Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 12-31-2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

This thread is not the only thread in this forum in which Earl's thesis has been discussed. It is disingenuous of you to act as if this was the first time you've ever heard anything about it.

.

Well you can see my own experience of what happens when I questioned Earl about his arguments, here.
If its fair enough to call religious fundamentalists on thier hokey reasoning and dodging then it fair enough to call Earl, even if he is a "darling" on this forum.

judge · 12-31-2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have not yet read Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, but it should be arriving in the mail any day now. I have, however, read its predecessor, The Jesus Puzzle. What I found good about it was that it presented a cogent argument for Jesus' historical nonexistence along with a plausible interpretation of Paul's writings made independently of any presuppositions about his awareness of stories that showed up in the gospels many decades after his death.

If Earl can really make "gogent" arguments and "plausible interpretations" in his book then why does he do such a poor job when questioned on here. It doesnt add up.

Can you perhaps explain what you found "cogent" or plausible?

aa5874 · 12-31-2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...It's not a case of the epistles of Paul and then the gospels - as though that scenario settles the matter in favor of Paul's vision. Its a case of history, the history of the 'church' that preceded Paul, then the vision and epistles of Paul and then the gospels....

Well, what you say is NOT the case. There is NO evidence, no story from antiquity that "Paul" preceded the Gospels or the Jesus story.

A Pauline writer has given a chronology in Galatians 1

Quote:

.. 13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me...

"Paul" was AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known in the Pauline writings.

The author of Acts has a similar chronology. "Paul" persecuted the Church and was converted AFTER the Day of Pentecost or more than 50 days AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified.

In Acts, Peter a supposed apostle, was ALREADY preaching the Gospel and Stephen was STONED to death for preaching the Gospel BEFORE "Paul" was converted. See Acts ch.1-ch.9

The author of "Church History" has even claimed that there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8.

All the EVIDENCE or stories in the NT and Church writers place "Paul" after the Jesus story, AFTER the Gospel was ALREADY known.

The Pauline story in the NT is about a man who used to persecute the Church and was later converted and became an apostle of the resurrected Jesus to the heathen.

maryhelena · 12-31-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I have not yet read Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, but it should be arriving in the mail any day now. I have, however, read its predecessor, The Jesus Puzzle. What I found good about it was that it presented a cogent argument for Jesus' historical nonexistence along with a plausible interpretation of Paul's writings made independently of any presuppositions about his awareness of stories that showed up in the gospels many decades after his death.

I’m afraid its this type of argument re Paul and the gospels that I find so nonsensical:

Interpreting the words of Paul as though he knows nothing about the ‘church’ that he previously had been persecuting is nonsense. What the hell was Paul persecuting them for if he knows nothing, zero, nil, about them?? No, it’s not necessary to read the gospels into Paul (however dating is itself a problematic issue...). All that’s necessary is a little bit of common sense. Paul knows something about those he has been persecuting (taking the storyline as it is...). Paul is not operating in a vacuum and relying only on his own vision.

I doubt anyone considers that Paul was operating in a vacuum, but the onus is on anyone who thinks they know what Paul means by the terms he uses to demonstrate the meaning in them rather than assuming them.

Well, I've certainly not said anything about what I think Paul means - I'm simply wanting to make the point that he was not working in a vacuum. Thanks for your reassurance that I may have got the wrong end of the stick here - that nobody is doubting that Paul had knowledge of what the early 'church' prior to his time was about; and that the reason he did not give details is not because he does not have details to give...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Creating a scenario re early Christian origins that fails to acknowledge that Paul had some other knowledge - knowledge apart from his vision - is to create a scenario that is totally unrealistic. Fine - leave the gospels aside if that is a bugbear - but what can’t be done is to deprive Paul of having some first hand knowledge of the history of the early ‘church’ that preceded his vision. How Paul chose to use, or not use, that knowledge is another question entirely. But to assume that because he does not spell out the knowledge he had re the ‘church’ that preceded him, therefore, he actually does not have it - is ridicules. As Wells has now come to appreciate - it is not all 'mythical'.

One terrible blunder is to retroject the christian notion of "church" into Paul's use of εκκλησια. The word is frequently used in the LXX, but is never translated as church. That's the world where Paul's language comes from.

What Greek word would one have used for an assembly of (Jewish) messianists (such as the followers of JtB), if not εκκλησια?

The blunder would be yours if you think that that is what I have been doing. I'm not retrojecting any notions of 'church' into Paul's use of the greek word for 'church'. I'm sure you noticed that I've been putting 'church' into inverted commas. (the Galatians quote is taken from the New International Version, from Biblegatway.com)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

It's not a case of the epistles of Paul and then the gospels - as though that scenario settles the matter in favor of Paul's vision. Its a case of history, the history of the 'church' that preceded Paul, then the vision and epistles of Paul and then the gospels. That popular saying - don't read the gospels into Paul might indeed have some merit - but the converse also has some merit - don't read Paul into the gospels. Chances are we have two interpretations, two understandings, of that early pre-Paul 'church'. To view them as antagonistic - or that one is more 'real' or 'true' than the other - is to short-circuit any attempt to get to an understanding of that pre-Paul early 'church'.

