Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-19-2010, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

All of the Christian gospels say that James, Peter and John were core disciples of Jesus. Those are Paul's rivals, whom he describes as reputed pillars. I can see why this point seems objectionable from a critic's and a skeptic's perspective, who is accustomed to pointing how unreliable the Christian gospels are, but it pays to realize that the Christian gospels got some things right (not many things).

Paul does not say that James, Peter, or John knew Jesus personally. The gospels do not indicate that this trio would be the pillars of the church

There is no independent evidence of Nazareth, is there? There may or may not be some archaeological evidence of habitation around the area that later was called Nazareth, but no proof that it was known as Nazareth.

Are you claiming that the gospels give an accurate portrayal of the Pharisees?

Are you saying that either of these characters is portrayed accurately in the gospels?

Whoa there, you just listed a long of things that have no corroboration outside the gospels...

Quote:

and we find such corroboration in Paul calling those three people reputed pillars and apostles to the Jews.

What exactly are you claiming is corroborated?

Toto, what I intended to do was to give an explanation for why Paul focuses on a spiritual Jesus instead of a human Jesus--an explanation that is more consistent with the evidence and more plausible than the explanation that Paul believed Jesus to be spiritual and nothing else. I know you have plenty of objections, and the objections are good from a vantage that I do not have. If they were to have an affect on me, it is not enough to point out that my assumptions do not have evidence that is absolutely certain. For example, we very much expect that the core disciples of Jesus would become reputed pillars of the church, and conversely we expect that the reputed pillars of the church are more likely to have been the core disciples of Jesus. To me, the gospels and Paul are mutually corroborative on this point. But, it is not absolutely certain. Since Paul says "reputed pillars," not something that would much more directly imply direct communicative contact with Jesus, you talk as though it is not enough for you. For you, perhaps it is essentially the same as having no probability, no evidence, not even anything to use as a working assumption for an alternative explanation with greater proposed plausibility. The uncertainty may revolutionize the whole ball game for you, but I think differently. And, I accept that your conclusions (or, more precisely, your lack of conclusions) stem from your general vantage. I won't think any the worse about you for it.

Toto · 05-19-2010, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
For example, we very much expect that the core disciples of Jesus would become reputed pillars of the church, and conversely we expect that the reputed pillars of the church are more likely to have been the core disciples of Jesus.

Actually, I was trying to point out the general lack of evidence from any vantage point.

James was not portrayed in the gospels as a core disciple. Christian apologists have had to invent the speculative idea that James was a skeptic who was converted by a post-mortem appearance.

Please don't operate under the illusion that you have any sort of probability on your side.

ApostateAbe · 05-20-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
For example, we very much expect that the core disciples of Jesus would become reputed pillars of the church, and conversely we expect that the reputed pillars of the church are more likely to have been the core disciples of Jesus.

Actually, I was trying to point out the general lack of evidence from any vantage point.

James was not portrayed in the gospels as a core disciple. Christian apologists have had to invent the speculative idea that James was a skeptic who was converted by a post-mortem appearance.

Please don't operate under the illusion that you have any sort of probability on your side.

The objection about James is a perhaps good one, because there really is a question about whether James the reputed pillar is James the disciple or if he is James the brother. I choose James the disciple primarily because the same three names are given in Mark 14:33 and Matthew 17:1, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence, and they use James the disciple. The alternative argument comes from the context of Paul's "reputed pillars" statement, which mentions James the brother, not James the disciple, which for me seems a less powerful argument. But, here is the important thing: at the worst, instead of three core disciples corresponding to three pillars of the church, you have two core disciples and one brother corresponding to three pillars of the church. The uncertainty about James does not change the mutual corroboration, nor does it undercut the explanation that Paul's rivals knew Jesus the human being and therefore Paul's Jesus was largely spiritual.

ApostateAbe · 05-20-2010, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

All of the Christian gospels say that James, Peter and John were core disciples of Jesus. Those are Paul's rivals, whom he describes as reputed pillars. I can see why this point seems objectionable from a critic's and a skeptic's perspective, who is accustomed to pointing how unreliable the Christian gospels are, but it pays to realize that the Christian gospels got some things right (not many things). The existence of the otherwise-unknown town of Nazareth is one of them. So is the existence and doctrines of the Pharisees. So is the existence of John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. To know for certain which elements are historical, then we look for corroboration outside of the texts in question, and we find such corroboration in Paul calling those three people reputed pillars and apostles to the Jews. It isn't absolutely certain corroboration, but I take it to be corroboration enough. Supposing that Peter's, James' and John's association with Jesus was just a myth, then it is likely to be a myth that Paul also accepted.

