Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Toto, do you see any difference between gnostic thought and platonic thought?

Meta: I do! I do! The lattter is less like Chinese philosphy than the former! ahahhahahahaha!

Layman · 08-09-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
Meta: Ah! I see, so we can rest assured can we? What he can't present as evidence to us, even on his website, he has at home in his desk.

So we take on faith that the sacred Doherty can prove all his claims even if we never see the evidence? Blessed are they have have not seen, and yet believe, right?

But you know of course I have all the material to destoy his secret proofs. But I can't show them to you. Reast assumred, however, they are at home in my desk! ;=)

The check's in the mail Meta. Honest.

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Your responses certainly were not sufficient. You never provided a general definition of what makes differences in the story "important" enough to constitute real differences in the way the story is told. Without an attempt at a definition, your argument is barely coherent, let alone logically sound.

best,
Peter Kirby

Meta: Peter if you recall, in a thread previous to that one, I did admit that the argument need re-shaping. I admitted that you had indeed found some weak spots in it and that I would have to get back to you at a latter time.Not content with half a victory, and I dare seeing a good argument had to be nipped in the bud, you continued to press on, even though I told you I didn't have time. I had a big dead like that my committee chairman was nagging me, and Toto I think was bugging about the tomb or something, and I was invoved in a about 20 thread anyway.

I don't know where you guys get your time and energy. I know some of it, for you Pete, no doubt has to do with having greater proficiency, knolwedge, and acuity than I (how old are you anyway? I'm 48 and I'm starting to feel it). But also a lot of it probably has to do with your not writting a dissertaion at the moment.

Be that as it may you will have to content yourself with half a victory. Becasue I think your objections to the argument are wrong, and are largley based upon picking knitts. But I don't have time to deal with it now.

If you are trying to goad me into a big debate on it, I'll have to take a couple of months to prepare and I can't do that until my dissertation is finnished.

If someone wants to pay me to be Metacrock so I can work on it full time, I'm open to negotiations. In the mean time, I'll refine the argument over the next few months and hope to see what you think.

I do appreciate the attention you've given it.

Peter Kirby · 08-09-2003, 12:59 AM

Meta, I will take whatever degree of victory you're giving me, with gratitude for being a gentleman (I mean that). But, any degree, and it contradicts your previous claim that your arguments were unanswerable: "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." To save you time, I cut to what was crucial to an understanding of your argument (and the basis for a logical critique), which concerned the lack of controls due to the absence of any objective general definition that allows you to say that the differences I point out don't count. If you have such a general definition up your sleeve, why haven't we seen it after my persistent inquiries? I could have pressed on other angles, but the incoherency of an argument as it's presented is a pretty important point. Obviously, your description of your debating history on the subject doesn't correspond to the facts of your exchange with me.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 08-09-2003, 01:00 AM

PS- I am 22 and am not goading you into a big argument. My recommendation is that you seek a different approach to showing the historical existence of Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
The belief was not based on facts - it was based on faith of the messianic prophecy having come true. Its only incompatible if you want everything Paul stated to be factual.

Paul stated that Jesus arose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people - is that factual?

Paul, and the faithfuls, never bothered with the nitty-gritty of what was being stated.

In summary, believing that Jesus was descended from King David does not entail that Paul believed Jesus was human. It only confirms Pauls belief in the prophecy having come true. Those who did not see the prophecy to have come true were not in the spirit.

I repeat: believing that Jesus was descended from King David does not entail that Paul believed Jesus was human. It only confirms Pauls belief in the prophecy having come true.

Paul is simply parotting uncritically what was written in the scriptures.

Meta: Assumptions not in evidence! No one would believe that someone had felsh and blood ancestors but was not flesh and blood himself. Just how would that work? the doctor goes to diliver him and an invisible spirit comes out of the womb? What would it mean to say "ancestor" in that context?

Geeeezzzzzzzz.

Hercules, Persius, you can't give me an example of a mythical charactor with moral ancestors who was not himself flesh and blood.

Quote:

Thats another argument. Yours was on "ethnic lineage". And you wanted parallels of mythical beings being born by historical people. As if that can happen.

The FACT that Paul believed that Jesus was a descendant of David does not mean that Paul actually believed that Jesus was human. It only PROVES that Paul believed the prophecy came true. Paul came to know the prophecy came true through revelation. NOT because ANYONE living told him Jesus was human. He did not base his beliefs on the testimony those that could have been eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.

Meta: You are trying to attribute motivations to Paul with no evidence for it, just by assuming what he would think. The Jewish belief was of a flesh and blood Messiah decended from David. For Paul to believe that the prohasy came true would ential believing that Jesus was flesh and blood.

and all of this, this whole debate, stems from D's miscontrual of two or three verses in Paul. This could easily be fixed up if anyone would read my Doherty pages.

Jesus puzzell 1
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Puzzle.html
Jesus Puzzell 2
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Puzzle2.html

This is the Linchpin of Dohertys argument concerning Pauls beliefs and pronouncements. THE SOURCE. Not THE BELIEF.

The source dictates the weight and veracity we can assign to the beliefs.

BM:

The verse you quoted is consistent with the Platonic mindset where saviour figures had to descend to lower layers of the heavens, assume human form, die and resurrect to confer salvation to their people.

What you need to realize is that, per that mindset, Jesus did not have to actually exist on earth to assume a humen form.

In any case how could Jesus be "found" in figure as a man - unless he had several forms? The verse states that it was a "humble" act to lower himself and assume the likeness of men.
That should dispel all these HJ expectations you have. Historical people do not choose take the form of humans. Thats the only form that is possible for them.

Meta: they do if they are the incarnate logos. All of this Doherty stuff is based so much on just ignoring actual Christian belief.

So, you are saying they fabricated the story of his resurrection to keep their jobs?

