Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 03-24-2012, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller
There is an argument for the mythical jesus but those involved arent up to developing a historical context for the concept.

Do tell.

I will when I publish it next year. I have a two book deal with a small publisher. It certainly won't be the hit that Ehrman's book will certainly be. But I don't begrudge him his success.

We're only here for a while. Like the Beatles song say 'there's nothing you can do that can't be done.'

We're also all after the truth presumably (or at least most of us). The best argument wins. I will read Ehrman's book but I don't get emotional about the whole thing like some of the people here. Jesus wasn't a man because Christianity can't work with a man at its center. Just go to a traditional mass and imagine even for a second that all these rituals are based on a real human being. It's just so stupid - only an American could come up with something like this (or a German, or an Englishman or a Scotsman - any of the dunderheaded northern races that had nothing to do with real Christianity from the very beginning).

Taste and see the Lord is sweet. How could that possibly be related to a historical person? Everything is so Protestant in scholarship. The rest of the Christian world just believes. There's no contribution to anything mainstream. The Copts write about the Coptic tradition and no one reads it. Same with the other Orthodox faiths. You start with the premise that all the divine aspects of Jesus were 'exaggerations' of the other 'pagan churches' and then lo and behold - you uncover that Jesus was a 'real man.'

But the reality was that it was the other way around. It is impossible for the Jews to have imagined God to be in the flesh. A hypostasis visiting earth yes. But not of the flesh. These Protestants truly have ruined everything. I can walk into a Syriac Orthodox Church, a Greek Orthodox Church, a Coptic Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church and I see Christianity. Even the Anglican Church. But the rest of these silly American churches ... what does any of this have to do with Christianity?

Stephan, I might be mistaken - but I seem to remember that when you first joined FRDB that you were saying that Jesus was historical - that he was the fore-runner to the real Messiah, Marcus Agrippa (II). Have you now had a change of mind on this? And done so without telling the forum...

Just interested - maybe all the talk re mythicism here on FRDB has influenced your thinking....

Re Marcus Agrippa (II)

Quote:

His position as Messiah had been proclaimed by Jesus himself during his own ministry, and Marcus Agrippa was present at Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Real Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk) Stephan Huller

stephan huller · 03-24-2012, 02:23 AM

I couldnt get around the name jesus but ive always been a marcionophile

maryhelena · 03-24-2012, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I couldnt get around the name jesus but ive always been a marcionophile

That did not answer my questions....

Do you stand by the above statement taken from your book??

maryhelena · 03-24-2012, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is an argument for the mythical jesus but those involved arent up to developing a historical context for the concept. most of the arguments develop from little more than shared hatred

Really Stephan??

I did just that - developed a historical context for a mythical JC - check out this thread:

HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

tanya · 03-24-2012, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

It sounds as though the book is of decent quality, which makes the Huffington Post article even more inexplicable.

Though I have only read the online publishers extracts, not the book, yet, I do have a clear opinion, contradicting this thought, and disagreeing (what else is new?) with Diogenes the Cynic's initial impressions.

I base my condemnation of Bart's newest publication on the facile, and distinctly non-scholarly presentation, of the Muratorian Canon in his earlier book, Forged.

Here's the salient passage from that book, page 87:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

In addition to these eleven books, Marcion and his followers had other books forged in Paul's name. We know this from a fragmentary text that comes to us from the second century, a text that discusses which books belong in the true cannon (sic) of Scripture, as opposed to the canons of Marcion and other heretics. This text is called the Muratorian Canon, named after the Italian scholar, Muratori, who discovered it. Among other things, the Muratorian Canon indicates that the Marcionites, the followers of Marcion, had forged two books in the name of Paul, a letter to the Christians in the city of Alexandria and a letter to those in the town of Laodicea. These letters to the Alexandrians and Laodiceans, regrettably, no longer survive. But we can be relatively certain that if they ever turn up, they will represent even more forcefully than the books of Marcion's canon his distinctive views about the two Gods, the non-human Jesus, and the salvation he brought.

Here's the summary at Early Christian Writings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The Muratorian Canon is an ancient list of canonical books drawn up in Greek, ostensibly in the late second century due to the reference to Pope Pius, and surviving in a single copy in poor Latin discovered by Muratori. Some have redated the canon to the fourth century.

In brief, there is clearly a PATTERN here. Ehrman's writing is superficial, deceptive, and unreliable. He claims fluency in Greek, yet, writes "Marcionites", instead of following the Greek: "Marcionists". That many uneducated, native English speakers frequently append "ite" to any belief with which they disagree, in a pejorative fashion, is irrelevant. Ehrman claims to be a scholar, he should know better.

His relative certainty, about what some non-existent new text will reveal, is nothing short of speculation, and must be condemned by every member of this forum, regardless of political persuasion. History has nothing in common with fortune telling.

Ehrman's text, Forged, is as banal and useless, as those extracts of his newest book have revealed its contents to be.

