Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 06-02-2013, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You need to take things into proper context.

Paul had no churches, these were houses, "patres familias" and he didnt have that many.

Exact, and in Acts there is no mention of letters sent to his Christian friends.

Quote:

Nor was he the only teacher.

Exact, no mention of John and the Johannine Christians.

Quote:

early on he was nothing more then a known martyr

Acts could have mentioned, but did not mention that small detail.

From Toto in 2009 :

Quote:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....00#post6061900
August 18, 2009, 01:48 AM
Toto, post #7
Richard Pervo has made Acts his life's work.
You could read his Dating Acts (via: amazon.co.uk)

In Dating Acts, Richard Pervo subjects the scholarly consensus that Acts was written about 80-85 C.E. to a rigorous scholarly examination. Analyzing the author's sources, methods, theology, familiarity with ecclesiastical developments and vocabulary, Pervo discovers that the author of Acts is familiar with the later writings of Josephus (c. 100 C.E.) and that the theological perspectives of Acts have much in common with elements found in the Pastoral Epistles and Polycarp (c. 125-130). He also situates the book of Acts in terms of its place in the development of early Christianity and its social and ideological context, and shows how a second-century date helps to interpret it.

spin · 06-02-2013, 05:33 PM

The silence regarding Paul's activities is quite explainable in the context.

First consider the Mithraic cultus. The first person to talk about it was the Roman poet, Statius at the end of the first century and that was because it hit the city and had an impact there. This doesn't mean that every new religion that hit the city need be registered by a Roman writer, but that no writings of the Mithras religion are to be seen anywhere and that out only word comes by chance comment in an extraneous work. Yet the Mithras religion had existed in Rome for some time prior to Statius for it to come to his attention yet not feel he needs to explain it.

The Pauline religion according to his letters initially found its home among the poor and illiterate in Anatolia. We have later glimpses in Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus that the christians he knew were just as lowly and Julian even later stresses the fact in his Against the Galilaeans.

We can only work from written reports that survive from antiquity, but there is no reason to believe that any written reports had to be written by those communities Paul indicates he founded. Just like the Mithraic cult that never left any literature, we cannot expect the illiterates of Paul's proselytism to have left any literature. Some may have been able to read, but you need a culture of writing to find production of literature.

I cannot say that those communities did survive, or even if they existed in the first place, but the little evidence we have allows for a quiet evolution of the Jesus cultus, just as we have with the Mithraic religion before Statius deigned to refer to them, but unlike the Mithras religion the christians didn't leave us with cultic installation because that was not required by the religion. (Worship was done anywhere people could meet.)

aa5874 · 06-02-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The silence regarding Paul's activities is quite explainable in the context.

First consider the Mithraic cultus. The first person to talk about it was the Roman poet, Statius at the end of the first century and that was because it hit the city and had an impact there. This doesn't mean that every new religion that hit the city need be registered by a Roman writer, but that no writings of the Mithras religion are to be seen anywhere and that out only word comes by chance comment in an extraneous work. Yet the Mithras religion had existed in Rome for some time prior to Statius for it to come to his attention yet not feel he needs to explain it.

The Pauline religion according to his letters initially found its home among the poor and illiterate in Anatolia. We have later glimpses in Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus that the christians he knew were just as lowly and Julian even later stresses the fact in his Against the Galilaeans.

We can only work from written reports that survive from antiquity, but there is no reason to believe that any written reports had to be written by those communities Paul indicates he founded. Just like the Mithraic cult that never left any literature, we cannot expect the illiterates of Paul's proselytism to have left any literature. Some may have been able to read, but you need a culture of writing to find production of literature.

I cannot say that those communities did survive, or even if they existed in the first place, but the little evidence we have allows for a quiet evolution of the Jesus cultus, just as we have with the Mithraic religion before Statius deigned to refer to them, but unlike the Mithras religion the christians didn't leave us with cultic installation because that was not required by the religion. (Worship was done anywhere people could meet.)

Your claims about Paul are invented. Essentially, fiction. You know there is no supporting evidence for your claims. There is no corroborative evidence for early Pauline letters or that Paul was in Anatolia.

The evidence for Mithraism cannot be the evidence for the Pauline writings and teachings

Only Acts of the Apostles mentioned the activities of Paul in the Canon and if Acts is not historically reliable then you have no way of corroborating any thing you said.

You are obligated to show the source of antiquity that support your inventions.

There is none.

The very writers of the Jesus cult did not know when Paul really lived, when he really died and what he really wrote.

In antiquity, there was a tradition that Paul was alive after gLuke was composed which may mean Paul lived in the 2nd century or later.

spin · 06-02-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The silence regarding Paul's activities is quite explainable in the context.

First consider the Mithraic cultus. The first person to talk about it was the Roman poet, Statius at the end of the first century and that was because it hit the city and had an impact there. This doesn't mean that every new religion that hit the city need be registered by a Roman writer, but that no writings of the Mithras religion are to be seen anywhere and that out only word comes by chance comment in an extraneous work. Yet the Mithras religion had existed in Rome for some time prior to Statius for it to come to his attention yet not feel he needs to explain it.

