FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-05-2012, 07:13 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Yes, what you are saying makes sense UNLESS the storylines of the canonical gospels were not yet finalized and stories about Pilate or Mary, etc. had not even emerged yet. Also, if these emerging Christians were making use of monotheistic tracts (between sections of Philippians, Romans, Titus for example) they could insert their own beliefs instead of starting everything from scratch. This includes the non-requirement of gentiles to convert.

However, as far as I can see in this context the basic thrust at that point is not to do away with the Law of Moses out of hand for Jews, but to explain to gentiles that with faith in their Christ they could succeed for their souls without conversion.

At that point they would seem to believe that a Jew who was obliged to keep the Torah was also in good graces through belief in Christ which accomplishes for him what observing the Law alone could not do. And the monotheistic tracts were good enough to combine with these ideas.

Of course it would have been done in a way that left contradictions and lack of consistency such as being the servant of God versus the servant of Christ, the Church of God versus the Church of Christ, etc.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 07:48 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
AA, why do you assume Acts was written before the Pauline epistles when the textual evidence within them suggest the opposite?...
Why did you ASSUME such a thing??? You don't seem to know the difference between speculation and logical deductions.

I deal with DATED evidence and COMPATIBLE sources. Let me go through the Process.

1. Seneca/Paul letters to place Paul before c 70 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.

2. No Pauline writings have been found and DATED to the 1st century. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

3. Church writers claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

4. gLuke is DATED after the 1st century.

5. Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul even One time claimed he wrote LETTERS to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

6. The author of Acts claimed Paul and his group Delivered Letters for the Jerusalem Church.

7. Virtually all "details" about Saul/Paul in Acts was NOT derived from the Pauline letters.

8. The author of Acts did NOT mention the Revealed Gospel of Paul---Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

9. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul saw Jesus, the author claimed Saul/Paul was Blinded and heard the voice of Jesus.

10. In the Muratorian Canon, it is claimed the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

11. Up to the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul as an early Evandelist or that he wrote letters to Churches.

12. The author of Acts did NOT claim OVER 500 people Saw the resurrected Jesus.

13. The author of Acts did NOT name any Apostle called James who was the brother of Jesus Christ.

14. An analysis of Textual variants in Greek New Testament shows that the Pauline letters have less variants per page than Acts of the Apostles which suggest the Pauline writings are LATER than Acts.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Acts of the Apostles was writen BEFORE the Pauline letters based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-06-2012, 08:34 PM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
AA, why do you assume Acts was written before the Pauline epistles when the textual evidence within them suggest the opposite?...
Why did you ASSUME such a thing??? You don't seem to know the difference between speculation and logical deductions.

I deal with DATED evidence and COMPATIBLE sources. Let me go through the Process.

1. Seneca/Paul letters to place Paul before c 70 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.
I have said in my post that the Epistles are later than 70 CE. I have tried to make you understand logical deduction from what's actually written in the Epistles and Acts and the questions these readings raise. But you ignore this since it's devastating for your theory.

Quote:
2. No Pauline writings have been found and DATED to the 1st century. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri
I repeat, I'm not arguing against a dating of Paul later than 70 CE.

Quote:
3. Church writers claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.
Which is BS. It's Eusebius claiming this in his Church History centuries later. Why do you believe him more than what's actually written in the Epistles? I prefer to believe Paul, that he had his own gospel.

Quote:
4. gLuke is DATED after the 1st century.
Yes, late 2nd century perhaps which again proves how bogus the Roman Church history is.

Quote:
5. Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul even One time claimed he wrote LETTERS to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.
The author of Acts wanted to establish his picture of Paul, as an obedient servant of the Roman Church when he was not. Acts also established Luke as a "companion of Paul" which is utter BS.

Quote:
6. The author of Acts claimed Paul and his group Delivered Letters for the Jerusalem Church.
And there you have it, his epistles are no longer his. He merely delivered letters others had written or had ordered him to write. He's belittled, an obedient servant. His gospel of no man is now a gospel of other men.

Quote:
7. Virtually all "details" about Saul/Paul in Acts was NOT derived from the Pauline letters.
So what you are saying is that the details in Acts is more trustworthy than the details in the letters, despite the fact that Acts is full of unbelievable miracles and fables? Why can't the details in Acts be fiction?

