Toto

Originally posted by Vinnie
Furthermore, Layman brought up a good point that I would like to see you address:

Quote:

Even if I agreed that we should expect Paul to obsess about Holy Sites in his letters--which seems to be sheer speculation as well as a fourth century anachronism--the fact that he did not creates the same problem for the JM as it does the HJ. Even if all that happened on earth were Jesus' revelatory appearances to the disciples and to Paul, would not those sites have been just as subject to veneration? Of course. God announces his salvation work to a few select people yet no one in the first century seems to care where or how that happened? All Paul gives us is a list. Where did it happen? What were they doing at the time? The God of the universe gives you a revelation but you give us none of the details? Apparently so per the JM. Nothing more. So this "silence" is just as much a problem for the JM types as the HJ types--if it be any problem at all.

I don't know why this is being repeated as if there were no answer to it.

First, God did not announce his salvation work to a few in the first century. A few, like Paul, announced to the world that they had been visited by the risen Christ or some other divine force. Why should a geographic location matter? It all happened in their own psyches.

Paul does not even tell us that. The Damascus story is in Acts, and is legendary, as it cannot be made to fit the political realities of the time.

Paul (or someone writing as him) writes:

Galatians 1

Quote:

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[2] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

There is no location for this "call." It appears to have been followed by a three year initiation period, so it might not have been a singular event in itself - just the beginning of the journey.

Layman

I think people brought it up because they were curious if there was any answer to it.

Toto, it does not matter that you think it was all in their minds. They believed they had some sort of direct contact with God at a specific place and time. At that specific place and time, God revealed his salvation plan for all of humanity!

Even Doherty describes it as a "visionary revelation." Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 9:1,"Have I not seen Jesus our Lord." Later in 1 Cor. 15:8 he says, "and last of all, as to on untimely born, he appeared to me also."

Paul is not referring to his reading the Bible one day and simply understadngin God in a unique way. THis was dirct revelation from God Himself!

This is just as big, if not bigger, than God's giving Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai.

This just reinfoces my point, if true. But Paul does tell us that Christ appeared to him near Damascas.

Gal. 1:15-17.

By telling us of his conversion, and then explaining that he went to Arabia but returned to Damascus, Paul is clear that his conversion ocurred in or near that city.

Layman

Right. And unless of course Paul was really a martian from the future who had some agenda against the Jews.

Like Robbins?

Refuted here: http://www.geocities.com/christianca...epassages.html

And here: http://didjesusexist.com/wesea.html

What Holy Sites that Jesus would have been to existed throughout the Empire? I thought his ministry was in Palestine.

I agree with Vinnie, let's see a potential list of these sites. If you can point to any in Corinth or Antioch or Rome, I'd like to see that.

Remeber that Paul delayed three years before he dared to show his face in Jerusalem. Even then he seemed to have tried to keep to himself as he only saw Peter and James, but not the other apostles that were there. When he went up with Titus later he met with the leaders "in private."

Then Paul caused a riot at the Temple. He was warned strongly by other Christians that travelling to Jeruslem woul result in his death. It took a platoon of Roman soldiers to save him from a mob. He was arrested, held for a lengthy period of time, and shipped off to Rome for trial.

When Peter and James preached at the Temple, they were arrested, floggged, and ordered not to do so anymore.

When Stephen voiced a too-high Chritology he was stoned to death by an enraged mob.

The notion that Chistians, especially Pauline Christians and Gentile Christians, would have felt free to travel to such a place to worship Jesus at sites around the cities is unfounded. The idea that Jews would not have minded Christians worshipping a man, A MAN!, and an executed criminal at that, in the HOLY CITY is truly, truy bizarre.

But Toto, Josephus identifies James to his audience soley by his relationship with the "so called Christ." That's a pretty clear association with Jesus and Christianity.

The evidence is very strong and the only way to ignore it is to ignore it. Not very good history.

Toto

It would help the tone of the discussion if you would not trivialize the argument. There is no way to show that the manuscripts of Paul's letters date back to the mid first century.

No, not Robbins. Robbins made it pretty clear that he was not arguing for or against historicity. And you have only refuted what you think he said in your own mind.

Besides, arguing for the "we" passages as showing eyewitness material does nothing for the "non-we" passages - may I assume that they are not eyewitness reports?

I intended to refer to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. I used Paul traveling throughout the Roman Empire (with two alleged visits to Jerusalem) as an example of his freedom of movement.

There is no indication that this three year gap was because he was afraid of authorities. Since the initiation period for some sects is 3 years, it has been speculated that this three year period was to initiate him.

An obvious tall tale for which there is no real evidence and which does not even make much sense. Why would these Romans who had recently crucified Jesus bother to save Paul from a mob?

The author of Acts changes Paul's persecutors from civil authorities to "the Jews" in Damascus. Can this not be used as an example of Acts creating a story of Jewish persecution? Why is the story in the Temple at all credible?

How can you show that this is not fiction?

In any case, Peter and James appear to have resided in Jerusalem with no problems until the Jewish War. Other stories about James claim that he had access to the holiest place in the Temple.

