Did Jesus Exist?

[Johnnz]

It was Albert Schweitzer the famous medical missionary and scholar who first proposed the "Jesus as myth" approach. His view held sway in scholarly circles intil around the 1920's when Form criticism, trying to find underlying documents for our later NT gospels and other writings arose. The 1980's saw the beginning of the modern emphasis of scholars which adopted two basic precepts: a) Locating the NT within the by now very large body of information from history, archaeology and literature that had become available and b) whatever the underlying sources might be we needed to recognise the purposes of whoever was its author in putting the material together as a unity in the first place.

Those advocating links with Greek mythology here are essentially adopting a dated approach that no longer has the support of the bulk of NT scholars. Such people often seem to have a post Enlightenment antisupernatural stance as their primary (but possibly unstated) reference point and thus their scholarship is driven by the need to argue from within their presuppositions.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

Now what's in Q? Some people assert that it was purely a sayings gospel. However, the shared material does contain a few physical details, such as Jesus wandering into the desert prior to the temptations, John the Baptist sending messengers from prison to question Jesus, and so forth. These are enough to verify that whoever wrote this material did believe that Jesus was a human being, on earth, and that time period.

As you mentioned, we can infer that Q existed, but since we don't have it, we don't know exactly what it looked like.

Q appears to be basically a list of sayings of Jesus, but it may include some stories. Some suggest that the sayings were first gathered by a "Q" communitiy, which were later attributed to a founder of the "Q" community with some excerpts about that founder added later.

The man revealed in the few excerpts of Q is very different from the Son of God preached by Paul. Q could have simply been referrring to a human founder.

As for the charge that Q does not contain things like Jesus' baptism, transfiguration, trial, and crucifixion, it's important to remember that we define the Q material as what is not in Mark. Since these events are in Mark, they are not part of the Q material. But they might have been in the Q document! It just wouldn't be necessary for Matthew and Luke to use the Q version since they had Mark's other version.

Well, yes, but one would think that Q, being an independent source, would have things to say about the baptism or crucifixion that were not in Mark. Instead Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek Cynics.

Lastly, the two-source hypothesis is widely accepted in scholarly circles these days but that doesn't make it right. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that Matthew and Luke had other sources besides Mark and Q from which they gathered material about Jesus' life.

If Matthew and Luke had sources besides Mark for the naratives, why did they copy Mark, often word for word, when the story appeared in Mark?

If they were both using multiple sources for sayings of Jesus, why is there not a broad range of sayings that appear only in one of those two gospels? It appears that both writers attempted to use almost all of Q in their gospels, indicating they must both have been using the same source for their sayings material.

 

[razeontherock]

Why would you infer Q existed? Why does a written record need to come from a written record? I mean, when I typed this post, I didn't refer to anything written. I knew what was on my mind, and I typed it. Why do the NT authors need to be so different?

 

[GakuseiDon]

OK, so we know of nobody who claimed that Attis's story had recently been witnessed by humans. Could we say the same about Mithras and the other savior gods? Had anybody seen them? Did people understand that they worked in a realm outside of the observable world of recent humans?

If it was generally understood that the the myths of the greek savior gods were never actually witnessed by humans, then could one also make the claim that Paul's Jesus was thought to have worked in a realm similar to Attis and Mithras, in which the events were never actually witnessed by humans?

Well, let's start with the evidence. Doherty says that the average pagan believed that the myth of Attis was performed in a non-earthly realm. I say that there is no evidence that the average pagan thought this about the myth of Attis, and in fact, looking at the extant literature gives a different story: they thought the myth was played out on earth, or it didn't happen at all.

If I am wrong, please let me know what the evidence is. If I am right, but you continue to believe that Doherty must be right even against the evidence, then that's fine. However, I might start calling you "merle" instead of "doubtingmerle"! The link I gave to Pearse's sources on Attis is a good place to start your own investigation, and I urge you to read what the extant literature itself tells us. Cross-check that against what Doherty claims, see what answers you come up with, and let us know the result of your investigation. Good hunting, doubtingmerle!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why would you infer Q existed? Why does a written record need to come from a written record? I mean, when I typed this post, I didn't refer to anything written. I knew what was on my mind, and I typed it. Why do the NT authors need to be so different?

