Origins Of Christianity

[pood]

''Divine inspiration'' implies that God is the author. That it is not the 'work of man,' that God more or less dictates what is written by the human hand, where theists have claimed that the bible is the infallible word of God because it is Inspired.

It doesn’t imply that at all. Paul did not say he was taking dictation.

 

[steve_bank]

Mr Pearl

You are avoiding direct answers hiding behind wordy logical arguments. Obfuscation, I know some big word too but I don't use them unless there is a real need.

I prefer direct plain language.

Going back to your fist posts on Paul you argued that Paul ws not influenced by Greek philosophy and was inspired by god. Paul said he was not interspersed by men.

The problem with lengthy convoluted arguments is one can loose sight of the issue, it becomes a debate over meaning and logic rater than the original thesis.

So... if Paul was influenced with Greek philosophy, are you (plural) then claiming other authors who wrote the Gospels were following the same narrative structure"adopted" from Greek philosophy ?

In plain language we see highlighted,what should be most obvious when we simply read the commonalities of Paul and the Four Gospel! "Perhaps the gospels too are Greek philosophy" by your analysis..

Example: Paul's letters share some key historical and theological elements with the four Gospels. An external confirmation and not a Greek philosophy narrative, unless that's what you are also claiming.

Paul agrees that Jesus was the Creator of the universe, a point also emphasized in the Gospel of John, and he explicitly states in Colossians that all things were created through Christ and for Him.

Paul confirms the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, a detail.. written in all four Gospels.

Paul's writings confirm the resurrection of Jesus on the third day after His death, a core tenet of the Gospel accounts!!

Sigh, again.

The gospel Jesus is obviously a Greek/Roman demigod. Serious blasphemy for a Jew to claim a blood relationship to god.

As to resurrection Paul is repeating hear say oral stores.

Over hear are a sizeable number of Evangelicals today who believe Trump was sent by god to save Chis tins. There are biblical sculpture interpreted to support the claim. That of course makes it true.

 

[steve_bank]

Pearl

Do you believe in the bible god(or any god), and the gospel Jesus and resurrection?

As an aunt used to say 'tell the truth and shame the devil'.

Or are you like Peter denying Jesus?

A non answer goes to credibility.

 

[pood]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

 

[DBT]

''Divine inspiration'' implies that God is the author. That it is not the 'work of man,' that God more or less dictates what is written by the human hand, where theists have claimed that the bible is the infallible word of God because it is Inspired.

It doesn’t imply that at all. Paul did not say he was taking dictation.

He stated that what he taught was not the work of man.

Paul is a man. If it is Paul's work, it is the work of man.

"Not the work of man" implies that it is the work of God using Paul as a means of conveying His teaching.

 

[steve_bank]

I started the thread with Paul because he is central to Christianity and represents how it got started and evolved.

Paul converted to Christianity and of course there is a story of a miraculous supernatural event to describe it, routine mythology. The story established credibility and authority for Paul.


The gospel Jesus has a collection of unrelated sound bites and stories. No consistent system. As a Jew he was referring to Jewish prophets and law, not inventing anything.

Paul ‘took the Jewish out of Jesus’ and elaborated a ‘Jesus according to Paul’. Paul represents the pattern of Christianity. Claim authority and preach a version of Christianity.


There never was a true Christianity directly tied to an historical Jewish rabbi.

If you want follow Jesus keep kosher. If you want to eat pork follow Paul’s gentile Christianity.

It is Paul who sets the stage.

Belief in a god and inspiration from that god is the foundation of Christianity as it evolved and is still evolving.

 

[steve_bank]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

Truth is not what Pearl appears to be looking for, he is putting on a show.

 

[bilby]

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

You can pee in your pod all you like, but this is a discussion board; It doesn't, by its very nature, have goals beyond the entertainment of its contributors.

