Gentlemen, start you engines! It is time to begin our race. Without further ado we proceed to Doherty's 200 examples of places where he finds a silence so enormous that it disproves a historical Jesus. But I'm afraid that the overwhelming majority of these arguments don't even leave the pits. That shiny car advising us to buy the Christ-myth is just plain out of gas!

1. Romans 1:19-20 - No additional comment needed.
2. Romans 16:25-27 - No additional comment needed.
3. 1 Thessalonians 2:2

   . . . we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the face of great opposition. [RSV]

   This is the first one we have no had occasion to cover elsewhere, but it is of the same nature as others we have covered. Doherty writes:

   Early Christian writers like Paul are constantly referring to the message they carry as the "gospel of God." They also talk of the work of God, the saving actions of God, the call of God (cf. Romans 1:16, 3:24, 1 Cor. 1:9, Phil. 1:6, Gal. 4:7, etc.). If these apostles were preaching a message about an historical Jesus who had himself taught about God and his own relationship to him, surely they would style it the "gospel of Jesus".

   No, they would not -- Jesus was God's Word and Wisdom, which proceeded from the Father; it was not "his" gospel, or his work, or his actions, or his calling and will, but the Father working through Jesus and exercising His will. This is made quite clear in all of the Gospels, though especially in John (Matt. 10:40//Mark 9:37//Luke 9:48, 10:16; John 4:34, 5:24; cf. Matt. 11:27, Mark 13:32, etc.) God was the author of the gospel; Jesus was merely the words on the page. God was the one who saved; Jesus was merely the tool. In the next entry Doherty adds:

   J. P. Holding has a very strained explanation for this startling phenomenon, claiming that since Jesus spoke in God's name, all these teachings are correctly ascribed to God. I pointed out in my response to him-see Reader Feedback-that it is inconceivable that all Christian letter writers would conform to such an esoteric consideration and deliberately avoid attributing any teachings to Jesus himself.

   That Doherty personally finds this matter "inconceivable" is his own problem, and it is hardly "esoteric" but as plain as day -- in the Gospels as well as in the EWs. He has elsewhere disdained this sort of explanation as theological pin-dancing, but my argument remains in force:

   Like it or not, we are dealing with subjects related to God, and so theology MUST enter the picture. No amount of barring the door against it can keep it outside; nor will Doherty's narrow worldview!...The issue is how the 1 John writer viewed things, not how we modern readers do.

4. 1 Thessalonians 4:9 - No additional comment needed. Here also Doherty mixes in the same faulty arguments about attribution of allusions and citation methods which we have refuted and he has not answered.
5. Galatians 2:7-8

   ... [the Jerusalem apostles] acknowledged that I had been entrusted with the gospel for gentiles as surely as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for Jews. For God ["he"] whose actions made Peter an apostle to the Jews, also made me an apostle to the gentiles.

   This one is new, but it is a repeat of the same basic argument we have already covered. Doherty adds that "...Paul is clearly allowing for no distinction in quality or origin between his apostleship and that of Peter" and proceeds to made hash of this point, but the division in missionary sectors was not done by Jesus within his time on earth. In that sense, Paul and Peter were on equal terms. (Doherty also alludes to other issues which we have covered already elsewhere.

6. Titus 1:3

   Yes, it is eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, and now in his own good time he has openly declared himself in the proclamation which was entrusted to me by God our Savior.

   Also a new cite, but still not a new argument. Again one wonders where this magical barrier is that leaves "no room for any role Jesus might have played in recent salvation history." I see plenty of room, and presenting the matter as though a totality were intended without showing that it was intended will not change that a bit. (Doherty gets a bit of a clue when he comments: "The term 'Savior', throughout the epistles, is applied in the vast majority of cases (cf. 1 Tim. 4:10) to God, and only in a small minority to Christ Jesus." That's actually wildly incorrect: "Savior" occurs 19 times in the EW, 7 times referring to God, 12 times to Jesus and/or Christ -- and interestingly, it is in Luke [1:47, 2:11] and in the Timothies and Titus [which I believe were authored by Luke] alone that the term is applied to both God and Jesus, and in very close proximity!)

7. 2 Corinthians 6:1-2

   You have received the grace of God; do not let it go for nothing. God's own words are: "In the hour of my favour I gave heed to you, On the day of deliverance I came to your aid." The hour of favour has now come; now, I say, has the day of deliverance dawned.

   Another new cite, but it's the same old arguments. We are told that this is a "blatant passage which moves from God's predictions of the past, contained in scripture, and the present moment of salvation now being put into effect by God." What it reflects, however, is the overarching authority of the OT and God as the prime mover, with Jesus Christ as merely the "instrument" that had to be proclaimed and offered. (Incidentally, we will see that Doherty actually does "get the point" on this sort of thing later on, but he fails to realize that this is the same "point" that is made in the Gospels.)

8. 1 Corinthians 15:12-16

   But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [NASB/NIV]

   This cite is offered up with some rather long and tedious explanations, which argue little that we have not dealt with before. Doherty insists that Paul "expresses himself as though the raising of Christ from the dead is a matter of faith, not of historical record as evidenced by eyewitness to a physical, risen Jesus at Easter," and of course we would argue that earlier verses do indicate a historical event, and those verses are dealt with later. (It also somewhat misapprehends the meaning of faith in this context.) Doherty goes on to say:

   Moreover, the verb for "witness" (martureÇ) is often used in the sense of witnessing to, of declaring one's belief in, an item of faith, not of factual record (though it can mean this in some contexts). Such a meaning here is strongly supported by what follows this verb: kata tou theou, or "against God". Translators often seem uncertain of the exact import of this phrase, but Bauer's Lexicon firmly declares it as meaning "give testimony in contradiction to God". The idea that Paul is trying to get across here is that if in fact God did not raise Jesus from death (which would have to be the conclusion, he says, if all of the dead are not raised) then, rhetorically speaking, he and other apostles have been contradicting God and lying about Jesus' resurrection.

   There are a few issues to be delved into here.

   • Strong's defines martureo thusly: "to be a witness, i.e. testify (lit. or fig.):--charge, give [evidence], bear record, have (obtain, of) good (honest) report, be well reported of, testify, give (have) testimony, (be, bear, give, obtain) witness" -- apparently unaware of any special connection with items of faith versus factual records. Let's consider how it is used in the NT:

     Matt. 23:31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.

     Luke 4:22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.

     John 1:7-8 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

     John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

     (This happens to be one of John's favorite words. He uses it many, many times in his Gospel, and without examining every incidence, it appears that it is overwhelmingly used regarding matters of historical or factual record.)

     Acts 6:3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.

     Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

     (This word occurs over 100 times in the NT. Of the occurrences I selected at random to examine, this one comes closest to fitting Doherty's idea of "matter of faith" testimony. But it is clear in the context that an appeal is being made to historical data foretold in the prophets.)

     Acts 22:4-5 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify.

     Rom. 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

     (This one comes close, too, but whether you think Paul is referring to a matter of faith, historical record, or, as I might say, both, depends on where you start.)

     Rom. 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

     (Paul is talking about his fellow Jews...no "matter of faith" here!)

     2 Cor. 8:3 For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability.

     Gal. 4:15 What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.

     Col. 4:13 I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis.

     Heb. 7:17 For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

     Heb. 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.

     1 John 1:3 It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth.

     Well, I think that's enough. Bottom line: While it is possible I was just unlucky and picked out the wrong verses, I see no justification for Doherty's claim that martureo is "often used" regarding "an item of faith, not of factual record" and that it only means the latter "in some contexts". From the looks of these verses, the opposite is true -- and in fact, though I am not here denying that it is used in "faith" contexts, I haven't yet seen a cite that fits the bill!

   • Now back to Doherty:

     Such a meaning here is strongly supported by what follows this verb: kata tou theou, or "against God". Translators often seem uncertain of the exact import of this phrase, but Bauer's Lexicon firmly declares it as meaning "give testimony in contradiction to God".

     "Against God" does appear to be a tough cookie: The NRSV has it say "misrepresenting God" while the NIV says "we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." We are not in disagreement with the translation, nor with the first aspect of the conclusion:

     1

     The idea that Paul is trying to get across here is that if in fact God did not raise Jesus from death (which would have to be the conclusion, he says, if all of the dead are not raised) then, rhetorically speaking, he and other apostles have been contradicting God and lying about Jesus' resurrection.

     We agree with this. But things get hairy next up:

     The point is, and it's unmistakable, Paul is saying that knowledge about Jesus' raising has come from God, and that his own preaching testimony, true or false, is something which relates to information which has come from God-in other words, through revelation.