And then you go on to quote the obvious bogus story in Acts but you fail to address my questions. There's no way that Acts is earlier than the Epistles based on what's written in them. You ignore this textual evidence. If Paul knew of the gospels and Acts, why didn't the fabricators who you claim wrote in his name make him mention at least some of the things associated with Jesus mission on earth? Why did they make him talk of a new law in the Epistles, when he was law-abiding in Acts? Why did they make him ridicule their founder Peter and the so called pillars in the Epistles when he was a spokesperson for them in Acts?

In Acts, Peter cured the sick and resurrected the dead. He was arrested but was set free by an angel. Do you believe this to be a true account regarding Peter?

In Acts, Paul made a blind man see, enabled a cripple to walk, raised a young man who, asleep, fell out of a window (!), Paul's handkerchief had magical powers and he rose up and walked away unscathed from a stoning. Do you believe this to be a true account regarding Paul? None of this exist in the Epistles. Which writing is more likely to be accurate?

I mean, come on, you have to admit that Acts is a fairy-tale and as such, it can't be used as a "biography" of Paul. The whole purpose of Acts was to establish unity within the early Roman church and it served the purpose of stealing Paul from an earlier rival church.

Apart from Acts perhaps being two stories put together as one (the ”we passage" a separate book?) and the word chrestianoi in the Codex Sinaiticus changed to christianoi, I have never read any scholar claiming that Acts has been interpolated. But many scholars agree that the Epistles have been interpolated. Why is that if the Epistles are supposedly later than Acts? And how come so many bare witness to the fact that Marcion or whatever he was called had different versions of the epistles?

To summarize: The Epistles were written later than 70 CE but before the gospels and Acts. The Epistles reflect a belief in a spiritual Jesus but the gospels and Acts reflect a belief in a historical Jesus and the latter has to emanate from the former to make any sense whatsoever.
Kent F is offline  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:16 PM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
I have said in my post that the Epistles are later than 70 CE. I have tried to make you understand logical deduction from what's actually written in the Epistles and Acts and the questions these readings raise. But you ignore this since it's devastating for your theory...
What a load of BS. The claim that the Pauline writings are AFTER 70 CE has NO effect whatsoever on the fact that NO Pauline letters have been found and DATED to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...I repeat, I'm not arguing against a dating of Paul later than 70 CE...
Well, why do you NOT state what you are arguing about??

I am arguing that the Pauline writings are NON-HISTORICAL and were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles based on the Abundance of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
3. Church writers claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Which is BS. It's Eusebius claiming this in his Church History centuries later. Why do you believe him more than what's actually written in the Epistles? I prefer to believe Paul, that he had his own gospel....
Please, please, please!!! I can SHOW the BS that Origen and Eusebius wrote.

Church writers claimed Paul was EXECUTED under Nero but was AWARE of gLuke.

I am EXPOSING the BS about Paul.

ALL we have about Paul is BS and Acts was written BEFORE the BS called Pauline letters were composed.

Only the author of Acts of all Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul who NEVER acknowledged Paul as a letter writer but as a "Postman" for the Jerusalem Church.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
4. gLuke is DATED after the 1st century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
Yes, late 2nd century perhaps which again proves how bogus the Roman Church history is.
NO, NO, NO!!!! What you say is not really logical.

Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke and the Pauline writings have been found and DATED to no earlier than the 2nd-3rd century.

The DATED Texts of antiquity do SUPPORT Origen and Eusebius that Paul was aware of gLuke.

This proves that NOT all the information in Church History is bogus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
The author of Acts wanted to establish his picture of Paul, as an obedient servant of the Roman Church when he was not. Acts also established Luke as a "companion of Paul" which is utter BS.
NO, NO, NO--you are dead wrong--in Acts, Saul/Paul was preaching under the Authority of the JERUSALEM Church---not the Roman Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
And there you have it, his epistles are no longer his. He merely delivered letters others had written or had ordered him to write. He's belittled, an obedient servant. His gospel of no man is now a gospel of other men...
NO, NO, NO!!!! You are dead wrong. The author of Acts Belittled Peter. After the Great Jerusalem Meeting in Acts 15 WE HEAR nothing--zero of Peter.

