FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-04-2009, 12:46 AM   #51
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch89 View Post
So I'm posing the question: What do we make of Paul's silence?
Some possibilities....

1. Paul had not heard of the Gospel as we know it.

2. The letters attributed to Paul were written by a sect in competition with the sect(s) that wrote the Gospel as we know it, and so intentionally avoided discussion of the Gospel as we know it.

3. Paul wrote nothing of the Gospel, as part of an agreement with the Jerusalem sect.

4. The Gospel was old hat, and Paul wanted to emphasize his spin rather than reiterating what everyone already accepted.

5. "Paul" wrote about someone/something entirely different from the Gospel, and the writings were later absconded by Christians, who put a Jesus spin on them.
spamandham is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 04:17 PM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver
That seems to assume your conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
My conclusion is that Paul's silence does not carry any significance for the MJ/HJ argument.
If it has no significance, then that has to be for one of two reasons. (1) It is irrelevant and, in that case, it requires no explanation. (2) It is relevant but plausibly explainable under the historicist hypothesis. Since you offer an explanation, you stipulate its relevance.

It seems to me, in that case, that your conclusion (that it has no significance) is tantamount to a claim that the mythicist argument from Paul's silence is not cogent, which is essentially claiming that historicism is true. It follows from this that if an explanation for a particular silence of Paul's presupposes a historical Jesus, then it assumes your conclusion.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 07:56 PM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
If it has no significance, then that has to be for one of two reasons.
If you actually read my posts you would know there is a third.

(3) Paul's silence provides no advantage to either side because it is consistent with both.

There is no life about which to speak (MJ) or speaking about the life runs contrary to Paul's interests (HJ). Either way we expect silence and that is what we find.

The silence is a wash. Understand?
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 06:35 AM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
The silence is a wash. Understand?
I understand that is what you are claiming to have demonstrated. My believing that you have failed to actually demonstrate it does not mean I have paid no attention to your arguments.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 09:29 AM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
My believing that you have failed to actually demonstrate it does not mean I have paid no attention to your arguments.
No, that is established by your consistently off-target comments.

Good luck finding whoever you really want to debate because it clearly isn't my position. You haven't even touched it. :wave:
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.