Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdboy · 05-06-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Yet, we have no record of anyone showing doubts of his existence.

How many people in the period doubted the existence of Aesculapis? or Apollo or Hercules? or Zeus? or Bacchus?

Practically no-one (I can think of maybe one.)

It's not just doubts about Jesus that are missing,
it's doubts about ANY mythical figure.

Tatian writes (my bolding):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory...

Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed.

and

Some say that he lived 90 years before the Olympiads, which would be 317 years after the taking of Troy. Others carry it down to a later date, and say that Homer was a contemporary of Archilochus; but Archilochus flourished about the 23d Olympiad, in the time of Gyges the Lydian, 500 years after Troy. Thus, concerning the age of the aforesaid poet, I mean Homer, and the discrepancies of those who have spoken of him, we have said enough in a summary manner for those who are able to investigate with accuracy. For it is possible to show that the opinions held about the facts themselves also are false. For, where the assigned dates do not agree together, it is impossible that the history should be true. For what is the cause of error in writing, but the narrating of things that are not true?

Tacitus thought that Saturn and Jupiter were just men. Saturn was a king in Crete. After Jupiter drove Saturn from the throne, Saturn went to Italy, where he taught many things to the Italians. IIRC Lucian was sceptical about the gods as gods. Plutarch also thought the myths of the gods should not be taken literally.

But we have no-one questioning the same about the Gospels. No-one to see "this is allegory", no-one who thinks "this is poetry like Homer". No-one who says "The story of Christ crucified should not be taken literally". We do have pagan critics like Celsus who say the apostles were liars; but he doesn't recognise the Gospels as a fiction novel or poetry. In other words, if the Gospels were like that, no-one from that time appeared to recognise that.

Saturn was king of the gods: After killing Caelus, Saturn took his father's place as king of the gods. However, he was later told that one of his own sons would someday replace him. In order to avoid this, he ate all of his children. His wife Ops/Rhea eventually hid his last son, Jupiter/Zeus, and when this son was old enough, he released his brothers and sisters, waged war with the Titans and became the third and final king of the gods.
http://www.usefulcharts.com/history/...ods-chart.html

Tatian is saying that the greek gods are demons ch14:"so the demons, going to great lengths in wickedness, have utterly deceived the souls among you which are left to themselves by ignorance and false appearances. These beings do not indeed die easily, for they do not partake of flesh"
"and you acknowledge the dominion of many rather than the rule of one, accustoming yourselves to follow demons as if they were mighty"
ch8:"And are not the demons themselves, with Zeus at their head, subjected to Fate, being overpowered by the same passions as men?"
Tatian never mentions jesus christ.

James The Least · 05-06-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Why make a myth about a Jew who is a crucified?

because a real man left a impression on enough people to be glorified after his martyred death.

Quote:

It's effective church propaganda.

Ignorance here bud.

Pauls epistles are to early. There were no churches then.

The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.

James The Least · 05-06-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The seven "authentic" Pauline letters had a historical author, therefore "Paul" has historicity, by definition.

Church tradition is not historicity. It is potentially and theoretically historical, but given the legendary nature of everything surrounding the early church, we have absolutely no reason to assume that Paul must be real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The idea that Paul himself is a made up character is something that lacks either evidence or necessity to hypothesize.

"Paul presents an essentially different type of religiousness from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature." - E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, emphasis his

"Whatever the physiological or psychological analysis of Paul's temperament may be, his conception of life was not Jewish. Nor can his unparalleled animosity and hostility to Judaism as voiced in the Epistles be accounted for except upon the assumption that, while born a Jew, he was never in sympathy or in touch with the doctrines of the rabbinical schools. For even his Jewish teachings came to him through Hellenistic channels, as is indicated by the great emphasis laid upon 'the day of the divine wrath'." - Jewish Encyclopedia Online (1906)

"Paul deliberately misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of his missionary activities...like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry...if Paul was not a Pharisee rooted in Jewish learning and tradition, but instead a Hellenistic adventurer whose acquaintance with Judaism was recent and shallow, the construction of myth and theology which he elaborated in his letters becomes a very different thing." - Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker

None of these writers are saying Paul is legendary. They are, however, doubting virtually everything the Paul character says -- about himself, about Judaism, about Jesus. These statements could be multiplied a hundredfold. So we are stuck in the same dilemma as the historical Jesus: why is church tradition at such radical variance with what we know of first century history?
Why are Jesus and Paul, ostensibly Jewish people, so radically anti-Jewish in virtually everything attributed to them? The Essenes were anti-Pharisee, but their documents read nothing like Paul's. The Essenes wanted to get back to the pure Torah; Paul wanted to chuck the Torah into the waste-basket.

