Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 02-24-2012, 05:25 PM

Thank you, Toto...

I would just observe that it would be odd for Paul to not quote his Lord directly, rather than a generic, bland "as it is written" or just blatant appropriation. These passages tend to support my view.

aa5874 · 02-24-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...Arguments from silence are valid if you can show that there is silence where some speech or writing would be expected. aa5874 never even addresses the expectations or probabilities.

Well, Toto based on your own view the argument that Paul wrote letters BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE MUST be an argument from Silence.

Silence here-------The Pauline writer NEVER did state in the Canon that they wrote letters to the Churches BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Silence here---The author of Acts who mentioned a Pauline character did NOT state in the Canon that Paul wrote letters and he did NOT claim Paul wrote anything to the churches BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Silence here--- The author of 2nd Peter mentioned a character called Paul but did NOT claim Paul write letters before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Not one supposed early Canonized source claimed Paul wrote letters to churches BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Early Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE is an Argument from Blatant Silence, is NOT logically sound and is WHOLLY unsupported by non-apologetic sources.

aa5874 · 02-24-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...Arguments from silence are valid if you can show that there is silence where some speech or writing would be expected. aa5874 never even addresses the expectations or probabilities.

Your statement about me is completely without substantiation. You very well know that I have presented the written statements of antiquity--not my imagination. Evidence from antiquity cannot ever be silence.

The argument that there was an Early Paul who wrote letters to churches before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE is a TYPICAL argument from Silence

These are fourteen COLD hard Facts the support the Non-existence of Paul in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Temple c70 CE.

1.No Silence here--- In writings attributed to Origen, "Commentary on Matthew" it is claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

2. .No Silence here--- In Church history" 3.4.8 and 6.25. it is also claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

3. No Silence here---In "First Apology" XXIX Justin Martyr claimed it was twelve illiterate disciples from Jerusalem that preached the Gospel and never mentioned Paul.

4..No Silence here--- The Short-Ending of gMark shows ZERO awareness of Paul.

5. .No Silence here--- The author of the Long-Ending of gMark shows virtually 100% awareness of gMark and ZERO on Paul.

6. No Silence here--- The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark and NOTHING from Paul.

7. No Silence here--- The author of gLuke copied gMatthew and gMark and passages NOT found in gMark and gMatthew cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

8. No Silence here--- The hypothetical "Q" passages found in gLuke and gMatthew are NOT found in the Pauline writings.

9. No Silence here--- The SIX post-resurrection visits by Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 of the Pauline writings are NOWHERE in any Gospels.

10. No Silence here--- The REVELATION by John shows ZERO awareness of the Pauline revelations.

11.No Silence here--- The author of Acts, the supposed companion of Paul, NEVER claimed he wrote any letters.

12. No Silence here--- The Pauline writer did NOT state the date, time and place where he wrote any of his letters.

13. No Silence here--- The author called Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS which must mean he was NOT aware of a Pauline character that supposedly preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

14. No Silence here--- There are ZERO non-apologetic sources that can corroborate Paul or the Pauline letters.

Bernard Muller · 02-24-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Silence here-------The Pauline writer NEVER did state in the Canon that they wrote letters to the Churches BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

For good reasons: Paul did not know about the fall of the temple because it did not happen yet. Other authors, writing in the name of Paul, knowing that Paul lived before 70, of course never mentioned its destruction, just to stay in character and not reveal their handy work to be forgeries.

Quote:

Silence here---The author of Acts who mentioned a Pauline character did NOT state in the Canon that Paul wrote letters and he did NOT claim Paul wrote anything to the churches BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Josephus did mention Philo of Alexandria but never stated he wrote (plenty of) books.

Quote:

Silence here--- The author of 2nd Peter mentioned a character called Paul but did NOT claim Paul write letters before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

And why would he do that? Why specify Paul wrote letters before the fall of Jerusalem? Please indicate the motives on why he would state before the Fall of the Temple.

