Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bajan · 11-13-2006, 04:22 AM

But Acts ch 1 opens by saying that Jesus only appeared for 40 days and then ascended into heaven. This would seem to contradict Paul's claim to have seen Jesus.

hatsoff · 11-13-2006, 05:23 AM

Acts 1 tells of proofs offered to the Apostles during a period of forty days. It did not say Jesus never made an appearance afterward. Besides, I wouldn't really call what happened in ch. 7 an "appearance" anyhow; it was more of a special revelation experience for Paul.

Doug Shaver · 11-13-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bajan

This would seem to contradict Paul's claim to have seen Jesus.

Only if Paul had claimed he saw Jesus before the ascension. But Paul says nothing about *when* he saw Jesus. Nor does he say anything about specific about what he actually saw.

In the gospels and Acts, the disciples obviously saw Jesus in the flesh. Taking the authors at their word, the appearances were obviously not just visions. For all we get from Paul, what he saw, if anything, almost certainly was just a vision.

TedM · 11-13-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It is also not that the "story ends before Paul" because that is factually untue according to canon. Becuase that canon insists Jesus appeared to Paul. That appearance is about Jesus and therefore you are simply stating falsehoods.

This is BS. Who cares what the canon says? Why do you insist that 4 different writers need to agree with canon? Whatever Paul experienced was not during Jesus' lifetime or before an ascention, and even according to Paul's work it may have been nothing more than a vision or even just an internal revelation that occurred sometime afterwards. If you want to insist that Acts is correct, then do you want to insist that Luke should have included the appearance to Paul in the gospel of Luke also? Your requirements are unreasonable. A later--probably years later--light and voice from heaven from Jesus doesn't quite fit into an accounting of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Sure, one could include it but it is in no way a requirement that should be insisted upon. Of course, there is also the possibility that they didn't like Paul or believe his story of Jesus' appearance too.

Quote:

Find me examples of historical works where these kinds of anchors are omitted.

I don't need to because I'm not instisting the gospels were written by historians, who think and write like historians. Are you? If so, that only points out why you make assumptions and place requirements that are unreasonable. If you consider the possibility that the writers were simply telling their story about Jesus as they understood him, then why place any more requirement on them that you would on a person who is writing a letter to a friend. Why subject them to historical requirements?

Quote:

It is basically impossible to do so and still retain coherency in the story because people live after the frame of events and do things on their own. That is how we remember things. By what came before and after. Within a context. You can't argue we need to exclude context.

The story seems quite coherent and understandable to the millions of people who have read them. They don't require that the 'anchors' you have to have be there--probably because they don't insist that they are reading records by professional historians who adhere to the strictest of standards, like you do. Your expectations are simply misplaced, and products of your own invention.

Quote:

That's just rank bullshit. Fnd any historical tract that does this. Just one. In all history. You have thousands of years to work with, so this ought to be easy.

More babbling. I don't need to because I'm not holding these gospels up to some imaginary historical standard like you are. Of course there have been billions of writings over the years that talk about past events that don't have the kinds of anchors you require in order to consider the events to not be mythical. In any case, since the gospel writers--according to you--were just making everything up, why couldn't they have just made up the kind of anchors you are wanting to see? They certainly would have been capable of doing that also? Somehow, their failure to do so is seen by you as an indicator that they weren't writing history, but certainy if they were trying to just 'give the appearance of history' they should be expected--by you--to have built in false anchors that you would expect: why not show how the disbelieving James in the gospels converted and the rose to the leadership of the early Jewish Christians? Why not show how Jesus prophecied Paul's future mission to the Gentiles? Why didn't they just go ahead and invent the things a good fiction writer would have invented if they were trying to mascarade as legitimate historians?

