Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 07-20-2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are constantly contradicting yourself. You showed no indication of doubt in your previous post when you are actually aware that the Pauline Corpus has been deduced to have been manipulated and a product of multiple authors and that NO Pauline writings have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

You are actively engaged in the fallacious argument from ignorance. Examine your own fallacy.

Please, you very well know that no-one here is arguing that the Pauline Corpus does not exist but that the presumption that it is early or represent early Christianity is hopelessly flawed and without a shred of corroboration.

It is already known that even Acts of the Apostles mentions many activities of the supposed Saul/Paul "all over" the Roman Empire and did NOT mention a single Pauline letter up to at least 59-62 CE.

Again, your blatant contradiction continues. You promote the weakest argument while openly admit they are weak.

The lynchpin is that the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed in the 1st century and that the Pauline writer does not represent the early Jesus cult. The strongest argument that immediately destroys HJ is that the Entire Canon is a product of the 2nd century or later which is completely compatible with the recovered and dated NT manuscripts.

Your admitted weak fallacious arguments only help to prolong the absurdity of the quest for an HJ.

Again, you contradict yourself. You have already admitted that you yourself have problems with dating the Pauline writings early.

The abundance of evidence suggest the Pauline Corpus were composed no earlier than the late 2nd century and that the Pauline character was unknown as a member of the Jesus cult by so-called Christian writers.

Even in the Pauline Corpus it is claimed over 500 witnesses had the same hallucinations/visions/ revelations of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

In the very Pauline Corpus it is claimed Paul was a Persecutor of the Jesus cult.

There is no physical evidence for a Jesus cult until the 2nd century.

The Pauline writers could NOT have started the cult they persecuted.

You might notice I said, "In fact, if we accept that Paul is writing at a stage..."

I'm arguing against the best case historicist scenario. That Jesus existed and Paul is the first witness in the historical record to that existence. I, unlike you, do not claim to know with certainty how all these elements evolved. I'm not sure. What I am fairly sure about is that the historical record does not appear to support the actual existence of Jesus Christ from Nazareth, crucified by Pilate. Assuming that Paul is the earliest source, the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis is undermined by what should be the best evidence relating to Jesus of Nazareth in the 20s or 30s CE.

I do not claim to know or advocate for either early Paul or late Paul. Either early or late, the writings attributed to "Paul" do not support historicity.

I do have a question about your theory regarding the creation of the Paul writings. For what reason would writings attributed to an apostle "Paul" be fabricated? Why appeal to an authority that apparently had no existence? Why "Paul?" Why not attribute this body of literature to a disciple? I am not asking these questions to express skepticism. I am just interested in working these things out.

aa5874 · 07-20-2013, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I'm arguing against the best case historicist scenario. That Jesus existed and Paul is the first witness in the historical record to that existence. I, unlike you, do not claim to know with certainty how all these elements evolved. I'm not sure. What I am fairly sure about is that the historical record does not appear to support the actual existence of Jesus Christ from Nazareth, crucified by Pilate. Assuming that Paul is the earliest source, the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis is undermined by what should be the best evidence relating to Jesus of Nazareth in the 20s or 30s CE. ..

The assumption that the Pauline Corpus is early is without a shred of corroboration significantly undermines your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I do not claim to know or advocate for either early Paul or late Paul. Either early or late, the writings attributed to "Paul" do not support historicity.

Again, you contradict yourself. You constantly advocate the assumption that Pauline writings were the earliest Christian source.

Examine some excerpts of your posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

.... Paul is an example of early Christian belief, not a founder of a religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

....When Paul does refer to Jesus, he appeals to revelation, not teachings that have been passed down to him from oral teachings of Jesus (the only way that Paul could have learned anything about Jesus).

There is no need to advocate your un-evidenced assumptions about Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

..I do have a question about your theory regarding the creation of the Paul writings. For what reason would writings attributed to an apostle "Paul" be fabricated? Why appeal to an authority that apparently had no existence? Why "Paul?" Why not attribute this body of literature to a disciple? I am not asking these questions to express skepticism. I am just interested in working these things out.

Again, the very questions expose your inability to consider the evidence from antiquity that the entire Pauline Corpus does not reflect the early Jesus cult.

You seems to have forgotten that Apologetics had already attributed the stories of the fabricated Jesus to the disciples called Matthew and John.

The Pauline Corpus are documents where writers claimed to be witnesses of a non-historical event, the resurrection of a fabricated Jesus Christ.

Once it is realized that the Pauline writers wrote about the non-historical resurrection of a fiction character at least 150 years AFTER the time of Pilate then it is extremely easy to argue that "Paul" did not really represent the Jesus cult at all but represents forgeries and fraud.

A proper examination of the Pauline Corpus shows that it was composed using the Septuagint and the stories of Jesus NOT by revelation from a non-existing Deity or dead man.