Bernard Muller · 02-24-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

1.No Silence here--- In writings attributed to Origen, "Commentary on Matthew" it is claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

2. .No Silence here--- In Church history" 3.4.8 and 6.25. it is also claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Origen, like many other so-called fathers of the Church, was making lies: all evidence in the Pauline epistles point to Paul's gospel (good news) having nothing to do with a historical Jesus, but rather drawn from alleged revelation, the Jewish scriptures, borrowing from other preachers and Paul's own mind.

Quote:

3. No Silence here---In "First Apology" XXIX Justin Martyr claimed it was twelve illiterate disciples from Jerusalem that preached the Gospel and never mentioned Paul.

4..No Silence here--- The Short-Ending of gMark shows ZERO awareness of Paul.

5. .No Silence here--- The author of the Long-Ending of gMark shows virtually 100% awareness of gMark and ZERO on Paul.

6. No Silence here--- The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark and NOTHING from Paul.

7. No Silence here--- The author of gLuke copied gMatthew and gMark and passages NOT found in gMark and gMatthew cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

8. No Silence here--- The hypothetical "Q" passages found in gLuke and gMatthew are NOT found in the Pauline writings.

9. No Silence here--- The SIX post-resurrection visits by Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 of the Pauline writings are NOWHERE in any Gospels.

10. No Silence here--- The REVELATION by John shows ZERO awareness of the Pauline revelations.

11.No Silence here--- The author of Acts, the supposed companion of Paul, NEVER claimed he wrote any letters.

12. No Silence here--- The Pauline writer did NOT state the date, time and place where he wrote any of his letters.

14. No Silence here--- There are ZERO non-apologetic sources that can corroborate Paul or the Pauline letters.

NO silence you say. But it is all about silence!!!

Quote:

9. No Silence here--- The SIX post-resurrection visits by Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 of the Pauline writings are NOWHERE in any Gospels.

That's easy to explain if 1Cor15:3-11 is an interpolation written after the gospels. I have many strong reasons in order to conclude that:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc

Quote:

13. No Silence here--- The author called Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS which must mean he was NOT aware of a Pauline character that supposedly preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

Hmm, it looks you changed your tune on that one. No more AH 2.22!!! But I explained to you that Irenaeus was following through in 'Demonstration' from what he wrote in AH 2.22. He was consistent or/and stubborn.

aa5874 · 02-24-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

1.No Silence here--- In writings attributed to Origen, "Commentary on Matthew" it is claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

2. .No Silence here--- In Church history" 3.4.8 and 6.25. it is also claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

[Origen, like many other so-called fathers of the Church, was making lies: all evidence in the Pauline epistles point to Paul's gospel (good news) having nothing to do with a historical Jesus, but rather drawn from alleged revelation, the Jewish scriptures, borrowing from other preachers and Paul's own mind.

You present an argument from Silence and IMGINATION.

You seem to have NO understanding of an "argument from Silence"

Defendants are EXONERATED when there is SILENCE--when there is no evidence to convict.

An Argument from Silence is like the Prosecution attempting to have some convicted without evidence.

Quote:

9. No Silence here--- The SIX post-resurrection visits by Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 of the Pauline writings are NOWHERE in any Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mullerb

That's easy to explain if 1Cor15:3-11 is an interpolation written after the gospels. I have many strong reasons in order to conclude that:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc..

It is most laughable when you say that the evidence which CLEARLY shows that the Pauline writings were AFTER the Gospels were Interpolated After the Gospels.

Well, it is ALL the Pauline writings that were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE whether or not they were interpolated or NOT.

Quote:

13. No Silence here--- The author called Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS which must mean he was NOT aware of a Pauline character that supposedly preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mULLERB

Hmm, it looks you changed your tune on that one. No more AH 2.22!!! But I explained to you that Irenaeus was following through in 'Demonstration' from what he wrote in AH 2.22. He was consistent or/and stubborn.

You seem to have already forgotten that the author of the Stromata used gLuke to PROVE Jesus was thirty years old at crucifixion.