Arguments from silence of the type you seem to like are riddled with assumptions and guesswork and often what sounds logical really isn't very realistic because it works within a tunnel vision. Dohery's idea of a Jesus in another sphere is laughable given the evidence for it, yet so many here think that he has presented a coherent, strong case for such a Jesus. He too has used his imagination to fill in holes--creating a whole world of expectations for which we have little evidence that such expectations are reasonable. It's tunnel vision fueled by skepticm and emotional bias along his own creativity and intelligence. He would be much better off going with the 'simple preacher' or even the 100BC man approach..I mention him because you seem to have really taken a liking to his writings.

Quote:

First, you insist there should be no such references, and now you claim they exist. So which is it?

There's no contradition in such statements. Both can be true.

Quote:

It looks to me that the passage I believe you are referring to (16:18) refers to faith in Jesus as the Christ being the foundation of the church - not that Peter is the first Pope.

Well, you can believe that as you and some Protestants wish. But clearly Peter is being singled out as significant to the formation of the church via the power of his faith. Not necessarily a Pope, as has been the historical interpretation (why do you think Matthew included the extra language as opposed to Mark anyway?), but certainly a founding block. So, this is a valid anchor and you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. Your emotional bias is obvious.

Quote:

Cite what you are talking about specifically. Exact citation.

Like it is really hard to find... ok whatever, try verses 18 through 23. You appear to be intentionally evading two more examples of anchoring that I've given you.

Quote:

Why is there zero specific information about ANY of the apostles that would anchor them that would provide historical continuity between the past and the present.

Wrong. I gave 3 examples.

Quote:

The contradictory lineages from David all the way to Jesus really strain the argument that the "story" in the gospels is restricted to Jesus' life.

This is more baloney coming from you. The lineages were written to show that Jesus was from descended from David as was expected of the Messiah. What do you want now--a discussion of all of the history of the world prior to Jesus--setting up an complete explanation of all happenings that occurred from Adam through Jesus, since the names are all mentioned?

Quote:

There is all manner of discussion in the gospels about the future, as a matter of fact. One of the pseudo-prophecies about no stone being left standing in the temple is used to date the gospels to the post-destruction period.

So now you agree there are anchors to history? Thanks for just contradicting yourself.

Quote:

What we do not have though is any specific people associated with Jesus doing anything anchoring them in subsequent history. Because they are all ficticious.

That's not only a false statement <edit>--as I've given you 3 mentions of 2 people, but it is also really bad logic to conclude that they therefore must be ficticious.. You can have the last word because I can see have already made up your mind and aren't really trying to have a discussion.

ted

gstafleu · 11-13-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is the order of the books in the New Testament also an editorial decision?

We have the life of Jesus, followed by Acts of the Apostles, then Paul and other epistles, concluding with the big finish in Revelation.

I would submit that if the books were in more chronological (according to semi-orthodoxy anyway) order, i.e. first Paul then Gospels, people would have clued in much earlier that Paul's CJ is not the gospels JC. That would have been bad (for catholicism), hence the order.

That Revelations is at the end has probably as much to do with embarrassment as anything else. One can always hope that people won't get that far

.

Gerard

gstafleu · 11-13-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If the New Testament had been written by a single person, or by a group of people under some kind of common editorial supervision, that might be a bit of a puzzle. But there was no such coordination.

Indeed, and none of these independent (more or less) operators knew anything, or bothered to say anything, about someone as important as Paul. Don't forget, at many Cathedrals you have a statue of Peter on the one side (with keys) and Paul on the other (with sword, somehow). At least I think it is Paul, but why the sword? Well, that's another thread.

Quote:

The gospel authors might or might not have known about Paul's work. Even if they did know, they did not necessarily consider him a co-religionist.

Exactly, so CJ is not JC.

Gerard

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I would submit that if the books were in more chronological (according to semi-orthodoxy anyway) order, i.e. first Paul then Gospels, people would have clued in much earlier that Paul's CJ is not the gospels JC. That would have been bad (for catholicism), hence the order.

That Revelations is at the end has probably as much to do with embarrassment as anything else. One can always hope that people won't get that far

.

