Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 04-04-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What would happen if reputable scholars were simply to start by saying, "We have no empirical evidence that Jesus existed; we have no empirical evidence that John the Baptist existed; we have no empirical evidence that the man named Paul existed." ??

And if they added, "There is so much confusion and so many contradictions in the writings of the heresiologist historians and between them that it is impossible to be certain that any of them wrote in the early periods ascribed to them by the church. That includes Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, and it appears quite likely that much or all of what is ascribed to them was actually written during the 4th and 5th centuries. Individuals such as Eusebius carry insufficient reliability as biased church mouth pieces." ??

Would such scholars be sent to the Inquisition for transgressing some articles of faith??

Heavens, no. They would merely learn the truth of the saying: Old academics never die, they just lose their faculties.

Duvduv · 04-04-2012, 05:33 PM

My view would be to take all the traditional Church bias datings with a huge grain of salt, and all the claims about earlier generations found in the writings deemed kosher by the church.

And if such academics would not be invited to speak etc., while that might be bad for their ego, it would at least be showing the inquisitorial nature so to speak of the field whereby the non-church scholars serve as witting or unwitting apologists for the line of the church reinforcing "more or less" the emergence of texts and sects back to the 1st and 2nd centuries as claimed in the writings that the church relies on for its teachings.

At least the academic world doesn't use the term "HERETIC" to label someone who does not buy into the official line of emerging Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Because that's what it is, an official line that the NT texts could not possibly have been written later than the 2nd century, and also that there had been Christians in the 1st or 2nd centuries as described by the church writers.

Toto · 04-04-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

My view would be to take all the traditional Church bias datings with a huge grain of salt, and all the claims about earlier generations found in the writings deemed kosher by the church.

And if such academics would not be invited to speak etc., while that might be bad for their ego, it would at least be showing the inquisitorial nature so to speak of the field whereby the non-church scholars serve as witting or unwitting apologists for the line of the church reinforcing "more or less" the emergence of texts and sects back to the 1st and 2nd centuries as claimed in the writings that the church relies on for its teachings.

At least the academic world doesn't use the term "HERETIC" to label someone who does not buy into the official line of emerging Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Because that's what it is, an official line that the NT texts could not possibly have been written later than the 2nd century, and also that there had been Christians in the 1st or 2nd centuries as described by the church writers.

Are you just talking to yourself? Do you have any response to my points?

sotto voce · 04-04-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

the traditional Church

Insistence that criminals represented Jesus would tend to persuade of his historicity; quite apart from the absurdity of discounting history until the criminals belatedly got up their counterfeit illusion.

Duvduv · 04-04-2012, 06:09 PM

Toto, I don't know if you address others in this fashion which is rather patronizing, but I'm not sure what it is you want me to answer that I haven't addressed already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

My view would be to take all the traditional Church bias datings with a huge grain of salt, and all the claims about earlier generations found in the writings deemed kosher by the church.

And if such academics would not be invited to speak etc., while that might be bad for their ego, it would at least be showing the inquisitorial nature so to speak of the field whereby the non-church scholars serve as witting or unwitting apologists for the line of the church reinforcing "more or less" the emergence of texts and sects back to the 1st and 2nd centuries as claimed in the writings that the church relies on for its teachings.

At least the academic world doesn't use the term "HERETIC" to label someone who does not buy into the official line of emerging Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Because that's what it is, an official line that the NT texts could not possibly have been written later than the 2nd century, and also that there had been Christians in the 1st or 2nd centuries as described by the church writers.

Are you just talking to yourself? Do you have any response to my points?

JonA · 04-04-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Because he wrote letters

And people write using pseudonyms all the time......:huh:

Sure, somebody wrote letters using the name of 'Paul' - but that does not establish historicity for 'Paul'.

Exactly what are your criteria for an historical Paul? Because mine go something like this:

Was named Paul
Was a Christian
Founded churches
Wrote letters

Is there some other big requirement?

JonA · 04-04-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeat75

No that would not be reasonable, what is reasonable is to ask that persons and events depicted in a text which is full of supernatural occurrences should be corroborated from sources other than said texts.

Have you ever read the letters of Paul?

smeat75 · 04-04-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeat75

No that would not be reasonable, what is reasonable is to ask that persons and events depicted in a text which is full of supernatural occurrences should be corroborated from sources other than said texts.

Have you ever read the letters of Paul?

Yes I have read letters that purport to be by "Paul" but my question was, since there is no evidence outside the NT that there ever was such a person, and since a number of letters that used to be attributed to "Paul" are now admitted to be forgeries, what reason does any one have to believe that the so-called "authentic" letters were actually written by "Paul" and why do people believe in the historicity of "Paul"?

Duvduv · 04-04-2012, 08:39 PM

Smeat75, don't you know that in much of the academic community your question is deemed heresy?

Toto · 04-04-2012, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Smeat75, don't you know that in much of the academic community your question is deemed heresy?

No it's not.

Heresy on matters of ancient history does not exist in the academic community, except as a joke.

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

04-04-2012, 05:33 PM	#62
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	My view would be to take all the traditional Church bias datings with a huge grain of salt, and all the claims about earlier generations found in the writings deemed kosher by the church. And if such academics would not be invited to speak etc., while that might be bad for their ego, it would at least be showing the inquisitorial nature so to speak of the field whereby the non-church scholars serve as witting or unwitting apologists for the line of the church reinforcing "more or less" the emergence of texts and sects back to the 1st and 2nd centuries as claimed in the writings that the church relies on for its teachings. At least the academic world doesn't use the term "HERETIC" to label someone who does not buy into the official line of emerging Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Because that's what it is, an official line that the NT texts could not possibly have been written later than the 2nd century, and also that there had been Christians in the 1st or 2nd centuries as described by the church writers.

04-04-2012, 08:39 PM	#69
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Smeat75, don't you know that in much of the academic community your question is deemed heresy?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.