Again, any passage in AH 2.22 which Implies gLuke was known to Irenaeus MUST be a forgery.

maryhelena · 02-24-2012, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Talking hedgehogs aside…….:hysterical:

Earl, or any other mythicists, is quite at liberty to use the writing attributed to a ‘Paul’ in order to create a non-historical JC scenario - in Earl’s case the crucifixion in the sub-lunar realm. The big problem is that once one has decided that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - then one has to present a logical reason as to why one wants to continue to use a source, for dating, that one has discredited as a basis for historical relevance.

In other words; if JC is not a historical figure, did not exist historically, as flesh and blood, then the historical time frame in which this figure has been set, the 15th year of Tiberius, has been disconnected as a marker for any reconstruction of early Christian history. Once that date cannot be used in ones reconstruction of early Christian history - then the follow-on story, Acts, likewise, has no relevance for dating early Christian history. ‘Paul’s’ epistles are not a chronological source - unless one wants to run with Aretas - and that can take one back to around 63/62 b.c when Aretas III rule over Damascus ended. Hardly a welcome date for a ‘Paul’ reconstructed storyline.

Basically, what this means is that a historical ‘Paul’ scenario that has rejected the gospel JC as being historical - taken to it’s logical conclusion - has shot itself in the foot. It has produced a ‘Paul’ scenario that is a floating abstraction - unconnected and floating free. Ideas, premises, have to be taken all the way to their logical conclusion. And if that conclusion is found to be wanting - as in this case a ‘Paul’ scenario with no feet on the ground, a purely intellectual construct - then one needs to go back and check ones premises.

There is a way out of this dead-end for such a mythicism. The gospel JC story and it’s figure of JC are, in some way, in some sense, relevant without that story and that figure being historical. In other words; the gospel pseudo-history has to be viewed as having some relevance for it’s writers. And that relevance is, basically, ‘salvation history’. That is the premise that has some possibility for retaining the setting, the historical chronological setting, of the gospel storyline - and thus retaining a possibility for recovering or understanding the origins of early Christian history. That's my reason for retaining the gospel chronology. I've yet to see Earl provide a logical reason for retaining that gospel chronology in his own reconstruction of early christian history.
----------------------------------------

Salvation history:

Quote:

Prior to extracting a historical base from a particular passage, the historian should consider not only its form and source(s) and the extent to which the data conform to Lucan themes, but also whether the passage conforms to Lucan patterns of narration. This chapter has shown some examples of the well-known fact that Acts often exhibits formulaic writing. Narrative formulas are quite useful for the development of plots, but they are not always the best media for relating facts........It is difficult to fend off the conclusion that, for the author of Acts, the pattern was more important than such facts as he had at his disposal.....Mimesis serves many useful purposes, but history, in the narrow sense, is rarely one of them. "Salvation history" would be much closer to the mark".

The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Yes, one can debate what on earth 'salvation history' was about for those early christian writers - but that that was what they were writing about is clearly evident. And for us in this 21st century? We might well ditch the 'salvation' element - what we can't do is ditch the history upon which it was based, history relevant to the NT time-frame. That is if we are seeking early christian origins...

I agree that detaching Paul from the anchor of the Gospel story leaves our johnny-come-lately apostle adrift in the sea of history. It's a question I have asked Earl about in private correspondence, but I feel that the problem is unresolved.

That doesn't necessarily cause problems for the mythicist case, though, in my opinion. It just makes assigning Paul a particular date difficult and I can only see a relativist position. Paul is apparently unaware of the Gospel story so he must have written before it evolved or was created (speaking from a mythicist perspective). [Just a side note to clarify what I do or do not know: I am aware of the scant biographical data about Jesus in Paul: born of a woman, seed of David, etc., etc., I just don't think it adds up to Jesus of Nazareth crucified by Pilate in 29 CE]

Yes, of course, “detaching Paul from the anchor of the Gospel story leaves our Johnny-come-lately apostle adrift in the sea of history” - and in no way does this detaching of ‘Paul’ from the Gospel chronology detract from the ahistoricist/mythicist position. (Implications for Earl’s position might be something else though.....)

