Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-24-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874's "evidence" consists of arguments from silence

Why is that a fault?

Huon · 02-24-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874's "evidence" consists of arguments from silence

Why is that a fault?

Silence is NOT a positive argument.
Zero = 1 ?
Zero = - 1 ?

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-24-2012, 08:28 AM

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)

Toto · 02-24-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

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)

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.

outhouse · 02-24-2012, 09:40 AM

Not only that the content matches its exact time period to a T as it should if it was written when its said it was written.

There is not one clear or foggy area that suggest it was written at a later time period.

We know which letters came from a same source, so know you can argue how they were compiled or redacted at a later date, but there is no reason at all for a paul or saul to be invented since it was so far away from jesus original movement to begin with.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-24-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

There is not one clear or foggy area that suggest it was written at a later time period.

A later time period than what?

Grog · 02-24-2012, 03:57 PM

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]

Grog · 02-24-2012, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Not only that the content matches its exact time period to a T as it should if it was written when its said it was written.

I don't know what this means. How is this so? Do you have evidence of this?

Quote:

There is not one clear or foggy area that suggest it was written at a later time period.

I have great difficulty figuring out a time period for Paul. Can you provide me with some methodology to help me out with that? You seem very sure of yourself, while I am not. So...please help me out.

Quote:

We know which letters came from a same source, so know you can argue how they were compiled or redacted at a later date, but there is no reason at all for a paul or saul to be invented since it was so far away from jesus original movement to begin with.

I'm not sure what you mean here. "[S]o far away" in what sense? I'm not so sure that we can with such confidence peer into the theological or political interests at that time to state that there was "no reason" to invent Paul. There actually might have been, perhaps as a foil against Simon Magus? Or Marcion? I don't know. I am interested in the Simon Magus possibilities proposed by Detering though.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-24-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Paul is apparently unaware of the Gospel story so he must have written before it evolved or was created (speaking from a mythicist perspective).

Are you sure?

Please consider my post from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

For your viewing pleasure:

Gospel of Thomas 17
Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart."

1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”

Gospel of Thomas 81
Jesus said, "Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce."

1 Corinthians 4:8
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!

Gospel of Thomas 14
Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

1 Corinthians 10:27
If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

Gospel of Thomas 48
Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 4:8 is especially suspicious. It looks like the folks from the church of God in Corinth are acting out Gospel of Thomas 81.

Toto · 02-24-2012, 04:34 PM

IIRC The Gospel of Thomas has no more real biographical data than Paul's letters.

If the conventional scholars are correct, GThomas is a later, derivative 2nd century work, and could have copied language from Paul.

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

02-24-2012, 09:40 AM	#265
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Not only that the content matches its exact time period to a T as it should if it was written when its said it was written. There is not one clear or foggy area that suggest it was written at a later time period. We know which letters came from a same source, so know you can argue how they were compiled or redacted at a later date, but there is no reason at all for a paul or saul to be invented since it was so far away from jesus original movement to begin with.

02-24-2012, 04:34 PM	#270
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	IIRC The Gospel of Thomas has no more real biographical data than Paul's letters. If the conventional scholars are correct, GThomas is a later, derivative 2nd century work, and could have copied language from Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.