The Pauline religion according to his letters initially found its home among the poor and illiterate in Anatolia. We have later glimpses in Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus that the christians he knew were just as lowly and Julian even later stresses the fact in his Against the Galilaeans.

We can only work from written reports that survive from antiquity, but there is no reason to believe that any written reports had to be written by those communities Paul indicates he founded. Just like the Mithraic cult that never left any literature, we cannot expect the illiterates of Paul's proselytism to have left any literature. Some may have been able to read, but you need a culture of writing to find production of literature.

I cannot say that those communities did survive, or even if they existed in the first place, but the little evidence we have allows for a quiet evolution of the Jesus cultus, just as we have with the Mithraic religion before Statius deigned to refer to them, but unlike the Mithras religion the christians didn't leave us with cultic installation because that was not required by the religion. (Worship was done anywhere people could meet.)

Your claims about Paul are invented. Essentially, fiction. You know there is no supporting evidence for your claims. There is no corroborative evidence for early Pauline letters or that Paul was in Anatolia.

The evidence for Mithraism cannot be the evidence for the Pauline writings and teachings

Only Acts of the Apostles mentioned the activities of Paul in the Canon and if Acts is not historically reliable then you have no way of corroborating any thing you said.

You are obligated to show the source of antiquity that support your inventions.

There is none.

The very writers of the Jesus cult did not know when Paul really lived, when he really died and what he really wrote.

In antiquity, there was a tradition that Paul was alive after gLuke was composed which may mean Paul lived in the 2nd century or later.

I'll leave this post, having dealt with the content elsewhere, as I don't want you to fuck this thread.

Adam · 06-02-2013, 07:40 PM

Yes, aa,
Maybe someone noticed that Paul was still alive at the end of Acts and that Acts said it was written after Luke. That makes Paul still alive after 63 CE or a few years thereafter.
Nothing about Paul in Acts happens after about 64 CE. Paul did not likely live into the 2nd century, particularly since there is an early tradition that he was martyred soon after the conclusion of Acts.

So much for reasoning. Has someone heard specifically about the tradition that Paul was still alive after Luke was written?

Oh, spin,
I won't answer if aa replies. Sorry for my intrusion on your private war.

Huon · 06-03-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Paul had no churches, these were houses, "patres familias" and he didnt have that many.

If the early christians could sing hymns in houses, that means also that they were a small audience, perhaps 20 in a group ?

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, aa,
Maybe someone noticed that Paul was still alive at the end of Acts and that Acts said it was written after Luke. That makes Paul still alive after 63 CE or a few years thereafter.
Nothing about Paul in Acts happens after about 64 CE. Paul did not likely live into the 2nd century, particularly since there is an early tradition that he was martyred soon after the conclusion of Acts.

So much for reasoning. Has someone heard specifically about the tradition that Paul was still alive after Luke was written?

Oh, spin,
I won't answer if aa replies. Sorry for my intrusion on your private war.

Acts is primarily fiction so claiming that Paul was still alive after 63 CE does not demonstrate at all that he was in fact a figure of history.

The same author of Acts of the Apostle writes about the Ascension of Jesus as if he was writing history when it is known fiction.

The very same author of Acts wrote about the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost came down from heaven as if he was writing history when he was writing known fiction.

Acts of the Apostles cannot be used as a credible historical source when its contents are known to be fiction.

Essentially, Acts of the Apostles, is worthless historically except that is documented Canonised fiction.

On what date did Jesus Ascend? See Acts 1

On what date did the Holy Ghost come down from heaven? See Acts 2

On what date did "scales" fall from the eyes of Saul/Paul after he was blinded? See Acts 9

There is an abundance of evidence that clearly shows that the supposed Bishops of the Church is largely based on fiction.

There were no established Bishops or even persons called Bishops of the Jesus cult.

There were Presidents of the Jesus cult based on Justin Martyr and Lucian of Samosata.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water...

Lucian's Death of Peregrine

Quote:

They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president.

Justin and Lucian has exposed that writings which claim there were bishops of the Church were most likely composed AFTER the late mid 2nd century.

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 10:57 PM

Thomas Brodie, mythicist priest: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus—Book review (Pt. 2)

Quote:

The mythical Paul

Brodie’s careful researches have led him not merely into Jesus mythicism but also into Pauline mythicism. In Chapter 16 he concludes that Paul is fictional. In Brodie’s words:

… like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are historicized fiction.
Historicized fiction.
A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.
What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything the thirteen epistles say about him or imply—about his life, his work and travels, his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his relationship to them—all of that was historicized fiction. It was fiction, meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had been historicized—presented in a way that made it look like history, history-like, ‘fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history’ (Alter [The Art of Biblical narrative] 1981:27).

