JAS said
Steefen said
. . . Name one person he [Saul/Paul] persecuted. Name an incident where he may have burned down a synagogue of Jesus followers? Define persecution in your resolution and give external evidence corroborating the persecution.
The inherent ignorance of this request would be hard to quantify. You make utterly absurd claims, based on virtually nothing, and then demand hard evidence of others.
Oh, there aren’t any. You have nothing to stand on but historical fiction and characters of historical fiction.
Steefen said
JAS said
Steefen said
. . . Name one person he [Saul/Paul] persecuted. Name an incident where he may have burned down a synagogue of Jesus followers? Define persecution in your resolution and give external evidence corroborating the persecution.
The inherent ignorance of this request would be hard to quantify. You make utterly absurd claims, based on virtually nothing, and then demand hard evidence of others.
Oh, there aren’t any. You have nothing to stand on but historical fiction and characters of historical fiction.
So says Steefen, the great, self-proclaimed expert on historical truth! We all bow to your profound insights . . . or perhaps we are just doubling over with laughter.
Stephen said
Make your case that there was a historical Saul who persecuted who exactly.We have his writings.
You failed to fully answer the question: a) you have five undisputed letters of Paul, not Saul–prove Paul was first Saul, what is your external historical source, b) Saul, before conversion, persecuted who exactly, c) how many people, d) how, exactly, did he persecute them, e) how did the original disciples respond to this and how did the beneficiaries of Jesus’ miracles respond to this, how did Pontius Pilate who found no fault in Jesus respond to this? Who is Paul to persecute followers of a person Rome hesitated to give the death penalty? Did that put Paul in bad graces with Pilate? Did Pilate arrest Paul for persecuting followers of a man who was somewhat faultless, according to the fictional narrative?
Steefen said
Stephen said
Make your case that there was a historical Saul who persecuted who exactly.
We have his writings.
You failed to fully answer the question: a) you have five undisputed letters of Paul, not Saul–prove Paul was first Saul, what is your external historical source, b) Saul, before conversion, persecuted who exactly, c) how many people, d) how, exactly, did he persecute them, e) how did the original disciples respond to this and how did the beneficiaries of Jesus’ miracles respond to this, how did Pontius Pilate who found no fault in Jesus respond to this? Who is Paul to persecute followers of a person Rome hesitated to give the death penalty? Did that put Paul in bad graces with Pilate? Did Pilate arrest Paul for persecuting followers of a man who was somewhat faultless, according to the fictional narrative?
a) Paul and Saul are the same name. ‘Saul’ in Aramaic. ‘Paul’ in Greek. Paul never refers to himself as Saul in his letters because he is writing in Greek to a Greek speaking audience. But the identification goes all the way back to the NT itself. See Acts 13:9.
As to our lack of “external historical sources” I just happen at present to be reading the work of a 13th century Dutch poet/mystic, ** you do not have permission to see this link **. One historical peculiarity of Hadewijch is while we have the vast bulk of her work surviving intact, ZERO external historical sources exist about her. Nothing. All scholars/historians can do is glean information from her writings to place her in her milieu. Sound familiar? But for Hadewijch we don’t even have later legendary accounts of her adventures or forgeries in her name. For ancient figures we have writings about them and/or by them. Both are preferable but I can guarantee you if historians have to make a choice they will prefer a person’s own writings.
b) Paul is circumspect about this stage of his career. But he’s clearly embarrassed by it so one wonders why he would invent it.
c & d & e) Who knows? But so what?
Robert said
Robert said
Steefen said
You have not proven it is a bizarre allegorical reading. Quality grading is not done by throwing out a disparaging adjective.
What kind of professor would do that? Answer: a poor professor.
I would be an excellent professor, one who has to read essays of a wide range of students, ascertaining the essence of the content of their essays, regardless if that student is writing at a remedial level, at a college level, at a professor’s level, at an award-winning level.
Joseph Atwill, not Joseph Atwell.
Thanks for the correction on Atwill’s name. I have not set out to prove that Atwill’s is a bizarre allegorical reading of Josephus. That’s just a judgment based on a rather limited familiarity with his view from quite some time ago. Perhaps you can better educate me. Leaving aside the ‘bizarre’ adjective for the time being, do you agree that Atwill has an allegorical reading of this section of the Antiquities?
If I understand correctly, the figure of Decius Mundus is said to be a pun for Publius Decius Mus, who here represents the sacrificial figure of Jesus who returns on the third day. Is that not an allegorical reading of Josephus?
I think there are further allegorical characters in this story according to Atwill or you, but I don’t recall the details. Is Paulina understood to be Paul of Tarsus or does some other of Josephus’ characters represent Paul?
No response, Steefen?
Does Atwill have an allegorical reading of the TF, the second passage after the TF, and the third passage after the TF?
Steefen
#1 Josephus wrote the passages, not Atwill.
#2 Allegory: a story that can be interpreted to reveal a deeper meaning
#3 A strictly historical account would not be an allegory.
