Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:14 am In other words, that cherry-picking of what is fiction and not does not cohere into a plausible narrative, much less history.
:goodmorning:
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:19 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:40 am The posibility was raised whether 2 Cor. 11: 32-33 was an interpolation.
maryhelena responded in part (Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:05 am): “Interpolation in 2 Cor.11.32 - way too much to loose by that approach...” [presumably, for “loose” read “lose”]

Stephen - this thread is not a grammar or spelling test - all your continued attempts to set yourself up as a master of such is pathetic.

Standard Christian apologist toolkit: make it seem that your opponent is ill-lettered and ignorant to negate anything that they have written. It's how their worldview operates, any flaw, no matter how trivial, is grounds for dismissing the whole thesis.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4145
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by neilgodfrey »

Jax wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 6:35 am
Standard Christian apologist toolkit: make it seem that your opponent is ill-lettered and ignorant to negate anything that they have written. It's how their worldview operates, any flaw, no matter how trivial, is grounds for dismissing the whole thesis.
The tactic is not limited to "standard Christian apologists" but is deployed by all intellectual bullies and bullies of all kinds. It's the worldview of the rich man who looks down on the poor man because he finds his self-esteem bolstered by comparing himself with the poor man. There are even genuinely accomplished academics with the same MO and they are generally personally despised by many of their peers and mocked behind their backs. In the world of informal logic we can fault this technique as "muddying the waters" and "ad hominem", picking on irrelevant flaws in order to prepare readers to dismiss their targets totally and for invalid reasons even if there are, on objective grounds, genuine flaws in the arguments being addressed.

It is the mark of an intellectual snob and bully. The fact that even too many genuinely accomplished intellectuals engage in the practice seems to lead lesser weights to think they are in good company when they follow the same.

A genuine educator does not look around to pick on those he deems to be his intellectual inferiors but tries to find ways to make useful criticisms in a constructive manner.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 6:35 am
maryhelena wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:19 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:40 am The posibility was raised whether 2 Cor. 11: 32-33 was an interpolation.
maryhelena responded in part (Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:05 am): “Interpolation in 2 Cor.11.32 - way too much to loose by that approach...” [presumably, for “loose” read “lose”]

Stephen - this thread is not a grammar or spelling test - all your continued attempts to set yourself up as a master of such is pathetic.

Standard Christian apologist toolkit: make it seem that your opponent is ill-lettered and ignorant to negate anything that they have written. It's how their worldview operates, any flaw, no matter how trivial, is grounds for dismissing the whole thesis.
Lane, he is just a buzzing mosquito - won't do me any harm. I lived in Africa (East and South) for over 50 years and although got a few mosquito bites never did come down with malaria. So no worries on my behalf. :D

Good for you re coming back at Richard Carrier. At least you got more for your money this time......

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-32915

Perhaps part of Carrier's problem is his reluctance to put 'boots on the ground'. Much like the current US - strike from the skies......

Jesus from Outer Space is Carrier's thing - too much distraction to get involved with history - especially history of Aretas III i.e.first century b.c. history. A historical Paul active in b.c. - or heaven forbid - a paper apostle Paul - and Carrier has no where to place them in his Jesus from Outer Space theory. He needs the whole bang shoot of the NT chronological timeline. A working assumption that is seriously flawed. i.e. no historical Jesus means there is no need to have a historical NT Paul follow the gospel's timeline.

As for me - a paper apostle Paul opens the door wider for searching for early christian origins. (Yep, quoting Brodie on an ahistorical Paul is, so to speak, handy - but I've viewed the NT Paul as ahistorical before I read Brodie..) This thread has, re Aretas III, only added to that viewpoint.