Good question.

A good place to start might be the excellent essay,
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site , by Daniel Wallace. Wallace is on the faculty of the conservative Dallas Theological Seminary. Please understand that I am not referring you to the site of an angry Bible-hater, but to a thoughtful review of the available data by an evangelical writer.

Basically we know that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all copied much of their material from the same source, because they are often word for word repeats of each other. Most likely an early version of Mark was used as the source of all three.

The evidence shows Mark was probably first, as Wallace explains.

If we look at the portions of Matthew and Luke that could not have come from Mark, we notice many passages that are again nearly word for word copies of each other. Other times, Matthew and Luke completely diverge. There is very little in the middle. Either the two books are in nearly exact agreement (e.g. the teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount) or they tell completely different stories (e.g. the Nativity accounts). There is very little in the middle. It is either one or the other.

It can further be noticed that almost all the points of agreement are teachings of Jesus, wheras the points of divergence are narratives.

The best explanation is that Matthew and Luke both had a document, commonly called Q, which contained the teaching material they have in common. If Matthew and Luke had instead relied on their own unique collections of written and spoken traditions, then one would expect to see many places with partial agreement between the two accounts. The evidence seems to indicate they had great agreement when they both used Mark or Q, and they diverged significantly on events that were not recorded in either Mark or Q.

Wallace explains this in much more detail in his essay.

 

[razeontherock]

Again, "scholarship" really isn't necessary. I had observed everything you've said, long before I was 10. Why try to make it difficult? It's not.

More important would be to understand how the divergences reveal the story, and harmonize. And then all your qualms about Paul vaporize. I mean, he didn't know Jesus as a man, why would he write about the man? He spoke of what he knew, not through his hat.

 

[doubtingmerle]

GakuseiDon, Did the ancients understand that Mithras worked in a realm outside of the observable world of recent humans? Can we say that Paul's Jesus was thought to have worked in a realm similar to Attis and Mithras, in which the events were never actually witnessed by humans? You echo back those questions, but I don't see your answers.

Well, let's start with the evidence. Doherty says that the average pagan believed that the myth of Attis was performed in a non-earthly realm. I say that there is no evidence that the average pagan thought this about the myth of Attis, and in fact, looking at the extant literature gives a different story: they thought the myth was played out on earth, or it didn't happen at all.

Attis? But the question was mostly about Mithras. Did the ancients understand that Mithras lived on the earth as a being in communication with humans? If the god Mithras was thought to live in some spiritual realm--or even some remote location unobserved by humans--then that is an example of a god living in a realm different from the earthly realm claimed for Jesus. If people thought Mithras lived in such a spiritual realm, why could they not have thought Paul's Jesus lived in a similar realm?

If I am wrong, please let me know what the evidence is.

About Attis? OK, the written record of Attis may well have been interpreted as happening on earth (or perhaps not), but if it was on earth, we no of no human who claims to have met him. If he was thought to live on earth, it was in some mysterious area where he could find a goddess and marry her.

But if you go beyond the story of Attis, and read how the ancients honored Attis as a god, then the case could be made that, at least in their time, Attis was thought to be a god living in a spiritual realm. Its difficult to believe the ancients worshipped Attis while believing he was still living on earth someplace in human form. For if they believed that, wouldn't they have wanted to go visit him?

If I am right, but you continue to believe that Doherty must be right even against the evidence, then that's fine. However, I might start calling you "merle" instead of "doubtingmerle"!

If you are right, and I continue to believe Doherty against the evidence, then no, that would not be fine.

I certainly don't think that the ancient gods were thought to live on the earth in human form while they did all the things they were honored for. Doherty says he has several chapters in his latest book documenting his position on this. I haven't yet read his latest book, and I will reserve my comment on those chapters until I read them.

