Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 02-22-2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

Maybe this, maybe that, maybe what???

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.

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.

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.

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.

AA, thank your for your comments! I see you hold your position very passionately. More power to you! But as I often say to evangelicals, I am willing to discuss and engage with an open mind if it is 2-way street. If you already have your dogma that you cling to, then far be it for me to try to change it. I already know it's pointless.

You've made some errors above, both logical and factual, but I'll leave those aside, as I think it would serve no purpose to point them out.

One thing that I really have to comment on is the point about Paul being a liar. You seem to believe that for a source to have valuable information, we must believe that source to be honest. In fact, that's not the case. It is the job of the historian to sift through the claims made in primary documents by actors in history who all have their own agendas and interests. As with anything, you have to take Pauline sources with a grain of salt.

maryhelena · 02-22-2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

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

Quote:

Is Paul a Fictitious Person?

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)

Thanks maryhelena, and for your bolding.

Earl's thoughts on Paul appear quite open.

And quite influential.

Your welcome....

Here is another very interesting quote from Earl's Website. (I've been having a look at some of the readers questions - my own is among them - going back about 12 years......)

Quote:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset24.htm#Raymond

The Mythicist Case if "Paul" is Second Century

The main "effect" of an inauthentic and second century Paul would be the amount of material to work with in recognizing and presenting the mythicist case. Much of what I am able to conclude is dependent on making use of certain portions of the Pauline corpus as authentic to the first century. But that is no different from asking how such a case could be made if we happened to have no writings of "Paul" at all. The answer is simply that it would be much more difficult.

However, a second-century Pauline corpus would not per se be fatal to the mythicist case, not even given its dating of a generation or more after the first Gospel. The documentary evidence hardly shows a "lock-step" progression of presumed knowledge about an historical Jesus even through most of the second century. As my site and books have demonstrated, certain writings of early Christianity make no mention of an historical figure well after my own rather conservative dating (as radical scholarship goes) of the Gospels. A Mark at around 85-90 and a Matthew and Luke (and even John) by around 125 still precede several 2nd century apologists, such as Athenagoras, Tatian and Theophilus, who present no historical Jesus in their defences of the faith. The record of these and other writings (Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas) shows that even after the Gospels were presumably written, widespread areas of the Christian faith were simply not familiar with them or possessed no copies.

Keep in mind, as well, that the Gospels could have been in existence for decades without being known much beyond the confines of the communities which produced them. And that, in fact, is the situation we seem to find in the documentary record as a whole. Even within those communities, there is nothing to tell us that such accounts were regarded as historical when first produced.

(my bolding)

Very interesting comments - and right up my street! And need to be repeated

".....a second-century Pauline corpus would not per se be fatal to the mythicist case, not even given its dating of a generation or more after the first Gospel.

The Gospels could have been in existence for decades without being know much beyond the confines of the communities which produced them".

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

AA, thank your for your comments! I see you hold your position very passionately. More power to you! But as I often say to evangelicals, I am willing to discuss and engage with an open mind if it is 2-way street. If you already have your dogma that you cling to, then far be it for me to try to change it. I already know it's pointless...

Do you not have a position that you see No reason to change? You have your own DOGMA that you cling to and yet accuse others of NOT being open-minded.

Is it NOT your dogma that the Pauline writings are early even though based on PRESUMPTIONS???

Well my dogma is based on the evidence and sources of antiquity--the very Church claimed Paul was executed under Nero and still claim simultaneously he was AWARE of gLuke written AFTER the the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline writings are AFTER the fall of the Temple is my dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You've made some errors above, both logical and factual, but I'll leave those aside, as I think it would serve no purpose to point them out.

I have NOT made any errors because if I did you would have exposed them. You are just making unsubstantiated claims and expect to be accepted as credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...One thing that I really have to comment on is the point about Paul being a liar. You seem to believe that for a source to have valuable information, we must believe that source to be honest. In fact, that's not the case. It is the job of the historian to sift through the claims made in primary documents by actors in history who all have their own agendas and interests. As with anything, you have to take Pauline sources with a grain of salt.

Now, you have ERRED big time. I do NOT suggest at all that a source must be honest to have valuable information.

I have CONSTANTLY and consistently used Apologetic sources as EXTREMELY valuable evidence that show that all writings of the Canon are ALL AFTER gMark and AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Did I not make references to Eusebius, Irenaeus, Paul and the author of Acts??

You ought to know those writings are full of dishonesty and implausibilities but they are extremely valuable evidence to show that the History of the Church is historically and chronologically bogus.

