Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 07-08-2010, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Don't use hyperbole where you shouldn't. We have at least some reason for the inference. If Paul thought of Jesus as the agent of the apocalypse, then it is reasonable to suspect that Paul's Jesus knew that the apocalypse was going to happen. If Paul's Jesus was the authority of Paul's religion, then it is reasonable to suspect that Paul would have believed (or claimed to believe) that he got the information from Jesus. And, as it turns out, that seems to be a reasonable interpretation of 1 Thessalonian 4:15. My emphasis:

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.

Actually, your quote only reinforces the position that Paul himself is an apocalyptic prophet. The phrase "word of the lord" is a prophetic phrase, uttered numerous times in the OT by the prophets when they talk about instructions or visions from "the lord".

1 Kings 16:1 Then the word of the lord (λογος κυριου) came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha

Ezra 1:1 the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the lord (λογον κυριου) spoken by Jeremiah

Isaiah 39:5 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the lord (λογον κυριου) almighty"

Jeremiah 1:11 The word of the lord (λογος κυριου) came to me: "What do you see, Jeremiah?" "I see the branch of an almond tree," I replied.

Ezekiel 1:3 the word of the lord (λογος κυριου) came to Ezekiel the priest

Hoshea 1:1 The word of the lord (λογος κυριου) that came to Hosea son of Beeri

AFAIK, the phrase "word of the lord" is never used in reference to something a human being said to another human being in the OT. Which is probably one of the reasons why Philo was able to see the word [of the lord] as a second deity. In Paul's case:

Romans 12:19 "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord

Is this a saying of Jesus?

aa5874 · 07-08-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

until the coming of the Lord

Did Paul think he had already been? Why did he not write return of the Lord?

Even Jesus in the NT Canon did NOT use the word "return".

Mt 16:28 -

Quote:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mr 13:26 -

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

It must be noted that the Pauline writings are similar to gJohn than the Synoptics even when dealing with the second coming of the Lord.

Joh 5:25 -

Quote:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live...

1 Thess. 4

Quote:

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first....

show_no_mercy · 07-08-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Oh, they are there. They don't have to be direct statements.

---

Yes, there is plenty of anti-Jewish sentiment in Paul, which is one reason for supporting a 2nd C dating for the letters.

I was re-reading Revelation last night and was struck by the Jewish flavour throughout. Apart from the introductory remarks to the Asian churches (synagogues?) the whole thing could be an appendix to Zechariah or Daniel. It's almost pure Jewish apocalyptic, with the crucial addition of the Lamb.

I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how this sort of thinking could co-exist with someone like Paul.

I read somewhere that John's Revelation was originally a work of John the Baptist that was reimaged by Christians, much like the Didache.

Of course, I don't have a source for this - it's just hearsay. But according to how biblical historians work, anonymous hearsay is primary evidence

bacht · 07-08-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Yes, there is plenty of anti-Jewish sentiment in Paul, which is one reason for supporting a 2nd C dating for the letters.

I was re-reading Revelation last night and was struck by the Jewish flavour throughout. Apart from the introductory remarks to the Asian churches (synagogues?) the whole thing could be an appendix to Zechariah or Daniel. It's almost pure Jewish apocalyptic, with the crucial addition of the Lamb.

I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how this sort of thinking could co-exist with someone like Paul.

I read somewhere that John's Revelation was originally a work of John the Baptist that was reimaged by Christians, much like the Didache.

Of course, I don't have a source for this - it's just hearsay. But according to how biblical historians work, anonymous hearsay is primary evidence

Yes, I was trying to read it this time as a Jewish document, but it is certainly Christianized. Again we see the high Christology of the epistles, but no reference to earthly activities (after the opening remarks to the churches). The flavour is very much like Daniel, which we know was written at the height of the crisis with Antiochus IV. The Son of Man is now the Lamb of God.

The old formula of Christianity being born among the Jews and maturing among gentiles seems true when comparing this book to Paul. Gentiles are included and in fact are far more numerous than the Jews in this story, yet the imagery and language seem straight out of the Hebrew scriptures.

Then there's the epistle to the Hebrews, seemingly yet another version of Jewish-Christianity, more 'philosophical'

aa5874 · 07-08-2010, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

....The old formula of Christianity being born among the Jews and maturing among gentiles seems true when comparing this book to Paul. Gentiles are included and in fact are far more numerous than the Jews in this story, yet the imagery and language seem straight out of the Hebrew scriptures.

Actually there is no EXTERNAL HISTORICAL evidence, not a shred of evidence outside apologetics, that there were Jews who FIRST worshiped a Jew called Jesus as a God, Messiah and Saviour knowing he was just a man who lived in Galilee and was executed for blasphemy.

It would appear the Jesus story started outside of Judea and many decades after he was supposed to have ascended to heaven during the reign of Tiberius.

spamandham · 07-09-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Of course, re spiritual ideas being a reflection of what is on the ground, so to speak. But what is on the ground includes the past history - thus Paul could simply be projecting an interpretation of past events into his spiritual future ideas. Patterns seen in Jewish history re prophetic interpretations becoming the basis upon which to predict future spiritual 'events'. Thus no need to suppose Paul was around for events re the time of Hadrian.

I'm not presupposing Paul was around at the time of Hadrian, I'm looking at a particular text and noting that it is an extremely good fit to the actions of Hadrian, and since there is no good reason to preclude that text from being dated post Hadrian, that's how I date it.

