Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 05-18-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.691-6

Appendix 11
The Curious Case of the Apology of Aristides
__________________________________________________ ______

A minor apologetic work, usually dated to around 140 CE, is claimed as one for the historicist side of the ledger, an Apology which clearly puts forward an historical Jesus and Gospel traditions. It was thought to be lost until the late 19th century, when it was discovered in a Syriac version in a Mt. Sinai convent by J. Rendel Harris. At that point, it was realized that there was an extant form of it within a popular medieval romance called The Life of Barlaam and Josephat, originally written in Greek. There are some differences between the two, perhaps partly because that existing Greek version is an adaptation within a Christianized story of the Buddha set in India.

An Apology directed at a Roman emperor, the original document is regarded as having been in Greek. Eusebius records a tradition that it was delivered to Hadrian when he was in Athens in 125, but the recovered Syriac text addresses Antoninus Pius who ruled from 138 to 161. Harris dated it early in Pius’ reign (138-161). The Syriac version is almost certainly derived from an original Greek. However, since the surviving Greek version exists within a story written late in the 8th century while the Syriac manuscript is dated to the 7th century, we do not have any early witness to the original content of the document. Nor can the recovered Syriac version be said to be derived from the surviving Greek version; thus, the literary history and relationship between the two will inevitably be obscure. But the principal differences between them relate to the passages which refer to Jesus and the Gospel events, and when carefully considered, they arouse suspicion. There have been few studies of the Apology of Aristides, but none I am aware of have raised the present question.

This Apology possesses much of the same character as others just examined. It is primarily a defense of Christian faith and morality, prefaced by a detailed condemnation of pagan beliefs in their gods, along with milder criticism of the shortcomings of the Jews. In both of its versions, the remarks referring to Jesus and the Gospel events are found in a single passage, but of different length and content and in a different position in the work.

While we can presume that the Syriac version is derivative of a Greek one, the former conveys a greater sense of integrity, probably because of the latter’s adaptation to a fictional story. So the Syriac will be examined first to see what impression it conveys. Its Jesus paragraph is quite short, occurring in chapter 2, where in the Greek there is no corresponding passage about Jesus. If we set that paragraph aside for the moment, the remainder of the apology does quite nicely without it, especially in regard to its other statements about the Christians.

Here is what this remainder has to say. In chapter 15, following on its treatment of the pagans and the Jews, the Syriac version passes to detailing a picture of the Christians. It begins:

But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. For they know and trust in God, the Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from whom are all things, to whom there is no other god as companion, from whom they received commandments which they engraved upon their minds and observe in hope and expectation of the world which is to come.

From there, Aristides goes on to detail the estimable morality of the Christians. The tone and content of this passage has much in common with other apologies outside of Justin; in other words, in laying out Christian “truth” in comparison with the religious beliefs of the pagans there is a predominant focus on God himself, creator and source of commandments, but no mention of Jesus, and here not even of a Son. The very declaration that “they went about and made search” implies a source of “the truth” quite different from hearing and inheriting the teaching of an historical founder (an identical statement was encountered in Theophilus); rather, what it suggests is an intellectual undertaking. It is strongly reminiscent of the ‘philosophical investigation’ motif expressed by Justin in the account of his conversion (Trypho, ch.1-8) and by Minucius Felix (ch.17-20), while others such as Athenagoras appeal to the prophets (not to Jesus) as supporting their philosophical reasonings. In fact, the language recalls that of those several apologists who, scholars have alleged, are deliberately indulging in euphemism and subterfuge to avoid making direct reference to Jesus when describing the background and sources of Christian doctrine and teaching—which in this document would make no sense, since in its chapter 2 passage it would seem to have referred to Jesus without qualm or misrepresentation.

The Syriac goes on in chapter 15 to detail the practices of the Christians, and here we find two mentions of a “Messiah”:

And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them provide for his needs…

They observe the precepts of their Messiah with much care, living justly and soberly as the Lord their God commanded them.

The phrase “on account of the name of their Messiah” is reminiscent of Q’s reference to persecution “because of the name of the Son of Man” which there referred to a heavenly figure the kingdom sect was preaching. Similarly, there is here in Aristides no evident thought of this Messiah having been on earth. What his “precepts” are is unclear, especially since in the same breath the writer refers to living by the commandments of God. In the next chapter, we find this:

And they strive to be righteous as those who expect to behold their Messiah, and to receive from him with great glory the promises made concerning them.

