Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-23-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

GDon:

You ignore the two most important principles of mytherism.

1. A passage that seems to describe Jesus as an historical earthly being doesn't mean what it seems to mean; and,

2. If it incontestably means what it seems to mean, it is an interpolation.

We know that one of these is true in every case see we know a priori that there was no historical Jesus.

Steve

Possibly a little unfair, but...very witty.

One can't help thinking there may be at least a grain of truth, in relation to some people.

Toto · 09-23-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

GDon seems to be ignoring me, but the meaning of this passage (once you find a more coherent translation) is that Christ is both preexistent, ruler over all, and fully human. This would imply that Paul was perfectly in tune with later catholic dogma on the nature of Christ. ..

I don't know why GDon keeps repeating his question like a broken record without interacting with the answers. Why is the mere prima facie reading of interest?

I believe Don addressed the question of why it is of interest in the OP, in response to another question you posed:

Quote:

The historical Jesus guild (which is actually doing theology and calling it history) just keeps repeating that everyone agrees that the question is settled that Jesus existed, although none of them can actually explain why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea?

I have pointed out that this is not why the historical Jesus guild thinks that Jesus existed, and that no one uses this verse to show that there was a historical Jesus, and GDon seemed to agree with me - but he keeps asking his question. :huh:

Quote:

Similarly, what Don, archibald, myself and others keep saying is that despite the lack of specific actions/sayings by Paul attributed to Jesus, the fact remains that the prima-facie reading of Paul overwhelmingly supports the idea that Paul believed Jesus had walked the earth as a human being.

The theory that Paul's Jesus was not a historical being, and that Paul himself did NOT believe that Jesus had been a human who had walked the earth, is in sharp contrast to the prima-facie reading of Paul, and requires appeals to interpolations, conspiracies, unusual definitions of words and unusual beliefs unsupported by the text.

No - the prima facie reading of Paul is not "overwhelmingly" in support of a historical Jesus. Mythicism only requires a few interpolations. The conspiracy was out in the open - it was called orthodox Christianity.

Quote:

It requires further than Paul's epistles were modified without knowledge that Paul himself had never believed in the gospel Jesus (because otherwise we would have seen many clear references to the actions and sayings found in the Gospels).

I can't figure out what this means. The interpolations were not made by someone attempting to insert a historical Jesus into Paul. They only needed to bring Paul in line with orthodox theology.

Quote:

In short, the non-historical theory requires piling uncertainties and unlikelihoods upon uncertainties and unlikelihoods. Perhaps modern scholarship prefers a prima-facie reading to going down that path.

I don't see any more uncertainties or unlikelihoods in the mythicist case than in the historicist case. And have you read any modern scholarship? It spends its time delving into the meaning behind the texts.

archibald · 09-23-2011, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Unless of course kata sarka means something like 'per our worldly point of view', leaving us with something akin to:

Quote:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen per our worldly point of view,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, per our worldly point of view, Christ [came], who is over all

Juxtaposed with 2 Cor 5:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIV

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

or

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJV

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

I wish I could say that any of the above changed anything, but I can't, because it doesn't.

Iskander · 09-23-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...Paul’s words make Jesus a very special human-like-god figure and it took a long time for Christians to agree on the one statement about Jesus nature. Arius and many others gave diverse theological interpretations of this man-like-god.....

Why, oh why can't you even write what is found in the Pauline writings?

"Paul" claimed Jesus was GOD'S SON, and was HEAVENLY. The Pauline Jesus was God in the Flesh of man, God INCARNATE not man deified.

Ga 4:4 -

1Co 15:47 -

The Pauline Jesus was GOD INCARNATE from HEAVEN not man deified from earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Does Paul say that Jesus is a man? , Yes

Is Paul saying that Jesus is only an ordinary man? No, the founders of religions are traditionally embellished with extraordinary qualities.Paul says Jesus is very, very special.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was GOD'S SON? YES.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was the Lord FROM HEAVEN? YES.

