dewitness VS Earl Doherty (was: Historicity of Jesus...)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5422
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:23 pm

dewitness wrote:The very reason I quoted the verses was to show that, contrary to Doherty, it is specifically claimed that the Jews killed Jesus by Christian writers of antiquity.
It isn't contrary to Doherty. Doherty would agree that these writers claim that, and it fits both into the hypothesis of a historical Jesus or into Doherty's hypothesis, your repetitive reply notwithstanding.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5422
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:39 pm

In my other thread, I'm looking to catalog the arguments for and against the existence of Jesus, and I'm looking for more detail or counterpoints to those arguments in this thread. If it isn't an argument for or against the existence of Jesus, or if your point has already been mentioned in this thread in detail already, or if it doesn't in some way comment on this approach, then it's not completely relevant.

Thus split off - documents concerning Jesus traveling to India and Kashmir and dewitness VS Earl Doherty. Carry on in the appropriate threads and don't be afraid to open a new one if you need to.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by dewitness » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:03 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:I'm looking to catalog the arguments for and against the existence of Jesus, and I'm looking for more detail or counterpoints to those arguments in this thread. If it isn't an argument for or against the existence of Jesus, or if your point has already been mentioned in this thread in detail already, or if it doesn't in some way comment on this approach, then it's not completely relevant.

Thus split off - documents concerning Jesus traveling to India and Kashmir and dewitness VS Earl Doherty. Carry on in the appropriate threads and don't be afraid to open a new one if you need to.
You are the one who introduced Doherty in your OP. You also specifically stated we cannot debate the Historicity of Jesus without mentioning Doherty's Jesus
Peter Kirby wrote:Against the Historicity of Jesus

(1) I don't think you can talk about this, at least not at this point of the debate, without mentioning Earl Doherty's review of the emphasis and language he finds in several documents to speak of Jesus Christ in such a way as not to place him on earth. I can't really summarize that here, so I'll just use a hyperlink to his online presentation of the case....
It is most strange that as soon as I begin to talk about Doherty's Jesus as you requested that you immediately split the thread.

Now, the argument for an historical Jesus is virtually without any support in or out the Canon.

First of all, the argument for an historical Jesus is not that Jesus merely existed but that he existed ONLY as a human being.

It is very important that the term "historical Jesus" is fully understood.

There is no human Jesus--No historical Jesus-- in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

Jesus of Nazareth was specifically described as the Logos, God Creator, the Son of God conceived by a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Virtually all accounts of Jesus are either implausible, fictional or could not have happened from conception to resurrection.

In the Canon, Caiaphas was High Priest, Pilate was governor, Tiberius was Caesar , Satan was the Devil, Gabriel the angel, and Jesus was the product of the Holy Ghost.

Those statements can be confirmed by examining the NT Canon.

Outside the Canon, there is ONLY one single source that mention Jesus in the time of Tiberius but it is a forgery or questionable --the "TF".

In the "TF", although a forgery, it was not known if it was lawful to call Jesus a man and it is also claimed he was seen alive after the third day.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5422
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:15 pm

dewitness wrote:It is most strange that as soon as I begin to talk about Doherty's Jesus as you requested that you immediately split the thread.
Just housekeeping. Don't read into it. Good organization makes the forums easier to use.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by dewitness » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:38 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
dewitness wrote:The very reason I quoted the verses was to show that, contrary to Doherty, it is specifically claimed that the Jews killed Jesus by Christian writers of antiquity.
It isn't contrary to Doherty. Doherty would agree that these writers claim that, and it fits both into the hypothesis of a historical Jesus or into Doherty's hypothesis, your repetitive reply notwithstanding.

It is contrary to Doherty. It was some kind of Archons that crucified Doherty's Jesus.

You seem not to understand that Doherty presents a mythical Jesus that is completely unheard of in antiquity.

Doherty's myth Jesus is his own invention.

