Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-16-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....yes we know the unknown authors deified a man making claims to pit him against other mortal deities in hellenistic roman times. they could not write him in weaker then the other deities.

You DON'T know that unknown authors deified a man when there is NO credible evidence at all to support such a claim.

theres plenty

you just dont recognize it, because you dont understand the word evidence.

Your claim is unsubstantiated. You have NOT presented any credible corroborative source for your Jesus.

The historical Jesus is based fundamentally on Logical fallacies and Imagination.

spin · 03-16-2012, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

FWIW I regard the phrase ...'the Lord's brother.'...

When it is translated with the Anglo-Saxon genitive ('the Lord's brother'), the significance of the text has been manipulated. It should be left in the neutral "the brother of the lord". Consider:

1a. "the brother of the cross"
1b. "the cross's brother"

The second is decidedly strange. But what about the following?

2a. "the brother of god"
2b. "god's brother"

The word "brother" (αδελφος) is overwhelmingly used by Paul to indicate a believer, not a biological family member. At the same time the word "lord" (κυριος) may refer to god. (I've argued elsewhere that it doesn't make sense that Paul would use the non-titular "lord" without distinction for both Jesus and god.) Talking about "god's brother", has little sense (despite being forced to override Paul's usual use of "brother" purely by the Anglo-Saxon genitive), though we don't have the same problem with "the brother of god", which allows us to consider "brother" as something other than a biological relationship, as is the case in most of Paul's usage of the word.

We know that James is a believer, but he's not just a brother, but the brother of the lord, which suggests that he is a believer held in special regard. There are other brothers of the lord.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...in Gal 1:19 to be a marginal explanatory gloss provided by a latter Christian hand, that inadvertently became incorporated into subsequent copies of the text.

In other words the original text would have simply read;

Quote:

19. But I saw none of the other apostles except James.

It would seem the only reason you appeal to a marginal gloss, is because you don't like your understanding of the verse as it is written--an understanding not based on Paul, but later apologetic.

outhouse · 03-16-2012, 11:45 PM

false

its based on what little we know from the mass of evidence

sources are Paul, and the gospels, and Josephas

that is more then most historical charactors

my claim is substanciated.

yours however is biased and presented poorly while ignoring facts at hand

spin · 03-17-2012, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

false

its based on what little we know from the mass of evidence

sources are Paul, and the gospels, and Josephas

that is more then most historical charactors

my claim is substanciated.

yours however is biased and presented poorly while ignoring facts at hand

I'm sorry, this post presented like as it is seems to be decontextualized railing. One doesn't know what you are saying "false" about. The rest of it seems like pure unadulterated apologetics attacking something or other. Context would help. So would some of those facts. So would some of that evidence. So would some understanding of the sources you refer to.

tanya · 03-17-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I know the available materials rather well,

Yes, this we all acknowledge, even Sheshbazzar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

At the moment I see Paul's writings as where christianity starts appearing out of the fog. It could have existed before Paul or it could have come into existence with Paul. There is no way to know. The gospels are functionally irrelevant, as they were developed later and cannot shed light in the fog.

Foggy.

I do not accept your description of the gospels as "irrelevant", nor your assertion that they were developed later. Where's the evidence for either claim? A link suffices, no need to write, if you are pressed for time.

You "see Paul's writings as where christianity" began, in harmony with Bart.

I don't see that. Too much fog in the way. Can you tear the curtain of fog away, by showing us which source you employ to arrive at the conclusion that Paul precedes Mark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

History is done with source materials that have earned respect. We have no such source materials for the investigation of Jesus to my knowledge.

Precisely, .... then, why dig a hole with the Paul, first, gospels irrelevant nonsense. There is no evidence in my possession, to support a conclusion that Paul's epistles preceded Mark. Please explain the frequency of writing Cristou in Paul, not found in the gospels. To me, it is illogical to assume that Mark would not have had in his possession a copy of Paul's letter(s), if indeed the epistle had been published by then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm sorry, this post presented like as it is seems to be decontextualized railing.

No, I am sorry, for it would appear that you misread his intent. Read the post above yours, then you will comprehend....

One hopes that the Paul business is not based on the same kind of judgement.

