FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-13-2009, 10:51 PM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
at the core of these "Gospels" was The Gospel so how could Paul preach something not yet in existence?
He didn't and that is the point you aren't grasping. He didn't preach the details of the Gospel stories (eg virgin birth, John the Baptist) and didn't attribute to Jesus sayings placed in the mouth of Jesus in those stories.

Neither of those makes any sense if Paul was familiar with the written stories as we have them. We would expect to find indications of familiarity rather than the opposite.

Quote:
I see where this is leading, if Paul was preaching the Gospel, then the much later date for the Gospels is not valid.
No, if Paul was preaching things clearly from the Gospels, then the much later date would not be valid. He doesn't, so a later dating continues to be viable.
It's all a rather unconvincing argument from silence trying to "prove" that Paul wasn't aware of the Apostle's teachings who would eventually write the Gospels. On the other side we have textual evidence from Clement of Rome, who lived in the first century, that the writings of Paul and the person of Cephas were acknowledged. Note the following reference of Clement to Paul's writings;

Quote:
1Clem 46:9
Your division hath perverted many; it hath brought many to despair,
many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow. And your sedition still
continueth.

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos
, because that even then ye had made parties.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
. . . which references the following
Quote:
1 Corinthians
Brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, I urge all of you to be in agreement[f] and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions. 11My brothers, some members of Chloe's family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you. 12This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,”[g] or “I belong to the Messiah.”
arnoldo is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 11:00 PM   #72
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Azerbaijan
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
It's all a rather unconvincing argument from silence trying to "prove" that Paul wasn't aware of the Apostle's teachings who would eventually write the Gospels.
What makes you think the Gospel stories were "preached" prior to being written down? Is there any indication that Mark's audience didn't understand his Gospel as an original work, a composition, a substantial embellishment on what they'd already heard? The narrative framework may not have existed as early as Paul. And many of the stories may have been created during the process of writing.

razly
razlyubleno is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 11:37 PM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
It's all a rather unconvincing argument from silence trying to "prove" that Paul wasn't aware of the Apostle's teachings who would eventually write the Gospels.
You are shifting the goal posts. It is a strong argument from silence that Paul did not know the Gospel story as we know it.

Quote:
On the other side we have textual evidence from Clement of Rome, who lived in the first century, that the writings of Paul and the person of Cephas were acknowledged.
This does nothing to suggest that Paul knew the Gospels.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 02:15 AM   #74
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The writer Paul does not at all appear to have been the first to write about Jesus Christ or the first to know of the character called Jesus Christ.

The letters of "Paul" did not explain the origin of his Jesus Christ, there is almost nothing about the actual life of his Jesus, where he lived, his parents, his siblings, his so-called trial, how he was crucified, where he died or was buried.

For the 25-30 years or so that Paul was supposed to have preached his gospel, he did not give a single date, a month and year that his Jesus did anything.

No dates from "Paul" for the betrayal, the crucifixion, burial or resurrection of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

It must be likely that "Paul's" expected his readers to know all those details.

"Paul's letters" cannot answer the fundamental questions about Jesus Christ unless some other source is used.

"Paul", who is this Jesus?

"Paul", where did Jesus come from?

"Paul", when was Jesus on earth?

"Paul, under what circumstance was Jesus betrayed?

"Paul", after 30 years of preaching and teaching about Jesus did you visit his mother?

"Paul", how old was Jesus when he died?

To answer those questions there must have been another source.

If "Paul" was an actually teaching and preaching about Jesus in the 1st century, between 36-66 CE, he must have been asked these questions but in all his letters there are no answers unless the readers were already aware of the answers from another source.

"Paul's" gospel was not from by revelation it was from some other source, perhaps The Synoptics, gJohn and Hebrew scriptures.

"Paul", where did you get the name Jesus from, who told you about him?

"Paul", why did you say Jesus was born of a woman? Who told you that?

People must have already known the answers to those questions, that is why "Paul" did not answer the questions in his letters.

Perhaps, Peter the Apostle knew all the answers long before Peter as found in the memoirs of the apostles, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 06:50 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
"Paul", where did you get the name Jesus from?
If you really want to know you might want to check out Zechariah 3 LXX.
Quote:
And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil stood on his right hand to resist him.
Compare that with Hebrews 4:14-15.
Quote:
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
See?

Paul got the name Jesus from the author of Hebrews (but he probably didn’t know where the author of Hebrews got it from).

It’s the same ‘Jesus’. In both episodes Jesus was a high priest who was tempted, but who was made ‘without sin’ by God.

Here’s the catch: If that really is where the name Jesus came from then Paul was unaware of it. Because in Zechariah 3 LXX Jesus and ‘the Lord’ are two separate characters, whereas Paul treated Jesus and ‘the Lord’ as one and the same character.

Paul’s version of Jesus was based on all of those instances of ‘the Lord’ in the LXX – where Yahweh’s name once was but was removed in the translation. (Compare Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13 and maybe you will see what I mean.) In a manner of speaking Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh; but he didn’t know it because his bible only read ‘the Lord’. :rolling:

It looks to me like Paul was pretending that Jesus was a fulfillment of some prophecy and that his proper name (Jesus) was some sort of revelation; that the nameless divinity known only as ‘the Lord’ in the LXX, now had a proper name and a face.
Loomis is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 08:41 AM   #76
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
"Paul", where did you get the name Jesus from?
If you really want to know you might want to check out Zechariah 3 LXX.
The character called Joshua in Zechariah is not the Jesus Christ in the Pauline letters. There is no indication that the Joshua in Zechariah was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Jesus Christ is supposed to be the name of a real man who actually lived within about 10 years of "Paul's" conversion.

Jesus Christ must have gotten his name from his parents or whoever named him as a child.