     In fact this is a gross mistake on Doherty's part. This verse speaks of God as the one who performed the action of raising Christ. The apostles had been preaching that God did this thing; if that thing was not done, or if it was done by some other power than God, then they were lying about what God did. Period. There is no idea of "revelation" here except by Doherty's own imagination. He is far too anxious to find evidence for his case, as I think the bit about martureo has shown!

   • Now, what of 1 Cor. 15:3-8, which we argue establishes a historical basis? Doherty dismisses these verses as "a series of visions of the spiritual Christ, a Christ who, as part of the scripture-based gospel about him, is declared to have been raised on the third day." We have shown in several places that this position does not hold water. Doherty also repeats an earlier error, supposing that Paul might have appealed to, for example, the raising of Jairus' daughter or of Lazarus as a "proof" of resurrection. We earlier pointed out that these were not "resurrections" at all in the sense that Paul is talking about; Doherty apparently responds to this with the incredible argument that "an eternal resurrection would surely be seen as prefigured by the temporary ones granted by Jesus on earth, and there is no way Paul would not have appealed to these miracles in his argument"! Hardly so! If anything, Paul would want to avoid those examples because they sound too much like the "animated corpse" concept he is trying to get away from!

     Finally, Doherty insists that Paul "would (not) have passed up an appeal to Jesus' own promises on the matter," and cites these verses:

     Luke 14:14 You will be repaid on the day when good men rise from the dead.

     Luke 20:35 Those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world and of the resurrection from the dead, do not marry, for they are not subject to death any longer.

     However, neither of these verses addresses the salient point of 1 Cor. 15, which is the nature of the resurrection body. Furthermore: 1) it would be just as "amazing" that Paul passed up OT promises that would fill the bill; 2) there is no need to or use in appealing to these promises when the most important resurrection, that of Jesus, is exactly what is under discussion! If these people doubted that Jesus rose from the dead as was preached, then how on earth are promises from the mouth of the one whose resurrection they doubt going to do any good?!? This is yet another case where Doherty fails to recognize that an argument he wants to put in the mouth of a NT writer is fallacious at its core.

9. James 5:10

   Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

   This happens to be a new one, though of a type Doherty has used before. He writes:

   How could the writer not draw on Jesus himself as the best and most compelling example when urging his readers to show patience in the face of suffering? Even if the Gospels were not yet in existence when this early epistle was written (many date it to the mid-1st century), oral tradition would surely have progressed to the point where Jesus' behavior before Pilate and his Jewish judges would entail such an idea. Here there is very much a "need" to refer to Jesus, even if the reader were familiar with the fact.

   It sounds good, but the context shows that this is not applicable at all! James 5:1-6 is full of warnings to the rich who hoard their wealth. 5:7-8 goes on to use the comparison of a farmer waiting for rains to water his crop, and 5:9 tells the brethren not to grumble. 5:11 uses Job, a man who lost his wealth but then regained it, as an example. In other words, the "suffering" that James is talking about refers to the context of poverty, and his key theme is that the rich are mistreating the poor, but that the rich will get their just due, and that the poor will have their reward in heaven when the Lord comes. This obviously has no application to Jesus before the authorities -- Doherty has merely assumed that "suffering" here refers to ANY kind of suffering at all!

10. Romans 6:2-4 - See here, item number eight. Little need be added, other than that the role of John the Baptist, as with so much Doherty says is missing from the EW, would have been covered years before the EW during missionary preaching.
11. Hebrews 9:19-20 - No additional comment needed.
12. Hebrews 12:15-17 - No additional comment needed, other than that it is fallacious, even for the sake of allusion, to use later views of Judas by Dante as an example of how the EW should have used Judas as an example. Dante is centuries removed from the author of Hebrews and had an entirely different literary purpose.
13. Romans 13:3-4 - No additional comment needed.
14. 1 John 4:1-3

    This is a new cite with a very odd argument:

    Dear friends, do not believe every spirit [i.e., prophetic utterance, spoken under the influence of God's Spirit], but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. . .

    Doherty writes:

    This passage tells us that in early Christian preaching, the test which determined whether a Christian apostle was speaking the truth related to the spirit which God had sent him.

    Hold the phone! Where are "apostles" mentioned here? They aren't -- this refers to "spirits" which can be carried by ANYBODY. Continuing:

    This epistle was written probably in the last decade of the 1st century. One would expect that by this time Christians possessed a body of material regarded as proceeding from Jesus himself, transmitted to them over the decades through a chain of authorized apostles and community leaders, a process of transmission through "apostolic tradition". Yet such an idea is nowhere to be found in any of the epistles (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4). We do not encounter even the barest concept of a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past attached ultimately to Jesus. Instead, doctrine comes directly through revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, though some "spirits" may come from the devil.

    How does this passage imply that ALL doctrine comes from revelation and spirits? As we have noted elsewhere the key issue for 1 John seems to be a heresy that either teaches some sort of adoptionism (where Jesus did not "come" in the flesh, but was picked as anyone could have been) or perhaps that the Christ-spirit left Jesus at the Crucifixion (making the Christ-spirit temporary in the flesh rather than inherent). The Gospels and the apostolic tradition wouldn't be much help here -- such an outrageous belief would hardly have been anticipated! It is just THIS doctrine, and this very peculiar doctrine, that is at issue -- not ALL doctrine, and not any doctrine (or corresponding heresy) that would have been formulated at the time of the earthly life of Jesus! (Both John and his opponents would agree on the tradition, but they would interpret it differently!

15. 1 Corinthians 10:11

    . . . For upon us the fulfilment of the ages has come. [NEB]

    Here we have yet another one of those long and tedious ones, and it has to do with eschatology. I happen to think that the eschatological line that Doherty follows (and shares with many scholars) is a bit off-kilter and does not read Paul correctly (see here.

16. 1 Corinthians 1:7-8

    There is no gift you lack, while you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you till the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Doherty argues:

    This passage is representative of many in the epistles which speak of the anticipated coming of Christ (the Parousia). In many cases, as here, the verb employed is a revelation word. That is, the writer speaks of the "revealing" of the Christ (cf. 1 Peter 1:7 & 13, 2 Thess. 1:7). This is a strange way of putting it, if Jesus had just lived a full life on earth within living memory.

    Once again, see the link just above -- Doherty also tries to make capital of a lack of implication of a "first" coming prior to the "second". After admitting that "Greek has no specific word for 'return' in the sense of coming back to a place one has visited or been at before," he supposes that the idea of a "second coming" could have been presented "the simple word palin, 'again'," employed with a word that denoted movement, erchomai. However, each of the three cites he offers specifically [Phil. 1:6 and 3:20, Titus 2:13] carry the same implication of actions and behavior pursued now UNTIL this revealing of Christ. Reference to the "first" coming is out of place. At the same time, Strong's notes that palin involves the "idea of oscillatory repetition". The action repeated is of the same or of similar nature to the previous action. As the parousia involves a "coming" of an entirely different nature and purpose, palin would hardly be appropriate!

17. Romans 10:9

    (This is the word of faith that we preach:) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus [homolog's'is . . . kurion I'soun], and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [KJ]

    Doherty misses the boat from the get-go here as he identifies this passage as "Paul's basic declaration of faith, which he preaches in his missionary work" -- it may well be, but even under Doherty's scheme, Paul had to first explain who Jesus was, what it meant to be "saved", etc. -- again, it is not as though he wandered through the streets mumbling or shouting this basic formula, winning converts in droves! This is a rhetorical statement of faith, one that packs the essentials into a short space. Thus when Doherty says that Paul "never itemizes the one element of faith we would expect, the one that must come at the start" -- that is, "that Jesus of Nazareth, a human being who lived at a given point in the past and did certain things, was in fact the Son of God and Messiah," he points out a "flaw" that exists also in his own thesis. Whatever was taught about Jesus, whether he was a historical man or else a nether-life hero, it was obviously laid down long before the EW took up their quills, and the "silence" of the EW concerning matters which would have been covered years before during missionary preaching means absolutely nothing. (Doherty should not call in the spectre of modern preachers who supposedly emphasize these basic facts so much: For one thing, they do indeed when they engage in missionary preaching and when they call for an invitation, or when they preach from the Gospels themselves; but attend a sermon on some deeper topic and/or from the epistles and you will find such "details" in short supply. For another, once again, we are a "low context" society while they were "high context" -- and higher-context peoples like the French think we are stupid when we do so much explaining of things!)

