Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you not aware that there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and that Scholars have deduced that they are products of multiple authors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Which scholars?

You have provided a list........".Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner".

Please read what they wrote about the Pauline letters before you post. I have already exposed that Ehrman has claimed that Epistles under the name of Paul are forgeries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

.... And how would say the denial of Pauline authorship to any, not to mention all, of the letters attributed to Paul, prove or stand as any kind of evidence of S's claim that the Gospels are earlier than all of the Pauline writings?

Again, you seem not to be aware of the more than 100 years of controversies regarding Epistles under the name of Paul.

How in the world can you not understand that it is not known that any of the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century?

Popular presumptions by so-called scholars about the Pauline writings do not substitute as evidence from antiquity.

These are the facts.

1. No writings under the name of Paul have been found and dated to anytime BEFORE c 70 CE.

2. Apologetic sources supposedly of the 2nd century and later showed that the Jesus cult developed without the Pauline letters.

3. There is absolutely NO evidence from antiquity that can contradict the argument that ALL the Canonised Pauline letters were unknown at least up to 180 CE and unknown by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Celsus, the author of Against Heresies 2.22, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius.

Once there are writers of antiquity who wrote about the story of Jesus and did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline letters then it can be argued INFINITELY that the Jesus was story was known before the Pauline letters were composed.

And further, the Pauline writer did claim that he Persecuted those who believed the story of Jesus.

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before the Gospels is now completely irrelevant and useless as soon as the Pauline writers admitted they persecuted the Jesus cult.

Well, I guess that settles it then!

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-23-2013, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before the Gospels is now completely irrelevant and useless as soon as the Pauline writers admitted they persecuted the Jesus cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Well, I guess that settles it then!

Jeffrey

No, No, No!!! You still have to tell us about your list.

How is it that you seem unaware of the over 100 year controversies about letters under the name of Paul and that THEY are products of multiple authors?

I still get the impression that you are not really familiar with the evidence from antiquity that show the story of Jesus was known before the Pauline letters were composed.

May I remind you that the author of Acts wrote almost exclusively 13 chapters about Paul and gave no indication at all that Paul wrote letters or that he needed to write letters to Churches and Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Based on Acts and the abundance of evidence from antiquity ALL the Pauline corpus is a compilation of forgeries.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before the Gospels is now completely irrelevant and useless as soon as the Pauline writers admitted they persecuted the Jesus cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Well, I guess that settles it then!

Jeffrey

No, No, No!!! You still have to tell us about your list.

How is it that you seem unaware of the over 100 year controversies about letters under the name of Paul and that THEY are products of multiple authors?

Did I say that I was unaware of this -- at least insofar as there is dispute about the Pastorals and 2nd Thessalonians and possibly Ephesians? I am also aware that there are scholars who have defended the Pauline authorship of these works.

What I am unaware of is that there are few if any scholars except those who follow the dutch radicals who seriously dispute the Pauline authorship of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, and Collosians, let alone date these works to post 70 or say that the Gospels were written before any of them.

Can you tell me who the scholars are who say otherwise? Do any of the ones I listed above? I'll take a dodge of this question as a sure indication that you haven't read any of them).

Quote:

I still get the impression that you are not really familiar with the evidence from antiquity that show the story of Jesus was known before the Pauline letters were composed.

The question is not whether the story (or stories) was (were) known before the Pauline letters were composed -- the letters themselves testify to this - but whether the particular written forms of it that have come down to us as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John compositionally predate Paul's letters.

Quote:

May I remind you that the author of Acts wrote almost exclusively 13 chapters about Paul and gave no indication at all that Paul wrote letters or that he needed to write letters to Churches and Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

So what? Cassius Dio wrote a history of the Bar Kochba revolt -- which BTW, is one of our primary sources for that revolt's history -- without once mentioning Bar Kochba or his activities including his letter writing. Nor does Aelius Spartianus in his life Life of Hadrian. Does that mean that Bar Kochba didn't write letters?