Again, reminiscent of the expectation of the future arrival of Christ in the epistles, there is no suggestion that this Messiah had already been on earth. When the author speaks of the writings of the Christians, they are not described as “gospels,” nor is their content said to include the life of the Messiah himself.

Throughout the work, there are a number of curious statements which, like statements by Minucius Felix and others, cast aspersions on pagan beliefs about their gods that are similar to beliefs we should expect to find among Christians:

It is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated… [ch.9]
But that a god should…die by violence is impossible. [ch.11]
And how, pray, is he a god who does not save himself? [ch.12]

As in the others, this writer offers no qualification to these statements, no saving exception for any applications in a Christian context.

We must return to chapter 2 to address the Syriac text’s sole reference to Gospel-like content:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them….And this Jesus had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he was himself pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven….

Any suggestion of this background is notably lacking in the rest of the Syriac version. It has the air of an insertion, creating an atmosphere of incompatibility with the rest of the text. We could make a comparison of sorts in regard to the Shorter and Longer Recensions of the Ignatian letters, where in the latter we find solid blocks of Gospel summation and other Christian tradition inserted into the body of the originals, clearly meant to fill in the near-void on Gospel details which the originals show.

When we turn to the Greek version of the Apology of Aristides, we find that, with the exception of the occasional paragraph, it contains more or less the same material as the Syriac regarding the pagans and their gods. At the beginning of chapter 15, we find a Jesus passage corresponding (though not identical) to the one in chapter 2 of the Syriac, and this is prefaced by an enlargement on the passage about the Jews in which they are condemned for their rejection and killing of the Son of God who had come to earth, an idea not found in the Syriac.

When we look at the rest of the Greek version in regard to its presentation of Christian faith and morality, we find the same tone and content as the Syriac outside its Jesus passage: a focus on God and no appeal to Gospel data. Unlike the Syriac, there is in the later part of the Greek chapter 15 a Logos-like reference, but unassociated with the Jesus of the preceding ‘Gospel’ passage:

For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit; and beside him they worship no other God.

Here the Son is presented in Logos fashion, an agent of creation, with no identification with a human man; it seems divorced from the earlier passage outlining the Gospel Jesus. As such it resembles the Logos descriptions of most of the other apologists. It is even implied that the Son is not worshiped. Similar to the Syriac, the text speaks of “the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ himself graven upon their hearts,” and of those who “are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Christ.” But this could be referring to a heavenly Christ. In saying that Christians “look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life in the world to come” there is no reference to Christ’s own resurrection; and indeed, outside of the respective Jesus passages, there is in either version no suggestion of any incarnation or atoning death on the part of a deity as the means of salvation.

An indicator in the Syriac’s Jesus passage suggests that it has been derived from its Greek counterpart (see Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.10, p.265, n.1). But the Syriac’s lack of the passage critical of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus suggests that the latter in the Greek is an addition to it after the Syriac translation split off on its own line. This would lend support to a proposal I will offer that the basic Jesus passage was an addition as well, made earlier in time. In both versions, that passage fails to be integrated into the larger text; it differs markedly in tone and content, whereas without it the Apology shares the same atmosphere and lack of an historical Jesus with almost all of the other 2nd century apologists we have been examining. Moreover, the two respective Jesus passages appear in very different places in the two texts, whereas, with the exception of a short paragraph about the origin of the Jews which the Syriac also places in chapter 2 with its Jesus passage, the rest of the two texts follow the same order in their material. This situation is a dead giveaway that the paragraph on the Gospel Jesus was an interpolated floater, added to the original texts at different points in time but not establishing a firm or common placement.

In the larger context of the documentary record as a whole, the Jesus passage in the Apology of Aristides fits the widespread practice of inserting Gospel and historical Jesus traditions into documents where they are missing, from Josephus to the letters of Ignatius to the imaginative creation of 3 Corinthians. We are fortunate that such imaginative practices did not extend to padding more of the earlier documents with Gospel material.

With the discrediting of the Apology of Aristides as a reliable 2nd century witness to an historical Jesus, we have before us virtually the entire apologetic literature up to 180 CE—Justin being the notable exception—which presents a defense of the Christian faith entirely lacking in an historical Jesus, as well as in an incarnation and atoning death for the entity known as the Son. Aristides is a particularly significant loss, given its relatively early date. If the original epistles of Ignatius are in fact forgeries, perhaps to be dated in the 120s or even 130s (I have argued against them being feasibly any later than that), we have been steadily losing any clear witness to the Gospels being known and regarded as history in the wider Christian world before almost the middle of the 2nd century....