18. James 5:15

    Is one of you ill? . . . The prayer offered in faith will save the sick man, the Lord [here there is no doubt the writer means God] will raise him from his bed, and any sins he may have committed will be forgiven. [NEB]

    We are told that it is "inconceivable that the writer would not have appealed to the fact that Jesus himself had done these very things, had he possessed any such traditions." To which I post the standard question in big fat red letters: WHY???? Was there some doubt as to these acts or traditions? Had the readers forgotten about such things? Did James babble a lot? This is simply a low-context assertion without the slightest basis in fact whatsoever.

19. Philippians 3:10

    This verse is used related to the "Where are the holy places?" argument that Doherty offers and which we have answered elsewhere. None of my arguments on this topic are answered. Doherty offers a reply to the idea that fear may have played a role in the lack of visits, noting that "Acts, possibly preserving a kernel of historical reality (which it does whenever Doherty finds it convenient for his thesis! - JPH), portrays the Apostles as preaching fearlessly in the Temple in the earliest days, despite arrest and persecution..." That can be granted, but rather than fear being at issue, I think "prudence" best describes any reason for such avoidance. Preaching the Gospel was part of the commission; visiting holy places was not, and it would be remarkably stupid to throw your life or health or safety away for the sake of stopping by Golgotha for a memory boost. That said, I don't think this prudence did play much of a role in this issue, though it might have at certain times and places. And, the remainder of my own arguments are untouched. (Doherty also anachronistically presumes a paganized desire for relics, from the fourth-century church, upon a first-century church dominated by Jewish inclinations that would disdain such items. If Moses destroyed the tablets God wrote on Himself, and if Hezekiah destroyed the bronze snake made by Moses, then of what interest could Jesus' clothes, toothbrush, etc. have been to the first Christians, who would recognize such actions as verging on idolatry?) Doherty also insists that "Had these things existed in the early Christian world, they would have been impressed on the minds of the epistle writers, commending themselves for mention; such writers would have made occasion for working them into their letters." Again, why? Which of the three criteria, or what other criteria, would exert this magical force upon the EWs and displaced them from their high-context societal setting? Doherty may have found such items remarkable at the time, but he would also be a 20th-century man out of time, not a 1st-century Jew, or a later Gentile who venerated objects like toenail clippings and vials of Mary's breast milk.

20. Romans 1:1-4 - No additional comment needed.
21. Romans 1:16-17 - Different cite, but same basic arguments.
22. Romans 3:21-25

    Same basic arguments, with an amazing twist: It appears that Doherty has "gotten the point"! He speaks of "Paul's failure to make Jesus the direct agent of redemption" and observes that "Christ is brought in only as God's instrument of that redemption, the object of a required faith, and a redemption effected through further faith in his sacrificial death." To which I say: CONGRATULATIONS, Earl! And while you think that this "is compatible with Christ being an entirely spiritual figure who has now been revealed, and whose sacrifice took place in the spirit realm," it is also 100% compatible with the Jesus of the Gospels who regularly asserts his subordinate role to the Father as Wisdom.

23. Romans 6:17

    But God be thanked, you, who once were slaves of sin, have yielded whole-hearted obedience to the pattern of teaching which was handed on to you . . .

    Concerning this, we are asked: "Now, if this teaching that was handed on to the believer was in fact wholly or in part the product of Jesus, preached while he was on earth, why wouldn't Paul simply say so?" Because what is being said is not whose product the teaching is, but who handed on the teaching -- and unless we interpret Suetonius to say that Jesus was in Rome in 44 AD, then obviously Jesus is not the one concerned! Where is there the NEED to stress the product origin, unless there was some doubt about it? Simply insisting that it would have been "the natural thought and expression" to make the attribution is a low-context complaint that begs the question!

24. Romans 8:19-23

    For the created universe waits with eager expectation for God's sons [i.e., the faithful believers] to be revealed [i.e., revealed for all the world to see] .. .Up to the present, the whole universe groans in all its parts as if in the pangs of childbirth. . . .

    Doherty rightly perceives that "Paul seems to relegate Jesus' life to some pre-natal kick" -- likewise do the Gospels portray Jesus as the tool of God's coming Kingdom, merely the first act in an eschatological drama. Other than this, Doherty also asks:

    1. Why Paul did not see events surrounding the crucifixion (Matthew's quake, the darkness) as part of the "groaning of the universe". Well, one might as well ask why Paul does not also see earthquakes in the Aegean, for example, as signs. There is no indication that Paul finds some literal, historical events behind the "groaning" -- which he relates to redemption and suffering. (Doherty also asks why Jesus' miracles are not perceived similarly, but as he admits, this was a perception of later Christians -- and it does not fit the context either.)
    2. Re Paul's phrase: "We wait for God to make us his sons." Doherty asks:

       How can Paul say he is waiting for God to do this? Had he not already done so, and much more, through the incarnation? Indeed, why would Paul not express the idea that it was Jesus himself and his deeds on earth which had set people free and made them sons of God?

       Well, the "problem" is the same, since in verses previous Paul also indicates that the "adoption" has already been performed (8:12-17). But note that we are not only waiting for God to "make us His sons" but also to "set our body free" -- and the allusion to the reversal of decay (v. 21) suggests that Paul has the Jewish resurrection body in mind here. So one might say that the adoption papers have been signed, but the kids haven't been picked up from the orphanage yet! In such a case, is the adoption complete...? Or not? (Doherty is right in saying that this is not a matter of "need" to mention...I would not have argued that for this verse in the first place. It is simply a matter of not comprehending the point Paul is tying to make.)

25. Romans 8:24-25

    For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is not hope at all; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for something we do not see, we await it with patience. [NIV/RSV]

    It is asked:

    How could (Paul) not envision that the incarnation of the Son, witnessed by so many (even if not by himself personally), constituted a "seeing" of salvation and the events which brought this about?

    How could he? Because Paul knows that for 99.999999999999% of all believers, Jesus was NOT seen and what happened to him must remain a matter of trust...whether in apostolic testimony, the evidence of what was left, or in the goodness of God! (For that matter, let us add again that even a camera in the tomb recording the resurrection would not have "proven" that anyone else would be resurrected as Jesus promised!)

26. Romans 8:26

    We have covered this one before, but here is an added comment that may have been offered as a rebuttal to mine:

    Should not Paul have regarded the ministering Jesus as having "interceded" with God on humanity's behalf, a claim which Jesus himself makes more than once in the Gospels?

    I don't know which Gospel cite Doherty is alluding to here, but assuming that it is something along the lines of the Johannine promises to intercede in prayer (cf. John 17), how does this apply to the specific situations that the Romans found themselves in?

27. Romans 10:3-4
28. Romans 10:13-21
29. Romans 11:1-6, 7-12, 20 - No additional comment needed for any of these or the next few.
30. Romans 12:3
31. Romans 12:14
32. Romans 12:17-18
33. Romans 13:7
34. Romans 13:8-9

    Each of the involve either a question of attribution and citation or a refusal to distinguish between earthly and post-resurrection actions and attributes of Jesus. Doherty does reply directly to me here on the third cite:

    Can an argument like J. P. Holding's "there was no need" for an explicit reference to Jesus possibly hold water here? Paul obviously has a "need" to back up his admonitions with some sacred support. Why would he choose ancient, anonymous writings to provide this when he has the very words of the Son of God himself during a recent earthly ministry?

    Anonymous? The Jews were not modern form critics; they did not consider Deuteronomy and Proverbs (the two examples cited by Doherty) to be "anonymous". They were attributed to Moses and Solomon, the greatest and perhaps third-greatest men in Jewish history. Why no need for "sacred support" for these quotes? (And of course, the words in all cases find their origin in God -- not in Moses, Sol, or even the Son!)

35. Romans 13:11-12 - Different cite, but same basic arguments.
36. Romans 14:13 - Another matter of attribution.
37. Romans 14:14 - Ditto, and see here for more.
38. Romans 15:3-4

    For Christ did not please himself, but, as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me." For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. [RSV]

    Here we find the same argument that the "life details" of Jesus were drawn from Scripture, where it is quite obvious that what is at issue is the overarching authority of the OT, which was very much a "live" item of tradition in the minds of Jewish believers! If Jesus' life did not match the OT record, and if the EW didn't try to prove it, then they would fail to convince any OT believer that Jesus was the Messiah. The claim by Wells that Paul could have cited Mark 8:34 ("If any man come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.") simply reflects Wells' own incompetence. Saying is one thing; doing is another!