Why don't you actually present evidence to support Doherty's Jesus?

When did Doherty's Jesus get crucified by Archons?

There is no corroboration at all for Doherty Archon crucifixion of Jesus in or out the Canon.

It was the Jews that killed or delivered up Jesus to be killed according to the Jesus cult writers in antiquity.

dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by dewitness » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:44 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
dewitness wrote:It is most strange that as soon as I begin to talk about Doherty's Jesus as you requested that you immediately split the thread.
Just housekeeping. Don't read into it. Good organization makes the forums easier to use.
I actually take very very careful notice of what happens when I present evidence against Doherty's myth Jesus.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5422
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

dewitness VS Earl Doherty

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:56 pm

dewitness wrote:You seem not to understand that Doherty presents a mythical Jesus that is completely unheard of in antiquity.
You have a tough problem here, but you're not going about solving it in the right way. Your problem is to show that there was nobody in antiquity who presented a "mythical Jesus" as Doherty alleges. [Note: I'd be impressed if you could show something much less difficult than that, even, e.g., that the author of Hebrews is misunderstood by Doherty.] So how did you attempt to go about doing that? You quoted some writers, from Aristides forward, with some positive mentions of Jesus in a historical context.

But Doherty also agrees that these writers put Jesus in a historical context. So there's no point of disagreement here between your understanding of Christian origins and Doherty's understanding. Your evidence is compatible with both understandings of Christian origins, without any value for one or the other.

So, if I were in your shoes, what would I do different?

I'd start with the theory that Doherty actually presents and attempt to undermine that. I'd go after the documents that Doherty alleges to have a "mythical Jesus" (heavenly Jesus) in them, instead of going after documents that Doherty already agrees with you about.

That's how I would do it if I wanted to make an impression on somebody who might otherwise be impressed with Doherty's work.

If you want to sustain your argument, you have to show how you have evidence that contradicts Doherty's views. That involves both an understanding of his views (which has not really been shown so far) and an understanding of what kind of evidence might show it wrong.

I'm not the only one who would be very glad to hear such evidence! Ecstatic, really. The only reason I am analyzing your presentation and finding it coming up short is simply because it is painfully inadequate.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6459
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: dewitness VS Earl Doherty (was: Historicity of Jesus...)

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:25 pm

I think you - dewitness - might get something from some of the ideas on this page

dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: dewitness VS Earl Doherty

Post by dewitness » Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:57 pm

dewitness wrote:You seem not to understand that Doherty presents a mythical Jesus that is completely unheard of in antiquity.
Peter Kirby wrote: You have a tough problem here, but you're not going about solving it in the right way. Your problem is to show that there was nobody in antiquity who presented a "mythical Jesus" as Doherty alleges. [Note: I'd be impressed if you could show something much less difficult than that, even, e.g., that the author of Hebrews is misunderstood by Doherty.] So how did you attempt to go about doing that? You quoted some writers, from Aristides forward, with some positive mentions of Jesus in a historical context.
I have no problem. My position is rock solid and supported by Multiple writings of antiquity.

Doherty's never on earth Jesus crucified by Archons is extremely easy to debunk because there is no actual evidence for such a teaching in Jesus cult writings.

Doherty's own peers have already claimed that Doherty mis-understood Hebrews.

1500 years ago Chrysostom, a Jesus cult writer, already debunked Doherty's understanding of Hebrews. See Chrysostom's Homilies on Hebrews.

In fact, Jesus cult writers of antiquity that mention the Pauline Corpus and Jesus completely debunk Doherty's never on earth Archon crucified Jesus.

I have already debunked Doherty.

