Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

outhouse wrote:These books all state death and resurrection and emphasis on power. Nothing that remotely proposes a heavenly only Jesus, Paul just isn't teaching that horse crap.

I really wish I had a decent sparring partner here.

Its on you to prove your point. I cannot defend against the yellow plastic ducky caused the big bang.

Can you pick a paragraph out of Pauls 7 epistles/letters that teaches that?????????

outhouse wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:What?

Can you pick a single paragraph out of Pauls 7 epistles/letters that teaches that Jesus was only a heavenly entity ?????????


Or do you have to line up a mile of hurdles before it makes any sense?

outhouse wrote:And its not "The Outhouse Interpretation of Paul's Letters"

Its modern scholarship interpretation of Pauls Epistles. Because my version is one and the same.

Your first problem is comparing it to a rubber ducky causing the Big Bang and assuming that it doesn't make sense. If the same general kind of thought can be found in Philo of Alexandria, or in Jewish speculation on the Wisdom figure, there is no reason to approach such an interpretation in such a manner.

Your second problem is your emphasis on the word "only." This is because you are importing your concerns into the text, that it should clarify that it means not just heavenly but heavenly "only." And that if it doesn't, it isn't "heavenly only," and that if it isn't heavenly only (as I would actually agree), then your particular interpretation is correct (that last leap being a complete non sequitur).

This thread is the outhouse interpretation because it depends on your particular assumptions and methods as shown in the posts. You'd hope scholars could do better, when they end up in the same place. Unfortunately they share a very blinkered approach to the reconstruction of the text of Paul, which is convenient to their religious aims (and most interpreters of Paul certainly do have religious aims).

Peter Kirby wrote:
I'm sure it makes you feel warm and tingly and assured to agree with so many great men, though. Good for you. Good boy...

BS Peter.

It is my conclusion based on my study. It just happens that it follows the unbiased path of study as well.

This thread is the outhouse interpretation

Modern scholars Peter.

Unfortunately they share a very blinkered approach to the reconstruction of the text of Paul, which is convenient to their religious aims

Your invoking conspiracy mentality here. Your better then this.

Your second problem is your emphasis on the word "only." This is because you are importing your concerns into the text,

BS

The text say what they mean. Your invoking special pleading by reading into the text out of context to produce something that is not there.

If you cannot provide a paragraph out of one book that supports your position, maybe it does not teach what you think it does. It is a double standard as well as you require the text to defend itself of something it never stated.



Can you pick a single paragraph out of Pauls 7 epistles/letters that teaches that Jesus was only a heavenly entity ?????????

"Only" is what your trying to prove.

Yet you want the text to prove you wrong, when the text doesn't teach what you say it does. Its a double standard.

I don't believe that the Jesus of Paul was "only a heavenly entity," outhouse.

Your "conclusion" has not actually given any real attention to the issues that I've raised, based on your superficial interaction with all the points that I've already made. Instead of asking me to make more points, it would be better to approach the points that I've already made in a thorough manner.

Most scholars can be forgiven. They are correct about their interpretation of key verses (such as Rom 1:3), but they are generally not exposed to the arguments regarding interpolations in Paul, and in general the New Testament scholarship guild is very resistant to any such claims at all, since it undermines their basic goal of interpreting the canonized texts. It's not a conspiracy theory if they're saying as much: they'll flat out tell you that they refuse to consider any idea of interpolation without some manuscript showing it to be there, and even then they'll often be in favor of non-interpolation.

The text say what they mean.

On that I could not agree more, really.

outhouse wrote:

This thread is the outhouse interpretation

Modern scholars Peter.

Outhouse has established in relation to the other question of what "modern scholars" argue about historicity (of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus) that he has no idea what the arguments are. He has some idea of the conclusions of both sides but cannot tell you what the exact arguments of each leading to their conclusions are.

What outhouse cannot do is explain the arguments advanced by both sides of the debate.

