Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 08-09-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

There is no historical evidence that Jesus actually was a descendant of David. To prove Jesus was a descendant of David, one would first prove that Jesus existed. Only then can one trace his lineage. What are the historical sources that we can rely on to trace Jesus' lineage?
Jacob

This is besides the initial point. The question for a myther to answer would be:
Could a descendant of David be considered as non-human by Paul, knowing that Paul knew about David & his royal descendants as depicted in the OT (and his audience could too)?

Quote:

If one accepts the story of Jesus but rejects the virgin birth and the resurrection, one would have to explain which methodology they use to separate fact from myth.
Jacob

I do not accept the virgin birth, which comes about many years after Paul's seven letters (the ones Doherty & I consider authentic). But Paul stated three times Jesus had human fathers. I do not care if Jesus is really a descendant of David, Abraham or Israelites. I do not care if David, Abraham or Israelites existed. I care that the descendants of David, Abraham & Israelites are thought (including by Paul) to be comprised of humans and Paul considered David, Abraham & Israelites as humans.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 08-09-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

In any case how could Jesus be "found" in figure as a man - unless he had several forms?
Jacob

Paul thought Jesus has several forms because Jesus is a heavenly being (when not on earth!). For Paul, flesh & blood have no place in heaven, also the place of the future kingdom of God. Actually Paul insisted in 1Corinthians about the two different bodies, earthly and heavenly, flesh & blood and NOT, mortal and immortal.

1Cor15:47-50 Darby
"the first man out of [the] earth, made of dust; the second man [Jesus, my note], out of heaven.
48 Such as he made of dust, such also those made of dust; and such as the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly [ones].
49 And as we have borne the image of the [one] made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly [one].
50 "But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruptibility."

I gather from that people & Jesus, when in heaven/Kingdom, are not flesh & blood. That should provide you with an explanation and some problems, if you entertain a flesh & blood Jesus in heaven. And Jesus, at one point, was flesh & blood, according to "Hebrews" and Paul. Let me remind you:
Hebrews2:14 Darby "Since therefore **the children partake of blood and flesh, he [Jesus, my note] also, in like manner, took part in the same**,"
Romans8:3 Darby "For what the law could not do, in that it was **weak through the flesh**, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of **flesh of sin**, and for sin, has **condemned sin in the flesh**"

Quote:

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.
Jacob

Romans1:2-4 Darby "God's glad tidings,
2 (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings,)
3 concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh,
4 marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord."

The prophecies are related to "God's glad tidings", not as Jesus being "come of David's seed". You need to twist your mind to see otherwise.
Furthermore, Paul's writings are full of "glad tidings" but never again Jesus as David's seed is mentioned. The glad tidings (good news) are about salvation (or anything associated to it), not about Jesus being from David's seed.

Quote:

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

Yes, I am saying that, for the earliest proto-Christians. It is difficult to keep followers hanging around a dead man! The later apostles had to keep on the same path. Maybe "fabricated" is a strong word. Let's say "extrapolated from the scriptures (mostly Psalms & Daniel)" which nicely link a "King (of the Jews)" with "Son of Man", "Christ", "Lord", "at the right end of God", "Son of David" and 'somehow in heaven, and awarded great power'.
All of that is already explained on my site, more so my page HJ-3b, "the beginning of Christianity".

Quote:

There is no reason why the life and death of Jesus should be restricted to a strictly earthly sphere...
Jacob

I see many reasons from Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews', the relevant verses I quoted on this thread earlier on today. Furthermore, Paul is essentially a two worlds kind of guy, earth and heaven. He never related to some mythicist dreamland.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 08-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

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

Vork, from where did you get "the Jerusalem crowd interacted with Jesus in spirit. I suppose from Doherty's book. Can you provide a quote of the passage?
Best regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2003, 06:25 PM

No, from 1 Cor 15. I tend to see the early Jesus movement like the Taipings, where visions from heaven legitimated one in the movement.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
If you're busy and you don't want to talk about it now, you should refrain from feckless gibes.

best,
Peter Kirby

But Pete, If I refrain from feckless gibes I would hardly have anything to say at all!

Metacrock · 08-09-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
It is important to remember that even if Doherty does not provide an example of a mythical being that was believed to have human descent, which he would do purely for the purposes of making Layman happy, it means absolutely nothing with regard to the strength of Dohertys thesis. Failure to obtain such an example cannot weaken his thesis.