This seems to be your linguistic problem. No religion is created in a vacuum. How did the diaspora Jewish religion continue without meetings? We have the idea that the JtB supporter Apollos went around proselytizing. Did they not meet to maintain their new faith?

No linguistic problem - see above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Anyway, just a couple of points to keep in mind when reading your new book....

Quote:

Galatians ch.1
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. .
21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

So what exactly can you tell me of the beliefs of the people in the "assemblies" of Judea that are in christ? -- I mean, beyond the fact that they were messianists?

spin

I can't tell you what they believed in - as I doubt very much that you can tell me.....

As I keep saying - interpretation is anybodies game. I'm don't care what they believed or did not believe. I'm interested in trying to get to the history of the 'church', the 'assemblies', the movement. Why it started, how it started, motive, opportunity - that sort of thing interests me - not the fly by night interpretations and speculations created to justify the 'church' etc. Anyone can spin a storyline. Paul, at the very least, is spinning a storyline on an already established foundation. It's digging to find that foundation that I' m interested in doing.....

maryhelena · 12-31-2010, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...It's not a case of the epistles of Paul and then the gospels - as though that scenario settles the matter in favor of Paul's vision. Its a case of history, the history of the 'church' that preceded Paul, then the vision and epistles of Paul and then the gospels....

Well, what you say is NOT the case. There is NO evidence, no story from antiquity that "Paul" preceded the Gospels or the Jesus story.

I agree. I'm simply going along with the current dating re the NT documents. The idea that Paul, whoever he is, does not know the gospel Jesus story is bizarre. That Paul chose to tell, to focus on, a spiritualizing storyline and the gospels tell a pseudo-history storyline is just that - two peas in the very same pod.

Quote:

A Pauline writer has given a chronology in Galatians 1

Quote:

.. 13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me...

"Paul" was AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known in the Pauline writings.

The author of Acts has a similar chronology. "Paul" persecuted the Church and was converted AFTER the Day of Pentecost or more than 50 days AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified.

In Acts, Peter a supposed apostle, was ALREADY preaching the Gospel and Stephen was STONED to death for preaching the Gospel BEFORE "Paul" was converted. See Acts ch.1-ch.9

The author of "Church History" has even claimed that there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8.

All the EVIDENCE or stories in the NT and Church writers place "Paul" after the Jesus story, AFTER the Gospel was ALREADY known.

The Pauline story in the NT is about a man who used to persecute the Church and was later converted and became an apostle of the resurrected Jesus to the heathen.

aa5874 · 12-31-2010, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, what you say is NOT the case. There is NO evidence, no story from antiquity that "Paul" preceded the Gospels or the Jesus story.

I agree. I'm simply going along with the current dating re the NT documents. The idea that Paul, whoever he is, does not know the gospel Jesus story is bizarre. That Paul chose to tell, to focus on, a spiritualizing storyline and the gospels tell a pseudo-history storyline is just that - two peas in the very same pod.

The Pauline story is not really about a spiritualizing storyline but is a rather simple story about a character who was in contact with the RESURRECTED Jesus.

"Paul" was supposed to be a CORROBORATIVE source for the resurrected and ascended Jesus and claimed the resurrected Jesus gave him his Gospel of SALVATION through the resurrection.

But, "Paul" ADMITTED that he did lie for the GLORY of God.

Ro 3:7 -

Quote:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?...

What did "Paul" lie about?

He did not persecute the Jesus cult BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and it was NOT the resurrected Jesus that told him about the betrayal in the night. "Paul" did NOT stay with the apostle Peter. The apostle Peter was a fictitious character in the Gospels.

"PAUL" believed or wanted his readers to believe that the Jesus cult started BEFORE the Fall of the Temple when the Jesus

The Pauline writings appear to be in response to Marcion's Phantom.

angelo · 01-01-2011, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I don't wish to answer for anyone, but as a whole, in my opinion even though I was not asked is, Earl's book, along with R.M. Price's and R. G. Price's work build up a strong case for a MJ. These a little more researched than say, Freke and Gandy's books.

Oh - don't forget George Wells. I, personally, find his approach to be the more forward moving as he attempts to make some sense out of the gospel storyline instead of writing it off as merely 'fiction'. Methinks too much riding that magic carpet of Paul's has resulted in some mythicists not able to connect with terra-firma anymore......

Happy New Year, angelo - :wave:

Happy New Year to you and all FRDB members. I truly wish everyone all the best for the new year.

angelo · 01-01-2011, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I don't wish to answer for anyone, but as a whole, in my opinion even though I was not asked is, Earl's book, along with R.M. Price's and R. G. Price's work build up a strong case for a MJ. These a little more researched than say, Freke and Gandy's books.

Ok , fair enough.
What was the evidence that supported this "strong case"?

