Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Amarok]

Where you not just criticizing for lack of substance in a post? 

Yup and your posts never fail in that regard 

 Anyway, if you want to discuss any of those reasons you claim for why the counter arguments are not good, or to offer the logic for why the original claim is, feel free.   

Once again my answer remains the same 

However at this point you two have been telling me about Carrier for quite a while now, and haven't provided anything that puts him here on earth or makes him real.    I think he is a myth.  Conjured up to give some appeal to authority to the mythicists hooey. Now unless you want to tackle the argument, rather than go after the person, I'm done.

1. Your first statement is absurd and even if Carrier did not exist that would not make his writings on historicity of Jesus invalid he could really be named bob and be a janitor does not make his words any less true . And Trying to make Carrier a Jesus proxy and comparing us to a cult i suppose how unoriginal and ironic.

2. And i already addressed you non arguments by pointing out Carrier( existent or not ) already addressed them as that what your criticizing . Which really only leaves the person left to criticize for such awful nonsense .So you were done before this started.

[The Grand Nudger]

No the thing i'm adressing was spot on 

No you really didn't you just made a bunch of arrogant claims about Carrier all of which are in error . and Min wiped the floor with you every time thus far you attempts here have failed you as well

The only claim I made I made about Carrier was that his historical peers, don't have much respect for him.  I thought that this was fairly well known (it seems that Ehrman wants nothing to do with him).  But if you would like to dispute that, be my guest.    However I think the more important issue is the bad logic.  We have been over the argument from silence a number of times.   It can be valid, but usually from mythicists, it is not.  Then there is the assumption that Paul wrote to tell the Romans the Gospel.   This is not a Gospel, hence it is normally found in the section labeled as "Epistles".   There was already a church in Rome, who knew the Gospel, and where believers.  There is a lot of bad logic in this though.   There is also the argument from silence, where just because someone does not say something, it doesn't follow that mythiciists can make up whatever they want to fill the gap. 

I'm happy to discuss, if you have some particular point that you think makes a logical case from this argument though.

There were many churches in rome..that believed many things.  Again, this is the point of a polemic...though "paul" never managed to solve the issue of christian plurality.  That would persist well into the 400s (and thats ignoring that it still exists, ofc).  

As to an argument from silence, it's not necessary to the mythicist position.  I guess I'll have to remind people, every time..that the best evidence for the mythicist position..is the contents of the gospels themselves.

[Amarok]

The only claim I made I made about Carrier was that his historical peers, don't have much respect for him.  I thought that this was fairly well known (it seems that Ehrman wants nothing to do with him).  But if you would like to dispute that, be my guest.    However I think the more important issue is the bad logic.  We have been over the argument from silence a number of times.   It can be valid, but usually from mythicists, it is not.  Then there is the assumption that Paul wrote to tell the Romans the Gospel.   This is not a Gospel, hence it is normally found in the section labeled as "Epistles".   There was already a church in Rome, who knew the Gospel, and where believers.  There is a lot of bad logic in this though.   There is also the argument from silence, where just because someone does not say something, it doesn't follow that mythiciists can make up whatever they want to fill the gap. 

I'm happy to discuss, if you have some particular point that you think makes a logical case from this argument though.

There were many churches in rome..that believed many things.  Again, this is the point of a polemic...though "paul" never managed to solve the issue of christian plurality.  That would persist well into the 400s (and thats ignoring that it still exists, ofc).  

As to an argument from silence, it's not necessary to the mythicist position.  I guess I'll have to remind people, every time..that the best evidence for the mythicist position..is the contents of the gospels themselves.

This is true but the objection of  argument for silence is a tried apologist trope that's long lost it's justification .

[The Grand Nudger]

I get that densely fact resistant people will start talking about how much they love lamp, however...an apologist's nut twisting is irrelevant.

A path remains as open as ever, and is represented in christian beliefs....that would allow a person of faith to acknowledge the history of their religion for what it is while maintaining the gospel justification.  We even saw it in this thread.  God saved the bits he thought were most important to his plan.  What was god protecting the text from....?  Well, all the shit a nutball christer feels compelled to deny.  Outright fraud.  Interpolation.  Pseudepigrapha.  Competing churches and sub-sect discontinuity.  Legend..and yes, even mythmaking.

What parts did he save, specifically? Who the fuck knows.  Maybe some parts.  Or maybe it was protected in such a way that the fundamental historical inaccuracy of the christ myth became irrelevant to the underlying spiritual reality of the contents that mytheme presents.  