Gerard

I have never understood why Revelation is seen as an embarrassing! It is exactly what i would expect of this religio! It has the big finish - I am the alpha and omega....Amen.

Look at Hebrews and Revelation as key documents - not add ons.

If Marcion might have done it, what was his attitude to Revelation and Hebrews? I would have thought he loved them!

It does look as if disparate threads have been woven together. Has anyone proposed that Marcion wrote Acts?

Quote:

According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Marcion: "It was no mere school for the learned, disclosed no mysteries for the privileged, but sought to lay the foundation of the Christian community on the pure gospel, the authentic institutes of Christ. The pure gospel, however, Marcion found to be everywhere more or less corrupted and mutilated in the Christian circles of his time. His undertaking thus resolved itself into a reformation of Christendom. This reformation was to deliver Christendom from false Jewish doctrines by restoring the Pauline conception of the gospel, —Paul being, according to Marcion, the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ. In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church—to which he was first driven by opposition—amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

hatsoff · 11-13-2006, 01:19 PM

I don't think any scholar believes Marcion wrote Acts. There is a small, what I'm pretty sure is internet-based movement that proposes Marcion wrote a proto-Luke which was later expanded to what we have today, but not only is that a baseless and ridiculously complex hypothesis, it supposes the whole of Acts was a part of the anti-Marcionite expansion.

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2006, 02:11 PM

What I cannot work out is how come it seems to be accepted that Marcion was a heretic and therefore his views were wrong. Yup he lost a power struggle, but who is to say his views were actually heretical except the victors?

Might Marcion have produced a nearly complete New Testament that was later amended by those who called him heretics?

It has been argued he was responsible for Paul. Why not most of the NT?

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ (not Jesus — Marcion treated Jesus as being distinct from Christ)[citation needed] are incompatible with the god of the Jewish religion. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He further regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics as two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.[4] Marcion gathered scriptures from Jewish tradition, and juxtaposed these against the sayings and teachings from Gospel of Luke and the Pauline Epistles (but not the Pastoral Epistles or the Epistle to the Hebrews, and adding the Laodiceans)[5] in a work entitled the Antithesis.[6] Marcion's version of Luke did not resemble the version that is now regarded as canonical.[7] It not only lacked all prophecies of Christ's coming but the differences with the now canonical version had other serious theological implications as well. In bringing together these texts, Marcion redacted what is perhaps the first New Testament canon on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Why is his work called antithesis? Did the catholic tradition actually exist then?

I understand we get his views from his detractors. Are we sure we are not reading Marcion from a catholic perspective? What if he not only redacted the NT canon but helped write it?

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

11-13-2006, 04:22 AM	#41
bajan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Eastern Caribbean Posts: 45	But Acts ch 1 opens by saying that Jesus only appeared for 40 days and then ascended into heaven. This would seem to contradict Paul's claim to have seen Jesus.

11-13-2006, 05:23 AM	#42
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Acts 1 tells of proofs offered to the Apostles during a period of forty days. It did not say Jesus never made an appearance afterward. Besides, I wouldn't really call what happened in ch. 7 an "appearance" anyhow; it was more of a special revelation experience for Paul.

11-13-2006, 01:19 PM	#48
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	I don't think any scholar believes Marcion wrote Acts. There is a small, what I'm pretty sure is internet-based movement that proposes Marcion wrote a proto-Luke which was later expanded to what we have today, but not only is that a baseless and ridiculously complex hypothesis, it supposes the whole of Acts was a part of the anti-Marcionite expansion.

11-13-2006, 02:11 PM	#49
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What I cannot work out is how come it seems to be accepted that Marcion was a heretic and therefore his views were wrong. Yup he lost a power struggle, but who is to say his views were actually heretical except the victors? Might Marcion have produced a nearly complete New Testament that was later amended by those who called him heretics? It has been argued he was responsible for Paul. Why not most of the NT?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.