Grog · 07-20-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I'm arguing against the best case historicist scenario. That Jesus existed and Paul is the first witness in the historical record to that existence. I, unlike you, do not claim to know with certainty how all these elements evolved. I'm not sure. What I am fairly sure about is that the historical record does not appear to support the actual existence of Jesus Christ from Nazareth, crucified by Pilate. Assuming that Paul is the earliest source, the "Jesus to Christ" hypothesis is undermined by what should be the best evidence relating to Jesus of Nazareth in the 20s or 30s CE. ..

The assumption that the Pauline Corpus is early is without a shred of corroboration significantly undermines your argument.

Again, you contradict yourself. You constantly advocate the assumption that Pauline writings were the earliest Christian source.

Examine some excerpts of your posts.

There is no need to advocate your un-evidenced assumptions about Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

..I do have a question about your theory regarding the creation of the Paul writings. For what reason would writings attributed to an apostle "Paul" be fabricated? Why appeal to an authority that apparently had no existence? Why "Paul?" Why not attribute this body of literature to a disciple? I am not asking these questions to express skepticism. I am just interested in working these things out.

Again, the very questions expose your inability to consider the evidence from antiquity that the entire Pauline Corpus does not reflect the early Jesus cult.

You seems to have forgotten that Apologetics had already attributed the stories of the fabricated Jesus to the disciples called Matthew and John.

The Pauline Corpus are documents where writers claimed to be witnesses of a non-historical event, the resurrection of a fabricated Jesus Christ.

Once it is realized that the Pauline writers wrote about the non-historical resurrection of a fiction character at least 150 years AFTER the time of Pilate then it is extremely easy to argue that "Paul" did not really represent the Jesus cult at all but represents forgeries and fraud.

A proper examination of the Pauline Corpus shows that it was composed using the Septuagint and the stories of Jesus NOT by revelation from a non-existing Deity or dead man.

You aren't answering my question about Paul, though.

Why create a body of literature supposedly written by a heretofore unknown person? Why would anyone care about what "Paul' wrote? Who was Paul? It seems to me that the fact that these writings were written in the name of Paul suggests that there was an authority to appeal to named Paul.

Of course, whether early or late, the writings attributed to Paul were not actually based on revelation from a dead Jesus. That does not rule out that a first century Paul derived his view of Jesus from readings of the Septuagint. In fact, he says so:

" For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3)"

It could be that the author believed that he had received visions from a heavenly Jesus (not a dead man, but a pre-existing entity).

aa5874 · 07-20-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You aren't answering my question about Paul, though.

Why create a body of literature supposedly written by a heretofore unknown person? Why would anyone care about what "Paul' wrote? Who was Paul? It seems to me that the fact that these writings were written in the name of Paul suggests that there was an authority to appeal to named Paul.

I have repeatedly answered your question.

Again, the Pauline Corpus represents forgeries and fraud and was composed after at least c 180 CE to give the impression that Jesus Christ did actually exist as God the Creator and was resurrected as claim in the Gospels.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV---That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

2. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV---Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

3. Galatians 1:1 KJV---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

4. Philippians 3:10 KJV----That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death

5. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV----And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

6. Ephesians 1:20 KJV---Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

7. Colossians 2:12 KJV----Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...Of course, whether early or late, the writings attributed to Paul were not actually based on revelation from a dead Jesus. That does not rule out that a first century Paul derived his view of Jesus from readings of the Septuagint. In fact, he says so:

" For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3)"

It could be that the author believed that he had received visions from a heavenly Jesus (not a dead man, but a pre-existing entity).

You keep going over the same debunked fallacies.

Again, I have already explained that there are no Scriptures in the Septuagint which state that Jesus died for our sins.

The blasphemy that Jesus died for our sins is FOUND in the Scriptures of the Jesus cult.

The Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Jesus stories were already used as Scriptures in the Churches.

The Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER Justin Martyr exposed that the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels were ALREADY read in the Churches sometime around the mid 2nd century.

Justin's First Apology LXVII

Quote:

...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

Clivedurdle · 07-20-2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Any student of the Greek language during Biblical times was familiar with Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. It was the "D*ck and Jane" book of those times. (sorry Homer) The Greek language was taught by reading Homer; so any Greek writer in the New Testament time frame would have a strong foundation in Homer. Virgil rewrote/continued the story of Aeneas, in Latin, in the Aeneid. Both Virgil and Homer were writing nationalistic founding myths.

