luvluv

Intensity:

Jesus life WAS NOT being questioned in 1 Corinthians 15, his ressurection was, and Paul responded to that in precisely the way one would expect him to respond, by an appeal to everyone who had seen the risen Christ.


What you seem to be missing, and what that quote from Doherty on the relavent passage seems to be missing, is that Paul was only saying that it makes no sense for the Corinthians to be Christians if they don't believe that Christ was actually raised from the dead. It's not a threat, it's an appeal to common sense. He is in essence saying "Look it's fine if you want to doubt the ressurection, but if you do, then why are you Christian?"

And this raises another point: how could anyone doubt that figure in some "seventh heaven" rose from the "dead"? What possible basis could the Corinthians have had in doubting that a mysterious, heavenly figure "rose from the dead"? It would seem to be much more economical to simply doubt that there is a seventh heaven in the first place, but once you admit that what is the sense of disputing what happens in such a place?

It proves no such thing. It only proves that Paul never mentioned any historical details about Christ's life in any document we have. That's it.

I must be joking? Sir, do you really think that if anyone had a compelling case that the historical Jesus did not exist, and could make his case prevail against that of seasoned historians, that this would not dominate the field of Biblical Criticism? If there were anything to Doherty's case at all other than a wealth of unfounded assumptions he would be in the midst of revolutionizing the field right now. Everyone would make it their duty to refute him. I think the lack of a serious critical response is telling.

I was merely responding to someone else's assertion that there has been no exhaustive, scholarly attempt to refute Doherty because the other historians somehow "fear" Doherty.

Are you talking about my friends, or the conservative biblical scholars at large? There have been about a dozen books written refuting the Jesus Seminar. Nearly every apologetic book or revision written since the late 80's has a refutation of their findings in it. I've yet to read an apologetic work that takes more than a paragraph to deal with the issue of the existence of an historical Jesus. And none of these people (among whom are heavy hitters like Metzger, Yamaguchi, Sherwin-White, and others) take the notion very seriously at all.

Your homepage is not in your profile.

History doesn't work that way, sir. Are you seriously going to expect me to prove the existence of every historical figure I ever mention?

You are the one making positive claims about the beliefs of Paul. It is up to you and Doherty to prove your case. The basis of your claim seems to be that the Christians did not believe in an earthly, historical Jesus. That is a positive claim you are making, and that is what I am disputing. I don't think I've mentioned anything (yet) in the positive sense about the existence of Jesus. I've only stated that you cannot make the claim that because Paul did not mention historical details about Jesus Christ that he therefore did not believe he had an earthly existence. You have to prove this is the case.

I am reading Doherty's site, but I'd just like to ask one more thing of everyone: why don't the mentions of Christ death as being the result of crucifixion count as an historical reference? Crucifixion to me is a very historical phenomenon; a peculiar practice of a particular civilization at a particular time. It would be like me saying that Martin Luther King was killed in an electric chair for my sins. That notion would have a very earthly conotation to me. I don't see how anyone who is told that Martin Luther King was electrocuted could ever interpret that to mean that anything but that he was killed by the US government. Similarly, I don't see how anyone who is told that Jesus was crucified would not get the impression that Jesus was killed by the Roman government. That said, it seems like a convert to Christianity would believe that Jesus was actually a person who had been killed UNLESS they were told otherwise simply by virtue of hearing that he was crucified.

I'm sure Doherty has addressed this, I'd just like to skip ahead to where he has addressed this as I'm reading through the website (that was for you, Gregg).

Toto

Perhaps because Paul refers to Christ being crucified by demons, not by the Romans?

Doherty talks about that here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp03.htm

Let's look at 1 Corinthians 2:6-8:
"6 And yet I do speak of a wisdom for those who are mature, not a wisdom of this passing age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. 7 I speak of God's secret wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and predestined by God for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

. . .

There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:8, but over the last century a majority of commentators (see below), some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits. The term aion, "age," or sometimes in the plural "ages," was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history, since the next age was the one after the Parousia when God's Kingdom would be established. One of the governing ideas of the period was that the world to the present point had been under the control of the evil angels and spirit powers, and that the coming of the Kingdom would see their long awaited overthrow. Humanity was engaged in a war against the demons, and one of the strongest appeals of the Hellenistic salvation cults was their promise of divine aid in this war on a personal level.

