Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 01-07-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What kind of an ass would someone sound like claiming a revelation from the Christ who was common knowledge and refer to those without the revelation as being "in Christ before me"??!!

:thumbs:

You and so many others are simply not thinking through the situation on the ground. From the vantage point of your easy chair you think everyone is going to express themselves in a truthful, accurate, unbiased, consistent, non self-serving way, to give us all laboratory results. And there is nothing to prevent Paul from claiming personal revelation from the Christ, while acknowledging that others enjoyed revelations before him. What matters is the content of that revelation, and Paul was in a position of claiming that he had the 'proper' revelation. He was in a position of claiming that the "gospel" he preached was the product of his own contact with Christ in heaven through what scripture said, as he interpreted it. He, unlike the Pillars before him, had it revealed to him that gentiles should be exempt from the Law, that indeed the Law itself had been superseded. Others could be "in Christ" before him without advocating such a viewpoint. He clearly laid emphasis on Christ's sacrifice as being for the sake of forgiving sin, whereas others (we can see in the wider record) laid little or no emphasis on this and regarded the Christ as simply guaranteeing resurrection for the privileged believers. And so on. And the bottom line is that Paul is plugging himself and his own gospel to the scene, in opposition to a lot of rivals who don't agree with him on everything and even don't like him personally, and he will present things in a way which is determined by his own needs and self-interests, not by a desire to paint an accurate and balanced picture of an entire movement of which he is simply a part.

One must bring a little more nuanced and evidence-based analysis to the discussion, not simply charge ahead based on simplistic, isolated readings and rigid mantras like aa does. Whom, by the way, I am going back to ignoring. I am not particularly inclined to beat my head against the wall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

b. Why Plutarch did not describe Aristarchus' heliocentrism...
Logic: you have explained, patiently (thanks!), that in your opinion, the absence of the word mathetes in Paul's epistles, suggests an earlier date of composition, than the synoptic gospels.

I am asking whether one should then suppose that Plutarch wrote before Aristarchus, since the latter writes of heliocentrism, while the former does not?

I fail to see any logic here. Plutarch may not have written of Aristarchus' views because he didn't agree with them (though I don't know that this is in fact the case). Or the subject may never have come up. I can't recall if Plutarch wrote any treatise on astronomy. In regard to Paul, however, he was very much concerned with the role of other apostles in contrast to himself, and the fact that he never spoke of them as disciples of Jesus on earth, or that he never addressed any accusation of such a deficiency on his part is a far greater and vastly more significant silence than Plutarch's silence on a very minority astronomical opinion like Aristarchus'.

Again, you need to think such things through to a much greater depth than you do. And that applies to several people here.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar · 01-07-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

..through what scripture said, as he interpreted it. He, unlike the Pillars before him, had it revealed to him that gentiles should be exempt from the Law,

Not much of a 'revelation' that. The Law and The Prophets had always exempted and excused gentiles (even believing gentiles, the ger toshavim) from obligation to follow the Jewish Laws. In fact they were forbidden by The Law from engaging in legalistic Jewish practices (other than resting on The Sabbath) unless they circumcised and became Jews themselves.
....but if so done, then they were no longer gentiles, nor could they be those gentiles to whom The Law and The Prophets made its specific unconditional promises as to uncircumcised gentile 'nations'.

Not all men are born Jews, neither are all men who are born as gentiles required to become Jews, and to follow Jewish laws to recieve those blessings and the promises in the Bible given to the gentiles. Whom are those without the Law. (literally outside of, and thus exempt from the Laws of Moses.)

Though the nations ought to hear, to learn, and to know the Law, and the Prophets of Israel, they ought also to know their own particular situation in regards to it;
The ger ('stranger') can either keep, or not keep the Passover unto YHWH. He is free and is under no obligation at all to either do so, or not to do so.

But the one that chooses to partake of the Jews Passover seder must be circumcised and obey The Law.
Any gentile may refrain, and there is no guilt incurred, but the uncircumcised gentile who eats is accursed of The Law.

aa5874 · 01-07-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The pre-Gospel writings are, of course, the epistles. And when I say an understanding was imposed on them, I am talking about interpretation, not forgery, rewriting, alteration, adjustment or interpolation, although some of that did occur. (Look at 3 Corinthians which imposed the Gospel storyline on Paul.) That imposed understanding has been going on for almost two millennia...

Again, your claim the Pauline Epistles are pre-Gospel is completely unsupported by the NT itself. The Pauline character is introduced in the Canon AFTER the Jesus story was known.

The Pauline character claimed to have been a Persecutor of the JESUS cult, that he saw and heard from the Resurrected Jesus and that he was Last to be seen of him after over 500 people.

