Doug Shaver

Earl does not question Paul's claim to have persecuted somebody.

Whichever one he joined after his conversion.

By the way, as you probably know, "church" is the word used by translators of English Bibles to render the Greek "ekklesia." But apparently, the Greek word had no necessarily religious connotations. Its primary meaning was something like "assembly" or "meeting." Whatever Paul was thinking when he used the word "ekklesia," although it was probably a bit more specific than "a bunch of people getting together," we cannot simply assume that it was strictly analogous to what we're thinking when we use the word "church."

Why assume he had to make a decision? One of them came to his attention somehow, he didn't like it, and so he engaged in some kind of hostile action against it until something happened that changed his thinking about it. Whether he even knew about any of the others at the time, we can only speculate.

The one he was persecuting, apparently.

He did, sort of. That's why he had to go to Jerusalem and try to make nice with Peter and James.

His prerogatives are not the issue. The issue is what we can reasonably infer from what he said and what he didn't say.

I take it you mean he's right about Jesus' nonexistence. I agree that his argument to that particular conclusion is more solid than his hypothesis about Paul's thinking.

It is a theory about Christian origins. It could be mistaken, but that is what it's about. But then, any theory of Christian origins is going to be pretty hard to separate from some theory about the development of Christian theology.

Any theory of Christian origins that denies Jesus' historicity has got to address the question: If Jesus of Nazareth never existed, then what the hell was Paul babbling about? I think Earl's answer is very credible, but I'm not ready yet to endorse it as firmly as I endorse Jesus' nonexistence. As time has permitted over the years, I have done what research I could on the philosophical climate of the first century. I have found nothing yet that contradicts anything Earl says and a great deal that is consistent with it. And that just might be the best that we'll ever be able to manage. It has to be remembered that hard evidence in this area is maddening sparse.

spin

Talk of "christianities" may easily be inappropriate, if Paul is the initiator of what we might call the Jesus cult. maryhelena seems to continually over-assume. If we talk about christianity, it certainly refers to a Jesus centered religion and we don't know if there were any before Paul. He continually contrasts his Jesus being crucified with the following of the law apparently advocated by the people Paul admitted some kind of allegiance to, which should mean the pillars in Jerusalem, ie Jesus and his crucifixion is not part of the pillars' religion.

Still assuming too much.

With Cephas and James. Peter has been inserted into the text to force the connection with Paul's Cephas. Before the Peter material was insinuated into the text, all three pillars had the mission to the circumcised, but the Peter material makes it only Peter. This is no problem when Peter has gained ascendancy as had happened in orthodox christianity.

Paul had some warped idea that his new revelation of a crucified savior who overcame the need for the law would be appreciated by the Jerusalem torah followers. The one thing that made anyone a Jew is torah observance and Paul was advocating that it had been outdated. When he took his brand of messiahless messianism to Jerusalem what sort of reaction would you expect he got?


spin

judge

Well from just galatians we have.

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Or corinthians

2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Although these could all be convenient interpolations I guess, which seems to be the flavor around here.
When a passage doesnt suit us just claim it was interpolated. Its kinda like being on a forum for religious fundamentalists when that happens.

spin

Now that you have muddied the waters, let it settle and go back and use the term found in translations of LXX εκκλησια (eg Deut 9:10, 18:16). That's the language Paul would have had available to him.

It is the meaning of εκκλησια that is the concern, not how it frequently gets translated in tendentious literature. Retrojecting notions from later times into earlier texts only mystifies those texts.

judge

Possibly, although we dont see paul consistently quoting any greek text we know of.

I made no comment about what it might mean. So I can only assume you are imagining what you want me to mean.

Anyway what we are left with, is the context in galatians or Corinthians, which tells us something.
You are better to look at that context than to ignore it and speculate about other things which you are quite unsure about.

maryhelena

Hey, there spin - what's with the "maryhelena seems to continually over-assume"? In this particularly case I'm referencing Earl's "Christianity was born in a thousand places". How would you read that? Looks like it's thousands of christianities that are being acknowledged here.


Who, Doug or me? Remember an earlier post of mine where I said:

Actually, the whole NT storyline is bs - I only run with that storyline when it serves to help make a point or two...

So, here, Earl is saying 'Christianity was born in a thousand places." And I'm running with the NT storyline, using the words of Paul, that he persecuted the 'church' - and simply asking which 'church' if there are thousands of them. Regardless if the Greek for this word can be translated differently, my argument re Earl and his thousands of christianities still stands. Which version of christianity does Paul have problems with - which would also indicate that there were some 'churches', some christianities, that he did not have difficulty with.
That's all following the NT storyline. spin, one can pick and choose and one can endeavor to justify ones choice with linguistics and interpolations. That still boils down to following the NT storyline, albeit now a storyline according to ones own image. Once, its decided that first came Paul - on the basis of dating documents of early manuscripts (the argument that Paul does not know the gospel Jesus storyboard is purely an assumption) then one's reconstruction of the NT lies on very shaky grounds - vunerable to any new discovery re finding more of those elusive early manuscripts. If tomorrow a very early copy of John's gospel turns up - down the drain goes all the creative Pauline re-constructions of the NT storyline.

