FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-2011, 05:29 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Well, I was hoping that this wouldn't become another mythicism thread. I really am interested in this topic, so any input on this would be appreciated.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 05:29 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Of course, yeah, if there was evidence in their favor, then the Jesus-birthers would win. Toto was specific with the 180 CE date, and I bet Toto has at least some sort of reason for that.
Irenaeus.
Thanks Toto. I've started looking through Irenaeus. I don't remember anything along those lines -- can you recall which book, or anything about the context? Was it a particular heresy that he was addressing, do you recall?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 05:39 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
It is unnecessary to link to Robert M. Price's articles, because I don't read them without good reason. I read a book by Price that you suggested to me, once. It was a waste of time, because Price tends to make many more preposterous claims than arguments, and he does not argue in favor of particular explanations.
Blasphemy!
Und wenn du nicht Price willst lesen, dann kannst du immer Detering lesen. Auch er denkst dass 1Kor 15,3-11 eine Interpolation ist: Tradition oder Interpolation: antimarcionitische Interpolationen in 1 Ko, 1-11

Aber du musst Deutsch lesen können!

And I would like to apologize to people here that know german well :Cheeky:
hjalti is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 05:59 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Looking through Irenaeus: One point he makes is that Christians can be confident that the Gospels are true, since even the heretics use them:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html
So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.
Irenaeus goes on to describe each of the four Gospels in terms of the cherubim in the OT:
For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."146 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.147

But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for148 the finding again of the younger son.

Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; "149 and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;150 for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.

Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.
He goes on to describe how the heretics misuse the Gospels and even have their own ones:
These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean, ] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel.154 Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;155 but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae)156 who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,157 he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,158 they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 06:55 PM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
....Why do folks assume that Paul was a dedicated, self sacrificing, zealot and not just a traveling preacher who figured that the religious business was better than tent making? I am not sure if that helps or hurts the mythic position....
It was the Pauline writers who made those claims of self-sacrificing.

The Pauline writers, based on their words, out-performed Jesus Christ in every aspect both in missionary work and suffering and then was EXECUTED according to the Church.

Examine 2 Cor. 11.23-28

2 Cor. 11.23-28
Quote:
...23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned
, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches....
It was "Paul" who made those self-sacrifing claims. "Paul" must have been a real bad tent-maker!!!!
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 07:17 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

It's interesting that Irenaeus, in the link I gave above, talks about the 'tradition of the apostles', as handed down via apostolic succession, down to Polycarp, who met some of the apostles. His reference below to 'the preaching of the apostles' rather than 'words of the Gospels' suggest another source of teaching outside the Gospels:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves...

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles...

Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom...
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-20-2011, 07:26 PM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
jgoodguy:

If Paul didn't believe in an historical Jesus what do you suspect his motive was for trying to others to believe something he didn't believe himself. Even though it is treacherous for mythers, isn't the most likely explanation for what Paul taught is that it was what he thought was true?

Steve
Please do NOT confuse the issue. The HJ argument is that Jesus was just an obscure man who was NOT Christ and was EMBELLISHED decades later.

Whoever or whatever "Paul" believed in was NOT the "historical Jesus". The Pauline Jesus was CHRIST, the Creator, God Incarnate and had a NAME above every name on earth, in heaven and under the earth.

And further, the Pauline Jesus was in the form of God and was God's own Son based on "Paul".

You need to understand what the "historical Jesus" means in the HJ/MJ argument.

For the HJ/MJ argument the term "historical Jesus" means Jesus Christ of the NT was an ordinary man with a human father and mother who was embellished and mythologised decades later.

You MUST know that BELIEVERS assume that their God is a TRUE God and does ACTUALLY exist at all times but such BELIEF has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the HJ/MJ argument.

The Jesus stories most likely would have been BELIEVED to be true once there was NO documented evidence that Jesus was just a man who could NOT REMIT the Sins of Mankind.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity support the theory that the Jesus story was developed sometime in the 2nd century which would have vastly IMPROVED its believeability.

The Pauline Gospel at around 37-40 CE would have had a serious NEGATIVE effect on the veracity of the Jesus story.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-21-2011, 07:00 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
'True'???

