Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tanya · 01-06-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

For whatever reason, the Paul writings have no discipleship. It's true that the omission could be due to chance or error, or some quirk of the Paul writer's theology or psychology, etc., but it's also possible that it's ommitted because the Paul writer had no sense of discipleship for the Apostles. If the Paul writer actually had no sense of the Apostles as disciples of Jesus, and actually didn't think that anybody personally knew Jesus before his crucifixion, that's a very different "story" from the gospel story, where discipleship is integral.

I appreciate your comments in this thread. Very provocative, and stimulating.

I don't know why "Paul" does not use the word μαθητής, disciple, but one reason may be, because "Paul" has admitted that he never met Jesus. If he never met him, how can he attest to Jesus' disciples? I have read your submissions, am I now qualified to cite your disciples? Obviously not.

I don't know why Justin doesn't mention "Paul", I have long assumed that it is because the epistles attibuted to "Paul" were created long after Justin's extant works had been composed, but I acknowledge that as facile.

I continue to struggle with understanding your logic in claiming that "Paul" must have written before Justin Martyr, because the latter author fails to mention μαθητής in Dialogue with Trypho, part I.

I will enjoy, if you have a moment to spare, reading your reply to my rejoinder, commenting in an earlier post, that we do not (or, at least, I do not) claim an earlier date for composition of texts by Plutarch, than Aristarchus, in view of the former's omission of the word heliocentrism.

aa5874 · 01-06-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the Canon itself it is actually claimed Paul preached that Jesus was SLAIN by people in Jerusalem and was placed on a tree and then buried after which he resurrected and was seen by his followers.

It is clear that there is NO story anywhere about Paul that he preached a Celestial Never on Earth Jesus.

The Celestial Never on Earth Jesus of Paul is a modern invention--completely unheard of in all antiquity by any source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Good grief! AA is actually appealing to Acts' storyline (something invented in the 2nd century, which many mainstream scholars admit) to 'prove' that Paul preached an historical Jesus???

This is not just shooting oneself in the foot, it's amputing both legs! I always had my doubts about aa, but this discredits him completely.

I find your statement to be extremely disturbing. You very well know that there is NO corroboration for Pauline letters to Churches in the 1st century by the author of Acts.

I APPEAL to the actual evidence from antiquity--the written statements in the Canon, including Acts of the Apostles.

Now, please tell us what corroborative storyline in the NT that you used for your Pauline Celestial Never on Earth Jesus??

It was NOT gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts, the Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation.

1. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Son of God made of a woman. See Galatians 4.4.

2. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus BROKE BREAD on the night he was Delivered up and talked about his impending death. See 1 Cor.11.23-25

You have ZERO--NIL--NOTHING--NO corroborative source in the NT Canon that the Pauline were composed in the 1st century and none for your Pauline Celestial Never on Earth Jesus.

You already have NO "Legs".

In fact, your argument has NO "body"

Effectively, your argument has no support and nothing that needs support from the NT.

Duvduv · 01-06-2013, 01:58 PM

In any event there would not be any reason for Acts to mention letters since if the epistles are (as can be argued) just composites, and no Paul ever wrote them, the author of Acts would have had no reason to mention them in his novel of Peter/Saul/Paul.

Chili · 01-06-2013, 02:47 PM

Disciples are disciplines that Paul elaborated on to keep his Christ cosmic.

Preaching is done only by those who are motivated by a scorpion and Paul made it known that he was not one of those.

Remember here that the shepherds never entered the stable but only "looked in and understood" and these are those insights to be recalled as disciples, that their sheep may be part of the catch, but shepherds they no longer where as 'tied down in heaven' and so in, or inside the hierarchy of knowledge itself.

This has to be true because the dove landed to stay and no more holy spirit floating around. I'll say again here that the holy trinity only is part of the land while in oblivion, or else what would heaven be all about? And lets understand well that we are exploring the netherworld here so that we will know where we are when we get there and find that water, that heretofore was set aside to give humans dry land to walk on now must become ours right back to Gen.1:9, and there now find it solid as rock.

