Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-22-2012, 06:21 AM

Well, the person who "discovered" the letter, the 15th century priest Giacondo, can hardly be described as an objective scholar. No one even knows where the original manuscript is, so the importance of the letter is rather negligible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Existing Evidence place the start of the Jesus cult AFTER the letter to Trajan from Pliny or in the 2nd century.

Can you flesh this out some? It seems to me that Pliny references a Jesus cult, so it must have already existed.

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Existing Evidence place the start of the Jesus cult AFTER the letter to Trajan from Pliny or in the 2nd century.

Can you flesh this out some? It seems to me that Pliny references a Jesus cult, so it must have already existed.

I have gone through this in details.

1. Pliny did NOT mention any character called Jesus in the letter to Trajan.

2. Pliny himself did NOT know what the Christians believed.

3. Pliny executed some of the Christians without knowing what they Believed.

4. Pliny TORTURED two of the Christians.

5. The TORTURED Christians did NOT even mention Jesus.

6. Pliny did NOT know of a character called Jesus.

7. Pliny had personally encountered Christians for the first time.

It must be remembered that Pliny lived in Rome where they should have been BISHOPS of the Roman Church and where Paul and Peter should have preached and were executed under Nero and that the Gospels and Pauline writings should have already been known all around the Roman Empire.

From the Pliny letter it is discovered that Pliny had NO idea whatsoever of the Beliefs of Christians and had to TORTURE some c 110 CE.

The Pliny letter is EVIDENCE against the NT, and specifically against Paul and Peter.

The Pliny letter supports a Late development of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-22-2012, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clown

His leading argument is that if ‘Paul’ didn’t exist then he doesn’t know how to explain early Christianity.

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

Earl Doherty

Relax. I was paraphrasing. We all know what I meant; I meant that your biggest objection to the ‘Paul’ issue is probably this: That if you give it the attention it deserves that it may cause you to abandon or renounce your reconstruction of early Christianity.

Now just answer honestly: Have you ever even given this issue any serious thought at all?

Or is all of this just a knee-jerk reaction?

Chili · 02-22-2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clown

His leading argument is that if ‘Paul’ didn’t exist then he doesn’t know how to explain early Christianity.

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

Earl Doherty

Relax. I was paraphrasing. We all know what I meant; I meant that your biggest objection to the ‘Paul’ issue is probably this: That if you give it the attention it deserves that it may cause you to abandon or renounce your reconstruction of early Christianity.

Now just answer honestly: Have you ever even given this issue any serious thought at all?

Or is all of this just a knee-jerk reaction?

Good point, just disproving 'a prior belief' and trying to convinvce others how wrong it was, as if now with a new goat as friend while failing to realize the purpose it served.

Paul was the cloak of Peter and that is all he was and still today, so why look in history to see if he was real? . . . and based on that now try to destroy the Church?

At the Sacre Coeure in Paris there are urinals provided for guys like him so 'he/they' can piss on 'her'. It is their way to try to make him/them feel better as their apology and so 'thank you' for the visit.

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paul is NOT at all difficult to explain once Scholars stop PRESUMING the writer's veracity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

One doesn't have to accept a writer's veracity to accept the historicity of the writer. A writer can lie, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. In fact, if he did lie, he did exist...

Let me get this straight first of all.

I am stating that the character called Paul in the NT Canon and aplogetic sources did NOT live in the 1st century, was NOT known by Jews and people of the Roman Empire to have written letters to Churches and was NOT known to have preached that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected as a Sacrifice for the Universal salvation of mankind.

There was simply NO established Jesus cult before the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century which is FULLY supported by the Short-Ending gMark.

The Pauline writings are NOT at all compatible or supported by any historical sources of antiquity which described the Beliefs of 1st century Jews and people of the Roman Empire.

Paul would have been unprecedented if he as a Jew and a Pharisee would have been able to persuade Jews to accept his BLASPHEMOUS teachings and simultaneously managed to have Non-Jews worship a dead Jew as a God.

The Pauline writings are PURE unadulterated BS when it is claimed he preached his BLASPHEMY for at least 17 years.

In gMark, the same day Jesus publicly declared he was the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed he was CRUCIFIED.

Quote:

It is WHOLLY inexcusable and unacceptable that so-called Scholars would PRESUME the Pauline writer ALONE is truthful when the very same so-called Experts have discredited the Pauline Pastorals, Discredited the Only Canonized sources with supposed details of Paul [Acts of the Apostles and 2 Peter].

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

[Historians are experts in evaluating documents, and the veracity of documents. I am not saying, following Carrier, that ONLY experts can do this, nor that experts always arrive at the correct consensus. Whether or not Paul is truthful is an entirely separate subject from when, or if, he wrote. In evaluating Paul and the veracity of his writings, an historian ought to lay out his reasoning, his methods. I do find I am often disappointed in the quality of this aspect of the body of scholarly work on Paul. It is a vast body, though, and does contain some very good work...