Lets say I am a salesperson trying to sell a product. I hear something catchy about a competitor's product and I repeat that catchy something about my product. Do I know or care if it is 'true'? Do I see if it is false? More that likely I will not care enough to check for falsity. I am not lying, but I am not fully truthful either. My objective is to sell.

Applying this to Paul's case. Paul is selling a product: his religious point of view in the hope of getting followers and churches from which he will profit. Most folks in the religion business are selling something to their benefit. They want money, recognition or something. Those folks that do not profit do not stay in it for long. I assume that the Church at Jerusalem had a reputation and Paul used that reputation and parts of that church's theology to further his ministry. So in that case, Paul is teaching something he does not know if it is true, but it furthers his purpose.

Why do folks assume that Paul was a dedicated, self sacrificing, zealot and not just a traveling preacher who figured that the religious business was better than tent making? I am not sure if that helps or hurts the mythic position.

Take a look at:

1 Cor 9 6Are we the only ones who have to support ourselves by working at another job? 7Do soldiers pay their own salaries? Don't people who raise grapes eat some of what they grow? Don't shepherds get milk from their own goats? 8-9I am not saying this on my own authority. The Law of Moses tells us not to muzzle an ox when it is grinding grain. But was God concerned only about an ox? 10No, he wasn't! He was talking about us. This was written in the Scriptures so that all who plow and all who grind the grain will look forward to sharing in the harvest. 11When we told the message to you, it was like planting spiritual seed. So we have the right to accept material things as our harvest from you. 12If others have the right to do this, we have an even greater right. But we haven't used this right of ours. We are willing to put up with anything to keep from causing trouble for the message about Christ.

1 Timothy 5:

17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”[b]
1 Timothy is probably not by Paul.

1 Corinthians is not claiming that Paul was paid by his converts, but that his converts should be grateful to Paul for his not accepting renumeration from them.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-22-2011, 07:04 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pua, in northern Thailand
Posts: 2,823
Default

Since the Nicene Creed (325 AD) makes no reference to scripture, I find it hard to believe that the proto-orthodox church believed in the Gospels as the literal truth before that time.

This is what Bart Ehrman had to say about scripture when I e-mailed him about why this is so.

Quote:
I think it seems odd only in a culture like ours, where the Bible is SO important to Christianity. For the ancients it was not an object of veneration in the same way. The creeds were based on the Bible to some extent, as everyone knew; but the Bible itself was not an object of faith (and the creeds are stating the objects of faith). That’s why modern Christians who “believe in the Bible” are so idiosyncratic, historically.
Joan of Bark is offline  
Old 05-22-2011, 07:25 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Bark View Post
Since the Nicene Creed (325 AD) makes no reference to scripture, I find it hard to believe that the proto-orthodox church believed in the Gospels as the literal truth before that time.

This is what Bart Ehrman had to say about scripture when I e-mailed him about why this is so.

Quote:
I think it seems odd only in a culture like ours, where the Bible is SO important to Christianity. For the ancients it was not an object of veneration in the same way. The creeds were based on the Bible to some extent, as everyone knew; but the Bible itself was not an object of faith (and the creeds are stating the objects of faith). That’s why modern Christians who “believe in the Bible” are so idiosyncratic, historically.
What Ehrman seems to be saying is not so much that the ancient Christians disbelieved in the Bible or believed in the Bible metaphorically or whatever, but that the scriptures themselves were not an object of devotion. The relevancy was in the doctrines as reflected in the scriptures. Since the Nicene creed is a set of doctrines that can only emerge from a developing attempt to make sense of the doctrines of the Christian scriptures, it seems most plausible that the pre-Nicene Christians most certainly did literally believe what was written in their scriptures, even if the Nicene Creed does not quote or cite the passages specifically. Bible chapter and verse numbers (i.e. John 3:16) didn't even exist until the Middle Ages, so it isn't strongly expected that the Nicene Creed would make direct reference to scripture, but doctrines such as, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead," are really things we would expect them to believe only if they believed in their Christian scriptures literally.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.