I challenge any of those true believers (in the legitimacy of Ehrman's supposedly scholarly credentials) to refute me, if you can. I am especially keen for Diogenes the Cynic to serve up a more substantial review. His current summary is as shallow as the work he praises.

judge · 03-24-2012, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Though I have only read the online publishers extracts, not the book, yet, I do have a clear opinion,

Excellent

Solo · 03-24-2012, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is an argument for the mythical jesus but those involved arent up to developing a historical context for the concept. most of the arguments develop from little more than shared hatred

I have read Mark Vonnegut's new book called "Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So" (or via: amazon.co.uk). Mark is the son of the great Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and an MD. He went to med school after a bout with mental illness, and wrote about his breakdown previously, in a celebrated volume called "The Eden Express". In his memoir, he is calling for someone to write a book about early Christianity from his perspective, from the inside of an apostle's head. The problem with writing about early Christianity is that of the audience. You have to be imprisoned by your own brain and beastfight yourself to really understand the crucified saviour of Paul. No amount of study will supply that essential point of reference. No one will really understand what you are talking about except other bright psychos, and when it finally gets some circulation and official sanction it wil be SOmeTHING cOmpLETELY DiffERent run by FAKes and perVERTs who will call the burning of a human being an "act of faith". After all, Paul himself gave his own body to be burned and did it for the love of mankind, didn't he ?

What's "beastfight" ? It is a word that Paul invented (a typical "neologism" the shrinks will tell you) to describe his mental state in Ephesus.

Best,
Jiri

hjalti · 03-24-2012, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It would take too long to summarize all of them, but I would say that his approach is mostly to point out an absence of positive evidence, factual mistakes, the ad hoc nature of crying "interpolation" at any inconvenient text, and so forth.

'ad hoc'?

Doherty is hardly alone in thinking that 1 Thessalonians 2 contains interpolations.

Ehrman might disagree and claim Paul really did think God was bringing down the wrath of God upon Jews, but he can't get away with claiming Doherty is simply crying ad hoc interpolation for this text.

In fact, it is Ehrman who comes up with ad hoc claims on page 124 that Romans 1:18 is at all relevant to 1 Thessalonians 2 '18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.....'

There is nothing whatever in Romans 1 which says this pasage is about God's wrath on Jews.

This is just ad hoc proof-texting by Ehrman, taking one occurence of the word 'wrath' and claiming it explains another occurence of the word 'wrath' in another passage, when they have nothing to do with one another.

So to sum up, Ehrman accuses Doherty of crying interpolation ad hoc, when it is perfectly legitimate scholarship to maintain that 1 Thess. 2 contains interpolations.

And then Ehrman produces an ad hoc proof text to try to shoehorn the passage in Thessalonians into Paul's theology.

Not good....

Wow... just to be clear. Does Ehrman claim that it's ad hoc for Doherty to claim that 1Thess 2:14-16 is an interpolation, and defends that passage as authentic?

aa5874 · 03-24-2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

It sounds as though the book is of decent quality, which makes the Huffington Post article even more inexplicable.

Though I have only read the online publishers extracts, not the book, yet, I do have a clear opinion, contradicting this thought, and disagreeing (what else is new?) with Diogenes the Cynic's initial impressions.

I base my condemnation of Bart's newest publication on the facile, and distinctly non-scholarly presentation, of the Muratorian Canon in his earlier book, Forged.

Here's the salient passage from that book, page 87:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

In addition to these eleven books, Marcion and his followers had other books forged in Paul's name. We know this from a fragmentary text that comes to us from the second century, a text that discusses which books belong in the true cannon (sic) of Scripture, as opposed to the canons of Marcion and other heretics. This text is called the Muratorian Canon, named after the Italian scholar, Muratori, who discovered it. Among other things, the Muratorian Canon indicates that the Marcionites, the followers of Marcion, had forged two books in the name of Paul, a letter to the Christians in the city of Alexandria and a letter to those in the town of Laodicea. These letters to the Alexandrians and Laodiceans, regrettably, no longer survive. But we can be relatively certain that if they ever turn up, they will represent even more forcefully than the books of Marcion's canon his distinctive views about the two Gods, the non-human Jesus, and the salvation he brought.

Here's the summary at Early Christian Writings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The Muratorian Canon is an ancient list of canonical books drawn up in Greek, ostensibly in the late second century due to the reference to Pope Pius, and surviving in a single copy in poor Latin discovered by Muratori. Some have redated the canon to the fourth century.

In brief, there is clearly a PATTERN here. Ehrman's writing is superficial, deceptive, and unreliable. He claims fluency in Greek, yet, writes "Marcionites", instead of following the Greek: "Marcionists". That many uneducated, native English speakers frequently append "ite" to any belief with which they disagree, in a pejorative fashion, is irrelevant. Ehrman claims to be a scholar, he should know better.

His relative certainty, about what some non-existent new text will reveal, is nothing short of speculation, and must be condemned by every member of this forum, regardless of political persuasion. History has nothing in common with fortune telling.

Ehrman's text, Forged, is as banal and useless, as those extracts of his newest book have revealed its contents to be.

I challenge any of those true believers (in the legitimacy of Ehrman's supposedly scholarly credentials) to refute me, if you can. I am especially keen for Diogenes the Cynic to serve up a more substantial review. His current summary is as shallow as the work he praises.