Jesus must have been a real man if Paul was preaching about him that he was betrayed, died and was resurrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
Paul got the name Jesus from the author of Hebrews (but he probably didn’t know where the author of Hebrews got it from).
Hebrews may have been written after Paul was dead. According to church writers Paul died under Nero. When was Hebrews written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
It’s the same ‘Jesus’. In both episodes Jesus was a high priest who was tempted, but who was made ‘without sin’ by God.
Are you claiming that Jesus the man had a different name before Paul called him Jesus?

"Paul" was supposed to be preaching to real living people about a real man called Jesus who rose from the dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
Here’s the catch: If that really is where the name Jesus came from then Paul was unaware of it. Because in Zechariah 3 LXX Jesus and ‘the Lord’ are two separate characters, whereas Paul treated Jesus and ‘the Lord’ as one and the same character.
Here is another catch. Jesus was supposed to be a real man. Paul met Jesus after he had died and was resurrected.

The man Jesus had his name long before Paul met him in a resurrected stated.

You mean that when Jesus was a baby somebody called him Jesus. He must have been a real baby, with a real name before he became a man and resurrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
Paul’s version of Jesus was based on all of those instances of ‘the Lord’ in the LXX – where Yahweh’s name once was but was removed in the translation. (Compare Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13 and maybe you will see what I mean.) In a manner of speaking Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh; but he didn’t know it because his bible only read ‘the Lord’
I don't understand how this works. Jesus was a real man, people knew Jesus was a real man, he had a real mother, but Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh.

How did Jews think a man was Yahweh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
It looks to me like Paul was pretending that Jesus was a fulfillment of some prophecy and that his proper name (Jesus) was some sort of revelation; that the nameless divinity known only as ‘the Lord’ in the LXX, now had a proper name and a face.
Again, Jesus was supposed to be a real man and real people must have known him, he could not have been nameless until the day he died and was resurrected.

He must have had his name Jesus before he died, before Paul met him in a resurrected state after he was dead.

Paul does not need Zechariah, he either asked Jesus himself or ask some-one who knew Jesus as a real man.

Remember Paul was supposed to be living around or at least from 40-64CE who preached and wrote letters about a man that was already known as Jesus long before he was dead and resurrected.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 08:58 AM   #77
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
is this poster saying that although Paul said things Jesus said, but didn't attribute them to Jesus vocally proves that he was not aware of the Gospel? Was he not a contemporary with the Gospel writers? . . . .
The gospels were written about a generation or two after Paul's letters are commonly dated, so, no Paul was not a contemporary with the Gospel writers.
Well, it is not even certain what are really "Paul's" letters, it is not certain when they were written, it is not certain when the gospels were written or who really wrote them.

The letters with the name Paul that are called inauthentic may be the real letters from Paul.

So, no. It cannot be assumed that the gospel writers were not contemporary with "Paul" when nothing about the NT is certain except it's uncertainty.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 09:02 AM   #78
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

At a certain point in time, it became beneficial to merge a new religion that had no history, with an old religion that had a lot of history.

As these two religions were, in fact, dissimilar in many ways, what we are left with is a pile of contradictions.
dog-on is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 10:24 AM   #79
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The writer Paul does not at all appear to have been the first to write about Jesus Christ or the first to know of the character called Jesus Christ.

The letters of "Paul" did not explain the origin of his Jesus Christ, there is almost nothing about the actual life of his Jesus, where he lived, his parents, his siblings, his so-called trial, how he was crucified, where he died or was buried.

For the 25-30 years or so that Paul was supposed to have preached his gospel, he did not give a single date, a month and year that his Jesus did anything.

No dates from "Paul" for the betrayal, the crucifixion, burial or resurrection of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

It must be likely that "Paul's" expected his readers to know all those details.

"Paul's letters" cannot answer the fundamental questions about Jesus Christ unless some other source is used.

"Paul", who is this Jesus?

"Paul", where did Jesus come from?

"Paul", when was Jesus on earth?

"Paul, under what circumstance was Jesus betrayed?

"Paul", after 30 years of preaching and teaching about Jesus did you visit his mother?

"Paul", how old was Jesus when he died?

To answer those questions there must have been another source.

If "Paul" was an actually teaching and preaching about Jesus in the 1st century, between 36-66 CE, he must have been asked these questions but in all his letters there are no answers unless the readers were already aware of the answers from another source.

"Paul's" gospel was not from by revelation it was from some other source, perhaps The Synoptics, gJohn and Hebrew scriptures.

"Paul", where did you get the name Jesus from, who told you about him?

"Paul", why did you say Jesus was born of a woman? Who told you that?

People must have already known the answers to those questions, that is why "Paul" did not answer the questions in his letters.

Perhaps, Peter the Apostle knew all the answers long before Peter as found in the memoirs of the apostles, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
For some reason, this post assumes that every single thing that we know in life comes from something that we've read. In other words, it's impossible for illiterate people to know anything, and babies know how to read from birth so that they can learn their family's names, their name, etc.

Or maybe there actually are things that we know and learn about from sources other than writing.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 10:33 AM   #80
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
At a certain point in time, it became beneficial to merge a new religion that had no history, with an old religion that had a lot of history.

As these two religions were, in fact, dissimilar in many ways, what we are left with is a pile of contradictions.
But without any history, how did you determine that one religion had a lot of history? It may be that one religion had very little history which made it extermely easy for the other to manipulate.

I would think it would be extremely difficult to re-write the history of the Jewish religion, it had lots of history, by the Roman Church than to re-write the history of the doctrine of Marcion and the Marcionites or some other sect that were operating in secret without any public identifiable place of worship and where followers are reluctant to identify themselves as believers.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.