Radorth

I'm simply saying that in 67 there were lots of Christians around and there is no time for them to become a notable force if Paul basically invented Jesus.

My other questions remain unanswered.

Rad

Vorkosigan

I'm simply saying that in 67 there were lots of Christians around and there is no time for them to become a notable force if Paul basically invented Jesus.

'Dorth, nobody us saying Paul invented Jesus. People claim the real founder of Christianity -- the religious about Jesus -- was Paul. Different thing altogether.

My other questions remain unanswered.

These:

• If there was no crucified Jesus, what was it they were persecuted for believing in, exactly? What were the apostles talking about, or did they not go around preaching and writing letters? If they did not write the letters claimed, or preach an HJ, what did they preach? Did they write or preach nothing at all? If they did not, how did the myth become so widespread so early? If they did, where is the evidence? Are they myths as well?

They have already been answered, and at length. The apostles were talking about their savior godling, Jesus, who, whatever his origin, had been crucified in either reality or metaphor. Obviously some apostles did not preach an HJ, or there would not be complaints about it in the literature. How did the myth become so widespread so early? What is widespread -- as far as I know it was confined to a few important cities in the Med basin belonging to the Roman Empire. In any case, Christianity probably sprung out of an existing movement, such as the Essenes or the mysterious Theraputae, the latter known to have been spread around the Med. It also piggybacked on extant diaspora Jew communities. So no big deal explaining the "rapid" spread. Not really an issue for anyone on either side of the HJ question. Rapidly spreading movements are not uncommon -- see the Taipings or the Ghost Dance movement, both of which spread themselves rapidly over an area much greater than the Med Basin.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Questioning whether a Christian understands the meaning of non-physical existence is just silly: We believe God exists non-physically and that angels and demons exist on other such planes of existence.
I have read Doherty's five main articles and some of his supplementary ones and I am satisfied I understand what he means by it.
I get your position, I just think it's stupid, and I'm getting rather sick of your assumption that that must be because I don't really get it.

I am not satisfied with is that the idea as Doherty conceives of it has any merit whatsoever. Doherty allows so many things to happen in a "spiritual realm" that it appears identical to the physical realm, save that it is conveniently (from Doherty's point of view) non-physical.
Now, if any statement which can be about the physical realm can also be ascribed to some "spiritual realm" at whim, can we be sure of any history or historical person? Sheesh, maybe all history is bunk and everyone before the rise on modern literal scientific thinking in the 16th century or so meant their statements in a purely spiritual way. Where do you draw the line? Can anything ever count as evidence against Doherty's thesis then? Can there ever be proof of any historical person's physical existence under this model? If something can be interpreted as referring to a spiritual plane no matter what they say then your position is completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

The line has to be drawn somewhere between what statements count as evidence for a historical person and what is allowed to be consigned to a spiritual realm.
I could accept the JM case as perfectly reasonable if the activity in this spiritual realm was limited to basic things like "Jesus our saviour was crucified for our sins" or "his blood was poured out for us". But when writers start talking of Jesus being a human, being a man like Adam was, being a Jew, being descended from David, being God incarnate, having a flesh/physical body, being born of a woman, being born under the Mosaic law, giving teachings, having appeared once and be going to appear a second time, having eaten food, having been betrayed during a night etc. My defintion of reasonable activity is far far exceeded. Any interpretation that does not count these as references to a historical person without having some indisputable reason why not to (ie the author saying "I mean these references in a purely allegorical way as this person was non-historical") is, frankly, very stupid indeed.

And I've yet to see any sign you are able to interpret basic statements at any sort of face value. You, I imagine, would get upset when an inerrantist started doing all sorts of imaginary reconstructions and non-literal readings and anything else they could devise to avoid accepting what the contradictory texts said. And rightly so. So why should you get the priviledge of torturing the texts to fit your preconceived position? Do what you like, but if I don't bother answering in future: That's why.

How about: I don't believe any of these events happened at all, physically or spiritually.
I could be convinced though that the Hercules story is based on a famous historical figure.

I don't think you have anything resembling a valid point here either: I believe that those who believed these things were true believed they happended in the physical world and not a spirtual world at all.
If you want to use them as evidence that detailed events can happen in the spiritual world then you need to show that a significant proportion of those who believed them to be true believed them to be spiritual events and not historical ones. I would be extremely suprised if you could produce more than the tiniest bit of evidence whatsoever for such belief.

