Radorth

Doherty's amazing faith and resultant special pleading, part 2

Why is it impossible to accept, and why is it passed off as a "rationalization"? Why should Paul repeat many details of Jesus' earthly life if it was common knowledge? Why can't we just as easily infer the Gospel story was common knowledge from the "silence" of Paul's letters, as infer that there was no HJ?
How does Hebrews make any sense if there was no crucified "Lamb of God'?

How does Doherty get off saying "the Lord's brother" has no special meaning, when it is a clear reference to a particular person and earthly brother? Which interpretion takes the least faith?

Well yes, if we ignore 1 Corinthians

"we preach Christ crucified" 1:23

"I determined to preach nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified" 2:2

"...they would not have crucified the Lord..." 2:8

And then there's Galatians 3:1,


Except the crucifixion and resurrection, both mentioned over and over and on which salvation of the world depends entirely.

It's not effective through "faith in the Gospel," but in Christ. Doherty's cynicism shows up again here. He obviously thinks these guys are just peddling something, for what earthly gain he never tells us, doubtless because there was none.

I thought Mark was anti-Jewish.

You guys are right. I'll never get this.

Rad

Radorth

Apparently Doherty allows that the apostles met on several occasions. Any thoughts on what they talked about? Maybe Paul's latest theory and whether it could be sold to the pessimistic Jewish masses?

It's a fair question, I'm sure you'll all agree.

Rad

Toto

Why don't you email him and ask? "Deliberately lying" implies a lot more than putting an alternative spin on a Bible verse, I hope.

I suspect that Doherty may not have given a specific reference because there are a number of passages in 1 John that would qualify, and 1 John is a very short book.

1 John 3:23 in the NIV reads, in context:

This is ambiguous in English (I don't know if the Greek is also ambiguous, and Doherty was reading it in Greek.)

But there are these:

1 John 4:11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

["he" in this context can only refer back to God, since there is no mention of Jesus.]

If you are going to make this a charge of "deliberately lying" I would tend to distrust your judgement on all other matters. Why bother with such a hostile approach? Don't you think that your own case is strong enough?

Iasion

Greetings all,

Radorth wrote :

How can something be "common knowledge" if no-one shows the slightest knowledge of it?


Because it flies in the face of everything we know about human nature and Christian writings.

Because once the Gospel stores WERE un-arguably "common knowledge", the details about Jesus were repeated endlessly at length, filling many volumes.

By then, the story of Jesus should have been even MORE common knowledge, so why did later Christians endlessly repeat this common knowledge when early Christians did not?

Even modern Christians STILL endlessly repeat the same common knowledge - when the details are commonly known throughout the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD.

The Jesus story is now probably the most well-known story of all time - do Christians now avoid mentioning this common knowledge? Not at all - they repeat the same details over and over every chance they get. So why did early Christians NOT?


Its simply ridiculous to assert they didn't mention it cause everyone knew it - when has there EVER BEEN another case in history when the common knowledge of a group was NEVER mentioned in the writings of that group?


Well no,
you still seem to have not the slightest idea what the MJ case is, Radorth, even after months of debate you show no comprehension of Earl's case.

Paul "preached" - i.e. he ARGUED a religious faith position.

Paul "preached" about Christos crucified - in exactly the same way that Inanna was crucified, in exactly the same way that Attis was cut, in exactly the same way that the Dioscurii died - in spiritual terms, not physical. Paul explicitly says his teaching is about "Christos in you - the Hope of Glory" - a spiritual idea.

I note that you omit just WHO "crucified" the Lord at 2:8 - the spiritual powers of the dimension (plane, world, realm) above this one - you seem to have DELIBERATELY edited that quote so it seems to support your position, when it fact it supports the MJ view - showing your post is blatantly dishonest.


I agree,
and it seems you will not even ever TRY to get it - after all this time you still repeat the same apologist waffle, showing not the slightest understanding of the issues or the background.


You keep waffling about "lying", "making up stories" - which is NOT what Earl or the MJers in general argue. You seem totally incapable of grasping the concept of spiritual allegory, of scriptural midrash, which have been explained to you dozens of times.



Wrong again -
More than one person DID claim the Gospel stories of Jesus were not historical, which you repeatedly ignore -

1 John] shows evidence of Christians who did not believe in a Son. You seem to have never read Earl's page on this issue -
Earl's page on 1 John

2 John shows evidence of Christians who do not believe JC was ever born physically (came in the flesh).

Marcion denied Christ was a physical being.

Minucius Felix denied the incarnation and crucifixion were Christian beliefs.

Tertullian reports (On Baptism, 17) those who believed the crucifixion and incarnation were not real physical events :
"and that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but it was only an appearance, and that lie was not born of Mary, nor of the seed of David."

Celsus explicitly argued the Gospel stories were myths :
Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry later wrote in Against the Christians :
" the evangelists were inventors – not historians ".


Quentin

Gregg

Sorry, my extreme bad. I need to quit writing these posts at midnight without doing my homework first.

I'll reply to the other stuff later...gotta go to work!

Gregg

Radorth

Slightest knowledge?

1 Cor 15:3-7 "For I delivered to you that which I also recieved, that Christ died....that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and he was seen by Cephas and the twelve.....Then last of all he was seen by me."

So Paul was lying then or what? And if he said more, you'd holler "Vouching!" from the rooftops. Isn't that one of the arguments against the veracity of 2nd Peter, that he is vouching in 3 or 4 places? Criminy.

More likely Doherty is stretching the truth around his bogus theory. Doherty mentions this verse but he wants you to put blinders on and see only "according to the scriptures" as some sort of evidence that Paul was just gleaning from the OT. Incredible! He doesn't stop to explain the problematic portions, not for a minute. And of course if WE take something out of context like that, we are summarily accused of lying. Right?

Here's a guy (Paul) who has churches with all kinds of problems and doctrinal questions, writing back to them on precious parchment or having others write because he can't see well, and you want him to chat about what Jesus ate, and talk about a pilgrimage to Calvary which Paul ought to have taken. (A whole thread was done about this)

And what are you doing except what you accuse us so often of , i.e "You don't understand. The verse doesn't really mean what it says."



You mean I don't buy his argument. I know exactly what he is saying, and I know how he ignores and twists the scriptures, and depends on shaky rationale, and assertions from a few fringe "scholars."

What a silly charge. I get accused of it all the time. And if you ever start grasping it, you'll become a Christian in a heartbeat.

Rad

Radorth

Doherty also claims there are irreconcilable differences between Acts and the pastorals. He never tells us what they are of course, and I don't think he even cites a reference. Anyone care to tell us about a couple of these great blunders by the inventors so we can see for ourselves? Or is this just another Doherty doctrine we must take by faith?

Rad

Radorth

Oh yeah I understand the issues and background all right. Any letter, extra-scriptural or Roman reference which mentions things like Pontius Pilate, or Jesus being crucified or being with Jesus just happens to be a forgery, and depending what you are arguing today, all of Paul's letters were forged as well. But it's all "rational" thinking.

Rad

Gregg

An announcement:

I've made the decision to withdraw from these debates about MJ vs. HJ until such time as I'm able to do more research and be more confident of my facts. I am simply making too many basic errors in my posts. There are others here who are much better equipped to argue for the mythicist case than I am, so for the time being I leave it in their capable hands.

Gregg

Vinnie

Watch out for those overlaps