They all point to an alternative viewpoint to the origins of the myth of the man and and the cult. In R. G. Price's case, is that the whole of the N/T has it's beginnings in the O/T's so-called prophesies of the coming messiah, god's intervention on their behalf as in the myth of the exodus for example.

angelo · 01-01-2011, 03:06 AM

Many people assume that Jesus really existed and was a historical figure -- even if they don't accept the Christian claim that he was the Son of God. But is this assumption really justified? Is there any reason to think that the gospel stories are about a real person rather than a collection of legends?

Christianity is unthinkable without the figure of Jesus Christ. Some Christians regard him as simply a wise man and the New Testament stories as only partially reliable, but in principle Christianity should require a belief in Jesus being Christ -- the Messiah -- which includes a strong component of divinity. Either way, it would be difficult to be a Christian without believing that Jesus really existed.

Unfortunately for Christians, the evidence for the existence of a real Jesus is equivocal and scanty at best. It's logically possible that there existed an itinerant teacher with that name and around whom a cult developed, so we don't need extraordinary evidence to accept that this likely happened -- but we have far less than that.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/12/3...ally-exist.htm
The gospel records are not first-hand and too contradictory. There is no reliable evidence outside the gospels except perhaps for two passages in Josephus -- but they were both added to in varying degrees, so their reliability is highly questionable. All the other alleged records of Jesus which Christians like to cite are far worse or even just laughable.

Then there is the fact that if the gospel stories were remotely genuine, we should expect to see more about Jesus in the historical record. No one could go around doing a fraction of the things attributed to Jesus and escape the attention of scribes and historians of the time. We can certainly dismiss the historical reality of Jesus' miracles and supernatural powers; we can also be justifiably skeptical that a mundane, natural Jesus existed.

spin · 01-01-2011, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I doubt anyone considers that Paul was operating in a vacuum, but the onus is on anyone who thinks they know what Paul means by the terms he uses to demonstrate the meaning in them rather than assuming them.

Well, I've certainly not said anything about what I think Paul means - I'm simply wanting to make the point that he was not working in a vacuum.

Thanks for your reassurance that I may have got the wrong end of the stick here - that nobody is doubting that Paul had knowledge of what the early 'church' prior to his time was about; and that the reason he did not give details is not because he does not have details to give...

The blunder would be yours if you think that that is what I have been doing. I'm not retrojecting any notions of 'church' into Paul's use of the greek word for 'church'. I'm sure you noticed that I've been putting 'church' into inverted commas. (the Galatians quote is taken from the New International Version, from Biblegatway.com)

No linguistic problem - see above.

Quote:

So what exactly can you tell me of the beliefs of the people in the "assemblies" of Judea that are in christ? -- I mean, beyond the fact that they were messianists?

I can't tell you what they believed in - as I doubt very much that you can tell me.....

As I keep saying - interpretation is anybodies game. I'm don't care what they believed or did not believe. I'm interested in trying to get to the history of the 'church', the 'assemblies', the movement.

The "movement"?

As already established, there is no further insight into what was before Paul other than the few sparse indications which Paul gives. Much of this has been overinterpreted for tendentious reasons. It's got to the point where it's hard to separate Pauline statement from tendency.

The historical buck stops with Paul, where our data dries up. Everything people see before then is bs.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why it started, how it started, motive, opportunity - that sort of thing interests me - not the fly by night interpretations and speculations created to justify the 'church' etc. Anyone can spin a storyline. Paul, at the very least, is spinning a storyline on an already established foundation. It's digging to find that foundation that I' m interested in doing.....

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

01-01-2011, 03:06 AM	#229
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Many people assume that Jesus really existed and was a historical figure -- even if they don't accept the Christian claim that he was the Son of God. But is this assumption really justified? Is there any reason to think that the gospel stories are about a real person rather than a collection of legends? Christianity is unthinkable without the figure of Jesus Christ. Some Christians regard him as simply a wise man and the New Testament stories as only partially reliable, but in principle Christianity should require a belief in Jesus being Christ -- the Messiah -- which includes a strong component of divinity. Either way, it would be difficult to be a Christian without believing that Jesus really existed. Unfortunately for Christians, the evidence for the existence of a real Jesus is equivocal and scanty at best. It's logically possible that there existed an itinerant teacher with that name and around whom a cult developed, so we don't need extraordinary evidence to accept that this likely happened -- but we have far less than that. http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/12/3...ally-exist.htm The gospel records are not first-hand and too contradictory. There is no reliable evidence outside the gospels except perhaps for two passages in Josephus -- but they were both added to in varying degrees, so their reliability is highly questionable. All the other alleged records of Jesus which Christians like to cite are far worse or even just laughable. Then there is the fact that if the gospel stories were remotely genuine, we should expect to see more about Jesus in the historical record. No one could go around doing a fraction of the things attributed to Jesus and escape the attention of scribes and historians of the time. We can certainly dismiss the historical reality of Jesus' miracles and supernatural powers; we can also be justifiably skeptical that a mundane, natural Jesus existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.