The link I gave to Pearse's sources on Attis is a good place to start your own investigation, and I urge you to read what the extant literature itself tells us. Cross-check that against what Doherty claims, see what answers you come up with, and let us know the result of your investigation. Good hunting, doubtingmerle!

You are back on Attis again, but you seem to forget the question was about Mithras. Was Mithras thought to be a god in human form that had recently walked and talked with humans on earth? Or was he thought to be a god living in another realm?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, "scholarship" really isn't necessary. I had observed everything you've said, long before I was 10. Why try to make it difficult? It's not.

I see. So if you knew all this explanation about Q before you were 10, why do you ask why we think Q existed?

More important would be to understand how the divergences reveal the story, and harmonize. And then all your qualms about Paul vaporize. I mean, he didn't know Jesus as a man, why would he write about the man? He spoke of what he knew, not through his hat.

Are you really asking me why Paul would write about the man Christ Jesus? Uh, because the incarnation, had it happened, would surely have been important to Paul. And had it happened, then Paul would have surely found out about it, for there would have been plenty of people that would have been very willing to tell Paul about it.

 

[razeontherock]

I see. So if you knew all this explanation about Q before you were 10, why do you ask why we think Q existed?

No, I said observations about the text, not Q.

Are you really asking me why Paul would write about the man Christ Jesus? Uh, because the incarnation, had it happened, would surely have been important to Paul. And had it happened, then Paul would have surely found out about it, for there would have been plenty of people that would have been very willing to tell Paul about it.

There is no possible way for your thinking to be any more backwards on the subject. Paul would not write about what everyone already knew, because ...(wait for it) ... they already knew.

Instead, Paul would write about what needed to be written, which is exactly what we find. Pretty simple, isn't it? You need PhD's to explain this to you?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, I said observations about the text, not Q.

Uh, what you said was "I had observed everything you've said, long before I was 10" (emphasis added.)

Now have you or have you not observed everything I said about Q? If you have, do you agree that Q likely existed?

Paul would not write about what everyone already knew, because ...(wait for it) ... they already knew.

And yet Paul never seemed to get tired of writing about the cross of Christ, and about faith. If he was writing to Christians that shared his faith, then, by definition, they already knew about faith and the cross.

But for some reason, Paul saw no need to talk about the incarnation in his letters.

In post #29 you stress the Incarnation, and say it is the basis of faith. If it is that important, how can Paul stress faith, and yet bypass the incarnation?

 

[razeontherock]

Now have you or have you not observed everything I said about Q? If you have, do you agree that Q likely existed?

*sigh* If I repeat what you responded to, will you hear it this time? I said observations about the text, not Q. In context, "the text" couldn't possibly refer to Q, because no one alive has ever seen it to be able to read it. So I must have been referring to the Gospels themselves. I do hope you might be able to find that sufficiently clear.

And yet Paul never seemed to get tired of writing about the cross of Christ, and about faith. If he was writing to Christians that shared his faith, then, by definition, they already knew about faith and the cross.

Rather, if they really understood the Cross, there would never have been any need to write a single Epistle. It wasn't enough for Paul to address the pragmatic errors they engaged in, but the roots of the Faith were compromised. The fact you don't understand this affects the way I view your statements re: your previous experience w/ Christianity; i.e., not significant enough to hang onto.

But for some reason, Paul saw no need to talk about the incarnation in his letters.

Not "some reason," but because everyone knew that much. You're trying to bypass that Paul had not only approval of the rest of the Church, but actually withstood them to the face when needed, and was proven right. That would have never happened if he was unaware of the Incarnation as you claim, nor even if he merely doubted it.

In this train of thought you also feign being completely oblivious to who Paul was before conversion. Really, you know better. He persecuted those whose practice was based on the Incarnation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

*sigh* If I repeat what you responded to, will you hear it this time? I said observations about the text, not Q. In context, "the text" couldn't possibly refer to Q, because no one alive has ever seen it to be able to read it. So I must have been referring to the Gospels themselves. I do hope you might be able to find that sufficiently clear.