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Talking about "god's brother", has little sense

Romans 8:29

spin · 03-17-2012, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

At the moment I see Paul's writings as where christianity starts appearing out of the fog. It could have existed before Paul or it could have come into existence with Paul. There is no way to know. The gospels are functionally irrelevant, as they were developed later and cannot shed light in the fog.

Foggy.

While you stand in the glare of your own light, you don't see much else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I do not accept your description of the gospels as "irrelevant", nor your assertion that they were developed later. Where's the evidence for either claim? A link suffices, no need to write, if you are pressed for time.

A relative chronological relationship is sufficient here. While the gospel of Mark has layers of tradition behind it--just think of the two miraculous feedings, obviously from the same source, but differentiated enough for the redactor to use both. The redactor has collected other stories and created a double sequence starting with the feedings, adding a dispute with the Pharisees and ending with a healing, in the first a deaf man and the second a blind man. We see several steps after the genesis of the religion.

Paul on the other hand has none of it. (We can rule out the Lucan last supper excerpt that confuses the Pauline communal meal in 1 Cor 11:25ff.) Paul just has the prerequisites of Jesus making him a suitable sacrifice and the bare act of crucifixion with no details whatsoever. Incredibly, he knows nothing of any disciples, just some sort of apostles. If Paul knew anything more than he was telling, he certainly held his cards close to his chest. Paul's total lack of knowledge, beside christ crucified, puts him at the earliest stage of the religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Please explain the frequency of writing Cristou in Paul, not found in the gospels. To me, it is illogical to assume that Mark would not have had in his possession a copy of Paul's letter(s), if indeed the epistle had been published by then.

Paul is dealing with his savior, having died, when he had one the title of christ. Mark deals with the earthly period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm sorry, this post presented like as it is seems to be decontextualized railing.

No, I am sorry, for it would appear that you misread his intent. Read the post above yours, then you will comprehend....

I expect people to attempt to communicate reasonably providing sufficient context so that one can understand what they are saying in loco and not provide incoherent ravings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

One hopes that the Paul business is not based on the same kind of judgement.

One hopes that your analyses will get past your own predilections.

spin · 03-17-2012, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Talking about "god's brother", has little sense

Romans 8:29

I hope that was tongue in cheek.

tanya · 03-17-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul's total lack of knowledge, beside christ crucified, puts him at the earliest stage of the religion.

Ok, so, in brief then, you rely upon internal evidence: analysis of the text of Paul's epistles.

Fine. I can live with that.

I had been studying a bit about 1 Clement, (manuscript evidence for, questions of authenticity, dating methods, etc) and ran across a passage where he mentions (though, perhaps "he" is not correct, for it is apparently not certain that a single individual wrote this letter to the Corinthians) both Peter and Paul.

Lightfoot had dated the composition to 95CE, and I sought evidence that it had been authored much later than that, i.e. mid second century....

Back to your point, (emphasized as well, by Bart Ehrman, page 144, "Paul was personally acquainted...") i.e. internal evidence:

Please have a glance at this passage from Romans, just a hair breadth distant from the passage cited by stephan huller: Romans 8:31

τι ουν ερουμεν προς ταυτα ει ο θεος υπερ ημων τις καθ ημων

Does this sentence, in your opinion, reflect the disposition of someone aware of an imminent attack on the religion, or someone unaffected by the turmoil surrounding the Roman-Jewish Wars I, II, or III?

To me, this is a bit like a rallying cry, not a theological explanation. It seems much more likely, given absence of assurance either way, to represent the writing of a person resigned to the forthcoming military conflict, than text devoted to explanation of why God needed a son.

If I am seeking a date of authorship for this epistle, or at least a relative date for the initial appearance of this epistle, I have to rely on relatively non-subtle clues in the text. This clue appears relatively solid, to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul is dealing with his savior, having died, when he had one the title of christ. Mark deals with the earthly period.

Surely Paul could have dealt with his saviour AFTER Mark's description, as readily, as before Mark's gospel appeared on the scene?

Since you believe that the two are fundamentally dissimilar, then, why should one antedate the other, absent specific information in the text of either document to clarify initial date of composition?

I am reminded of Bart's statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

...whatever else you may want to say about Jesus, you can say with a high degree of certainty that he was a historical figure.

????
and just how do we know this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

...Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus's closest disciple, Peter, and Jesus's own brother, James.

Oh.

