Gregg

luvluv, this is another one of those cases where if you'd just read Doherty thoroughly, you'd already know the Jesus-mythicist's answer to your question.

Numerous mystery cults existing at the same time as Christianity believed essentially the same thing Christianity did--that their god had died and risen (some even believed that their god had eaten a sacred meal before his death) and that by believing in the god's death and resurrection, they too could "die" to one life and be born into another, eternal one. (As above, so below.)

Also, in the Hellenistic cosmology of the times, it was believed that heaven had several layers (usually 7). There was the highest heaven, where the pure, holy God dwelled. Then, as you moved downward, the heavens became progressively more "Earth-like." Furthermore, all things on earth had heavenly counterparts.

It was Paul's belief that the Christ, God's emissary, had descended to the very lowest level of heaven and taken on the LIKENESS (not the reality) of flesh. He was not merely another Adam--he was a better Adam, a heavenly Adam, pure and incorruptible, yet like enough to earthly man as to represent a perfect heavenly counterpart to weak, decaying human flesh.

In the lowest heaven, this divine man was put to death by the demon rulers of that dimension, who did not know who he was. He then triumphed over them by "rising from the dead"--gaining control over the demon spirits that harassed and tormented humanity.

I'm sure your first reaction to all this is probably "give me a break!" But the fact is, this is the cosmology thousands of people at that time held, and to them it was perfectly logical and plausible. It's certainly not any weirder than any other belief system, including the version of Christianity we have today.

I wanted to close with a passage from Doherty's site found in the "Top 20" section of the Sound of Silence;
9. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-16

Gregg

Ted Hoffman

That would be all fine, but Paul does not just fail to mention historical details of christs life: He fails to mention them even when its the only way he has of dealing with growing doubts concerning Jesus' life and resurrection.
Even when he is "cornered" he just implores (even threatens) the people of corinth that is they dont beleive, then Jesus did not resurrect.

Paul is not just anybody: Paul is basically the founder of christianity as a movement - he is one of the prominent early christians who beleived in Jesus, but not a historical one.

So in essence, Paul's kerygma does not prove that Jesus did not exist, but proves that being a christian did not entail beleiveing in a historical Jesus - at that early time - when things (historical or otherwise) were clearer.
The corollary of this is that the "Jerusalem Tradition" was made up by others OR that the Galilean Tradition evolved with time.


Huh huh, Robert M Price, Alvar Ellegard etc do not find it ridiculous. And those are people whose views are informed. Our own Richard Carrier, a historian in his own right, thinks Doherty's case is very compelling.

Why dont your "contemporary historians" come out and be known for stating Doherty's arguments are ridiculous - if it is indeed so ridiculous?

You must be joking.

Frankly Luvluv poorly formulated opinion polls are of no probative value as far as examining the merits of Doherty's case is concerned. It doesnt make your case any better to resort to appeal to numbers.
All your seminary friends and faceless historians can be wrong and Doherty right (as Yuri has proclaimed) - but we are only concerned with the arguments put forth - not the size of the crowd that find the argument appealing. So dont shift this to a popularity court. Please.

And where is the evidence that "they spend a considerable amount of time and effort combatting it"? What have they released as a response to the findings of the Jesus Seminar?

My, my, my. Doherty's is not the first book I am reading on this. Check my homepage (to give you an idea how wide my scope is on this subject), Then get the thread titled "Why I am a Jesus Myther" from the archives.

You mean "object"?
You are making a positive claim, it behoves you to provide evidence.

Jayhawker Soule

No, it "is not quite the same" at all. So why do you conflate doubts as to historicity with doubts as to nature, and why do you continue to offer Justin's Dialogue as evidence of the former? I ask primarily because I raised this issue with you months ago. If I was insufficiently clear back then, I want to make sure that I do not make the same mistake here only to find myself repeating the same points in some future exchange.

GreggLD1

And not only that. Everyone seems to overlook the fact that NONE of the epistle writers seem the least bit interested in any details of Jesus' earthly life and ministry. And let's not forget that the apologists don't start referring to the gospels or talking about Jesus as a historical figure until the 2nd century is well underway! It truly staggers the imagination that there could have been such total disinterest among virtually all Christians in the career of the Divine Logos while it was incarnate on earth. It's enough of a stretch to say that Paul regarded this stuff as being of no importance.

Gregg

GreggLD1

Yet you keep posting objections to the Jesus myth theory, and we keep responding with material from Doherty's book or Web site. So again, WHY NOT SAVE TIME and force yourself to read his arguments? You can't really expect the twelve-part introduction to make that much sense until you read the supporting material. It barely summarizes the case. Would you decide the guilt or innocence of an accused person based on his defense lawyer's opening remarks, or even his closing summation? What about all the evidence he presents in between?The vast majority of biologists consider creationism and Intelligent Design ludicrous, but they've still made the effort to respond to these "theories."No matter how damaging the historical Jesus case might be to Christianity, it is still less controversial to hold the view that somebody named Jesus existed. Like any "radical" theory, it's going to take time for the mythicist theory to become "respectable." But the process has already begun.