In Acts The apostle Peter went from HERO TO ZERO.

The author of Acts ABANDONED Peter and traveled with Saul/Paul around the Roman Empire.

Examine the STATS.

Before the Great Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15

Peter mentioned 56 times--Saul/Paul mentioned 34 times

After the Great Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15--

Peter mentioned ZERO times--Saul/Paul mentioned 110 times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
So what you are saying is that the details in Acts is more trustworthy than the details in the letters, despite the fact that Acts is full of unbelievable miracles and fables? Why can't the details in Acts be fiction?
Again, the FICTION story "details" in Acts about Paul were NOT derived from the Pauline letter. The author of Acts did NOT need the Pauline letters to write a story about a character called SAUL, that he was blinded by a bright light, consulted with the Damascus disciples, went to Jerusalem immediately after he left Damascus in a basket and Met all the disciples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
....There's no way that Acts is earlier than the Epistles based on what's written in them. You ignore this textual evidence...
There is NO way that the Pauline letters were written BEFORE Acts based on what is written in them. You IGNORE certain facts.

The author of Acts did NOT quote a single verse from a Pauline letter.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote any letters to Churches.

The author of Acts did NOT write about the Revealed Gospel of Paul--Salvation by the Resurrection.

The author of Acts Traveled with Paul on his second Visits to the so-called Churches and NEVER claimed Paul sent letters in advance of his arrival.

Acts 15:36 KJV
Quote:
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas , Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do ...
The author of Acts mentioned NO Pauline letters in advance of the Second visits but instead mentioned letters from the JERUSALEM Church.

Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-07-2012, 01:42 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Hilarious. These books were 'cooked' into so much porridge for so long by so many that it is ridiculous to argue which is supposedly first or is second, with all being successively edited and added to gawd alone knows how many times.
The 'author' of Acts deliberately presents a thoroughly harnessed and revised 'Paul', and is certainly NOT about to mention, nor give any show of credence to that 'Paulinian' corpus or its extravagant self-promoting claims.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 07-15-2012, 06:50 PM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

aa5874 wrote:
Quote:
Church writers claimed Paul was EXECUTED under Nero but was AWARE of gLuke.
If the so called biography on Paul, that he was executed under Nero is bogus, then why isn't his supposed awareness of gLuke also bogus? I ask again: where in the Epistles does Paul show any awareness of gLuke? You continute to ignore what's actually written. Paul's Jesus was NOT historical, but Luke's Jesus is.

IMO, it's obvious that the biography of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention and that's because Paul was the ”apostle of the heretics” as some Church fathers said. Acts was written to contradict Paul, to take the sting out of his ”heretical” views, to prove that Paul was not the gnostic as he comes across in the epistles and to prove that he belonged to the one happy family called the Roman church. But Acts is revisionism of the Pauline beliefs and revisionism HAS TO BE LATER.

But you are saying that the revisionist views on Paul in Acts came first, thus arguing that the fabricators wrote AGAINST their own beliefs when they created the epistles.

So, again, if the Pauline Epistles were indeed later than Acts, they should show an awareness of Jesus walking this earth, mention his miracles, the empty tomb etc etc. But they don't.

This is simply devastating for a theory claiming it was all written by a group of people with the same beliefs.
Kent F is offline  
Old 07-15-2012, 07:00 PM   #37
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Hilarious. These books were 'cooked' into so much porridge for so long by so many that it is ridiculous to argue which is supposedly first or is second, with all being successively edited and added to gawd alone knows how many times.
The 'author' of Acts deliberately presents a thoroughly harnessed and revised 'Paul', and is certainly NOT about to mention, nor give any show of credence to that 'Paulinian' corpus or its extravagant self-promoting claims.
But why bother to create such an extravagant self-promoting character as Paul when there existed an harnessed and revised Paul in Acts? Isn't it more logical to assume that the self-promoting character completed his works before Acts was written? That's why Paul later had to be harnessed and revised.
Kent F is offline  
Old 07-15-2012, 08:13 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Church writers claimed Paul was EXECUTED under Nero but was AWARE of gLuke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
If the so called biography on Paul, that he was executed under Nero is bogus, then why isn't his supposed awareness of gLuke also bogus? I ask again: where in the Epistles does Paul show any awareness of gLuke? You continute to ignore what's actually written. Paul's Jesus was NOT historical, but Luke's Jesus is...
You seem not to understand that it is Apologetic sources that show they do NOT know when Paul really lived.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that gLuke was written before Nero's death. gLuke may have been written 100 years after the death of Nero or later.

