Ted Hoffman

So, when one does not agree with the traditional explanation of a mystery, you start feeling that they do not understand Paul mindset well at all? And you, we can venture, perhaps understand Paul's mindset very well because you agree with the traditional explanation?
Is that how it works?

If you have not read his book, you do not understand his theory. And because you dont know his theory, you cannot then proceed to claim "I think it might be instructive to make a comprehensive list of the many silences or unlikely interpretations that his theory requires in order to be true."

What you are doing is called fishing. And you are fishing because you lack capacity to do the work. This is a slothful approach to inquiry because you have evidently committed yourself to a position based on your emotions (feelings) rather than analysis, and are now seeking support for that position. Make a stand then solicit reasons why your stand is correct and another stand is incorrect.

Almost three years since you embarrased yourself, you are still looking for shortcuts instead of getting the book, reading it and dealing with the arguments.

Ted Hoffman

You first need to define what you mean by a silence (Paul does not mention that he is going to use the latrine for example - does that mean he didnt take a crap?).
Then define what you mean by a silence that runs counter Doherty's theory.

TedM

Nothing wrong with fishing. You never know what you might catch.

Now you're just being silly. I think anyone with a brain can understand what I'm asking for. You are obviously thinking too hard because I know you do have a brain.

I don't care what you think about ME though Ted. Have a nice day.

ted

Doug Shaver

I agree that we would expect many writings to have been produced in which such things were discussed.

Next question: Should we reasonably expect those documents to have been preserved so that we would know about them?

An argument from silence needs to establish not only that the evidence in question would likely have been produced by whatever events or situations it was evidence for, but also that once it came into existence, it would have survived long enough for us to have become aware of its existence.

Ted Hoffman

Like I said, its a poor approach to inquiry. It retards the acquisition of knowledge and understanding because its an approach that is guided and motivated with an interest in protecting a pet theory, or torpedoing a theory that disquiets us rather than getting understanding.
You may catch something that will esconce your position but ultimately your position will be informed from only one set of data TedM.

TedM

Yes, but Paul's works survived as do the epistles. I realize Doherty is open to certain passages as interpolations, but he spends an inordinate amount of time interpreting Pauls works AS IF they were not interpolated, in SUPPORT of his theory. All I'm saying is, lets apply the same criteria: Assume Paul REALLY is writing about "Jesus in the parallel universe" and look for all the missing pieces one would expect would be there. Now, AFTER identifying them, if you all want to argue about WHY they are missing just as historicists argue about WHY a more historical Jesus is missing, feel free.

What's wrong with that?

TedM

I don't think it is a poor approach, though it certainly could be. My underlying motivations are irrelevant as long as the sources are relatively unbiased themselves. I consider the informed views of Ben, Andrew, Jeffrey, Solo, yourself, Toto, Vorkosigan, Chris, Amaleq, Alexander, and SO many others here to be quite a potentially valuable resource for information, and really your argument othewise is a bit strange to me, but you are welcome to your opinion. Take care and have a nice day,

ted

dog-on

I think that "Paul" was the star player, on the losing side. I think it may have been politically expedient for the winners to rehabilitate "his" works, (cough) acts (cough), to better subdue the losing flock.

I believe that the epistles we have today have been significantly reworked.

That said, I found Mr. Doherty's work very interesting. I do think that in trying to bend over backwards to keep the epistles intact, he might have dug himself into a bit of a hole.

Look at "Paul" through Marcion's eyes, as referenced by Tertullian. Perhaps then you can get a clearer picture of the authors original intent. Then again, perhaps not...

youngalexander

, and you do?

TedM

yes.