The author of Luke-Act draws and reshapes Hellenistic prototypes ranging from the trial of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (Plato's Apology), through Peter's escape from the prison of Herod (Euripides's Bacchae), to the good people of Lycaonia mistaking Barnabas and Paul for Zeus and Hermes (Ovid's Metamorphoses). The Odyssey and Illiad were "super shapers" of Hellinistic thought. The author of Luke-Acts would not have been immune to this influence. Before you next read the Acts of the Apostles, brush up on your Homer and Virgil. You might also read Marianne Bonz's effort to show that Luke-Acts was dependent on Virgil's Aeneid (The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000]). If Luke-Acts was drawn from previous epics; if you can allow this doubt of origin of this portion of the New Testament, then perhaps you can look at all Biblical scripture without the burden of faith

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-404643.htm

Quote:

The Acts of the Apostles is the rosetta stone of biblical literary mimesis. ... if they were to take a critical look at the adaptation of Homer's work into the Acts of the Apostles; they might discover that it is possible that the bible, New and Old Testaments, is redacted from stories, legends, myths, allegories, and analogies from earlier civilizations.

Was Paul invented to be a new for then Odysseus?

Grog · 07-20-2013, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If a vision started the story, what started the vision?

Drugs? Alcohol? Ergot? Fasting? Too much time in the desert sun?

Visions happen.

mushrooms

aa5874 · 07-21-2013, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If a vision started the story, what started the vision?

Drugs? Alcohol? Ergot? Fasting? Too much time in the desert sun?

Visions happen.

mushrooms

Over 500 persons ate mushrooms before "Paul"???

gurugeorge · 07-21-2013, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If a vision started the story, what started the vision?

Drugs? Alcohol? Ergot? Fasting? Too much time in the desert sun?

Visions happen.

mushrooms

It would be cool and fun if it were mushrooms, but Toto is right, there are many ways the brain can fabricate visions.

It's of capital importance in all this stuff to keep in mind that religion is primarily all about visions; if the human brain didn't have the capacity to build a model of the world, with a model of the human animal in it, and if this capacity didn't have side-effects under certain conditions, people wouldn't have come up with religion.

The rational mind, left to its own devices, tends to a materialistic explanation; if nobody had had any visions, the rational mind wouldn't have conceived of the idea of spirits and deities all on its own. And the oft-mooted anthropomorphism isn't a strong enough explanation. Almost all religions start with someone having visions of something and being told to go out and preach the truth to the world. It's still happening now, all over the world, people have visions and depending on the strength of their intellect, will, charisma, etc., some of them start cults, which eventually become religions. In homage to this well-known fact, even frauds feel bound to claim that this is how they got their ideas too.

So you'd expect Christianity to have started in visions. Even if there had been a historical Jesus and he was merely some Zealot nutcase, it's highly plausible that it was visionary experience of the Teacher which gave rise to the religion's early development after His death.

The only question is, was the eponymous founder himself perhaps the prime visionary (many people probably think of HJ in this way, as an inspired mystic), or was there no eponymous founder, and the visions were had of a new, imaginary cult deity, buy its earliest proponents?

Given the lack of external HJ evidence, the latter seems more promising to me.

Clivedurdle · 07-21-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

The rational mind, left to its own devices, tends to a materialistic explanation; if nobody had had any visions, the rational mind wouldn't have conceived of the idea of spirits and deities all on its own

If a million years ago you are wandering around a cave and make a sound and hear an echo, and you have never heard of waves, is it not rational to think someone unseen is talking back to you?

Cognoscenti324 · 07-21-2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

mushrooms

It would be cool and fun if it were mushrooms, but Toto is right, there are many ways the brain can fabricate visions.

It's of capital importance in all this stuff to keep in mind that religion is primarily all about visions; if the human brain didn't have the capacity to build a model of the world, with a model of the human animal in it, and if this capacity didn't have side-effects under certain conditions, people wouldn't have come up with religion.

The rational mind, left to its own devices, tends to a materialistic explanation; if nobody had had any visions, the rational mind wouldn't have conceived of the idea of spirits and deities all on its own. And the oft-mooted anthropomorphism isn't a strong enough explanation. Almost all religions start with someone having visions of something and being told to go out and preach the truth to the world. It's still happening now, all over the world, people have visions and depending on the strength of their intellect, will, charisma, etc., some of them start cults, which eventually become religions. In homage to this well-known fact, even frauds feel bound to claim that this is how they got their ideas too.

So you'd expect Christianity to have started in visions. Even if there had been a historical Jesus and he was merely some Zealot nutcase, it's highly plausible that it was visionary experience of the Teacher which gave rise to the religion's early development after His death.

The only question is, was the eponymous founder himself perhaps the prime visionary (many people probably think of HJ in this way, as an inspired mystic), or was there no eponymous founder, and the visions were had of a new, imaginary cult deity, buy its earliest proponents?

Given the lack of external HJ evidence, the latter seems more promising to me.

I don't see why this would necessarily be the case. A tribal leader dies. His replacement has a dream about him where the dead leader berates him for not finding enough Mastodon to feed the tribe. He wakes up and with a new 'belief' that the dead leader speaks to him and places moral judgments on him. Thus is born the first 'ghost' or 'spirit'.

Do you consider dreams and visions to be synonyms? I do not.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.