1. In Acts of the Apostles, Jesus was killed by the Jews--Not Archons.

2. In the Gospels and Acts Jesus was killed on earth--Not in some kind of lunar realm.. See the NT Canon

3. Apologetic writers Aristides, Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus--Not Archons.
Peter Kirby wrote:]But Doherty also agrees that these writers put Jesus in a historical context. So there's no point of disagreement here between your understanding of Christian origins and Doherty's understanding. Your evidence is compatible with both understandings of Christian origins, without any value for one or the other.
But, the Jesus writers contradict Doherty. They place Paul AFTER the resurrection and ascension. They place Paul AFTER the persecution of the Jesus cult.

You have a major problem. There is no evidence to support the Pauline Corpus BEFORE Acts of the Apostles.
Peter Kirby wrote:So, if I were in your shoes, what would I do different?

I'd start with the theory that Doherty actually presents and attempt to undermine that. I'd go after the documents that Doherty alleges to have a "mythical Jesus" (heavenly Jesus) in them, instead of going after documents that Doherty already agrees with you about.

That's how I would do it if I wanted to make an impression on somebody who might otherwise be impressed with Doherty's work.

If you want to sustain your argument, you have to show how you have evidence that contradicts Doherty's views. That involves both an understanding of his views (which has not really been shown so far) and an understanding of what kind of evidence might show it wrong.

I'm not the only one who would be very glad to hear such evidence! Ecstatic, really. The only reason I am analyzing your presentation and finding it coming up short is simply because it is painfully inadequate.
Please, follow your own advice because I do not take advice from people. I am not impressed at all by your mode of argument.

I deal with writings from antiquity.

Doherty's never on earth Jesus crucified by Archons is just a sosphiscated conspiracy theory without a shred of support in or out the Canon which makes it rather easy to debunk.

Doherty's argument is upside down and back to front.

Bible Jesus was crucified on earth--Not in the sub-lunar.

Bible Jesus was killed by Jews--Not Archons.

Bible Paul was Last--Not first.

User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points

Post by Eric » Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:28 pm

dewitness wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I'm looking to catalog the arguments for and against the existence of Jesus, and I'm looking for more detail or counterpoints to those arguments in this thread. If it isn't an argument for or against the existence of Jesus, or if your point has already been mentioned in this thread in detail already, or if it doesn't in some way comment on this approach, then it's not completely relevant.

Thus split off - documents concerning Jesus traveling to India and Kashmir and dewitness VS Earl Doherty. Carry on in the appropriate threads and don't be afraid to open a new one if you need to.
You are the one who introduced Doherty in your OP. You also specifically stated we cannot debate the Historicity of Jesus without mentioning Doherty's Jesus
Peter Kirby wrote:Against the Historicity of Jesus

(1) I don't think you can talk about this, at least not at this point of the debate, without mentioning Earl Doherty's review of the emphasis and language he finds in several documents to speak of Jesus Christ in such a way as not to place him on earth. I can't really summarize that here, so I'll just use a hyperlink to his online presentation of the case....
It is most strange that as soon as I begin to talk about Doherty's Jesus as you requested that you immediately split the thread.

Now, the argument for an historical Jesus is virtually without any support in or out the Canon.

First of all, the argument for an historical Jesus is not that Jesus merely existed but that he existed ONLY as a human being.

It is very important that the term "historical Jesus" is fully understood.

There is no human Jesus--No historical Jesus-- in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

Jesus of Nazareth was specifically described as the Logos, God Creator, the Son of God conceived by a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Virtually all accounts of Jesus are either implausible, fictional or could not have happened from conception to resurrection.

In the Canon, Caiaphas was High Priest, Pilate was governor, Tiberius was Caesar , Satan was the Devil, Gabriel the angel, and Jesus was the product of the Holy Ghost.

Those statements can be confirmed by examining the NT Canon.

Outside the Canon, there is ONLY one single source that mention Jesus in the time of Tiberius but it is a forgery or questionable --the "TF".

In the "TF", although a forgery, it was not known if it was lawful to call Jesus a man and it is also claimed he was seen alive after the third day.
Other sources include the Qu-Ran, which they believe Jesus teachings were that of a prophet.
To become fully human is divine.

Post Reply