Abe, try out this idea. The NT storyline is a prophetic take, an interpretation, an evaluation, of actual history. The storyline is not itself history. The history that it takes its inspiration from is the bottom layer, so to speak. The top layer, the actual NT storyboard, will have elements within it that echo, reflect back, to the history that inspired the story. Reflection is not reality, the shadow is not the whole. For that, for the actual history, we need a history book. To go back, as it were, using clues if possible from the interpretative storyboard, to act as roadsigns back to the historical events.

To confuse these two layers is to find oneself in a maze of contradictions and no way out. Yes, the storyboard tells us that Paul knew others who came before him. Rather than insist that these others were personally followers of the Jesus of the storyboard and thus 'prove' the historicity of Jesus, betrays an inability to recognize the dual layers of that storyboard. A storyboard that is not unlike the sort of storyboard that can be seen within the OT - which is, after all is said and done, a record of prophetic interpretations of Jewish history, interpretations of historical realities seen through a prophetic lens, salvation history, if you will.

If one recognizes the two layers, history and its interpretation, then statements such as Paul's - that others were before him - need to be seen as having relevance not only to the Jesus storyboard but more importantly to the history that underlies that storyboard. The storyboard reflects and interprets the historical events but it does not supplant that history. A real history ( not a pseudo-history, an interpretative history) which has its own non-salvation identity....

Thanks, maryhelena. I won't argue with you yet. I don't fully understand what you are saying, and I hope to understand your perspective with time. The main problem, I hope, could be that it is late at night.

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Actually, I was trying to point out the general lack of evidence from any vantage point.

James was not portrayed in the gospels as a core disciple. Christian apologists have had to invent the speculative idea that James was a skeptic who was converted by a post-mortem appearance.

Please don't operate under the illusion that you have any sort of probability on your side.

The objection about James is a perhaps good one, because there really is a question about whether James the reputed pillar is James the disciple or if he is James the brother. I choose James the disciple primarily because the same three names are given in Mark 14:33 and Matthew 17:1, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence, and they use James the disciple. The alternative argument comes from the context of Paul's "reputed pillars" statement, which mentions James the brother, not James the disciple, which for me seems a less powerful argument. But, here is the important thing: at the worst, instead of three core disciples corresponding to three pillars of the church, you have two core disciples and one brother corresponding to three pillars of the church. The uncertainty about James does not change the mutual corroboration, nor does it undercut the explanation that Paul's rivals knew Jesus the human being and therefore Paul's Jesus was largely spiritual.

The "Paul' of the Pauline writings is established by the Church writers and authors of the NT Canon as Saul/Paul of Acts who met the apostles of Jesus, including Peter in Jerusalem.

The apostles of Jesus are fiction characters. Saul/Paul could not have met these fictitious characters EXCEPT in fiction novels.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings place PAUL in a basket in Damascus AFTER the ascension of Jesus through the clouds. See Acts 9.25 and 2 Cor. 11.32-33.

Saul/Paul and Paul are the very same characters who witnessed and participated in Fictitious events.

It is clear from the internal EVIDENCE that the actual Pauline writers did NOT meet any of the fictitious characters called Peter, James and John in Jerusalem.

bacht · 05-20-2010, 06:44 AM

I think I understand where you're going here, though I have some points to add.

The official story, following Galatians and the related chapter in Acts, has Paul arguing with the Judeans about full conversion to Judaism for Christian converts, including circumcision. They supposedly agreed to allow Paul to continue his mission without enforcing full conversion, and he in turn agreed to make a collection on behalf of the financially challenged Jerusalemites. Paul also received official recognition as an apostle, though it's not clear what that term would have meant in the mid 1st C. Paul mentions other apostles in the letters, like Apollos, who don't seem to be connected with the Jerusalem group.

There's a certain logic here, if we grant the historical reality of the main characters. We don't really know what the Judeans were preaching, or whether they claimed to be eyewitnesses of an earthly Jesus (1 Cor 15 might fit in here). It's possible this whole scenario was an allegory for later debates among gentile Christians as they groped their way towards catholicism.

As you say, there could be other explanations for the alleged conflict between the Pauline camp and the "Judaizers".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Yes, unless Jesus attracted attention he could easily be missed in a city the size of Jerusalem. Maybe Paul wasn't in town during Passion week, when Jesus supposedly made a public disturbance in the temple precincts and was publicly crucified.

But the second issue remains: after Paul's conversion he shows no interest in Jesus' life on earth, his teachings, his miracles etc.

Cool. In my opinion, there is a significant difference between "no interest" and "little interest." "No interest" allows for the possibility that Paul may have thought Jesus was only a spiritual entity, and "little interest" does not allow for that possibility, except of course with interpolation or unintuitive interpretations. Paul shows little interest, not no interest, in Jesus' Earthly life. That means, at the least, the mythicist propositions about Paul remain unlikely, especially if other more fitting explanations are available. If you would like to see a list of such passages where Paul mentions the Earthly life (and death) of Jesus, then please let me know.