    (Incidentally, at this point Doherty pulls one of his usual tricks and tells us that E. B. Cranfield, in his commentary on Romans, "admits that 'it has struck many people as very surprising that at this point Paul should, instead of citing an example or examples from the history of Christ's earthly life, simply quote the Old Testament.' " He then tells us that "Cranfield tries to rationalize this, but the real insight lies in verse 4" - without telling us what it is that Cranfield says! Perhaps what Doherty doesn't want us to know is that Cranfield offers basically the same explanation that I have: That there is no problem once "one recognizes how important it was for [Paul] that Jesus Christ is the true meaning and substance of the Old Testament and how important to the early Church as a whole to be assured that the Passion was an essential element in God's eternal plan" -- in other words, as I have said all along, it is the overarching authority of the OT -- combined here with the problem of a Messiah who died the most disgraceful death possible!)

39. 1 Corinthians 1:1 - A new cite, but the same argument as before. Elsewise all that Doherty can do is pick nits by saying that Paul's reference to 'seeing the Lord' in 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8 is not specified as a conversion experience, and could be referring to a 'confirming vision' of the Son Paul received some time after his conversion." This reminds me of an argument that Paul was already a Christian on the way to Damascus, but at any event, doesn't read 1 Cor. 15 with full justice. Paul describes the appearance as being to him as one "abnormally born", which strongly suggests a conversion experience, especially when paired with his reference to his persecution of the church [15:9] which changed because of his change of heart.)
40. 1 Corinthians 1:9 - Same arguments, different cite.
41. 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 - On this cite, Doherty offers what seems to me to be one of the most outrageous arguments in the entire set:

    Paul's statement seems to be one of simple fact: that Christ was crucified. Yet if Jesus' crucifixion had been a recent historical event, its mere occurrence, being a matter of record and public knowledge, would hardly prove a stumbling block or a folly to anyone. The proclaimed significance of that event might be so, but Paul does not suggest that he means it is the interpretation of the crucifixion which is the problem. Nor does he say the problem is that a crucified man is declared to be the Messiah-something that would indeed affront the average Jew. No, as Paul presents it, it is the doctrine itself that the Messiah was crucified which is being resisted.

    Has Doherty so soon forgotten what we have written? Whether as doctrine or as event, and regardless of whether it was twenty years or twenty minutes ago, preaching a crucified ANYONE would be a stumbling block -- but especially a Messiah! We have made clear what folly this would be in the social context in our previous reply to Doherty. This argument exposes one of the most fundamental weaknesses in Doherty's position, one he has never gotten around to explaining: As my pal Ryan Renn puts it, "If Jesus were originally crucified in the Nether-worlds, why bring him down to the embarrassing earth?" In fact, that is a double embarrassment, since we also have the problem of turning a spiritual-world resurrection into a physical one that pagans regarded as akin to teaching a resuscitated corpse! One is constrained to wonder why Doherty's nether Christianity died out where the grossly physical one succeeded -- thus far, his explanations are of no use at all!

    If Paul were preaching Jesus of Nazareth-a crucified man-as the Messiah and Savior, he would discuss it in such terms, especially since in this lengthy passage (extending to 2:10) he is defending his doctrine and defending God for the wisdom of his redemptive scheme. Yet there is not a word in these 24 verses about the human Jesus, about an earthly dimension, about the question of recognizing a crucified criminal as the Son of God and redeemer of the world. Indeed, the elevation of a man to divinity, the turning of an executed subversive into a part of the Godhead, would be, to almost all Jews, a stumbling block of such monumental proportions that it would dwarf any objection they might have to the claim that the Messiah had to undergo crucifixion. Paul is completely silent on the greatest folly of them all.

    Likewise Doherty says that in verse 22 Paul "fails to call attention to any of Jesus' Gospel miracles as support for the claim that the crucified man of Nazareth had indeed been Messiah and Savior." And of course, this is not surprising once we realize that a) by the time of this letter being written, the Corinthians had believed this "folly" for 10-15 years, and there is no need to rehash it; b) Paul's purpose here is NOT to defend this "folly" at all, nor to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (again, the Corinthians believed that already, and there is not the least sign, despite Doherty, that this is the issue in doubt) but use it as an example of the inefficacy of human wisdom, as we have pointed out elsewhere. (His additional comment, that the Greek verb here being in the present tense supports the idea of a crucifixion in the timeless nether-realms, is belied not only by the use of past tense to describe that event and others related to it, but also by the fact that this no more puts the crucifixion in the nether realms than saying "I am affirming on my resume that I graduated" removes my graduation ceremony to the eternal realms! To have any effect, he must show that there is no similar use of present tense to describe events that all sides agree happened on earth.)

42. 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 - No additional comment needed.
43. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13 - Here Doherty applies to these verses the same argument he also applies to 2 Peter 1:20, and our reply is of the same nature. Here also Doherty fails to distinguish between the pre- and post-resurrection roles of Jesus.
44. 1 Corinthians 4:5 - No additional comment needed. This is another place where Doherty fails to distinguish between the pre- and post-resurrection roles of Jesus.
45. 1 Corinthians 4:11-13

    To this day we go hungry and thirsty and in rags; we are roughly handled, we wander from place to place. . . They curse us, and we bless; they persecute us, and we submit to it.

    Doherty asks whether Paul could "have found no comfort in the words of Jesus himself, in his blessings on those who hunger and thirst and are persecuted" and expects that he should "call attention to the fact that 'blessing those who curse you' was a direct admonition of Jesus". However, as the object of this passage is to shame the Corinthians who have called Paul's credentials and commitment into question, I hardly see any call for such a diversion, which I daresay would only serve to lessen the point that Paul is trying to make in the first place! Paul wants to emphasize his suffering and the shame of it; if he now mentions that his sufferings will lead to blessing, how will he shame the Corinthians? They will simply say, "Oh! Then why should be feel bad because you're suffering? You'll get a nice fat reward out of it."

46. 1 Corinthians 7:29

    What I mean, my friends, is this. The time we live in will not last long.

    Doherty finds here "a compelling need to refer to Jesus' own predictions about the nearness of the coming End" -- insisting that even if they knew of such predictions, "the natural impulse for a writer in a situation like this would surely be to throw in the fact that Jesus' own words back up his claim." I am still watching nature programs, National Geographic specials, and old Wild Kingdom repeats looking for where this "instinct" comes from, but the best Doherty can do is say that such cites are especially needed "when the subject being discussed is controversial, and when there is an element of persuasion being exercised on the reader to listen, to heed, to accept the idea being put forward." Well, I do not see where the idea of a soon return was itself "controversial" -- the Corinthians' behavior was what was at issue, not any doubt regarding the parousia or return of Christ -- and if that is not in doubt, then there is no need to heap on things for persuasion, especially when the rhetorical practices of the day (as we have noted with Quintillian) advised against such repetition: "For it is felt to be more forcible when thus briefly put...Once the statement is made in detail, it resembles not a rebuke but a thing narrated...The passion and vehemence of the words are enfeebled when this extended."

47. 1 Corinthians 9:1-2 - No additional comment needed.
48. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 7-8, 11

    There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. . . . In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way, for some useful purpose. One man, through the Spirit, has the gift of wise speech . . . etc. . . .But all these gifts are the work of one and the same Spirit, distributing them separately to each individual at will.

    Doherty uses this cite to issue the familiar argument about a supposed lack of "a network of apostles tracing their doctrine and authority back through a chain leading to those who were appointed and sent out by Jesus himself; in other words, a system of apostolic tradition and the sense that Jesus of Nazareth had begun the process." There is such a thing delineated in Acts, though he has rejected that evidence out of hand by dating it into the 2nd century, and strong hints of it even in the EW, especially in Galatians. But even so, where is the need in this passage for such a reference? Jesus said not a word about spiritual gifts; in fact, this is one of the main arguments for saying that the early church did not invent words for Jesus! If they did, where is his teaching on tongues and the outworking of the Holy Spirit in the daily life of the believer?

    Other than this, all Doherty can do is issue the same argument that "Even if the work of God's Spirit were seen to be operating in the context of a movement begun with Jesus of Nazareth, that Spirit would have been linked in some way to him, as it eventually was-most dramatically in the Gospel of John, with Jesus' promise to send the Paraclete after his departure from the world." Such teaching would have been expounded to the Corinthians many years in the past as they were taught about the significance of Pentecost. Paul is not here concerned to explain such links, but to explain the practical outworking of the presence of the Spirit in the lives of these Corinthian believers. (But in fact, Paul does "link" Jesus with the Spirit in a very intimate way in verse 3! He says that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit! Doesn't this suggest an intimate connection?!?)

