Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 10-23-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We have absence, nothing, and silence on an early movement, no archaeological or credible written information, coupled with fraud or forgery, it is therefore reasonable to consider or conclude that there was no early movement before the death of Nero.

Reasonable to consider, perhaps, but hardly to conclude based on an argument from silence. Especially when there are plausible reasons for the silence: believers who thought the world was about to end would not be thinking about writing books.

Anyway, Paul was certainly not silent, and reports established movements. His visits to Jerusalem show that he wrote at least before the Jewish War or destruction of the Temple.
t

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Reasonable to consider, perhaps, but hardly to conclude based on an argument from silence. Especially when there are plausible reasons for the silence: believers who thought the world was about to end would not be thinking about writing books.

Anyway, Paul was certainly not silent, and reports established movements. His visits to Jerusalem show that he wrote at least before the Jewish War or destruction of the Temple.
t

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

Don't we have Paul tied historically to a time before Marcion as Marcion has 10 of the epistles. Are you positing that between the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Marcion that redactors created Paul and Acts to explain the Gentile Christian movement?

dog-on · 10-23-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

Don't we have Paul tied historically to a time before Marcion as Marcion has 10 of the epistles. Are you positing that between the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Marcion that redactors created Paul and Acts to explain the Gentile Christian movement?

I believe that Acts is post-Marcion...

LogicandReason · 10-23-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Don't we have Paul tied historically to a time before Marcion as Marcion has 10 of the epistles. Are you positing that between the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Marcion that redactors created Paul and Acts to explain the Gentile Christian movement?

I believe that Acts is post-Marcion...

As do I..and I posit that The beginning of Luke (that Marcion possessed) is a different writer than the person who expanded Luke and wrote Acts

bacht · 10-23-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What we know about Paul's life and movements is only what later NT redactors wanted us to know. Using the epistles and Acts as historical evidence is problematic, since we know they were revised or invented by later non-witnesses with a Catholic agenda in mind.

The Catholic apologists wanted us to believe that someone like Paul existed and preached before 70 CE. We can't automatically assume that this is true.

Don't we have Paul tied historically to a time before Marcion as Marcion has 10 of the epistles. Are you positing that between the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Marcion that redactors created Paul and Acts to explain the Gentile Christian movement?

I think the general consensus has been that Marcion used Paul, and the Catholics had to react to him. Acts may have been written after Marcion, balancing the Petrine and Pauline factions.

The evidence for Paul's writings before Marcion is debatable. There's a mention in Clement but I don't know if any other patristic writings cite him.

The existence of gentile Christians before the second Jewish revolt seems hard to prove. It's the same problem: only Catholic literary evidence survives, which is more mythical than historical.

aa5874 · 10-23-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Don't we have Paul tied historically to a time before Marcion as Marcion has 10 of the epistles. Are you positing that between the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Marcion that redactors created Paul and Acts to explain the Gentile Christian movement?

I think the general consensus has been that Marcion used Paul, and the Catholics had to react to him. Acts may have been written after Marcion, balancing the Petrine and Pauline factions.

The evidence for Paul's writings before Marcion is debatable. There's a mention in Clement but I don't know if any other patristic writings cite him.

The existence of gentile Christians before the second Jewish revolt seems hard to prove. It's the same problem: only Catholic literary evidence survives, which is more mythical than historical.

I think that the NT has shown beyond doubt that nothing about the writings of Church writers can be accepted as true at face value.

Writings bearing the same name are not necessarily from the same author and even if forgeries are known, the forged writing is still canonised as in the case of 2nd Peter admitted to be a forgery by Eusebius.

It is becoming quite clear to me now that it may soon be learned that some authors did not write certain books attributed to them. The information provided by Church writers about Marcion may indeed be bogus.

eheffa · 10-23-2008, 10:14 AM

Dating Paul,

It seems that apart from accepting Acts as history, Clement is the only way to tie Paul to the first century. It seems that Clement is not necessarily a first century creation & bears some traces of forgery or fabrication:

See:
http://www.hermann-detering.de/Clem_eng.pdf

It's quite amazing to think that God would have used such a pack of fabricators & forgers to further his holy agenda - to proclaim the truth.

-evan
:huh:

bacht · 10-23-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Dating Paul,

It seems that apart from accepting Acts as history, Clement is the only way to tie Paul to the first century. It seems that Clement is not necessarily a first century creation & bears some traces of forgery or fabrication:

See:
http://www.hermann-detering.de/Clem_eng.pdf

It's quite amazing to think that God would have used such a pack of fabricators & forgers to further his holy agenda - to proclaim the truth.

-evan
:huh:

It makes one wonder why they bothered. Maybe Marcion and the gnostics showed that there was a "market" for new religious ideas, and the Catholics added their brand of salvationism? Maybe there was residual interest in Jewish "mysteries" even after bar Kochba?

bacht · 10-23-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I think the general consensus has been that Marcion used Paul, and the Catholics had to react to him. Acts may have been written after Marcion, balancing the Petrine and Pauline factions.

The evidence for Paul's writings before Marcion is debatable. There's a mention in Clement but I don't know if any other patristic writings cite him.

The existence of gentile Christians before the second Jewish revolt seems hard to prove. It's the same problem: only Catholic literary evidence survives, which is more mythical than historical.

I think that the NT has shown beyond doubt that nothing about the writings of Church writers can be accepted as true at face value.

Writings bearing the same name are not necessarily from the same author and even if forgeries are known, the forged writing is still canonised as in the case of 2nd Peter admitted to be a forgery by Eusebius.

It is becoming quite clear to me now that it may soon be learned that some authors did not write certain books attributed to them. The information provided by Church writers about Marcion may indeed be bogus.

At this point the only thing I'm sure of is that the NT compilers had a story they wanted to tell. Whether there's any history behind it...?

andrewcriddle · 10-23-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Just reading Josephus will put this question to bed for any critical reader. The passage following the famous Christ reference is: "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". This infers that Josephus is discussing tragedies (which in fact the whole section this is interpolated into is all about Romans killing Jews).

The TF is also about Romans killing Jews, ie Pilate killing Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

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

10-23-2008, 10:14 AM	#137
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	Dating Paul, It seems that apart from accepting Acts as history, Clement is the only way to tie Paul to the first century. It seems that Clement is not necessarily a first century creation & bears some traces of forgery or fabrication: See: http://www.hermann-detering.de/Clem_eng.pdf It's quite amazing to think that God would have used such a pack of fabricators & forgers to further his holy agenda - to proclaim the truth. -evan :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.