Let us know if you agree to #1, #2, and #3. Then the discussion can proceed.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
Bart Ehrman
Paul did not invent Christianity.
If he invented Christianity, he would not have had anyone to persecute.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
I’m not gonna even.
You’re not gonna even … what? Do you reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted the early followers of Jesus?
I’m not going to even entertain such a faulty construction of argument that also lacks definition of terms and even evidence of Jesus of the late 20s / early 30s given a death sentence by Pilate.
You asked, what. The answer to what is: a faulty construction of argument that also lacks definition of terms and even evidence of Jesus of the late 20s / early 30s given a death sentence by Pilate.
Number 1
Neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John was written at the time of the alleged persecution. The group persecuted cannot be established and separated from the literary category of historical fiction (a Jesus who does miracles, a Jesus who was not slain as Pilate had the Samaritan Redeemer slain, a dead Jesus, in a narrative of historical fiction, leaves his grave, etc.; a false prophet Jesus who violated Leviticus 17: 10-11 with his Last Supper and by scripture, for his violation got himself and his disciples excommunicated from the community of God’s people and God turned his face away from him and his disciples).
Number 2
A Paul persecuting followers of Jesus, a Paul who cannot start with the followers of Jesus at the Temple but walks over them to ask religious authorities to get letters to apprehend Christians in Damascus. Paul walks by the followers of Jesus again after he allegedly gets permission. Authorities do not tell him to start with the original followers in the city, in the Temple of the religious authorities. Furthermore, those authority figures do not agree because they do not tell him to follow their lead as they themselves have prevented the Jesus followers from meeting at the Temple. Paul did not offer assistance in rounding up Jesus’ original disciples in Jerusalem who met at Solomon’s Colonnade, a portico (Acts 5: 12) and Paul did not offer assistance in rounding up James, “the brother of the Lord.” The religious authorities did not tell Paul to start in Galilee before going further north to Damascus.
Number 3
Acts 8:1, great persecution, larger than Saul’s personal crusade? Where is the historical account? A great persecution would be larger than a religious leader turning over some tables at Passover. What did James say about this great persecution? What did James say about the stoning of Stephen? What did Pontius Pilate do about a great persecution in his territory?
Number 4
Jesus of the late 20s C.E. is a future composite character of historical fiction.
Number 5
The religious authorities who supposedly wanted Jesus followers rounded up did what after the person they sent to Damascus did not complete his assignment?
There was no Jesus, there were no followers, there was no Jesus slain or crucified by order of Pontius Pilate because Jews demanded the death penalty for Jesus, there were no followers in Damascus.
Robert
Do you reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted the early followers of Jesus?
Steefen
Make your case that there was a historical Saul who persecuted who exactly. He did not persecute St. Stephen. Name one person he persecuted. Name an incident where he may have burned down a synagogue of Jesus followers? Define persecution in your resolution and give external evidence corroborating the persecution.
1. Steefen, why did you neglect to answer my question:
Do you reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted the early followers of Jesus?
2. If you think Bart has advanced such “a faulty construction of argument that also lacks definition of terms and even evidence of Jesus of the late 20s / early 30s given a death sentence by Pilate,” I think you should take that up with him directly. Otherwise I’m pretty sure you’re just denigrating his position behind his back without being willing or able to discuss this with him directly or even here with substance. I know you claim to be an “argumentation specialist,” so let’s see you actually demonstrate the veracity of this claim. Where are your specialized arguments?
Your “Number 1” is irrelevant to my question about whether or not or why you might reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted early followers of Jesus.
Likewise, your “Numbers 2, 3, and 5” seem based on Luke’s account in Acts and thus also do not directly address my question about whether or not or why you might reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted early followers of Jesus.
Your “Number 4” and your bolded assertion are merely assertions on your part without any substantiation and thus they also fail to adequately address my question about whether or not or why you might reject Paul’s claim that he persecuted early followers of Jesus.
My “case” that Paul claimed to have persecuted early followers of Jesus is merely a reference to this claim contained in the letters of Paul generally considered by scholars to be authentic. If you reject this claim, please let us know why.
Your reading comprehension tells you I did not answer your question?
Second, the discussion requires a full presentation for the case that Paul persecuted followers of the Jesus of the gospels, gospels written decades after the proposed persecution.
If that case is not thorough and convincing, you have your answer.
The ball is actually in your hands. Make your case with the help of Dr. Ehrman. You ask Dr. Ehrman for help with answers to questions posed by a skeptic.
Stephen said
Steefen said
Stephen said
Make your case that there was a historical Saul who persecuted who exactly.
We have his writings.