Now, how many times must I show you that certain information that Paul claimed he RECEIVED from resurrected the Lord Jesus is found ONLY in gLuke??? See Luke 22 and 1 Cor. 11

Paul could NOT have received any information from a dead man if Jesus did live.

Please, don't make me laugh. gLuke Jesus was the the Product of a Ghost of God and a Virgin. See Luke 1.26-35. The Pauline Jesus was GOD's Son made of a woman. See Galatians 4.4.

The Pauline Jesus and the Lucan Jesus are all Myth characters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...IMO, it's obvious that the biography of Paul as presented in Acts is an invention and that's because Paul was the ”apostle of the heretics” as some Church fathers said. Acts was written to contradict Paul, to take the sting out of his ”heretical” views, to prove that Paul was not the gnostic as he comes across in the epistles and to prove that he belonged to the one happy family called the Roman church. But Acts is revisionism of the Pauline beliefs and revisionism HAS TO BE LATER...
Well, if you believe Acts is later show me where the Acts claimed Paul wrote letters to the Churches?? You can't.

Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul claimed he wrote Epistles EXCEPT the author of Acts.

It was the Pauline writers who were AFTER Acts of the Apostles and this is supported by analysis of VARIANTS of Greek New Testament.

Acts of the Apostles show MORE variants per page than the Pauline letters.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
....So, again, if the Pauline Epistles were indeed later than Acts, they should show an awareness of Jesus walking this earth, mention his miracles, the empty tomb etc etc. But they don't.

This is simply devastating for a theory claiming it was all written by a group of people with the same beliefs.
Please, the Pauline writer did NOT need to write about Jesus walking on earth and doing miracles. No other Non-Pauline Epistles mention Jesus walking on earth and doing miracles.

The Pauline writings are ABOUT the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus and that he Met Jesus after he was resurrected. The Gospels END at the resurrection and Ascension but that is where PAUL Begins.

No author of the Canon BEGIN their story about Jesus AFTER he was NOT on earth EXCEPT Paul.

According to the Pauline writings the Resurrection is the basis for the Jesus cult and Remission of Sins.

The Pauline Gospel of Remission of Sins by the Resurrection was UNKNOWN by all the authors of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation.

The Pauline writings are NON-Historical and were NOT composed in the 1st century before c 70 CE which is Compatible with the DATED NT Manuscripts.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-17-2012, 07:45 PM   #39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You seem not to understand that it is Apologetic sources that show they do NOT know when Paul really lived.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that gLuke was written before Nero's death. gLuke may have been written 100 years after the death of Nero or later.
Yes, probably true. But the proof for an earlier dating of the epistles is in the writings themselves, because Paul's Jesus was spiritual. Earl Doherty has shown in his books without a shadow of a doubt that this is the case. And it's not just Paul. ALL early writers show no awareness of a Jesus walking this earth, from the epistle writers in the NT to Hebrews, Revelation and several early apologetic sources. Why is that if they're all from roughly the same time period? IMO, it's obvious that the epistles et al with a spiritual Jesus comes from an earlier time period and that the fleshed out stories are from a later time period.

Quote:
Now, how many times must I show you that certain information that Paul claimed he RECEIVED from resurrected the Lord Jesus is found ONLY in gLuke??? See Luke 22 and 1 Cor. 11

Paul could NOT have received any information from a dead man if Jesus did live.
What? You don't seem to understand religion! Paul got his information in a vision. His gospel was of no man, remember? I don't believe in visions, but he did and the people who listened to him.