The Pauline writer named some in the Jesus cult BEFORE him in Romans 16.

It is you who is attempting to impose Paul as pre-Gospel contrary to every writing in all antiquity.

Whether the Paul writings were early or late there is NO evidence whatsoever in all antiquity that Pauline Revelations from the Resurrected Jesus Predate the stories of Jesus.

No-one argues the the Revelation of John was composed before the Jesus story was known but without a shred of corroboration you are putting forward that the Pauline Revelations from the Resurrected Jesus was composed before the Jesus story was known when not even the Pauline writer made such a claim.

The Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus.

Duvduv · 01-07-2013, 11:31 AM

The epistles provided a very important element for the new religion. Because if all the religion required was reading a couple of gospel stories on Sundays at a meal, what particular IMPLICATION did it have in one's actual every day life? OK, so this guy Yesoos is the "messiah." Fine, now what? What does it mean for me? What does it do for me? So I believe he was the messiah promised by the Jewish religion, what then?
Paulism afforded the believer the ability to GET SOMETHING spiritually tangible out of the belief in Yesoos beyond the declaration of belief. It actually SAVED him, it RECONCILED him to God.
Gospelism on its own didn't do any of that. All it did was to tell a story and make a claim, but Paulism gave the believer a stake in the whole thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'Paul' is a puppet who 'wrote' whatever the church's writers wanted him to 'write' ......employing their pen and their hand of course.

What a bunch of horse shit.

Sheshbazzar · 01-07-2013, 12:06 PM

Whatever of 'Paul' was genuine. Most of it is nothing but adopted and syncretized Platonic theological horse shit, and a fabricated 'apostolic history' to lend an false claim of 'Apostolic' authority to a power grubbing church hierarchy.

andrewcriddle · 01-07-2013, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Just to give some more context, here's a passage that's constantly at the back of my mind when I argue. A text that I think hugely important and revealing as to the tug of war that was going on between proto-orthodoxy and the Pauline lineage. It's from the Kerygmata Petrou reckoned to be the circa 200CE-ish source of the Pseudo-Clementines, reconstructed from them:-

Quote:

1. Simon, on hearing this, interrupted him, and said: "I know against whom you are making these remarks; but in order that I may not spend any time in discussing subjects which I do not wish to discuss, repeating the same statements to refute you, reply to that which is concisely stated by us. You professed that you had well understood the doctrines and deeds of your teacher because you saw them before you with your own eyes, and heard them with your own ears, and that it is not possible for any other to have anything similar by vision or apparition. 2. But I shall show that this is false. He who hears any one with his own ears, is not altogether fully assured of the truth of what is said; for his mind has to consider whether he is wrong or not, inasmuch as he is a man as far as appearance goes. But apparition not merely presents an object to view, but inspires him who sees it with confidence, for it comes from God. Now reply first to this."

16. 1. And Peter said: ". . . 2. We know that there are many . . . who worship idols, commit adultery, and sin in every way, and yet they see true visions and dreams, and some of them have also apparitions of demons. For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. 3. Wherefore it is not because God envies, but because He pities, that He cannot be seen by man who has been turned into flesh. For he who sees God cannot live. 6. . . . For no one can see the incorporeal power not only of the Son, but not even of an angel. But if one sees an apparition, he should know that this is the apparition of an evil demon.

17. 5. . . . For in the case of the pious man, the truth gushes up natural and pure in his mind, not worked tip through dreams, but granted to the good through intelligence. 18. 1. Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, `Who do they say that I am? ' and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), `Thou art the Son of the living God.' . . . 6. You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

19.1. "If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? 2. And if you will say, `It is possible,' then I ask, `Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' 3. And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? 4. But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. 5. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. 6. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. 7. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us."

The "Simon" here is of course Simon Magus - but doesn't he sound very much like "Paul", as understood by proto-orthodoxy? And don't we see here an essential argument that's meant to place discipleship and eyeballing-of-the-cult-deity-while-on-earth above "mere" visionary experience? This to me is the absolute, absolute kernel of the whole reason why we have the whole problem of a pseudo-historical Jesus, this argument is the tail that wags the dog.

Down the rabbit hole we go ...

It is generally accepted that the pseudo-Clementine writings, (which are probably not proto-orthodox), are really attacking Paul while pretending to attack Simon Magus.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty · 01-07-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Whatever of 'Paul' was genuine. Most of it is nothing but adopted and syncretized Platonic theological horse shit, and a fabricated 'apostolic history' to lend an false claim of 'Apostolic' authority to a power grubbing church hierarchy.