 

[pood]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

What sort of “end goal” would you like? If your goal is to understand the origin of Christianity, I think politesse answered your question in the link I provided: no one knows exactly how it arose and never will. In any case, “endless philosophizing” is part of the human condition since there will never be any final understanding of most things.

 

[pood]

Having read to the top of page six, I get the impression some people think Michael Pearl is defending the claim that Galatians was divinely inspired. From what I have read so far I see no evidence of that.

 

[pood]

doesn’t prove divine authorship or inspiration

There has been no attempt to prove either divine authorship or inspiration either on the part of Paul or in this thread. Why are you and others so very obsessed with such a proof or an attempt at such a proof? And I imagine that you know enough to realize that a response along the lines of (some) theists say or think it is proven is utterly beside the point, especially given that proof of divine authorship or inspiration is neither attempted nor claimed by Paul or in this thread. Justified by faith, anyone? So, again, what is with this obsession?

In any event, logic has shown that the impossibility of divine inspiration has not been proven. Shouldn't that be reason enough for being rid of the obsession?

From the above, at the top of page six, it seems that Michael is not arguing for divine authorship or inspiration, but also saying that divine inspiration (as opposed to authorship) has not been disproven. So what’s the dispute here?

By modern standards, of course, Paul’s claim of divine inspiration requires evidence. But as NHC pointed out, I believe in his very first post in this thread, invocation of top-down authority to justify claims was a common tactic in those days. To apply modern standards of evidence assessment to ancient texts is a fallacy of presentism (not be confused with presentism as a theory of time).

Since Paul did not claim his epistle was dictated by God, I don’t see what problem people are trying to solve. However, I’ve only read to the beginning of page six, so maybe something remains to surprise me.

 

[pood]

I have no idea whether or how very extraordinary divine inspiration is or can be even if it is ever actual. I do know that today, in our culture, we regard such inspiration as rare even if it is ever actual. However, given a different time and/or culture, that sort of inspiration can be regarded as occurring more often than we think it does even if we allow or assume that it does occur.

If extra-human (even divine) inspiration was regarded as not all that uncommon and, therefore, not extraordinary in Paul's time and in the culture(s) in which he taught, then that could go a long way towards explaining why he would not bother with "proving" that he had been divinely inspired. Even so, the claim that the inspiration was not of human origin is functionally a fact of no real significance to the message. "You will know them by their fruits" makes the very point that it is not necessary to know or prove the source, because the importance, the understanding, and the importance of the understanding resides apart from the source as well as the speaker.

I agree with this,

 

[steve_bank]

They are not rare events within the Christian community., at least as they are perceived.

Trump's first vice president Pence when decoding wetter to run for president said he prayed for days for inspiration from god.

Back in the 90s I was on a jet flight. The guy next to me attached a block to his forehead with strings and put a black cloth over his head. When he finished he told me he was communing with god. He was a Jew from Australia who taught at a Jewish school..

Tefillin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tefillin (Israeli Hebrew: תְּפִלִּין‎ / תְּפִילִּין‎; Ashkenazic pronunciation: [tfiˈlin]; Modern Hebrew pronunciation: [tefiˈlin]), or phylacteries, are sets of small black leather boxes with leather straps containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah. Tefillin are worn by male adult Jews during weekday morning prayers.

Revelation is a mainstay among Evangelicals. At the Evangelical meeting I went to people had visions and talked about it. When the spirit moved somebody they would read scripture out loud and interpret.

Revelation and divine inspiration are very real to them. A point atheists may not grasp.

 

[steve_bank]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

What sort of “end goal” would you like? If your goal is to understand the origin of Christianity, I think politesse answered your question in the link I provided: no one knows exactly how it arose and never will. In any case, “endless philosophizing” is part of the human condition since there will never be any final understanding of most things.

Back to What Is Philosophy on the philosophy forum. Another derail.

Goal? Now you are playing games. What is the point of all your posts on Peacegirl’s thread on determinism and free will natter of which are resolvable?