Please, get to the point and lay out your evidence from antiquity that Paul did write letters to churches before c 70 CE.

I already know what is written in the Epistles so it is time you put forward your CORROBORATIVE non-apologetic evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

However, in the literature I do find scholars regularly questioning Paul's veracity. One aspect of that is to identify Paul's own interest in promulgating the Jesus story and his conflicts with other "apostles" doing the same...

What!!! If one does NOT know if Paul is truthful then it should be obvious that you cannot just accept the words of Paul alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

If Paul is either a fiction of the later Church or simply written after 70, there are certain aspects I would expect that he or the forgers of his letters would have included in this body work. One would be a verification of the crucifixion story under Pontius Pilate, but we don't get that. We get 1 Cor 2:8 which seems to indicate that Paul believed Jesus was crucified at the hands of evil spirits, not Romans....

Such a statement shows that you are NOT really familiar with the Paul writings. Do you NOT realize that the Pauline writings contains SIX Post-Resurrection visitis by Jesus?

Please, please, please!!!! 1 Cor. 2.8 did NOT say at all that Jesus was crucified by evil spirits. The Canonized Pauline writings are NON-heretical.

You have merely taken 1 Cor. 2.8 completely out-of-context.

Where and how was Jesus BURIED if he was considered to be Only a SPIRIT?

The Pauline writings does NOT support the Heresy that Jesus was CRUCIFIED by spirits.

Quote:

Even the Church discredits 2nd Peter and claimed it did NOT belong to the Canon. See Church History 3.3.1

It is mind boggling that Scholars, Experts, so-called historians fail to admit that the Pauline writings are extremely problematic and may NOT have been written as early as claimed by the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

[The literature is filled scholars lamenting the paradoxes of Paul. I do admit that most don't question when the "authentic" Paullina was written, almost all presuming a short time following the alleged crucifixion. I have to admit, the number of times I've read scholars counting outloud (well if the Crucifixion was in 29 and then Paul was converted on the road to Damascus three years later, etc., etc) is cause for discouragement in the quality of the scholarly work. However, I also think that to overturn Paul's dating you need more than an argument from silence. Are there problems with Paul? I think that is acknowledged. How did this collection of letters come to be? Again, another problem.

You are the one who presents the MOST SILENT argument for an early Paul. You are yet to provide the corroborative sources for Paul.

Your SILENCE is blatant. You make EXCUSES but produce NOTHING but Rhetoric.

Please tell us who can CORROBORATE Paul???

I CAN'T hear you!!!! Talk a little louder!!! What did you say???? I can't hear you!!!!

Quote:

It must be PUBLISHED and made known throughout the whole world that the Pauline writer did NOT ever claim he wrote his letters before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What date does the Pauline writer give for his writings then?

Why are you asking me questions that you can't answer?? Answer your own questions.

Questions are NOT evidence of anything except to show you are confused.

Quote:

Why do Scholars make the PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writer composed his letters before c 70 CE when the very writer did NOT ever say such a thing??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

[What date should they presume? Maybe they aren't "presuming," maybe they have made mistakes in their assumptions, though. What date, based on the writer's own dating, should scholars presume?

Maybe this, maybe that, maybe what???

Quote:

... Scholars appear to be creating their OWN problems.

Even the Church cannot account for Paul. The very Church does NOT know when Paul lived and how long he lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

yep, it's a problem.

Houston, we have a problem. Someone keeps on claiming Paul is early when he knows it is a problem.

Why does he not place Paul late since Paul is either early or late??

A late Paul will solve all his Pauline problems.

Quote:

The very Church claim that Paul died UNDER NERO before 68 CE and also claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke now deduced to be written most likely AFTER 94 CE.

See "Church History" 3.1.2, 3.4.8 and 6.25.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

[Why worry about the claims of the Church. Is Paul aware of gLuke? What is the evidence for that?

The Pauline writings are found in the Canon of the Church so it is IMPERATIVE that we know exactly what the Chuch claimed about Pauline writer.

The Pauline writings did NOT MAGICALLY appear in the Canon of the Church. It was the Church that compiled the Canon.

Quote:

It is clear that the Pauline writer is a FRAUD. He was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written--he was ALIVE after c 94 CE--the Church has inadvertently CONFESSED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I don't think Eusebius is a very good source. I think he's engaged in writing fiction, not history.

It is NOT only Eusebius that claimed Paul was aware of gLuke. Please, you know that a writing attributed to Origen did also make such a claim.