Yet this is another case of a missing agenda alleged to be the motive for forging the Paulines in the 2nd century. "Apostolic authority" is the principle of a later community tracing its doctrine and authority back to a specific apostle who himself had gotten it by virtue of being a follower of an historical Jesus. A mid-second century forger would inevitably have had such an agenda. But where is that agenda spelled out or even implied in the Paulines? It ain't there, brother.

Paul says he got his gospel through revelation. He also says (Gal.2:8) that Peter got his authority to bring the gospel to the Jews from GOD, not Jesus.

It is flaws like this which make hogwash of the idea of a 2nd century Paul being forged or even extensively redacted by an orthodox church. The same sort of argument applies to an alleged Marcionite creation of Paul, since the Pauline epistles no more promote the beliefs and interests of Marcionite gnosticism than they do a Gospel-based Roman Church. The alleged indications for either are few, paltry and ambiguous, and enjoy other understandings in the context of an authentic 1st century Paul.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

It is flaws like this which make hogwash of the idea of a 2nd century Paul being forged or even extensively redacted by an orthodox church. The same sort of argument applies to an alleged Marcionite creation of Paul, since the Pauline epistles no more promote the beliefs and interests of Marcionite gnosticism than they do a Gospel-based Roman Church. The alleged indications for either are few, paltry and ambiguous, and enjoy other understandings in the context of an authentic 1st century Paul.

I'm sorry but I have been staying quiet out of respect and to avoid seeming confrontational. But are you using 'alleged' in front of Marcionitism because (a) you don't think the Marcionites changed Paul or (b) they didn't exist? There seems to be an assumption in your comments that our texts of the letters of Paul are the right ones. I have a problem with this. The implication of Marcionitism is that either (i) they 'cut things' out of ours or (ii) our letters contain 'things added' to their original text. I side with (ii). A lot of people are just getting into Marcionitism including David Trobisch who I speak or correspond with lately quite a bit. He describes Marcionitism as 'the hot thing' in scholarship now, and I think to a degree he is playing catch up. He's actually hanging out with Ulrich Schmid this week as he travels through Germany. I think Marcion is a blind spot in your hypothesis - one confirms early (perhaps 'the earliest') attestation for the idea of a supernatural Jesus in real historical time on the earth.

aa5874 · 01-07-2013, 12:55 PM

Doherty's Pauline Celestial Never on Earth Jesus is completely flawed and without any corroborative evidence.

Doherty's claim that the Pauline writings are pre-Gospel is also hopelessly flawed.

Doherty cannot produce any corroborative evidence from the NT that Jesus of the Canon was NOT claimed to have lived on earth in the flesh as the Son of God who was crucified.

Doherty cannot produce any Non-Pauline writings that mentioned the Pauline revealed Gospel and a Celestial Never On Earth Jesus.

The writings of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the Non-Pauline Epistles, Revelation by John, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athengoras of Athens, Melito, Arnobius show that the Pauline writings were NOT even necessary for Christians in the 2nd century.

Even Marcion claimed his Phantom Son of God was on earth in Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius --See "Against Marcion" 4.

Toto · 01-07-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.....SO then maybe the Lord spoke to them also about the Eucharist ceremony........

But notice the CONTEXT of how this appears in 1 Corinthians. It seems to interrupt the flow of what appears to be a totally unrelated statement about an ordinary Lord's Supper whatever that means. Read below and note how it looks if you jump from verse 22 to verse 30 with the interrupting section starting with prepositions:
...

You are not the first to notice the apparent interpolations in Paul's writings.

Check out Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William O. Walker Jr. (There are threads in the archives on this book, and some online previews.)

This is standard material. Get up to speed if you want to have a meaningful conversation.

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

01-07-2013, 12:06 PM	#225
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Whatever of 'Paul' was genuine. Most of it is nothing but adopted and syncretized Platonic theological horse shit, and a fabricated 'apostolic history' to lend an false claim of 'Apostolic' authority to a power grubbing church hierarchy.

01-07-2013, 12:55 PM	#229
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Doherty's Pauline Celestial Never on Earth Jesus is completely flawed and without any corroborative evidence. Doherty's claim that the Pauline writings are pre-Gospel is also hopelessly flawed. Doherty cannot produce any corroborative evidence from the NT that Jesus of the Canon was NOT claimed to have lived on earth in the flesh as the Son of God who was crucified. Doherty cannot produce any Non-Pauline writings that mentioned the Pauline revealed Gospel and a Celestial Never On Earth Jesus. The writings of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the Non-Pauline Epistles, Revelation by John, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athengoras of Athens, Melito, Arnobius show that the Pauline writings were NOT even necessary for Christians in the 2nd century. Even Marcion claimed his Phantom Son of God was on earth in Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius --See "Against Marcion" 4.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.