Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-05-2009, 03:34 PM

discussion of Nicea, heretics, and anathemas split off including the claim that no heretics were executed in the first 5 centuries of Christianity.

aa5874 · 01-05-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Look at 1Corinthians 15.6

Quote:

After that he was seen of five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remains...

We see these types of easily disproven fantastic claims even by modern cults. Should we conclude that everyone who writes such things is thus a fictional character?

Why do you think the letter writer called Paul represents everyone? Why do you think that whatever assesment is made of the letter writer should be applied to everyone?

The letter writer called Paul does not represent everyone.

Each case must be analysed on their own merit using the available evidence.

No where did I ever claim that everyone who wrote such things are fictional characters, my claim is specific and clear, the letter writer called Paul wrote fiction, the letter writer was aware of the gospel called Luke and his history is bogus. The letter writer probably wrote sometime between the 2nd and 4th century, not before the death of Nero as stated by Eusebius.

Analyst · 01-05-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The letter writer called Paul does not represent everyone.

But there is general agreement that he actually existed, unlike most of the rest in the bible.

spamandham · 01-06-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the letter writer called Paul wrote fiction,

This aspect is completely irrelevant to the historicity of the letter writer, and to Paul.

Quote:

the letter writer was aware of the gospel called Luke

Finally something with some meat to it. What do you base this claim on?

Quote:

The letter writer probably wrote sometime between the 2nd and 4th century

I can accept this possibility, but I'd like to know what it's based upon.

bacht · 01-06-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Pretty clear to me there were independent Christ cults springing up sometime after the Roman sacking of the Temple. That ultimately competing factions were co-opted with the co-option "finalists" being the ones who fabricated enough baloney to claim some kind of direct lineage from an authentic source (eg Marcion's letters of "Paul" and the Romans' claim to popehood via "Peter").

...Jesus is just low-quality midrash. The whole passion sequence is out of Isaiah. He's born in Bethlehem, but comes out of Egypt, and at the same time a Naza-something... it's all there from his birth all the way to death.

...And there is PLENTY of evidence for "Jesus" - more than twenty of them mentioned by Josephus alone. So take your pick from the ones that actually existed as a model for later writers instead of thinking you can invent him by peeling off the layers of obvious myth. Miracles and such. There's almost nothing at all left when you do that.

...The first real verifiable claim we can get to is Pliny's letter to Trajan. So I'm willing to accept by somewhere around 100 CE there had to be some kind of movement afoot, but it sure as hell isn't based on any flesh and blood person that they could get out of interrogating practicioners.

...It's a fascinating story. How disparate Christ Myth cults were merged for the purpose of state control over religion.

One version of the merge scenario would be a Galilean Kingdom movement with an identifiable founder joined to Logos/Christ mysticism from Alexandria. There may be other possible hybrids.

The fall of the temple likely was seen as a great sign or omen even by non-Jews. Apocalyptic speculation was still around in the early 2nd C, so messianic expectation can be thrown into the mix.

aa5874 · 01-06-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the letter writer called Paul wrote fiction,

This aspect is completely irrelevant to the historicity of the letter writer, and to Paul.

Your statement cannot be true.

The letter writer called Paul claimed he was hiding in a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas. Perhaps, the letter writer should have written that he was hiding behind Eusebius in the 4th century.

What the letter writer wrote is absolutely relevant in making a determination of his historicity.

It is your statement that is irrelevant and without logic.

dog-on · 01-06-2009, 08:20 AM

AA5874, do you not believe that the writer of the letters actually existed?

If so, how exactly where these letters written?

spamandham · 01-06-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The letter writer called Paul claimed he was hiding in a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas.

Why does such a claim imply the letter writer is fictional?

I was lowered from a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas too. Am I now also fictional?

Quote:

It is your statement that is irrelevant and without logic.

:deadhorse:

Rather than endlessly repeating absurd mantras like this that just make you look like an idiot, why not provide justification for your claims? In particular, the idea that the letter writer we call Paul used Luke.

George S · 01-06-2009, 09:39 AM

There is this body of text that self-proclaims authorship by a dude named Paul.

It is a convenient sobriquet that is quite familiar to most.

We know from textual and other means that the letters Timothy were not written by the same hand. So some name this author pseudo-Paul.

Perhaps a Greek scholar named Animaxigus wrote the first and Animaxigander wrote the other. But, not knowing their actual names we tend to go ahead and use the familiar ones. Knowing in the back of our minds that it may all be fictional. Or there may have been a man who had an epileptic seizure and the EMTs report hallucination and temporary blindness. What a world we live in where a vision -- sometimes on french toast -- is taken to be a message from the divine.

We have our doubts about the identity of the writer of the Pauline Scripture. Somehow, a vision that speaks to the author leans toward myth. The Jesus Paul (the writer of Pauline Scripture) wrote of was not a man.

The real source of a belief that he was a man might be found in the Thomas Gospel. The second independent source feels right somehow. I suspect that gThomas was a gnosticized version of a man named Yeshua's sayings.

bacht · 01-06-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

There is this body of text that self-proclaims authorship by a dude named Paul.

It is a convenient sobriquet that is quite familiar to most.

We know from textual and other means that the letters Timothy were not written by the same hand. So some name this author pseudo-Paul.

Probably most if not all of the books in the Old Testament were pseudepigraphical (or at least the product of more than one writer). Why should we assume the New Testament is different?

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

01-05-2009, 03:34 PM	#271
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	discussion of Nicea, heretics, and anathemas split off including the claim that no heretics were executed in the first 5 centuries of Christianity.

01-06-2009, 08:20 AM	#277
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	AA5874, do you not believe that the writer of the letters actually existed? If so, how exactly where these letters written?

01-06-2009, 09:39 AM	#279
George S Contributor Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 16,498	There is this body of text that self-proclaims authorship by a dude named Paul. It is a convenient sobriquet that is quite familiar to most. We know from textual and other means that the letters Timothy were not written by the same hand. So some name this author pseudo-Paul. Perhaps a Greek scholar named Animaxigus wrote the first and Animaxigander wrote the other. But, not knowing their actual names we tend to go ahead and use the familiar ones. Knowing in the back of our minds that it may all be fictional. Or there may have been a man who had an epileptic seizure and the EMTs report hallucination and temporary blindness. What a world we live in where a vision -- sometimes on french toast -- is taken to be a message from the divine. We have our doubts about the identity of the writer of the Pauline Scripture. Somehow, a vision that speaks to the author leans toward myth. The Jesus Paul (the writer of Pauline Scripture) wrote of was not a man. The real source of a belief that he was a man might be found in the Thomas Gospel. The second independent source feels right somehow. I suspect that gThomas was a gnosticized version of a man named Yeshua's sayings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.