Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 01-03-2011, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

With Cephas and James. Peter has been inserted into the text to force the connection with Paul's Cephas. Before the Peter material was insinuated into the text, all three pillars had the mission to the circumcised, but the Peter material makes it only Peter. This is no problem when Peter has gained ascendancy as had happened in orthodox christianity.

Paul had some warped idea that his new revelation of a crucified savior who overcame the need for the law would be appreciated by the Jerusalem torah followers. The one thing that made anyone a Jew is torah observance and Paul was advocating that it had been outdated. When he took his brand of messiahless messianism to Jerusalem what sort of reaction would you expect he got?

spin

I think that there was quite a bit inserted into the text...

I think that this particular bit was inserted as well, in order to tie the author of this letter to the, later, Acts story.

Quote:

23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.

Doug Shaver · 01-03-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's why he had to go to Jerusalem and try to make nice with Peter and James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

With Cephas and James.

Yes. Touche. Old habits.

spin · 01-03-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Talk of "christianities" may easily be inappropriate, if Paul is the initiator of what we might call the Jesus cult. maryhelena seems to continually over-assume. If we talk about christianity, it certainly refers to a Jesus centered religion and we don't know if there were any before Paul. He continually contrasts his Jesus being crucified with the following of the law apparently advocated by the people Paul admitted some kind of allegiance to, which should mean the pillars in Jerusalem, ie Jesus and his crucifixion is not part of the pillars' religion.

Hey, there spin - what's with the "maryhelena seems to continually over-assume"? In this particularly case I'm referencing Earl's "Christianity was born in a thousand places". How would you read that? Looks like it's thousands of christianities that are being acknowledged here.

Quote:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

Christianity was born in a thousand places, out of the fertile religious and philosophical soil of the time, expressing faith in an intermediary Son who was a channel to God, providing knowledge, love and salvation. It sprang up in many innovative minds like Paul’s, among independent communities and sects all over the empire, producing a variety of forms and doctrines.

Notice that "christianity" is in the singular. There seems to be a discussion of the material that went into christianity rather than thousands of christianities. Christianity came along it suggests after the time of all these different influences.

Note also the use of the plural - "independent communities" and "sects".
Note also: "many innovative minds like Paul's".

Looks like Paul is a very small fish in a very big pond in Doherty's view.

You are just jumping between one position (Doherty's) and the other (mine), trying to play off the differences. You still seem to be misinterpreting Doherty to invent "christianities" rather than to consider the different sources that eventually go into making christianity. I talk about Paul's position in the development of christianity as crucial. That doesn't give you license to invent christianities: a big pond allows for a wide range of sources and thoughts behind the emergence of christianity. Perhaps it would be useful if you could identify what "a christianity" might have been for there have been "thousands".

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Remember an earlier post of mine where I said:

Actually, the whole NT storyline is bs - I only run with that storyline when it serves to help make a point or two...

So, here, Earl is saying 'Christianity was born in a thousand places." And I'm running with the NT storyline, using the words of Paul, that he persecuted the 'church' - and simply asking which 'church' if there are thousands of them. Regardless if the Greek for this word can be translated differently, my argument re Earl and his thousands of christianities still stands. Which version of christianity does Paul have problems with - which would also indicate that there were some 'churches', some christianities, that he did not have difficulty with.

I'll leave you here to make your point or two. You seem to be turning roots into individual trees.

Many minds like Paul's - according to Earl. Thus many trees possible.

Insisting on turning roots into trees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

How, in all this "variety of forms and doctrines" does Paul even get a foot in the door with his very own new vision? Why not simply start up his own show?

He did, sort of. That's why he had to go to Jerusalem and try to make nice with Peter and James.

With Cephas and James. Peter has been inserted into the text to force the connection with Paul's Cephas. Before the Peter material was insinuated into the text, all three pillars had the mission to the circumcised, but the Peter material makes it only Peter. This is no problem when Peter has gained ascendancy as had happened in orthodox christianity.

Paul had some warped idea that his new revelation of a crucified savior who overcame the need for the law would be appreciated by the Jerusalem torah followers. The one thing that made anyone a Jew is torah observance and Paul was advocating that it had been outdated. When he took his brand of messiahless messianism to Jerusalem what sort of reaction would you expect he got?

That's all following the NT storyline.

Well, Paul's "storyline". And our job is to test the veracity of it, to see if there is any validity in it. You must deal with the text and first deal with it literally otherwise you exclude yourself from saying meaningful things about it.

Give it up spin, give up the idea that one can produce one 'true' story out of the NT storyline. Where is our true blooded skeptic now...:huh:.

Giving up working with our only sources means to fall into contentlessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

spin, one can pick and choose and one can endeavor to justify ones choice with linguistics and interpolations. That still boils down to following the NT storyline, albeit now a storyline according to ones own image. Once, its decided that first came Paul - on the basis of dating documents of early manuscripts (the argument that Paul does not know the gospel Jesus storyboard is purely an assumption) then one's reconstruction of the NT lies on very shaky grounds - vunerable to any new discovery re finding more of those elusive early manuscripts. If tomorrow a very early copy of John's gospel turns up - down the drain goes all the creative Pauline re-constructions of the NT storyline.

And if it weren't so vulnerable to such changes it would have no value. Positions that are not subject to the effects of new evidence have no relevance. New evidence tests theories and analyses.

