jdboy

Well of course they believed the words as written in the order that they appear
and they wanted people to believe the order and literalness but is this what the writers of the NT believed? Did Jesus believe that God was a burning bush?

Is Tert. complaining that Paul doesn't believe in the literal word? Was the idea of Saviour of the World and the Logos,in the world before a messiah dying and transfiguring?

aa, you yourself have established that there was no jesus cult in the early 1st ce. Yes the jesus story is easy to understand if you just read the story as it's presented and come to understand the literal word.

EarlDoherty

Mh, I've asked those questions here, and since you promote your theories here it is encumbent on you to answer them here where everyone can see them.

I am asking you to supply evidence of the relevance of Hasmonean/Herodian history to the gospel JC story, not simply to declare it. And as I've outlined several times, your list of so-called parallels is simply not compelling enough. So if that's all you have to offer, and you refuse to answer the problems I raise in you declaring that connection, then we are at an impasse, and I suppose I should go back to ignoring you.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, you brought Antigonus into this thread not me. Post#231. I have twice now, in this thread, given a link to the thread I set up to discuss Hasmonean/Jewish history as it reflects on the gospel JC story. You are welcome to discuss Antigonus on the thread I have set up for that purpose.

Earl, don't try and deflect attention away from your own errors regarding your theories on the gospel JC story.

Ignore my posts by all means - your postings on your theories will continue to receive, from me, my rejection of their imaginative speculation and assumptions.

EarlDoherty

Omigod!!! Shesh, you clearly do not understand the depths of your ignorance about religious belief and divine epiphanies. How many people in how many religions over how many millennia have claimed they "saw" or had an experience of a deity, without that deity having been an incarnation (resurrected or otherwise) in human form on earth??? I cannot believe this!!!

Do we have to go back to Religion 101 to correct your deficiencies? Why are you even here if you have such an abysmal understanding of the basics?

For one thing, did it escape you that Paul, in that verse 8, is talking about a vision he had of Christ, and that he does not differentiate between that vision and the "seeings" of all the rest of the people he enumerates? Are you not aware that virtually the entire body of critical scholarship no longer regards 1 Cor. 15:5-7 as recounting traditional experiences of people who reputedly saw a risen Jesus in the flesh, but that Paul is listing traditions about people who, like himself, had visions of a spiritual Jesus from heaven? Have you never pondered 1 Cor. 9:1, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" as Paul's justification for putting himself in the same rank as the other apostles, who clearly also were apostles because they "saw" Jesus our Lord, not because they were followers of his on earth or because they broke bread with him in human flesh on Easter Sunday.

I guess it's impossible to think that you are aware of a longstanding analysis of the language of those verses in the prestigious Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which you can find in all of my books and website, as follows:

In a comprehensive study of the meaning of ōphthē', a passive aorist (past tense) of the verb horaō, to see, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol.V, p.358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory perception. Rather, it may simply be “an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.” If what we have here is more an experience of Christ’s “presence” than a full-blown hallucinatory vision, this would make it easier to accept that so many individuals and even large groups (such as the “more than 500 brothers” in 1 Corinthians 15:6) could imagine that they had undergone such an experience.[Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.76]

I have also numerous times in numerous places pointed out that an understanding of Paul's language in recounting his gospel in 15:3-4 must take into account that he more than once elsewhere claims that he got this gospel from no human beings, and that it is the product of revelation. Therefore, we are fully entitled to take his "according to the scriptures" as referring to the source of his gospel, and that his Christ "dying for sin" and "rising on the third day" (with being "buried" thrown in for good measure, for reasons I've outlined before) are products of scripture, not of historical experience. Therefore there is no time or place sequence operating between verses 3 and 4, and the visions which follow.

You really do need to go off to a desert cave and ponder what you know nothing about, Shesh. Perhaps you, too, will be visited by visions and revelations of those deficiencies.

P.S. And I will add as a postscript: In view of this analysis of 1 Cor. 15, how can anyone maintain that the Gospels come before the Paulines, or that the Paulines are products of a post-180 period?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Whether you spoke the word "Antigonus" in this particular thread is beside the point, and is a far more obvious "deflection" than my questions. We all know what your theories maintain, and the central position of Antigonus in them. I have asked some very simple questions, and there is no reason why you cannot answer them here:

What would the history of Antigonus himself have had to do with any interests Mark shows in his gospel? The simple fact that he was crucified by the Romans is hardly conclusive, let alone reveals why he would be of interest to Mark. Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans in the period preceding Mark.

Was Antigonus to be viewed as a sacrifice for mankind, or even the Jews, and where can we see any hint of this in Mark's story, or that Mark could have considered him an archetype for his Jesus in that respect?

Did Antigonus preach Cynic-style wisdom teachings? Did he advocate apocalyptic expectations as Mark's Jesus does? Did Antigonus know anything about the Danielic Son of Man who is an essential part of Mark's Jesus character?

Did Antigonus rise from the dead, and if not, why would he be regarded as the archetype of a Savior figure?

All the alleged parallels in the world are of no value if questions like these cannot be answered in your favor. Without such answers, the alleged connection makes no sense. But perhaps you feel you do have some positive answers to my questions. Let's put them under the spotlight here, since you have a very heavy presence on FRDB, not only championing your "terra-firma history" position and Antigonus himself as embodying it, but your constant belittling of my own theories without actually engaging with my arguments.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

But that's the issue is it not Earl - my "belittling" of your theories....requires you to seek to slap down my ideas. Earl, knocking down my position does not in anyway remove the errors of your own theories. It is your errors that have been pointed out on this thread. Deal with your errors rather than seeking to deflect the issue.