I think that Paul's insight that is expressed in his letters and whatever he wrote, was his encounter with the 'right and wrong' that he saw, and so are his discipleship-in-motion for us to absorb.

gurugeorge · 01-06-2013, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem to have confirmed your own delusion.

Yada yada, I notice you haven't answered my question - why would you expect Justin to mention Paul, such that his not mentioning him logically necessarily must be a sign that he didn't exist?

Why would you expect the author(s) of Acts to mention Paul's letters, such that non-mention means Paul didn't exist?

Again, your post confirms that you knew all along that you were arguing from Silence.

You knew in advance of posting that you had NO time for the Pauline letters in Acts and the Pauline writings.

You knew all along that you were reading things into Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings that were NOT there.

Come now, aa, it's a simple question: a large part of your thesis depends on your construal that Justin's non-mention of Paul means Paul didn't exist. That's an argument from silence. An argument from silence only has force to the degree that there's a reasonable background expectation that would lead one to expect a mention.

So why would you expect the Justin writer to mention the Paul writer or writings, had he existed or been prior to Justin? What reasonable expectation (as you see it) grounds your argument from silence?

gurugeorge · 01-06-2013, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

For whatever reason, the Paul writings have no discipleship. It's true that the omission could be due to chance or error, or some quirk of the Paul writer's theology or psychology, etc., but it's also possible that it's ommitted because the Paul writer had no sense of discipleship for the Apostles. If the Paul writer actually had no sense of the Apostles as disciples of Jesus, and actually didn't think that anybody personally knew Jesus before his crucifixion, that's a very different "story" from the gospel story, where discipleship is integral.

I appreciate your comments in this thread. Very provocative, and stimulating.

I don't know why "Paul" does not use the word μαθητής, disciple, but one reason may be, because "Paul" has admitted that he never met Jesus. If he never met him, how can he attest to Jesus' disciples? I have read your submissions, am I now qualified to cite your disciples? Obviously not.

Huh? But he's plainly met people that a huge part of the rest of the Christian tradition thinks were disciples. People Paul mentions, with the names "Peter", "James", "Cephas", and the generic term "Apostles", are believed by most Christian tradition to have been Jesus' personal disciples, students, whatever. People who followed him and listened to him preaching while he was supposedly on Earth.

If those people had actually been disciples, you'd think there would be some mention of it somewhere in the Epistles, even in passing - especially if they were late inventions.

After all, it's quite a difference if you have a god who's supposed to have walked on Earth - merely visionary experience of the god would be trumped by actual discipleship.

But Paul, in the Epistles, never seems to find himself in that kind of opposition. In fact, the only opposition he has with these people is on matters of practice and behaviour (the Law); there's no difference even hinted at in terms of "how-the-deity-is-known". In fact, Paul puts the manner in which "how-the-deity-is-known" on exactly the same footing as the people who "knew" about the deity before him: it's Scripture and vision ("appearance", ophthe, self-revelation of the Divine from Heaven).

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 ...

aa5874 · 01-06-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, your post confirms that you knew all along that you were arguing from Silence.

You knew in advance of posting that you had NO time for the Pauline letters in Acts and the Pauline writings.

You knew all along that you were reading things into Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings that were NOT there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Come now, aa, it's a simple question: a large part of your thesis depends on your construal that Justin's non-mention of Paul means Paul didn't exist. That's an argument from silence. An argument from silence only has force to the degree that there's a reasonable background expectation that would lead one to expect a mention.

So why would you expect the Justin writer to mention the Paul writer or writings, had he existed or been prior to Justin? What reasonable expectation (as you see it) grounds your argument from silence?

You are just compounding your problems.

You already know that you have ZERO corroboration for 1st century Pauline writings in the NT Canon and must argue from Silence.

You know that there are actual RECOVERED DATED Pauline writings.

P 46, the Pauline letters, are Dated between the mid 2nd-3rd century which is PRECISELY compatible with the writings of the author of Acts, Justin Martyr and Aristides.

I expected that NO Pauline writings would be found and dated to the 1st century and that is EXACTLY what has happened.

My expectations have been realized.

