Assuming the Pauline texts were written by one person puts Carrier's thesis on shaky grounds, as does the assumption Paul was a historical person.
Besides,
Galatians 1
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Paul, or the writer of Galatians 1, had messianic aspirations too -
" he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, "
Galatians 1:16, in the context of Gal 1:12, suggests the revelation was celestial
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian Jon Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors. While I tend to side with historicists - particularly on the question of whether or not Paul thought Jesus had been here on Earth - Dickson's smear here comparing mythicists to "anti-vaccinationists" is only harming to his own case. While I do think the evidence points more in favor of historicism, such an obvious smear isn't warranted. There ARE reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus whether Dickson acknowledges this or not. Trying to pretend that it's as closed a case as the benefits of vaccination will only hurt Dickson and his fellow apologists more, the more the general public become aware just how scanty and questionable the evidence is. Other than that, I do agree with most of Dickson's criticisms over Lataster's reading of the evidence (or, at least can see them as 50/50, e.g. whether or not 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 rules in Paul's dependence on human sources)
Thanks for the reference. A balanced response. The reference to "anti-vaccinationists" is a few steps down from "holocaust deniers". is I look forward to reading it.
LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
A SKEPTICAL, BUT STILL VALUABLE DETAILED STUDY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS
By Steven H Propp TOP 100 REVIEWER on June 27, 2013
Charles Guignebert (1867 - 1939) was a professor of Church history at the Sorbonne. He wrote this book in 1935, although it was not translated into English until 1956. Guignebert is quite skeptical about our ability to reconstruct the details of the life of Jesus; he writes, "We know nothing at all of the personality of Jesus, scarcely anything of the facts of his life, little as to his teaching, and can only speculate as to his career." Nevertheless, Guignebert is not a propounder of the "Jesus Myth" theory, but he simply examines the evidence from the gospels themselves with a skeptical eye.
Comparing the fourth gospel to the Synoptics, he writes, "the Jesus of John seems quite a different person from the one implied by the Synoptic tradition. He is in every way different---his character, his behavior, his consistently harsh attitude towards the Jews, and the tone of his discourses, which are solemn and lofty exhortations never understood by his hearers, and full of profound meditations on the eternal Christ instead of the familiar teachings about the coming Kingdom and the conditions of entrance to it." Concerning the objection of Jesus' opponents in John 7:40-42, "But can the Christ come out of Galilee?" Guignebert writes, "The fact that the writer of the gospel does not refute the objection be declaring that Jesus WAS born at Bethlehem and descended from David, proves that he did not think either of these things to be true."
A SKEPTICAL, BUT STILL VALUABLE DETAILED STUDY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS
By Steven H Propp TOP 100 REVIEWER on June 27, 2013
Charles Guignebert (1867 - 1939) was a professor of Church history at the Sorbonne. He wrote this book in 1935, although it was not translated into English until 1956. Guignebert is quite skeptical about our ability to reconstruct the details of the life of Jesus; he writes, "We know nothing at all of the personality of Jesus, scarcely anything of the facts of his life, little as to his teaching, and can only speculate as to his career." Nevertheless, Guignebert is not a propounder of the "Jesus Myth" theory, but he simply examines the evidence from the gospels themselves with a skeptical eye.
Comparing the fourth gospel to the Synoptics, he writes, "the Jesus of John seems quite a different person from the one implied by the Synoptic tradition. He is in every way different---his character, his behavior, his consistently harsh attitude towards the Jews, and the tone of his discourses, which are solemn and lofty exhortations never understood by his hearers, and full of profound meditations on the eternal Christ instead of the familiar teachings about the coming Kingdom and the conditions of entrance to it." Concerning the objection of Jesus' opponents in John 7:40-42, "But can the Christ come out of Galilee?" Guignebert writes, "The fact that the writer of the gospel does not refute the objection be declaring that Jesus WAS born at Bethlehem and descended from David, proves that he did not think either of these things to be true."
For what it's worth I posted a few items on some specific Guignebert perspectives here. Guignebert is a true rationalist. He's also just as snarky with the mythicists of his own day as are some moderns.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian John Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors.
Very hard hitting.
Like mythical Jesus claims around Christmas, there is also usually a claim that the comet that led the magi to baby Jesus can be "proved" to be [insert a pet theory from astronomy]. I haven't seen any of this kind of thing here this year. bummer ...
Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian John Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors.
Very hard hitting.
Like mythical Jesus claims around Christmas, there is also usually a claim that the comet that led the magi to baby Jesus can be "proved" to be [insert a pet theory from astronomy]. I haven't seen any of this kind of thing here this year. bummer ...
DCH
The paradigm is slowly shifting. Outside pure apologetic circles, there are some arguments that are no longer tenable, a development over the last decade. I remember when Spong's Myth of Resurrection was controversial.
Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian John Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors.
Very hard hitting.
Like mythical Jesus claims around Christmas, there is also usually a claim that the comet that led the magi to baby Jesus can be "proved" to be [insert a pet theory from astronomy]. I haven't seen any of this kind of thing here this year. bummer ...
DCH
It was on TV lol. Every attempt is so laughable the way they try and connect imaginative dots.
Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian John Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors.
Very hard hitting.
Here is a sample.
John Dickson wrote:
For example, the claim that the Gospels are all "anonymous" is no more accurate than insisting that a modern biography is anonymous on the grounds that the biographer's name appears only on the front and back cover of the book not in the body of the work. Of course, the Gospel writers did not begin by writing, "I, Mark, now want to write about Jesus of Nazareth ..." But wherever we have a surviving front or back page of a Gospel manuscript, we find a superscript indicating the biographer's name, and there is absolute uniformity of that name: euaggelion kata Markon, euaggelion kata Lukan and so on.