49. 1 Corinthians 12:28 - Different cite, using same basic arguments.
50. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13

    We are told, "A chapter on the subject of love which is 13 verses long, yet contains not a word about any teaching on the subject by an historical preaching Jesus." Well, if we read the Gospels carefully, we find that while Jesus was continually commanding love, he not once expounds upon what characterizes love in the individual as Paul does here! Nor does Jesus (obviously!) compare it to the spiritual gifts of the church, like tongues! The closest teaching that might be applicable is John 14:15-24, where Jesus says that those who love him will obey his commands, and 15:13, where dying for one's friends is exemplified as love. But there's no practical, everyday parallel like what Paul offers here -- none!

51. 1 Corinthians 14:36-37 - No additional comment needed.
52. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 - See our discussions against Robert Price.
53. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 - Ditto, and here.
54. 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

    Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ, and anointed us. It is God also who has set his seal upon us, and as a pledge of what is to come has given the Spirit to dwell in our hearts.

    Commenting on the word "pledge", which is "a commercial term for a part-payment that makes a transaction binding," Doherty finds "a silence here which is nothing short of profound." It is objected that rather than the giving of the Spirit, either the life of Jesus or the sacrifice of Calvary ought to be the pointer for the believer. Well, how could they be? The individual believer, barring time travel, will never see either of those events. Only the Spirit is present and real in the life of the believer today as a guarantee for the resurrection body. Not even the resurrection of Jesus could act as a seal for the believer today, for it is a past event which they cannot witness! Would you accept or give as a pledge for some future action a set of coins you couldn't touch or see? Would you say, "Here's my promise that I'll fix your roof -- 20 silver pieces I had in my possession eight weeks ago!" That's some kinda fudgy contract -- sounds like a deal you'd get from a used-car salesman, but I think God is a better guarantor than that!

55. 2 Corinthians 3:4-6 / 8-9 - Repeats of the same arguments used elsewhere, with the usual misunderstanding of Jesus as "prime dispenser" of the covenant, rather than the instrument of it. Regarding verse 8, it is supposed that Jesus' "glorious sacrifice on Calvary" would provide a better parallel to the Sinai theophany, once again ignoring the fact the very, very few believers ever got to witness that event and participate in it, whereas the deposit of the Spirit would be universal and not bound by time. (In fact, if the crucifixion is indeed in Doherty's nether-realm, then the omission of it here is just as problematic!!!!)
56. 2 Corinthians 4:4-6

    The god of this age [=Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God . . . For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

    Doherty asserts that this passage "points to the fundamental character of Christ as the channel through which God is known" -- and he is right. As verse 5 (which he omits) indicates, Paul is talking about the way that preaching brings the gospel message. Obviously, this is the only way that people who never knew Christ on earth could ever get to know him! There is no place for a reference to "the human career of Christ" (Especially if, as we have argued, details of that career were part of the missionary preaching!)...who, at any rate, as the Eternal Wisdom of God, always was and always will be the channel through which God is known, whether he is on earth as a human or in heaven as a resurrected being or a spirit being!

57. 2 Corinthians 4:13-14

    But Scripture says, "I believed and therefore I spoke out," and we too, in the same spirit of faith, believe and therefore speak out, for we know that he who raised the Lord Jesus to life will with Jesus raise us too, and bring us to his presence, and you with us.

    Doherty writes:

    Paul certainly suggests here that the knowledge of Jesus' raising is entirely a matter of faith, and nothing to do with eyewitness. The quote from scripture sets the meaning of Paul's statement: faith leads to declaration. If Jesus' raising were a matter of Christian historical record, we would expect him to appeal to it, using an expression like: "We believe that those who told us of seeing him alive after his death were speaking truth."

    This embodies the typical skeptical failure to distinguish between the historical fact of the resurrection and the applicable meaning of it for believers. Even if there had been a camera in the tomb, the event would not prove that everyone who believes will undergo the same fate! It would serve to authenticate the message, but one must still have faith that the promise of the message will be kept!

58. 2 Corinthians 5:6-7

    We never cease to be confident. We know that so long as we are at home in the body we are exiles from the Lord; faith is our guide, we do not see him.

    This sentiment is all too obviously appropriate directed towards people who never came close to knowing Jesus on earth and were removed from his earthly career by a thousand miles, a culture, and 30 years. Why is there any need to refer to a those who were so fortunate as to be acquainted with that career personally? There is no reason, and Doherty does not produce one, other than hinting that Paul ought to have made a superfluous distinction to satisfy his personal perspectives. (And even so, even AFTER having been with Jesus, everything that the apostles lived with from then on would be "by sight"!)

59. 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 - Same basic arguments failing to understand the distinction in role between the earthly and post-resurrection Jesus. The "never encountered" idea that "Paul and other apostles, in their preaching mission, are continuing the work of the earthly Jesus" will not be encountered because the missions are not of the same type!
60. 2 Corinthians 9:10

    Now he who provides seed for sowing and bread for food will provide the seed for you to sow; he will multiply it and swell the harvest of your benevolence.

    Doherty wonders here why no mention is made of the loaves and fishes miracle. The point of the chapter has to do with charity -- the giving of the Macedonians (9:1-4) and the collection for the Jerusalem saints. Paul is promising the Corinthians that their gift will not be without reward. True enough, one boy gave Jesus a small amount of food that was multiplied, but since Paul wants everyone to give and give generously, that's not really the kind of example he wants to put forward! Otherwise the Corinthians might argue, "Well, if one boy is all that gave, then only Erastus here needs to give. God can multiply the rest of the money himself." This was Paul, not Robert Tilton!

61. 2 Corinthians 10:7-8 / 11:22-23 / 12:11-12 - Different verses, but the same basic answer, along with others we have offered, suffice.
62. 2 Corinthians 11:4 - Repeat of previous arguments regarding apostolic chains of authority. Also the same failure to understand the use of polemic that we have discussed elsewhere.
63. Galatians 1:11-12 - Repeat of arguments regarding Paul's use of the word "gospel", and his source for his gospel, that we have addressed elsewhere in several places. Like many critics Doherty fails to differentiate between Paul's "gospel" of Gentile ministry and the more generic "gospel" of Christ.
64. Galatians 1:13

    You have heard what my manner of life was when I was still a practising Jew: how savagely I persecuted the church of God, and tried to destroy it.

    Here Doherty simply uses another aspect of the "Why God and not Jesus/Christ?" argument which fails to recognize the subordinate nature of Jesus to the Father. Moreover, how would a reference to Jesus here not fit in with Doherty's nether-Christ paradigm?

65. Galatians 2:6

    But as for the men of high reputation [or, seeming to be important]-not that their importance matters to me: God does not recognize these personal distinctions- [NEB]

    Doherty writes: "Here Paul disparages the importance of Peter and the other Jerusalem apostles as being neither of any concern to him, nor to God for that matter. How could Paul, as self-important as he is, dismiss with such disdain the very chosen apostles of Jesus, particularly the one on whom Jesus is supposed to have 'built his church' (Mt. 16:18)?" Once again, the context of Galatians -- as a defense of Paul's Gentile mission and methods -- answers the question. Beyond the general call to make disciples of all nations, Jesus left no instructions while on earth for the regard of Gentile converts. Paul is justified in this "disparagement" for it concerns a topic the other Apostles had no frame of reference for. (See also here -- Doherty completely misunderstands what is going on in Gal. 2.)

    He continues by saying of what comes after the above verse: "Paul then goes on to parallel his own appointment to apostleship by God with Peter's appointment -- also by God. Paul not only ignores any superior position of Peter by virtue of having been chosen and elevated by Jesus himself, he excludes it!" To have been chosen by Jesus on earth would not have been a "superior" position, merely a different one, and once again, we stress the subordination of Jesus as the Son and Word of God to the Father, the paradigm under which both Peter and Paul rightly operate.

66. Galatians 2:8 - See previous entry.
67. Galatians 2:14

    But when I saw that their conduct did not square with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, before the whole congregation, "If you, a Jew born and bred, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, how can you insist that Gentiles must live like Jews?" [NEB]

    Doherty asks: "Gospel scenes such as Mark 2:15-17 and Luke 5:30-32 have Jesus defending himself against criticism for sharing his table with tax collectors and sinners. Could this exemplary behavior not have served Paul as an argument against Peter's unwillingness to share meals with gentiles?" This is an apples and oranges question. As Doherty admits, the "tax gatherers may have been mostly local Jews,", but he goes on to argue that "the principle was still the same: engaging in table fellowship with the unclean." Hardly so. This is equal to saying that (in the eyes of those with specific problems of bigotry) not eating at a table with a burglar is the same as not eating at a table with a black man. Moreover, Doherty's suggestion that the passage should really have begun "But when I saw that their conduct did not square with Jesus' own conduct . . ." he ignores the fact that Jesus himself, based on all the testimony we have, avoided contact with Gentiles.

