Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 09-23-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is unwarranted speculation. You would not think this if you had followed the early debates on this board.

Dare to think it possible Toto. Irrationality and bias are not exclusive to theists. :]

I have been here long enough to see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I hope you will find a framework for discussing the issue in a more informed manner, and that you can disabuse yourself of the notion that only mythicists find interpolations, and only where convenient.

Try to keep up Toto. I believe you are referring to my very first post in the forum.

And Toto, I do not consider it necessary to imply anything about 'better informed'. as I said, were I in a science forum, I would take the point. Here, I see longtime devotees who, despite knowing all the numbers, add them up in very unrational sceptical ways, and I do not need anyone to try to tell me that I can't apply general intelligence in order to see through that. In addition I have asked questions, in a sprit of enquiry, and found some of the answers lacking. One can only deal with the material one encounters.

That sounds very similar to what theists said to Dawkins. He didn't buy it, and nor will I. Sorry.

All this remind me of a colleague of mine that went about asking everybody the same question: Have you read Dibs?

dog-on · 09-23-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yes Don, I already posted a reading, supported by Pauline usage, that means something other than what you are trying to portray. Again, your prima facie reading is correct if you assume your conclusion.

Can you repeat your prima facie reading please? I didn't catch it, I'm afraid.

Also, when you write that "2nd century catholic redactors may have meant it similarly to the way in which the later Catholic church meant it", can you be clear on what that reading what be, please? E.g. "Paul thought that... "

Thanks.

Post 103.

They may have meant it the way you read it.

I don't know what Paul thought and neither do you.

Toto · 09-23-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

... In addition I have asked questions, in a sprit of enquiry, and found some of the answers lacking. One can only deal with the material one encounters.

That sounds very similar to what theists said to Dawkins. He didn't buy it, and nor will I. Sorry.

You added this part.

What answers did you find lacking? Did you pursue the matter? You post such a volume of writing that it is hard to keep up with you at times.

I have no idea what you refer to with theists and Dawkins.

TedM · 09-23-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No - the prima facie reading of Paul is not "overwhelmingly" in support of a historical Jesus. Mythicism only requires a few interpolations. The conspiracy was out in the open - it was called orthodox Christianity.

Mythicism only requires a few interpolations? How can you possibly know that? You must assume that Paul only referred to that other worldly place that Jesus lived and died in a 'few times', that he didn't explain how Jesus could have been descended from David in such a place, born of a woman in such a place, etc..That's one whopper of an assumption.

I know that by reading Paul's letters. Otherwise, I can't follow your objection.

My objection is that if Paul really was writing about what Doherty says he was, what we have may not be anything close to what Paul originally wrote, as he may well have talked about who his Jesus was in terms more clear to his readers than what has remained. One would expect more clarity than what we do have. If he had meant a human Jesus all along, there would be no need because that is the prima-facie reading of 'man','flesh','body','blood','crucifixion'..

Quote:

What it means is that whoever modified Paul saw no need to counter the knowledge that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was the human/God of the Gospel. HAD Paul believed that way, whoever modified it would NOT have rested on his laurels with bringing Paul 'in line with orthodox theology' in a way that leaves the gospel Jesus out of the epistles. Rather we would see perhaps dozens of unambiguous references to teachings and doings of Jesus of Nazareth. The mere fact that whatever interpolations were made did not do this suggests that there was never any awareness of Paul having an anti-orthodox belief of such magnitude, which suggests that he never did have.

Orthodoxy only required reciting the Nicene Code, not believing in the details of Jesus of Nazareth derived from the gospels.

Remember, the historical Jesus is a modern idea. In the second century, the only requirement was to believe that Christ came in the flesh.

I don't believe that was the only requirement, but even so that idea came from and was propagated by what?--the gospels, of course. That's why we should expect interpolators of orthodoxy to put in gospel references. Are you really being serious here?:huh:

Quote:

What we are aware of is that the major heretic of the time was Marcion, who believed that Jesus was not born of a woman. We see an effort to "correct" that and other Marcionite ideas in the epistles.

If orthodoxy wanted to 'correct' Marcion, we would have seen gospel references. Do we really have anything other than speculation to support the claim that Marcion came first? Where are all the references to the higher and lower God, for example?

Quote:

The idea that Paul could be totally uninterested in the recent human who sacrificed himself for the world is very unlikely. It only seems likely to you because it has been repeated so often.

There is a difference between showing no interest, and deciding there wasn't anything there on which he preferred to focus. I can't tell from your answers to me on this issue if you have even distinguished between these two concepts, as you always seem to take the extreme 'totally uninterested' position.

Toto · 09-23-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... if Paul really was writing about what Doherty says he was, what we have may not be anything close to what Paul originally wrote, as he may well have talked about who his Jesus was in terms more clear to his readers than what has remained.

You are suggesting that the catholic editors removed a lot of stuff?