If you want to claim it's all just spiritual language, I think it's up to you to demonstrate how Paul could have derived these ideas from the pre-Hadrian milieu using specifics.

maryhelena · 07-09-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Of course, re spiritual ideas being a reflection of what is on the ground, so to speak. But what is on the ground includes the past history - thus Paul could simply be projecting an interpretation of past events into his spiritual future ideas. Patterns seen in Jewish history re prophetic interpretations becoming the basis upon which to predict future spiritual 'events'. Thus no need to suppose Paul was around for events re the time of Hadrian.

I'm not presupposing Paul was around at the time of Hadrian, I'm looking at a particular text and noting that it is an extremely good fit to the actions of Hadrian, and since there is no good reason to preclude that text from being dated post Hadrian, that's how I date it.

If you want to claim it's all just spiritual language, I think it's up to you to demonstrate how Paul could have derived these ideas from the pre-Hadrian milieu using specifics.

How about Theudas - or even Judas the Galilean?

Quote:

It came to pass, while Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the Jordan river; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)

Dave31 · 07-09-2010, 12:31 PM

Toto, here is what posting on-topic might actually look like as opposed to the years long smear campaign against Acharya S that is the norm here:

Quote:

"Thanks for the links which I've reviewed. Acharya's video "The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism?" helps introduce the mythicist position to the masses, and for that I'm thankful. We can already see from online rebuttals and discussion that such efforts are reaching their goal. Well done! Nevertheless, we remain in an early stage of this major paradigm shift, where Jesus mythicism continues to be ignored (with increasing difficulty) by mainstream academia and by the greater public. Hopefully, with efforts such as Acharya's, this viewpoint will be more widely acknowledged and the words "mythicist" and "mythicism" will soon appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. We may also hope for the day when they will appear in textbooks used by New Testament professors."

- Rene Salm

Posted at the mythicist position blog

This thread reminds of the quote below:

Quote:

"...In Jesus: God, Man or Myth? Cutner goes into some detail about this important development and debate, which was so widely known among the elite for decades, if not centuries, but which is almost completely unknown to the masses at large. Indeed, in response to my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, a number of individuals have expressed that they've "never heard such a thing before!" That such an allegation that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is simply "outrageous," and, as one Christian apologist claimed, "There must be three people in the universe who don't believe Jesus existed." This latter assertion is completely erroneous, obviously. As stated, thousands of people have questioned and disbelieved in the historicity of Christ - and many of them have been some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to live on planet Earth. The idea that this information, once "discovered" or expressed, would then be embraced and revealed to the public is not only naive but silly, especially considering that not only are reputations and vocations at stake but also are billions of dollars annually in the religion business. Because of such entrenched concerns, the mythicist school was fought tooth and nail, and almost buried, save for the few daring individuals who kept it alive over the past decades. Cutner is one of these rare and courageous individuals who risked the malevolence and vitriol of the clergy and its zealots. In his synopsis of the historical-versus-mythical, Cutner notes that the clergy's "adversaries" were dispatched in the most unprofessional and puerile manner:

"Long ago the celebrated Dr. Bentley, in trying to dispose of Anthony Collins, had found one very fine method: convict your Freethinking opponent of fraud, ignorance, and bad scholarship, and his thesis falls to the ground. I should say rather, try to convict your opponent by this method, for some of the mud thrown is sure to stick.... By thus concentrating on mistakes of grammar or Greek, the reader is unwarily led away from the main issue which is exactly what the critic wants. Over and over again Christian controversialists have pursued this method, as if it always mattered greatly that a present tense of Greek should be the imperfect, or that a date should be conjectured as, let us say, 1702 when it ought to be 1712 in the opinion of somebody else. (27-28)"

Indeed, there is hardly a mythicist who has not experienced such treatment, even at the hands of other mythicists and/or freethinkers, another fact highlighted by Cutner, who shows that the early modern mythicists were viciously attacked not only by Christians but also by other "rationalists" and "freethinkers" who, in their attempts to remain "respectable" with the Christian elite, mindlessly fell in line and displayed a real lack of critical thinking. Professional jealousy also factors into this type of vitriol, as various scholars want their particular interpretation to become that which is accepted by the establishment."

Jesus: God, Man or Myth?
(bold emphasis mine)

show_no_mercy · 07-09-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Toto, here is what posting on-topic might actually look like as opposed to the years long smear campaign against Acharya S that is the norm here:

Quote:

"Thanks for the links which I've reviewed. Acharya's video "The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism?" helps introduce the mythicist position to the masses, and for that I'm thankful. We can already see from online rebuttals and discussion that such efforts are reaching their goal. Well done! Nevertheless, we remain in an early stage of this major paradigm shift, where Jesus mythicism continues to be ignored (with increasing difficulty) by mainstream academia and by the greater public. Hopefully, with efforts such as Acharya's, this viewpoint will be more widely acknowledged and the words "mythicist" and "mythicism" will soon appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. We may also hope for the day when they will appear in textbooks used by New Testament professors."

- Rene Salm

Posted at the mythicist position blog

Not to piggyback on James McGrath, but this sounds eerily like the language in the

Wedge Document

Toto · 07-09-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

...
Not to piggyback on James McGrath, but this sounds eerily like the language in the

Wedge Document

I don't see any particular parallels with the Wedge document reprinted here. Salm is talking only of popularizing an idea and laying the groundwork for a paradigm shift. There is nothing there about raising doubts about scientifically validated theories, so as to allow for room for Biblical literalists to plead their case.

McGrath has signficantly lowered my opinion of those who hold PhD's in NT studies.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.