I argue WITH actual dated manuscripts--the Pauline writings are 2nd century or later manuscripts and are historically bogus.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

gurugeorge · 01-06-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the Pauline writings are 2nd century or later manuscripts and are historically bogus.

Not "the Pauline writings", but "the dated Pauline manuscripts that we have".

Or perhaps you have an argument for why you think the dated manuscripts are the earliest copies of Pauline writings that have ever existed ... ?

(I mean, of course, one that isn't circular, depending on a prior expectation that Justin would have mentioned Paul or his letters had they existed at the time - which prior expectation is based on ... what? Remind me again?)

Duvduv · 01-06-2013, 08:10 PM

GuruGeorge, I assume you have already considered the possibility that there is no evidence that such epistles were ever actually written or received by anyone, or that any communities actually existed.
Am I correct that you have already considered that the epistles were composite texts?

aa5874 · 01-06-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the Pauline writings are 2nd century or later manuscripts and are historically bogus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Not "the Pauline writings", but "the dated Pauline manuscripts that we have".

Again, you are arguing from COMPLETE SILENCE. What Pauline writings do you actually have??

You have NOTHING--You have no corroborative source in the NT and is continually making noise about your Presumed and Imagined early Pauline Epistles.

Your presumed imagination will NOT be realized because as the evidence suggest there was no Pauline letters before c 150 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....Or perhaps you have an argument for why you think the dated manuscripts are the earliest copies of Pauline writings that have ever existed ... ?

Did you not see that the Pauline writings, P 46, have been dated by Paleographers most probably between c 175-225 CE??

There is still 25-75 YEARS after Justin Martyr for other earlier copies of the Pauline letters to be composed AFTER 150 CE, and AFTER the time of Justin's writings.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Quote:

Papyrus 46 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by siglum 46, is one of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts in Greek, written on papyrus, with its 'most probable date' between 175-225...

Again, this is Justin to the Emperor of Rome, the Senate and the people of Rome c 150 CE. Justin never acknowledged that Paul preached the Gospels to the Gentiles--ONLY the 12 ILLITERATE Apostles.

"First Apology" XXXIX

Quote:

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God..

"First Apology" XLIX

Quote:

But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him[/i][/b], and gave them the prophecies, were filled with joy and faith, and cast away their idols, and dedicated themselves to the Unbegotten God through Christ...

"First Apology" L

Quote:

...and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles.

Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge that Pauline letters were known in the Churches.

First Apology LXVII

Quote:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits..

Up to the mid 2nd century the Pauline writings were unknown and had ZERO influence in the Churches exactly as the Recovered dated sources suggest.

The Pauline writings are historically bogus and were composed in the 2nd century or later.

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

01-06-2013, 01:58 PM	#193
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In any event there would not be any reason for Acts to mention letters since if the epistles are (as can be argued) just composites, and no Paul ever wrote them, the author of Acts would have had no reason to mention them in his novel of Peter/Saul/Paul.

01-06-2013, 02:47 PM	#194
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Disciples are disciplines that Paul elaborated on to keep his Christ cosmic. Preaching is done only by those who are motivated by a scorpion and Paul made it known that he was not one of those. Remember here that the shepherds never entered the stable but only "looked in and understood" and these are those insights to be recalled as disciples, that their sheep may be part of the catch, but shepherds they no longer where as 'tied down in heaven' and so in, or inside the hierarchy of knowledge itself. This has to be true because the dove landed to stay and no more holy spirit floating around. I'll say again here that the holy trinity only is part of the land while in oblivion, or else what would heaven be all about? And lets understand well that we are exploring the netherworld here so that we will know where we are when we get there and find that water, that heretofore was set aside to give humans dry land to walk on now must become ours right back to Gen.1:9, and there now find it solid as rock. I think that Paul's insight that is expressed in his letters and whatever he wrote, was his encounter with the 'right and wrong' that he saw, and so are his discipleship-in-motion for us to absorb.

01-06-2013, 08:10 PM	#199
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	GuruGeorge, I assume you have already considered the possibility that there is no evidence that such epistles were ever actually written or received by anyone, or that any communities actually existed. Am I correct that you have already considered that the epistles were composite texts?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.