Grog · 02-23-2012, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not have a position that you see No reason to change? You have your own DOGMA that you cling to and yet accuse others of NOT being open-minded.

The difference is that I am open to changing it, provided the evidence is compels me to do so.

Quote:

Is it NOT your dogma that the Pauline writings are early even though based on PRESUMPTIONS???

Which presumptions?

Quote:

Well my dogma is based on the evidence and sources of antiquity--the very Church claimed Paul was executed under Nero and still claim simultaneously he was AWARE of gLuke written AFTER the the Fall of the Temple.

I don't much care for what the "very Church" claimed about Paul.

Do you have textual evidence from the 4, 6, 7, or 8 epistles (I'm not picky about that) that are most often claimed to be authentic to demonstrate Paul's (the Author's, if you prefer) knowledge of gLuke?

gLuke is late, in my opinion. The Church had an interest in incorporating this floating Pauline corpus as its own. There is nothing in the "authentic" epistles that tips the author's hand as being late rather than early. I haven't seen it at least. If you could point it out, then I would consider your position.

Quote:

The Pauline writings are AFTER the fall of the Temple is my dogma.

You are failing to make a compelling case.

Quote:

I have NOT made any errors because if I did you would have exposed them. You are just making unsubstantiated claims and expect to be accepted as credible.

Your errors are in logic, not in the presentation of the facts. Your interpretation of those facts is flawed, at least from my perspective so far. For example: The Church claims that Paul knew gLuke, proves that Paul wrote late. If it were true that Paul knew gLuke, then I would accept that Paul wrote late. However, that "the [V]ery Church" makes a claim doesn't make that claim true. I believe it is a false claim.

Quote:

Now, you have ERRED big time. I do NOT suggest at all that a source must be honest to have valuable information.

I have CONSTANTLY and consistently used Apologetic sources as EXTREMELY valuable evidence that show that all writings of the Canon are ALL AFTER gMark and AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Did I not make references to Eusebius, Irenaeus, Paul and the author of Acts??

Ok, I stand corrected on this point. My observation was based on your claim that Paul was an unreliable source.

Quote:

You ought to know those writings are full of dishonesty and implausibilities but they are extremely valuable evidence to show that the History of the Church is historically and chronologically bogus.

I do and I agree.

outhouse · 02-23-2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

You are failing to make a compelling case.

correct

its based on ignorance of the methods of scholarships.

Proffessionals who date these documents have done so without bias after a critical examination.

This isnt opinion based on want.

EarlDoherty · 02-23-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm sure the scholarly world is anxious to hear Bingo the Clown's case for "knowing" that Paul is fiction.

Earl Doherty

Just as I'm sure the scholarly world is 'anxious' to hear a mythicist case for a Jesus fiction. So, Earl, just where does that type of talk get us?

For myself, the very idea that an ahistoricist/mythicist position can seek to uphold the scholarly consensus position re a historical 'Paul', and then have a historical 'Paul' following on from an ahistorical JC - it truly boggles the mind. An ahistoricist/mythicist has no reason whatsoever to follow the storyline re a NT 'Paul' following on the timeline to JC. No reason.

I am astounded at times to read statements from those who hold an ahistorical position on JC - statements to the effect that:

Quote:

I know why "I" question his existence, and it is integrally tied up with Paul's historicity. Paul's existence is critical to my own scepticism about Jesus. I've said this many times before to some amazement, but IMHO, if Paul did not exist, then Jesus probably did exist.
Finally, Paul's letters themselves are the best argument ever put forth for the mythical Jesus.
Rod Green on JesusMysteries 29 and 30 January 2012

The NT 'Paul' is shaky ground on which to build an ahistoricist position on the gospel JC. Shaky ground. The ahistoricist/mythicists should not be putting all their eggs in a Pauline basket. 'Paul's' intellectual flights of theology, or philosophy, are not the 'tools' to unseat the historical JC theory. A historical theory is not going to be unseated by theology or philosophy. It needs a historical argument. Yes, that is the way I approach things - but I'm also eager to hear historical arguments from others. Pseudo-history, as in the NT story, cannot be exposed by theological or philosophical arguments. Horses for courses, Earl. However intriguing are 'Paul's' intellectual endeavors - and however fine maybe our interpretation of them - we have to step outside of purely intellectual contemplation - and face the reality on the ground. For those of us seeking early christian history, that reality is, for our NT studies, Jewish history from the time of Herod the Great.

