For Doherty, the reason for the similarity is simple: both groups didn't have a historical Jesus at their core.
There are reasons about that, as I explained before on this board.
In the first century, before the gospels were written, the Jesus known by Paul and others was just a humble poor Jew of no reputation, with a 15 minutes of local fame, but who happened to be crucified as "Christ".
After the gospels, most apologists avoided the gospels Jesus (as he was known then) because he came here with embarrassing myths & legends, of the same kind than the ones attributed to pagan gods, that the same apologists ridiculed.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
For Doherty, the reason for the similarity is simple: both groups didn't have a historical Jesus at their core.
In the first century, before the gospels were written, the Jesus known by Paul and others was just a humble poor Jew of no reputation, with a 15 minutes of local fame, but who happened to be crucified as "Christ".
You're 'reifying': you're both treating an abstract idea as an actual existing entity ...
... and you are giving credence to the idea/notion that "Jesus [was] 'known' by Paul" (concretism).
A sub-category of reification is hypostatisation: -
attributing actual existence (or qualities of actual existents) to something that is only a name, or an abstraction.
In this case it is also 'personification' (anthropomorphisation). .
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think my question was related to the EVIDENCE. Should the evidence allow for intelligent observers to possess certainty about the real historical existence of Jesus? I don't think so. Certainty would be permissible if the "best evidence" - the gospel and the Pauline epistles were certainly preserved in their original forms. That shouldn't be understood to be the case. The Church Fathers both tell us Marcion gutted that canon (so there were huge differences) AND then proceed to deny us adequate information to ascertain what the Marcionite canon looked like, how the Marcionite canon "read." No reasonable person should be certain about any information coming from our possibly corrupt source material.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:12 pm
... The Church Fathers both tell us Marcion gutted that canon (so there were huge differences) and then proceed to deny us adequate information to ascertain what the Marcionite canon looked like ... .
Perhaps Marcion did not gut a canon. Perhaps the Church 'Fathers' are lying to re-write history. .
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:23 am
This completely depends upon a certain degree of textual integrity in the Pauline corpus, right?
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:25 pm
Yes. That is, that the seven epistles usually attributed to Paul were written by that one person.
That is far from certain.
Considering the corrupt nature of the texts, the contradictions, the many spurious letters, the silence about them in various early writers, and the dishonest and dubious documentary practices of the time.
Paul could conceivably be no more historical than the Son Of God he (allegedly) preaches.
It's starting to look like a house of cards - or turtles all the way down.
It's starting to look like a house of cards - or turtles all the way down.
Yes, this is exactly what happens when you are hypercritical. Trash Acts, then the gospels, then Paul (as not giving valid historical info about the historical Jesus, his existence or/and the very beginning of Christianity) then fancy some mythical Jesus with some half baked mostly unevidenced theory about how Christianity started (for that lower your hypercriticism to zero because, otherwise, nothing will get through!).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Yes, Paul knew (indirectly) about the existence of Jesus plus some other things about him because that shows in his epistles. Every attempts to remove these pieces of evidence have been far-fetched, even ridiculed. So what is left: remove Paul, or at least have all his epistles fabricated in the second century.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Since Feb 2013 there have been several books written arguing and concluding gLuke was written after Marcion's gospel (of the Lord).
Sure. But is it primary or even secondary evidence? and would the author of gLuke writing so late would insist that the Kingdom of God would come before Jesus' generation died?
Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
Note: "all" includes the advent of the Kingdom (21:25-28).
Lk 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."
Other reasons to put gLuke in the 1st century: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html
concretism ... in the context of reification, hypostatisation, and personification/anthropomorphism ...
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