Does "Paul" claim he was NOT the Apostle of a man? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim he did NOT Get his gospel from man? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was raised from the dead? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was in the Form of God? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God? Yes

Does "Paul" claim Jesus would come back in the AIR? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth? Yes[

The Pauline Jesus was God INCARNATE from HEAVEN not man deified from earth.

Because we are considering what Paul has written. Are you saying that forums such as this one are a contradiction?

archibald · 09-23-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't see any more uncertainties or unlikelihoods in the mythicist case than in the historicist case. And have you read any modern scholarship? It spends its time delving into the meaning behind the texts.

That seems like a very odd thing to say. Even if it were the case (which I personally don't think it is) that everything else was equally balanced, it is still the case that the MJ scenario is virtually unique. (D Hume Test).

And inherently less parsimonious (Occam Test).

Anyhow, things aren't equally balanced. You're pretending you're not looking at a duck.

Toto · 09-23-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

GDon seems to be ignoring me, but the meaning of this passage (once you find a more coherent translation) is that Christ is both preexistent, ruler over all, and fully human. This would imply that Paul was perfectly in tune with later catholic dogma on the nature of Christ. Amazing! This passage is not compatible with the historical Jesus hypothesis that Jesus was originally a mere human, who later accumulated legends that made him appear to be godlike, but then nothing Paul wrote supports this.

I don't know why GDon keeps repeating his question like a broken record without interacting with the answers. Why is the mere prima facie reading of interest?

Toto, perhaps if you had a good point, Gdon would address it.

Very funny.

Quote:

As it is this 'sounds like it's from later' thing is just your speculation.

Are you familiar with the history of Christian dogma?

Quote:

To start with, it's based on an interpretation of the text that you are making, and to follow, whether it 'sounds like' something which came later is not evidence that it came later, since something later could be based on something similar which was said earlier. It requires you to know what Paul would have said in the first place. That would be quite a trick, as would Paul being the sort of person who wasn't capable of saying a variety of things at different times, all of which are perfectly consistent. Needless to say, this appears to be a thin, weak basis on which to form anything like a conclusion. It's on a par with spin saying (i) the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 sounds like later, (ii) the way the witnessing by others is described in 1 Cor 15 sounds like later.....etc etc ad infinitum.

One way that scholars identify interpolations into texts is to consider the historical context. It is very suspicious when someone discovers an "ancient" document that answers the very question that their enemies had disputed. That's what this passage looks like.

But of course, this requires going beyond a superficial, prima facie reading of the texts.

Quote:

Now, you have previously said that you think about 50% of 'Paul' is not original. I would like to hear you explain how you know this, and more importanly, how you know what the original 50% was.

I don't know this - it's a guess. I invite you to read David Hindley's posts in this forum. It's okay - he's not a mythicist.

Quote:

Stephan's evidence, on the other hand, is the sort of possible clue that provides what any objective, non-speculator could ask for.

You are referring to his claim that this passage is not in Marcion's version?

Quote:

All that is left is for someone to address all the other indicators from Paul and find similar evidence.

This passage is just one feather on Paul's duck. Too often on this forum, I see people studying one writer's image of a duck and saying, 'that bit doesn't look like a typical duck feather' and ignoring that the overall creature they are investigating still looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like one.

MJ fails the Duck Test, the Occam Test and the David Hume test. :]

I don't know what duck you are looking at.

Most of the scholars who read Paul do not find any overwhelming indication that he had a historical Jesus in mind. Most of them have various excuses for why this is so. Doherty just moves a little bit beyond this to claim that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.

archibald · 09-23-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Tertullian: ad nationes

Quote:

Chapter VII.545—The Christians Defamed. A Sarcastic Description of Fame; Its Deception and Atrocious Slanders of the Christians Lengthily Described.