Quote:

It is inexcusable that Scholars continue to claim that Paul wrote letters before c 68 CE when the Pauline writer NEVER made such a claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What does Paul claim then? He doesn't claim he wrote after 68 either, so we can't claim he did? -OR- because he doesn't make a claim that he wrote either before 68 or after 68 (or 68), we conclude from that he didn't write? These works were written by someone, sometime, he doesn't make a claim for when he wrote. So we have to make judgments based on all the available evidence. So far, I do not have a reason to not accept a pre-68 Paul.

What a joke!!!! Do you expect a FRAUDSTER to admit that he was writing at least 100 years after the Fall of the Temple??

Please, just state the corroborative evidence that Paul wrote letters to churches.

That is all.

Now, we have SILENCE.

maryhelena · 02-22-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clown

His leading argument is that if ‘Paul’ didn’t exist then he doesn’t know how to explain early Christianity.

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

Earl Doherty

Relax. I was paraphrasing. We all know what I meant; I meant that your biggest objection to the ‘Paul’ issue is probably this: That if you give it the attention it deserves that it may cause you to abandon or renounce your reconstruction of early Christianity.

Now just answer honestly: Have you ever even given this issue any serious thought at all?

Or is all of this just a knee-jerk reaction?

Bingo - the 'Paul' question is a very big question....

Here is something from Earl's website - and a more recent comment from the Vridar blog. Interesting what Earl says here - if 'Paul' can be doubted - then the whole of early christian history has to be rethought......As I said in an earlier post - 'Paul' is the last hurdle that must be overcome in the road to early christian history.

Quote:

Earl Doherty

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset23.htm#Brian

Is Paul a Fictitious Person?

There are quite a number of radical scholars today who consider it possible that the Paul of the epistles never existed, at least as those epistles (and the later Acts) portray him, that the letters are second century products pseudonymously attributed to a shadowy earlier figure, or simply to a construct representing the issues of the time and retrojected back into the first century. I find it difficult to go this far, though I would not say it is impossible. I have not found any of the cases presented thus far, going back to the Dutch Radical School of the 19th century, entirely convincing. Without going into detail here (since this is a subject that would require a book in itself), I feel that some of the problems raised about the Pauline letters can be better explained by recourse to the no-historical-Jesus position. I find that the arguments for later authorship are often shaky, similar to those I have dealt with in relation to the radical mid or late second century redating of 1 Clement and Ignatius (see my Supplementary Article No. 12 on the Apostolic Fathers). However, my mind is open and I'm hoping that one of today's more radical scholars will offer a thorough study of the question that covers all the bases, as it is certainly an intriguing one. If strong doubts could be cast on the existence of Paul, we would have to completely recast our picture of earliest Christianity, perhaps even more so than in the context of a non-historical Jesus. There are those who suggest that the Christian movement itself did not begin until the second century, and essentially not until the latter part of that century. These ultra-radical positions, I feel, founder on too many problems and inconsistencies, but, as I said, I try to keep an open mind.

(my bolding)

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/04/...rtys-position/

Quote:

Earl Doherty: Acts may be thoroughly unreliable as providing an actual history of the early Christian movement, but given an authentic Paul and a first century Christianity, the documentary record and its content as a whole has always struck me as much more coherent than what I would call ultra-radical alternatives which discard Paul and essentially shove everything into the second century.

outhouse · 02-22-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

It must be remembered that Pliny lived in Rome where they should have been BISHOPS of the Roman Church

you have no idea how small the movement was at the end of the first century.

They were not well organized at all at that time.

Duvduv · 02-22-2012, 10:28 AM

I don't understand the concept of assuming that Paul DID exist. Why would this be a question for modern scholars who I assume are quick to deny that Moses or others existed. Why is this even a question? There is no objective external evidence that Paul existed. Just like there is no external objective evidence that the Jesus of the NT existed.

Toto · 02-22-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't understand the concept of assuming that Paul DID exist. ...

You have not understood the arguments if you think that people like Doherty just assume that Paul existed.

At the most basic, you have letters from someone claiming to be Paul. Somebody wrote those letters -- either Paul, or someone using the pseudonym Paul (which would be the same as saying that "Paul" existed) or someone pretending to be Paul, or someone pretending to be an imaginary person named Paul. This doesn't prove that "Paul" existed, but it makes it a likely possibility.

outhouse · 02-22-2012, 10:47 AM

that and there is no reason at all for a paul conspiracy.

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

02-22-2012, 10:28 AM	#218
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't understand the concept of assuming that Paul DID exist. Why would this be a question for modern scholars who I assume are quick to deny that Moses or others existed. Why is this even a question? There is no objective external evidence that Paul existed. Just like there is no external objective evidence that the Jesus of the NT existed.

02-22-2012, 10:47 AM	#220
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	that and there is no reason at all for a paul conspiracy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.