That's fine with theories - give and take, let go and develop something new. It's not the way forward in searching for early christian origins.

Rubbish. You either use solid methodologies or you go nowhere. If a theory stands new evidence then it's worth maintaining. If a theory must be adjusted because of new evidence that's an improvement. If a theory is falsified by new evidence, live with it. We only have theories of christian origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

spin, don't give in to the illusion, the pseudo-history. Put it aside and re-consider the real history of the relevant time period. Look for motive, for opportunity, in creating this NT pseudo-history, this 'salvation' history. No gospel Jesus means that these questions have to be addressed. The NT storyline will not help you here.

You're talking up waffle, maryhelena. There are a lot of straw men in this stuff. You need to cut back the rhetoric and get on with analysis of sources.

spin

judge · 01-03-2011, 12:57 PM

show_no_mercy · 01-03-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Talk of "christianities" may easily be inappropriate, if Paul is the initiator of what we might call the Jesus cult. maryhelena seems to continually over-assume. If we talk about christianity, it certainly refers to a Jesus centered religion and we don't know if there were any before Paul. He continually contrasts his Jesus being crucified with the following of the law apparently advocated by the people Paul admitted some kind of allegiance to, which should mean the pillars in Jerusalem, ie Jesus and his crucifixion is not part of the pillars' religion.

"Apparently"? Should"?

Probably because certainty is for the religious.

judge · 01-03-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

"Apparently"? Should"?

Probably because certainty is for the religious.

So you think it is probably true that Jesus and his crucifixion is not part of the pillars religion. Ok, fine, you are free to think anything you like.
But unlike in religion, on this forum, I think you could at least try to butress your belief with evidence.

aa5874 · 01-03-2011, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Probably because certainty is for the religious.

So you think it is probably true that Jesus and his crucifixion is not part of the pillars religion. Ok, fine, you are free to think anything you like.
But unlike in religion, on this forum, I think you could at least try to butress your belief with evidence.

The NT is regarded as an UNRELIABLE historical source. One just cannot assume that "Paul" is truthful when he ADMITTED that he LIED for the Glory of God.

Ro 3:7 -

Quote:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded THROUGH MY LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?..

maryhelena · 01-03-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Note also the use of the plural - "independent communities" and "sects".
Note also: "many innovative minds like Paul's".

Looks like Paul is a very small fish in a very big pond in Doherty's view.

You are just jumping between one position (Doherty's) and the other (mine), trying to play off the differences. You still seem to be misinterpreting Doherty to invent "christianities" rather than to consider the different sources that eventually go into making christianity. I talk about Paul's position in the development of christianity as crucial. That doesn't give you license to invent christianities: a big pond allows for a wide range of sources and thoughts behind the emergence of christianity. Perhaps it would be useful if you could identify what "a christianity" might have been for there have been "thousands".

Insisting on turning roots into trees.

Giving up working with our only sources means to fall into contentlessness.

Rubbish. You either use solid methodologies or you go nowhere. If a theory stands new evidence then it's worth maintaining. If a theory must be adjusted because of new evidence that's an improvement. If a theory is falsified by new evidence, live with it. We only have theories of christian origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

spin, don't give in to the illusion, the pseudo-history. Put it aside and re-consider the real history of the relevant time period. Look for motive, for opportunity, in creating this NT pseudo-history, this 'salvation' history. No gospel Jesus means that these questions have to be addressed. The NT storyline will not help you here.

You're talking up waffle, maryhelena. There are a lot of straw men in this stuff. You need to cut back the rhetoric and get on with analysis of sources.

spin

Analysis of sources? You mean the NT storyline sources? spin - that's been going on for centuries and where has it got - give it another few hundred years and there is no reason to believe it will have accomplished anything at all re early christian history. Its a merry-go-around - so enjoy the funfair ride - because that is all that's possible with storyline analysis...

aa5874 · 01-03-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Analysis of sources? You mean the NT storyline sources? spin - that's been going on for centuries and where has it got - give it another few hundred years and there is no reason to believe it will have accomplished anything at all re early christian history. Its a merry-go-around - so enjoy the funfair ride - because that is all that's possible with storyline analysis...

The MERRY-GO-AROUND is OVER.

HJers have been EXPOSED.

There are NO credible historical sources for HJ. There is NO case for HJ.

The case for MYTH JESUS is STILL INTACT and CANNOT be contradicted.

The EXTANT CODICES and CHURCH writings ALL have UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE of MYTH.

Jesus was the RESURRECTED CHILD of a GHOST (holy).

See Matthew 1.18.

maryhelena · 01-03-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Analysis of sources? You mean the NT storyline sources? spin - that's been going on for centuries and where has it got - give it another few hundred years and there is no reason to believe it will have accomplished anything at all re early christian history. Its a merry-go-around - so enjoy the funfair ride - because that is all that's possible with storyline analysis...

The MERRY-GO-AROUND is OVER.

HJers have been EXPOSED.

There are NO credible historical sources for HJ. There is NO case for HJ.

The case for MYTH JESUS is STILL INTACT and CANNOT be contradicted.

The EXTANT CODICES and CHURCH writings ALL have UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE of MYTH.

Jesus was the RESURRECTED CHILD of a GHOST (holy).

See Matthew 1.18.

Yep, but, sadly, spin is still enjoying the ride...

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

01-03-2011, 12:57 PM	#254
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	<edited>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.