And how would they have stopped people visiting a site in Jerusalem?

Scholars seem to date the Jewish-Christian schism to the Council of Jamnia in 90 CE with its "benediction against heretics", assuming that the Christians were the intended target, and even though this council did not have authority throughout Judaism.

Unless, of course, it's more forgery, or a marginal gloss copied into the text.

I am not ignoring evidence. I do not think that any evidence from this period is very strong, so I find you emphasis on the strength of the evidence a sign of your overstating your case.

Layman

If you are going for the Paul Myth, Toto, I'm simply going to ignore you. If you have evidence that every Pauline reference to Jewish persecution of Christians, including his own, are interpolations, then offer it. Otherwise you're just grasping at straws.

Pervo has been every bit as discredited as Robbins.

Well, they are not first hand accounts. They very well could be eyewitness reports recorded by the author.

Which ones?

Like I said, travelling around the Empire is hardly the issue.

He doesn't say anything about initiation at all, and his point that he did not "immediately consult" with the Jerusalem leaders would suggest that to be baseless. Not that anyone has presented any such evidence.

Because the Romans did not like riots. Especially religious ones in Jerusalem. Plus, Paul was a citizen.

But you are pulling the bait and switch. I made these comments because you said that even if we took Acts seriously it would not help my argument. Now you are pretending you didn't make the assumption. Sigh.

Because Acts does good history and its author likely knew Paul personally. The author also goes out of his way to talk about how many wonderful Pharisees had joined the Jerusalem Church.

Because Stephen's speech shows signs of being a nonLukan tradition:

http://www.geocities.com/christianca...b/cp_acts.html

And because Paul was present and the author of Acts likely knew Paul:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Peter was flogged. James apparently went out of his way to respett Jewish customs. But what is your basis for claiming that Peter resided in Jerusalem until the Jewish War (and don't you think he's a myth anyway?). It appears that Peter actually travelled quite a bit and ceded whatever leadership role to James so he could do so or because he was forced to leave Jerusalem.

By stoning them for starters. Worked on Stephen.

Paul seems to date the schism to before his conversion.

Vaguely alluding to 'scholars' is hardly convincing.

And unless anti-semitic martians from the future wrote it.

You can only explain away the evidence by assuming, without any discussion or counter-evidence, that it's all forgery or interpolation. So I find your skepticism completely unjustified and motivated by something other than the evidence.

Toto

Layman and Vinnie: when you only respond with ridicule, I have to assume that you do not have any strong arguments that would stand up to scrutiny.

I have been planning to write something on interpolations in Paul, but somehow my spare time is eaten up trying to read every thread on this forum. Perhaps by the end of the year. . .

Layman

I responded with much more than that. And I'm not the one running around telling the oppoition to "shut the hell up"!

But having lowered myself to treating the JMers her seriously (Doherty himself is another story), I just don't have the reserves to take the Paul Myth seriously.

Toto

Why is it a "Paul Myth" to say that there are interpolations in the Pauline epistles? I am not claiming that Paul did not exist. I believe that you and Vinnie do not claim to be inerrantists, so what is your basis for claiming that the Pauline epistles have been transmitted error-free, unlike most other documents from that era?

You made a number of other assertions, all based on uncritical acceptance of religious documents or speculation about what might have happened.

I will try to get back to this later. I need to get some real work done.

If you want to do a formal debate with Doherty and he agrees, you can always do it in the Debates Forum. We can be sure to work out a better format this time.

spin

This is Q 12:4-5.

Plainly that which Papias tells us about the Mark he knows doesn't fit the gospel we know of Mark. The former is a collection of Petrine recollections; the latter is a collection of pericopes about the hidden Jesus.


spin

Layman

Inerrancy has nothing to with textual tradition, Toto.

It's entirely possible that there are interpolations. Of course, I give the benefit of the doubt to manuscript evidence.

But when you claim that Paul was not a persecutor of Christians who converted from Judaism, you are certainly espousing a form of the "Paul Myth."

How do you discuss history without speulating about what ight have happened? And I provided you with an extended discussion on Stephen's speech, two original articles on Robbins, references to Paul's own attestations of Jewish persecution, reference to Kirby's article concluding that Luke/Acts was likely writtn by a companionof Paul. Then when you said even assuming Acts is right it did not support my theory, I pointed out that ASSUMING it was right t certainly did.

You responded only by vaguely referring to "scholars" and claiming that EVERY referenc to Jewish persection must be an intepolaion, because . . . well, because you don't like them I guess. You certainly gave me no other reason to believe this is so.

I'm skeptical that he would agree. He has no intention of responding to my origincal articles, despite admitting they were neutral in tone and professional (and I would do my part to keep any debate on such a level). Not that I blame him or anything, it's up to him to decide how to best promulgate his theory.

But if we did do a formal debate, it would need to be focused and the issues agreed to by both sides. For example, Nomad was critcized for daring to discuss Josephus, which certainly seems to be at least relevant to he issue of Jesus' existence. This was not necessarily Doherty's fault if he was lead to believe Josephus was not on the table. But it does illustrate just how broad the issue to be debated could be.