(To get the fullest understanding of this analysis, one ought to have read the earlier chapter on "Jesus in the Christian Apologists of the Second Century" to compare the content of the latter with Aristides.)

It is evident from this examination that the "cultic heavenly Christ" layer is not dependent on any Gospel precedent, showing no knowledge of any such thing, and that the sole Gospel paragraph (with some extra material on the Jews inserted just before it in the Greek version), must be a later layer of development. There is no way that this document can reflect a movement which began with a knowledge of that gospel-like content in the one paragraph and then moved on to add the later "high christology" seen in the rest of the document while making no reference or allowance whatever for that gospel-like precedent. I challenge anyone to provide an analysis of this apology which could argue the reverse of the sequence I have presented.

Moreover, there are parallels in other documents. The Ascension of Isaiah is a good example, where chapters 9 and 10 present the descent of the Son and his hanging on a tree by "the god of that world" (referring to Satan) in the firmament, with no reference at all to the Son incarnating to earth or doing anything there. When we get to chapter 11 with its obvious interpolation, we have not only a primitive gospel story reflected nowhere else (and with no reference to Pilate, by the way), we can see that it has been put together by recasting elements of the heavenly scenes that came earlier.

Another parallel can be seen in the Johannine literature. Scholarship has recently been in the process of abandoning the flawed position that the Gospel of John preceded the epistles of John and reversing the order, a case for which I have long made in books and website. (See Appendix 5: "The Gospel Chicken or the Epistolary Egg?" in JNGNM.) The epistles clearly came first and bear no sign of a gospel story; they reflect the larger movement of faith in a spiritual Son, though with their own unique features, and quite distinct from anything Pauline, of whom they show no knowledge. The Gospel written some time later, borrowing also from the Synoptics, is an advance over the epistles, creating a human rendition of the spiritual Son of the epistles who also 'solves' many of the problems raised in the epistles. The reversal of such a sequence is impossible. The Johannine epistles can be reasonably dated to the last decade or so of the first century. They also reflect what looks to be an early dispute over whether the spiritual Christ had been to earth, had taken on human flesh (4:1-4). That would hardly post-date the Gospel.

It is studies of texts like these which unmistakeably places the cult of the heavenly Son, which includes Paul, prior to any development of the Gospel story begun in Mark (which is not to say there was not some overlap, of course). With that widespread faith movement present in the period before Mark and the other Gospels were written, we have every reason to regard Mark's story of an earthly crucifixion and rising as quite possibly an allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth during an exercise in syncretism. No one is saying it can be proven. But it makes far more sense than alternate suggestions of a different source.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar · 05-18-2013, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Jesus also taught that the dead don't pop out of their graves and get married on earth. The dead rise as angels in heaven.
The question is did the writers of these text believe that Jesus came down to planet earth.

How could Jesus teach such a thing when according to Doherty Jesus was never on earth? Where is your source?

You really do not understand what Doherty is arguing.

You don't seem to understand that Doherty has relied on the Pauline letters for his "never on earth heavenly crucified Jesus" even though he admits and argues that the Pauline Corpus has been corrupted.

Doherty places Paul before the Jesus story was known although the very same Pauline writings stated Paul PERSECUTED those who believed the Faith and that he was LAST after 500 people to see the resurrected Jesus.

Doherty's "never on earth heavenly crucified Jesus" is completely invented and without corroboration within the NT.

Apologetic Writers of antiquity that mentioned the Pauline letters also claimed Jesus was on earth, was baptized by John, did miracles and was crucified After a trial with the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Once you become familiar with NT Canon and writings of antiquity you will be able to see quite easily that Doherty's claim about the "never on earth heavenly crucified Jesus" is hopelessly confused in chronology and undocumented.

Not even the Church knew when Paul lived and what he wrote.

What are you saying? You think that a story of jesus teaching could only be on planet earth?
Jesus teaching is a story set in a sub lunar that contains an earth. It's a fiction
an allegory the writer can put his character anywhere he needs to in telling the story. The people hearing the story from someone reading the story might believe that it happened on planet earth but not those that were on the wise
those that understood allegory

Yes they used the word earth man etc but what did the writers understand these words to mean? Did they mean planet earth or an earth in a heavenly sphere where God exercises his will

The Bible writers created their fictional heavenly earth. They included people and places known on planet earth. Are you saying the writers could not do this?

I agree that this NT is not known till the 2nd ce but so what Earl is not claiming the story is history. Is he?