Hard reality I'm afraid. The ahistoricist/mythicist position is not going to be taken seriously unless it can produce an historical argument. 'Paul' is of no help. That writing can be twisted each and every way. Great for contemplation of philosophical ideas - but generating nowhere near enough light to wade into the dark waters of history.

Nothing in any of your postings actually presents significant arguments for a non-historical Paul, or any substantive justification for ridiculing the idea that an historical Paul could follow on an ahistorical Jesus. And I am similarly awaiting clarification from Bingo the Clown to justify how he personally "knows" Paul is fiction, rather than just jumping on a bandwagon that appeals to him.

Too much smug rhetoric on this forum, and too little actual supported argument. (And that goes for "aa" too, who seems to think that capitalization constitutes convincing argument.)

Earl Doherty

arnoldo · 02-23-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm sure the scholarly world is anxious to hear Bingo the Clown's case for "knowing" that Paul is fiction.

Earl Doherty

Just as I'm sure the scholarly world is 'anxious' to hear a mythicist case for a Jesus fiction. So, Earl, just where does that type of talk get us?

For myself, the very idea that an ahistoricist/mythicist position can seek to uphold the scholarly consensus position re a historical 'Paul', and then have a historical 'Paul' following on from an ahistorical JC - it truly boggles the mind. An ahistoricist/mythicist has no reason whatsoever to follow the storyline re a NT 'Paul' following on the timeline to JC. No reason.

I am astounded at times to read statements from those who hold an ahistorical position on JC - statements to the effect that:

Quote:

I know why "I" question his existence, and it is integrally tied up with Paul's historicity. Paul's existence is critical to my own scepticism about Jesus. I've said this many times before to some amazement, but IMHO, if Paul did not exist, then Jesus probably did exist.
Finally, Paul's letters themselves are the best argument ever put forth for the mythical Jesus.
Rod Green on JesusMysteries 29 and 30 January 2012

The NT 'Paul' is shaky ground on which to build an ahistoricist position on the gospel JC. Shaky ground. The ahistoricist/mythicists should not be putting all their eggs in a Pauline basket. 'Paul's' intellectual flights of theology, or philosophy, are not the 'tools' to unseat the historical JC theory. A historical theory is not going to be unseated by theology or philosophy. It needs a historical argument. Yes, that is the way I approach things - but I'm also eager to hear historical arguments from others. Pseudo-history, as in the NT story, cannot be exposed by theological or philosophical arguments. Horses for courses, Earl. However intriguing are 'Paul's' intellectual endeavors - and however fine maybe our interpretation of them - we have to step outside of purely intellectual contemplation - and face the reality on the ground. For those of us seeking early christian history, that reality is, for our NT studies, Jewish history from the time of Herod the Great.

Hard reality I'm afraid. The ahistoricist/mythicist position is not going to be taken seriously unless it can produce an historical argument. 'Paul' is of no help. That writing can be twisted each and every way. Great for contemplation of philosophical ideas - but generating nowhere near enough light to wade into the dark waters of history.

Nothing in any of your postings actually presents significant arguments for a non-historical Paul, or any substantive justification for ridiculing the idea that an historical Paul could follow on an ahistorical Jesus. And I am similarly awaiting clarification from Bingo the Clown to justify how he personally "knows" Paul is fiction, rather than just jumping on a bandwagon that appeals to him.

Too much smug rhetoric on this forum, and too little actual supported argument. (And that goes for "aa" too, who seems to think that capitalization constitutes convincing argument.)

Earl Doherty

Amen.

maryhelena · 02-23-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I wish people would stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm sure the scholarly world is anxious to hear Bingo the Clown's case for "knowing" that Paul is fiction.

Earl Doherty

Just as I'm sure the scholarly world is 'anxious' to hear a mythicist case for a Jesus fiction. So, Earl, just where does that type of talk get us?

For myself, the very idea that an ahistoricist/mythicist position can seek to uphold the scholarly consensus position re a historical 'Paul', and then have a historical 'Paul' following on from an ahistorical JC - it truly boggles the mind. An ahistoricist/mythicist has no reason whatsoever to follow the storyline re a NT 'Paul' following on the timeline to JC. No reason.

