Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 07-24-2013, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Your truncated quoting of my post misrepresents it.

No it doesn't. Your claim that I have misrepresented you is false. I was not seeking to represent your entire post, merely to comment on the specific statement you made about memes, which I quoted accurately.

If you choose to post just to deprecate a detailed comment, you really should explain why.

Because you could easily have posted everything you did post without representing is as a response to my earlier post, to which it was not in fact responsive.

J-D · 07-24-2013, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What are the origins of "Paul?"

Again, which "Paul" are you talking about? There were multiple authors under the name of Paul.

What is the evidence from antiquity of these multiple authors under the name of Paul?

MrMacSon · 07-24-2013, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, which "Paul" are you talking about? There were multiple authors under the name of Paul.

What is the evidence from antiquity of these multiple authors under the name of Paul?

There are the 'disputed epistles' and the so-called "undisputed epistles", some of which are currently disputed, and all or almost-all having been disputed in the past, particularly by the Dutch Radicals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Criticism

Robert Tulip · 07-24-2013, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

you could easily have posted everything you did post without representing is as a response to my earlier post, to which it was not in fact responsive.

Even if that were true, it would not mean my comment was a misrepresentation. I did not claim that you said something you did not say.

But in fact my comments did respond to your comment about memes, questioning your apparent belief that memetic theory does not provide a useful contribution to the question of this thread, what started Christianity.

You expanded your skepticism about memes by saying "explanation by memetic evolution has not yet provided the large body of explanations of specific events that biological evolution has provided to show that it's a fruitful explanatory approach."

I explained in my comment why memetic theory is a plausible explanation of cultural evolution. A meme is a causal cultural pattern, not a physical object. Memes apply the causal logic of biology to culture. The evolution of a cultural pattern or idea is more complex than the simple linear causality of genetics, since ideas can blend more readily than genes.

But that does not mean that memes are not a fruitful philosophical concept, including as a historical heuristic. The fact remains that culture always builds on precedent, obeying the same general evolutionary rules of success as genetics.

To say that memetic theory lacks explanatory power would need to postulate some non-evolutionary model for cultural change, such as for example, transcendental supernatural intervention. If we posit a purely natural universe, I can't see how cultural causality can follow any model other than a memetic one.

Grog · 07-24-2013, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

.....You are missing the point of my question. I understand your position that all the Pauline writings are fabrications. My question is why fabricate a character named Paul and then appeal to this character? Why is the name Paul? I am not asking this to say that therefore there must have been a real Paul. I am interested in what your thoughts could be. Why does the name "Paul" have any authority at all?

I have already answered your questions. The Pauline Corpus was fabricated to deceive exactly the same way the Paul/Seneca letters were forged.

The Pauline Corpus was composed at least 150 years after the time of Pilate or at least 110 years after the Fall of the Temple.

The name "Paul" had no authority up to the end of the 2nd century.

1. When Justin told his conversion story he mentioned NOTHING of Paul or the Pauline Corpus. See Dialogue with Trypho.

2. When Caecillius was converted by Octavius no references were made to the conversion of Paul or the Pauline Corpus. See Minucius Felix's Octavius.

3. When Arnobius wrote Against the Heathen he did not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus. See Arnobius' Against the Heathen".

4. When Aristides wrote about the start of the Jesus cult of Christians he mentioned nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus. See Aristides' Apology.

5. When Celsus wrote True Discourse against the Jesus cult he wrote NOTHING of Paul. See Origen's Against Celsus.

6. When Hippolytus wrote Refutation Against All Heresies he claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but those of Empedocles.

7. When Ephraem the Syrian wrote Against Marcion we see virtually nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

8. No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated before c 70 CE.

9. The earliest non-apologetic source to mention Paul is in the late 3rd or early 4th century.

10. The authors of the Gospels show that Paul had no real authority because they did not use any of the additional "details" of the post resurrection with over the 500 visited by Jesus

The Pauline Corpus was unknown and had no influence on the 2nd century Jesus cult.

I know all these points aleady, but it isn't getting to my question. Thanks, though.

