Freethought & Rationalism Archive

boneyard bill · 09-23-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

The destruction of the temple inspired a re-working of the Christian myth to show that that destruction was caused by the Jews rejection of Jesus. Hence, the crucifixion had to have been recent and earthly.

...an interesting speculation. This seems to presume the pre-existence of Christianity?

The pre-existence of what? Of the temple destruction? The dates for Paul are uncertain if you reject Acts, but I don't know of anyone who suggests that Paul was post-temple destruction.

Malachi151 · 09-24-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Under the presumption there was no HJ, reasons to set the story at time of Pilate...

Under the assumption that there was no historical Huckleberry Finn, what is the reason that Mark Twain set The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (written in the 1880s) in the historical American 1830s?

aa5874 · 09-24-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...an interesting speculation. This seems to presume the pre-existence of Christianity?

The pre-existence of what? Of the temple destruction? The dates for Paul are uncertain if you reject Acts, but I don't know of anyone who suggests that Paul was post-temple destruction.

Your statement is so obviously contradictory.

If the dates for Paul are UNCERTAIN, then it should LOGICALLY follow that it can be suggested that it is NOT certain when the authors called Paul wrote.

And what is even more problematic for the "Pauline" epistles is that more than one person used the name Paul unknown to the Church and if this is coupled with the analysis that Acts of the Apostles is not credible, then the UNCERTAINTY of Paul is compounded.

The epistles cannot corroborate themselves when they have been internally compromised. No suggestions about Paul can be ruled out.

Paul is UNCERTAIN.

Malachi151 · 09-24-2008, 07:25 AM

aa5874. there is nothing to be gained by your arguments about Paul.

Its widely accepted, and it only makes sense, that the letter of Paul, at least the 6 "authentic" letters, are dated to some time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

They can't be dated precisely, but its pretty clear that they were written before that event occurred. They could have been written any time between about 20 CE and 65 CE.

dog-on · 09-24-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Or Mark could have been looking for a precedent for Christian baptism. Paul describes the institution of the other great Christian ritual, the eucharist, in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25, but does not in his extant epistles describe the institution of baptism, even though, despite not having been sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1.17), he baptizes anyway (1 Corinthians 1.16!). Mark could have lit upon John the baptist as the perfect rationale for Christian baptism; if the movement began within baptist circles, then Christian baptism stands explained. If not, he would have to seek another source for Christian baptism.

Likewise, Mark could have been looking for a good timeframe for the dominical words in 1 Corinthians 7.10-11, in which the Lord, not Paul, prohibits both partners in a marriage, husband and wife, from divorcing. Mark could have noticed that such a command makes more sense to a gentile readership (like the Corinthians) than to a Jewish audience (virtually necessary if he is going to put these words on the lips of a Jewish Jesus in Palestine), since only men could customarily initiate a divorce in Jewish society. So did Mark have to drop the female half of the command? No, he did not (Mark 10.11-12). He found the perfect time for such a saying, to wit, not long after Herodias had flouted Jewish custom and initiated the divorce from her husband in order to marry Herod Antipas (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4 §136), who in turn had John the baptist killed for his criticism of their marriage (Mark 6.17-18).

Ben.

Which is why I believe that Mark knew Josephus.

Thanks, Ben.

aa5874 · 09-24-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

aa5874. there is nothing to be gained by your arguments about Paul.

Its widely accepted, and it only makes sense, that the letter of Paul, at least the 6 "authentic" letters, are dated to some time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

They can't be dated precisely, but its pretty clear that they were written before that event occurred. They could have been written any time between about 20 CE and 65 CE.

The term "IT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED" has NO real value as evidence or information until the facts or reasons for such an acceptance is known.

Why is it widely accepted when the history of Paul is not credible as written in Acts and more than one person used the name Paul unknown to the Church?

And it does NOT make sense to claim Paul wrote before the fall of the Temple when there is no credible information to support such a claim.

The so-called Pauline Epistles could have been written after the writings of Justin Martyr. Justin wrote NOTHING about Paul or the Pauline Epistles even though Justin wrote about texts read in the Churches.

Justin claimed that Memoirs of the Apostles and Scriptures from the OT were read in the Churches, he never once mentioned one single epistle from Paul.

First Apology 67

Quote:

.....And on the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the country, gather together to one place and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits...

Why did Justin not write anything about the so-called Paul or his letters, and why Paul had no influence at all on the writings of Justin up to the middle of the 2nd century?

One explanation is that Paul was not fabricated or manufactured yet.

bacht · 09-24-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why did Justin not write anything about the so-called Paul or his letters, and why Paul had no influence at all on the writings of Justin up to the middle of the 2nd century?

One explanation is that Paul was not fabricated or manufactured yet.

Or, the epistles didn't harmonize with the HJ system of the gospels, and Paul was discarded until Marcion co-opted him?

spamandham · 09-24-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

They can't be dated precisely, but its pretty clear that they were written before that event occurred. They could have been written any time between about 20 CE and 65 CE.

Why is it clear that they were written prior to the fall of the temple?

aa5874 · 09-24-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why did Justin not write anything about the so-called Paul or his letters, and why Paul had no influence at all on the writings of Justin up to the middle of the 2nd century?

One explanation is that Paul was not fabricated or manufactured yet.

Or, the epistles didn't harmonize with the HJ system of the gospels, and Paul was discarded until Marcion co-opted him?

Strange enough Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and wrote about Marcion's Jesus, yet the most significant so-called evangelist and missionary, Paul, who started or helped to start seven Churches all over the globe cannot be found anywhere in Justin's writings.

Now if the letters from Paul were always in the hands of the Church and under the Church's control and authority about one hundred (100) years before Marcion, how could Marcion, 100 years later, co-opt Paul?

dog-on · 09-24-2008, 02:57 PM

The Roman church 'co-opted' Paul from the Marcionites...

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

09-24-2008, 07:25 AM	#24
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	aa5874. there is nothing to be gained by your arguments about Paul. Its widely accepted, and it only makes sense, that the letter of Paul, at least the 6 "authentic" letters, are dated to some time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. They can't be dated precisely, but its pretty clear that they were written before that event occurred. They could have been written any time between about 20 CE and 65 CE.

09-24-2008, 02:57 PM	#30
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The Roman church 'co-opted' Paul from the Marcionites...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.