aa5874

Doherty does NOT even realize that the "DNA Test" confirms that Hebrews 8.4 is ambiguous and that he agrees with the results.

Earl MUST know that the "DNA Test" must be carried by an INDEPENDENT "lab"--Not Doherty's.

Paul Ellingworth did a "DNA Test" and found Hebrews 8.4 grammatically ambiguous. Doherty AGREED with the result.

This is an excerpt of Doherty.

Doherty does not seem to understand that Ellingworth must have ANALYZED the passage and other factors in the document when he did the "DNA Test" and concluded Hebrews 8.4 was ambiguous.

maryhelena

Indeed, the 'Christ myth theory', the ahistoricist/mythicist position, is here to stay. Doherty is just one small voice in a line line of advocates of the ahistoricist JC position. Rejecting Doherty's theories - even wholesale - does not in any shape or form, impact upon the validity of the JC ahistoricist position.

aa5874

It is Doherty's obligation to test, refine and strengthen his OWN theory. People here have exposed the weakness of Doherty's claim that Jesus of the NT was never on earth and was crucified in the sub-lunar.

For some unknown reason Doherty seem to think that if he admits that Jesus of the NT was believed to be on earth then the character automatically is a figure of history.

May I remind Doherty that Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost were on earth in the NT.

No, No, No!!!! It is NOT Doherty's theory that is the framework under which we operate. We are NOT operating a cult.

We are operating by DATA--the evidence--the actual written statements found in antiquity.

The Quest for an historical Jesus was NOT initiated by Doherty but DIRECTLY because of the DATA in the NT and Apologetic sources from antiquity.

Again, the MEAT for the MJ argument does not at all originate from Doherty. The MEAT is found in the NT itself and Apologetic writings from antiquity.

It is the EVIDENCE that matters NOT opinion. I operate under the Framework of evidence.

The Evidence abundantly supports the MJ argument.

Examine Matthew 1:18 CEB Examine Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians Examine Aristides' Apology Examine Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" And further, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius wrote NOTHING of a Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God.

There is absolutely no need for any unevidenced meatless 'theory' from Doherty.

Bernard Muller

Doherty has two major reasons for seeing a past contrafactual in Heb 8:4
The second one is "A Sacrifice in the Past" explained in about four pages (232 to 236)
The first one is "Contrafactual Alternatives" explained in one and a half page (236 to 237).

For "A Sacrifice in the Past" Doherty spent one and a half page in order to determine, in 8:3, the tense of a verb which does not exist in the Greek :
8:3 YLT "for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer;" .
He wrote: "The tense of the second part of verse 3 is ambiguous" but, after considering verses of the previous chapter and the opening of chapter 8., he became certain that tense is past and therefore 8:4a is a past contrafactual, because "his single sacrifice is in the past".

Doherty does not take in account the present context of 8:4a "we have such a high priest" (8:1) and "and now he has obtained a more excellent service," (8:6), but, more important:
8:4 "if indeed he were on earth, he would not be a priest, being these [priests] offer gifts according to the law"
"offer" is in the present tense.
It is obvious to me the author put "he would not be a priest" in the same time than "these offer gifts ...", that is the present.

Furthermore 8:4 does not allude in any way to the past Sacrifice. Doherty is putting in 8:4 something which is not there. Actually the whole of chapter 8 (whose main topic is the new convenant replacing the old one) does not have one reference to the past Sacrifice.
What about 8:3b? it is ambiguous, but what Jesus has to offer may very well be his “excellent ministry” and his function as “the mediator of a better convenant” (8:6).

The rest under “A sacrifice in the past” is other comments & further conclusions about the amazing find:
"This verse [8:4] is actually a rather trivial thought, and quite unnecessary, but how fortunate that he expressed it!"

Doherty also wrote:
"Of what relevance or use, then, would it be to say that he could not be a priest if on earth in the present? It would be an utterly trivial point and essentially a non sequitur."
But I think it is explained fairly well with a present contrafactual:
8:4 "if indeed he were on earth, he would not be a priest, being these [priests] offer gifts according to the law"
8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, ...
8:6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,
It is clear to me the author meant Jesus, if on earth now, would not be a priest, because that priesthood is very inferior to “heavenly things”. Instead he has a much better ministry (in heaven).

For "Contrafactual Alternatives", Doherty wrote: “Verse 4 is offered as a contrafactual alternative to verse 3. In verse 3, the writer has presented both high priests, the earthly and the heavenly, each performing his own sacrifice,”

Absolutely not:
a) Grammatically, verse 4 is not a contrafactual alternative to verse 3.
b) 8:3b does not say when or what Jesus in heaven is offering.
I proposed already the author was thinking of “now” time, which is evidenced, and what Jesus would be currently offering is his “excellent ministry” and his service as “the mediator of a better convenant” (8:6).

Cordially, Bernard

TedM

Bernard you just more succinctly summarized (and added to, of course) some of the main points I made in my last rebuttal to Earl here http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....85#post7381085, which he has not yet replied to. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about them.

andrewcriddle

A number of modern scholars do identify the third illuminator in the Apocalypse of Adam with Christ. See for example Hellenization Revisited Similarly Michael Roberge in his introduction to the Paraphrase of Shem (in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures 2007) finds Christian elements in the work.

