Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 08-26-2011, 11:27 PM

CARR
So if he was proclaiming that a crucified criminal had been the agent through whom God had created the world, a la 1 Cor. 8, why was he not persecuted for preaching about this blasphemous elephant in the room?

TED
Not sure what is blasphemous here. How is claiming a man rose from the dead and that man was the Messiah blasphemous? will check back tomorrow but will not allow myself to spend hours doing this again tomorrow.

CARR
Good to see Ted just totally ignore the elephant in the room, even when the elephant is described to him.

TedM · 08-26-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

CARR
So if he was proclaiming that a crucified criminal had been the agent through whom God had created the world, a la 1 Cor. 8, why was he not persecuted for preaching about this blasphemous elephant in the room?

TED
Not sure what is blasphemous here. How is claiming a man rose from the dead and that man was the Messiah blasphemous? will check back tomorrow but will not allow myself to spend hours doing this again tomorrow.

CARR
Good to see Ted just totally ignore the elephant in the room, even when the elephant is described to him.

Ok, so you are saying if he was persecuted for circumcision then why would he not be persecuted for saying Jesus (a man) had created the world? What does that have to do with my original statement that Jews were persecuting Jews who were believers? Paul WAS persecuted and possibly for reasons other than circumcision. He wasn't arrested because he offended Gentiles--he offended the Jews.

My original comment was that Jews persecuted Jews PRIOR TO Paul's conversion. Since it probably was PAUL who started the no-circumcision-needed concept we must conclude they were persecuted for other reasons. Probably having to do with the claim of Jesus being resurrected. Thus my claim that Jews were interested in anything having to do with a risen Messiah...

If you want to clarify do so. Otherwise I just have to let this go..too much going on.

Steven Carr · 08-26-2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, so you are saying if he was persecuted for circumcision then why would he not be persecuted for saying Jesus (a man) had created the world? What does that have to do with my original statement that Jews were persecuting Jews who were believers? Paul WAS persecuted and possibly for reasons other than circumcision. He wasn't arrested because he offended Gentiles--he offended the Jews.

If you want to clarify do so. Otherwise I just have to let this go..too much going on.

So why were Christians not stoned as blasphemers for claiming that Jesus was God's Son, and had helped create the world?

Galatians 5
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Ted would have instantly shot Paul down in flames, pointing out that Paul would still have been persecuted on other issues.

What an idiot Paul was!

He lacked the insight of a Ted, who knows that if you preached circumcision, you would still be persecuted on other issues.

MCalavera · 08-27-2011, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

So now that I provided just one passage to show your claim to be wrong, you consider it an interpolation? Your arguments don't seem sincere. I'm trying to find the truth of what went on back in those days ... not play debate games.

Well, I'm quite serious.
It's pretty much the only such passage, and it's widely considered interpolated. After that one we get down to the few classics which are rather less clearly historical :
1. seed of David kata sarka
2. born of woman
3. crucified by the archontes
Let us indeed attempt to find the truth, rather than play debate-games. Do you see how TedM's list of 90 is weak? None of them are clearly and obviously historical, even the top few are far from clear. Paul's writings are full of spiritual and heavenly references, of visions and revelation through the spirit. This argues that his ambiguous phrases should not just be assumed as historical, even if some think thats how they 'seem'.

Born of a descendant of David implies that he was born of a human being, unless you think that this descendant of David was some nonhuman spiritual being ...

Quote:

It tells me the Jews had NO historical information about Jesus.

But they accepted him as historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

And, anyway, what Jewish accounts are we talking about here?

There are various references in the Talmuds (i.e. the Gemara, the later layer) and also other sources such as the Toldoth Jeshu. They are all late and highly variant. What we DON'T see is any early references, or anything historical - instead the Jewish references appear to be negative responses to the stories of the growing Christianity.

If they are not early references, then they are not relevant. The argument is about what the early Christians, in general, believed about Jesus.

MCalavera · 08-27-2011, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

In my view - Jesus had to have a fleshly side to complete his mission - to descend to the 1st Heaven (the Air Beneath the Moon) to be crucified by the Prince of Powers of the Air.

Keep in mind that all you're doing here is speculating. Speculations are not facts, not even close.

But at least you noticed that word "flesh" in there. Too bad you choose to twist the meaning of that word to your liking.

Quote:

The phrase "Seed of David" is hardly a slam-dunk for historicity when Paul can refer to the Gentiles as the metaphorical "Seed of Abraham".

There is this thing called "context".

Quote:

Human? Sure - Jesus had a human side.
Fleshly? Sure - Jesus had to descend to the realm of "flesh" - which inlcuded the Earth and the Air.

But physically historical?
Nope.
Not actually in the text - just assumed.

If human, then physically historical.

TedM · 08-27-2011, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, so you are saying if he was persecuted for circumcision then why would he not be persecuted for saying Jesus (a man) had created the world? What does that have to do with my original statement that Jews were persecuting Jews who were believers? Paul WAS persecuted and possibly for reasons other than circumcision. He wasn't arrested because he offended Gentiles--he offended the Jews.

If you want to clarify do so. Otherwise I just have to let this go..too much going on.

So why were Christians not stoned as blasphemers for claiming that Jesus was God's Son, and had helped create the world?

You mean from other Jews? When did they start saying this? How do you know they weren't? Isn't that similar to what Stephen proclaimed when he was stoned in Acts (by other Jews with Paul agreeing?). If they weren't maybe it was because there were too many saying it by then and Jews had bigger concerns--like their own survival from the Romans. Pick one. And if you can't, then tell me how your implication disproves my assertion about the Jews being very interested.

Quote:

Galatians 5
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Ted would have instantly shot Paul down in flames, pointing out that Paul would still have been persecuted on other issues.

