Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 02-19-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

I have already explained to you why the consensus on the dating of Paul's letters is based on a shaky foundation. Do you see any reason to continue to follow that consensus?

yes

because I dont buy the connections you have provided. While it leaves possibilities and by all means should be looked at. At this time its not really in the game so to speak.

Quote:

You are totally confused. This has nothing to do with mythicism. Earl Doherty follows the consensus on the dating of Paul, but some scholars who are not mythicists do not.

I could have used the word mythers a little better I will agree, but your taking what I said out of context to a point.

I agree that we are dealing with myths, and this range is a matter of perspective.

Quote:

This is a common way of trying to make sense of early Christianity, since later Christianity seems so much at odds with what is in the gospels. But there is not a lot of evidence for it.

again were dealing with a movement from the eye's of their direct enemies.

we are getting a very skewed version of the movement because jesus started a reform movement within judaism, Paul takes this sect and steer's it into his direction, and later writers base the rest of GMark written for a roman audience.

we are almost left in the dark to the real movement which leaves alot of gray area to wiggle in.

I choose to stay in what I percieve as the middle of this gray area, and I have a very open mind regarding what I follow as I have no emotional attachment to my position.

Toto · 02-19-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

I have already explained to you why the consensus on the dating of Paul's letters is based on a shaky foundation. Do you see any reason to continue to follow that consensus?

yes

because I dont buy the connections you have provided. While it leaves possibilities and by all means should be looked at. At this time its not really in the game so to speak.

What don't you buy? Why is it not in the game? What is your game?

Quote:

I could have used the word mythers a little better I will agree, but your taking what I said out of context to a point.

I don't think so.

Quote:

I agree that we are dealing with myths, and this range is a matter of perspective.

? We are dealing with history and the dating of documents.

Quote:

This is a common way of trying to make sense of early Christianity, since later Christianity seems so much at odds with what is in the gospels. But there is not a lot of evidence for it.

again were dealing with a movement from the eye's of their direct enemies.

Which enemies?

Quote:

we are getting a very skewed version of the movement because jesus started a reform movement within judaism, Paul takes this sect and steer's it into his direction, and later writers base the rest of GMark written for a roman audience.

You are just repeating what you said before.

Quote:

we are almost left in the dark to the real movement which leaves alot of gray area to wiggle in.

I choose to stay in what I percieve as the middle of this gray area, and I have a very open mind regarding what I follow as I have no emotional attachment to my position.

If you really have no emotional attachment to your position, please try to be less contemptuous of other positions.

And I am going to recommend that you change your handle here.

outhouse · 02-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yes

because I dont buy the connections you have provided. While it leaves possibilities and by all means should be looked at. At this time its not really in the game so to speak.

What don't you buy? Why is it not in the game? What is your game?

I don't think so.

? We are dealing with history and the dating of documents.

Which enemies?

You are just repeating what you said before.

Quote:

we are almost left in the dark to the real movement which leaves alot of gray area to wiggle in.

I choose to stay in what I percieve as the middle of this gray area, and I have a very open mind regarding what I follow as I have no emotional attachment to my position.

If you really have no emotional attachment to your position, please try to be less contemptuous of other positions.

And I am going to recommend that you change your handle here.

What do you know that Carrier doesnt?

Toto · 02-19-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

What do you know that Carrier doesnt?

Why do you think I disagree with Carrier?

The quote you provided is about a decade old, and Carrier was summarizing a standard reference on the question of the canon.

Check out his new book to be published in April of this year.

Repeat: what is your game?

aa5874 · 02-19-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...we are getting a very skewed version of the movement because jesus started a reform movement within judaism, Paul takes this sect and steer's it into his direction, and later writers base the rest of GMark written for a roman audience...

Your claim is hopelessly unsubstantiated.

First of all the authors of the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles described Jesus as acting non-human.

1. In gMark, Jesus was NON-HUMAN--it walked on water and transfigured.

2. In Galatians, the Pauline Jesus was NON-human--it was ALIVE after it "died".

3. In gMark, Jesus did NOT start any religion, did NOT want the Jews to be converted, demanded that his own disciples tell no-one that he was Christ.

4. Even the disciples of Jesus had either Betrayed , Abandoned and Denied Jesus.

5. The very Jews had delievered Jesus to be crucified.

6. The Pauline writer was already aware of written sources with the Jesus story.

There is ZERO evidence that Jesus started any religion.

It was the BELIEF in the gMark story that started the Jesus cult.

stephan huller · 02-19-2012, 01:43 PM

I don't like the comfort of certainty that's why I don't put mountain man on ignore. you just never know

aa5874 · 02-19-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Internal evidence

This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author....

Again, you are NOT looking at the actual evidence you are INVENTING your own history.

Origen did claim that Paul WROTE Hebrews.

Examine De Principiis attributed to Origen.

The Preface of De Principiis

Quote:

And therefore I think it sufficient to quote this one testimony of Paul from the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which he says: “By faith Moses, when he had come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians.”

De Principiis 1.2.5

Quote:

The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.”

De Principiis 3.1.10

Quote:

To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he says, “For the earth, which drinks in the rain that comes oft upon it, and brings forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, will receive blessing from God....

There seems to be some kind of propaganda machinery to propagate mis-leading information.

Origen did claim Hebrews was written by Paul based on De Principiis.

outhouse · 02-19-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

What do you know that Carrier doesnt?

Why do you think I disagree with Carrier?

The quote you provided is about a decade old, and Carrier was summarizing a standard reference on the question of the canon.

Check out his new book to be published in April of this year.

Repeat: what is your game?

At your request I will research it better to understand both sides of the fence.

As far as I know now, it's fantasy and imagination.

Cant wait for Carriers book to come out. Never heard him ever, not back a historical paul and the undisputed letters.

outhouse · 02-19-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Internal evidence

This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author....

Again, you are NOT looking at the actual evidence you are INVENTING your own history.

Origen did claim that Paul WROTE Hebrews.

Examine De Principiis attributed to Origen.

The Preface of De Principiis

De Principiis 1.2.5

De Principiis 3.1.10

Quote:

To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he says, “For the earth, which drinks in the rain that comes oft upon it, and brings forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, will receive blessing from God....

There seems to be some kind of propaganda machinery to propagate mis-leading information.

Origen did claim Hebrews was written by Paul based on De Principiis.

and Origen made a mistake didnt he, regarding who wrote Hebrews.

early churchs attributed this to paul. it was debated early on for quite a while.

Toto · 02-19-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

Cant wait for Carriers book to come out. Never heard him ever, not back a historical paul and the undisputed letters.

Proving History

Richard Carrier

I don't even know what he thinks about Paul. I know how he deals with consensus.

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

02-19-2012, 01:43 PM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't like the comfort of certainty that's why I don't put mountain man on ignore. you just never know

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.