If its historical research into early christian origins that interests one - then the NT figure of Paul, whether historical or a paper apostle - is simply a small fish in a far bigger historical context. The NT Paul is interesting for the theology/philosophy set down in the epistles. Apart from that - there are far bigger fish to catch in the historical search for early christian origins.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

I, SG, [or "buzzing mosquito," if you prefer, as in the above ad hominem, following two other ad hominem posts] wrote (above in this thread):

About 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.
If a reader interprets this passage as referring to a “paper apostle” Paul, a “Paul” who supposedly did not actually exist, what then would prevent such an interpreter from interpreting a “paper Aretas” and a “paper Damascus” and a “paper basket”?

maryhelena replied:
For heavens sake Stephen - do I really need to spell this out for you? [the emojis did not copy]

Me, SG:
Yes, maryhelena, please explain. How, if Paul did not exist, did he go to Damascus *in the time of Aretas* [Aretas III, in your posts]? Or, if you don't wish to explain that, alternately: how do you know Paul did not exist? (I'm not asking about his personality or teaching, just existence.)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:45 am I, SG, [or "buzzing mosquito," if you prefer, as in the above ad hominem, following two other ad hominem posts] wrote (above in this thread):

About 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.
If a reader interprets this passage as referring to a “paper apostle” Paul, a “Paul” who supposedly did not actually exist, what then would prevent such an interpreter from interpreting a “paper Aretas” and a “paper Damascus” and a “paper basket”?

maryhelena replied:
For heavens sake Stephen - do I really need to spell this out for you? [the emojis did not copy]

Me, SG:
Yes, maryhelena, please explain. How, if Paul did not exist, did he go to Damascus *in the time of Aretas* [Aretas III, in your posts]? Or, if you don't wish to explain that, alternately: how do you know Paul did not exist? (I'm not asking about his personality or teaching, just existence.)
:popcorn:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by StephenGoranson »

Btw, about ad hominem: was “…grounds for dismissing the whole thesis” written in the context of dismissing from the forum a whole poster?

And “A genuine educator does not look around to pick on those he deems to be his intellectual inferiors but tries to find ways to make useful criticisms in a constructive manner.” Constructive such as, in the same post, name-calling?

There are occasional useful, interesting, informative posts to be read here.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4145
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:38 am Btw, about ad hominem: was “…grounds for dismissing the whole thesis” written in the context of dismissing from the forum a whole poster?

And “A genuine educator does not look around to pick on those he deems to be his intellectual inferiors but tries to find ways to make useful criticisms in a constructive manner.” Constructive such as, in the same post, name-calling?

There are occasional useful, interesting, informative posts to be read here.
A certain victimhood complex is showing here, GS. The answer to the first is obviously No -- obvious to all except one with a victimhood complex; the answer to the second is that one does no educational or constructive service to avoid calling bullying behaviour the act of a bully. It is pleasing to see the behaviour has not been repeated to date and that demonstrates a noble spirit of one who regrets past bullying acts and is more careful not to repeat them. I have certainly been guilty of posting things I have later regretted. But we all move on and try not to repeat, don't we, my friend.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2181
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:38 am Btw, about ad hominem: was “…grounds for dismissing the whole thesis” written in the context of dismissing from the forum a whole poster?

And “A genuine educator does not look around to pick on those he deems to be his intellectual inferiors but tries to find ways to make useful criticisms in a constructive manner.” Constructive such as, in the same post, name-calling?

There are occasional useful, interesting, informative posts to be read here.
:banghead:
davidmartin
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

Post by davidmartin »

MH what do you think about the contradictions in the Paul writings?

EG In Galatians he claims his gospel was not taught to him by anyone else, nor did he make it up but it came by personal revelation
Then isn't he the only one who knew it, and therefore any other apostles couldn't have been preaching the same thing?!

But if Paul is the 'last apostle' as he says, then the contradiction is that his gospel can't have been the same as what the earlier apostles preached
This contradiction is underlined by his having to go to Jerusalem to make sure his gospel was acceptable to them which it doesn't appear to have been, but at the same time he condemns any other gospel than his own
This just doesn't make sense
The obvious take on this is that Paul (or the Paul character as you might prefer it) is teaching something different
How can he not be, if no-one else but he knows it?
The contradictions go on that elsewhere he claims the other apostles teach the same gospel as he does, but how can they?
Post Reply