What an idiot Paul was!

He lacked the insight of a Ted, who knows that if you preached circumcision, you would still be persecuted on other issues.

Your arguments sound so disjointed and irrelevant to anything I'm saying. Or am I just way too overtired to see the obvious here?

My point is not whether Paul was or wasn't being persecuted for circumcision. I don't care. I said Jews were persecuting Jews BEFORE Paul and it wasn't because of circumcision--it was because of claims of a risen Messiah. If you can dispute that somehow by the passages in Galations feel free to do so but I don't see how that helps you here..

The growth of Christianity among Jews shows that the idea of a risen Messiah was of great interest to them. As does the early persecution by other Jews. What part of that do you have a problem with and why?

archibald · 08-27-2011, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You are right that Paul’s cosmic Christ proved to be cold comfort, which is why the Gospel allegory (as it started out being) was almost immediately seized upon and forcibly interpreted by such as Ignatius as being actual history, the real experiences of a real man.

Don't you think you should have used the word 'allegedly' in there somewhere?

archibald · 08-27-2011, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ah, evidence. Nah, don't have any. Doesn't change my belief though.

Not encouraging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

1. Paul's theology of a non-historical Jesus would have been well established among both Jews and Gentiles.
2. The historical Jesus was widely known among those who knew Paul's theology within 20 years of Paul's death.
3. This issue would have generated passionate emotion among the Jews because of the beliefs of Jews with regard to both resurrection and the concept of a crucified human Messiah.
4. There is no direct evidence of a historicity conflict among the two groups of believers.
5. There is no clear indirect evidence of such a conflict--ie no strong indications of interpolations of Paul's material to make it sound more human.
6. Therefore, such a conflict never existed. Therefore the evolution never occurred.

To answer your question, a 'natural evolution' is unlikley to have occurred for the above reasons. It would therefore have had to have been an 'unnatural and fast creation', quickly adopted and that quickly suppressed and doctored opposing views. This is possible but again is unlikely to me, although perhaps more likely than a 'natural evolution' which would have been slower and therefore more likely to have left more evidence for it.

Ted

Hm. I'm only just up, and haven't had a coffee yet, so I may not be grasping something, but it seems to me that in point 1 you are assuming a non-historical Jesus in Paul. Which of course you shouldn't do.

And it seems to me that points 2-6 are only a problem because of this.

So, the lack of evidence of conflict would fit neatly into the more parsimonious explanation. In other words, 'there is no evidence of conflict because there was no conflict', instead of 'there was a (non-evidenced) myth and the lack of evidence of conflict can be explained by elaborating the myth to include deliberate lying and 'fast creation', even though this is also unevidenced, not to mention unusual'.

Steven Carr · 08-27-2011, 01:07 AM

CARR
So why were Christians not stoned as blasphemers for claiming that Jesus was God's Son, and had helped create the world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You mean from other Jews? When did they start saying this? How do you know they weren't? Isn't that similar to what Stephen proclaimed when he was stoned in Acts (by other Jews with Paul agreeing?).

Stephen was allegedly stoned for saying the Jews had killed Jesus.

Errr, the Romans killed Jesus, according to historicist models of a real Jesus, popular among Jews and killed by the Romans precisely because Jesus was thought to be popular among Jews.

So another contradiction in the 'Jesus was real' model, which cannot explain why both the Romans and the Jews killed Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If they weren't maybe it was because there were too many saying it by then and Jews had bigger concerns--like their own survival from the Romans. Pick one. And if you can't, then tell me how your implication disproves my assertion about the Jews being very interested.

Quote:

Galatians 5
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Ted would have instantly shot Paul down in flames, pointing out that Paul would still have been persecuted on other issues.

What an idiot Paul was!

He lacked the insight of a Ted, who knows that if you preached circumcision, you would still be persecuted on other issues.

Your arguments sound so disjointed and irrelevant to anything I'm saying. Or am I just way too overtired to see the obvious here?

My point is not whether Paul was or wasn't being persecuted for circumcision. I don't care. I said Jews were persecuting Jews BEFORE Paul and it wasn't because of circumcision--it was because of claims of a risen Messiah. If you can dispute that somehow by the passages in Galations feel free to do so but I don't see how that helps you here..

The growth of Christianity among Jews shows that the idea of a risen Messiah was of great interest to them. As does the early persecution by other Jews. What part of that do you have a problem with and why?

Ted continues to ignore the elephants in the room, and continues to claim that all Christians were saying was that Jesus was the Messiah.

No wonder Christians weren't persecuted for saying Jesus was the Son of God, and the agent through whom God created the world. This Christian claim has now vanished from Ted's world. He has a mental block about the existence of the elephant in the room.

And no matter how many times Paul explains that he was persecuted on an issue entirely irrelevant to claims of a risen human being, Ted cannot hear Paul, and in fact is now saying he doesn't care.

Steven Carr · 08-27-2011, 01:15 AM

Galatians 5
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I said Jews were persecuting Jews BEFORE Paul and it wasn't because of circumcision--it was because of claims of a risen Messiah.

Evidence please.

According to Paul in Romans 10, Jews had never heard of Jesus until Christians were sent to preach about him.

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

08-26-2011, 11:27 PM	#61
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	CARR So if he was proclaiming that a crucified criminal had been the agent through whom God had created the world, a la 1 Cor. 8, why was he not persecuted for preaching about this blasphemous elephant in the room? TED Not sure what is blasphemous here. How is claiming a man rose from the dead and that man was the Messiah blasphemous? will check back tomorrow but will not allow myself to spend hours doing this again tomorrow. CARR Good to see Ted just totally ignore the elephant in the room, even when the elephant is described to him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.