Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-27-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your samharris thread is here.

If you want a different view on Paul's letters, read Robert Price, The Evolution of the Pauline Canon

Yep, that's it.

<edited out> Just how accepted is his view?

Price is something of a maverick, but much more mainstream than Detering.

rahrens · 01-27-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanutaxis

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Ok, where can I see some information on that proof that Paul existed and wrote the letters? I'd love to be able to study it. I agree that someone had to write them. I'd just like to see whether there is specific proof that it was really the guy the letters claim him to be.

rahrens, I think you might be going down the wrong track. It seems to me of little consequence as to who wrote the letters and of much consequence as to what they contain.
Of particular importance in my own deconversion is the fabrication of Christian ideas with time: (i)the fact that Paul says almost nothing about Jesus in his letters, but that the gospels, written afterwards, say plenty!. (ii) the contradictions between gospels, and (iii) the realisation that the canonical gospels are but four gospels canonized, of thirty or more! (so read some non-canonical gospels to see how much crap they made up in those days)
I always recomment Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus; Lost Christianities

I read that book - own a copy, actually. It was one of the things that first got me really thinking about how my own faith had deteriorated over the years to practically nothing.

I think your point is well taken, but as I noted, part of my path is looking at these parts and satisfying myself that my suppositions are not far off base.

You might want to go back up to Toto's post that contains the link to my thread in SamHarris.com, where I argue the point of why I think it is important to establish whether or not Paul really existed and really wrote the letters, or if it was all fabrication. Theologically, I believe it counts, or christians wouldn't defend it so hard.

rahrens · 01-27-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Yep, that's it.

<edited out> Just how accepted is his view?

Price is something of a maverick, but much more mainstream than Detering.

Yeah, I wondered about Detering. It was an interesting read, but I hadn't heard much about his views before. Is there any chance that his views could strike a chord?

rahrens · 01-27-2008, 08:26 PM

Gotta go to bed. Work, then trying to get off to go down to American University tomorrow - Obama's gonna be there, and I'd like to see the guy in person.

Thanks all, for the comments. I'll read Price's piece, then get back if I have further questions and check for any more comments here.

G'nite!

Toto · 01-27-2008, 08:57 PM

Your thread on the samharris forum is a little confusing. You seem to have accepted the basic story of Acts (as Maccoby does.) But it's not clear why this is a big deal to you.

Christians depend on Paul to show that Christianity existed before the Jewish War of 70 CE. Otherwise there are no documents that can even be hypothesized to predate that turning point, and one might assume that Christianity arose after that war, as a reaction to the war and the defeat.

This would imply that Christianity was not started by anyone who knew a Jewish prophet who was crucified by Pilate, and leave us with no evidence that Jesus ever existed or inspired a movement.

juergen · 01-27-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...and there is no way of confidently dating Paul's letters to the mid-first century...

Interesting, could you recommend any specific reading?

I remember a New Testament 101 class at college that, in hindsight, resonates with what I read in Paul The Mythmaker. How is Maccoby's position viewed among scholars?

Solitary Man · 01-27-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

What specific proof do you have that Julius Caesar wrote De Bello Gallico, or that Josephus wrote Bellum Iudaicum?

Don't know. If I did, I wouldn't have to ask. Toto said it had been shown. I'd just like to know how, and if that proof is reliable.

Early witnesses are no longer evidence? (For, as they say, proof is for mathematics and liquor.)

Solitary Man · 01-27-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...and there is no way of confidently dating Paul's letters to the mid-first century...

Interesting, could you recommend any specific reading?

I remember a New Testament 101 class at college that, in hindsight, resonates with what I read in Paul The Mythmaker. How is Maccoby's position viewed among scholars?

Paul is entirely unaware of the Temple being destroyed, and knows James, the brother of Jesus. Both of these point to a pre-70 CE date for Paul. Other documents, like Hebrews (sorry Ben, I still haven't gotten around to this!) and the Gospels deal with the Temple destruction, and Christianity post-70 CE is of a very different character than what Paul wrote. You can easily see how Christians were taking the Temple loss in, for example, Matthew, compared to what in Q and Paul.

jeffevnz · 01-27-2008, 11:13 PM

You'll find that the most historically useful parts of the Bible come towards the later parts of the OT, and early in the Xtian period; namely the Pauline epistles and some of the writings of the prophets. Those are sandwiched by layers of progressively less historical books on either side. Genesis and Revelations are grade A baloney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Gotta go to bed. Work, then trying to get off to go down to American University tomorrow - Obama's gonna be there, and I'd like to see the guy in person.

I was supposed to go to that, but my boss scheduled a meeting that I can't miss

Solitary Man · 01-27-2008, 11:58 PM

Revelation is grade A baloney? Explain.

01-27-2008, 08:26 PM	#14
rahrens Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Maryland Posts: 97	see ya'll later Gotta go to bed. Work, then trying to get off to go down to American University tomorrow - Obama's gonna be there, and I'd like to see the guy in person. Thanks all, for the comments. I'll read Price's piece, then get back if I have further questions and check for any more comments here. G'nite!

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

01-27-2008, 08:57 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your thread on the samharris forum is a little confusing. You seem to have accepted the basic story of Acts (as Maccoby does.) But it's not clear why this is a big deal to you. Christians depend on Paul to show that Christianity existed before the Jewish War of 70 CE. Otherwise there are no documents that can even be hypothesized to predate that turning point, and one might assume that Christianity arose after that war, as a reaction to the war and the defeat. This would imply that Christianity was not started by anyone who knew a Jewish prophet who was crucified by Pilate, and leave us with no evidence that Jesus ever existed or inspired a movement.

01-27-2008, 11:58 PM	#20
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	Revelation is grade A baloney? Explain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.