Because the evidence indicates that Paul never met Jesus, and his rivals did, I believe that we can find a ready answer to the puzzle. Start by putting yourself in Paul's shoes. It would be considerably more difficult for Paul to make himself an authority on the Earthly life of Jesus. His rivals, who were closely involved with Jesus' Earthly ministry, would be the authorities on that matter. If Paul were brave enough to quote Jesus in order to make a controversial point, then his rivals would challenge the argument and easily win the challenge. So, in order to compete, he made himself a spiritual authority. He claimed to have communed with Jesus in the spirit realm. He was converted through the spirit, and he continued his dialogue with Jesus through the spirit, hearing teachings that were never given to Peter, John and James. And, of course this allowed him to have greater creative control over the religion that he taught, making himself an apostle to the gentiles and throwing away old Judaic rules.

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

.....There's a certain logic here, if we grant the historical reality of the main characters. We don't really know what the Judeans were preaching, or whether they claimed to be eyewitnesses of an earthly Jesus (1 Cor 15 might fit in here)....

But, if you "grant the historical reality of the main characters", then you must use the very source that show what the main characters were preaching and show that they they were WITNESSES of an earthly Jesus.

Granted the historical reality of the main characters in Acts, the disciples, including Peter WITNESSED Jesus ascend through the clouds. See Acts 1.

Granted the historical reality of Peter and the main characters, then WE KNOW what they were preaching. They were preaching that Jesus was on earth, he was crucified, died and was raised from the dead. See Acts 2.14-40

bacht · 05-20-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

.....There's a certain logic here, if we grant the historical reality of the main characters. We don't really know what the Judeans were preaching, or whether they claimed to be eyewitnesses of an earthly Jesus (1 Cor 15 might fit in here)....

But, if you "grant the historical reality of the main characters", then you must use the very source that show what the main characters were preaching and show that they they were WITNESSES of an earthly Jesus.

Granted the historical reality of the main characters in Acts, the disciples, including Peter WITNESSED Jesus ascend through the clouds. See Acts 1.

Granted the historical reality of Peter and the main characters, then WE KNOW what they were preaching. They were preaching that Jesus was on earth, he was crucified, died and was raised from the dead. See Acts 2.14-40

Yes, we learn this from Acts, but it's not in the letters afaik.

I really don't know how much to trust either source, or whether they're actually separate. I'm more inclined to see both as heavily catholicized. Abe wants to use these characters more or less as written, but I don't think we have enough corroboration to do that. The possibility that all this stuff was anti-gnostic or anti-heresy propaganda has to be allowed.

The earliest datable text in the canon might be Revelation, so we're talking late 1st C. The earliest reliable external reference to Christians may be Pliny, so the whole pre-70 soap opera laid out by 'Paul' could be useless for reconstructing the real roots of The Way.

aa5874 · 05-20-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, if you "grant the historical reality of the main characters", then you must use the very source that show what the main characters were preaching and show that they they were WITNESSES of an earthly Jesus.

Granted the historical reality of the main characters in Acts, the disciples, including Peter WITNESSED Jesus ascend through the clouds. See Acts 1.

Granted the historical reality of Peter and the main characters, then WE KNOW what they were preaching. They were preaching that Jesus was on earth, he was crucified, died and was raised from the dead. See Acts 2.14-40

Yes, we learn this from Acts, but it's not in the letters afaik.

But, it is not necessary for every single thing in Acts to be found in the Pauline writings, but it is established that Peter in Acts is the very Peter in the Pauline writings.

You simply cannot take the historical reality of Peter for granted and then try to deny the historical reality of Peter in the NT Canon in some writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

...I really don't know how much to trust either source, or whether they're actually separate. I'm more inclined to see both as heavily catholicized. Abe wants to use these characters more or less as written, but I don't think we have enough corroboration to do that. The possibility that all this stuff was anti-gnostic or anti-heresy propaganda has to be allowed...

So why take the historical reliability of either source for granted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

..The earliest datable text in the canon might be Revelation, so we're talking late 1st C. The earliest reliable external reference to Christians may be Pliny, so the whole pre-70 soap opera laid out by 'Paul' could be useless for reconstructing the real roots of The Way.

But, again, the reference to "Christian" does NOT mean reference to Jesus.

This is fundamental. "Christian" DID NOT MEAN JESUS believer in any century until perhaps the 4th century when Constantine made Jesus the GOD of the Roman Empire.

Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Antioch, Tatian and Octavius of Minucius Felix believed in GOD only and were called Christians.

Belief in GOD alone predated the JESUS story.

It must be likely that GOD BELIEVERS were the FIRST to be called Christians.

Now, based on Justin Martyr, the MEMOIRS of the Apostles and Revelation by John appear to predate the Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Epistles.

Toto · 05-20-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

... it is established that Peter in Acts is the very Peter in the Pauline writings.

...

I think I missed where this was established. Possibly my eyes had glazed over. But could you provide a reference?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.