mountainman

There is evidence of more than one hundred Gnostic Gospels and Acts



The Church Fathers said they were heretics.
And that their books were heresies to be anathemetized.

Why?

Because they depicted a different and non canonical story?

judge

There is no evidence. People choose to believe it without evidence.

aa5874

I don't know about any "touchstone" argument.

I present the evidence found in sources of antiquity.

It was HERESY that Jesus was an ordinary man in "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus and "Refutation of all Heresies" by Hippolytus.

And a Pauline writer in Romans 1 claimed that the Created should NOT be worshipped ONLY the Creator.

The very claim that Jesus was an ordinary man was an argument AGAINST the claim that Jesus was God Incarnate or the Son of God.

Again, people here are confusing the MJ/HJ argument with the BELIEF by Christians that Jesus EXISTED as God Incarnate on earth during the reign of Tiberius.

Christians BELIEVE Gods exist and actually promote the Jesus of Faith or MYTH Jesus.

The "historical Jesus" is a REJECTION of the Jesus of Faith, God Incarnate.

In antiquity, there were arguments AGAINST the Jesus of Faith and it was argued that Jesus Christ even as a man did NOT arrive as yet.

See "Dialogue with Trypho".

In effect, it was ARGUED over 1800 years ago that Jesus Christ was Neither God nor man.

archibald

It does worry me slightly when someone refers to them as 'gnostic mythicists'. Since it's more than just a bit speculative, it does sound like the language of making an unevidenced assumption.

Not warranted, surely?

At least, in this thread, not until someone makes a good case for it. And Toto basically opened with a reference to a mythicist conspiracy theory, now appears to have cemented a conclusion based on only this. So far.

archibald

Except one? The Nag Hamadi bunch?


Can I ask you one general thing about the Nag Hamadi Codices? If you read that lot as mythicists, what is the Gospel of Thomas doing in their library?

archibald

error.

archibald

What he's asking seems very clear to me. I restated it myself. It seems odd that you don't understand what he is saying?

TedM is correct. It is merely your opinion that there is no evidence. And your opinion is not, in my opinion, a particularly convincing opinion. Paul is littered with HJ references from start to finish. It is bio detail that is (mostly) not there, that's all.


I agree with a few others here, Toto. This sounds like it was overstating something. Even when you clarified, you still said ALL the Jesus story was in the Septaguint. Is this the case? Is there, for example, a crucifixion in the Septaguint?

Fair point. But he's a minimal HJ.

And incidentally, Doherty is way out on a limb, from any rational standpoint. He's in the category of 'possible, but unlikely', IMO. I hope you're not a fan.

Unless, regarding Paul, as some have said, the epistles were so revamped that the original was almost unrecognizeable. You yourself have said that you think 50% (as a guess) is not original, though you never really said which 50% or on what basis you feel you know. At one point, you referred me to DCH's scenario, which I did not find at all reassuring. You also referred me to William O Walker, but he doesn't suggest anything like that extent and in any case appears well aware that he is being speculative (as was Price, in one of the first links you provided to me, way back). Yet...you....come across as much more heavily leaning one way?

Is it, Toto, actually the case that what you are saying is that you believe the truth was covered up so we can't see it? In both cases, I mean, Paul being revamped and myther heresies being erased? It all sounds like a complicated conspiracy theory. I was hoping there would be more evidence.

Toto

??

Here's the dialogue:

So in the question "Why would they do that?" please identify the referents - why would who do what? And why is that foolish? Why would reading the gospels prove anything? How would any of this relate to Docetists or heresy hunters?

I am truly mystified.

Paul's letters have references that appear to refer to a historical Jesus, but many more references that refer to Jesus as divine. There are no early texts that contain only historical references. Thus I am sure that there is no evidence that there was a historical Jesus who was later mythologized.

All of the details of the crucifixion come from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Christians claim that these parts of the Hebrew Scriptures foretold Jesus or are prophesies - I think it is more likely that they were the sources for the story. (See e.g. this handy chart from a Christian apologist.)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Doherty has undertaken a major challenge to the conventional wisdom. This doesn't mean that he is wrong.

This whole field is based on speculation. The idea that Paul's letters were not heavily interpolated is speculation without proof.

It's not a conspiracy theory. There was an evolution of beliefs, and there were orthodox Christians who felt that they had to bring the text in line with what they knew was the truth.

But it all happened two millenia ago. What sort of evidence do you think has survived?

archibald

The (at least my) question is this. Why would the orthos not have trashed any mythicist heresy out in the open? That is to say, not been so worried about erasing any trace of even their own trashing of it?


Even that apologist's chart doesn't seem to include a crucifixion?

I'm not even sure it's just the crucifixion either. It was my impression that sceptics (including Price) suggested that there were a lot of things from scripture, but not by any means 'all'. I think you are the first person I have 'heard' saying that.

It means what it says. Doherty is out on a limb, with no strong evidence. What evidence there is does not support his overall hypothesis. And it doesn't say Doherty is wrong. Not by any means. Why did you think it did?

And the idea that they were interpolated heavily is also speculation without proof. That it's all speculation is certainly my position, but at times ('The Mythicist Gnostics'....'I know from reading Paul'....) it doesn't seem to be yours.

Particularly if said heavy interpolation is taken as an interpolation in a mythicist direction. I said 'if'. It is not clear to me whether this is your speculated direction. At times it appears not to be, and at other times it is not clear exactly what your uninterpolated Paul would look like. All I have to go on is your referring me to DCH. If that resembles your uninterpolated Paul, I would suggest you too are out on a very speculative limb, though not quite as far out as Doherty in this instance.

Without evidence, it is a conspiracy theory. And an unparsimonius one at that. I refer to any idea that bringing the text in line involved countering any mythicism or NEP (Non existing personage). That it may have involved making it more ortho generally is not controversial, to me.

What a very, very odd thing to say.

Er, any evidence.

Evidence does survive. That's how we know about the other heresies.

Toto

Under Doherty's scenario, mythicism had evolved into docetism or some other gnostic heresy by the second century. The orthodox never met a mythicist.

Under other scenarios, The orthodox just never bothered to understand the gnostics.

Check out Michael Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. I got the concept from him. He spent some time tracing every element in Mark back to the Septuagint.

You clearly implied that Doherty was not someone to be associated with.

It is speculative, so sometimes I don't spell it out. The mythicist gnostics were part of a hypothetical. I still don't know the reading Paul reference.

Countering mythicism is not making it more orthodox?

We only know some of what their enemies decided to write about them. I hope you don't assume that it's trustworthy or complete.