Gamera

[QUOTE=darstec]No, pseudographic texts are deemed not written by the purported author. Generally, a pseudographic text would be considered uninspired, since its a falsification on its face.

But even an authenticated text by a known author can be noninspired. I beleive the Epistle of Barnabus is considered authentic (or at least was by the various counsels considering canonicity), but it was rejected from the canon as uninspired.

The people who put together the canon disagree with you, and they were closer in time to the texts. They in fact carefully considered authorship.

You are asking me to give a rational explanation to an irrational proposition. Deeming a text inspired by God is by its nature not a logical enterprise. The canon resulted from a number of considerations, some factual (were Christians using a particular text or not?) but none rational (what is the result of my prayer about this text as inspired or not?). The bottom line there is nothing scientific about canonicity and never can be. It's not a scientific enterprise, but something that those who have faith engage in on terms unrelated to the scientific method.

spin

So the non-Pauline Paulines are not inspired. Hmmm.

(And note: "pseudepigraphic", as in "pseudo-" and "-epigraphic".)

This is a contentless relativistic argument that should be forgotten. In it the speaker pleads ignorance and presumes that someone closer to the time has better knowledge. Mere presumption is not argument, has no value here and I truly cannot see why you would propose it.

In another post:

This is irrelevant to when and where Paul believed Jesus crucified..

Plain rubbish. The Seleucids crucified people. Even King Alexander Jannaeus crucified Pharisees, when they instigated an intervention by a Seleucid king into Judea. I think the Persians were the ones who gave the eastern Greeks the habit. A classicist might be able to say if the Romans used crucifixion before Pompey hung up the followers of Spartacus. So certainly not a specifically Roman practice and certainly not limiting in time.

This is a misunderstanding of Rom 5:8. Jesus could have been crucified at any time with regard to the life of Paul in his thought, two hundred years before, two minutes before. The important fact is that the act was done despite the fact that he and you relevant others were sinners -- still sinners, ie before you received the gospel. It has no relevance to when Jesus was supposed to have been crucified.

Sheesh.


spin

aa5874

Gamera, your arguments are based on speculation only. Nothing you have written can be independently verified. You do not know anything about Paul. You do not know when he was born or died. You do not know his age when he was converted and you do not know if he was real. The Christian Bible is a complete mystery, nothing can be independently verified. The greatest Book ever written does not have a proper chronological order, any solid means of identifying the characters, the authors are unknown, books are eliminated.

The Jesus mentioned in the Christian Bible appears to be nothing more than a sorcerer who was hanged as a common criminal. It is inconceivable that a true miracle worker, after having raised the dead and healed the sick of the multitudes could have vanished into oblivion. Today if any person comes back to life after being buried three days every single person in the world would known that person.

How could Jesus leave without writing a single word, and still tell his disciples to spread the gospel. This is unacceptable, this is incomprehensible. A God comes to Earth dies and disappears. This is absolute Mumbo Jumbo.

Julian

Nitpick. That would be Crassus, not Pompey.

Julian

andrewcriddle

Double Nitpick.

Pompey destroyed the last remnants of Spartacus' army and then tried to claim credit for the whole campaign against Spartacus.

(You're right that the mass crucifixion of Spartacus' followers was done by Crassus).

On the substantive point the Romans are generally believed to have adopted crucifixion as a standard form of capital punishment for low-lives during their wars with Carthage c 200 BCE.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

This is an utterly ungrounded argument.

We know about Paul they same way we know about Lincoln. He wrote stuff and people wrote stuff about him. That's what history is. We have more documents relating to Paul and Jesus than Alexander the Great.

Your argument can be turned on its head to say that Alexander the Great never existed. We don't have any writings from him. There is no verification of his existence outside of those who followed him or opposed him. There are no nightly news reports.

Get used to it -- history is always partial, it's always fragmentary. You have an essentialists view of history, that there are these "official" documents that equal history and confirm events, and then there are unofficial documents that don't cut it. No, there are just texts. Period. We can evaluate the texts in various ways (are they late forgeries, are they written as fiction, etc). But ultimately history is just a bunch of texts. And we got a bunch of texts relating to the Jesus movement. A lot more texts with a lot more credibility than texts about Pericles.

Gamera

[QUOTE=spin]Not according to the canon. Take it up with the Nicean counsel.

Nothing relative about historical precedence. It's rational to assume people a generation or two after an event know more about the event than people 2000 years later. It's rational because information flows through witnesses, which were alive at the time, either as witnesses to the event or having knowledge of the event from other witnesses.


Assuming you're correct, you've just made my point. Since Paul refers to crucifixion, it must refer to times when crucifixion was a practice. I named one period. You've named some other. Thus, it is untrue that Paul has no historical reference.


We'll no infact he couldn't, given the fact that Paul refers to still, yet, and now, with himself and his audience as a reference point. Thus, they couldn't have still been sinners when Jesus was crucified if it happened 200 years earlier, since they weren't born.

But I can understand your need to contort the text from its plain meaning to make your point. There's no other way for you.

Sheesh indeed.

Doug Shaver

I see no such implication. Considering the context, it is apparent to me that Paul's "we" there means "we human beings." In other words, he is saying that Christ died while humanity was in a state of sin.

Amaleq13

Gamera,

As I indicated in this post above, I continue to be interested in any examples you can provide, other than the alleged identification of the forger of Acts of Paul, where "the people closest in time" applied rational thought to a critical examination of the evidence rather than theological preferences in order to reach the conclusion of inauthenticity.

Otherwise, it would appear you have nothing to support your asserted confidence in their judgment but your faith.

spin

To clarify, for example, who in their right minds believes that Paul wrote the later church writings known as the pastoral epistles??

Stop trying to mystify the issue by using inappropriate terminology.

You cannot assume your conclusions. You have to demonstrate any as yet non-historical datings. So, as yet no, it's not rational to assume that your assumed dating is correct without actual historical evidence.

What witnesses? Introduce them as witnesses rather than assuming the veracity of undated unsourced literature.

You're trying to be meaningful? You first argued for historical location apparently by the fact that the Romans brought crucifixion to the area. Now that you know differently -- there is no need to assume, just do a little research --, you change your story.

Is this some sort of argument based on an English translation? You seem to miss the meaning content of the passage still. (People can say today "while we were still sinners" Jesus died for us, believing it.) Paul gives no indication of when he indicates that it was nothing that he or his followers did, for they were sinners.

The plain meaning is what you miss. You are trying to be pedantic on a word taken out of context and miss the sentence along with the passage.


Yup, that's what I said. Asleep at the wheel.


spin