How 'bout that. jdboy is getting Earl's 'message', and the essence of it is as I noted;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outhouse

Quote:

1 Thessalonians

2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

How were these murderous Jews that killed Jesus celestial Jews?

Must have also been 'celestial' Jewish prophets that these celestial Jews killed.

And 'Paul' must have been 'celestial' too as he was being persecuted by these 'celestial' Jews

'That's it! None of the NT happened on earth! Everyone in the texts was 'celestial'! and it all happened in heaven!
Jesus wasn't crucified on earth, and the Apostles and Paul were all 'celestial' and never preached on earth!
Wow! all textual and historical problems are forever solved with Earl's fits-all 'celestial answer for everything.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

First of all, Paul introduces that passage with a phrase which you yourself have quoted above: "For I received from the Lord..." Paul is directly telling us that he got this information, this scene of the Lord's words at what he calls The Lord's Supper," FROM THE LORD HIMSELF!
Where is his source in the Gospel story of Mark, where in the oral tradition of reputed historical events?

You scoff: "...unless you wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven."

Well, that is exactly what I wish to believe, not from a "dead Jesus" in the sense of one who had been on earth, but from a Jesus who resided in heaven, died and rose there, and was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians.

Congratulations Earl. Looks like have landed yourself another 'believer' and acolyte for your weird 'I believe Jesus communicated from heaven' cult .

.

Sheshbazzar · 05-18-2013, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

Nothing that Shesh has demonstrated to exclude the Paulines from that earlier period.

And nothing that Earl has constructed out of all of his 'possibly's', is any evidence that the Paulines existed in that earlier period.
He employs volumes of words as a smokescreen to disguise that simple fact.

Quote:

And despite my entreaties he still provides no feasible explanation for why the Paulines could have been written so late (180) and yet show zero Gospel content or even presentation of an historical Jesus.

I have made my views on the origins of the Pauline epistles clear in many posts in this forum, and even in this thread (see post #174) and have argued for those views with aa for pages in multiple threads, as anyone acquainted with my views can attest.

Quote:

3. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

5. and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Where Earl ?

Quote:

6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

Where Earl ?

Quote:

7. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

Where Earl ?

Quote:

8. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Where Earl ?

Adam · 05-18-2013, 11:40 PM

From where come the quotes in #272?

Sheshbazzar · 05-18-2013, 11:48 PM

From posts in this thread. Everyone is identified.
Type any distinctive phrase in the 'search' bar and it will take you to the exact post.

(I post the actual quotations, not long sequences of post numbers as has been your custom.
most readers rather simply read text and follow discussion than search out multiple old posts.)

maryhelena · 05-19-2013, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

With that widespread faith movement present in the period before Mark and the other Gospels were written, we have every reason to regard Mark's story of an earthly crucifixion and rising as quite possibly an allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth during an exercise in syncretism. No one is saying it can be proven. But it makes far more sense than alternate suggestions of a different source.

Earl Doherty

Earl, the gospel JC story has no need for the Pauline writing. The Markan JC is not an "allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth". You admitted such in a previous quote.

Quote:

Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....69#post7358669

"Suspect", "No one is saying it can be proven ". Speculation and assumption. Pure imagination. And you want NT scholars to take all this imaginative story telling seriously?

Earl, interpretations of the NT are a dime a dozen. It's a game of a pseudo-lottery in which no one has any chance of winning. Interpretations are the road to delusion and dogmaticism i.e. to fundamentalism. Your theory (and your approach to marketing that theory) is a prime example of such dangers.

aa5874 · 05-19-2013, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...... If you are so convinced my book is horse-shit, it must be because you have a shit-load of counter-arguments and means of discrediting it yourself. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your dismissal of it. If you are convinced that "real scholars" can thoroughly discredit me, I guess that means you consider yourself anything but a real scholar. So why are you pontificating against me?

I'm a patient man. Why don't you tackle my book chapter by chapter? Pick the most egregiously horse-shitty aspect of each one and debunk it. But you'll have to do it with more substance and understanding of my arguments than you have shown to date.....

One does not have to be a scholar to expose your errors. There are Apologetic writers of antiquity that completely contradict you.

All Apologetic writers of the Jesus cult who used the Pauline writings or mentioned Paul and made reference to the existence of Jesus show that the Jesus cult of antiquity did believe Jesus was on earth and was delivered up by the Jews to be killed or that the Jews caused the death of Jesus.

Let us first examine the Canon of the Jesus cult.

1. The author of Acts mentioned PAUL and claimed the Jews crucified Jesus.

Acts 2:36 KJV

Quote:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified , both Lord and Christ.