Huh? Go back and read what you said in post #106, You said, "I had observed everything you've said, long before I was 10." OK? That is the sentence I was responding to.

You simply did not say, "I had observed everything about the text." You said, " "I had observed everything you've said" How can you possibly deny what you said, when your words in post #106 are right there for all to read?

And "everything I said", in context, clearly meant my previous argument for the existence of Q.

You're trying to bypass that Paul had not only approval of the rest of the Church, but actually withstood them to the face when needed, and was proven right. That would have never happened if he was unaware of the Incarnation as you claim, nor even if he merely doubted it.

Excuse me, where did I ever bypass that Paul withstood the other apostles to the face?

If the gospels and Acts were written later, and were not reliable, as the evidence seems to indicate, how do you know that Peter knew about an incarnation?

As I wrote to you before, obviously Paul did not think Peter saw an incarnation, for Paul says in nothing is he behind Peter. If Peter had witnessed the incarnation for 3 years, than Paul could not possibly say there was nothing in which he was behind Peter.

In this train of thought you also feign being completely oblivious to who Paul was before conversion. Really, you know better. He persecuted those whose practice was based on the Incarnation.

Uh, Paul says he persecuted Christians, but where does he ever say those Christians he persecuted believed in an Incarnation?

You seem to be assuming the very point in question, that the incarnation occurred. This thread is about whether it occurred. So you cannot prove it occured by assuming it occured. That would be reasoning in a circle.

 

[Johnnz]

Paul's teaching on our bodies replacing the locus of the temple is incarnation, derived from Christ's being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in Him Col 1:19) and Col 2:9-10 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ.

The Title (not merely a name) Christ was reference to Messiah, who Paul presented in terms of God himself - creator and sustainer of all for example (Col 1:15-20)

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Title (not merely a name) Christ was reference to Messiah, who Paul presented in terms of God himself - creator and sustainer of all for example (Col 1:15-20)

The question isn't whether Paul saw Jesus as divine.

The question is whether Paul thought Jesus had actually existed as a man and walked on earth as described in the four gospels.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It may seem odd to suggest that Peter might not have seen an incarnation, but if we look only at what the 13 books attributed to Paul say about Peter, James, and John, we find the following:

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: peter, cephas, james, john

The only place it says they saw Jesus was I Cor. 15, but as that passage also says that Paul saw Jesus, and Paul only saw a vision of Jesus, it could well mean that Peter also only saw a vision.

So there is nothing there that shows that Peter saw anything more of an incarnation than Paul did. To get that story, you need to turn to the gospels and Acts. But if the gospels were written later and were not historical, then how would one know that Peter saw an incarnation?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can anybody possibly suggest that the writers of the stories thought Zeus was a human being who lived next door and married the human named Hera down the street? Come on, this stuff is mythology and everybody knows it. Why must I prove to you that Zeus was not thought to be a human being living on earth?

It’s not about proving they were human beings. It’s about proving they existed in a magical realm temporally. It’s proving that the Zeus story you mentioned should/would be understood as literally happening in a magical realm or is it symbolically explaining the origin of the universe?

Where was Zeus thought to work? You make two suggestion, that it was either a magical spirit world, or that it was symbolically. Either way is fine with me! Both Zeus and Jesus could have been thought to have worked in the spirit world. Both Zeus and Jesus could have been thought to have been nothing more than symbolic representations of reality. Either view is completely different form the view that they both worked from earth in recent history in contact with living witnesses.

You presented Doherty’s; regardless if you want to still try to defend his theory you would still need to defend (with evidence) the
understanding of Zeus you assume is so obvious.

Why do you keep trying to sucker me into that debate? I don't care if Zeus was thought to be in a magical spirit world, or was thought to be purely sybolical. Either way works for me! So why do you insist I must pick one or the other and argue for that way only?

I don’t need to read his work. I need to read the primary text he is working from to build his understanding of the universe at that time. He admits he doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding; you just seem unwilling to accept that.

