Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-31-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Amaleq, are you merely trying to say that Pauline Christianity is different than the kind of Christianity that he persecuted before converting?

Or are you trying to say that if we call the Pauline version Christianity then the version that he persecuted, apparently the version that Cephas and James and John held to, should not even be called Christianity?

Maybe it is a question of whose chocolate got into whose peanut butter but...

I'm saying that Paul persecuted a Jewish sect but, after his conversion, he turned that Jewish sect into a new religion.

Ben C Smith · 01-31-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'll let Amaleq answer for himself, but whatever Paul persecuted, it was not known as Christianity at the time, by all available information.

I quite agree that the name itself was not in service at that time; I was using it as a convenient label.

It just seems to me that both what Paul persecuted and what Paul turned it into thought that Jesus was the promised messiah, used the same body of scriptures to arrive at that conclusion, and (at least) nominally worshipped the same God, therefore both groups belonged to the same religion, whatever we wish to call it.

Ben.

Amaleq13 · 01-31-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

It just seems to me that both what Paul persecuted and what Paul turned it into thought that Jesus was the promised messiah, used the same body of scriptures to arrive at that conclusion, and (at least) nominally worshipped the same God, therefore both groups belonged to the same religion, whatever we wish to call it.

I don't think the persecuted Jewish sect considered Paul's gentiles to be part of their religion if they refused to fulfill the traditional requirements.

You might be playing the same game but, if you won't wear the team uniform, you ain't on the team.

No Robots · 01-31-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You might be playing the same game but, if you won't wear the team uniform, you ain't on the team.

They were brought in on waivers (Acts 15:14-20).

Didymus · 01-31-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walt6

From the quoted text, I would come to the conclusion that Paul had heard some stories about a guy named Jesus, and about how he was killed. It seems to me this may be evidence that a man named Jesus really existed.

Are you satirizing the fundamentalist propensity to label the frailest imaginable support "evidence" or "attestation"?

Here's a similar example:

A buddy of mine told me that his cousin heard about a guy who bought a Corvette for $100! He bought it from a woman whose boyfriend had left her for another woman; the boyfriend's last words before departing were "Go ahead, sell the 'Vette for whatever you can get and send me the money."

Do you really think that I should give serious weight to such a preposterous tale? I'd be a fool to do so; that bit of hokum has been "confirmed" in various forms for at least fifty years!

Almost anything can be considered to be evidence, but evidence comes in many strengths. What you describe is weak indeed.

Didymus

rlogan · 01-31-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If we had an unadulterated report from Josephus, even (especially?) one that was obviously biased against Christians, that described a troublesome prophet who wandered into town, pissed everyone off, and got himself crucified for his efforts while his followers ran away, I think even rlogan would be forced to accept that "the historical Jesus" had been identified.

Geez, I guess you have to live in the Great White North to have common sense over this.

This was my quest when I came to IIDB. To find who it was that initiated the Christianity "Big Bang".

jakejonesiv · 01-31-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Look at what I wrote above about the difficulties in interpolation. Quite simply, if the verses suggesting that Jesus was human were interpolated, I'd expect them to be an odd fit either within the letter itself or with other Pauline letters. I might also expect that the interpolations not be in all the surviving manuscripts.

That is an interersting observation, but I am now asking a more fundamental question. How do you know what Paul wrote? Do you begin with the assumption that what we find in our modern versions of the Bible is what came from the pen of the mid first century apostle?

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 01-31-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. --Skipper the penguin.

:wave:

Ben.

Hi Ben!!

Ben, while you are smiling and waving, could you explain why you believe Quetzalcoatl and Zeus are ahistorical and why you believe they are not really human, either?

If you did that, we would then know what evidence would pass muster with you for the ahistorical Jesus.

This goes to the very point of this thread, because it defines how you evaluate evidence.

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

01-31-2006, 02:40 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Would a lengthy attack on the Alexander romances be apposite in a discussion against the historicity of Alexander?

If the historical evidence for Alexander was as slim as HJ,
and there was an argument he was a myth,
then yes,
an attack on his biography as a MYTH would be quite relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Does it look to you like Tatian is claiming that his own stories are only legend? Or does it look to you like Tatian is asking for leniency from his Greek audience even if they were to do so on the basis of similar legends?

Sure,
he is saying they are comparable, he is not quite saying his stories are legends.

Ben,
of course there is no obvious early smoking gun that claims HJ was a myth (if there had been, would it have lasted?)

Celsus, Porphry, Julian - they all assumed HJ existed, probably because such a figure was plausible to them (even if the Gospels were not.)

Perhaps the most "smoking" of the "guns" is Minucius Felix - have you studied him? Various threads deal with this issue - he seems to deny that Christians worship a man crucified, he seems to deny that Christians believe a man became god.

Absent a clear smoking gun - we see :
* no historical evidence for Jesus
* no Christians who even met him
* early claims he was a PHANTOM, not a physical being
* early claims his life story is MYTH
* variant Christian versions of his story
* signs his story is based on earlier scripture

All of which point to a myth, not history.

Iasion

01-31-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Iasion:
It surprises me that you refer to Roger Pearse. Here he demolishes the egregious quotation mining of Hoffman common in what he calls "atheist hate posts". He specifically debunks the "quotation" that you use.

Yup,
"atheist hate posts" - sure sounds like Roger's insulting polemic.

Frankly,
I don't consider Roger's apologetics credible (but he does have a good collection of rare works.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Pearse also makes clear that above and beyond the manipulation of Hoffman, Hoffman himself has created his reconstruction of Celsus on nothing but speculation. Pearse even calls it "fiction".

This is an outrageous lie.
I suggest you check the facts before making false statements.

Hoffman reconstructed Celsus from the HUGE amount of actual quotes found in Contra Celsum.

To say it is created from "nothing but speculation" is a outright lie.
Shame on you, and Roger if he actually said that.

Iasion

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.