I found tour comment about this thread odd considering all the time you put into exchange with Papergirl. Whatever floats your boat.

When I thumbed through Hegel one thing he said was philosophy was more than just debate. There is a goal or end state. A more modern Popper who wrote on science said with the rise of modern science not much was left for philosophy, debate and meaning.

Pearl and NHC go round and round over meaning calling each other wrong and clamming proofs and disproofs. Perl gets indignant.


The thread was hijacked by NHC and Pearl arguing more philosophy than the OP.

In the end who cares I suppose.

What sort of goal? Ideas on origins of Christianity not personal debate.

I asked mods to split the thread, no response.

 

[pood]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

What sort of “end goal” would you like? If your goal is to understand the origin of Christianity, I think politesse answered your question in the link I provided: no one knows exactly how it arose and never will. In any case, “endless philosophizing” is part of the human condition since there will never be any final understanding of most things.

Back to What Is Philosophy on the philosophy forum. Another derail.

Goal? Now you are playing games. What is the point of all your posts on Peacegirl’s thread on determinism and free will natter of which are resolvable?

I found tour comment about this thread odd considering all the time you put into exchange with Papergirl. Whatever floats your boat.

When I thumbed through Hegel one thing he said was philosophy was more than just debate. There is a goal or end state. A more modern Popper who wrote on science said with the rise of modern science not much was left for philosophy, debate and meaning.

Pearl and NHC go round and round over meaning calling each other wrong and clamming proofs and disproofs. Perl gets indignant.


The thread was hijacked by NHC and Pearl arguing more philosophy than the OP.

In the end who cares I suppose.

What sort of goal? Ideas on origins of Christianity not personal debate.

I asked mods to split the thread, no response.

Popper was wrong, and few scientists today think his rigid criterion of falsification carries much weight.

Philosophy goes on, will always go on, despite your claim that it bakes no bread. Philosophers are not bakers, after all, and as an aside, there is even a philosophy of bread.

I am asking why you think there is or should be an “end goal” to this or any discussion. That sounds to me like the very religious beliefs you decry — an assertion of certainty that you would find comforting.

As to the OP, I gave you Politesse’s answer. What’s wrong with it? Why would you expect any kind of certainty over the definite origins of Christianity, any more than we should expect certainty over the definite origins of life?

 

[pood]

Some in this thread have seemed to argue that nothing in Galatians is original, all derivative, thereby disproving divine inspiration. Yet a cursory glance at Gal. 2 shows this:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

None of the above of course proves divine inspiration or authorship, but does show novel claims. Of course one could argue that these claims aren’t really novel, but are derived from prior precedent even if the precedent isn’t precisely the same, and maybe that is so. But then again, assuming for the sake of argument divine inspiration, what reason would we have to think that any divine inspiration would be wholly decoupled from prior human understanding?

 

[pood]

Note also that Popperian falsification is itself a philosophical idea.

 

[Politesse]

Endless philosophizing with no end goal. Truth is not what Pearl appears to be looking for, he is putting on a show.

Do you mean to tell me that your customary chain-of-consciousness word salad in this thread is supposed to be some sort of grandiose search for Truth? Because that is definitely not what comes across. You deride philosophy, but philosophy has its uses. It organizes thought, helps one identify biases, avoid logical fallacy, and exposes you to ideas about the universe beyond what you were raised with. All the things a philosopher does - reading, writing, thinking, talking - are things that everyone else does too. Philosophers just do all those things better, because they've invested time in getting to know their own mind and researching topics of interest.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Micheal,

Here are the three non-evasive commitments that decide this:

1. Yes or no: when Paul says his message is “not from man… not taught by man… but through revelation,” is that clause used in the letter to defeat rival, man-taught warrants?
   If yes, you concede the origin claim is used as public warrant and must stand or fall by public discriminators. If no, you must explain why Paul places it in direct opposition to named rivals and attaches an anathema to contrary messages.
2. Yes or no: do you agree that emotion and polemic can be concurrent in a single document?
   If yes, you concede that “emotive possibility” cannot block recognizing polemical actuality when the operations are present. If no, you contradict your own prior admissions.
3. Yes or no: when a premise is publicly used as a warrant in a dispute, it either carries evidential support or it is methodologically illegitimate as a warrant.
   If yes, then either provide the public discriminator for “not of man… through revelation” or concede it has zero standing as warrant. If no, you’re abandoning the basic distinction between faith profession and public warrant—something you have not defended.