We thus have good reasons, I think, to believe that Paul, too, is legendary. The massive problems and confusion that must be upheld if his historicity is assumed and his letters deemed authentic vanish if we propose that Paul is himself an invention of the proto-orthodox church.

most of this post is just rambling from a point of complete ignorance of life in Galilee in the first century.

you know nothing about the culture and its obvious.

You do know there were 4 sects of judaism that one would fit in dont you??

You do know there were many hellensitic jews?

Do you even know what a god-fearer is??

pauls judaism is debated, but he has historicity.

This isn't worth a response. Come back when you can actually engage the issue.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 07:17 PM

Yes, the author of the Pauline letters was highly idiosyncratic. So what?

aa5874 · 05-06-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, the author of the Pauline letters was highly idiosyncratic. So what?

So, when did this 'highly idiosyncratic" writer composed his letters??? How can you show the veracity of any Pauline claim??? Please show that James the Apostle is a real person.

Galatians 1.19 has NO meaning because we cannot assume the Lord was a human being.

Please provide the evidence that the Lord was a human being and that the Pauline writings are historically accurate.

James The Least · 05-06-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, the author of the Pauline letters was highly idiosyncratic. So what?

Well, he wasn't idiosyncratic if he was a Christian pretending to be a Pharisaic Jew from "the tribe of Benjamin." Which is what I'm starting to believe "Paul" probably was. That would logically explain why his philosophy is unlike that of every other Jew in history and very, very much like that of Catholic Christianity.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 09:34 PM

It would be incredibly idiosyncratic for a Roman Gentile convert to have pretended to have been a Jewish Pharisee.

Sheshbazzar · 05-06-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, the author of the Pauline letters was highly idiosyncratic. So what?

Well, he wasn't idiosyncratic if he was a Christian pretending to be a Pharisaic Jew from "the tribe of Benjamin." Which is what I'm starting to believe "Paul" probably was. That would logically explain why his philosophy is unlike that of every other Jew in history and very, very much like that of Catholic Christianity.

I agree. The biggest problem I have with the credibility of 'Paul' is simply that he says way to much about way too many things with no confirmation from anyone else.
Like out of all of the thousands of alleged first hand witnesses and believers, almost no one else had anything of any value to contribute.
Twenty seven books by twenty seven different witnesses, -who clearly identified themselves and when and where they are writing-, with different perspectives yet all generally agreeing on major events and beliefs, would be a far more credible than 'Paul's' thirteen or whatever self-promoting monologues.

The other thing about human nature I've noticed going all the way back to my childhood, is if someone says they are going to tell you 'The Gospel Truth', it is almost invariably an indication that they are about to lie through their teeth, and try to flim flam you in one way or another.
By hard learned experience, there is not a 'minister of the Gospel' that I would ever again trust any further than I could throw them.

.

outhouse · 05-06-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

because a real man left a impression on enough people to be glorified after his martyred death.

Ignorance here bud.

Pauls epistles are to early. There were no churches then.

The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.

False.

unsupported assumptions based from ignorance

Grog · 05-06-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It would be incredibly idiosyncratic for a Roman Gentile convert to have pretended to have been a Jewish Pharisee.

Paul never says he was a Pharisee. He says:

3 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

I agree with the thread about authenticity that we have to take what Paul says with a grain of salt. 1 Cor 9:20 seems to self-implicate him in deceit. "zealous for the traditions of my fathers" could refer to something other than Pharisees.

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

05-06-2012, 07:17 PM	#164
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Yes, the author of the Pauline letters was highly idiosyncratic. So what?

05-06-2012, 09:34 PM	#167
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It would be incredibly idiosyncratic for a Roman Gentile convert to have pretended to have been a Jewish Pharisee.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.