Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Does this mean he will respond to BM? Who else is out there? I thought he had already responded to J.P. Holding. And he told me he wouldn't be responding to my articles. Who am I missing?

He will respond to BM (& Carrier) in a month or so. He should be responding to yours a month after responding to BM. This is because he's got a lot on his plate.

On the other hand, I have realized that people like me who have supported Doherty's theory have failed to write favourable reviews of it. That may be why we get only negative rieviews of Doherty's work in sites like Kirby's www.christianorigins.com - a site that is supposed to be neutral. So I think I may also review Doherty's book in some months to come, FWIW.

Layman · 03-10-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

He will respond to BM (& Carrier) in a month or so. He should be responding to yours a month after responding to BM. This is because he's got a lot on his plate.

On the other hand, I have realized that people like me who have supported Doherty's theory have failed to write favourable reviews of it. That may be why we get only negative rieviews of Doherty's work in sites like Kirby's www.christianorigins.com - a site that is supposed to be neutral. So I think I may also review Doherty's book in some months to come, FWIW.

Peter Kirby is well known for his theistic sympathies.

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Peter Kirby is well known for his theistic sympathies.

Huh? Peter, is this true? - because if it is, I am sure several people would want to know.
By "theistic", you mean historicist? Peter is an atheist. What theistic sympathies could he possibly have?

Vorkosigan · 03-10-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Huh? Peter, is this true? - because if it is, I am sure several people would want to know.
By "theistic", you mean historicist? Peter is an atheist. What theistic sympathies could he possibly have?

Layman is being sarcastic. But by the same token you can't write a favorable review of something just to have a few favorable reviews lying around to balance the negative ones. In any case the negative reviews are irrelevant, as they have all been written by people with faith commitments to the opposite position, except for Muller. And the problems with his review are obvious.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2005, 11:17 PM

Andrew,
M. Knibb, translator and commentator of AoI (The Old Testament Pseudiepigrapha), argues that it is possible that the names 'Jesus' and 'Christ' are later additions to the text (p.170).

Dillmann and Charles have critically studied AoI and the Jewish Encyclopaedia states:

Quote:

There are three main features in this book which are paralleled in the Jewish literature: the legend of Isaiah, the Beliar myth, and the idea of the seven heavens. (1) The legend of Isaiah's death under Manasseh, based on II Kings xxi. 16, is attested twice in the Babylonian Talmud and also in the Jerusalem Talmud (in a targum of Isaiah). In the Babylonian Talmud it is further reported that Isaiah took refuge in a cedar-tree and that Manasseh had the cedar sawn in two; this form of the legend may explain why in the Ethiopic Ascension Isaiah is sawn in sunder by means of a "wooden" saw. (2) Beliar is, in post-Biblical times, identified with Satan. He occurs several times in apocryphal books; for example, the Book of Jubilees, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. In Sibyllines iii. 63 he is said to have come from Samaria, which recalls Beliar's association with Balkira the "Samaritan" in causing Isaiah's death. The Beliar myth shows unmistakable traces of the old Babylonian dragon saga, and is probably a Jewish transformation of the latter (see Charles, "The Ascension of Isaiah," pp. lv. et seq.). (3) The story of Isaiah's journey through the seven heavens was doubtlessly influenced by the Enoch legend, and its appearance in the Slavonic Book of Enoch tends to confirm this view. The idea of the seven heavens is well known in Jewish theology; Charles has discussed it at length in his edition of the "Secrets of Enoch." Even in the third century, it is told of the Rabbi Joshua b. Levi that he traveled through heaven and hell (Ab. vi. 2b, ed. Strack). In the "Etudes Evangeliques," pp. 65-96 (Paris, 1903) J. Halévy has treated of the parellels between the martyrdom of Isaiah and temptation of Jesus.

Quote:

IF AoI held that Christ died in human form then this death was almost certainly regarded as occurring on this Earth, which is the only region where by AoI's logic it would be appropriate for Christ to assume human form.

This is not correct. Even Innanna passed earth and was killed below the earth. Humans do not have to assume human form to achieve certain ends (since that is their default form) so your argument presumes a mythical Jesus.