It would be interesting to see if outhouse can at any point actually sum up Peter's argument in his own words -- to demonstrate he actually understands is -- before proceeding to respond to it.

a pastorized view

Why Outhouse does it matter so much to you personally whether or not the Jesus of "Paul" was corporeal?
And did a historical Paul ever write any of the epistles and were any of the epistles ever sent to real communities? Where is the historical proof that these so-called "letters" existed in the first century and were kept by followers of a "historical Paul"?

You seem to have a rather fixed picture in your mind that may have nothing to do with how all these writings came about.
I think you should open up more to other trajectories and not stick too much to the picture that seems to be so dear to you (and to many of the scholars you admire).

I'm quite attached to my current pictures of how the Pauline epistles came about and how important Formative Q was to the start of the whole movement, but I'm not rigidly fixed to those pictures, if I spot a more convincing trajectory, I will switch over.

Andrew (who is a bit unsure about his use of picture & trajectory in this posting, but hopes it makes some sense)

andrewbos wrote:Why Outhouse does it matter so much to you personally whether or not the Jesus of "Paul" was corporeal?

Im just going off what the man wrote about his savior. He makes it clear a man died and was resurrected and that it had power behind this event that made him different from anyone else.

Im just following the evidence here.

Pauls community taught what was important to that community and if one reads his Epistles/letters one clearly see's he was teaching an earthly Jesus.

In historical studies, if your searching to fit a preconceived conclusion, you will find it no matter how much evidence is presented. Me, I am after the truth.

And did a historical Paul ever write any of the epistles and were any of the epistles ever sent to real communities?

If you study the subject, and or even read the Epistles you will see they are for the most part a community effort. These are not just Pauls words alone.

If we get to the point that you criticize Paul out of the picture, you can criticize away truth. Might as well put a tinfoil hat on.

You seem to have a rather fixed picture in your mind that may have nothing to do with how all these writings came about.
I think you should open up more to other trajectories and not stick too much to the picture that seems to be so dear to you (and to many of the scholars you admire).

Which is deviating from where the evidence is pointing.

You seem rather fixated on a conspiracy theory here instead of Hellenistic Judaism outgrowing its cultural roots in Judaism.

I'm quite attached to my current pictures of how the Pauline epistles came about and how important Formative Q was to the start of the whole movement, but I'm not rigidly fixed to those pictures, if I spot a more convincing trajectory, I will switch over.

That's great, all I require is evidence. Credible evidence.

I think there is value in Q, I don't have any form roots there.


I do know in these studied you need to work from a foundation, and if .01% has an opinion they cannot let go of, should I assume its credible ???

As it stands right now Paul has solid historicity, so does the Jesus character. Now if you want to investigate outside that parameter, more power to you. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, then jump down my throat because I tell you not to get my leg wet.

The problem here is, no one wants to admit to and follow any kind of historical foundation and build from there.

outhouse wrote:The problem here is, no one wants to admit to and follow any kind of historical foundation and build from there.

I do!

CW

outhouse wrote:The problem here is, no one wants to admit to and follow any kind of historical foundation and build from there.

If there is no "historical foundation" to be found you will have to admit that your idea about the formation of those scriptures is biased and wrong.
The Pauline epistles have multiple authors and they all more or less had a strongly doctrinal agenda.
None of them clearly interact with Q nor with much of the story lines in Mark.
So I don't see how your hybrid "Paul" gives us a window on a historical Jesus.
And the Paul in Acts is unreliable myth from the second century.

The only "truth" I clearly recognize is in Formative Q, it is universal (non-sectarian, even non-religious) and clear and strong in its philosophical-spiritual basis and where it briefly gives instruction on missionary behaviours.
Only Formative Q gives that window on a specific type of personality that I recognize.
But I cannot prove that that personality is the same Jesus as the one the christians started to worship.
The collection of gospels looks more like an odd collage of viewpoints, not properly or deeply connected ideologically.

Conspiracy is the wrong word, these writers were simply not interested in writing anything historical, some of them really believed in the supernatural worldview they integrated in their gospel writing.