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 05-23-2013, 08:02 AM   #1
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default Dating of the Pauline epistles split from Earl, Gal 1:12 ..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

And let me note that the issue of a late dating of Paul vis a vis the Gospels has little bearing on whether Gal. 1:12 can be adduced as indisputable evidence that Paul “.. thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly”.

The issue is what Paul said there (and what Paul's Greek allows), not when he said it. I'd be glad if, in your effort to discredit Earl, you'd keep that in mind.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 08:53 AM   #2
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

Jeffrey
I was intending to save this for the reopening of the other, presently locked thread, but I thank you Jeffrey for directly asking this, and providing me this opportunity.

You may note that I have been a member here since 2003, and have exceeded 7,000 posts. By far the largest majority of which have been made in this BC&H Forum.

During this time I have never, -not even once- made a single 'argument from authority'.

I have never once cited or quoted from any 'professional periodical literature'

I have never once quoted either the public nor the private views or arguments of any published 'professional scholars' or popular authors.

I have never once even so much written the name of any 'professional scholar', nor citied their books, in support of my position.
Not even when I knew that I could produce a hundred whose views supported my arguments.

And I am not about to start now.

I will not play off 'authority figure' against 'authority figure', nor fall to the practice of bowing to the god of consensus.

I take personal responsibility for my own translations, interpretation, and understanding of the content of ancient texts, and of human history, and for whatever views or ideas I may endorse.

I am not a 'name dropper', and I am not impressed by arguments that consist of listing a long line of 'authority figures' and 'authoritative works' or lengthy quotations therefrom.

This is my ethos, and my reasons for this are many.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 09:12 AM   #3
EarlDoherty
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

Jeffrey
I was intending to save this for the reopening of the other, presently locked thread, but I thank you Jeffrey for directly asking this, and providing me this opportunity.

You may note that I have been a member here since 2003, and have exceeded 7,000 posts. By far the largest majority of which have been made in this BC&H Forum.

During this time I have never, -not even once- made a single 'argument from authority'.

I have never once cited or quoted from any 'professional periodical literature'

I have never once quoted either the public nor the private views or arguments of any published 'professional scholars' or popular authors.

I have never once even so much written the name of any 'professional scholar', nor citied their books, in support of my position.
Not even when I knew that I could produce a hundred whose views supported my arguments.

And I am not about to start now.

I will not play off 'authority figure' against 'authority figure', nor fall to the practice of bowing to the god of consensus.

I take personal responsibility for my own translations, interpretation, and understanding of the content of ancient texts, and of human history, and for whatever views or ideas I may endorse.

I am not a 'name dropper', and I am not impressed by arguments that consist of listing a long line of 'authority figures' and 'authoritative works' or lengthy quotations therefrom.

This is my ethos, and my reasons for this are many.
Fine, Shesh, and it's nice that you are now tasting the servings of Dr. Jeffrey Gibson for yourself. It will be interesting to see how you cope with them.

I don't fault you for failing to appeal to authority figures (after all, you have no authority figures to appeal to for your claims), and it's a little difficult to appeal to authority to support your anti-authority position. But an alternate expectation is certainly workable and valid: namely, that you engage with arguments that are offered against your position, especially in the very forum where you put them forward, rather than simply label those counter-positions "horse-shit."

I have amply demonstrated in the other thread that you refused to engage with any such disagreements with your declarations, often employing transparent dodges and red herrings of your own devising, accompanied by true bluster meant to avoid having to defend your claims. All such things are, of course, things which Jeffrey makes a show of deploring, so I wish you the best of luck!

Earl Doherty
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 09:43 AM   #4
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?.....
Are you not aware that there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and that Scholars have deduced that they are products of multiple authors?

It is most astonishing that you seem to have no idea of the controversies surrounding the Epistles under the name of Paul in the Canon that have been on going for over 100 years.

