Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 08-08-2003, 04:13 PM

Almost 50 responses and not a single parrallel has been provided.

Anyone want to provide some? One?

Metacrock · 08-08-2003, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
The problem with that is Doherty did not study the sequencing and thinks Paul's Christology was not progressing in those years:
At the times of the meeting in Jerusalem, Paul had not yet embraced tenets like "Son of God", pre-existence or Jesus as the Word. That will come later. And the Jerusalem group needed money. So they were likely to compromise (actually they did), on such claims as Paul having revelation from a Jesus in heaven and having a "gospel" from him.

Meta: But that's just it! That's his typical ignorance of the Jewish thinking. I know from debating him on the old JM list, he knows very little about Jewish thought of that day.

The Jews of Jesus' day did believe Messiah was pre mundane and they called him "son of God." That would not have been a streach for the Jerusalem chruch, and they didn't need to barrow it from the Greek!

Metacrock · 08-08-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Meta - take pity on my poor eyes! please tone down the color of your posts so it doesn't look like you're shouting in blood.

Doherty is not claiming that a spirit had a human ancestor. He is intepreting Paul's words differently from your interpretation.

If you want to argue with that Paul thinks that Jesus had a human ancestor, you have to claim that "stock of David" must be interpreted literally as "descended from David", that the phrase is not a later interpolation, that Paul never spoke metaphorically or obscurely. Can you support all those points?

Meta: 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.

I can't for the life of me see how seemlingly intelligent people dont' see through this guy. Do you want to buy some cornations? I have some land in Florida to seel you, there's a bridge on it, I got it in New York.

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
It's just incredible to me that you don't see through this guy!

Then start a new thread on the conclusive historical evidence for Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 08-08-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I already explained myself on this issue and I rescinded in part (I do not claim to be a Doherty expert and know about all his theories).
My own words: "Yes, Doherty put a lot of things into a single pot, and, by chance, with a Jesus crucified coming from nowhere, give us a Christianity as appearing in Paul's letters! At least, on my website, I explained (with evidence) how all the ingredients, as postulated by Doherty (such as Hellenistic, Jewish, Platonic, Alexandrian) came about, and in which sequence. Doherty is very vague how all of that would have happened, does not give any road maps. ..."
So I was wrong into thinking about the "block". OK!

Meta: Bernard, I'm sorry if this is repiticious, but would you give me the URL to that page of yours?

I've always contended that Doherty is drawing upon Neo-Platonic ideas of the fourth century for his veiw on Platonism. What do you think of that?

Does he have any evidence for the nature of Alexandrian Gnositicism in first century?

He reiles upon Apollos as the author of Hebrews. That's how he gets out of the obvious statment in that book on Jesus as fleshly being. But I contend that there is no evidence for that kind of gnosticism in the first century Aledandria, and that Apollos is not a good candidate for author of Hebrews:

1) he was not a Pauline insider

Apollos was just a rival of the Pauline circle with whom they were on cordial speaking terms, but he was not close enough to Paul to fit the descrition Hebreic author gives of self.

2) Paul only alludes to him once and does not attribute co-founding of any of his own chruches to Apollos

3) No evidence Apollos ever kept in close touch with Timothy.

4) Pricilla makes much better candidate.

Toto · 08-08-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Does he have any evidence for the nature of Alexandrian Gnositicism in first century?

How about Philo.

Bernard Muller · 08-08-2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Paul interacted with Jesus in spirit, in visions from heaven. So did the Jerusalem crowd. That is what I meant. Vorkosigan

OK, but I am not so sure about the Jerusalem crowd.

Quote:

Not the Lubavitchers. Or the Taipings. Or the Mormons. Or the Muslims. Or the Cargo Cults. Or the Scientologists. Or many others. There is no such rule.
Vorkosigan

There are exceptions, but for the Muslims, the Koran was compiled way after the Prophet's death, along with other later sacred books.
The same for Buddha (I do not remember the real name), the sacred books were written afterwards. Actually, I found a lot of common ground between the development of Buddhism and the one of Christianity, and the process applied to the alleged founders (through a quick study on Buddhism's origin, I may add).
And then I did not say HJ had anything to do with the start of Christianity. He triggered it, unintentionally.

Quote:

There's even a chapter on the "riotous diversity" in early Christianity, which Doherty thinks is due to the lack of a single point of origin.
Peter Kirby

I think the point of origin (HJ) was so weak it allows many Christianities to develop very early. The later gospels, with all their flaws & conflicts, did not help. And the big promise, the Kingdom that did not arrive in time, opened a lot of doors also.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I think the point of origin (HJ) was so weak it allows many Christianities to develop very early.

Intuitively, a very weak point of origin would suggest no Christology, or a very weak Christology, not a multiplicity of competing high-falutin Christological interpretations. On the other hand, intuitively, having no reference to a historical human for the facts of the matter would generate a lot of extravagant mystical interpretations. Of course, this is only one consideration.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller · 08-08-2003, 05:06 PM

Metacrock,
Here is my website, which is not a page, but a many pages, almost book length site.
You are right, Apollos' relation with Paul were hot & cold, sometimes accepting Paul's authority, sometimes being his own man, that is the great teacher. But I still think he was behind 'Hebrews', which I explained in a lot of details in my page HJ-3b.

Jesus, a historical reconstruction

Metacrock · 08-08-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Then start a new thread on the conclusive historical evidence for Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

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.

Next week, they espouse with totally certainty all the thing you diprove and knock down the week before. It's the never ending story, and I'm sick of it!

I' m really sick of this whole scene.

I'll be back someday.

In the mean time I'm going to try to get my anti-Doherty pages fixed up better. Look for that in the next few days.

farewell for atleast a day or two. ;-)

then I'll bitch and moan somemore about how sick I am of you guys!!!! ;-)

08-08-2003, 04:13 PM	#51
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	THREAD UPDATE Almost 50 responses and not a single parrallel has been provided. Anyone want to provide some? One?

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

08-08-2003, 05:06 PM	#59
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Metacrock, Here is my website, which is not a page, but a many pages, almost book length site. You are right, Apollos' relation with Paul were hot & cold, sometimes accepting Paul's authority, sometimes being his own man, that is the great teacher. But I still think he was behind 'Hebrews', which I explained in a lot of details in my page HJ-3b. Jesus, a historical reconstruction

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.