Peter Kirby

The shoe's on the other foot. You abandoned your centerpiece "No Alternate Versions" argument.

Here's the link for those who weren't here at the time.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Logically, you are right. But in the religious world, and looking at Paul's technics, anything goes, more so with early Christianity a hot commodity, with a lot of competing "apostles" looking for customers. The bigger the claims (the boasting), the more interest generated.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

When I debated him, as I recall, he said Paul had been inspired by authors like Plutarch and Lucian, who wrote after Paul's public life. Yes, it seemed to me Doherty was looking a lot towards the 2nd cent. & possibly beyond for his evidence.
Please note I say all that from memory. I stand to be corrected.

Humm, 1st cent. Alexandrian Gnosticism? I know mostly of Philo's works, not really gnostic, as far as I know. I do not know where Doherty would get that.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Looking at the Gospel of John, which makes the biggest claims in the New Testament, the sky high christology applied to a human Jesus seems to be a bitter pill to swallow for both outsiders and other Christians. See Gregory Riley's Resurrection Reconsidered for the Thomas polemic, the chapter on the Lubavitchers in Price's Deconstructing Jesus, and the anti-society reconstruction of John's community in Malina's Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel on John.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Toto, do you see any difference between gnostic thought and platonic thought?

Bernard Muller

Yes, it is very extreme, but the author(s) thought not only it was OK for its audience, but also advantageous with its sky high christology. So he/they would not have written it that way. One of the main theme of GJohn is to make Jesus the pre-existent Son of God, and very obviously. It represents Pauline/Apollosine Christianity to its fullest, contrary to the Synoptics, which are rather hesitant in that regard. It also tries to solve the problem associated with two Gods, the Father & the Son, which probably was a main reason for rejecting Jesus as the Son in John's community.
Today, there are a fair number of Christians who prefer GJohn to the others, so it cannot be that bad. And GJohn is in the NT, as the "spiritual" gospel. Obviously GJohn was not rejected because of his christology, even if Gnostics liked it the best among the canonicals.
Best regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan

No parallels are needed, Layman. "Ethnic identity" was explained.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Pete, I've done that so many times. It always goes in a circle. You present a bunch of evidence they can't answer, at the end the thread (long long thead) the start saying the same things they said at the first casue they forgot what was said.

Meta, your ideas have been shot, stuffed and mounted here so many times we've run out of wall space for your them.

• It's just incredible to me that you don't see through this guy! That is such an iditoic reponse! Flesh never means natinoality! Get over it! It doesn't! You can't show me a single exampe in Greek or Hebrew lit where flesh means nationality! Ancestor according to the flesh! NO way! that can't be nationality, how ridiculous. You beieve that you beileve anything.

You come in the middle of a thread, you haven't read the claims, you don't know what the discussion is about, but you are certain you have the answer. Why is it I think we are dealing with a Christian here?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

The way I see it, there were numerous savior cults at the time, analogous to many other oppressed and colonialized peoples. During the first and second century these savior cults began a long process of merging and assimilation, conflict and splintering, exchanging ideas and practices, until one managed to suppress the others through the key idea of a fixed church organization based on cell-structures called "Churches" run by a rank system and so on. This superior structure enabled that version to assimilate or stamp out the others. In the process, and afterward, it erected an alternative history in which it traced itself back to a mythical founder who was actually a composite of several figures.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Far from it Vork. But you've answered my question by silence. Just like Doherty, you have no examples. Fine.