:huh:

maryhelena · 03-17-2012, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves. From a dispassionate point of view, there was a Jesus of Nazareth.

First: thank you mary helena for sharing your opinion. It prompted me to go and investigate. I am in complete agreement with your conclusion.

Second: I quote below, a bit more text from the publisher of his new book.

To begin with, he does make one excellent point: the fact that many of us proclaim from the rooftops our conviction that Jesus is a myth, without properly defining what we mean by "myth". I know I have been guilty of that inaction.

By coincidence, one supposes, I have been engaged, tooth and nail (do grasshoppers have nails? oh, perhaps carapace and claw) with spin over at the RS forum, on precisely this issue--proper definition of myth. It is quite interesting to read spin's point of view, in my opinion. His idea, (certainly not mine!!) fits rather nicely with what Bart Ehrman has written, not that spin had that intention.

Here's a bit longer extract copied from the publisher's link, posted above, with letters inserted for reference/argument below:

A. Throughout Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history.
...
B. Rarely do mythicists define what they mean by the term myth, a failure that strikes real scholars of religion as both unfortunate and highly problematic, since in technical scholarship the term has come to mean many things over the years.
....
C. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist. That is what this book will set out to demonstrate.
...
Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves.
...
D. We will begin our considerations with later sources and then move to the testimony of our earliest surviving Christian author, Paul....
...
E. The same is clear from the fragments of writings that still survive from the opponents of the Christians, such as the Jew Trypho, discussed by Justin, or the pagan philosopher Celsus, cited extensively by Origen. The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.

Lots to write about, but first, here is my definition of "myth":
text containing explicit reference to supernatural events, places, people, or actions. Supernatural is defined, not in terms of religion, or "gods", but in terms of anything deliberately contradicting science.

For example, the speed of light, "c", corresponds to the fastest known speed, we have measured, or calculated, to date.

An author who introduces travel by matter at a speed faster than c, has introduced supernatural elements into his/her text. The motive for this deliberate introduction is irrelevant. The text becomes classified as myth, the moment the author writes something deliberately known to represent supernatural attributes. A mere typographic mistake, would not result in classifying the text as myth. The supernatural attribute must be inserted by the author intentionally, as with Mark 1:1 (Byzantine version only)

Then with that definition of "myth", what are my objections to Ehrman's text, above?

A. I was unable to locate the "criterion" in any of the text provided by the publisher....

B. did it;

C. repetition is useless; I have no other agenda, neither do most of the forum members, in my opinion.

D. Where's his evidence that Paul's epistles preceded Mark?? I am not sure even which of Paul's epistles are "genuine", and worse, which of them has not been distorted by interpolation. I am astonished to encounter NOT EVEN ONE WORD, in any of the four gospels, taken from, or attributed to, Paul. One certainly can not, in my opinion, employ the epistles of Paul, to claim historicity of Jesus, a mythical character, defined in Mark 1:1, our oldest extant document on Jesus, as "son of God", anymore than one can rely upon the Oscoda times article on Paul Bunyan to glean important information about the report of injury to Babe the Blue Ox.

E. I will defer to aa5874, the expert on these matters, but I am rather certain, not 100%, perhaps, but about 99.4%, that he has documented the contrary, in the writings of Justin Martyr and Origen, respectively. In other words, Ehrman is simply wrong here. There are ancient objections.

But, look carefully at his last sentence:

This sentence, here, says it all, for me.

Obviously, notwithstanding his doctorate from Princeton, and his appointment to a famous university in North Carolina, Dr. Ehrman has not a clue about the proper definition of myth.

It is impossible to have a "myth about the mythical Jesus". Why?

A myth MUST invoke supernatural attributes, failing that, it is not a myth.

What is a legend? A legend is something which is potentially historical, or, at least falling within the range of human ability, respecting the laws of physics, NOT supernatural, but also, not (yet) verified, and quite possibly inflated, beyond the actual accomplishment. If I tell you that Barbara mastered 20 different Japanese Kanji in a single day, both reading and writing of same, after a single, 1000 millisecond exposure, on a flash card, you may well feel that I am describing something which is beyond human capacity. That is an illustration of legend. A bit of hyperbole (she actually required 1800 milliseconds, and erred, on recall, 24 hours later, on two of them), but, essentially an extraordinary ability, but not one demanding supernatural competence. So, we can say that her performance was legendary, but not mythical. By way of comparison, after five minutes studying each of the same 20 characters, I could not recall the meaning of even one single character, 24 hours later.

