Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-15-2013, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

He was Jewish (or at least a Jewish proselyte). I mean, who else would care about this stuff?

Samaritans?

Robert Price thinks that Paul was Simon Magus (allegedly a Samaritan).

Flawed opinion is not really of value. The Pope may think Paul was an early Christian even without a shred of evidence.

The author of the Pauline Corpus was NOT Simon Magus.

Simon Magus was considered the First God of the Samaritans and was worshiped as a God by almost all the Samaritans based on Justin.

Saul/Paul was a Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews and of the trible of Benjamin.

Simon Magus was NOT a Hebrew.

SLD · 07-16-2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers were NOT Jews.

The Pauline writings are blasphemy in the Jewish religion.

. Agreed. I think even a lot of, christian writers agree that what Paul is arguing is Jewish blasphemy.

Quote:

There were no known Jews and Pharisees in the Jesus cult for hundreds of years.

Was there no Jewish church to begin with? All of Paul's issues with the Jerusalem are in the Bible for what purpose? Why even set the Christian myth in Palestine? Were the Ebionites myth, too?

Quote:

In fact, the Pauline writings are products of anti-Jewish propaganda.

There is no corroboration, even in the very NT Canon, that the Pauline writers were of the tribe of Benjamin, and were Pharisees .

Agreed. Paul always has troubles with the Jews wherever he goes. Yet he preaches in Synagogues, so what the fuck did he expect? He goes in to their houses of worship and basically tells them how fucked up they are. Then he wonders why they don't like him.

Quote:

Even in the very Canon, Acts of the Apostles, the source for Saul/Paul is acknowledged as a product of fiction.

Where in Acts does it say that? That's one I've never heard before.

Quote:

Up to the mid to late 2nd century Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" and Celsus in "True Discourse" wrote nothing of a Jew called Paul who should have evangelized the Roman Empire.

If a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee was actually the first to preach Jesus Crucified and resurrected then we would expect Justin Martyr to acknowledge Paul and that Celsus would vilify him.

Both said nothing of the supposed Hebrew of Hebrews and Pharisee called Paul.

The Pauline writers were Not Jews in the 1st century.

Interesting point. Your claiming that Paul too was a complete fiction? Who wrote the Epistles then? When? What accounts for the rise in Christianity in the first and second centuries?

SLD

Duvduv · 07-17-2013, 08:27 AM

Samaritan, Samaritans. Justin a Samaritan, Magus a Samaritan, and yet the most precious thing to a Samaritan was Mt. Gerizim, which is never mentioned in relation to either fellow even once as compared to the anachronism found in GJohn 4 involving the Samaritan woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

He was Jewish (or at least a Jewish proselyte). I mean, who else would care about this stuff?

Samaritans?

Robert Price thinks that Paul was Simon Magus (allegedly a Samaritan).

Brendan Rizzo · 07-19-2013, 09:33 AM

This is getting to the point of Pyrrhonism. It's one thing to be skeptical of the supernatural claims made in religious sources -- in factCl, it's wha one SHOULD do, since there is zero evidence of God or the supernatural in the present day. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything. You can't just make something up and claim its true, or you're no better than Paul himself.

MrMacSon · 07-19-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Rizzo

.. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything.

I am prepared to be sceptical about everything: though not a historical or biblical scholar in an employed academic sense, I have an analytical forensic background with periods in academia, and have been following & engaged in discussion & evaluation of this for many years.

There is no evidence for Paul's background or 'origins' - there is nothing to verify the Pauline writings: they are variably disputed, and were at one stage fully disputed by the Dutch Radicals.

outhouse · 07-19-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Rizzo

.. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything.

I am prepared to be sceptical about everything: though not a historical or biblical scholar in an employed academic sense, I have an analytical forensic background with periods in academia, and have been following & engaged in discussion & evaluation of this for many years.

There is no evidence for Paul's background or 'origins' - there is nothing to verify the Pauline writings: they are variably disputed, and were at one stage fully disputed by the Dutch Radicals.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion, no matter how unsubstantiated it may be.

TedM · 07-19-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

I am prepared to be sceptical about everything: though not a historical or biblical scholar in an employed academic sense, I have an analytical forensic background with periods in academia, and have been following & engaged in discussion & evaluation of this for many years.