2. The author of 2nd Peter mentioned Paul and claimed he was with Jesus on the mount.

2 Peter 1

Quote:

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased . 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy mount.

Now, let us examine Apologetic Jesus cult writers.

The supposed 1st writer to mention that Paul wrote Epistles wrote about the story of Jesus in the time of Paul.

1st Clement

Quote:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God.

Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand............................On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

2. Ignatius' Ephesians 12-18

Quote:

You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul.............For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

3. In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" it is claimed Paul knew of no other Jesus but the one who was born, crucified, died and resurrected.

"Against Heresies" 3.16

Quote:

..... He was likewise preached by Paul: "For I delivered," he says, "unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures."(9) It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and whom he speaks of as man.

Doherty's claims that the Jesus cult of Christians did believe in a "never on earth crucified Jesus" is without corroboration--without evidence--contradicted by ALL known Apologetic WRITERS of antiquity that mentioned Paul and Jesus.

The evidence from antiquity is extremely clear---the Jesus cult of Christians did believe Jesus was born of a woman and the Holy Ghost, was baptized was crucified, buried and resurrected on earth.

Doherty does not seem to understand what the early Jesus cult believed--- The Jews murdered Jesus Christ the Son of God.

People who "murdered" the truth wanted to acquit the Jews of murdering their God and Christ.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing among us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also.

And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom. O you most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God!.....

The Jesus story is rather easy to understand--The Jews murdered or caused Jesus Christ to be murdered.

It is wholly erroneous that Jesus cult Christians believed that their Jesus was never on earth and was crucified in some kind of heaven.

EarlDoherty · 05-19-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

With that widespread faith movement present in the period before Mark and the other Gospels were written, we have every reason to regard Mark's story of an earthly crucifixion and rising as quite possibly an allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth during an exercise in syncretism. No one is saying it can be proven. But it makes far more sense than alternate suggestions of a different source.

Earl Doherty

Earl, the gospel JC story has no need for the Pauline writing. The Markan JC is not an "allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth". You admitted such in a previous quote.

Quote:

Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....69#post7358669

"Suspect", "No one is saying it can be proven ". Speculation and assumption. Pure imagination. And you want NT scholars to take all this imaginative story telling seriously?

Earl, interpretations of the NT are a dime a dozen. It's a game of a pseudo-lottery in which no one has any chance of winning. Interpretations are the road to delusion and dogmaticism i.e. to fundamentalism. Your theory (and your approach to marketing that theory) is a prime example of such dangers.

But mh, what makes your own theories about Antigonus any less of a dime-a-dozen interpretation of the NT than mine? And I have demonstrated that I have a lot more basis for mine in the actual texts of the NT than you do. Not to mention your failure to even attempt to answer the questions I've asked surrounding why Mark would even be interested in Antigonus in the context of what he was doing?

Instead of quoting from me as if my acknowledgement of a lack of 100% certainty disproves my case and automatically proves yours, how about answering the questions I've raised about your theories?

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-19-2013, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

With that widespread faith movement present in the period before Mark and the other Gospels were written, we have every reason to regard Mark's story of an earthly crucifixion and rising as quite possibly an allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth during an exercise in syncretism. No one is saying it can be proven. But it makes far more sense than alternate suggestions of a different source.

Earl Doherty

Earl, the gospel JC story has no need for the Pauline writing. The Markan JC is not an "allegorical rendition of the heavenly myth". You admitted such in a previous quote.

Quote:

Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....69#post7358669

"Suspect", "No one is saying it can be proven ". Speculation and assumption. Pure imagination. And you want NT scholars to take all this imaginative story telling seriously?

Earl, interpretations of the NT are a dime a dozen. It's a game of a pseudo-lottery in which no one has any chance of winning. Interpretations are the road to delusion and dogmaticism i.e. to fundamentalism. Your theory (and your approach to marketing that theory) is a prime example of such dangers.

But mh, what makes your own theories about Antigonus any less of a dime-a-dozen interpretation of the NT than mine? And I have demonstrated that I have a lot more basis for mine in the actual texts of the NT than you do. Not to mention your failure to even attempt to answer the questions I've asked surrounding why Mark would even be interested in Antigonus in the context of what he was doing?

Instead of quoting from me as if my acknowledgement of a lack of 100% certainty disproves my case and automatically proves yours, how about answering the questions I've raised about your theories?

Earl Doherty

Earl, please feel free to post any questions regarding Antigonus on the thread I put up dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history and the gospel story.

