Is Paul arrogant?

[sojourner]

Fair enough. Should have looked more into it.

;-)

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

If you understand the process, then you must know that there's more to Jesus than just "a wandering, itinerant, philosopher who risked all to spread his message of good works, good deeds, humanity of all..." This is only the Jesus as portrayed by the gospels, which were 1) written late and 2) heavily influenced by Gentile culture. For a fuller picture of what the early photo-church believed, Paul is absolutely indispensable.

For my money, in order to get to probable Jesus teachings, you have to corroborate Q with Thomas. Both are Galilean, and both are very, very early.

On second thought, I hope your not implying that Pauls "Gospel" was closer to the Gospel of Jesus than that of the Gospels because they probably were written later?

 

[sojourner]

On second thought, I hope your not implying that Pauls "Gospel" was closer to the Gospel of Jesus than that of the Gospels because they probably were written later?

I'm implying that Q, gospels, and Paul are necessary in order to get the whole picture.

 

[Lyndon]

When you get to the Pearly gates, are you going to tell the gatekeeper you spent your life following Jesus, or following Paul. It might make a difference. I don't think Paul can save you......

 

[sojourner]

When you get to the Pearly gates, are you going to tell the gatekeeper you spent your life following Jesus, or following Paul. It might make a difference. I don't think Paul can save you......

It's a false difference. I might suggest that those who draw such a difference wouldn't really know what "following Jesus" means.

 

[Lyndon]

Well if you follow Paul instead of Jesus, and believe you get into heaven by simply believing Jesus died for you, and go on sinning, and thinking you are forgiven. You may well be in for an unpleasant surprise. Jesus clearly states in the Gospels that you are judged by your works, what you do, not what you believe, Paul directly contradicts Jesus, follow Paul or follow Jesus, which one do you think is more likely to save you??

 

[JoStories]

Wait... exactly what "outside sources" are we to look to in order to substantiate Paul?? You're not using "outside sources" in order to substantiate Christ. In what way is he different from Paul in that regard? How do you know that Paul, preaching less than two years after Jesus, doesn't have the more authentic teachings than the gospels, which were written at least 40 years -- and up to 70 or so years -- after the event?

Actually, I do use outside sources and I have long said that Christ may or may not have lived. I think someone like him did exist but I don't even take Taticus or Jospehus at face value. There is almost no record of Paul outside the Bible itself. You say Paul was preaching two years after Jesus but other than his own alleged words, do you have prove of that? Other than the Bible of course.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, I do use outside sources and I have long said that Christ may or may not have lived. I think someone like him did exist but I don't even take Taticus or Jospehus at face value. There is almost no record of Paul outside the Bible itself. .

If you are consistent in the application of your standards, then we have less reason to think that Socrates, Euripides, Alexander the Great, Herod, Pilate, Herodotus, and almost every figure from antiquity existed than we do Jesus. However, I've found that those who take such positions haven't read classical scholarship, NT scholarship, biblical scholarship, Near Eastern scholarship, or any relevant scholarship whatsoever. I would, however, say that no sources suggest Christ existed as Christ is a title/role, while Jesus was a person. No historian worth her or his salt would claim that Christ lived, but any would claim that Jesus did.

 

[JoStories]

If you are consistent in the application of your standards, then we have less reason to think that Socrates, Euripides, Alexander the Great, Herod, Pilate, Herodotus, and almost every figure from antiquity existed than we do Jesus. However, I've found that those who take such positions haven't read classical scholarship, NT scholarship, biblical scholarship, Near Eastern scholarship, or any relevant scholarship whatsoever. I would, however, say that no sources suggest Christ existed as Christ is a title/role, while Jesus was a person. No historian worth her or his salt would claim that Christ lived, but any would claim that Jesus did.

And I would say that as a theologian, an unbiased one, I have to study all those sources seriously and try to piece together what can be corroborated and what can't as well as try to understand the meaning, intent, message and so on, along with the ability to read and translate the languages they were originally written in. Given all that, I don't have enough prove to state the Jesus did live. And as I said, I do think someone like him did but certainly not someone divine or any of the other stories attributed to him.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And I would say that as a theologian, an unbiased one

1) Everybody is biased
2) This is history, not theology.

I have to study all those sources seriously

Can you read ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Aramaic, German, Italian, and French? Because if not, you can't even read the sources nor most of the scholarship concerning them. More importantly, if you can read all IE languages and Semitic languages, what is your basis for rejecting the conclusion of tens of thousands of experts here in favor of a mass of online amateurs whose opinions are demonstrably wrong?

Given all that, I don't have enough prove to state the Jesus did live.

This isn't a good paper (I wrote it when an undergrad) but it serves as a foundation for dialogue:
A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates

 

[JoStories]

1) Everybody is biased
2) This is history, not theology.


Can you read ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Aramaic, German, Italian, and French? Because if not, you can't even read the sources nor most of the scholarship concerning them. More importantly, if you can read all IE languages and Semitic languages, what is your basis for rejecting the conclusion of tens of thousands of experts here in favor of a mass of online amateurs whose opinions are demonstrably wrong?