None of these parallels as you gave them remotely resemble the level of detail we are given on Jesus' life in this supposed spiritual world either. As I said earlier, if there was just one thing that happened in this spiritual realm like the examples you just gave, I would seriously consider the merit of such an interpretation. But there isn't, so I don't.

Your comments show profound imagination in your assumption that it was standard practice for such myths to be believed to have truly happened on a spiritual plane. Need I point to the way various places around the world were claimed as the birth place of Gods and various other occurances you would claim happened on a "spiritual plane" - or would you prefer to ignore that sort of thing?

GreggLD1

How does one respond to a post like this? First, you have to understand that Tercel is operating from the following assumptions:

1. Paul was a Christian, and since I and my friends are Christians too, our experience of Christ and our response to it is exactly the same as his, and therefore we’re the best qualified to understand how Paul’s mind worked, what he believed, and what his written words mean. ("It's a Christian thing--you wouldn't understand, even if you used to be a Christian, because if you aren't one now you certainly weren't 'really' one then.") We certainly don't have to study neo-Platonism or other pagan philosophies in order to get inside Paul's head; by accepting Jesus and getting the Holy Spirit, it's all been made clear to us. Please pay no mind to the fact that we're still splintered into all these denominations that seem to have gotten different guidance from the H.S. regarding such minor, unimportant details as whether a baptism must be full immersion or if sprinkling is sufficient, or if the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or...

2. People in the 21st century don’t really think all that differently from people in the first century, especially about spiritual beings and spiritual dimensions. The “differences,” if any, are minor and irrelevant.

3. Christianity emerged essentially in a vacuum. Neo-Platonism, ancient myths about dying/rising saviors, the immense popularity of dying/rising savior god cults at the same time Christianity came on the scene, and developing ideas among Greek and Jewish scholar-philosophers connecting the Logos and the Messiah had only a minor influence on Christian theology, if any at all. In fact, the mystery cults probably got their beliefs from Christianity, not vice versa.

4. Christianity must be unique, special, and true, because I believe it firmly and I’m an intelligent, rational person.

5. Furthermore, Christianity’s been around a long time, and many of the nations where Christianity has been the dominant religion for a long time are wealthy and powerful. This is more evidence that Christianity must be true.

6. The fact that the early Christians were willing to suffer martyrdom for their beliefs is also evidence that Jesus really lived on Earth, was crucified, and was resurrected. Nobody would have died for some amorphous, mythical being whose crucifixion, death, and resurrection all took place in some silly heavenly dimension.

Now that we have these assumptions firmly in mind, we can proceed.


The problem is, Tercel, that your comments below clearly demonstrate that you do not "get" it. If you say you understand mathematical principles, but continue to insist that 2+2=5, you are going to flunk your math course.Doherty did not make this stuff up. Don't shoot the messenger. He can't help that people in the first century didn't divide the spiritual and physical realms in the same way that modern people do, or that their picture of the heavenly dimensions wasn't informed by the homogenized, simplistic sentimentalism of, say, "The Family Circus" and "Precious Moments." Or by Jack Chick tracts, for that matter.It ISN'T always clear whether a person being talked about in ancient literature was real or spiritual. The worship of Osiris apparently evolved over the centuries to the point that people believed he had been an actual, important person in Egypt who became a god. However, there's evidence of more primitive, extremely ancient forms of Osiris-worship, so it's more likely that the belief in a physical origin for Osiris was a later development of an increasingly sophisticated religion. Hmmm...fascinating!