Grog · 07-24-2013, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You are moving the posts here. I am not arguing that individuals do not innovate. I believe that the concept of Jesus Christ was the ultimate product of many such individual innovations. Yes, somewhere, sometime an individual made a connection between the name 'Jesus the Christ' and the idea of the messiah. Whoever that person was has been lost. We will never know who that was. Indeed, that's the whole idea behind evolving memes. Ideas are permeable, changeable, and ideas that serve a purpose or address a need survive and spread, and change and adapt.

Your position was that all religions begin with an individual who preaches a message that is accepted by followers.

No, I have not made that claim.One thing I am clear on is that whatever anybody may have thought, and whatever anybody may have said, nobody literally received revelations from a literal Risen Jesus who was crucified in a literal timeless space by literal elemental powers.

It is very hard to have a discussion with you when constantly say "I didn't say that." I don't have the time or energy to remind you of what you've said. I notice in your conversation with Robert Tulip, you have retreated to the "I didn't say that" position, as well. My observation is that Tulip is responding directly and appropriately to you.

As far as this statement:

"... nobody literally received revelations from a literal Risen Jesus who was crucified in a literal timeless space by literal elemental powers..."

It is apparently a non-sequitur. I haven't seen anyone in this conversation make that argument. What do you mean by "literal?" While always complaining about others misrepresenting your views, you seem to have no problem misrepresenting others.

Quote:

On the other hand if you tell me that Paul preached a message of a Risen Jesus who was crucified in a timeless space by elemental powers, what I want to ask you is 'if that were what happened, how would it not be the origin of Christianity?'

Because others were already preaching that message. Paul did not originate the message, he preached a message already existing. He may have introduced innovations but he claims to have received the message himself from no man, but from appearances of the Risen Jesus, as did others before him. In fact, he says he received it last:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Cor 15

How can this be the origin of Christianity when there were others before Paul? Paul already is referencing a "Church of God," which he, himself, persecuted. How could Paul have originated a religion that he earlier had persecuted?

What about this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! 5 For I consider myself not at all inferior to those “super-apostles.”

2 Cor 11

Who are the super-apostles? How do you know for sure that modern Christianity isn't descended more directly through the "super-apostles" than through Paul. It seems to me that there are some serious differences between what Paul preached and what became orthodox Christian belief.

Quote:

I don't have any problem with the position that views about 'Jesus Christ' have changed; I'm sure they have, and probably they will continue to do so. But I distinguish between the question 'how did Christianity originate?' and the question 'how has Christianity changed since it originated?'

Ok, how do you know at what point Christianity originated? That's the whole point. At what point in the stage of development is Christianity recognizable as "Christianity?"

outhouse · 07-24-2013, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Ok, how do you know at what point Christianity originated? That's the whole point.

Shortly before Paul starts writing his epistles, there is a complete lack of anything relating to the movements origins.

When Paul is writing the movement had just started prior to this by Pauls accounts. We know he is writing to private Pater Familias [homes] not established churches.

It would also indicate while the movement as already widespread and diverse, it had no organization at all during this period. Thus it was a small movement/sect away from Judaism.

More then meets the eye.

Quote:

At what point in the stage of development is Christianity recognizable as "Christianity?"

Personal opinion is the answer. Those who follow Pauline Christianity can make claims of a early origin. Others could posit when the books were Canonized and the trinity defined around 400 CE ish.

Recognizable? Go back in time and it would depend on who you talked to.

Grog · 07-24-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Ok, how do you know at what point Christianity originated? That's the whole point.

Shortly before Paul starts writing his epistles, there is a complete lack of anything relating to the movements origins.

When Paul is writing the movement had just started prior to this by Pauls accounts. We know he is writing to private Pater Familias [homes] not established churches.

It would also indicate while the movement as already widespread and diverse, it had no organization at all during this period. Thus it was a small movement/sect away from Judaism.

More then meets the eye.

Quote:

At what point in the stage of development is Christianity recognizable as "Christianity?"

Personal opinion is the answer. Those who follow Pauline Christianity can make claims of a early origin. Others could posit when the books were Canonized and the trinity defined around 400 CE ish.

Recognizable? Go back in time and it would depend on who you talked to.