Carrier wrote:

Quote:

Jesus was to descend to the *firmament*, then Sheol, *not* earth. Earth is never mentioned here (the phrase "that world" refers to Sheol, or at most the whole sphere below the moon, not earth specifically--see below). One might say that "technically" Jesus had to pass earth to get to Sheol, but that does not mean he stopped on earth, and it is certainly not said here that he did or was even supposed to--he is told to go to the f. and then Sheol. Period. An exact parallel is found in the Sumerian Inanna tablets: Inanna descends from heaven to the underworld--skipping earth right by. She is incarnated in hell, killed, crucified, raised from the dead (in hell) with the water and food of life after three days, then ascends back to heaven, again skipping earth. This is pretty standard stuff in ancient cosmology and theology.

Andrew wrote:

Quote:

It is formally possible that the original form of AoI (unlike either Paul or the existing form of AoI) regarded Christ's death as not occurring while in human form at all. However, this is not IMO at all likely.

Why is it unlikely?

Layman · 03-10-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Layman is being sarcastic. But by the same token you can't write a favorable review of something just to have a few favorable reviews lying around to balance the negative ones. In any case the negative reviews are irrelevant, as they have all been written by people with faith commitments to the opposite position, except for Muller. And the problems with his review are obvious.

Vorkosigan

Just to be clear, anything written by a person with a faith commitment is irrelevant?

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Layman is being sarcastic. But by the same token you can't write a favorable review of something just to have a few favorable reviews lying around to balance the negative ones. In any case the negative reviews are irrelevant, as they have all been written by people with faith commitments to the opposite position, except for Muller. And the problems with his review are obvious.
Vorkosigan

You are right maybe it is unnecessary to write a positive review to counter the groundless negative reviews. I have personally found it much more rewarding to deal with the challenges rather than painting Doherty's thesis in a favourable light.

I assumed apologists had no glands for sarcasm. I always thought if they did, they wouldn't be able to go to sleep, leave alone live with themselves. Hmmm....I was wrong.

Quote:

Just to be clear, anything written by a person with a faith commitment is irrelevant?

What about people with an anti-faith commitment?

People with "no faith commitment", not anti-faith commitment. Muller was one, but he did a shoddy job. So his critique is worthless even though it was written from an objective platform.

Faith-committed people are by definition, biased: they work to preserve their faith, not to propagate the truth. They are not comitted to facts but to their theological confessions. This invalidates their efforts. But even then, we have given people like you the benefit of doubt and sedately taken apart your reviews.

Killer Mike · 03-11-2005, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

What is Jesus Never Existed? Is that supposed to be a book title?

Forget reviews, Robert Price, who was a New Testament Professor at Drews University, wrote the blurb of The Jesus Puzzle. Richard Carrier's review is as thorough as it gets (Carrier has an M.A. and M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University and has translated works in Ancient Greek).

Thomas L. Thompson[/URL] is a professor. IBE, University of Copenhagen. He got a B.A. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962 and undertook graduate studies in ancient Near East and biblical studies and got a PhD: Temple University in 1976.

He is a professor of Biblical Studies and Religion and professor of Old Testament. He has written a book titled The Messiah Myth and he argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.

Actually GA Wells once wrote a book titled "Did Jesus Exist" in which he argues there was no historical Jesus. He argued Christianity evolved from a non-historical figure. Wells in his most recent book however has changed his opinion and now argues there was an historical Jesus. He bases his opinon largely on the Q document. Im not questioning that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, only the hypothesis there never was an historical Jesus.

Ted Hoffman · 03-11-2005, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Actually GA Wells once wrote a book titled "Did Jesus Exist" in which he argues there was no historical Jesus. He argued Christianity evolved from a non-historical figure. Wells in his most recent book however has changed his opinion and now argues there was an historical Jesus. He bases his opinon largely on the Q document. Im not questioning that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, only the hypothesis there never was an historical Jesus.

I have heard this claim before, but never bothered to inquire. Which book is that? What are the relevant passages?

Vorkosigan · 03-11-2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Just to be clear, anything written by a person with a faith commitment is irrelevant?

So far, all of the reviews of Doherty I've seen, with the exception of Bernard's, appear to be dictated by confessional positions -- to suppress an outbreak of dangerous ideas -- rather than spurred by a genuine interest to interact with material that is challenging and interesting. Mostly they "refute" Doherty by repeating the arguments he has already disposed of, do not appear to understand what he is saying on many points, and because of their historicist assumptions, are unable to identify and exploit the real weaknesses of his position.

That is what I meant by "irrelevant."

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.