Why don't you just give Doherty's site a fair reading and reach your OWN conclusions? You could have read half of it in the time you've spent posting objections and responding to our counter-arguments, the bulk of which come straight from Doherty. Wouldn't it be a more efficient use of your time to just go right to the source?

Gregg

Iasion

Greetings ConsequentAtheist

Well,
if you want to argue a phantasm or illusion was historically real, go right ahead


Earl argues originally Iesous Christos was not a physical person, but some sort of non-physical entity who belonged to the higher planes.

I also argue Iesous Christos was not a physical being, but some sort of non-physical or spiritual entity.


There is considerable early support for this position :


Paul wrote of Iesous Christos as a spiritual entity, the first century shows no clear evidence of belief in a physical Iesous Christos.


2 John is evidence of Christians who did not believe in a physical Iesous Christos.


Basilides denied Iesous was physical.


Bardesanes claimed Iesous was a spiritual being.


Marcion denied Iesous was physical or born physically.


The Docetae denied Iesous was a physical being.


Heracleon describes Iesous as descending to the plane just above matter.


Celsus claimed Iesous was a "shadow".


Hilary of Poitiers wrote of those who denied Iesous had been born.


The Constitution of the Holy Apostles refers to those who deny Iesous was born physically.


John Cassian wrote of those who denied Iesous was born physically.


Socrates Scholasticus wrote of several (Photinus, the Samosatan, Mani, Montanus) who had denied the physical subsistence of Iesous.



So, there is considerable evidence that various early Christians and/or pagans did NOT think Iesous Christos was a physical being at all, but a non-physical or spiritual entity.


Yes, there are some differences to be found amongst these denials and doubts - but the central argument is
whether Iesous Christos had been a physical being.


Quentin

Iasion

Greetings Bede,

Eusebius 'the master forger'? Do you have any evidence to back this up given that the CBQ article has been debunked by Layman on these very forums.

Sorry,
that was a cheap shot of mine

I acknowledge that Eusebius has been the target of false allegations about forgery.

Yet he does report some suspect stuff - letter of Abgar, faithful found intact inside animals after being eaten...


Quentin

Toto

Eusebius may have been the target of some false allegations of forgery, but not all have been "debunked" by Layman or anyone else.

I think Bede is referring to this thread about Ken Olson's thesis that Eusebius was the forger of the famous disputed passage in Josephus that refers to Jesus.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=34079

which is a little difficult to follow since it has been reformatted by vBB.

I would not say that Layman debunked Olson, and I gather Olson was not impressed with Layman's arguments. Olson has another article coming out on the question.

Peter Kirby

Well, here is an attempt at a start.

ou - where, when
to - the
kleos - report, glory
ths - the
parousias - presence, arrival, return, assistance, right time
ek - from, since, because of
ths - the
par - beside, according to
autois - these (masc. dat. pl.)
kaloumenhs - to be called
euaggelikhs - gospel
agias - holy
grafhs - writing, scripture (gen.)
exesti - it is allowed, in one's power, possible
soi - you/your
gnwnai - learn
basileu - o king
ean - if (omitted below)
entuxhs - in luck?? (omitted below)

This is very likely wrong:

...where, o king, it is possible for you, being called by the gospel, holy scripture according to these [Christians], to learn the report of the Parousia [Second Coming].

Please point out the errors.

Compare with this translation:

"But after three days he came to life again, and ascended into the heavens, the glory of whose coming thou mayest learn, O king, by the reading of the holy Scripture, which the Christians call the Gospel, shouldst thou meet therewith."

The idea of a "short time" does not seem to be present in the Greek of B&J. But it would be helpful to compare this with the Syriac version of Aristides, if anyone can find it and hunt down someone who knows Syriac!

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Very true, as you point out, I focused on Ken Olson's not-so-infamous Eusebius as forger of the Testimonium theory.


Olson did not let me know whether he was impressed or not. He showed up to respond to my initial post. Thereafter, I posted the piece you linked, which focused on what Olson indicated was the crux of his story: Eusebius' alleged apologetic purpose/motive. Olson, who I am sure is a busy man, did not respond to any of my replies.

I would not say I "debunked" him, since that would be claiming too much. Someone had beat me to it: J. Carleton Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," Journal of Theological Studies, 52.2 (2001).

However, I would say that I articulated the reasons that Olson's theory have been unconvincing to the scholarly community. And no one here, including you, had any informed, substantive responses to those points.

I would be more than happy to revisit this discussion. I know that Peter K. was diverted to other priorities.