Surely you must have known in advance of posting that Ehrman did state publicly that letters under the name of Paul were forged.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 10:09 AM   #5
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

Jeffrey
I was intending to save this for the reopening of the other, presently locked thread, but I thank you Jeffrey for directly asking this, and providing me this opportunity.

You may note that I have been a member here since 2003, and have exceeded 7,000 posts. By far the largest majority of which have been made in this BC&H Forum.

During this time I have never, -not even once- made a single 'argument from authority'.

I have never once cited or quoted from any 'professional periodical literature'

I have never once quoted either the public nor the private views or arguments of any published 'professional scholars' or popular authors.

I have never once even so much written the name of any 'professional scholar', nor citied their books, in support of my position.
Not even when I knew that I could produce a hundred whose views supported my arguments.

And I am not about to start now.

I will not play off 'authority figure' against 'authority figure', nor fall to the practice of bowing to the god of consensus.

I take personal responsibility for my own translations, interpretation, and understanding of the content of ancient texts, and of human history, and for whatever views or ideas I may endorse.

I am not a 'name dropper', and I am not impressed by arguments that consist of listing a long line of 'authority figures' and 'authoritative works' or lengthy quotations therefrom.

This is my ethos, and my reasons for this are many.
Fine, Shesh, and it's nice that you are now tasting the servings of Dr. Jeffrey Gibson for yourself. It will be interesting to see how you cope with them.

I don't fault you for failing to appeal to authority figures (after all, you have no authority figures to appeal to for your claims), and it's a little difficult to appeal to authority to support your anti-authority position. But an alternate expectation is certainly workable and valid: namely, that you engage with arguments that are offered against your position, especially in the very forum where you put them forward, rather than simply label those counter-positions "horse-shit."

I have amply demonstrated in the other thread that you refused to engage with any such disagreements with your declarations, often employing transparent dodges and red herrings of your own devising, accompanied by true bluster meant to avoid having to defend your claims. All such things are, of course, things which Jeffrey makes a show of deploring, so I wish you the best of luck!

Earl Doherty
Your failure to express your views in a sensible manner is not my fault.

When you wrote;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
You scoff: ...unless you wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven."
....that implies that you oppose this view, and that you support the contrary, that being that 'Jesus' DID communicate with Paul from heaven.

And then when you follow this up by strongly asserting;
Quote:
" Well, that is exactly what I wish to believe, not from a "dead Jesus" in the sense of one who had been on earth, but from a Jesus who resided in heaven, died and rose there, and was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians."
I have to take you at your words. Certainly you have since repeatedly denied that you intended it to be taken in the actual sense indicated by your words.
Yet when your arguments are examined, your premise remains that 'Paul' actually was taught by 'Jesus' talking to him from heaven, and from no human source.
The very premise of your argument becomes that Paul got his information and 'gospel' in exactly the way Paul claims to have gotten his gospel,. ...by the supernatural means of communicating with a Heavenly being.

The contrary argument that I and others here are defending, is that there is no Heavenly being, and spite of what 'Paul' may have thought, claimed, or wrote, no such conversation ever took place.
And whatever Paul thought or wrote was either quoted from, or inspired by the spoken or written words of human beings that he had previously encountered.

My position as an Atheist is that NO voice from heaven ever spoke to Paul or taught Paul the words; "the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me"

Paul had either previously naturally heard these words from others (most likely given the details) or made these words up himself, based upon what he had read, seen, and heard from other humans. NO invisable Jesus involved.

This is an Atheist Forum. We do not believe in communications from dead and resurrected heavenly beings. 'Paul' received his 'visions' and 'communications' via way of men and mens writings.

As to whether the horse or the cart, The Gospels or the Epistles came before or after, our views are obviously very much at variance.
As I find aa's arguments to be far more evidenced, persuasive, and rational than yours, in the main I will allow him to continue any further arguments in that particular direction.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 10:25 AM   #6
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

Jeffrey
I was intending to save this for the reopening of the other, presently locked thread, but I thank you Jeffrey for directly asking this, and providing me this opportunity.

