Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 11-11-2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am not really that conversant on Doherty's position, though I do believe that he does view Paul as the originator, as I do.

It seems, however, that Doherty tries to make his case while holding to the authenticity of the text.

I believe that the text, especially Paul, may have been significantly modified during the second century.

Doherty holds that there were two traditions, which he calls the "Jerusalem tradition" and the "Galileean Tradition." The former is found in Paul, the latter in the gospels, and the two converge later. This is an oversimplification, but it's it in a nutshell.

No. He does not share your position.

Rick Sumner · 11-11-2009, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You don't have to chase anything, a simple yes or no would suffice.

Fine. Without expansion. Without further discussion, because it's a conversation I have no interest in having.

Do I think it theoretically could be? Yes. Do I think that's where the evidence takes us? no.

dog-on · 11-11-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You don't have to chase anything, a simple yes or no would suffice.

Fine. Without expansion. Without further discussion, because it's a conversation I have no interest in having.

Do I think it theoretically could be? Yes. Do I think that's where the evidence takes us? no.

Was that so hard? Thanks.

dog-on · 11-11-2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am not really that conversant on Doherty's position, though I do believe that he does view Paul as the originator, as I do.

It seems, however, that Doherty tries to make his case while holding to the authenticity of the text.

I believe that the text, especially Paul, may have been significantly modified during the second century.

Doherty holds that there were two traditions, which he calls the "Jerusalem tradition" and the "Galileean Tradition." The former is found in Paul, the latter in the gospels, and the two converge later. This is an oversimplification, but it's it in a nutshell.

No. He does not share your position.

Are you saying that Doherty's position is that these two traditions are independent of each other?

Rick Sumner · 11-11-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Are you saying that Doherty's position is that these two traditions are independent of each other?

Originally, yes. They converged later. Paul's "Jerusalem tradition" knows nothing of the Galilean in the gospels, while the gospel's "Galilean tradition" began without Paul.

dog-on · 11-11-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Are you saying that Doherty's position is that these two traditions are independent of each other?

Originally, yes. They converged later. Paul's "Jerusalem tradition" knows nothing of the Galilean in the gospels, while the gospel's "Galilean tradition" began without Paul.

Thanks.

How does he arrive at Mark not knowing Paul, based on the current text?

Toto · 11-11-2009, 02:13 PM

a few pointless posts have been split off here

foodforthought · 11-13-2009, 11:24 AM

What do you all think about the idea that history is written by the victors? Russian family names were whipped out during the early years of Russia if they double crossed key rulers, Hitler tried to extinguish the Jewish families...

Is it possible that Nero eliminated evidence about Jesus? Jesus may then have existed and may have even been the real Messiah, but documentation was destroyed. I realize this is speculatory, but if we look at the patterns of history--then it might be a possibility.

No Robots · 11-13-2009, 11:33 AM

It seems more likely that the Christians themselves, once they came to power, expunged Roman records to remove what they considered to be slurs against their faith. For example, the volume of Roman rescripts that held legislation regarding Christians has been lost (see The Sword and the Cross / Robert M. Grant, p. 108).

aa5874 · 11-13-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foodforthought

What do you all think about the idea that history is written by the victors? Russian family names were whipped out during the early years of Russia if they double crossed key rulers, Hitler tried to extinguish the Jewish families...

Is it possible that Nero eliminated evidence about Jesus? Jesus may then have existed and may have even been the real Messiah, but documentation was destroyed. I realize this is speculatory, but if we look at the patterns of history--then it might be a possibility.

Even if you propose that Nero destroyed every bit of information about Jesus, the INFORMATION found in the NT SURVIVED.

And in the NT, the very authors, the supposed DISCIPLES, BELIEVERS, and RELATIVES, claimed Jesus was TRULY the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who walked on water, was transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven and even provided witnesses, the first bishop of Rome was a witness.

Whatever Nero destroyed is irrelevant, the Pauline writings have survived and some writer called Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man, but of some entity that was raised from the dead and that he saw the raised dead man with over 500 people.

Even if Nero burn down the whole of Rome, Galatians 1.1 has survived.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...

Even if Nero destroyed the world, Matthew 17.1-3 survived.

Matthew 17:1-3 -

Quote:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

We don't need Nero. we have the supposed disciples and Paul. They did not destroy anything.They were Christians, they must have told the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God. Right!

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

11-11-2009, 02:13 PM	#307
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	a few pointless posts have been split off here

11-13-2009, 11:24 AM	#308
foodforthought New Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: someplace Posts: 4	What do you all think about the idea that history is written by the victors? Russian family names were whipped out during the early years of Russia if they double crossed key rulers, Hitler tried to extinguish the Jewish families... Is it possible that Nero eliminated evidence about Jesus? Jesus may then have existed and may have even been the real Messiah, but documentation was destroyed. I realize this is speculatory, but if we look at the patterns of history--then it might be a possibility.

11-13-2009, 11:33 AM	#309
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	It seems more likely that the Christians themselves, once they came to power, expunged Roman records to remove what they considered to be slurs against their faith. For example, the volume of Roman rescripts that held legislation regarding Christians has been lost (see The Sword and the Cross / Robert M. Grant, p. 108).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.