Jeffrey

Iskander · 05-23-2013, 12:35 PM

Thomas L. Brodie in his book, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Sheffield Phoenix Press 2012
ISBN 9781907534584
Page 153

Thomas Brodie says ,

Quote:

The available evidence indicates rather that the thirteen epistles came not from one person but from some form of group or school

And

Quote:

A key purpose in composing the epistles with Paul's name was to build a new Moses figure

The existence of a group [school] and the purpose behind the writing indicate a late date for the birth of the fiction

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Thomas L. Brodie in his book, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Sheffield Phoenix Press 2012
ISBN 9781907534584
Page 153

Thomas Brodie says ,

And

Quote:

the purpose in composing the epistles with Paul's name was to build a new Moses figure

The existence of a group [school] and the purpose behind the writing indicate a late date for the birth of the fiction

How so?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-23-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No, No, No!!! You still have to tell us about your list.

How is it that you seem unaware of the over 100 year controversies about letters under the name of Paul and that THEY are products of multiple authors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Did I say that I was unaware of this -- at least insofar as there is dispute about the Pastorals and 2nd Thessalonians and possibly Ephesians? I am also aware that there are scholars who have defended the Pauline authorship of these works.

What I am unaware of is that there are few if any scholars except those who follow the dutch radicals who seriously dispute the Pauline authorship of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, and Collosians, let alone date these works to post 70 or say that the Gospels were written before any of them.

You are aware of the controversies?? So why did you give the impression that there were none with a long list of names?

A long list of names is utterly useless as evidence from antiquity to settle the controversies especially when it includes Ehrman.

Again, you seem not to understand that there are still on going controversies for over 100 years about the time when Paul lived, when he died and what he wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Can you tell me who the scholars are who say otherwise? Do any of the ones I listed above? I'll take a dodge of this question as a sure indication that you haven't read any of them)..

Your list has exposed that you were not aware of the controversy regarding the Epistles under the name of Paul.

Even now you seem not to understand that early Pauline Epistles are Presumptions.

How many times must I show that there is no claim whatsoever in the very NT that letters under the name of Paul were composed before 70 CE.

Early Pauline writings are products of Presumptions, Guesswork, and logical fallacies.

Now, let us go through each name on the list and expose what they PRESUMED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I still get the impression that you are not really familiar with the evidence from antiquity that show the story of Jesus was known before the Pauline letters were composed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The question is not whether the story (or stories) was (were) known before the Pauline letters were composed -- the letters themselves testify to this - but whether the particular written forms of it that have come down to us as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John compositionally predate Paul's letters.

Surely a long list of names which includes Ehrman cannot answer your controversy. You need a long list of corroborative evidence from antiquity which you cannot produce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

May I remind you that the author of Acts wrote almost exclusively 13 chapters about Paul and gave no indication at all that Paul wrote letters or that he needed to write letters to Churches and Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So what? Cassius Dio wrote a history of the Bar Kochba revolt -- which BTW, is one of our primary sources for that revolt's history -- without once mentioning Bar Kochba or his activities including his letter writing. Nor does Aelius Spartianus in his life Life of Hadrian. Does that mean that Bar Kochba didn't write letters?

Jeffrey

I am extremely delighted that you mention Bar Kochba and Cassius Dio.

Now, show me where Cassius Dio mentioned Paul but did not mention his letters.

Are you now arguing that Cassius Dio knew that Pastorals were forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul although he did not mention Paul or the Epistles?

It is illogical to assume that the Pauline writings must have written by Paul before the Gospel merely because Acts of the Apostles mentioned a character called Paul.

By the way, Justin Martyr is a CONTEMPORARY and PRIMARY source for Bar Kochba and mentioned him in "First Apology"

Quote:

For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy.

Justin Martyr neither mentioned Paul or his supposed letters but mentioned a story of Jesus.

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before the Gospels is highly controversial and is based on Presumptions, guesswork and logical fallacies.