Whether or not the evidence of Christian elements in these works is convincing, both works are IMO clearly post-Christian (after 100 CE) in anything like their present form.

The Apocryphon of John in its present form is obviously influenced by Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

Kent F

The strength of Doherty's theory is that he uses the textual evidence, what's actually written in the Pauline epistles and in Hebrews, to prove that these writers believed in a spiritual Jesus.

It's not true that no sources of antiquity supports his theory. Hebrews is a source from antiquity, as are the Pauline epistles, and these sources do not support the idea that its authors believed in a Jesus on earth. Adding to it are other sources, such as Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix, all of them early apologists and all of them with rather strange beliefs if they knew of the Jesus story. It's all pointed out in Doherty's book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man and those opposing him should had least have the courtesy to read it!

I've been an atheist for most of my life but I still once believed that Jesus had existed, that he perhaps was just a prophet among many who got elevated to an incredibly high status for some reason. And I sure thought that Paul's Jesus was the same as the one in the NT gospels. Then I came across The Jesus Puzzle and it opened my eyes. It made me re-read the epistles and I 'm since then convinced that Doherty is right. Paul's Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels, he's an entirely spiritual being, as is Jesus of Hebrews.

Anyone coming up with some fancy re-interpretation of early christianity has to address the evidence provided by Doherty. It's no way around it. How could Minucius Felix, an apologist in the 2nd century, write that those who worshipped a crucified criminal were depraved people? How could Athenagoras around the same time claim that a god who assumed flesh was a slave of desire and conclude that ”he is created, he is perishable, with no trace of god in him?" How could Paul, or whatever his real name was, completely ignore Jesus' life on earth in his writings? These sources prove that the Jesus story is a later addition, coinciding with the Roman Church's rise to power. As it is said in Justin Martyr's Dialogue: "And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves."

stephan huller

But that is the problem I have with Doherty's theory. The Marcionites understood Paul to have written the original gospel. There is no getting around this one. The Valentinians probably held the same thing and both groups held Paul to be the awaited Paraclete announced in that text. It would seem to me at least that we are circling around an original paradigm where Paul did indeed write the gospel and to some extent used the text to introduce himself as the one heralded by Jesus - a Christ or 'second Christ' - in a manner followed later by Marcion, Montanus, Mani and Mohammed. Doherty's theory only works if you take the Catholic texts to be authentic and the yardstick by which all other theologies were developed. But that simply isn't true. There were older versions of the gospel and older more original versions of the Pauline epistles and these texts don't seem to agree with Doherty's theory (at least what we know about them).

In order for Doherty to be correct we have to assume that (a) the Catholics are right about Paul and that (b) the Marcionites were wrong about him. Why on earth should anyone accept that hypothesis when everything points to the Marcionites being the earliest authorities on Paul? The reason the rest of us who dissent against the Catholic recension of the epistles can't put forward a 'tout comprendre' with the simplicity of Doherty is because the evidence won't allow us to do so. The more we learn, the more we see there is just so much we don't know - so much we will never know. The Catholic destroyed the Marcionite Bible and establish our present text in order to wipe out the original 'Pauline formula' and to allow Paul to 'come under the tent' of Peter. Doherty's thesis borrows from the falsified texts to argue that Paul didn't know the Jesus of the gospels. But isn't this just a consequence of the de-Marcionitizing of the NT?

aa5874

Athenagoras, Theophilus and Minucius Felix are LATE writers. Their writings CONTRADICT Doherty. They show that LATE writers also did NOT write about the miracles and life of Jesus even though the Jesus story was ALREADY COMPOSED.

Doherty has put forward the notion that Late writers would mention the miracles and Life of Jesus on earth CONTRARY to the Evidence.

It is actually the reverse in the Canon.

All the Non-Pauline Epistles do NOT mention the miracles and Life of Jesus.

All the Epistles that are considered forgeries do NOT mention the miracles and Life of Jesus.

Revelation by John does NOT mention the miracles and Life of Jesus.

In the NT, ALL the Epistles and books supposedly written AFTER the Gospels do NOT mention the miracles and Life of Jesus.

Doherty has NOT ever produced any actual evidence whatsoever that any of the Pauline letters and Hebrews were composed in the 1st century.

We have Apologetic sources that claim Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed and that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John. Essentially Apologetic sources place Paul and the Pauline letters AFTER c 70 CE.

The author of Acts writing AFTER c 70 CE did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters to Churches.

We have Apologetic sources from the 2nd century that did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters and show NO influence whatsoever of the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

We have Non-Apologetic sources in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius that do NOT record any Jesus cult in the 1st century.

Doherty has NO interest in any evidence that contradicts his claims about early Pauline letters including Hebrews.

jakejonesiv

Yes. Earl has become completely dogmatic about this, and anyone who disagrees with him is put on his enemies list. It is very strange.