Thus, "rulers of this age" should not be seen as referring to the current secular authorities who happen to be in power in present political circumstances. Rather, Paul envisions that those in the present age who have controlled the earth and separated it from heaven, the evil angelic powers, are approaching their time of "passing away" (2:6). They did not understand God's purposes, namely their own destruction, when they inadvertently crucified "the Lord of glory."

luvluv

Well, I don't really buy Doherty's explanation of the passages he quotes, but that is not really my point. I think it is entirely plausible to read into the passage a purely sectarian authority (as he admits in the paragraph you failed to cut and paste over here) and it would probably be most accurate to state that he thought the crucifixion of Christ was carried out by people but ENGINERED by demons. This is actually common Christian theology (and not very far from my own beliefs).

But the essential question is not WHO crucified Christ, but why Paul would refer to Jesus as being "crucified" at all? Why would he refer to Jesus being "on a cross"?

Again, it would seem to me that this would simply initiate GREAT confusion among the average convert. The average convert would assume that Jesus was killed by the Roman government. Heavenly beings do not "crucify", only Roman officials do. Saying someone was crucified is not the same as saying someone was "stabbed" or "shot" or "killed" or that "they died"... it is saying they were executed by the Roman government. And I don't think the Roman government made it their practice to execute angelic beings.

If Paul thought that Jesus was not an earthly being, one would think he would go through more effort to explicitly state so since the reference to crucifixion would be VERY confusing to the average Christian.

Final question, do any of the religions who actually explicitly believe that there deities did not have any historical manifestation, ever use crucifixion as the method by which their deity was killed?

Greg2003

It is exactly this short shrift that scholars give to the jesus myth hypothesis that is the reason why Doherty's (and others) treatment of this position is not making the revolutionary impact you claim it should. There, of course, is another possibility. There is no chance that this position will see the light of day in schools that are built around belief in HJ. But in other (more elite mainline theology schools you may not see it because it is assumed by the faculty, taught by the faculty, but not seen as so important from a theological standpoint to make such a big deal out of. That may sound unlikely to you, but for reasons below it is most probable.

At the turn of the first millenium people simply didn't see the universe the way we see it today. The earth was a sphere enveloped in at least 8 other spheres including the spheres of the planets the sun and the moon and the stars. But also there were sphere that were controlled by spiritual beings. To some these were the gods of olympus and the heroes like Hercules and Theseus and Dyonisis. To others, like the Gnostics and St. Paul these realms were ruled by the rulers of this world, the archons, the corrupt demons that rule the currupt world that we live in. This is clearly what Paul was writing about when he talked about the rulers of this world. He clearly believed that Jesus was killed by the rulers of this world. He never attributes the crucifiction to the Romans or the Jews or any other physical people. Please, please, please read Hebrews over and over and reflect upon the vision of the role of Christ that is explaned there. And read Doherty's treatment of it as well. This is not a physical redeemer. This is a purely spiritual redeemer who made himself a little lower than the angels in order to experience the suffering inflicted by the archons upon mankind so that he could return to heaven and be an intercessor between man and god. Once you realize this insight you will realize that christians at that time did not have to believe in an actual physical Jesus in order to believe in his crucifixion.

Please share your comments regarding the book of Hebrews which I find to be perhaps the strangest book in the New Testament (well, OK, next to Revelations)

Greg2003

The Gnostics explicitly believed that Jesus was a spiritual being and so did a lot of christians up throught the third century until they were killed or persecuted into silence by the literalist movement of the Roman Catholic church. Read When Christ Became God. Forgot the authors name. Anyhow, it wouldn't have been confusing to Paul's listeners since they probably held Gnostic like beliefs about the universe.

luvluv

I will Gregg (and I will remind you that I am not a Biblical literalist, and that the book of Hebrews was a disputed work when the Bible was cannonized, so whatever is in there is not likely to convince me one way or the other.)