Earl, keep in mind that I don't jump when you shout. If you want to engage with me re my chart on Hasmonean/Herodian history - then please do so on the appropriate thread that I have set up.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

Sheshbazzar

I knew you would come up with exactly that explanation Earl.
Your so called 'analysis of 1 Cor. 15' is horse shit.

Yep. 'ol 'Paul' the inveterate liar through and through, claims that he has 'seen' and heard zombie Jesus in a 'vision'.
He does not however, anywhere state or even imply that Cephas, the twelve, or the 500 ever saw Jesus in any similar vision.
This is something you are pulling out of your rectum. The texts nowhere state nor even imply any such thing.

But there is an additional factor here. Who was 'Cephas' to Paul?
Who were 'the twelve'? What 'twelve'? How would 'Paul' know anything about any 'twelve'?
'Paul' only knows of 'Cephas' and of 'the twelve' by way of the Gospels, as 'Cephas' is the name first given to Simon Peter in the Gospel of John (1:42). And the 'twelve' are those first described within the Gospels (Mk 3:14, Matt 10:1-5)

'Paul' constructs his self-serving self-aggrandizing religious lies upon information gleaned from the earlier written Gospels.
Yes, you have already told us that you 'wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven. ... and was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians."
Well that is your religious belief, not ours.

I do not accept your religious claims that 'Paul' or anyone else ever saw or talked with zombie Jesus.
'Paul' got his information for composing his self-serving self-aggrandizing religious lies from earlier writings, the Scriptures and the written Gospels.

'Paul'-as we have him- is a fraud from the 180s CE.

Sheshbazzar

Unlike you I do not have a religion where "'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven .... And " that is exactly what I wish to believe"

You are the one that needs to go out and commune with your zombie Jesus that you 'wish to believe' communicated with 'Paul' and with the entire sect of early Christians."

You believe, then you go have your 'visions' and 'revelations' from your talking zombie Jesus.
But I'm not about to buy what you are selling.

aa5874

I am responding to what you post here.

Now, the author of 1st Clement either believed or wanted people to believe Jesus was on earth.

Essentially, the author of 1st Clement do not support you at all.

The Jesus cult of antiquity did NOT claim their crucified Jesus was never on earth.
Again, your position is wholly erroneous.

The author of the Ignatian Epistles mentioned Paul but still believed or wanted people to believe Jesus was on earth.

The author of 2nd Peter contradicts you. The author of 2nd Peter believed or wanted people to believe Jesus was on earth.

You have NO author or writings of the Jesus cult that corroborates your interpretation


Your reply is contradictory and extremely disturbing.

You are giving people here the impression that you ignore me but that is impossible.

You appear terrified to respond to my post simply because I have exposed your errors.

Your theory is extremely weak and without a shred of corroboration even within the Canon.

It was gMark's story that was the fundamental core of the Jesus cult.

The Jesus story in the short gMark has PRIORITY of the ENTIRE Canon.

Now, Aristides contradicts you.

1. Aristides claimed the Jews killed Jesus.

Aristides Apology 2. Justin Martyr contradicts you. Justin claimed the Jews killed Jesus.

Dialogue with Trypho 3. Hippolytus contradicts you. Hippolytus claimed the Jews killed Jesus.

Hippolytus "Against the Jews[/u] 4. Lucian of Samosata contradicts you. Lucian claimed Christians worshiped a crucified man.

[u]Lucian's Death of Peregrinep/u]5. Origen contradicts you. Origen claimed Jesus lived among the Jews.

Origen's Against Celsus There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus cult Christians believed that the crucified Jesus was never on earth.

EarlDoherty

Would you like to quote 2 Peter's passage where it says that Paul was with the apostles on the holy mount when they had their vision, which is what you claimed? Remember this?:

Now if you want to claim that the "he" doesn't refer back to Paul, but the writer of 2 Peter, then you need to write considerably more clearly. But your alternate contention is also wrong. The writer of 2 Peter is claiming that Peter was with Jesus on the mount. He is misrepresenting himself as Peter, but no scholar regards 2 Peter as genuinely written by the apostle Peter. And I have more than once pointed you to my analysis of 2 Peter which demonstrates that he did NOT seek to have his readers think of Jesus as having been on earth, because he presents no such thing.

And as expected, you have also completely ignored my posting on the Apology of Aristides and simply repeated your quote from it as though nothing has been presented that would disturb your use of it. Of course, I fully anticipated that posting my Appendix on the topic would be a complete waste of time.

And I have fully acknowledged your statement on Ignatius, which has been my own position for years.

Finally, quoting from writers of the late 2nd century and beyond, when the Gospel story has been universally established as representing history, is another example of your detachment from reality and any understanding of what we are debating.

I think these several observations by me (and they are hardly new) on your repetitively bizarre output, aa, is ample evidence to sum up what is the matter with you, and why you need to be ignored. This is a firm pledge by myself that finally, finally, I will follow my own advice. You may continue to sound off from the vantage point of your strange planet and the incomprehensible world you live in, but you will not ever get another response from me. And "terror" has nothing to do with it.

Earl Doherty