I am EXTREMELY DELIGHTED that Ehrman used the Muratorian Canon as credible historical evidence.

The Muratorian Canon CONTRADICTS EHRMAN and States that the PAULINE writer IMITATED the EXAMPLE of John when he wrote Seven letters to the Churches.

In effect, the Pauline letters were WRITTEN AFTER REVELATION was ALREADY composed.

The Muratorian Canon

Quote:

[31] But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, [32] since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: [33] The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

The Muratorian Canon has EXPOSED that the Pauline writings are FORGERIES and FRAUDULENT.

The Muratorian Canon has DESTROYED the Credibility of the PAULINE letters and the History of the Church.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-24-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

'ad hoc'?

Doherty is hardly alone in thinking that 1 Thessalonians 2 contains interpolations.

Ehrman might disagree and claim Paul really did think God was bringing down the wrath of God upon Jews, but he can't get away with claiming Doherty is simply crying ad hoc interpolation for this text.

In fact, it is Ehrman who comes up with ad hoc claims on page 124 that Romans 1:18 is at all relevant to 1 Thessalonians 2 '18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.....'

There is nothing whatever in Romans 1 which says this pasage is about God's wrath on Jews.

This is just ad hoc proof-texting by Ehrman, taking one occurence of the word 'wrath' and claiming it explains another occurence of the word 'wrath' in another passage, when they have nothing to do with one another.

So to sum up, Ehrman accuses Doherty of crying interpolation ad hoc, when it is perfectly legitimate scholarship to maintain that 1 Thess. 2 contains interpolations.

And then Ehrman produces an ad hoc proof text to try to shoehorn the passage in Thessalonians into Paul's theology.

Not good....

Wow... just to be clear. Does Ehrman claim that it's ad hoc for Doherty to claim that 1Thess 2:14-16 is an interpolation, and defends that passage as authentic?

I'll let Ehrman speak for himself:

Quote:

Moreover, Paul thinks that Jesus was killed at the instigation of “the Jews.” This is indicated in a passage that is much disputed—in this instance, not just among mythicists. In 1 Thessalonians Paul narrates a number of wrongful doings of his Jewish opponents who live in Judea:

Be imitators, brothers, of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because you yourselves suffer the same things by your own fellow citizens as they do by the Jews (or the Judeans), who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us, and are not pleasing to God and to all people, who forbade us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved, in order to fill up the full measure of their sins always. But wrath has come upon them at last. (1 Thessalonians 2:14–16)

It is this last sentence that has caused interpreters problems. What could Paul mean that the wrath of God has finally come upon the Jews (or Judeans)? That would seem to make sense if Paul were writing in the years after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, that is, after 70 CE. But it seems to make less sense when this letter was actually written, around 49 CE. For that reason a number of scholars have argued that this entire passage has been inserted into 1 Thessalonians and that Paul therefore did not write it. In this view some Christian scribe, copying the letter after the destruction of Jerusalem, added it. I myself do not agree with this interpretation, for a number of reasons. To begin with, if the only part of the passage that seems truly odd on the pen of Paul is the last sentence, then it would make better sense simply to say that it is this sentence that was added by the hypothetical Christian scribe. There is no reason to doubt the entire passage, just the last few words. But I do not doubt even these. For one thing, what is the hard evidence that the words were not in the letter of 1 Thessalonians as Paul wrote it? There is none. We do not of course have the original of 1 Thessalonians; we have only later copies made by scribes. But in not a single one of these manuscripts is the line (let alone the paragraph) missing. Every surviving manuscript includes it. If the passage was added sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, say, near the end of the first Christian century or even in the second, when Christians started blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the fact that the Jews had killed Jesus, why is it that none of the manuscripts of 1 Thessalonians that were copied before the insertion was made left any trace on the manuscript record? Why were the older copies not copied at all? I think there needs to be better evidence of a scribal insertion before we are certain that it happened. And recall, we are not talking about the entire paragraph but only the last line.

The other point to stress is that Paul did think the wrath of God was already manifesting itself in this world. A key passage is Romans 1:18–32, where Paul states unequivocally, “For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven on all human ungodliness and unrighteousness, among those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” When Paul says that God’s wrath is “being revealed,” he does not simply mean that it is there to be seen in some ethereal way. He means it is being manifested, powerfully made present. God’s wrath is even now being directed against all godless and unrighteous behavior. In this passage in Romans Paul is talking about God’s wrath now being directed against pagans who refuse to acknowledge him here at the end of time before Jesus returns from heaven. It would not be at all strange to think that he also thought that God’s wrath was being manifest against those Jewish people who also acted in such ungodly and unrighteous ways. And he has a full list of offenses against which God has responded. In short, I think that Paul originally wrote 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16. He certainly wrote everything up to verse 16. What this means, then, is that Paul believes that it was the Jews (or the Judeans) who were ultimately responsible for killing Jesus, a view shared by the writers of the Gospels as well, even though it does not sit well with those of us today who are outraged by the wicked use to which such views were put in the history of anti-Semitism.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1911-1913). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

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

03-24-2012, 02:23 AM	#202
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I couldnt get around the name jesus but ive always been a marcionophile

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.