Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 06-19-2010, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Incidentally, you missed out the next bit where Paul explains he preached in Jerusalem as that was one of the places where Christ was not known.

'So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known,....'

That's interesting. What do you make of that?

I don't know. I was surprised to read it.

maryhelena · 06-19-2010, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, unless one wants to talk off the top of ones head - if one is going to postulate something or another - it's best to have some backup!

I thought I had. :huh:

All you have is an interpretation, or interpretations, based upon theology. And as such, is an argument that can never be proven or disproven - its all in the mind.

Quote:

What 'Bible thumping'? I'm saying we need to read Paul for Paul, and not read Gospel details into him.

Bible thumping - using the bible to make a historical argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

A suggestion: Instead of attempting to tease out, untangle, some history from Paul's theology - rather consider the history of the early 1st century. And endeavor to see if there is any possibilities within that history that could have led to Paul developing, creating, the Jesus Christ theology that he did. Tease out, interpret, the theology from the relevant history rather than trying to tease out the history from Paul's theology/spirituality.

I agree 100%. I'm more interested in the metaphysics and the theology in Paul rather than the history in Paul. (I think Paul is more interested in that also.)

And what's this then....

Quote:

"I suggest that the first step is reading Paul for Paul without using Gospel details at all. If we do, we can get a broad sketch of Jesus' life:"

So, according to your interpretation, reading Paul for Paul, one can get a "broad sketch of Jesus' life".

From reading theology, reading a spiritual take on things, you can get to a sketch of the life of Jesus?? That is trying to tease history out of theology - a sure fire way to take a magic carpet ride....

Doug Shaver · 06-19-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Don't examples where something is in the Gospels but not in Paul only work if it is assumed that the Gospels represent accurate history?

Nope. They work on the assumption that if Jesus really existed, then the gospels contain stories that were being told about him sometime after his death, and that the stories would have included at least some details that Paul would have been familiar with and would have considered important enough to mention in his own writings.

Doug Shaver · 06-19-2010, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Maybe he [Paul] knew some of the myths, maybe he didn't

How could he not have known? He was personally acquainted with several men who, assuming Jesus' historicity, were among his disciples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

maybe he knew some of them and just didn't agree with them.

How did someone who never met Jesus get away with disagreeing with all those men who had been up close and personal with Jesus for three years?

Doug Shaver · 06-19-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Jesus knew no sin:

2Cr 5:21
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Where do you suppose Paul got that idea?

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's interesting. What do you make of that?

I don't know. I was surprised to read it.

Why were you surprised to read it?

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Maybe he [Paul] knew some of the myths, maybe he didn't

How could he not have known? He was personally acquainted with several men who, assuming Jesus' historicity, were among his disciples.

Yes. The point is that the myths that you see in the gospels are not necessarily the same myths that existed at the time of Paul. My model is that only a small minority of the knowledge contained in the gospels was historically accurate. Maybe only a slightly larger percentage of the gospel myth would be the early traditions that existed at the time of Paul. And, the myths were diverse; each gospel source, Mark, Q, L and Signs, were significantly different, each belonging to different sects of Christian. Which tradition would be most affiliated with Paul? I don't know, but maybe a good guess is out there. Regardless, you cannot possibly expect that Paul knew a significant majority of what we now know in the modern New Testament canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

maybe he knew some of them and just didn't agree with them.

How did someone who never met Jesus get away with disagreeing with all those men who had been up close and personal with Jesus for three years?

Very good question. His rivals neglected a key demographic--Greeks--and Paul took full advantage of it.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Don't examples where something is in the Gospels but not in Paul only work if it is assumed that the Gospels represent accurate history?

Nope. They work on the assumption that if Jesus really existed, then the gospels contain stories that were being told about him sometime after his death, and that the stories would have included at least some details that Paul would have been familiar with and would have considered important enough to mention in his own writings.

In other words, it is based on the assumption that the Gospels represent some accurate history. Can you tell me what Gospel stories give accurate details about Jesus, such that Paul should have been aware of them? If you can't tell me which ones they are, what is the point of saying that Paul lacks them?

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Jesus knew no sin:

2Cr 5:21
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Where do you suppose Paul got that idea?

I don't know.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-19-2010, 07:54 AM

Message to GakuseiDon: Do you intend to post a review of Earl Doherty's latest book sometime this year?

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

06-19-2010, 07:54 AM	#30
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to GakuseiDon: Do you intend to post a review of Earl Doherty's latest book sometime this year?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.