Duvduv · 05-23-2013, 03:31 PM

How clever of the regime or their assigned writers who dreamed up the Justin writings (another sponsored writing like those attributed to a "Josephus" or a "Eusebius" - such similar names as a coincidence) with another one of their "anchors" to set a Christian existence in Judea at the dawn of the second century and before by sneaking in a matter-of-fact comment about Bar Kochba having an interest in Christians in all those "settlements" all over Judea that the author of Acts pretended to exist.

Such a cute back-handed attempted of backdating the existence of Christianity away from the new regime of the 4th century.

"gave orders that the CHRISTIANS ALONE....." (blah-blah-blah) referring to none other than the leader of the revolt himself. Ta Chazi [Come and See] how important those Christians were in the second century! Not only did they exist, but they were IMPORTANT. REALLY IMPORTANT!

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Earl repeatedly asserts as a fact, that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceded [sic] the written Gospels.
That is a very controversial position on Christian history ... .

Umm ... very controversial? Really? Do we find it stated as such in the standard Introductions to the NT (i.e., Brown, Kummel, Koester, Cousar, D. Martin, R.P. Martin, Ehrman, Schnakenberg, Moffatt, Powell, Porter, Gundry, Carson & Moo, Thompson/Green/Achtemeir, DeSilva, Boring, Haegner, just to name a few)?

Is this noted anywhere in the professional periodical literature? If so, where?

Which NT scholars claim that the Gospels are earlier than the Pauline Epistles?

Names please!

Jeffrey

I was intending to save this for the reopening of the other, presently locked thread, but I thank you Jeffrey for directly asking this, and providing me this opportunity.

You may note that I have been a member here since 2003, and have exceeded 7,000 posts. By far the largest majority of which have been made in this BC&H Forum.

During this time I have never, -not even once- made a single 'argument from authority'.

I have never once cited or quoted from any 'professional periodical literature'

I have never once quoted either the public nor the private views or arguments of any published 'professional scholars' or popular authors.

I have never once even so much written the name of any 'professional scholar', nor citied their books, in support of my position.
Not even when I knew that I could produce a hundred whose views supported my arguments.

And I am not about to start now.

I will not play off 'authority figure' against 'authority figure', nor fall to the practice of bowing to the god of consensus.

I take personal responsibility for my own translations, interpretation, and understanding of the content of ancient texts, and of human history, and for whatever views or ideas I may endorse.

I am not a 'name dropper', and I am not impressed by arguments that consist of listing a long line of 'authority figures' and 'authoritative works' or lengthy quotations therefrom.

This is my ethos, and my reasons for this are many.

Fine, Shesh, and it's nice that you are now tasting the servings of Dr. Jeffrey Gibson for yourself. It will be interesting to see how you cope with them.

I don't fault you for failing to appeal to authority figures (after all, you have no authority figures to appeal to for your claims), and it's a little difficult to appeal to authority to support your anti-authority position. But an alternate expectation is certainly workable and valid: namely, that you engage with arguments that are offered against your position, especially in the very forum where you put them forward, rather than simply label those counter-positions "horse-shit."

I have amply demonstrated in the other thread that you refused to engage with any such disagreements with your declarations, often employing transparent dodges and red herrings of your own devising, accompanied by true bluster meant to avoid having to defend your claims. All such things are, of course, things which Jeffrey makes a show of deploring, so I wish you the best of luck!

Earl Doherty

Your failure to express your views in a sensible manner is not my fault.

When you wrote;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

You scoff: ...unless you wish to believe that a dead 'Jesus' actually communicated this to 'Paul' from heaven."

....that implies that you oppose this view, and that you support the contrary, that being that 'Jesus' DID communicate with Paul from heaven.

And then when you follow this up by strongly asserting;

Quote:

" Well, that is exactly what I wish to believe, not from a "dead Jesus" in the sense of one who had been on earth, but from a Jesus who resided in heaven, died and rose there, and was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians."