That's why taking it as being bs from beginning to end ie as pseudo-history, a 'salvation' history, is the far more bombproof position to take. And dare I say it - the more truly skeptical position to take...

maryhelena

From the forthcoming book:

Is This Not the Carpenter: A Question of Historicity?

my bolding

Methinks a take your pick approach to the NT storyline - however one may attempt to justify ones choice, is never going to achieve any breakthrough re the search for early christian origins. Some other bright spark can aways be found to pick another cherry from the NT tree. That's the way it's aways been with christianity - time to call the whole game off...

( Mogens Müller is involved in the Q research project at the University of Copenhagen).

spin

Notice that "christianity" is in the singular. There seems to be a discussion of the material that went into christianity rather than thousands of christianities. Christianity came along it suggests after the time of all these different influences.

At the time, both.

I'll leave you here to make your point or two. You seem to be turning roots into individual trees.

Well, Paul's "storyline". And our job is to test the veracity of it, to see if there is any validity in it. You must deal with the text and first deal with it literally otherwise you exclude yourself from saying meaningful things about it.

And if it weren't so vulnerable to such changes it would have no value. Positions that are not subject to the effects of new evidence have no relevance. New evidence tests theories and analyses.


spin

aa5874

You CERTAINLY did NOT use any credible external source of antiquity, you CERTAINLY did NOT use any WRITTEN apologetic evidence from antiquity for your claims. There is just NO support whatsoever that "Paul" shaped the Christian cult.

"Paul" did NOT shape the Apostles BEFORE him.

"Paul" did NOT shape the Pillars, James, John and Cephas.

"Paul" did NOT shape "Peter" or "Cephas".

"Paul" did NOT shape "James" the Lord's brother.

"Paul" did NOT shape the Church in Christ which could not even recognize him.

The teachings of the Markan Jesus was NOT shaped by "Paul".

This is the TEACHING of JESUS in gMARK.

Mr 9:31 - And now the teachings of "Paul".

Ro 10:9 - The Jesus in gMark was NOT shaped by "PAUL". The Jesus in gMark did NOT even know of SALVATION through the Resurrection.

The Jesus in gMark did NOT eveN KNOW that WITHOUT his RESURRECTION mankind would remain in Sin but "PAUL" did.

Look at the teachings of "Paul" that did NOT shape the Jesus of gMark.

It was "Paul" who was SHAPED by the Gospels.

A theory based on hypothetical writings are generally weak. One MUST develop a theory based on EXTANT evidence.

"Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. That is NOT based on hypotheticals. It is based on Apologetic sources. See Church History 3.4.8.

Well, once you ADMIT that the Pauline writings suffer from authenticity problems then it is NOT really wise to make assertions about "PAUL" when it may be that the LATE writings may have been written by "PAUL" and the EARLIER writings written by a fraudster.

Most Scholars have OPINIONS about "Paul" but MOST have NO credible evidence for their OPINIONS of "Paul".

Can you TELL ME what is the credible evidence or the CREDIBLE historical source for the death of "Paul"? Where in the NT does it STATE when "PAUL" died?

But, WHERE is the actual evidence that MOST Scholars use to show that it was ACTUALLY "Paul" who was early and it was NOT the REAL "Paul" who wrote LATE.

Most scholars have OPINIONS about "PAUL" but MOST cannot even show the actual credible corroborative historical source that claimed "PAUL" was BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Why could NOT the real "PAUL" be the LATER "Paul".

After all the Church writers claimed that the Gospel of Matthew was EARLY but it has been DEDUCED that gMatthew was LATE and AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The Church writers have a profile or pattern they were claiming that the Gospels were EARLY when they were really LATE. They may have done the same thing with the Pauline writings.

But, that is EXACTLY what we DON'T know. The author of gMatthew and gMark did NOT know of the Pauline Jesus. Both gMatthew and gMark were more likely to be SHAPED by Hebrew Scripture.

The EXTANT sources of Antiquity DENY the teachings of "Paul". There is SIMPLE no credible evidence of antiquity to show that any Pauline writings are historically accurate and were circulated BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

The PAULINE writings cannot be its OWN source of corroboration when you ADMIT that half of them may be forgeries.

maryhelena

Note also the use of the plural - "independent communities" and "sects".
Note also: "many innovative minds like Paul's".

Looks like Paul is a very small fish in a very big pond in Doherty's view. Many minds like Paul's - according to Earl. Thus many trees possible. Give it up spin, give up the idea that one can produce one 'true' story out of the NT storyline. Where is our true blooded skeptic now...:huh:.That's fine with theories - give and take, let go and develop something new. It's not the way forward in searching for early christian origins. Remember that old saying - you can play any old tune on the Bible...

spin, don't give in to the illusion, the pseudo-history. Put it aside and re-consider the real history of the relevant time period. Look for motive, for opportunity, in creating this NT pseudo-history, this 'salvation' history. No gospel Jesus means that these questions have to be addressed. The NT storyline will not help you here.