Thus, for Brodie, “the figure of Paul joined the ranks of so many other figures from the older part of the Bible, figure who, despite the historical details surrounding them, were literary, figures of the imagination” (146). The view is not new. Brodie himself notes that Bruno Bauer held the Pauline mythicist view, as also did continental scholars at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. But “the methods used by these scholars were very undeveloped” he writes (147).

The idea that Paul is not the author of several of the epistles is no longer a minority opinion; it is now widely accepted among scholars. Once the principle is established that Paul’s name, plus details about his life, do not necessarily establish the history of Paul, then the road is open for further questions about Paul’s history. The situation becomes even more unstable when the criteria (such as content and style) for establishing Pauline authorship are not reliable. [148]

For Brodie, Paul was a persona created by the early Church.

///

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 06-08-2013, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thomas Brodie, mythicist priest: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus—Book review (Pt. 2)

Quote:

The mythical Paul

Brodie’s careful researches have led him not merely into Jesus mythicism but also into Pauline mythicism. In Chapter 16 he concludes that Paul is fictional. In Brodie’s words:

… like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are historicized fiction.
Historicized fiction.
A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.
What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything the thirteen epistles say about him or imply—about his life, his work and travels, his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his relationship to them—all of that was historicized fiction. It was fiction, meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had been historicized—presented in a way that made it look like history, history-like, ‘fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history’ (Alter [The Art of Biblical narrative] 1981:27).

Thus, for Brodie, “the figure of Paul joined the ranks of so many other figures from the older part of the Bible, figure who, despite the historical details surrounding them, were literary, figures of the imagination” (146). The view is not new. Brodie himself notes that Bruno Bauer held the Pauline mythicist view, as also did continental scholars at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. But “the methods used by these scholars were very undeveloped” he writes (147).

The idea that Paul is not the author of several of the epistles is no longer a minority opinion; it is now widely accepted among scholars. Once the principle is established that Paul’s name, plus details about his life, do not necessarily establish the history of Paul, then the road is open for further questions about Paul’s history. The situation becomes even more unstable when the criteria (such as content and style) for establishing Pauline authorship are not reliable. [148]

For Brodie, Paul was a persona created by the early Church.

///

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

The supposed early Church did not need "Paul" it was a LATER Church that invented Paul after it was realised that the Jesus cult had NO early history.

It is found in writings attributed to Eusebius that ALL fourteen Epistles of Paul are undisputed except Hebrews.

Church History 3

Quote:

...5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.

Early Church writers of the 2nd century made no such claim and made No mention of Pauline Epistles.

Justin, Aristides, Municius Felix, and Arnobius showed that the Jesus cult was developed WITHOUT Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Justin Martyr even claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches.

See "First Apology"

Quote:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

MrMacSon · 06-08-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Little, if any, of Acts is historical.

Acts is as historical as the rest of the NT. The oldest manuscripts of the NT date from the 4th to the 6th centuries.

There's a few problems raised by that: do you mean the oldest complete NT manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus & Codex Sinaiticus? These have a number of differences to more recent & current versions.

Whether Acts is a reflection of true events is a separate issue to the dating of the NT codices.

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

06-02-2013, 05:33 PM	#12
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The silence regarding Paul's activities is quite explainable in the context. First consider the Mithraic cultus. The first person to talk about it was the Roman poet, Statius at the end of the first century and that was because it hit the city and had an impact there. This doesn't mean that every new religion that hit the city need be registered by a Roman writer, but that no writings of the Mithras religion are to be seen anywhere and that out only word comes by chance comment in an extraneous work. Yet the Mithras religion had existed in Rome for some time prior to Statius for it to come to his attention yet not feel he needs to explain it. The Pauline religion according to his letters initially found its home among the poor and illiterate in Anatolia. We have later glimpses in Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus that the christians he knew were just as lowly and Julian even later stresses the fact in his Against the Galilaeans. We can only work from written reports that survive from antiquity, but there is no reason to believe that any written reports had to be written by those communities Paul indicates he founded. Just like the Mithraic cult that never left any literature, we cannot expect the illiterates of Paul's proselytism to have left any literature. Some may have been able to read, but you need a culture of writing to find production of literature. I cannot say that those communities did survive, or even if they existed in the first place, but the little evidence we have allows for a quiet evolution of the Jesus cultus, just as we have with the Mithraic religion before Statius deigned to refer to them, but unlike the Mithras religion the christians didn't leave us with cultic installation because that was not required by the religion. (Worship was done anywhere people could meet.)

06-02-2013, 07:40 PM	#15
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Yes, aa, Maybe someone noticed that Paul was still alive at the end of Acts and that Acts said it was written after Luke. That makes Paul still alive after 63 CE or a few years thereafter. Nothing about Paul in Acts happens after about 64 CE. Paul did not likely live into the 2nd century, particularly since there is an early tradition that he was martyred soon after the conclusion of Acts. So much for reasoning. Has someone heard specifically about the tradition that Paul was still alive after Luke was written? Oh, spin, I won't answer if aa replies. Sorry for my intrusion on your private war.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.