You failed to fully answer the question: a) you have five undisputed letters of Paul, not Saul–prove Paul was first Saul, what is your external historical source, b) Saul, before conversion, persecuted who exactly, c) how many people, d) how, exactly, did he persecute them, e) how did the original disciples respond to this and how did the beneficiaries of Jesus’ miracles respond to this, how did Pontius Pilate who found no fault in Jesus respond to this? Who is Paul to persecute followers of a person Rome hesitated to give the death penalty? Did that put Paul in bad graces with Pilate? Did Pilate arrest Paul for persecuting followers of a man who was somewhat faultless, according to the fictional narrative?
a) Paul and Saul are the same name. ‘Saul’ in Aramaic. ‘Paul’ in Greek. Paul never refers to himself as Saul in his letters because he is writing in Greek to a Greek speaking audience. But the identification goes all the way back to the NT itself. See Acts 13:9.
b) Paul is circumspect about this stage of his career. But he’s clearly embarrassed by it so one wonders why he would invent it.
Make a case Saul was historical. You did not do that.
Before Saul’s conversion, he had no ministry to the Gentiles.
In the circle of his ministry to the Gentiles, Greek speaking Gentiles, he wrote and was known as Paul.
Saul was not persecuting Greek speaking Gentiles.
Again, you have failed to make a case for Saul at a time of great persecution of Jesus followers, Paul on his own personal crusade against Jesus followers.
Dr. Ehrman has already said the historical Jesus didn’t have many followers.
I would say, as scholars strip Jesus of prophecy and miracles. they strip followers as well–there is nothing to see here.
You stand by the account in the gospels that there was a historical Jesus in the late 20s / early 30s who was crucified under the authority of Pilate.
You stand by the account that Paul persecuted some group of followers, a number of followers Bart Ehrman said was a small number of followers–but there was a great persecution of those followers.
I’m the skeptic.
The burden of proof is not on the one saying, “You’re pulling my leg, I do not believe or trust you.”
Does Atwill have an allegorical reading of the TF, the second passage after the TF, and the third passage after the TF?
#1 Josephus wrote the passages, not Atwill means: Did Josephus write an allegory in the passage following the TF and the passage after that?
Whatever the balance of the TF is after removing whatever phrases, it points to gospel creed.
If you care to put forward the net TF, do so.
Make a case Saul was historical. You did not do that.
Actually I did.
Before Saul’s conversion, he had no ministry to the Gentiles.
He also wrote no letters prior to his conversion that we possess.
Saul was not persecuting Greek speaking Gentiles.
Hmmm.. an interesting idea. We can tell from Paul’s letters that there was a non-Pauline ministry to the Gentiles. Could Paul, a diaspora Jew, have encountered Gentile converts before his own conversion? I can’t say I’ve thought about that!
I would say, as scholars strip Jesus of prophecy and miracles. they strip followers as well–there is nothing to see here.
It does not follow that just because many of the tales told bout Jesus are non-historical that Jesus himself did not exist. But then mythicism is based almost entirely on this misperception is it not?
There seems to be an erroneous notion that the person asserting in favor of something has the burden of proof, and the skeptic doubting it gets a free pass. There are actually, it seems to me, two problems here.
First, the usual position is that the currently accept position, established by a kind of historical precedence of argument and practice is generally granted the assumption of advantage in the absence of an argument that can overcome that advantage. That, of course, does not mean that the established position is necessarily correct. (Indeed, I am about to present a paper at a conference that will attempt to overturn a long-established assumption about the sequence of a series of manuscripts for a given very famous poem. To do so, I have to both explain the current status and give a better case for my own assignment. In presenting the case in favor of the status quo, I need to be scrupulously fair, or I am disagreeing with a strawman, which is of no value at all. I will see whether or not my argument is accepted or challenged.)
Second, it seems to be assumed that the skeptical view is not really advocating anything, when it is, in fact, simply advocating a negative position. It may or may not also be advocating an alternative.
But again, it is usually the person who is making the unusual assertion who has the responsibility for backing that up. The usual assertion may not be entirely free to rely on a pre-established case, but it has the advantage of referring to that existing body of argumentation without necessarily having to completely argue it all over again.
Robert said
JAS, you don’t seem to understand. I am skeptical that Edgar Allen Poe ever existed as a single biological person apart from the category of a composite historical fiction. You must first prove that he existed. Otherwise your opinion regarding the sequence of his writings is invalid according to all of the standards of logical argumentation, a field in which I have demonstrated specialized expertise, not to mention the infallible importance of ethereal spirit guides and angelic intelligences with which I commune on YouTube.
I have a lock of his hair, admittedly a very small one, but I guess that only proves that there was once someone who had hair. But as Steefen has pointed out, I appear to have difficulties with basic reading, and am not sure what you are saying at all, in any case. (And you left out cosmic energies and the inter-connectedness of all things.) And Poe’s middle name was Allan, from his foster father (John Allan), so nothing else you say can be credited at all, so nah, nah, nah. (Of course, I may have problems proving that too.)
It is actually a very good paper, if I do say so myself . . . and I may need to do so, as I am not sure that I can afford to hire people to review it for a fee. I may be a little disappointed if it does not stir up any controversy at all.
I am reasonably sure that Josephus never said anything at all about Poe, so there is that in favor of your concern that Poe did not exist. It might also be noted that the Poe of legend is not very true to the actual Poe who lived, so I suppose he must vanish entirely in a puff of smoke. The editions on my shelves are only so many volumes of bound blank paper and lies.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)