I have to take you at your words. Certainly you have since repeatedly denied that you intended it to be taken in the actual sense indicated by your words.
Yet when your arguments are examined, your premise remains that 'Paul' actually was taught by 'Jesus' talking to him from heaven, and from no human source.
The very premise of your argument becomes that Paul got his information and 'gospel' in exactly the way Paul claims to have gotten his gospel,. ...by the supernatural means of communicating with a Heavenly being.

The contrary argument that I and others here are defending, is that there is no Heavenly being, and spite of what 'Paul' may have thought, claimed, or wrote, no such conversation ever took place.
And whatever Paul thought or wrote was either quoted from, or inspired by the spoken or written words of human beings that he had previously encountered.

My position as an Atheist is that NO voice from heaven ever spoke to Paul or taught Paul the words; "the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me"

Paul had either previously naturally heard these words from others (most likely given the details) or made these words up himself, based upon what he had read, seen, and heard from other humans. NO invisable Jesus involved.

This is an Atheist Forum. We do not believe in communications from dead and resurrected heavenly beings. 'Paul' received his 'visions' and 'communications' via way of men and mens writings.

As to whether the horse or the cart, The Gospels or the Epistles came before or after, our views are obviously very much at variance.
As I find aa's arguments to be far more evidenced, persuasive, and rational than yours, in the main I will allow him to continue any further arguments in that particular direction.

Why does it take so long to get something into your head? I do not believe in communications from the dead, neither to Paul nor anyone else. All it needed was that THEY believed it. I have explained the meaning intended in my words, which you have insisted on continuing to read in a ridiculous fashion. I don't care what you think the words say, I have informed you of what I meant numerous times. But no matter how many times I point this out to you, you keep coming back with the same vacuous response. You and Jeffrey should get along very well, you both play games.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 06:18 PM

Jeffrey, you've got your work cut out for you if you are going to take on the likes of aa and Shesh. They don't debate using the same rational methodology that you and I are capable of. On the other hand, maybe you can get an inkling of how frustrating it is for me to deal with you when you refuse to apply that rational potential to our discussions in a positive and informative way.

I think I'll sit on the sidelines here for a while. Why shouldn't I get to enjoy the entertainment? Actually, aa gave you a lot of openings for some proper rebuttal. I'm a little disappointed that you failed to take him up on so many of them.

Earl Doherty

spin · 05-23-2013, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I think I'll sit on the sidelines here for a while. Why shouldn't I get to enjoy the entertainment? Actually, aa gave you a lot of openings for some proper rebuttal. I'm a little disappointed that you failed to take him up on so many of them.

Some people don't see the merit of pissing into the wind.

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

05-23-2013, 03:31 PM	#17
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	How clever of the regime or their assigned writers who dreamed up the Justin writings (another sponsored writing like those attributed to a "Josephus" or a "Eusebius" - such similar names as a coincidence) with another one of their "anchors" to set a Christian existence in Judea at the dawn of the second century and before by sneaking in a matter-of-fact comment about Bar Kochba having an interest in Christians in all those "settlements" all over Judea that the author of Acts pretended to exist. Such a cute back-handed attempted of backdating the existence of Christianity away from the new regime of the 4th century. "gave orders that the CHRISTIANS ALONE....." (blah-blah-blah) referring to none other than the leader of the revolt himself. Ta Chazi [Come and See] how important those Christians were in the second century! Not only did they exist, but they were IMPORTANT. REALLY IMPORTANT!

05-23-2013, 06:18 PM	#19
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Jeffrey, you've got your work cut out for you if you are going to take on the likes of aa and Shesh. They don't debate using the same rational methodology that you and I are capable of. On the other hand, maybe you can get an inkling of how frustrating it is for me to deal with you when you refuse to apply that rational potential to our discussions in a positive and informative way. I think I'll sit on the sidelines here for a while. Why shouldn't I get to enjoy the entertainment? Actually, aa gave you a lot of openings for some proper rebuttal. I'm a little disappointed that you failed to take him up on so many of them. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.