‘Paul’ “apparently unaware of the Gospel story” . Methinks you’ve not been paying attention to aa......

Seriously though, from an ahistoricist/mythicist position, why would someone want to quote, in support of their own theology/philosophy, from a pseudo-historical figure in a story? (assuming ‘Paul’ is historical for just one moment....). A historical ‘Paul’, writer of many a letter, was surely bright enough to not go quoting from a fictional character.

And a non-historical ‘Paul’ figure? Well, now we are in the land of make-believe, pseudo-history, ‘salvation history’. ‘Paul’ verse the Gospels? Hardly. Two very different contexts. Pseudo-history or ‘salvation history’ and theological or philosophical reflections upon history. Notice that I wrote, for the theological or philosophical reflections - upon history. Two very different contexts. One contexts turns history into pseudo-history or ‘salvation history’, the other takes history and reflects upon it for theological or philosophical interests. One does not turn to pseudo-history for theological or philosophical contemplation. One turns to the real deal - history in the raw.

And of course, even if ‘Paul’ is a figure like JC, a composite figure, there was still someone, or some people, writing those letters that are attributed to ‘Paul’. Running with the idea of a composite figure of ‘Paul’ is relevant for unravelling early Christian history - it does not detract from the reality of those letters. It only opens up the question of authorship.

---------------------------------------
Welcome to FRDB Grog. I’ve been an ahistoricist/mythicist for nearly 30 years - so methinks you won’t be reading anything by me, any time soon, to support the assumption of a historical gospel JC. I don’t usually get into discussion of that topic - been there done that and moved on to more interesting stuff

Bernard Muller · 02-25-2012, 12:42 AM

Quote:

You seem to have already forgotten that the author of the Stromata used gLuke to PROVE Jesus was thirty years old at crucifixion.
Again, any passage in AH 2.22 which Implies gLuke was known to Irenaeus MUST be a forgery.

However, Origen, who had also gLuke, concluded a three years ministry. So gLuke was not the end of all discussions for determining the duration of Jesus' preaching.
So what about the many references to gJohn and John in AH 2.22? Do they have to be considered forgeries too?

Huon · 02-25-2012, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Why is that a fault?

Silence is NOT a positive argument.

Will you admit that arguments from silence are a type of indirect evidence? (Y/N)

Will you admit that a collection of indirect evidence can accumulate and become corroborating evidence? (Y/N)

My answer is "silence". Take your own conclusions... :wave:

mountainman · 02-25-2012, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

One does not turn to pseudo-history for theological or philosophical contemplation. One turns to the real deal - history in the raw.

Which is one reason we may never learn any history at all from the line of orthodox heresiologists. I include Eusebius of course. The history behind the pseudo-history will be found to accord with the fragments written by the heretics and their followers. The case of Mani and the Manichaeans is a classic example.

Quote:

And of course, even if ‘Paul’ is a figure like JC, a composite figure, there was still someone, or some people, writing those letters that are attributed to ‘Paul’. Running with the idea of a composite figure of ‘Paul’ is relevant for unravelling early Christian history - it does not detract from the reality of those letters. It only opens up the question of authorship.

Not so fast. It must also open up the separate question of chronology. Detering and Co are happy to see the Pauline epistles well into the 2nd century. Even if Paul was not historical, the consequent chronological hypothesis so far (for Paul's fabrication) are centuries 1 and 2. Do we have anything going for century 3? Nobody seems keen to discuss the Paul and Seneca letter exchanges in century 4.

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

02-24-2012, 05:25 PM	#271
Grog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Oregon Posts: 738	Thank you, Toto... I would just observe that it would be odd for Paul to not quote his Lord directly, rather than a generic, bland "as it is written" or just blatant appropriation. These passages tend to support my view.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.