edx-Course --> Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul

by fastJehu 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bohm

  Neon: My point is simply that if you are arguing whether a miracle has taken place (including accruate prophecy as a kind of miracle), you can't argue against it on the basis that miracles can't happen. That is begging the question. When we consider whether the Gospels were written early or late, if we say that they must have been late solely because the sort of miracle they describe (i.e., true prophecy) simply can't happen, then we are effectively engaging in that fallacy.

  I agree.

  If, on the other hand, you are asserting that true prophecy is merely rare and not impossible, there is no reaon to conclude that Jesus - presented as the Messiah of God - could not have been one of the rare cases of a true prophet.

  But we should be sceptical of the idea.

  For instance, suppose my fingerprints was found on the murder weapon. I could claim they were planted there as part of a secret coverup perpetrated by agents, the mafia or some other covert group.

  This would be highly unlikely (but mind, it would not require breaking natural laws like a miracle would!), but not impossible, and it would be unfair of the prosecuter to dismiss it as impossible.

  However, I hope you would agree, the implausibility of it taking place would mean it would not negate the value of the fingerprint as indicating my guilt, and it would NOT be reasonable for me to argue it should be dismissed simply because it is possible I was victim of a large coverup.

  Similarly, I simply argue the description of certain events taking place in year 70 imply the book was written after year 70 with high probability.

  If you feel that conclusion is unsound I would like to hear the argument.
• 

  NeonMadman

  Similarly, I simply argue the description of certain events taking place in year 70 imply the book was written after year 70 with high probability.

  If you feel that conclusion is unsound I would like to hear the argument.

  I guess I would respond to that by saying that I don't think the Gospels/70 A.D. question quite corresponds to your scenario of fingerprints being found on a murder weapon. Remember that we are discussing a situation in which true prophecy is acknowledged as being rare but not impossible. That being the case, why would I conclude that it is "highly unlikely" that the one person more noted than any other in human history as a worker of miracles and a true prophet might actually produce a true prophecy? If true prophecies can rarely occur, as I understand you to be stipulating for the sake of argument, why should Jesus Christ, of all people, not be seen as probably the #1 candidate to offer them? Who would you cite as a more probable provider of a true prophecy than him?

  On the other hand, if you take the position that true prophecy is in fact impossible, then I think you fall back into the same sort of circular reasoning with regard to the question of the Gospels that we have already discussed.
• 

  Pistoff

  Neon, you are arguing that since miracles are mentioned in the Bible, they must be at least possible.

  The evidence for miracles must be extraordinary, since the claim is certainly extraordinary.

  There is NO evidence for miracles; not even Paul, who trumpets all other possible 'evidence' for Jesus being the son of God, mentions the miracles.

  Not one miracle, not one teaching from the Gospels, are mentioned in Paul.
• 

  Phizzy

  And Paul, in the estimation of all credible modern scholars, wrote, ( I refer to his genuine letters, not Deutero-Paul) before any of the Gospels were penned.

  Being much closer to the time of Jesus, would he not have mentioned the miracles to bolster his case for the Messiahship of Jesus, he mentions other things that must have been passed on to him by those close to Jesus, why edit out the miraculous ?
• 

  designs

  Neon- Review Galatians where Paul preens himself on being chosen by God to spread the Gospel. Reminds me of Fred Franz only on steriods.
• 

  John_Mann

  (Are you referring to the fact that he doesn't re-tell the gospel stories that were already well known to his audience? )

  Gospels came after, nobody knew what was a gospel.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Paul doesnt even allude to them, .....no one expects him to rehash the life and times of Jesus Christ in every letter written, that is not the point.

  Paul seems to have gotten his info on visonary trips including one to heaven (2 Cor 12) and his information seems very lacking in comparison to the gospel accounts. There should have been a rich seam of information about jesus for him there and yet he mentions barely anything at all.

  The logical conclusion is that the gospels were created (fabricated is a better word) later.
• 

  Phizzy

  Yes , the Gospels were all written long after the death of Jesus, and with the possible exception of Mark were written with an agenda to continue the expansion of the Cult of the Christ.

  I would suggest that Mark's motive was similar, but he seems to be more motivated by getting the stories down on "paper" for the benefit of believers than the later Gospel writers, whose agenda was different .

  Matthew wants the Jewish faith to continue through the Christian cult, Luke wishes to justify the differences between the factions, and the histories that were around when he wrote, and John wishes to see the Christ Cult become more acceptable to the Greek influenced thinkers of his day.

  The genuine letters of Paul seem to have little or no connection to the Gospels, it seems Paul was convinced by what he perceived to be a number of personal revelations given to him alone, he was concerned with the risen Christ, not the earthly life of Jesus.
• 

  bohm

  neon: On the other hand, if you take the position that true prophecy is in fact impossible, then I think you fall back into the same sort of circular reasoning with regard to the question of the Gospels that we have already discussed.

  Yes, and if you take the position jesus was the son of god because he once in a while occur on burnt toast, that would be silly and irrational as well. We can discuss arguments nobody has made or we can discuss the actual arguments; I feel quite silly to say for the second time in a row I am not making that argument.

  Furthermore, as best I can tell, you did not address my proposition:

  I simply argue the description of certain events taking place in year 70 imply the book was written after year 70 with high probability.

  directly, rather you offered a reason to suppose jesus was a prophet:

  Neon: That being the case, why would I conclude that it is "highly unlikely" that the one person more noted than any other in human history as a worker of miracles and a true prophet might actually produce a true prophecy?

  now, you are not actually addressing the arguments I made with that claim (I hope that is clear) but rather making a counter-argument why you think jesus is a prophet. This is not the argument, the argument is regarding the dating of the books of the gospels.

  However considering your argument. It follows one miracle worker must be the most noted, but it does not follow this is evidence the claims surrounding him should be accepted as plausible on that ground alone. Should we be less sceptical about the prophet muhammed because he might be the second most noted human in history?

  The argument is simply not very logical. For instance, i might argue that since atlantis is the most well-attested mystery vanishing continent we should not think it was "highly implausible" atlantis did vanish. I dont see why this is reasonable. The claim must be evaluated on the basis of whatever evidence is in support of it.

  Ofcourse, since jesus is well-noted in history, there is hope there is actually good evidence supporting he is who people claim -- unfortunately all the evidence is rather bad.
• 

  Phizzy

  Other "Prophets" and "Miracle" workers existed around the time that Jesus is reputed to have lived, and such stories abound regarding them, with just about as much "evidence" as that for the claims made for Jesus.

  Apollonius of Tyana is one such, from WIKI :

  " Philostratus implies on one occasion that Apollonius had extra-sensory perception (Book VIII, Chapter XXVI). When emperor Domitian was murdered on September 18, 96 AD, Apollonius was said to have witnessed the event in Ephesus "about midday" on the day it happened in Rome, and told those present "Take heart, gentlemen, for the tyrant has been slain this day...". The words that Philostratus attributes to him would make equal sense, however, if Apollonius had been informed that the Emperor would be killed at noon on September 18. Both Philostratus and renowned historian Cassius Dio report this incident, probably on the basis of an oral tradition. Both state that the philosopher welcomed the deed as a praiseworthy tyrannicide. [22] "

  It was also claimed that Apollonius raised the dead, and that he himself was resurrected, the stories about Jesus of Nazareth are far from unique, and have zero evidence that stands scrutiny.