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

This thread was put up over one year ago - and I noticed no interest on your part of posting on that thread....

The difference, Earl, between my position and yours is very simple. I am dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history and it's relevance for the gospel JC story - you are dealing with your own imaginative interpretations of the NT story.

Your errors, Earl, are your own. Your errors do not grant my position anything at all - they simply show up your own theories on the gospel JC story as being questionable.

EarlDoherty · 05-19-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...... If you are so convinced my book is horse-shit, it must be because you have a shit-load of counter-arguments and means of discrediting it yourself. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your dismissal of it. If you are convinced that "real scholars" can thoroughly discredit me, I guess that means you consider yourself anything but a real scholar. So why are you pontificating against me?

I'm a patient man. Why don't you tackle my book chapter by chapter? Pick the most egregiously horse-shitty aspect of each one and debunk it. But you'll have to do it with more substance and understanding of my arguments than you have shown to date.....

One does not have to be a scholar to expose your errors. There are Apologetic writers of antiquity that completely contradict you.

All Apologetic writers of the Jesus cult who used the Pauline writings or mentioned Paul and made reference to the existence of Jesus show that the Jesus cult of antiquity did believe Jesus was on earth and was delivered up by the Jews to be killed or that the Jews caused the death of Jesus.

Let us first examine the Canon of the Jesus cult.

1. The author of Acts mentioned PAUL and claimed the Jews crucified Jesus.

Acts 2:36 KJV

Quote:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified , both Lord and Christ.

2. The author of 2nd Peter mentioned Paul and claimed he was with Jesus on the mount.

2 Peter 1

Quote:

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased . 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy mount.

Now, let us examine Apologetic Jesus cult writers.

The supposed 1st writer to mention that Paul wrote Epistles wrote about the story of Jesus in the time of Paul.

1st Clement

Quote:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God.

Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand............................On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

2. Ignatius' Ephesians 12-18

Quote:

You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul.............For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

3. In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" it is claimed Paul knew of no other Jesus but the one who was born, crucified, died and resurrected.

"Against Heresies" 3.16

Quote:

..... He was likewise preached by Paul: "For I delivered," he says, "unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures."(9) It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and whom he speaks of as man.

Doherty's claims that the Jesus cult of Christians did believe in a "never on earth crucified Jesus" is without corroboration--without evidence--contradicted by ALL known Apologetic WRITERS of antiquity that mentioned Paul and Jesus.

The evidence from antiquity is extremely clear---the Jesus cult of Christians did believe Jesus was born of a woman and the Holy Ghost, was baptized was crucified, buried and resurrected on earth.

Doherty does not seem to understand what the early Jesus cult believed--- The Jews murdered Jesus Christ the Son of God.

People who "murdered" the truth wanted to acquit the Jews of murdering their God and Christ.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing among us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also.

And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom. O you most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God!.....

The Jesus story is rather easy to understand--The Jews murdered or caused Jesus Christ to be murdered.

It is wholly erroneous that Jesus cult Christians believed that their Jesus was never on earth and was crucified in some kind of heaven.

Aa, you continue to show that you know absolutely nothing about my theories or my analyses of the texts. I have made a very strong case for 1 Clement knowing no HJ, including the passage in ch.42 which you quote. I don't know why it is so difficult for so many people here to understand that if they are going to condemn the interpretations of someone they disagree with, they have to engage with their actual arguments.

Why do you quote Ignatius? I've long presented the Ignatians (whether authentic or coming shortly after Ignatius' death) as containing the very first extra-gospel references to any elements of the Gospel story, and fitted this into a rational time-line of development for the dissemination of the features of that story.

And where the heck do you get Paul on the mount with Peter's vision of Christ in 2 Peter? That is only one of the many egregious errors in presenting the texts which you are constantly guilty of. You are also one of the worst atomists I've ever encountered, quoting passages with no examination of context, immediate or in the document as a whole. You've shown that in regard to Aristides.

You are impossible, aa, and why the only recourse for someone with any concern for preserving their sanity is to largely ignore you, which I do as much as possible.

Earl Doherty

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

05-18-2013, 11:40 PM	#274
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	From where come the quotes in #272?

05-18-2013, 11:48 PM	#275
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	From posts in this thread. Everyone is identified. Type any distinctive phrase in the 'search' bar and it will take you to the exact post. (I post the actual quotations, not long sequences of post numbers as has been your custom. most readers rather simply read text and follow discussion than search out multiple old posts.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.