Same scenario, now changed to 1 millisecond, and the claim becomes problematical, because a simple eye blink requires nearly 400 milliseconds. This claim would be supernatural, without propping the eyelids open, and lubricating the cornea.

Ehrman needed to write: the legend of the mythical Jesus, for no one, so far as I am aware, at least no one I have read, is arguing that Jesus is a myth, because new god xyz told him/her so. In other words, there has been, at least up to the present day, no attempt to argue for a mythical Jesus by invoking supernatural skills. On the contrary, we argue for a mythical Jesus, based upon very ordinary scrutiny of the ancient texts, one of which is Mark:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

That's all she wrote, folks. Game over. End of story. Jesus is a mythical character, not based on some contemporary blog or web site, but based on Mark 1:1.

tanya, as far as I’m aware, myth is a word that has many connotations. I grant that it’s good to try for clarity in ones use. But wanting to pinpoint one exact ‘true’ definition is a bit like trying to define what the word ‘god’ should mean. I have a few pages photo-copied from a book I read some years ago: Myth In Old Testament Interpretation; J.W. Rogerson. (now out of print, I think).

In this book there are 12 different explanations of the term ‘myth’: A short summary, from the book, of these various definitions:
=================================

(1) Myths are attempts to explain things. The things so explained can be many and various, including the origin, nature and functioning of the world; the origin of social organisation; social habits and customs; and religious beliefs and practices. Myths may also seek to explain unusual natural phenomena, and the cause of historical events.

(2) Myths arise from personifications of natural phenomena.

(3) Myths are stories arising from misunderstood descriptions of the working of nature.

(4) Myths are narratives about humans and human events, but the narratives are in fact in the first instance derived from astral or similar phenomena.

(5) Myth is a mode of cognition distinct from empirical consciousness.

(6) A myth is a text inextricably bound up with a rite. The performance of the myth/ritual achieves or preserves the well-being of man and the world.

(7) A myth is a text less closely connected with a rite, designed possibly to interest the worshipper or to explain the meaning of a rite where the original meaning and purpose of the latter has been forgotten.

(8) A myth is one of a series of narratives which, taken together, enable primitives to solve problems at a level below that of conscious thought by the blurring of binary oppositions.

(9) A myth is a narrative which expresses the tensions of a primary existential symbolism.

(10) A myth is a single story, or longer stretch of narrative, which expresses the ideals, hopes and faith of a people.

(11) Myth is a necessary way of speaking of transcendent reality.

(12) A myth is a story about the gods.

If it be objected that these definitions are really too vague and qualified to be of any use, I would not quarrel. If the present study only indicates something of the great complexity of the notion of myth, and if it only makes future scholarship more cautious about the use of the concept, then the study will have been worth while.
==================================================

Is the gospel JC a myth? Yes, most certainly JC is a myth, i.e. that gospel figure is not a flesh and blood figure - and since there is no historical evidence, that gospel figure is not a historical figure. I don’t know - but maybe some mythicists don’t like to use the term ‘myth’ for the gospel JC. I know that Earl Doherty, some years ago, said that he preferred the use of ‘fiction’ and not myth for this gospel figure.

Quote:

“Thus the evidence entirely justifies a separation of those
composite Christian elements into two divisions, and thus we can speak
of a Pauline myth and a Gospel/Galilee myth (though I prefer to keep
the word 'myth' for the former and use a word like 'fiction' for the
latter.)” Earl Doherty; JesusMysteries around 2001.

It’s possible that, for some ahistoricists/mythicists, working from Paul’s cosmic Christ figure to the gospel story, that they would prefer to look upon the gospel JC figure as being a historizing of Paul’s Christ myth. I don't buy into that argument. I’ve always worked from the gospel JC story - and that story is a mythological story; JC is a myth. The gospel JC is not a historizing of Paul’s cosmic Christ figure. The gospel JC figure can stand on his own two feet, albeit two mythological feet.....

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

03-16-2012, 11:45 PM	#153
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	false its based on what little we know from the mass of evidence sources are Paul, and the gospels, and Josephas that is more then most historical charactors my claim is substanciated. yours however is biased and presented poorly while ignoring facts at hand

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.