Roger Pearse

I don't see how, on such a view, you can do any history at all, then. Obscurantism seems unavoidable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

So if christianity was created by totally unknown profiles
in the first century, such as Paul, what happens when
the series of documents which were originally attributed
to this totally unknown author called Paul, are one by one
determined to be written by others, at a later date?

Serious fraud, to pervert the minds of the simple people.
This sounds like a fabrication - a fiction of men.
Well, there you have some more.

Clouseau

He wrote nothing that John, Peter and James would not have written about themselves.

Paul wrote nothing that Peter would not have wholeheartedly agreed with, and probably did agree with when he wrote of Paul's letters as 'Scripture'. Paul's purpose in Galatians was not to cast aspersions on others, but to convince the Galatians that his authority was of God, not of men.

Is that foolish? Or the responsible precautions of a wise guardian?

Not for the church's sake. Paul described 'Christians' who insisted on circumcision as 'dogs'- not very 'company'. Timothy was circumcised to obviate unnecessary Jewish opprobrium.

Where, please?

Doug Shaver

They can be so interpreted, if the interpreter presupposes that they cannot disagree.

Clouseau

It should not be presupposed that a presupposition is made.

mountainman

Paul the Roman may not have been an historical figure.
The more years that go by the more of his letters are
relegated to crude forgery. Start with the letters that
were once believed (perhaps by men of the fourth century)
to be exchanged between Paul and Senecca.

There is also to be associated with the character Paul
a very unusual correspondence with the first century
author, sage and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, who
was later targetted for literary castigation by the fourth
century christians, in no uncertain terms.

Behind Julian's The Fabrication of the Galilaeans
there may yet rest the startling and enigmatic ancient
historical possibility that christianity was literally invented
by wickedness in the fourth century.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's not a fallacy; it's an historically demonstrable truism.

Nor does it necessarily follow that they were correct, or unbiased in their view of history and as later history almost always proves, the earlier writers (aka, the "victors") are not just biased, but blatantly so.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, but knowing that going in is what allows one to "do any history."

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't think Paul was "totally unknown;" I think he was a Roman operative sent into the region as part and parcel to quelling the growing Jewish revolt that finally erupted just after the time Paul is supposed to have been preaching that Jews killed Jesus.

Yep.

It's more commonly called "propaganda" or "disinformation" and it was essentially perfected by the Romans along with just about every other political machination Western governments (especially) employ as a matter of course because of the Roman influence.

gurugeorge

Not at all, history just has to be done bearing the maxim in mind. A lot can still be discovered, if it's understood that a victor's text may be whitewashing, lying, exaggerating, etc. It just means there has to be a lot of triangulation with external sources, with the "underdog"'s views, etc. All good, clean fun!