conceived varied from group to group and document to document. Arguing specifically about supralunar or sublunar, which you have always been obsessed with, is simply immaterial.

This is one of the areas of greatest expansion in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man over The Jesus Puzzle, though the basics are present in the older book.

Incidentally, other forms of mythicism than my own (such as that of G. A. Wells), do not in fact work OK with your literal reading of terms like sarx, since the overall picture in the early Christian writings does not work with a mythical Christ incarnated to earth, and I spend some time pointing that out in the new book.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

I started what is actually the first thread I have seen on Carrier's review.

They were NOT vague accusations, they were quite specific. But I invited people to check the references in Plutarch for themselves, to see if I was RIGHT. But since you didn't want to check it for yourself (heck, it only takes 30 min), I was happy to provide the context when you 'challenged' me.

Where have I misread Carrier's comments on Plutarch? That's really what I have been asking, because I don't want to misrepresent Carrier on this. THAT'S THE FEEDBACK I AM ASKING FOR.

My argument: Inanna does not provide "proof of concept" with regards to a sublunar incarnation concept back then. I'm saying Carrier's argument is WRONG, and I have pointed out why. If you want to show why my argument fails, please go ahead. Ditto with if you think I am not treating Carrier's comments accurately. That's what this thread is for, after all.

Certainly not, if you are talking about "longitude / latitude". How many times do we have to go over it. I've given the defintion enough times already.

Look, just tell me if my damn definition is wrong: The sublunar realm goes from under the moon down to the surface of the earth. From the perspective of Doherty's theory, the term is used to indicate "a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth." Am I correct or not? On we on the same page, or not?

Once you agree, please apologise for misrepresenting me with that "longitude / latitude" rubbish.

No.

Yes.

So then: Where have I misread Carrier's comments on Plutarch? I am challenging you, I guess.

Rick Sumner

You have done this to some degree since, and you've indicated that you do so at length in your new book, but to suggest that this is what you did in your first edition is disingenuous. Your argument for kata sarka begins with a citation of Barrett (who, given your confusion at Rom.1.2 indicated in your 200 silences, you apparently only skimmed), and ends with the observation that it could be "quite useful."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon

Rereading Toto's latest post, I thought "Maybe I'm partly to blame. Maybe I just didn't define 'sublunar realm' clearly enough in my OP".

But it was there in my OP. It's the same definition as I have ALWAYS used:

So where does this "longitude / latitude" crap come from???

GakuseiDon

Earl, you have caught me at a bad bad time. Toto has pissed me right off.

You and I have spent many posts on the sublunar realm. Yes, I know very well that there are no cases for sublunar incarnation, because I and others on this board have demolished them all.

Now, lets be clear where you believe in Christ being incarnated. "Whether above or below the moon", you say? Does not Carrier say in his review (my emphasis):

So, does it matter whether the incarnation was "above or below the moon"? Are you sticking with the sublunar incarnation of Christ or not?

Well, where else are heavenly beings going to be located? The question is where "kata sarka" beings are located.

Look, sublunar incarnation IS PART OF YOUR THEORY. That's what Carrier understood in his review. Read the quote I give from Carrier above in his review. Saying it is "immaterial" is bizarre, and I have no idea why you are saying it. Are you saying that death and decay can occur above the moon?

Thanks, I'll look at that with interest, since it doesn't match with what G. A. Wells has stated earlier. He certainly appears to have believed that "kata sarka" placed Christ on Earth. Here is Wells own view of the significance of "kata sarka":
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../earliest.html

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David [GDon: "kata sarka"] (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premiss that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens. Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded. In any case, what was the point of Christ's assuming human form (Phil.2:6-11) if he did not come to Earth to redeem us? It is of course true that the source of statements such as 'descended from David' is scripture, not historical tradition. But this does not mean, as Doherty supposes, that the life and the death were not believed to have occurred on Earth.

So I will be examining your view of Wells closely.

maryhelena

From another article by Wells:

Quote:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ls/errant.html Recent work on Q led me to accept that the gospels (unlike the Pauline and the other early epistles) may include traditions about a truly historical itinerant preacher of the early first century. Likewise, my acceptance of recent Q scholarship means that I am no longer asserting that all the traditions about Jesus in Mark must have evolved after the Pauline period.. My case is that, while some elements in the gospels may have elaborated the career of an actual itinerant Galilean preacher (who was not crucified and certainly not resurrected), the dying and rising Christ of the earliest extant Christian documents cannot be accounted for in this way; and that not until the gospels are these two very different figures fused into one.

Looks to me that Wells holds to the idea that his itinerant preacher is not synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth. That such a preacher is prior to the gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth - and that such a preacher was not crucified.

Which is basically how I see things i.e. that there is a historical person X prior to the gospel storyline re Jesus of Nazareth. Actually, I did write to Wells, about 20 years ago, but methinks my theory and presentation were not up to scratch....(so I do feel for Carrier re his review of Doherty's theory..... - ones ideas do evolve over time and one gets better at their presentation...)

Nice point Wells makes in your reference - that he has never subscribed to the view that Paul speaks of Jesus "in exclusively mythological terms'. Perhaps that position is basic to Earl's problems with his incarnation in a sublunar realm. He needs to leave a little room for the non-mythological.

From your reference:


Indeed, perhaps the shoe is on the other foot...
Yes, to my mind, Doherty is right re Jesus of Nazareth not being historical - but that does not rule out the very real possibility that there was a historical person X that had some relevance, some impact, upon the early development of Christianity. A scenario that I have proposed in an earlier post.

Historical person X is viewed as having relevance to a new spiritual understanding. Paul, whoever he is, knows about such a person - he knows the human, historical story of that person - but it is the spiritual significance of that encounter that interests him. It would be what he believed about historical person X that was relevant. Visionary insights, interpretations - cosmic significance etc. Paul seeks to put his own spin on things...

In other words, historical person X has made some impact upon the thinking of Paul. Possibly, as Wells, suggests, stories re the historical preacher, elements from his human life, and Paul's creation of his Cosmic, mythological, dying and rising Christ, were later "fused" - "fused" to create the gospel's prophetic storyline of Jesus of Nazareth. (historical person X probably already dead by this time...)

Earlier 'sayings' of the historical preacher X being incorporated into the later gospel storyline - the illusive Q - or early Mark.... The later, "fused" gospel storyline, backdated as an earlier origin story.


Methinks it is Earl's theory that needs an update, that needs to move forward - perhaps that incarnation in a sublunar realm is proving to be a rather big road block...

Obviously, historical person X has no salvation potential - whatever that could mean... Whatever it was that early Christians 'saw' in such a person related to their particular belief system. That a "fused" storyline developed does indicate that their emphasis was not upon any physical lineage from a historical person X but was entirely a spiritual 'salvation'. But for us today - particularly of the skeptical mentality - we want to know how Christianity got started - and to do that requires putting the faith based interpretations/beliefs of those early Christians aside and having a re-look at the relevant historical time period that the gospel storyline details.

Anyway, something like that.....

GakuseiDon

It's a good point, and reminds me to add: Carrier's review was done in 2002, and I wouldn't be surprised if his views have changed and evolved, as maryhelena notes. But since his review still gets pointed to, and since I'm aware of no threads where his review is evaluated, I thought it would be good to start this thread.

Now, the points raised by Carrier in his review could be wrong and Doherty could still be correct. Or Carrier might today write a different review, introducing more appropriate "proof of concepts", which would invalidate my concerns. All that is possible. But I just wanted this thread to be an investigation of Carrier's review as it stands as IMHO it actually highlights the weaknesses in Doherty's theory, and hopefully will encourage people to look into the issues further.