You may note that I have been a member here since 2003, and have exceeded 7,000 posts. By far the largest majority of which have been made in this BC&H Forum.

During this time I have never, -not even once- made a single 'argument from authority'.

I have never once cited or quoted from any 'professional periodical literature'

I have never once quoted either the public nor the private views or arguments of any published 'professional scholars' or popular authors.

I have never once even so much written the name of any 'professional scholar', nor citied their books, in support of my position.
Not even when I knew that I could produce a hundred whose views supported my arguments.

And I am not about to start now.

I will not play off 'authority figure' against 'authority figure', nor fall to the practice of bowing to the god of consensus.

I take personal responsibility for my own translations, interpretation, and understanding of the content of ancient texts, and of human history, and for whatever views or ideas I may endorse.

I am not a 'name dropper', and I am not impressed by arguments that consist of listing a long line of 'authority figures' and 'authoritative works' or lengthy quotations therefrom.

This is my ethos, and my reasons for this are many.
Um, I wasn't asking you to appeal to authority. I was asking you to document your claim that the idea that Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels is a very controversial one. (you did make that claim, didn't you?) I assumed that you meant it was very controversial among NT scholars. Isn't that what you meant?

If not, then among whom does the controversy lie. Where may I find it set out?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 10:31 AM   #7
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?.....
Are you not aware that there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and that Scholars have deduced that they are products of multiple authors?
Which scholars? And how would say the denial of Pauline authorship to any, not to mention all, of the letters attributed to Paul, proves or stands as any kind of evidence of S's claim that the Gospels are earlier than all of the Pauline writings?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 11:03 AM   #8
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!
Um, I wasn't asking you to appeal to authority.

Jeffrey
I wonder what ever could have given me that impression?

Quote:
among whom does the controversy lie?
It is controversial here.

If I don't cite 'authority figures' or articals by 'authorative sources', it ought to be obvious I'm not going to cite such sources.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 11:25 AM   #9
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

Quote:
among whom does the controversy lie?
It is controversial here.
But nowhere else?

Quote:
If I don't cite 'authority figures' or articals [sic] by 'authorative sources', it ought to be obvious I'm not going to cite such sources.
Most likely because you don't know what they are and haven't read them, I suspect.

And yet you claim (if only implicitly) that you are well informed on matters biblical. Why should anyone believe you know what you are talking about.

Ah well.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 11:26 AM   #10
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Are you not aware that there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and that Scholars have deduced that they are products of multiple authors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Which scholars?
You have provided a list........".Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner".

Please read what they wrote about the Pauline letters before you post. I have already exposed that Ehrman has claimed that Epistles under the name of Paul are forgeries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
.... And how would say the denial of Pauline authorship to any, not to mention all, of the letters attributed to Paul, prove or stand as any kind of evidence of S's claim that the Gospels are earlier than all of the Pauline writings?
Again, you seem not to be aware of the more than 100 years of controversies regarding Epistles under the name of Paul.

How in the world can you not understand that it is not known that any of the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century?

Popular presumptions by so-called scholars about the Pauline writings do not substitute as evidence from antiquity.

These are the facts.

1. No writings under the name of Paul have been found and dated to anytime BEFORE c 70 CE.

2. Apologetic sources supposedly of the 2nd century and later showed that the Jesus cult developed without the Pauline letters.

3. There is absolutely NO evidence from antiquity that can contradict the argument that ALL the Canonised Pauline letters were unknown at least up to 180 CE and unknown by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Celsus, the author of Against Heresies 2.22, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius.

Once there are writers of antiquity who wrote about the story of Jesus and did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline letters then it can be argued INFINITELY that the Jesus was story was known before the Pauline letters were composed.


And further, the Pauline writer did claim that he Persecuted those who believed the story of Jesus.

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before the Gospels is now completely irrelevant and useless as soon as the Pauline writers admitted they persecuted the Jesus cult.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Top

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