There is no evidence for Paul's background or 'origins' - there is nothing to verify the Pauline writings: they are variably disputed, and were at one stage fully disputed by the Dutch Radicals.

Do you see any value in the fact that the only 2 places in which 'Paul' discusses his life prior to conversion he describes his persecution of the Church in terms of 'zeal'? Would Richard Carrier? It seems at the least to be 'noteworthy', and not random.

aa5874 · 07-19-2013, 04:16 PM

:strawman: :strawman:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Wright, IMHO, overstates the contrast between Jews "zealous" for the Law versus Christians who set one free from it. Wright simply assumes that Christian "adoptionism" is correct, and the Jews are just foolishly protesting the fact that God has transferred the mantle of his blessings from the Jewish people to the Christians.

On the other hand, those who see the issue behind Paul and his problems with other Jews as a difference of opinion over what defines a person as an Israelite, are closer to the truth.

If you are a natural born Jew (Judean, whatever) or a full proselyte, you are naturally proud to be a part of the people of God, collective Israel, and fully look forward to the fulfillment of God's promises to realize a fruitful holy land for Abraham's children (them). They are or have been unified under the covenant of circumcision, and take on the yoke of the Law gladly.

Along comes Paul who instead says that it is not the covenant of circumcision or the observance of the law that justifies individuals before God, but in the simple faith that Abraham expressed that in spite of the odds against it God will fulfill that promise. To Paul, faith in the fulfillment of God's promises is what justified Abraham before God, not the fact that he later accepted the covenant of circumcision, as he was justified by belief some time before he had himself and his household circumcised.

In Paul's mind, faithful Gentiles who wanted to participate in these promises were spiritual children of Abraham, and thus included in the scope of "Israel." My opinion is that Paul was a retainer or son of a freedman of a household of a Herodian prince (there were scores of these households, resident all around Syria, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia) and had compassion on the non-Jewish members of the household (mainly slaves and artisan or merchant retainers) who were sympathetic to the expectations of their masters.

This idea did not go over well with most "traditional" minded Jews. This resistance may have been due to any combination of things, such as outrage over the "novelty" of the idea, or resentment that these folks are being given a "free pass," or a fear that all the hard won privileges earned for Jews by Herod and his family will somehow be cheapened by this innovation, and thus endangering their continuation by the Roman authorities.

Paul may well have experienced conflict about this, suggesting that Paul did not invent the idea that faithful gentiles were eligible to participate in the blessed age. At first, it seems he was so proud of his very legitimate Jewish heritage (whether through heritage or by reason of conversion of himself or one of his forefathers) that he found the concept of faithful gentiles being part of the people of Israel repulsive, but later had a turn of mind.

Brendan Rizzo · 07-19-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Rizzo

.. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything.

I am prepared to be sceptical about everything: though not a historical or biblical scholar in an employed academic sense, I have an analytical forensic background with periods in academia, and have been following & engaged in discussion & evaluation of this for many years.

There is no evidence for Paul's background or 'origins' - there is nothing to verify the Pauline writings: they are variably disputed, and were at one stage fully disputed by the Dutch Radicals.

Sure, but why do you feel the need to deny that any of the original Christians were converted Jews? That's going a little too far, and every antisemite would love it if that were the case.

DCHindley · 07-19-2013, 05:46 PM

Tao Te Ching, Ch 5

Heaven and Earth are impartial
They regard myriad things as straw dogs
The sages are impartial
They regard all people as straw dogs.

If in response you complain
with the post that is called the long one,
I will be forced to speak
of empty bellows.

The space between Heaven and Earth
Is it not like a bellows?
Empty, and yet never exhausted
It moves, and produces more.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

:strawman: :strawman:

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

07-19-2013, 09:33 AM	#24
Brendan Rizzo Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 111	This is getting to the point of Pyrrhonism. It's one thing to be skeptical of the supernatural claims made in religious sources -- in factCl, it's wha one SHOULD do, since there is zero evidence of God or the supernatural in the present day. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything. You can't just make something up and claim its true, or you're no better than Paul himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.