Steven Carr

What does Voorst say about Paul's reference to most of the brothers in Christ speaking out more freely because of Paul? (As though the brothers in Christ were a small minority of Christians but bigger than the number of brothers any Jesus would have had)



So what does Voorst say about the facts that Luke/Acts has no knowledge that this James had any relationship to Jesus at all, and neither do the Epistles of James or Jude?

What does Voost say about 1 Peter claiming that the governors punish wrongdoers,not the righteous, and in almost the next breath saying Jesus had suffered,as though the suffering of Jesus had nothing to do with anything governors did?

Presumably nothing, as these scholarly refutations of mythicist arguments do not exist, no matter how many times people name a book that allegedly contains them.

And of course,Voorst totally ignores Paul's claim that Jews had not converted either because they had never heard of Jesus or rejected Christian preaching about Jesus - as though there had never been a preacher Jesus to be rejected by Jews.

Do you have any other books which 'refute' mythicists?

I can give you plenty of evolution sites which take apart each and every creationist claim.

But somehow, there are no historicist books which take apart mythicist claims in the same way.

Strange, when we are constantly told that mythicism is analogous to creationism.

ApostateAbe

I think Paul would be one of them. Paul seemingly wrote Galatians, because it presents a point of view about events that have a different point of view in the book of Acts, and it follows all the other patterns of authenticity. It is true that it isn't referred to in the first century, an argument from silence that carries some weight, but not a lot. Everyone had an agenda, but it is all about probability.

show_no_mercy

And it's a lot more likely that Acts of the Apostles was written to combat Marcion, who is the first Christian witness that we know of to Galatians.

So you think it would be more probable for Paul to mention a family relation of Jesus "in passing", yet completely fail to mention Jesus' marital status when arguing about the role of marriage in 1 Cor 7? Which would be more consistent?

ApostateAbe

Have you read Voorst already? If so, my apologies. I have only just begun reading Voorst's book. I don't have any other books that refute mythicists, except maybe the book by Ehrman I keep bringing up, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, which is more like a book of evidence for a specific theory of a historical Jesus, but arguments very relevant to the MJ topic can be found in it. I found Voorst's book when I reviewed a large list of summaries of relevant books, by Christopher Price, and the book by Voorst was one of his favorites (here is the list)

ApostateAbe

I figure that Paul would only refer to the marital status of Jesus (single) if that was relevant to the point he was making. His thesis was that it is good for a man not to marry, except for the immorality of men, so they should take a wife. Now that I think about it, it does seem to be a model intended to mesh with the bachelorhood of Jesus, because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but Paul can't very well ask Christian men to not marry.

Acts was written at the same time as the gospel of Luke (they were two parts of the same document). The gospel of Marcion was derived from the gospel of Luke, so we know that both Luke and Acts were written well before Marcion.

Toto

:banghead:

Christopher Price is an evangelical Christian and an apologist who used to post here under the handle Layman, until he realized that he wasn't about to convert anyone.

Of course he's going to try to make a secular case for the historical Jesus - he's trying to convert you, and this is the first step, or at least he wants to keep you from converting any wavering Christians. Like Paul, he is going to be all things to all men. When he talks to infidels, he's going speak like a secularist.

Pick any issue that Van Voorst discusses, and look into it further.

show_no_mercy

It is in no way a "fact" that Marcion's gospel derives from Luke any more than Luke's gospel derives from Marcion's. The only thing dating Marcion's gospel after Luke is Christian apologetics.

"Acts" was a genre of Christian writing that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and Acts of the Apostles fits into this genre. Not only that, but there was a Theophilus in the late 2nd century who called himself a Christian, but seemed to be completely ignorant of the Jesus story. He says he's a Christian because he's "anointed with the oil of god". The perfect person to whom a gospel and acts would be addressed to.

We have no evidence that a gospel was addressed to a "Theophilus" prior to Marcion. So if you want to date the gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles together, then Acts drags Luke well into the 2nd century.

Toto

It is generally agreed that the final editor of Luke also wrote Acts, but there is no agreement that the the two works were written at the same time. Marcion's gospel was most likely based on an earlier version of Luke, but this is all speculative.

At the time Marcion was influential, the gospel of Luke had not yet been named even if it had been written, and there was no orthodox canon. For all we know, Marcion wrote the first gospel, and the others were based on his.

Here's something to read on Marcion's gospel, just to give you an idea of what you don't know: The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion

avi

Toto, thanks for that link. When I attempt to invoke it, I am taken to a web site that simply asserts "session timed out"....
I was able to locate a similar site with google, and downloaded it, looks very interesting, thanks:
Toto's link
avi

spin

"Van Voorst", please.

And to answer the OP, it's ingrained christian adversarialism.


spin