68. Galatians 3:23-5

    Before this faith came, we were close prisoners in the custody of the law, pending the revelation of faith. Thus the law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come [or, tutor to conduct us to Christ], when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end. [NEB]

    In the passage leading to these verses, Paul is explaining and justifying his suspension of the Jewish law as a requirement for salvation. In its place stands only "faith in Jesus Christ" (verse 22). And what is it that marks the great turning point, the passing away of the law's term of effect and usefulness? Not the arrival of Christ himself, not his career on earth, but the beginning of faith in him, meaning the response of believers to the gospel, revealed to and preached by apostles like Paul.

    What's wrong with this? The arrival of Christ would mean nothing at all to a person (positionally speaking, as Paul is) unless he first had faith in Christ. Until a person (or here more specifically, a Jew) has faith in Christ, they still believe that the law is what is effective and useful for them. (Further comments on this verse once again miss the point that the gospel message of salvation was only barely hinted at during Jesus' earthly ministry.)

69. Galatians 4:4-6

    Some of what Doherty writes here has been covered elsewhere. Here are a couple of new points. Doherty complains:

    ...(W)hy is Paul bothering to say at all that Jesus was born of (a) woman? Would this not be self-evident if he was an historical man? Rather, he needs to make a paradigmatic parallel with those being redeemed, who were themselves born of woman and born under the law.

    This is rather amusing! Doherty objects constantly about the lack of historical detail, then here objects when some detail is given that it is "self-evident"! (And of course, we argue that Paul did indeed make a parallel, between those [naturally] born under the law and those [re-]born under grace. Beyond that, even under Doherty's scheme, this myth-Jesus was born to a nether-realm woman; so is Paul telling the Galatians this for the first time? The bottom line is that once again, Doherty's case is only obviously proved if we assume to find it in the first place.)

70. Galatians 4:22-31 -- Previously addressed.
71. Galatians 5:14 -- Citation/quotation issue.
72. Ephesians 1:7-10

    (After speaking of the redemption and forgiveness of sin gained through the blood of the Son) . . . Therein lies the richness of God's free grace lavished upon us, imparting full wisdom and insight. He [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he determined beforehand in him(self)- to be put into effect in the fullness of time, namely that the universe, all things in heaven and on earth, should be brought into a unity in Christ. [NEB/KJ]

    Doherty finds a problem in "...the absence of any historical Jesus in the thinking of this Pseudo-Pauline writer." How? He tells us: "If Christ's 'blood' is regarded as spiritual and shed in the mythical realm, the rest of the sentence speaks of God's revelation in Paul's time, of the mystery that the sundered universe (it was one of the concepts of the era that the evil spirits had divided heaven from earth) was to be brought back into a unity through the Son's spiritual sacrifice." Well and well, but this is merely assuming what needs to be proven. If we start by assuming the Christ-myth here, of course we can derive some clever explanation, but if we start with the traditional view, it makes sense also.

    Doherty continues: "Note also that verses 7 and 8 speak of God's grace being lavished upon us, but is that grace the person and event of Jesus of Nazareth? No, it is the 'wisdom and insight' which God has bestowed, again fitting the context of revelation." And so it would be, in any event, once Jesus left the earth. The Ephesians did not know Jesus personally, so wisdom and insight (Jesus in fact being consistently identified, in the Gospels and Epistles alike, as Wisdom incarnate) could only be bestowed at this point by revelation (either directly, or indirectly, passed on through the apostolic chain). And remember again -- the gospel of salvation was not preached by Jesus, only vaguely hinted upon.

73. Ephesians 1:19-23

    . . . They (God's resources and power) are measured by his strength and the might which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead, when he enthroned him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all government and authority, all power and dominion, and any title of sovereignty that can be named, not only in this age but in the age to come. He put everything in subjection beneath his feet, and appointed him as supreme head to the church, which is his body and as such holds within it the fullness of him who himself receives the entire fullness of God. [NEB]

    Doherty here simply objects that there is no mention in passages like this of Jesus having been "formerly on earth as a humble Jewish preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth." To which we simply say yet again: Why should there have been, beyond the missionary preaching which would have been given to the Ephesians many years before this letter was written, and in the context of this hymn of praise? No reasons given yet!

74. Ephesians 2:17-18

    And he came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near, for through him we both have access in one spirit to the Father. [NASB]

    It is implicitly asked why the OT is alluded to here (And by the way, is the fact that Isaiah is not named as a source indicative of Isaiah being a myth?), rather than Matthew 5:23. It's an apples and oranges show again: Matt. 5:23 has to do with reconciliation between persons; this passage has to do with reconciliation between God and man. We do agree, however, that there is no reference here to Jesus' earthly ministry.

    It is also asked why verses like John 10:7 ("I am the door") are not quoted. One might argue that the general paradigm of Jesus as the channel to the Father was so common and ingrained that it was alluded to in a variety of ways -- including perhaps this passage, a Pauline "original". Certainly there would be no need for directly quoting for the sake of such a commonplace and foundational concept.

75. Ephesians 2:20-21

    You are built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, and Christ Jesus himself is the foundation-stone. In him the whole building is bonded together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. [NEB]

    Doherty regards as a "telling omission" the lack of any mention of "the career of Jesus himself" and the identifying of Christ Jesus as "simply the object of the faith laid by the apostles." That's a fairly big "simply" to be regarded thusly (!), but we remind our readers yet again that the Gospel message found in the NT outside the Gospels was not preached by Jesus while on earth; it was only alluded to vaguely. It is also asked why Mark 12:10, where Jesus refers to himself as a cornerstone, is not quoted; we regard this as an allusion to that passage, along with Psalm 118:22 -- so that no quotation formula is required.

76. Ephesians 3:4-6 (+7-11)

    In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets through the spirit, that through the gospel the Gentiles are to be fellow heirs and fellow members of the promise in Christ Jesus. . . . [NIV]

    Regarding this passage and others similar, I wrote:

    Reading these first three passages listed, we find that they all refer (the first indirectly, the last two directly) to Paul's mission to the Gentiles and THEIR salvation - an issue which was not relevant during Jesus' ministry (cf. Matt. 15:24). The only sign in the Gospels that Jesus conceived of a ministry to the Gentiles is the commission of Matt. 28:19. Most critics dismiss this verse as inauthentic, but even so, assuming for our purposes that it is authentic and without arguing the point, it hardly contains any sort of explicit plan of salvation of the sort Paul brings forth.

    Perhaps in reply to this, Doherty writes:

    But is this really a legitimate 'out'? Would apostles preaching such a doctrine not seek to find its legitimacy and precedent in the preaching of Jesus, to anchor it in the example of Jesus welcoming the sinner, having contact with non-Jews, etc.?

    If they did, they would not find it -- Jesus' welcoming of the sinner (a moral issue) had no bearing on welcoming of non-Jews (a racial/social issue), and his few recorded contacts with Gentiles are regarded as special cases, with interference run only after special pleading. The "precedent" set by those passages (the centurion and the Syrophoenician woman) would only allow Gentiles into the kingdom after serious begging! Matthew 28:19//Acts 1:8, as Doherty goes on to recognize, are the only directives for a Gentile mission, but despite his implied question further on, there is no grounds in the passage in Ephesians to quote or allude to either of these. Missionary preaching is far, far in the past by this time. (Beyond this are basic repeats of previous arguments.)

77. Ephesians 4:1-2 -- Quotation/allusion issue.
78. Ephesians 4:8-12

    Scripture says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train, and gave gifts to men." Now, the word 'ascended' implies that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is no other than he who ascended far above the heavens, so that he might fill the universe. And these were his gifts: some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip God's people for work in his service, to the building up of the body of Christ.

    Doherty characterizes this as an "extremely revealing passage", asking how it is that the author would "need to appeal to such 'proof' if Christ had lived a recent life in full view of all". Well, that's a puzzling one. All along I have been saying that there was no need for such appeals; now when we have one (in the context of an interpretation of an OT passage, no less, where such an explanation would indeed be expected), it is interpreted as proof for Doherty's thesis! Is there anything at all that serves to disprove it? Or is this simply yet another case of starting with a theory and molding the facts to fit it? Other than this, there is the same objection about lack of physical events and Gospel details, as if this were actually a place for such diversions in the first place. (Also, as we have shown in our dealings with the Mormons on the subject of post-mortem evangelization, the phrase here is, "the lower parts, the earth," in the comparative, and therefore indicative of a descent to the physical earth; furthermore, similar language is used to describe Moses' giving of the Torah to men, so that there is no reason why it should not be applied to Jesus on earth.)