Excuse me, but where does Doherty admit he "doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding"? Please show me where he says that.

In the opening post of the thread that we were discussing Doherty says,

That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters... I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM
​

When he is that emphatic that he has evidence, and that he argues the case extensively, how can you possibly say he admits he has no evidence?

Within the “pages of evidence” what did he present that convinced you? What text would I need to go read to see the understanding of his mythical savior that he thinks Paul is working with?

I think I told you, I have not yet read Doherty's new book. If you are really interested in what he has to say, then go read it yourself. Why must I read it for you, and tell you what it says?

To reiterate you’re not trying to make an argument against or for the gods being understood as people walking around earth but as walking around in a magical realm like people do here. Acts 17:28 is a quote that was originally attached to Zeus by Epimenides. The understanding of gods being used there isn’t of an entity that exists spatially and temporally in a magical realm where casting lots with his brother is possible.

Yes, Acts 17:28--"in Him we live and move and exist"--seems to describe a nonspatial realm. Exactly! That's my point! Zeus was not thought to dwell on earth in human form, but in some non-spatial realm from which he could make storms all over the world.

If Zeus was thought to have lived in such a realm, could Jesus have been thought to have lived in a similar realm?

If a savior God really existed on earth, then we would all expect that the earliest followers would be clearly writing about it. That is the point.

That is clearly your expectations… you even use the word. “expect that the earliest followers” You have expectations that aren’t being met but you don’t have any actual evidence to support an alternate theory or that your expectations and criteria for evidence is reasonable.

Not only would I expect an earthly incarnation of God to be the talk of the town, we all would expect it.

I present evidence that Paul may have thought Jesus may have lived in a realm other than an existance on earth as a human. That other realm could have been thought to be many different things, and I don't speculate on which of the many possibilities it was thought to be.

But I don't ask people to store purple elephants in their basement, or jump over the moon, or to supply undeniable evidence.
So why even bother to make up such hypotheticals?

You’re looking for evidence that Jesus existed historically from something that you can’t deny the validity of, like for example how you would deny the Gospels… Correct?

No, no no! I just told you I am not looking for undeniable evidence, and you turn around and claim I say the exact opposite of what I just said in that quote!

Why do I even write to you, if you just simply copy what I wrote, and then declare that I say the exact opposite?

I believe Alexander the Great existed, for instance, because there is very good evidence of it. The evidence for Alexander is not undeniable, but it is very good. That is good enough for me.

 

[GakuseiDon]

I don’t need to read his work. I need to read the primary text he is working from to build his understanding of the universe at that time. He admits he doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding; you just seem unwilling to accept that.

Why do you keep trying to sucker me into that debate? I don't care if Zeus was thought to be in a magical spirit world, or was thought to be purely sybolical. Either way works for me! So why do you insist I must pick one or the other and argue for that way only?

Because it is all about the evidence. "Either way works for me!" tells me more than enough about where you are coming from here, and it isn't to find answers. Beware of the fringe theorist who doesn't look into the fringe theory, but only wants to throw doubt on the mainstream.

Of course the gods were thought to be in the heavens, but the question is: where did the pagans think the myths were played out? When Attis was castrated on the River Gallus in Phrygia, was that some heavenly Phrygia? When Zeus transformed himself into a bull to seduce a woman and take her to Crete, was all this supposed to have happened in a non-earthly location?

Granted that myths being set up earth doesn't mean they actually happened, but that isn't the question here. If you are arguing the they thought their myths like the ones above were supposed to have happened in some spiritual realm, then let's see the evidence to support that. That's all I ask.

Let me ask you a clear question: have you seen evidence from Doherty or anyone else that the pagans thought their myths (like the castration of Attis or Zeus seducing a mortal woman and taking her to Crete) were done in a spiritual realm? Yes or no?

I don’t need to read his work. I need to read the primary text he is working from to build his understanding of the universe at that time. He admits he doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding; you just seem unwilling to accept that.

