maryhelena

So, aa5874, would you say that the Pauline epistles are the 'cake' - and the gospels are the 'recipe'?

i.e. 'Paul' needed a flesh and blood 'story' before he could go transposing that story to a cosmic/celestial/theological/philosophical context. Otherwise, is he not simply blowing in the hot air of imagination and speculation? Those hot air balloons never did go high enough. Super-sonic take off requires a strong dose of something more reality based....

Happy New Year, everyone.

EarlDoherty

Well, I know that's been your position, mh, but it doesn't seem to be anchored by anything in the texts to back it up. You never supply anything. It is a kind of 'principle' you've come up with without support. It's on a par with, for example, the bare claim one hears from historicists: "No one would make up a crucified Messiah." Such a statement, and your own, are simply based on opinion, usually not borne out when subjected to examination. I've asked you many times to give us clear indicators in the texts that Paul was building on a historical story in order to come up with his celestial Christ, that he could not have imagined such a spiritual being without such a story. You and 'aa' have virtually nothing to offer except the timeworn "of the seed of David" (Rom.1:3) and "born of woman" (Gal. 4:4). Mythicists have dealt sufficiently with those from time immemorial, including myself.

Those two paltry pieces of argument are set against an entire body of epistolary literature that has reams of indicators that Paul and the other writers envisioned no story, no HJ at any point in the historical past, known or unknown, real or imagined. If you cannot deal with that literature in substantive fashion to prove your contention, please stop parrotting your precious principle.

Your offering of Antigonus has absolutely no support or implication anywhere in the texts. Just because some historical figure or figures were crucified in Israel's past does not make any one of them a likely candidate for embodying your principle. You can't just offer a source for some idea just because you like the sound of it, or because you have your own claim from personal incredulity that it could not have been anything else. It has to be backed up by actual evidence, by exegesis from the texts, something I've never seen from you. "Paul needed to stand on terra firma" is simply a type of woolly phrase you are very adept at (see your quote above) which illustrates nothing but your own eccentric mindset.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, unfortunately, hot air balloons - i.e. theories derived from an interpretation and speculation of the Pauline epistles - will not, cannot, move forward the search for early christian origins. That is my interest. Putting all ones eggs in a Pauline basket of ones own weaving is not only illogical - it is downright impractical. It's history, Earl, Jewish history, that has to be put on the table. That is the backbone from which the NT arose. That is the backbone that gives the NT story it's sense of relevance for the people who read that story. It's not all imagination. It's not, as Wells has said, all mythical. Come down to earth, Earl. Face the historical realities from which the NT story sprung. You will continue to bang your head against the JC historicists as long as you fly the cosmic heavens with 'Paul'.

EarlDoherty

Again, you provide nothing to back up your statements. I am not flying the cosmic heavens with my own wings. I am firmly piloting within a vehicle of the texts themselves, I have presented evidence from the texts, as well as the wider philosophical and cosmological concepts of the time, to support my heavenly voyage. You, on the other hand, are essentially appealing to your own argument from incredulity. Besides, I have fully taken into account the role of Jewish history in the thinking of Paul. Paul and his fellow Christ believers, and many of their ideas, have emerged from a Jewish culture (though one mixed with the Hellenistic culture it is now embedded in). Pauline Christianity has a Jewish dimension, of course it does, though it is thoroughly mixed with a pagan one. But that doesn't require Paul to have based himself on an historical figure or envision that he believes in an historical man. You simply can't seem to get past your fixation for "Jewish history", whatever that is supposed to entail. That it is a baseless fixation is illustrated by the fact that you respond to my disagreement by simply repeating the same empty woolly sentiments that you always have. You don't seem to have anything else.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, I'm not about to get into an argument with you. Been there done that and it gets nowhere. Anyway, this thread is about your ideas. Needless to say, I find them lacking - as you obviously do mine. So, checkmate, Earl...

EarlDoherty

Your chess rules must be different from mine.

Earl Doherty

Horatio Parker

Stalemate.

The archetypes Wholeness and Perfection have a go at each other.

aa5874

Your statement is extremely pathetic and in error.

You have provided NO corroborative evidence at all for early Pauline writings and have even argued that Pauline writings that are claimed to be authentic are NOT but are mutilated and have NEVER, EVER presented the supposed early letters without the interpolations.

You are blatantly using admitted LATE and unreliable Pauline writings to argue that the Pauline writings represent early Christian.

How contradictory!!

The Pauline writings we have represent LATE Christianity--the very Pauline letters that you have IDENTIFIED with Interpolations.

It is most obvious and logical that INTERPOLATED writings MUST represent the LATER author and a later time period.

You have no actual evidence of any early Pauline letters and the earliest recovered Pauline manuscripts are dated to the mid 2nd century or later.

Effectively, you have developed a theory fundamentally based on the Presumptions that the Pauline writings were early while at the same time showing that they very Pauline writings you are using are LATE Interpolated letters.

Duvduv

If the epistles are actually not original letters at all but merely cut and paste composites created for didactic and doctrinal purposes then they are of no use at all as sources showing any mythist belief.

maryhelena

:thumbs:


Methinks that those mythicists that rely upon the Pauline epistles are going to find themselves in a 'dangerous' position one of these fine days....The hot air that the Pauline balloon has generated is getting colder day by day......


footnote: Duvduv, 'Paul' and the Pauline epistles can be questioned and found to be wanting i.e. 'Paul' could simply be a pseudonym, or 'Paul' could be a composite figure like JC, and the epistles can have had multiple interpolations etc - which means that placing all ones eggs in a Pauline basket is not a wise thing to be doing. And, actually, this situation should have been foreseen. If ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles leads to the conclusion that the Pauline cosmic JC has been historicized as the gospel JC - and that proposition is illogical and cannot be rationally supported - then, surely, ones interpretation of those Pauline epistles, based as it is on the faulty Pauline platform - is itself questionable?

Some mythicists are in the habit of saying 'don't read the gospels into Paul' - so - if the Pauline epistle platform is shaky - then don't read ones interpretation of that shaky platform into the gospel story...