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;552 under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,553

“This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus”—Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus [Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus;[2] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)]

“under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;552”— Jesus taught during the reign of Tiberius with the clearness and authority of the first teacher. [Tiberius ( Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus;[1] 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD)]

“under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,553”—The men and women that had accepted the teaching of Jesus. [Nero ( Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus;[1] 15 December 37 – 9 June 68),]

Quote:

Of Melito's numerous works almost all have perished, fortunately, Eusebius has preserved the names of the majority and given a few extracts (Church History IV.13, IV.26). They are (1) "An Apology for the Christian Faith", appealing to Marcus Aurelius to examine into the accusations against the Christians and to end the persecution (written apparently about 172 or before 177).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10166b.htm

On the face of it, and without my knowing about the contexts of the quotes maryhelena supplied, it does seem she has a point, in that they appear to refer to the term 'Christians'. As such, they would be at odds with the orthodox dating.

Iskander · 09-23-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Tertullian: ad nationes

“This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus”—Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus [Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus;[2] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)]

“under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;552”— Jesus taught during the reign of Tiberius with the clearness and authority of the first teacher. [Tiberius ( Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus;[1] 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD)]

“under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,553”—The men and women that had accepted the teaching of Jesus. [Nero ( Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus;[1] 15 December 37 – 9 June 68),]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10166b.htm

On the face of it, and without my knowing about the contexts of the quotes maryhelena supplied, it does seem she has a point, in that they appear to refer to the term 'Christians'. As such, they would be at odds with the orthodox dating.

A writer, such as Tertullian, would use the current name for his religion when referring to its beginning.

When I speak of British History I am not excluding the Roman Period in the study of the ancient British History.

If a name is all what it is I would not have posted .

I like maryhelena too.

archibald · 09-23-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you familiar with the history of Christian dogma?

You need to cut down on the implied arguments from authority, IMO, Toto. Y'see, my problem is, all I see are various 'authorities', none of whom can find agreement and many of whom don't seem to be capable of not dropping repeated clangers (or at least saying things which indicate unfounded speculation) despite having steeped themselves in the topic for decades. We're not on a science forum. :]

If that was just an innocent question, ignore my comment. It's just that you have implied such things before. or if there is something in particular about historical christian dogma which is relevant here that you want to state, then just say it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

One way that scholars identify interpolations into texts is to consider the historical context. It is very suspicious when someone discovers an "ancient" document that answers the very question that their enemies had disputed. That's what this passage looks like.

Yes. That is one 'strut'. Even the whole kit of 'struts' falls far short of being able to provide reliable support. And here, as often, we are seemingly putting all our weight on too few struts, or maybe even in some cases, just one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But of course, this requires going beyond a superficial, prima facie reading of the texts.

Sure. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't know this - it's a guess. I invite you to read David Hindley's posts in this forum. It's okay - he's not a mythicist.

I hope you don't mean 'what real interpolations look like'. I really hope you don't mean that one. It's about as speculative as it's possible to get. Basically, DCH has a personal speculative hypothesis (refreshingly, he admits this, and I admire him for it) and he cuts the tripe out of Paul to suit. This is essentially bowdlerising, not rational analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are referring to his claim that this passage is not in Marcion's version?

Yes, I was. It had all the makings of a thread killer. What do you think of it? I thought you'd be delighted, since it might be a goodly slice towards your 50%. :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most of the scholars who read Paul do not find any overwhelming indication that he had a historical Jesus in mind. Most of them have various excuses for why this is so. Doherty just moves a little bit beyond this to claim that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.

There is no need to introduce the word 'overwhelming'. Why do so many posts on this thread resort to strawmen. What you would need to say to me is that most scholars don't find enough indication that Paul had an historical/earthly figure in mind. Even I accept it's a long way from overwhelming by itself. It took 'Q' to tip Wells away from Mj.

aa5874 · 09-23-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....The Pauline Jesus was God INCARNATE from HEAVEN not man deified from earth.

Because we are considering what Paul has written. Are you saying that forums such as this one are a contradiction?

Well I have ALSO considered what is found in the Pauline writings. I can find no contradiction. God INCARNATE appeared to "Paul" as GOD with Flesh in the Pauline writings not a defied man.

"Paul" did NOT worship the Creature.

Romans 1

Quote:

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator....

The Pauline Jesus was the CREATOR not a CREATURE.

The Pauline Jesus was GOD not deified man.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.