"widespread and diverse" and "small" seem to be contradictions. Could you clarify that?

Grog · 07-24-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Memetic evolution is a good answer to the question of how Christianity emerged. Memetics answers the process question, setting the cultural evolution within a natural scientific framework and excluding all traditional supernatural magic. Which memetic factors were decisive for Christian success is then the ‘what’ question we should ask once we accept the ‘how’ question of natural evolutionary causality.

Memetics applies the scientific model of material causality to the study of cultural change. This is challenging in principle because it asserts that complex phenomena such as cultural ideas must in principle have material causes, with no point at which the idea separates itself from the material to introduce a non-evolutionary causal process.

Memetics recognises that the genetic process of cumulative adaptation should in principle also govern the causal process of other complex living systems such as human culture. And this is quite plausible. A society contains people who are continually trying out new things. Some innovations succeed and some fail. The basic criterion of whether a given innovation succeeds or fails is exactly the same in genetics and culture – whether it is more adaptive to its environment and hence is able to replicate in a way that is more fecund, durable and stable than other innovations. The fact that memetic change is faster and more complex than genetic change does not in any way indicate how memetic change might bring in non-evolutionary factors.

Regarding the content of the Christian meme, selective pressures included:
- the emotional attraction of a story whose core Easter ritual was modelled on the natural annual cycle of death and rebirth,
- the need to syncretise a range of older myths into a new story for a common era,
- the geopolitics of the Roman-Jewish wars,
- the way Jewish Davidic monotheism picked up the messianic ethical message of ‘the least shall be first’ as a compelling cultural framework for the Christ Myth
- and importantly, the neglected topic of how the Jesus story explains universal history in a way that maps directly to the cosmology understood by ancient seers, with the spring point of the sky precessing from Aries into Pisces at the purported time of Christ as symbolising a New Age.

Your truncated quoting of my post misrepresents it.

Example of evolutionary precursors to the idea of Jesus Christ:

These are from Philo Judaeus of Alexandria:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings; [Mos.2.134]

The Logos is sent to the world:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Logos rejoices…. saying “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you” (Num. 16:48); neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties (Her. 205-206).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

God, intending to send down the perfection of his divine virtue from heaven to earth, out of pity for our race, in order that it might not be left destitute of a better portion, prepared in a symbolical manner the sacred tabernacle and the things in it, a thing made after the model and in imitation of wisdom. (113) For he says that he has erected his oracle as a tabernacle in the midst of our impurity, in order that we may have something whereby we may be purified, washing off and cleansing all those things which dirt and defile our miserable life, full of all evil reputation as it is. (Her.112-113)

Philo makes reference to an entity named “Joshua/Jesus” who is an “incorporeal being” no different than the “divine image:”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns. ( Conf. 63)

If we look at the passage that Philo references, we see that the name of the person referenced is indeed “Joshua,” which in Greek is the same name as “Jesus.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zechariah6

Then take some silver and gold to make a crown and set it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 Then say to him, ‘The LORD who rules over all says, “Look—here is the man whose name is Branch, who will sprout up from his place and build the temple of the LORD. 13 Indeed, he will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed in splendor, sitting as king on his throne. Moreover, there will be a priest with him on his throne and they will see eye to eye on everything. (Zec 6:12)

Can we get any closer to a transitional fossil than this?

Give Richard Carrier the credit for that last example, by the way.

Duvduv · 07-24-2013, 01:53 PM

It doesn't even matter if there were multiple authors or not, that this or that letter is *authentic* because there is no evidence that any of the epistles were actually written and sent to the alleged recipients in the 1st century or any other time. They are all part of a set. There is no proof that anyone ever received them or replied to them. There is no evidence that they were kept in individual locations, or that those locations had Christians there.
Convenient enough nothing is *missing* from the letters (like the last lines or introduction). There is no evidence that anyone *collected* them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What is the evidence from antiquity of these multiple authors under the name of Paul?

There are the 'disputed epistles' and the so-called "undisputed epistles", some of which are currently disputed, and all or almost-all having been disputed in the past, particularly by the Dutch Radicals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Criticism

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.