Peter Kirby

When did Doherty answer that e-mail you sent grilling him on the particular question?

Oh, that's right, you didn't send one, did you?

Besides, Doherty seems pretty slow responding to my latest (and unrelated) e-mails. But I'll bring it up with him if I have the opportunity. I do see value in the approach you're taking--because Doherty seems to have made a defense not because the words of Paul on the descent of Christ intuitively seem heavenly but because other (allegedly) heavenly beings are (allegedly) described in the same way--and that's too important a point to go without book, chapter, and verse (in the extrabiblical literature).

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Peter,

Feel very free to take up the question with Doherty. It is my understanding that he has little interest in debating with committed theists such as myself.

I suspect if Doherty had specific examples in mind, he would have provided them in his book. Or on his website. But I have been unable to find any such references.

Ted Hoffman

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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".

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).

The son (Christ), to them is a present force, NOT a past personality.

When going through the writings of the apostolic fathers, one sees clearly that Christ was a spiritial being. Alive and always present.
Not one who died and left.

Metacrock

Meta: I didn't abandon it. I felt like my answers to you were sufficient and I moved on to pressing matters, like my dissertation.

Toto

As Doherty said in his response to Carrier:

Comment on Carrier Review

ie - there is more material than he could put into the book.

Metacrock

Meta: ahahaahhahaahahahahah! It's one of the eternal mysteries isn't it? What they see in his scribbaling. like the rising of the tides and changing of the seasons, who knows?



Meta: He seems to be going:

1) Apollos was from Alexandria

2) Therefore he was a Gnostic

3) Apollos wrote Hebrews

4) therefore, Hebrews has Gnostic ideas in it.

Layman

Just judging from my cursory review of the thread, it appears Meta responded specifically with a number of posts, Peter. Is "abandoned" a fair characterization?

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! ;=)

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?

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