79. Ephesians 4:23-24

    You must be made new in mind and spirit, and put on the new nature of God's creating. [NEB]

    Here, Doherty says, "the writer seems to be unaware of Jesus' teaching that we must be 'born anew,' as in John 3:3." How is this shown? This might be a citation/allusion issue at best, but one wonders why the NT writers are not free to create their own word-images and are somehow bound to only those that Jesus used. Today's preachers tell us a dozen different ways how our lives need to be changed by Jesus, using modern and specialized, non-biblical terms.

80. Ephesians 4:26 -- Citation/allusion issue.
81. Ephesians 4:32 -- Partial citation/allusion issue, although also touching on the "no need" issue -- what makes it necessary for Paul here to quote Jesus' words from the Gospels? Nothing at all.
82. Ephesians 5:2

    Live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

    Described as "Yet another passage which urges love on the believer without noting that this had been a pillar of Jesus' teaching on earth" and which also fails to say anything about the ignominy of death by crucifixion -- without taking so much as a moment to explain why such a thing needs to be noted. Again, we are mystified by this supposed urge or instinct Doherty perceives that somehow forces us to repeat well-established details. If I say to someone, "Live a life of charity, just as Mother Teresa gave herself as a blessed offering and a sacrifice to God," am I going to need to remind you that Mother Teresa herself taught charitable giving and self-sacrifice? That is implied in what I say and is firmly fixed in universal memories of what Mother Teresa did. Do I need to remind you that her work was done in Calcutta among the poorest? Once again our three conditions for repeating basic information apply, and Doherty has not shown that any of them are relevant.

83. Ephesians 5:8 -- Citation/allusion issue.
84. Ephesians 6:8 -- Ditto.
85. Ephesians 6:11-12

    Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    Here the simple question seems to be, why are not any of Jesus' miracles of mastery over demonic powers alluded to? To which the simple answer is, why should they be? The point of the passage is the believer's daily struggle against such powers; why is there a need to being Jesus' special abilities to the fore? The average believer didn't have the ability to send demons packing with a mere word.

86. Philippians 1:6 -- Restatement of previously used argument regarding the respective places of God and Jesus a God's Word (and tool).
87. Philippians 3:10 - See previous entry.
88. Colossians 1:15-20

    (The Son) is the image of the invisible God, his is the primacy over all created things. In him everything in heaven and on earth was created, not only things visible but also the invisible orders of thrones, sovereignties, authorities and powers: the whole universe has been created through him and for him. And he exists before everything, and all things are held together in him. He is also the head of the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that he might come to have first place in everything. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

    Nothing here but the usual objections about lack of mention of the earthly life of Jesus, with yet again not a single need demonstrated to do so in the context. Let us recall again from our address on Wisdom on this passage that it draws upon a tradition of Jesus as God's Eternal Wisdom. The theology holds that Jesus was eternally with the Father, and will eternally be with the Father in the future; that this Eternal Wisdom occupied a body of flesh for 30+ years is of course relevant, but 30 years of temporal existence compared to an eternity past and future is nothing to make a big deal about. If you were making a resume' with these kinds of qualifications, which would you emphasize, and which would dominate the pages? Here as in every place, Doherty is anachronistically assuming that the apostles must have shared his own limited mental horizon and been so enthralled with the earthly Jesus that they couldn't have cared about his eternal role. In fact, given the balance of experience we have just noted, the emphasis of the EW is exactly what we would suppose it should be.

89. Colossians 1:25-27

    I have become (the church's) servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness, the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Regarding this and other passages I pointed out elsewhere that it refers "to Paul's mission to the Gentiles and THEIR salvation - an issue which was not relevant during Jesus' ministry (cf. Matt. 15:24). The only sign in the Gospels that Jesus conceived of a ministry to the Gentiles is the commission of Matt. 28:19." Perhaps in reply, Doherty insists that:

    ...even if we have no record of Christ having preached a specific doctrine like this (though some of Jesus' pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel come close in spirit), the tendency would have been to impute such a thing to him or to find pointers to it in the things he did say.

    It seems we can't win any way we go! If the NT writers don't quote Jesus, then he didn't exist; but if they do quote him, it's probable that they invented what Jesus said anyway! Does Doherty's mind allow for any possibility of a Jesus who lived AND said things that are authentically recorded, and apostles who didn't just stick whatever into his mouth for their convenience? (Other than this, there are also more of the same arguments that are used elsewhere and that we have already addressed in previous essays to Doherty.)

90. Colossians 2:2-3

    I want them . . . to come to the full wealth of conviction which understanding brings, and grasp God's secret. That secret is Christ himself; in him lie hidden all God's treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

    Same as above; once again it seems to be assumed that if Christ is spoken in the present tense as above, and not in the past tense, then an earthly existence is excluded. May we say it again? Past tense would imply that Christ was no longer of this status; since he is still alive, the present tense is appropriate! He was God's Wisdom, and the Incarnation did not change that, nor did the Resurrection.

91. Colossians 2:8-10 -- Repeat and re-use of previous arguments.
92. Colossians 2:11

    In him also you were circumcised, not in a physical sense, but by being divested of the lower nature; this is Christ's way of circumcision.

    Doherty insists that "the words of this verse might well have confused those readers who always assumed that 'physically' was precisely the way Jesus was circumcised" -- to which I can only say, "Huh?" The point here is not how Jesus was circumcised, but how believers are, in the present, and how Christ declares we are to be circumcised. Christ is the one circumcising, or on whose behalf it is done, not the one being circumcised. Beyond this, I can't imagine how any reader would have been confused. Indications from the epistle are that the Colossian church had some Jewish-oriented members, who would know that circumcision happened on the 8th day of life; would Jesus have been declaring the proper method of circumcising at such an early age? Would he have told mom, "Hey, you don't need to do this to me?" (Sounds like an episode from one of the Infancy Gospels!) Bringing up how Jesus was circumcised would have added nothing to Paul's point; if anything it would have only confused it.

93. Colossians 3:2-4

    Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your [new] life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, you also will be revealed with him in glory.

    Doherty tells us that this passage "vividly conveys the sense that Christ had never been seen by anyone, had never been to earth." How is this the case? It isn't proven at all, merely assumed for the sake of the theory, and all that is offered is this apples and oranges parallel attempt:

    Since the believer's destined new life is something which has not yet put in an appearance, the implication is that Christ himself has yet to do so as well.

    No such implication is required at all. By nature the believer's "new life" in the resurrection is something that could only be revealed later! There is no possible parallel-offering in context. (On the other hand, it is the fact that there is no exact parallel that explains why, per Doherty's objection, the author did not use an equivalent word of "return" or "come back" to indicate a Second Coming. The point is to compare Christ's return with the believer's simultaneous renewal; hence the more generic "revealing" is appropriate, for the believer is not having a "come back"! Moreover, let us understand how "revealed" can be used...the same word is used in John 1:31, for example: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." Is Johnny B. saying that up until then people in Israel could not see Jesus, that he was invisible to them? Is he saying that Jesus was not what he was up until he was revealed by him? The point here is a revealing to those to whom previously the identity was unknown or unaccepted; likewise will Christ be revealed in the end to numerous unbelievers and to those ignorant of his identity. The passage offers no indication that this is in some way a revealing for the first time!)

94. Colossians 3:9-10

    Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [NIV]

    More objections that Jesus-words like John 3:3 are not quoted; our answer is the same as above -- plus failing to recognize that Paul here speaks in the past tense indicating that the people have already been born anew; along with this the same failure to recognize the primacy of the Father and Christ as His instrument, and also failing to recognize here an allusion to the "image of God" phrase in Gen. 1:26-7.

95. Colossians 3:12-14

    Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

    Here there are only the usual objections about a lack of any "passing attribution" of the qualities listed above to the earthly Jesus, with yet again no explanation of why such was necessary. But here is an interesting note:

    Does "the Lord" in verse 13 refer to God or to Christ? The Expositor's Greek Testament observes that "there is no reason for referring kurios to God, since Jesus when on earth forgave sins." But that is reading the Gospels into it, and in fact here the term is almost certainly a reference to God. Not only has the writer just spoken of God in the preceding verse, he speaks of God forgiving the readers' sins in 2:13. Even 1:14 has God doing the forgiving of sins "in the Son", the same idea as that expressed in Ephesians 4:32.