Let me tell you why:

1. Because its tangential and therefore not central to his thesis

Meta: Ugh! What a convoluted attempt at reasoning, here and following. Tangential? It's the lynch pen of the whole theory. It blows his whole theory if Paul believed Jesus was flesh and blood! why can't you see that? D's whole theory henges upon what Paul believed, and since the theory is that they didn't believe in a Flesh and blood Jesus, and primarily because of Paul, if Paul did believe that all of Doherty goes out the window!

Quote:

2. There is no historical evidence that Jesus actually was a descendant of David. To prove Jesus was a descendant of David, one would first prove that Jesus existed. Only then can one trace his lineage. What are the historical sources that we can rely on to trace Jesus' lineage?

Meta: There doenst' have to be any evidence fo it! It doesn't matter, all that matters is what Paul believed becasue that is Doherty's agnecy through which the whole fleshly Jesus hoax is initiated. Just take Paul out of the equastion and tell me what's left of Doherty's theory?

And the existence of Jesus as an historical guy has prsumption. We don't have to prove you have to disprove it!

Quote:

Whether or not Paul believed Jesus was a descendant of David is onely useful assuming that Jesus did indeed descend from that lienage. But if Paul was wrong, that further proves he based his belief on a supposed messianic prophecy.

Meta: It doesn't matter if Paul was right or wrong, not in terms of Doherty's theory. All that matters is what he taught, becasue if he didn't teach that Jesus was an airy fairy spirit being, then Doherty's theory goes out the window.

Quote:

So, was Jesus a descendant of David? Which texts talk of Jesus' birth and conception?

Problems in Defining Jesus familial Lineage

1. One would have to first declare the Gosels as ahistoric because they state Jesus was born from divine conception.
But if one accepts virgin births, then one can rely on the gospels. And I doubt anyone here does that (do you Layman and Metacrock?).

Meta: O absolutely!

Quote:

If one does not rely on the Gospels, one would have to go outside the Gospels.
There is no HJ outside the Gospels

.

Meta: O yea...your right, except for all major historians since Josephus, but what do they know? Gandy, Freke and Doherty tell us what to think. Wells? Well, who needs Wells when you have Earl?

Quote:

2. If one accepts the story of Jesus but rejects the virgin birth and the resurrection, one would have to explain which methodology they use to separate fact from myth.

Meta: You know I'm just really really sick of the way you guys argue. If you can't learn proper debate techniques then dont' even try! You are just subsittuing for Doherty's theory your own miconsceptions about Christianity. You can't prove Earl's thesis so you just switch over to your own arguments and then act like if anything against Christianity is proven than Doherty is right! NO! the topic here is Doherty, not your disapoval of my faith!

Quote:

One who accepts the gospel story would also have to explain the parallels one finds when examining the passion narrative and Philo's Against Flaccus and other literary sources. This would involve refuting arguments put forth in Harold Leidners The Fabrication of Christ Myth, and Robert Prices Of Myth and Men among others - not to mention Dohertys book, which to date no one has marshalled enough evidence to challenge it.

Meta: Cake walk! Pleasant day in the country. I could answer that in my sleep. That's not the issue of the thread. The issue here is that Earl doesn't know what he's talking about .Christianity may be wrong, that doesn't meake Earl right.

Quote:

3. One would also have to set straight the synoptic problem and tell us which is the primary source for the gospels. Then determine it's historicity.

4. Either way, the mythicist will laugh all the way.

Now, excuse me while I laugh:

Mwaaahha

hahahahahahahaa

eehehehehehe <wipes away tears>

[/B]

Meta: excuse me while I barph.

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2003, 11:53 PM

Meta, why are you ranting like this? Peter has two websites where you can write whatever criticisms of Doherty you like, in serious format. Only no scholar will do this. In doing so, they would have to seriously examine the complete methodological lack in modern NT studies. But never mind that...

Put all that energy to good use. Write a solid review of Doherty and leave him in flames. I'll even edit the spelling and grammar for you, if you like, since I know those are difficult for you.

Just take Paul out of the equastion and tell me what's left of Doherty's theory?

well....all the other early writings, and many in the second century. Paul is but one facet of Doherty's case.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 08-10-2003, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Peter has two websites where you can write whatever criticisms of Doherty you like, in serious format.

I thought I had no more than one? I think I will be using "Did Jesus Exist?" for all essays on Christian origins, not just proving and disproving a HJ. The title is just a focus and means that nothing is above questioning. I will keep existing essays on ECW for legacy and linking reasons.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 08-10-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Meta, why are you ranting like this? Peter has two websites where you can write whatever criticisms of Doherty you like, in serious format.