I will not chase further detours about “shared heart and mind,” “love letters,” or your repeated claims that I “ignored possibilities.” I’ve kept both function and tone in view; I’ve separated ethical reasoning (which stands on its own) from authority claims (which must be supported to function as warrants). The audience can see that every time you refuse a yes/no on these three, you’re not engaging the argument—you’re avoiding it. So: answer the three, or concede the point.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

From the above, at the top of page six, it seems that Michael is not arguing for divine authorship or inspiration, but also saying that divine inspiration (as opposed to authorship) has not been disproven. So what’s the dispute here?

By modern standards, of course, Paul’s claim of divine inspiration requires evidence. But as NHC pointed out, I believe in his very first post in this thread, invocation of top-down authority to justify claims was a common tactic in those days. To apply modern standards of evidence assessment to ancient texts is a fallacy of presentism (not be confused with presentism as a theory of time).

Since Paul did not claim his epistle was dictated by God, I don’t see what problem people are trying to solve. However, I’ve only read to the beginning of page six, so maybe something remains to surprise me.

You’ve got Michael’s stance right: he’s not pushing divine authorship and he keeps repeating “divine inspiration hasn’t been disproven.” The dispute isn’t about disproving his faith claim; it’s about how Paul uses an origin claim in Galatians. Paul doesn’t keep “revelation” private—he deploys “not from man… through revelation” against named rivals as a public warrant. Once a premise is used that way, the relevant test isn’t “has anyone disproven it,” it’s “does it have publicly checkable discriminators—facts we’d expect if that premise were true that we wouldn’t expect if it weren’t?” If no, the premise has zero evidential standing in the argument and must be set aside while we weigh the rest of his reasons.

To show why this isn’t “presentism,” take the simple office-analogy that Michael keeps dodging. A VP emails a division: “Ignore HR’s memo. This policy comes directly from the Board.” That sentence is polemical by function because it tries to trump a rival by appeal to a higher origin. Even if the VP also includes good reasons, the second he invokes the Board he owes Board-facing proof—minutes, signatures, a directive—something anyone in the company could verify. If he can’t supply it, that appeal carries no standing as warrant, and we proceed on whatever reasons can stand on their own. That is exactly the distinction I’m drawing in Galatians. It’s not modern special pleading; it’s the same hygiene any era needs to separate real commission from self-assertion. Scripture’s own warnings about false claimants presuppose discrimination, which is precisely what “public discriminators” provide.

Michael’s replies avoid that hinge by switching standards midstream. He treats “not disproven” as if it conferred warrant, but in public argument “not disproven” is never enough to elevate a private conviction. He then tries to veto the classification by saying the letter is “emotive,” as if emotion erased function. It doesn’t. “O foolish Galatians…” can be both emotive and polemical; emotion explains why the move is made, not what move is on the page. Lastly, he says the origin claim is irrelevant because Paul also argues from Scripture and principle. That concedes my procedure, not his: unsupported authority gets zero evidential weight, and we evaluate the independent reasons on their own merits. But it doesn’t rescue the origin claim; it quarantines it.

So the live question remains straightforward: because Paul uses an origin premise to trump “man-taught” rivals, is there any publicly checkable support that makes “not of man… through revelation” more probable than ordinary human authorship and transmission? If yes, show it; if no, that premise cannot serve as public warrant, and the argument must stand or fall on reasons that don’t depend on it. That’s the entire dispute.

NHC