    I actually agree with Doherty here that there is no reference to Jesus' earthly forgiving of sins, for he correctly notes that "Jesus on no occasion forgave the sins of the Colossians". Nevertheless he is wrong to equate "Lord" here with God. Twice in this epistle (1:3, 3:17) the phrase "Lord Jesus" is used; "Lord God" is never used once by Paul anywhere.

96. 1 Thessalonians 2:4--Nothing here but the usual failure to recognize Christ as the instrument of God.
97. 1 Thessalonians 2:12-13

    . . . to live lives worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory. This is why we thank God continually, because when we handed on God's message, you received it, not as the word of men, but as what it truly is, the very word of God at work in you who hold the faith. [NEB]

    Ditto. Doherty tries here to convince the reader that he is on to something by asking them to do a "mental experiment" by "substituting the word 'Jesus' everywhere the word 'God' appears in the above quote, and ask yourself if that version does not convey the thinking and mode of expression we would expect to find in the early Christian record." I did this, and I asked myself, and I still think Doherty is off beam on this subject. He still fails to recognize the functionally subordinate nature of Jesus.

98. 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8

    For God called us to holiness, not to impurity. Anyone therefore who flouts these rules is flouting not man, but God who bestows upon you his Holy Spirit. [NEB]

    Doherty says, "Paul again speaks of God calling the believer to a life of holiness, where we might expect Jesus' own ministry to have been regarded as doing just that." It did? As far as the record shows, Jesus' own ministry only called at most around 500 people. How does that relate to the Thessalonians hundreds of miles and years away? Beyond that, it's just the same old instrumentality issue. Doherty also says that "Verse 8 reminds us (and ought to have reminded Paul) of Jesus' own saying in Luke 10:16: 'Whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.' " What mysterious force it is that "should have" reminded Paul of this, and how this applies to the current context of morality versus acceptance of Jesus, is not explained. That Doherty has personally been reminded of the verse is irrelevant--we have shown that his capabilities allow him to see allusions to even the most irrelevant things based on foundations as flimsy as mere word association.

99. 1 Thessalonians 4:14

    We believe that Jesus died and rose again. [NEB, NIV]

    Doherty tells us that this is a "plain statement by Paul that both the death and the rising of Jesus are matters of faith, not historical events that were witnessed and remembered." He needs to quote the rest of the verse: "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him." [NIV] The verse is conditional: It lays out a reason for a future hope, and that is why it is highlighted. Beyond that, it is difficult to see why the phrasing requires that this be merely a matter of faith referred to and not also a historical event. For one thing, Paul's reference to the collective applies overwhelmingly to those who were not witnesses (i.e., the Thessalonian church). Moreover, what is the grounds for Paul's own belief? Why is it not his historical witness of the resurrected Christ?

100. 1 Thessalonians 5:2--Allusion/quotation issue and issues covered elsewhere previously.
101. 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15--Ditto.
102. 2 Thessalonians 1:7 . . . when our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed [at the revelation of, apokalupsei] from heaven with his mighty angels in blazing fire.

     Same as Col. 3:2-4 issue above.

103. 1 Timothy 1:10-11--Once again, just the usual inability to recognize the relationship of Jesus to the Father as His tool of teaching, salvation, and redemption, plus other items already addressed here.
104. 1 Timothy 2:8--Quotation/allusion issue.
105. 1 Timothy 3:16--Already addressed; no further comment needed.
106. 1 Timothy 4:4--Quotation/allusion issue.
107. 1 Timothy 4:10

     For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. [NASB]

     Just the same objection about "the pervasive theocentric focus of early Christian expression." Of course "God is the center of their hopes, their devotion, their thanks" -- it is He from whom the tool of salvation, Christ, is eternally generated, and it is Christ who merely does the will of the Father.

108. 1 Timothy 5:18--Quotation/allusion issue, with the usual nonsense that this quote from Luke 10:7 could not have been regarded as being "Scripture" so early, which merely assumes what has yet to be proven.
109. 1 Timothy 6:14-15

     I charge you to obey your orders irreproachably and without fault until our Lord Jesus Christ appears. That appearance God will bring to pass in his own good time, God who in eternal felicity alone holds sway. [NEB]

     Just the usual here about this being "another passage looking forward to an appearance by Christ which lacks any sense that he had appeared before," and the answer is the same as that we have given for other above. Interestingly Doherty also recognizes that "there is also a certain lack of conviction that Jesus is his own agent, that he has a separate character and ability to act independent of God." That's what we've been saying all along. If one studies Wisdom theology that "curious and pervasive theocentricity of the epistles" actually makes perfect sense: The EWs recognized that the Christian movement did not actually begin "as an explosive reaction to a charismatic human man," but began in eternity with the Eternal Wisdom of God. Figure it out, and all the "confusion" and "ambiguity" will disappear in a puff of smoke.

110. 1 Timothy 6:16

     He [God] alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light. No man has ever seen or ever can see him. [NEB]

     We hearken back to an old skeptical chestnut on this one, as Doherty says that "would have been regarded as a distinct entity from God and as possessing his own immortality." But that's just the problem: Jesus was not a totally "distinct entity" from God at all, but is God's Wisdom (as indeed the Col. 1:15 passage used my Doherty here indicates; see above) and is totally dependent on God for all that he has and is (including immortality). Yet he is also a separate person, and that is why there is no qualification to the second part of the verse as Doherty desires. (See here for more.)

111. 2 Timothy 1:9-10-- Yes, the same old instrumentality mix-up...see what I mean when I say there are actually less than a dozen actual arguments in these 200 cites? Doherty is right -- "What the sentence is really saying, then, is that God's purpose and grace have been revealed by the revelation of the Savior Jesus Christ." Exactly. So how does this prove that there is no reference to a life on earth? It only proves that if you first assume it. There's also the usual inability to realize that the earthly ministry of Christ could obviously bring no benefit to the later Gentile believers written to in the Pastorals.
112. 2 Timothy 3:14-15

     You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom (tinon, plural) you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [NASB]

     Doherty tells us, "The writer has been speaking of living 'a godly life as Christians,' and here he goes on to allude to the source of that morality. He refers to unnamed teachers or community leaders from whom his readers have learned these things; he refers to the scriptures which contain words of wisdom about what must be believed and followed to gain salvation. But he cannot bring himself to mention Jesus himself as the ultimate source of any of these teachings." Well, why should he? Timothy didn't learn these things from Jesus personally; the whole point of the passage is to reinforce Timothy's personal experience and learning. I agree This "is clearly not a question of whether there is a 'need' to tell the readers what they already know"; need in any case is not even of relevance here. This is a question not of "no need" but of "no connection."

113. Titus 2:11-13

     For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. [NASB/NIV]

     Aside from the same issues we have discussed earlier re the "appearance" of Christ, Doherty asks us, "How does the writer, speaking as Paul, characterize the present time when salvation has arrived? What Christian would not say that this great turning point in history was marked by the advent of Christ on earth, teaching and performing his acts of salvation?" Very simply, any Christian who recognized that Christ was God's Eternal Wisdom and not merely a blip on the screen that trod the dust for 30 or so years and made noise for only about 3 of them. A little perspective goes a long way in solving these seeming "problematic silences" by the EWs.

114. Titus 3:4-6--Repeats of previous arguments.
115. Hebrews 1:1-3

     When in former times God spoke to our forefathers, he spoke in fragmentary and varied fashion through the prophets. But in this the final age he has spoken to us through the Son whom he has made heir to the whole universe, and through whom he created all orders of existence: the Son who is the effulgence of God's splendor and the stamp of God's very being, and sustains the universe by his word of power. When he had brought about the purgation of sins, he took his seat at the right hand of Majesty on high . . .

     There is a certain irony for us in this passage. It happens that this is one of the key passages appealed to by the Mormon faith to prove that God is a man! The LDS point to the description of Christ as "the stamp of God's very being" (rendered in the KJV as "express image of the Father") and say that since Christ was a man, this phrase indicates that God too is a man! It's certainly amusing to note how Doherty and the Mormons can use the same passage to justify such opposing positions!

     Doherty begins by observing that:

     Unlike many New Testament epistles, Hebrews cannot be spoken of as an "occasional writing," written 'off the cuff.' Rather, it is a carefully thought-out theological treatise, designed to enlighten and encourage the community of which the writer is a part, apparently in the face of difficulties and the threat of members losing heart and fervor. Accordingly, we should have every right to expect that the essentials of the community's faith would be reflected in this epistle, not the least of which would be an identification of the object of that faith with the historical man presumed to lie at its root.

     Doherty is certainly right to envisage Hebrews as something more than "occasional" like Paul's letters (which, we stress again, means not "off the cuff," but, "for a specific reason"), but there is no