One thing about the saviour figures is that they almost always died and resurrected - for clear reasons. And this resurrection was restricted to them alone and ordinary folks only arose from the dead on their intervention.

Mea: stop talking like there really are all these figures. they arne'there. Start documeting them with real sources from actual mythogorphers instead of Jesus myther books. Casue they aren't out there!

Quote:

We know people do not rise from the dead (what - from three minutes after death?). These stories are not consistent with human experience but are consistent with human beliefs.
There is no reason why the life and death of Jesus should be restricted to a strictly earthly sphere...except to blend it with the knowledge we get from the gospels.
In which case we would be drawing the target around where the arrow has hit.

Meta: That is a no band width argument (so lame it's not the worth bw to refute). they believed it! don't have to see it for them to believe it!

What rule? Who made the rule?
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity.

Doherty does not do that.

FYI, Doherty DOES allow and support the evolution of the saviour figure.

Quote:

When looking at the Apostolic fathers 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache etc, we see Christ (the son) as an intermediary between humanity and God. In Sheperd, angels and other celestial figures exist and interact with the our world. The use of the word Jesus is also very indicative of the evolution that "the son" underwent.

Its after the Hellenistic influence and specifically materialism that the spiritial figure was euhemerized and christ Logos became Jesus - a saviour figure. But even that was slow to take on.
Very slow actually. But when it did, it almost completely obscured its own "past".

Like the old Doherty bait and switch, you offer a very limited reading list and proclaim victory. Clement 1 speaks of jesus and of Virigin birth! Ignatius speaks of Jesus, all 39 lost Gosples portray Jesus as flesh and blood and living on earth, and most of them are contemporay with or just after canonical Gosples.

Quote:

In fact, Jesus can be compared to Sophia in Sirach and Poverbs when one looks at the early writings concerning Christ.
These early writings contain NO indication of the teachings of Jesus, no mention of his life on earth, no mention of human characteristics. Christ is made up of the communities (what are also called the "body" of christ). [/B]

Meta:Bull! The Sophia stuff is terrbly late, and representes the limited reading list you hope we focus on. But there is an overwhealming amoun of evidence from first two centuries of Jesus believed to be flesh and blood. 39 lost Gosples, all early orthodox epistles from fathers, Clement 1, canonical works, and so on.
Hebrews and Romans!

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2003, 01:06 AM

Quote:

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

Let me know when when you come up with a parallel that actually applies to the situation in question, and why it is important to have one.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
PS- I am 22 and am not goading you into a big argument. My recommendation is that you seek a different approach to showing the historical existence of Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Meta: Just wait til you hit 35! ahah!

Toto · 08-09-2003, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Like on his website?

I haven't found it the easiest one to search, so it's possible I missed the references. Did you find them?

Layman, you've picked up one parenthetical remark that was not central to Doherty's argument. He didn't develop it because he was trying to condense his work. I don't know what he was referring to, which is why I suggested that you email him directly. Or you could just ignore that line and examine the rest of his argument, which doesn't seem to depend on it.

You wouldn't have to debate him. Doherty answers questions, although it seems to take him a while. He does not like to debate the likes of JP Holding, and he found Nomad's aproach insulting. But if you just want to know if he had a specific savior god in mind for that phrase, he would probably tell you, or tell you what he meant.

As for Gnostics-Platonists, Freke and Gandy make a case for some continuity between all those fuzzy thinkers. Gnosticism is not well defined, and may not be a useful category in any case. And it's late and I've spend too much time on this already.

{Which is why I am not going to check that old thread where I recall Meta disappeared after losing badly on every point.}

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Meta, I will take whatever degree of victory you're giving me, with gratitude for being a gentleman (I mean that). But, any degree, and it contradicts your previous claim that your arguments were unanswerable: "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: Pete! I wasn't talking to you personally. Will please just get it through you're head from now on I have the utmost respect for you and never never never meant to put you down! Ok? I really mean it. I do not! And I was speaking generally "You all." in general the sec web denisins, with notable exceptions (present company excepted).

and i do it too I'm sure!

In fact when I say that it really goes for all internet debatersa nd debating. I even wonder if anyone ever reads a thread that is more than 3 pages.

Quote:

To save you time, I cut to what was crucial to an understanding of your argument (and the basis for a logical critique), which concerned the lack of controls due to the absence of any objective general definition that allows you to say that the differences I point out don't count. If you have such a general definition up your sleeve, why haven't we seen it after my persistent inquiries? I could have pressed on other angles, but the incoherency of an argument as it's presented is a pretty important point. Obviously, your description of your debating history on the subject doesn't correspond to the facts of your exchange with me.

best,
Peter Kirby [/B]

Meta: I just simply don't have time to develop it right now. You guys don't remember I have 7 boards of my own, CARM board, a website, and post on about 5 other boards and am writting a dissertation!

I just don't have time to think about it now. But the feed back you've given me is invaluable.

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

08-09-2003, 12:59 AM	#84
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Meta, I will take whatever degree of victory you're giving me, with gratitude for being a gentleman (I mean that). But, any degree, and it contradicts your previous claim that your arguments were unanswerable: "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." To save you time, I cut to what was crucial to an understanding of your argument (and the basis for a logical critique), which concerned the lack of controls due to the absence of any objective general definition that allows you to say that the differences I point out don't count. If you have such a general definition up your sleeve, why haven't we seen it after my persistent inquiries? I could have pressed on other angles, but the incoherency of an argument as it's presented is a pretty important point. Obviously, your description of your debating history on the subject doesn't correspond to the facts of your exchange with me. best, Peter Kirby

08-09-2003, 01:00 AM	#85
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	PS- I am 22 and am not goading you into a big argument. My recommendation is that you seek a different approach to showing the historical existence of Jesus. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.