I am astounded at times to read statements from those who hold an ahistorical position on JC - statements to the effect that:

Quote:

I know why "I" question his existence, and it is integrally tied up with Paul's historicity. Paul's existence is critical to my own scepticism about Jesus. I've said this many times before to some amazement, but IMHO, if Paul did not exist, then Jesus probably did exist.
Finally, Paul's letters themselves are the best argument ever put forth for the mythical Jesus.
Rod Green on JesusMysteries 29 and 30 January 2012

The NT 'Paul' is shaky ground on which to build an ahistoricist position on the gospel JC. Shaky ground. The ahistoricist/mythicists should not be putting all their eggs in a Pauline basket. 'Paul's' intellectual flights of theology, or philosophy, are not the 'tools' to unseat the historical JC theory. A historical theory is not going to be unseated by theology or philosophy. It needs a historical argument. Yes, that is the way I approach things - but I'm also eager to hear historical arguments from others. Pseudo-history, as in the NT story, cannot be exposed by theological or philosophical arguments. Horses for courses, Earl. However intriguing are 'Paul's' intellectual endeavors - and however fine maybe our interpretation of them - we have to step outside of purely intellectual contemplation - and face the reality on the ground. For those of us seeking early christian history, that reality is, for our NT studies, Jewish history from the time of Herod the Great.

Hard reality I'm afraid. The ahistoricist/mythicist position is not going to be taken seriously unless it can produce an historical argument. 'Paul' is of no help. That writing can be twisted each and every way. Great for contemplation of philosophical ideas - but generating nowhere near enough light to wade into the dark waters of history.

Nothing in any of your postings actually presents significant arguments for a non-historical Paul, or any substantive justification for ridiculing the idea that an historical Paul could follow on an ahistorical Jesus. And I am similarly awaiting clarification from Bingo the Clown to justify how he personally "knows" Paul is fiction, rather than just jumping on a bandwagon that appeals to him.

Too much smug rhetoric on this forum, and too little actual supported argument. (And that goes for "aa" too, who seems to think that capitalization constitutes convincing argument.)

Earl Doherty

Earl, I don’t need “substantive justification for ridiculing the idea that an historical Paul could follow on an ahistorical Jesus.” The idea that such is the case , is, to my mind, an illogical position for an ahistoricist/mythicist to hold. I stand by that statement. And for you to endeavour to demean that position, by the use of the word “ridiculing”, reflects more about wanting to uphold the status quo re ‘Paul’ than a willingness to keep an open mind on this subject.

aa5874 · 02-23-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

...Too much smug rhetoric on this forum, and too little actual supported argument. (And that goes for "aa" too, who seems to think that capitalization constitutes convincing argument.)

Earl Doherty

Your statement is NOT credible. You very well know that I HIGHLIGHT my FACTS.

1. In writings attributed to Origen, "Commentary on Matthew" it is claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

2. In Church history" 3.4.8 and 6.25. it is also claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

3. In "First Apology" XXIX Justin Martyr claimed it was twelve illiterate disciples from Jerusalem that preached the Gospel and never mentioned Paul.

4. The Short-Ending of gMark shows ZERO awareness of Paul.

5. The author of the Long-Ending of gMark shows virtually 100% awareness of gMark and ZERO on Paul.

6. The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark and NOTHING from Paul.

7. The author of gLuke copied gMatthew and gMark and passages NOT found in gMark and gMatthew cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

8. The hypothetical "Q" passages found in gLuke and gMatthew are NOT found in the Pauline writings.

9. The SIX post-resurrection visits by Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 of the Pauline writings are NOWHERE in any Gospels.

10. The REVELATION by John shows ZERO awareness of the Pauline revelations.

11. The author of Acts, the supposed companion of Paul, NEVER claimed he wrote any letters.

12. The Pauline writer did NOT state the date, time and place where he wrote any of his letters.

13. The author called Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS which must mean he was NOT aware of a Pauline character that supposedly preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

14. There are ZERO non-apologetic sources that can corroborate Paul or the Pauline letters.

Those are FOURTEEN cold hard FACTS that show that Paul is a FRAUD.

The authors of the Pauline writings did NOT live in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and "Paul" was NOT the name of the authors.

outhouse · 02-23-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Your statement is NOT credible.

yours isnt, so why sling mud. Or better yet throw rocks from within a glass house.

You fail to realize there were many different movemenst early on in christianity, some competing, and some not aware of what others were doing.

Were also talking about a huge area of geography in which this relatively small movement was taking place.

There was no organization at all, no foundation of beliefs, no core thoughts.

You just had judaism rebuilding itself after the fall of the temple and competing sects.

There is no valid reason a little known traveling teacher with a roman version of jesus would be well known because of a few private letters that were circulated before the fall of the temple.

everything in his letters dictates a accurate method for dating the epistles. Its all correct for mid first century.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.