FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-2013, 06:28 PM   #11
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
None of the canonical gospels metion Paul - odd given that he his career had already happened and was more influential in spreading Christainity than the Great Commission. All four evangelists mention John the Baptist; one would think they could have extended their narratives slightly to include the third greatest figure in Christianity.
Luke quite literally did just that. He wrote a whole sequel to his Gospel that was all about Paul.
Yeah. Too bad Paul didn't read it before he wrote his own far different version of his history.
Seems none of those old time gospel boys could ever get their shit together enough to tell the same story.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 08:05 PM   #12
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Seems none of those old time gospel boys could ever get their shit together enough to tell the same story.
The subsequent collators & editors did a superficial job, too.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 08:07 PM   #13
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
It seems that 70 AD is the point before which history can only hypothesize about Christianity and its founder(s) - both the beginnings of the markan tradition and the point at which Pauline theology began to prevail. Prior to that we can only speculate about oral traditions, lost sources and Galileans.
Pauline theology may have begun to prevail later: in the 2nd century
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 08:25 PM   #14
Adam
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
The answer to your larger question is that Pauline Christianity only appears to have become significant after the destruction of Jerusalem and the effective destruction of the original Palestinian Jewish Jesus sect (in whatever form that may have taken) after 70 CE. Paul's Gentile satellite churches were what was left over after 70, and Paul's mission to the Gentiles seems to have been a fringe operation with regards to the original movement and only inherited its quasi orthodox status after 70. Paul is like Frasier to the original Cheers.
It seems that 70 AD is the point before which history can only hypothesize about Christianity and its founder(s) - both the beginnings of the markan tradition and the point at which pauline theology began to prevail. Prior to that we can only speculate about oral traditions, lost sources and Galileans.
Fortunately, if John A. T. Robinson is right, the whole New Testament was written before 70 CE. The sources for the gospels certainly were.
Adam is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 08:40 PM   #15
Diogenes the Cynic
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Isn't Acts really about how Peter and Paul agree in spite of conflicts with that presented in St Paul's epistles?
In a manner of speaking, yes. It's an attempt to harmonize the Hellenist, Pauline movement with the original Jewish Palestinian movement, largely creating a fictive narrative that Peter came around to see that Paul was right all along. The book is written by a Pauline Christian trying to make the original apostles into Paulinists themselves. In terms of real history, that's almost certainly complete bullshit and Paul's own letters show a clearly antagonistic relationship and claim explicitly that the Jerusalem cult still followed Jewish law. Nothing in Paul's own words ever says they stopped.
Quote:
If "Luke" uniquely saw fit to include the ascencion within his gospel why leave Christ's appearance to Paul some months later for the sequal? - the latter had more impact than the former.
Because that is Luke's chronological order, and while Paul may have had a bigger historical impact, there's no question the Lukan author saw Jesus as more important theologically, though.

Speaking of the ascension, though, I think it's significant that Paul never mentions such an event and seems completely unaware of it. He does not say anything about an ascension occurring between the "appearances" to the Cephas et al and the appearance to himself. What this strongly suggests to me is that Paul was unaware of any claims of an intervening interlude of a physical "resurrected" Jesus BEFORE an ascension. I think that for Paul, the resurrection WAS just an ascension. An apotheotic event. I think the physical interlude was added later to combat Docetism.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 09:09 PM   #16
outhouse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
It seems that 70 AD is the point before which history can only hypothesize about Christianity and its founder(s) - both the beginnings of the markan tradition and the point at which Pauline theology began to prevail. Prior to that we can only speculate about oral traditions, lost sources and Galileans.
Pauline theology may have begun to prevail later: in the 2nd century
Or much later

Early on he was viewed simply as a important martyr.
outhouse is offline  
Old 05-22-2013, 09:15 PM   #17
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
...
Fortunately, if John A. T. Robinson is right, the whole New Testament was written before 70 CE. The sources for the gospels certainly were.
John A.T. Robinson was probably wrong on this issue. He has failed to move the consensus on the dating of the NT. The hypothetical sources for the gospels cannot be dated, so I don't know where that certainty comes from.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 03:20 AM   #18
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
...
Fortunately, if John A. T. Robinson is right, the whole New Testament was written before 70 CE. The sources for the gospels certainly were.
John A.T. Robinson was probably wrong on this issue. He has failed to move the consensus on the dating of the NT. The hypothetical sources for the gospels cannot be dated, so I don't know where that certainty comes from.
The whole New Testament is not just the Gospels.

There is no actual evidence at all that the whole New Testament was composed before c 70 CE.

1. No author of the very New Testament claimed that they wrote before c 70

2. Non-apologetic writers did not acknowledge any writing in the New Testament before c 70 CE.

3. No New Testament manuscripts have been found and dated to c 70 CE or earlier.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 03:59 AM   #19
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Fortunately, if John A. T. Robinson is right, the whole New Testament was written before 70 CE. The sources for the gospels certainly were.
What 'sources' for the gospels?
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 04:34 AM   #20
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The writings under the name of Paul have virtually ZERO attestation by authors in the Canon so are most unlikely to be credible.

Essentially, writings under the name of Paul do not represent any period of the actual history of the Jesus cult.

If the Pauline writer was actually the foremost and first evangelist who preached Christ crucified and resurrected and was the the first to have documented his teachings then we would expect the other authors of the Canon to have acknowledged Paul and his letters.

The authors of the Canon instead showed or implied that it was the story in gMARK that represented the teachings of the Jesus cult.

There are very few details of the Jesus story in the Pauline writings yet the Pauline writers' post resurrection visits are far more than in gMark which mentions none.

The Pauline post resurrection visits of Over 500 PEOPLE must have or was most likely composed after gMark who knew NOTHING of post-resurrection visits.

The claim in Galatians 2, that Paul was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised must have or was most likely composed after gMark who wrote NOTHING of the Great Commission.

The claim in the Pauline writings that the Ritual of the Eucharist was to be carried out and in remembrance of Jesus must have been composed or was most likely composed AFTER gMark who wrote NO such thing.

It is the Pauline details of Jesus that were either not used or not corroborated by the other authors of the Gospels and the Canon.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.