Excuse me, but where does Doherty admit he "doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding"? Please show me where he says that.

In the opening post of the thread that we were discussing Doherty says,

That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters... I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM
​

When he is that emphatic that he has evidence, and that he argues the case extensively, how can you possibly say he admits he has no evidence?

NO fringe theorist is going to say "I have no evidence for my position!" What they will say is "Look, see these hints in the text? This is actually evidence! Really! But the mainstream is too blind to see it!"

So he is "that emphatic that he has evidence"? I pushed Doherty on this point, asking for his evidence. Finally, Doherty came out with the statement below. If you read the first page of my review, I quote Doherty as follows:

"The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case. While I have often pointed out and argued for ‘indicators’ of such a view, there is no clear and direct statement about any particular pagan mystery cult deity which says that devotees or philosophers regarded the activities of its myth as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in heavenly layers above the earth (whether above or below the moon)."
​

Now, the question is whether his 'indicators' (why is there no 'direct' evidence? Did pagans not write it? Did Christians conspire to remove just those references?) support the view? If you are trying to find answers, you will respond with evidence. If you are a fringe theorist, you will just ask more hypothetical questions. I'm only interested in the evidence here, merle. Can I ask you to provide the evidence, please?

I think I told you, I have not yet read Doherty's new book. If you are really interested in what he has to say, then go read it yourself. Why must I read it for you, and tell you what it says?

No problems that you haven't read his book. But I have, and he doesn't have the evidence. It's as simple as that.

Now, you have three options:
1. You can believe me, without further investigation.
2. You can believe Doherty, without further investigation.
3. You can suspend judgment, until you have investigated this for yourself.

I hope you will take option 3. Go to Doherty's website, check his citations on key points, see if they say what he claims they say. Then, if you want to make a claim, make it and show the evidence. You write that Doherty is "emphatic" about having evidence, but every time I pushed him to give it, he backed away and started making excuses, like the one above. That's why I stopped arguing with him. The burden sits with him, not me. And now the burden sits with you, merle, if you want to make claims about what pagans believed.

Now, if I claimed I had all this evidence for my position, and later said "Well, when I said that, the statement was too stark", that should ring alarm bells for most people. I'm very interested in ancient thinking, and I would love to see evidence that increased my understanding of it. But if you are going to ask hypothetical questions each time I ask for evidence, then what else can I do but assume that you have no evidence? In that case, best I don't waste either of our time, and I'll wish you well and let you be. So, evidence please.

 

[ElijahW]

Where was Zeus thought to work? You make two suggestion, that it was either a magical spirit world, or that it was symbolically. Either way is fine with me! Both Zeus and Jesus could have been thought to have worked in the spirit world. Both Zeus and Jesus could have been thought to have been nothing more than symbolic representations of reality. Either view is completely different form the view that they both worked from earth in recent history in contact with living witnesses.

Why do you keep trying to sucker me into that debate? I don't care if Zeus was thought to be in a magical spirit world, or was thought to be purely sybolical. Either way works for me! So why do you insist I must pick one or the other and argue for that way only?

Yes, Acts 17:28--"in Him we live and move and exist"--seems to describe a nonspatial realm. Exactly! That's my point! Zeus was not thought to dwell on earth in human form, but in some non-spatial realm from which he could make storms all over the world.
If Zeus was thought to have lived in such a realm, could Jesus have been thought to have lived in a similar realm?

I don’t think you understand what it means when something is non-spatial or non-temporal. The reason I think that is you are asking “where” gods are thought to “work” and “live”. The gods don’t exist anywhere, everywhere exists within the gods. The same is applied to “work” or “living” which as we understand them requires change which non-temporal entities would be incapable of without being in conjunction with a spatial/temporal realm. This is what is meant by, "in Him we live and move and exist".

If you want to move away from Doherty’s theory to an allegorical tale that was confused for history (like Zeitgeist) then Paul’s letters would be post confusion and you would need to provide new reasoning and evidence for the new theory.