But be that as it may, deciding whether someone was historical or mythical (or both) isn't done on "a whim" as you put it. You have to consider the context(s) in which the person is written about, (or what he/she is believed to have written) whether his/her mundane physical existence is attested to anywhere in reliable, independent sources, etc. In Jesus' case, if his life was even remotely like it's described in the Gospels, it doesn't seem unfair to expect, for example, some mention of his earthly mother and father in early Christian correspondence, or some corroboration in Roman writings of a massive and unusual census at the time of Quirinius, some comment from historians of the time regarding the immensely popular and controversial preacher who actually had the nerve to ride a donkey into Jerusalem like a king going to his coronation and then lead his followers to riot in the Temple courtyard, this sort of thing.Problem is, Tercel, your definition of what's "reasonable" doesn't matter a fig, and neither does Doherty's. It's how people in the first century thought that counts. Clearly, people back then believed that anything that could happen on Earth could happen "up there." Their gods--who were just as real to them as yours is to you--could eat, drink and get drunk, defecate, fight, make love, make war, form factions and alliances, plot and scheme, be betrayed (actually, "delivered up" is the more accurate interpretation), get each other and human beings pregnant, feel pain and jealousy, and even get cut, bleed, and die. So, I guess they don't fit your definition of spiritual beings.This is pure ignorance talking. How much do you really know about the myths of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Innana, and other dying/rising saviors? The brief summaries given barely scratch the surface. When you actually READ about these myths, it's obvious that they are about higher beings--higher beings who nevertheless are capable of being very human.

And how much "detail" about Jesus' life do we really get from the NT letters and epistles? "Born of a woman" "born under the Law" "found in human 'form'" "crucified" or "hung on a tree" eating a sacred meal, suffering, "offered up" or "delivered up" being raised, appearing in visions, etc. There is little here that isn't found in other myths, many of them more ancient than Christianity.

And while I'm unaware of the NT letter or epistle that talks about Jesus giving teachings, your implication--that a spiritual being can't give teachings--is mind-boggling. So much for thousands of ancient myths of gods instructing humankind in the ways of nature, language, morals, the arts, law, government, technology, and so on. So much for praying to God for guidance! And it must have been a physical person who gave Moses those stone tablets. I would think YOU would prefer to ignore that sort of thing, since it rather convincingly demonstrates that Christianity is not unique at all. But leaving that aside, it's a much bigger stretch to imagine that NONE of these mythical events were believed to have happened in the primordial past or in a spiritual dimension. Since we know lots of people believed in this sort of thing--the neo-Platonist worldview and what have you--it would be strange if at least some of them didn't actually APPLY it to their theology. We know that the Greeks, for example, around this time had recast many of their ancient stories of very humanlike gods interacting directly with humankind in more spiritual, metaphysical terms. Probably most of the savior god cults had done the same thing, updating their ancient beliefs and theologies to reflect contemporary Greek metaphysics. It's important not to underestimate the degree of influence Hellenism and Hellenistic philosophy/cosmology had in the first century world. If Jews could be influenced by it, so could everyone else.

Gregg

Buffman

GreggLD1

EXCELLENT!

I wonder what eqivocation/rationalization he would attempt for the stories offered here:

http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm

I wonder if he even knows which books are accepted as divinely inspired by the other major Christian Sects.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

Tercel

It's a list of books not in the Protestant Canon: So? Am I supposed to discuss all 60 articles linked to from that page in detail? (Guess what: I'm not going to) I might discuss one with you if you want to start and new thread.

Yes.

I read it a while back and found little to commend it.


[Post edited to remove less nice pieces in light of Peter's remarks]

Peter Kirby

Gregg, Buffman, Tercel - please avoid personal attacks. As a moderator, I would prefer that discussion sticks to the issues and does not involve any attacks on a person's background or motives, such as the idea that a person is beholden to Jack Chick tracts or that a person is posting just to be a smart ass. This particular forum is not the place for belittling another person's ideology or mythology, nor for making assumptions that misrepresent another person. Thank you.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

Or because as the skeptic Durant said, your counter evidence is best described as minutiae.

Doherty reminds me of a guy trying to bring down a bull elephant with 500 pin pricks.

He also selectively tortures the scripture to the point were 90% of Christians appear rational and intelligent in comparison. It only takes one single scripture to bring him down with his bogus theory, and we've seen ten or more.

Rad

Iasion

Greetings all,

My apologies to Tercel and the group.
My last post was a little rude, in hindsight.
Readers mjay have noticed that my comments Tercel responded to are no longer present (it appears Tercel took some time to respond, and our posts overlapped).

Quentin

Tercel

GreggLD1,
Your assertions about my "assumptions" are amusing. But the poisoning the well is not really appreciated.

I note you don't say here that there was evidence that this more primitive, extremely ancient form of Osiris-worship was purely spiritual in nature. Was that an oversight, or do you expect me to assume that since it was ancient and primitive it must have been a spiritual belief?
Tell me: At the time of Christianity's appearance does the evidence suggest that a historical Osiris or a spiritual Osiris was more commonly believed?