Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 02:26 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, let's say it's an interpolation. No biggie. My argument doesn't just rest on this one alone. What about all the other passages and verses in the Epistles that indicate that Jesus was believed to be a man by the Apostles? Is every one of them an interpolation?

No.
The issue was that PAUL did not refer to a historical Jesus.
Why don't you QUOTE some of those other passages?

In fact - the early NT epistles are also similarly empty of any historical reference to Jesus. Probably why you didn't quote any.

Sure - much LATER Christians DID believe Jesus was historical - but there are NO 1st century Christian writings that place Jesus in history at all.

Anyway - "believed to be a man" ?
Sherlock Holmes is believed to be a man.
Hercules is believed to be a man.
Harry Potter is a man (well, a young man.)
Paul believed Jesus to be both a (heavenly) "man" and divine.
That's NOT the issue - please pay closer attention.

The issue is whether any early Christians place him in HISTORY - which they do NOT.

K.

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 02:30 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Sorry. I'm not sure what I might be supposed to conclude from this.

Read a history book.....

Well, that sort of thing is why I don't bother with maryhelena.
Good luck archibald.

K.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Sorry. I'm not sure what I might be supposed to conclude from this.

Read a history book.....

Well, that sort of thing is why I don't bother with maryhelena.
Good luck archibald.

K.

Oh, my - there you have it archibald - straight from the horses mouth - or should that be from a certain brand of mythicist - don't go reading history books.....:hysterical:

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 02:54 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Earl Doherty has published two books on this question, and has a website. He has dealt with the apparent historical references in Paul. You (MCalavera) might not agree with his conclusions, but it would help if you read the basis for his arguments on why these references are not proof of a historical Jesus.
Start here: The Jesus Puzzle

Yes, and even better - Earl is posting right here - a marvelous opportunity to discover what his JMT is all about. I look forward to hearing MCalavera's response to Doherty :-)

K.

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 02:57 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, my - there you have it archibald - straight from the horses mouth - or should that be from a certain brand of mythicist - don't go reading history books.....:hysterical:

See what I mean?
maryhelena actually believes I meant "don't go reading history books".
Incredible.
Sadly, maryhelena just cannot communicate effectively.

K.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 03:03 PM

George Wells has an article in the recent edition of the Secular Humanism magazine. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to it - so would be interested in hearing from anyone who is able to read the article.

Is There Independent Confirmation of What the Gospels Say of Jesus?
George A. Wells

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...=fi&page=index

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, my - there you have it archibald - straight from the horses mouth - or should that be from a certain brand of mythicist - don't go reading history books.....:hysterical:

See what I mean?
maryhelena actually believes I meant "don't go reading history books".
Incredible.
Sadly, maryhelena just cannot communicate effectively.

K.

If 'don't go reading history books' is not what you meant - then please be good enough to clarify your point in the above post to which I responded.

TedM · 08-27-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you understood Paul you would know what this is most likely about:

Ah .. so YOU understand Paul, but no-one else does?

Kapyong, no at all. What I was saying was that YOU appeared to not understand what the 'mystery' was that Paul talked about. This appears to be because you on Doherty's very distorted theory and explanations to understand Paul. I gave you a link to clarify and point you in a more accurate direction. If that insulted you I'm sorry.

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Before one starts debating what 'Paul' thought or did - one has to have the context in which he operated. That context involves JC. Without this fundamental question being settled - is JC historical or pseudo-historical - everything else is blowing in the wind. As I said - stay with a flesh and blood JC - but don't go making any claims for historicity because such claims cannot be substantiated. JC historicists need to bow out of this debate gracefully and be content with their assumption re JC. For those interested in searching for early christian origins, it is historical people and events that must take priority over assumptions re the gospel JC story.

Maryhelena, I don't think it is as hopeless as that. I think that Wells rightly evaluates Paul as believing in a Jesus who lived on earth at some point. If he is right and that Jesus lived several hundred years before Paul, then yes, that would like trying to decide on the historicity of Hercules based on texts written hundred of years after Hercules supposedly lived.

But if Paul is arguably writing about someone in his immediate past, then the confidence (if not 100% certainty) rises significantly. Add to that 1 Clement and Papias, then we have a very strong circumstantial case indeed about a Jesus who lived around the time the Gospels set the story, and interacting with disciples who are also part of the Gospel stories.

I don't think we can say much about sayings and actions that Jesus performed. But IMO the 'base facts' about Jesus as: a Galilean prophet (similar to Doherty's Q prophets) who was a real person (as Wells points out) and who was crucified (Wells, Doherty) sometime in Paul's immediate past (me) seems pretty solid. And the best explanation for all these things is that there was in fact such a Jesus.

TedM · 08-27-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, bottom line is that you cannot provide evidence to support the assumed historicity of the gospel JC. Can't be done.

That's not what I was addressing, but I fail to see how taking snippets of characters that resemble some of the storyline of JC as forming a basis is any more advisable than taking snippets of the storyline in the gospels.

Quote:

The idea that a physical crucifixion can be valued is the most immoral premise that can be uttered. Creativity my foot - more like a case of intellectual abdication.

Human sacrifices - please Ted - lets not throw reason out the window in some vain attempt to support the unsupportable.

Pardon me mary but your personal revulsion is totally irrelevant to whether others were revulsed. No doubt many were but that doesn't mean others were unable to see the frankly OBVIOUS connection with the annual passover sacrifices they were already doing.

Quote:

The gospel JC story is not dealing with such a monstrous despicable idea. Why? Because it is not dealing with a historical gospel JC. It is only the notion, the assumption, of a historical gospel JC, that generates such a preposterous idea. Remove that assumed historicity of the gospel JC - and the very notion of there being value in a human sacrifice goes with it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here mary. Sorry. Are you saying it never would have been applicable to a man who didn't perform real amazing feats? Why not? All it would take is some people believing he could be the Messiah and someone else seeing a passover connection with atonement for sins. It's actually a clever idea and Paul puts it nicely in Romans 5:

Quote:

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Quote:

Logic, Ted, logic, reason, rationality - don't sacrifice them in your attempt to support the assumption of a historical crucified gospel JC.

I think Paul's logic, reason, and rationality is quite sound in the above passage. With a pre-existing expectation by some of a Savior-Messiah, the groundwork was set for believing that a crucified man could be the long-awaited Messiah.

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

08-27-2011, 03:03 PM	#106
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	George Wells has an article in the recent edition of the Secular Humanism magazine. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to it - so would be interested in hearing from anyone who is able to read the article. Is There Independent Confirmation of What the Gospels Say of Jesus? George A. Wells http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...=fi&page=index

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.