Excuse me, but where does Doherty admit he "doesn’t have the evidence to support that understanding"? Please show me where he says that.

In the opening post of the thread that we were discussing Doherty says,

That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters... I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM
When he is that emphatic that he has evidence, and that he argues the case extensively, how can you possibly say he admits he has no evidence?

The bolded section of post #74—“The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case.”

His understanding of greek/pagan thought isn’t coming from their writings, so where is it coming from?

I think I told you, I have not yet read Doherty's new book. If you are really interested in what he has to say, then go read it yourself. Why must I read it for you, and tell you what it says?

The norm is that you provide the evidence for your position. It is usually because your position was formed by evidence so you can quickly show what the evidence was that convinced you.

Not only would I expect an earthly incarnation of God to be the talk of the town, we all would expect it.

I present evidence that Paul may have thought Jesus may have lived in a realm other than an existance on earth as a human. That other realm could have been thought to be many different things, and I don't speculate on which of the many possibilities it was thought to be.

Why would you expect that? How many followers do you think Jesus had who could write proficiently before Paul?

What passages of Paul did you provide as evidence of the realm you don’t speculate on?

No, no no! I just told you I am not looking for undeniable evidence, and you turn around and claim I say the exact opposite of what I just said in that quote!

Why do I even write to you, if you just simply copy what I wrote, and then declare that I say the exact opposite?

I believe Alexander the Great existed, for instance, because there is very good evidence of it. The evidence for Alexander is not undeniable, but it is very good. That is good enough for me.

If what you write doesn’t correspond with your behavior then I’m going to say so. Sorry. “Good” is so vague here that it is completely meaningless, even when you add “very” to it. You are looking for evidence you can’t deny the validity of or you would see the Gospels as good evidence that the story started from a historical figure. If you don’t like “undeniable” then you are more than welcome to explain what exactly you are looking for in regards to evidence and I’ll see if I can find anything other than it’s evidence you can’t deny the validity of.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Thanks for responding guys. I'll take some time to digest this and try to respond in a way that isn't simply rehasing the same points over and over again.

In the meantime, please notice that you are coming at this from completely different points of view. GakuseiDon insists this is a question of where. He writes:

Of course the gods were thought to be in the heavens, but the question is: where did the pagans think the myths were played out? When Attis was castrated on the River Gallus in Phrygia, was that some heavenly Phrygia? When Zeus transformed himself into a bull to seduce a woman and take her to Crete, was all this supposed to have happened in a non-earthly location?

But ElijahW writes that it is wrong to even ask where:

I don’t think you understand what it means when something is non-spatial or non-temporal. The reason I think that is you are asking "where" gods are thought to "work" and "live". The gods don’t exist anywhere, everywhere exists within the gods. The same is applied to "work" or "living" which as we understand them requires change which non-temporal entities would be incapable of without being in conjunction with a spatial/temporal realm. This is what is meant by, "in Him we live and move and exist".

So ElijahW, if people who ask where the gods were thought to have lived and work don't understand what this is all about, are you saying that GakuseiDon doesn't understand? Are you asking me to ignore what GakuseiDon asks me when he keeps on asking me "Where?"

And GakuseiDon, why do you insist that we need to debate the question of where? Is ElijahW right or wrong to insist that asking "Where?" indicates that the person asking the question doesn't understand what is going on?

In the meantime I am caught in the crossfire between you guys.

 

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon insists this is a question of where

??? Aren't you insisting that this is a question of where? Aren't you claiming that Paul thought that Jesus never walked on earth? It's your claim! Please clarify your claim.

And GakuseiDon, why do you insist that we need to debate the question of where? Is ElijahW right or wrong to insist that asking "Where?" indicates that the person asking the question doesn't understand what is going on?

Merle, it looks to me that you have no evidence, and you are trying to dodge that fact. This is the same thing that Doherty does. Make your claim -- if you are making a claim -- and present your evidence. Otherwise I'm not interested. Thanks.