HOWEVER, I maintain that it makes no sense to refer to Jesus as being crucified if He wasn't a person. I, MYSELF believe that otherworldly spirits (of a kind) manipulate world events, and that these spirits without question had a role, perhaps even a primary role, in Christ's crucifixion. That does not mean I believe he was executed in some heavenly realm.

Pat Roberson and Jerry Fallwell believe that there was some demonic influence involved in the recent terrorist attacks. That does not mean that they believe that the terrorist attacks occured in some angelic, heavenly realm. However, someday a "scholar" of the ilk of Doherty will dig up their writings and claim that they did.

luvluv

It would have confused ANYONE who heard he was crucified. Crucifixion was a symbol of Roman authority, pure and simple. It had as distinctive and unmistakable a connotation as the the term "lynching" had in the old American south.

If you're going to make a good argument for your position, you're going to have to give me a very, very good reason not to assume the term "crucified" is an historical reference to a historical person who was executed by Roman authorities.

And Doherty's passage linked above ain't it.

luvluv

I don't have a Bible with me, but I'm pretty sure that "a little lower than the angels" is a reference to the Davidic Psalm in which the psalter is CLEARLY refering to human kind.

I know some people who go to mainline schools, or who were raised in mainline churches. Those guys tend to be more Jesus Seminar-like in their basic thought. The default position of most mainline seminaries and theologians is NOT that Jesus did not exist, but that the gospels are not accurate.

Layman

I have read Doherty's articles on Hebrews. And I have recently reread Hebrews with his article in mind. Many times actually. And I came away agreeing even more strongly with those who see the focus on Jesus' human self, rather than Doherty's mythical saviour.

Yes, I noticed some Platonic thought. But where as that is all (or most) Doherty is willing to see, I agree with other commentators who recognize that Hebrews is expressing different kinds of thought and recasting them in a very Jewish context which focuses on God's historical intervention in earthly affairs:

Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, at 422.

I also found the way that the author of Hebrews interchanges "Jesus" and "Christ" to be interesting.

As Professor Johnson notes,

Johnson, at 425.


The comparisons between Philo and the author of Hebrews are interesting, but overstated. Philo is much more the Platonist, whereas the author of Hebrews has a much stronger interest in God's active intervention in humanity, most recently by the incarnation of Christ as Jesus.

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, at 707.


Also,

Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1970).


Professor Wilson's caution about reading too much into the similarities with Philo at the expense of other factors is, therefore, well taken; though apparently ignored by Doherty.

R. McL. Wilson, Hebrews, at 27.

Greg2003

I am not so much interested in Platonism as I am in Gnosticism which combines platonic thought with Greek, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, Hebrew, even Hindu and Buddist thought to come up with this idea of spiritual spheres of the universe where the demonic forces rule over the world and Christ's life and death happen in these spiritual realms.

Of course many theologians are going to insist that Paul's epistles and Hebrews are talking about a HJ. But the very fact that they have to make statements like "he had to have a body in order to be a priest" means that they are acknowledging a problem with the books message.

Of course the spiritual realms do not preclude the beings from having bodies. All the gods had bodies even though they weren't human. Jesus walked on water, thru walls, vanished and reappeared miles away instantly, calmed storms and finally flew off into the air. Do humans do any of that?

Besides there were many movements within christianity that clearly believed that Christ was not a human being. Now many of these believed in his historical presence on earth. But the Gnostics did not. It's my position that Gnosticism is an important step in the evolution of Christianity. The HJ belief was only cemented by the Roman Catholic church once the Emperor decided the Rome would be Christian. Then you had a concerted effort by Rome to destroy all other varieties of the faith. But even then, throughout the middle ages you still had some heresies within the church that did not believe in HJ. And these heretics were usually priests and monks. So its not true that the most obvious interpretation of the scriptures is that HJ. Many people early on believed in SJ (Spiritual Jesus). And they were still faithful Christians.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

By the way, why would Jesus even need to be a priest if he is part of the god head? This is exactly what I find so odd about Hebrews. The whole priest in the order of Malchizedek thing is totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the gospel of the Paul or of the Gospels. Where the hell does that come from and why?