Posted: May 05, 2016 6:23 pm
Thank you, dejuror, good thread. I like it.
You may be interested to read the submission of Sheshbazzar, in the archives of FRDB, (search for shesh and outhouse will bring it up), where he makes this point, back in about 2012-3, primarily, as I recall, based on Justin and Tatian failing to cite "Paul". bchrachive.org
(Where is Sheshbazzar, anyway?)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/th ... h-in-1500/
Yup, easy to make that point, for the middle ages. But the question is, where's the evidence that this practice at the outset, i.e. circa 200 CE +/- 50 years, led to a significant number of converts? Which religion had been abandoned, to join the nascent Christian movement, having been promised eternal joy, in exchange for a few shekels--or rather, all one's shekels? Did not all the religions in those days, demand payment (tithing), even if not promising eternal bliss? If a pilgrim prayed at one of Herakles' many temples in Syria, following suitable "donation", was he/she promised everlasting life, ascending to Mount Olympus to join their hero and his father, Zeus, upon expelling one's pneuma for the last time?
What argument did "Paul" make, to persuade folks to abandon their own religion, and convert to his brand of Christianity? Why was his message successful? If the Roman empire was truly a stumbling block, i.e. persecuting folks, feeding them to the lions and so on, how could this new religion prosper? Why wouldn't the provincial chiefs simply loot the Christian enclaves? In other words, in my opinion, not only is Paul fabricated, it must have flourished, only, post Constantine, else, there is an awful gap between theory and practice of Roman bestiality towards earliest Christian martyrs. In an era of censorship, with constant warfare in most of Syria and Palestine, leading ultimately, 135 CE, to expulsion of the troublemakers from Jerusalem, how could "Paul" send ANY LETTER, to anyone, let alone a church in Corinth? Just as with absence of text in Justin Martyr, relating to "Paul", so too, there has been, to date, not so much as a pebble, obtained in recent excavations, in Corinth, to demonstrate any kind of habitation or place of worship, for the earliest Greek Christians, prior to the 4th century.
Finally, but, where is the linguistic evidence from "Paul's" letters, that demonstrates that these texts must have been written AFTER gMark, at least. From Justin Martyr, we can accept that Mark, and Matthew, if not by name, were known by 160CE. Surely, there ought to be linguistic data arguing either for, or against, the notion that the epistles, in whole, or in part, date prior to, or subsequent to, issuance of these two gospels (Memoirs of the Apostles).
Is it not curious, the degree to which the epistles are largely devoid of time specific identifiers? If one sought to write some documents attesting to the resurrection of Jesus, and then claim that these documents had already existed prior to authorship of Memoirs of the Apostles, would it not be convenient to omit clues from the text that would reveal the actual date of composition?
Conversely, if genuine, wouldn't an author have sought out, every important figure from that era, to include a comment in the text affirming the agreement of the legendary person with the mission statement found in the epistle? Is that not how Justin wrote, and Philo, and Lucian? Why is it that we do not challenge the dates assigned to their compositions?
You may be interested to read the submission of Sheshbazzar, in the archives of FRDB, (search for shesh and outhouse will bring it up), where he makes this point, back in about 2012-3, primarily, as I recall, based on Justin and Tatian failing to cite "Paul". bchrachive.org
(Where is Sheshbazzar, anyway?)
Agrippina wrote:I've been reading my research, and the books all over again in the last month. I'm beginning to wonder that myself. What if it was all just made up nonsense, even the letters, just as a way to con people into handing over their wealth.?
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/th ... h-in-1500/
Yup, easy to make that point, for the middle ages. But the question is, where's the evidence that this practice at the outset, i.e. circa 200 CE +/- 50 years, led to a significant number of converts? Which religion had been abandoned, to join the nascent Christian movement, having been promised eternal joy, in exchange for a few shekels--or rather, all one's shekels? Did not all the religions in those days, demand payment (tithing), even if not promising eternal bliss? If a pilgrim prayed at one of Herakles' many temples in Syria, following suitable "donation", was he/she promised everlasting life, ascending to Mount Olympus to join their hero and his father, Zeus, upon expelling one's pneuma for the last time?
What argument did "Paul" make, to persuade folks to abandon their own religion, and convert to his brand of Christianity? Why was his message successful? If the Roman empire was truly a stumbling block, i.e. persecuting folks, feeding them to the lions and so on, how could this new religion prosper? Why wouldn't the provincial chiefs simply loot the Christian enclaves? In other words, in my opinion, not only is Paul fabricated, it must have flourished, only, post Constantine, else, there is an awful gap between theory and practice of Roman bestiality towards earliest Christian martyrs. In an era of censorship, with constant warfare in most of Syria and Palestine, leading ultimately, 135 CE, to expulsion of the troublemakers from Jerusalem, how could "Paul" send ANY LETTER, to anyone, let alone a church in Corinth? Just as with absence of text in Justin Martyr, relating to "Paul", so too, there has been, to date, not so much as a pebble, obtained in recent excavations, in Corinth, to demonstrate any kind of habitation or place of worship, for the earliest Greek Christians, prior to the 4th century.
Finally, but, where is the linguistic evidence from "Paul's" letters, that demonstrates that these texts must have been written AFTER gMark, at least. From Justin Martyr, we can accept that Mark, and Matthew, if not by name, were known by 160CE. Surely, there ought to be linguistic data arguing either for, or against, the notion that the epistles, in whole, or in part, date prior to, or subsequent to, issuance of these two gospels (Memoirs of the Apostles).
Is it not curious, the degree to which the epistles are largely devoid of time specific identifiers? If one sought to write some documents attesting to the resurrection of Jesus, and then claim that these documents had already existed prior to authorship of Memoirs of the Apostles, would it not be convenient to omit clues from the text that would reveal the actual date of composition?
Conversely, if genuine, wouldn't an author have sought out, every important figure from that era, to include a comment in the text affirming the agreement of the legendary person with the mission statement found in the epistle? Is that not how Justin wrote, and Philo, and Lucian? Why is it that we do not challenge the dates assigned to their compositions?