Quote:

I don't believe that was the only requirement, but even so that idea came from and was propagated by what?--the gospels, of course. That's why we should expect interpolators of orthodoxy to put in gospel references. Are you really being serious here?:huh:

I contend that the orthodoxy came first, and the gospels were shaped around the doctrine. It is only modern fundamentalists who start with the gospels.

Quote:

If orthodoxy wanted to 'correct' Marcion, we would have seen gospel references. Do we really have anything other than speculation to support the claim that we have evidence that Marcion came first?

Same objection as above. Marcion had his own gospel, which the orthodox also enhanced. They had no need to insert gospel references into the letters.

Quote:

The idea that Paul could be totally uninterested in the recent human who sacrificed himself for the world is very unlikely. It only seems likely to you because it has been repeated so often.

There is a difference between showing no interest, and deciding there wasn't anything there on which he preferred to focus. I can't tell from your answers to me on this issue if you know how to distinguish between these two concepts.

I'm not sure that there is a significant difference between these two rationales for Paul's lack of attention to the historical Jesus. Neither wording is especially persuasive.

J-D · 09-23-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have to START with established and CORROBORATED sources of antiquity such as Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.

You have not shown that those are reliable sources.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are accepted as HISTORICALLY reliable by Scholars and Historians

You have not shown that they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are considered UNRELIABLE Historically by Scholars and Historians

You have not shown this to be so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

ALL claims about Jesus Christ are Historically UNRELIABLE.

You have not shown that scholars and historians accept this.

GakuseiDon · 09-23-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Can you repeat your prima facie reading please? I didn't catch it, I'm afraid.

Also, when you write that "2nd century catholic redactors may have meant it similarly to the way in which the later Catholic church meant it", can you be clear on what that reading what be, please? E.g. "Paul thought that... "

Thanks.

Post 103.

They may have meant it the way you read it.

I don't know what Paul thought and neither do you.

Thanks Dog-on.

TedM · 09-23-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... if Paul really was writing about what Doherty says he was, what we have may not be anything close to what Paul originally wrote, as he may well have talked about who his Jesus was in terms more clear to his readers than what has remained.

You are suggesting that the catholic editors removed a lot of stuff?

That seems likely to me if Paul originally wasn't talking about a person that had been on earth. I think the bizarreness of the other-world Messiah likely would have lent itself to a natural tendency to qualify this Jesus since the Messiah was not typically (if ever) thought of in those terms.

Quote:

I don't believe that was the only requirement, but even so that idea came from and was propagated by what?--the gospels, of course. That's why we should expect interpolators of orthodoxy to put in gospel references. Are you really being serious here?:huh:

I contend that the orthodoxy came first, and the gospels were shaped around the doctrine. It is only modern fundamentalists who start with the gospels.

So how about a scenario that works for:
*Paul writes the epistles
*historical Jesus movement emerges
*Paul's letters interpolated
*Paul's doctrine of Jesus not known to historical Jesus movement
*gospels written
*gospels well-known

Quote:

There is a difference between showing no interest, and deciding there wasn't anything there on which he preferred to focus. I can't tell from your answers to me on this issue if you know how to distinguish between these two concepts.

I'm not sure that there is a significant difference between these two rationales for Paul's lack of attention to the historical Jesus. Neither wording is especially persuasive.

ok, no need to go down that road again.

Toto · 09-23-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

So how about a scenario that works for:
*Paul writes the epistles
*historical Jesus movement emerges
*Paul's letters interpolated
*Paul's doctrine of Jesus not known to historical Jesus movement
*gospels written
*gospels well-known

...

How about:
~Paul writes the epistles in some form
~Gospels were written as allegories
~Marcion publishes his canon, with his version of a gospel and his version of Paul's letters
~Anti-Marcionite othodox thinkers decide that they need to cement their ideological control by establishing Jesus as a historical figure who passed on authority to selected followers, who passed it on to them, so they interpret the gospels literally
~A Catholic editor edits the epistles and the gospels to force some amount of orthodox thinking on them.

Now this is somewhat simplified, because the editing was probably a long process, and there are lots of textual variations in what has survived. We know that there were charges and counter charges of forgery during this time.

aa5874 · 09-23-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are considered UNRELIABLE Historically by Scholars and Historians

You have not shown this to be so....

This is Bart Ehrman an Historian in a debate with with William Craig onthe resurrection.

See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

Quote:

...You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

ALL claims about Jesus Christ are Historically UNRELIABLE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

..You have not shown that scholars and historians accept this.

NON-SEQUITUR.

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator in the NT. My position is that ALL claims about such a Jesus Christ are Historically unreliable.

Historians and Scholars will decide if they will accept the claims in the NT that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God, the Creator, was tempted by the Devil on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove, that he walked on water, TRANSFIGURED, was crucified although found NOT guilty by Pilate, was raised from the the dead on the THIRD day and later ascended through the clouds.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.