Meta: what are you talking about? If the Sec Web isn't the place for a rant, where is? Are you telling me that the Sec web is not the place to argue about Doherty?

I thought that was the general idea about this thread. If this thread is not a place to argue about Doherty, why are so many of you defending him?

My God he's your little sacred cow isn't he?

Quote:

Only no scholar will do this. In doing so, they would have to seriously examine the complete methodological lack in modern NT studies. But never mind that...

Meta: that is so crazy! the whole historical critical method, which all of you are pretending to master is developed and cultivated by those scholars. Now tell me what you know aboutr it? NOthing I venture! I at least have a Masters in it. So don't prtend to tell me about their lack of scholarship. Then to support that quack and prtend that his little idotic theory has any merit and to base that pretense on a half assed version of Biblical scholarship, have you no shame? The reason they don't give him the time of day is because he's not wroth it! His theory is silly, and they know that. To put him in a par with Bill Famer or James Barr or Helmutt Koster is just silliness! You do not know better than the academic authorities. and those of us who have trained under them know that

Quote:

Put all that energy to good use. Write a solid review of Doherty and leave him in flames. I'll even edit the spelling and grammar for you, if you like, since I know those are difficult for you.

Meta: I already linked to my pages on Doxa. Read them! Pete has a fine site. I would be honored if he did put one of my articles up. I do have great respect for his intelligence and knowledge, but he's not the American Academy of Religious Studies.

Just take Paul out of the equastion and tell me what's left of Doherty's theory?

Quote:

well....all the other early writings, and many in the second century. Paul is but one facet of Doherty's case.[/B]

Meta: That's bull and you know it! Without Paul you start the Christian testimony with the canonicals and that means Gospels as earlya s AD 60 with Jesus as a felsh and blood guy. That's only with Paul writting a decade earlier and Doherty prtending that he didn't believe that that he can even pretend that it was second century before it was firmed up.

B. H. Manners · 08-10-2003, 10:05 AM

Metacrock said:

"Meta: that is so crazy! the whole historical critical method, which all of you are pretending to master is developed and cultivated by those scholars. Now tell me what you know aboutr it? NOthing I venture! I at least have a Masters in it. So don't prtend to tell me about their lack of scholarship. Then to support that quack and prtend that his little idotic theory has any merit and to base that pretense on a half assed version of Biblical scholarship, have you no shame? The reason they don't give him the time of day is because he's not wroth it! His theory is silly, and they know that. To put him in a par with Bill Famer or James Barr or Helmutt Koster is just silliness! You do not know better than the academic authorities. and those of us who have trained under them know that"

BH: That is simply not true. J.F. Till only has a B.S. or B.A. in Bible (but did get a Masters in English) and ripped a PhD in Bible all up, forcing him to drop out of the discussion. I have a copy of the discussion sitting on yop of my desk right now.

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

08-09-2003, 06:25 PM	#104
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	No, from 1 Cor 15. I tend to see the early Jesus movement like the Taipings, where visions from heaven legitimated one in the movement. Vorkosigan

08-09-2003, 11:53 PM	#107
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Meta, why are you ranting like this? Peter has two websites where you can write whatever criticisms of Doherty you like, in serious format. Only no scholar will do this. In doing so, they would have to seriously examine the complete methodological lack in modern NT studies. But never mind that... Put all that energy to good use. Write a solid review of Doherty and leave him in flames. I'll even edit the spelling and grammar for you, if you like, since I know those are difficult for you. Just take Paul out of the equastion and tell me what's left of Doherty's theory? well....all the other early writings, and many in the second century. Paul is but one facet of Doherty's case. Vorkosigan

08-10-2003, 10:05 AM	#110
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Metacrock said: "Meta: that is so crazy! the whole historical critical method, which all of you are pretending to master is developed and cultivated by those scholars. Now tell me what you know aboutr it? NOthing I venture! I at least have a Masters in it. So don't prtend to tell me about their lack of scholarship. Then to support that quack and prtend that his little idotic theory has any merit and to base that pretense on a half assed version of Biblical scholarship, have you no shame? The reason they don't give him the time of day is because he's not wroth it! His theory is silly, and they know that. To put him in a par with Bill Famer or James Barr or Helmutt Koster is just silliness! You do not know better than the academic authorities. and those of us who have trained under them know that" BH: That is simply not true. J.F. Till only has a B.S. or B.A. in Bible (but did get a Masters in English) and ripped a PhD in Bible all up, forcing him to drop out of the discussion. I have a copy of the discussion sitting on yop of my desk right now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.