This isn't a good paper (I wrote it when an undergrad) but it serves as a foundation for dialogue:
A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates

I can read Greek (Koine), Latin, Hebrew, a smattering of Aramaic, and speak French fluently. Not the rest. I didn't say I rejected all of what other scholars state, I have my own opinions and ideas. And yes, it is history but it is also the discussion of the history of theology. The two, IMO, cannot be separated to be able to understand either independently. Your paper is well written and provides some interesting points, although admittedly, I only perused it briefly. And I hate MLA formatting. I prefer APA. Its must easier to read!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can read Greek (Koine), Latin, Hebrew, a smattering of Aramaic, and speak French fluently.

Impressive! I don't speak any of these language (I can only read them). So the question then because given the 60,000+ scholarly publications on the historical Jesus in the 19th century alone, and the vastly more comprehensive and nuanced historiography of Jesus in the 20th and 21st century that has unequivocally demonstrated we can say Jesus existed, why your doubt?

I didn't say I rejected all of what other scholars state

You asserted a position that no scholars posit, with the exception of 2 or 3 of those with any relevant specialties.

And I hate MLA formatting. I prefer APA. Its must easier to read!

I agree. But I the paper doesn't use MLA formatting. Also, it is relevant here only because of the sources concerned.

 

[JoStories]

Impressive! I don't speak any of these language (I can only read them). So the question then because given the 60,000+ scholarly publications on the historical Jesus in the 19th century alone, and the vastly more comprehensive and nuanced historiography of Jesus in the 20th and 21st century that has unequivocally demonstrated we can say Jesus existed, why your doubt?

You asserted a position that no scholars posit, with the exception of 2 or 3 of those with any relevant specialties.


I agree. But I the paper doesn't use MLA formatting. Also, it is relevant here only because of the sources concerned.

I doubt because there is no irrefutable proof. There is concensus that someone like Jesus existed and that is what I stated btw, but not him exactly nor any of the alleged events of his life. Furthermore, nearly every alleged story can be traced to an older, similar type of story. Indicating, at least to me, the fabricated nature of the story of this man. IE: The epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Horus and Osiris, and parallels between what he allegedly taught and older sources, such as the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. For these and other reasons, I have my doubts as to the validity of the story. A position very similar to Erhman and others.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I doubt because there is no irrefutable proof.

Proof is for mathematics. Scientists don't deal with proofs.

Furthermore, nearly every alleged story can be traced to an older, similar type of story

Wrong. Wrong even in the case of non-parabolic teachings that are supported even outside the gospels (such as the ban on divorce).

IE: The epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Horus and Osiris

The latter is laughably distinct from the Jesus tradition, while the former is the result of ignorant readings of amateur historians like Freke and Gandy or those of the same ilk.

A position very similar to Erhman and others.

I know Ehrman. And before I knew him, I communicated with him and read his first "popular" book. His latest popular book was an attempt to show that any position like yours is laughably wrong. His first was an account of the historical Jesus (which was a bad rehash of Schweitzer's).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[JoStories]

Proof is for mathematics. Scientists don't deal with proofs.

Wrong. Wrong even in the case of non-parabolic teachings that are supported even outside the gospels (such as the ban on divorce).


The latter is laughably distinct from the Jesus tradition, while the former is the result of ignorant readings of amateur historians like Freke and Gandy or those of the same ilk.


I know Ehrman. And before I knew him, I communicated with him and read his first "popular" book. His latest popular book was an attempt to show that any position like yours is laughably wrong. His first was an account of the historical Jesus (which was a bad rehash of Schweitzer's).

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

If you wish to debate me, I have no trouble with that. If you strive to insult me, as here, I believe we are done. Have a nice day.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you wish to debate me, I have no trouble with that. If you strive to insult me, as here, I believe we are done. Have a nice day.

I didn't insult you. I said that at least some of your views are laughably wrong. That's true of basically everybody. You haven't indicated that you possess the requisite ability to even evaluate the requisite primary and secondary sources, let alone actually having done so.

 

[sojourner]

When you get to the Pearly gates, are you going to tell the gatekeeper you spent your life following Jesus, or following Paul. It might make a difference. I don't think Paul can save you......

1) I don't plan on there being "pearly gates." 2) There is no "gatekeeper." All are welcome. 3) I've spent my life doing my best to live the law of love. 4) I don't need Paul to "save" me. Humanity has been reconciled to God.

 

[sojourner]

There is almost no record of Paul outside the Bible itself.

Nor for Jesus. Why are you, therefore, drawing a historical distinction between the two?

You say Paul was preaching two years after Jesus but other than his own alleged words, do you have prove of that? Other than the Bible of course.

Why "other than the bible?" The bible is what it is. The texts were written when they were written. I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. I'm attempting to show that, based on the textual evidence, Paul is older than the gospels. 1 Thess. is the oldest NT text we have. It was written about the year 40 C.E.. Jesus allegedly was crucified circa 33 C.E. By all accounts (which are, after all, all we have), Paul's conversion occurred less than 18 months following the crucifixion. Skepticism for its own sake is worthless.

 

[outhouse]

1 Thess. is the oldest NT text we have. It was written about the year 40 C.E..

The most common attributed date is 52 AD not 40 CE

 

[sojourner]

The most common attributed date is 52 AD not 40 CE

Ok. Nothing's 100%. Your point?