I'd shoot for that one..personally..since we're already swingin for the nutball fence anyway.

[Angrboda]

I don't actually see what roady's objection to the argument from silence is. Granted, Paul's mission was not spreading the gospel, but all the same, the lack of detail about Jesus' life is stunning.

[Graufreud]

actually Torah underpins Western thought.

[The Valkyrie]

actually Torah underpins Western thought.

Not according to facts.

[Minimalist]

I don't actually see what roady's objection to the argument from silence is.  Granted, Paul's mission was not spreading the gospel, but all the same, the lack of detail about Jesus' life is stunning.

They'll grasp at any straw they can find.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't actually see what roady's objection to the argument from silence is.  Granted, Paul's mission was not spreading the gospel, but all the same, the lack of detail about Jesus' life is stunning.

The argument from silence is a fallacy, unless it is well supported that the person should have spoke about the subject, and could not have done otherwise. 

In this particular version, the statement is made, that Paul wrote to the Romans to tell them all about Jesus, and then does not tell us anything about Jesus.  If the assumption is that a book is talking about X, and when we read the book, we find that it is not all about X.  The logical conclusion to me, is that initial expectations where incorrect.  A popular reasoning, for why Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, was to show them two things.   That he believed the same as they did, and that he had something to offer by way of teaching them.   There was already a Church, and they already believed the Gospel.

The second assumption is that Paul didn't write about Jesus.  This is just false.  

Is it true that Paul only mentioned Jesus “occasionally” and never referred to Him as a flesh and blood human being? Certainly not. In fact, it is amazing that Harpur could make such an outlandish, unscriptural claim and still have his book published by anyone familiar in the least with Paul’s writings.

The fact of the matter is Paul often spoke of Jesus in terms that cannot be understood correctly in any way other than as a historical, flesh-and-blood human being. Paul used the name “Jesus” 218 times in his writings (Strong, 2001, p. 453), not counting other names for Jesus like Christ or Lord. For Harpur to say Paul “occasionally” mentioned Jesus is outright dishonesty. Paul used the name Jesus five times in the first eight verses of Romans, seven times in the single-chapter book of Philemon, and 22 times in the brief, four-chapter book of Philippians. An honest account of Paul’s writings shows that they are replete with Jesus’ name, containing it an average of two and a half times per chapter.
http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?ca...ticle=2836

A quick search myself, shows that the Name "Jesus" occurs 181 times in Romans alone.  The next claim is that Paul didn't mention anything which places Jesus on earth (the celestrial Jesus theory).   There is no reason to believe this, that is not begging the question, and it too is false.  In 1 Tim 2:5 Paul calls Jesus the one mediator between the God and man, the man Jesus Christ.  In Philippians 2:5, we are told of Jesus be in the form of God, and coming in the likeness and appearance of man. 1 Tim 6:13 tells us that Jesus testified before Pontius Pilate.  Phil. 2:8 and Colosians2:14 tells us, that he died on the cross.  In 1 Cor 15:6, Paul tells us that over 500 witnesses seen the Lord Jesus after his resurrection at one time.  In Galations he talks about James "the Lord's brother".  And Romans 1:3 refers to him as a human descendant of King David and born of a woman Gal. 4:4

While this idea is strangely popular amongst internet atheists who have never studied the material, pretty much every scholar on the planet thinks it's hogwash ...


This silence makes no sense.

Unless, of course, this whole "mythic Jesus Christianity" is a figment of Doherty's speculations and didn't exist at all. Then the silence about it in the sources makes perfect sense.

So it's pretty clear why Doherty's thesis gets no traction in the academic sphere and is regarded as a flawed theory by an enthusiastic amateur. The idea that Paul didn't believe that Jesus had been a real, historical person simply doesn't work.

Tim O' Neil

However, let's ignore all the evidence to the contrary for a moment. If Paul's epistles only referred to how the Church should conduct itself, and how to live a Christian life; it still doesn't follow that Paul didn't know about Jesus, or that he believed in some "celestial Jesus". This is an unnecessary interjection which isn't supported by anything historical Plus you also have Luke's Gospel, who had close connection to Paul and the early Church shows support for Paul, with the Early Church Fathers, quoting his letters. There is no reason to believe that he had a different belief from the rest of them.

[Jehanne]

Steve & RR,

You've been told this already, but I wanted to tell you, also:

You're both cherry-picking your sources.