Quote:
gLuke Jesus was the the Product of a Ghost of God and a Virgin. See Luke 1.26-35. The Pauline Jesus was GOD's Son made of a woman. See Galatians 4.4.
Luke's Jesus had a mother, a genealogy, had disciples, did miracles, woke up the dead, was crucified by Pilate and resurrected from a tomb on earth. Paul's Jesus does not have any connection at all to a mission on earth. A huge difference. His ”born of woman” does not mean Mary. Why not say so if it did? In line with what else is written in the epistles, Paul's woman was a heavenly being. (See also Revelation 12.)

Quote:
The Pauline Jesus and the Lucan Jesus are all Myth characters.
I will agree with you on that but the more likely myth character is the one who is spiritual. Why? Because God is wholly spiritual and why should his Son be any different? So, early christianity started with a spiritual Jesus and evolved from there into the character in the gospels.

Quote:
Well, if you believe Acts is later show me where the Acts claimed Paul wrote letters to the Churches?? You can't.
The author of Acts keeping silent on the fact that Paul wrote letters proves to you Acts was written earlier? How do you reach such a preposterous conclusion? We have Paul's letters. There are no miracles in them, no fairy-tale stories as in Acts. The author of Acts did not mention the epistles because he wanted to establish his later revisionist take on Paul, that Paul was dependent on Peter, James and John and that he merely delivered letters written by others. And when Acts was composed, the Pauline epistles had not yet been stolen by the Roman church from their earlier Alexandrian rival.

Quote:
Please, the Pauline writer did NOT need to write about Jesus walking on earth and doing miracles. No other Non-Pauline Epistles mention Jesus walking on earth and doing miracles.
Paul could have mentioned Lazarus, the sufferings by Jesus, the empty tomb etc in strengthening his arguments in the epistles. When he talked about sufferings and of the resurrection of the body, he could have used Jesus as an example. When he accused Peter of not eating with the Gentiles, he could have pointed to Jesus as an example. He didn't do that, not once. Neither did the Non-Pauline epistle writers which show that not one of them had any awareness of a Jesus on earth because when they wrote, the story of Jesus on earth had not yet been developed.

Quote:
No author of the Canon BEGIN their story about Jesus AFTER he was NOT on earth EXCEPT Paul.
Which is why Paul and his beliefs are earlier. The gospels are ”fleshed out” stories written later when Jesus had become the Messiah and as such, had to be of flesh and blood. Such stories could only have been established away from Jewish influence.

Had he or those writing in his name written the epistles later than gLuke and Acts, where are the answers to the many questions those listening must have asked about Jesus, his mother, John the Baptist, his disciples, his miracles, his sufferings? Where is all this in the Pauline writings? To say ”it was not needed” is a weak argument. One would think that Paul (or those writing in his name) at least once or twice would have tried to explain as to why he (they) kept silent on Jesus mission on earth.

And for the umpteenth time, if Paul was later, then why write the epistles in such a way that they contradict the stories in the gospels and in Acts? Why elevate Paul in the epistles and belittle Peter? Why not include verses here and there which would have made it impossible to deny that Paul was aware of a Jesus on earth? For instance, why not say ”born of Mary” or include a verse where Paul was said to have visited the emtpy tomb when he was in Jerusalem? I know, you will probably say ”no such tomb exists because Jesus is MYTH”, but the empty tomb is part of that mythical story and a mention of it would have made Paul more closely linked to the Jesus of the gospels.

It defies all logic to assume that the supposed fabricators of the Pauline epistles abstained from including solid evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth and in Jesus' mission on earth.
Kent F is offline  
Old 07-17-2012, 10:18 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
.... the proof for an earlier dating of the epistles is in the writings themselves, because Paul's Jesus was spiritual...
Your statement is illogical. The Pauline writings are being questioned so cannot be proof of themselves.

This so basic.

Your assertion is extremely absurd--it is like claiming that a defendant's statement by itself proves the truth of the defendant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
....Earl Doherty has shown in his books without a shadow of a doubt that this is the case. And it's not just Paul. ALL early writers show no awareness of a Jesus walking this earth, from the epistle writers in the NT to Hebrews, Revelation and several early apologetic sources. Why is that if they're all from roughly the same time period? IMO, it's obvious that the epistles et al with a spiritual Jesus comes from an earlier time period and that the fleshed out stories are from a later time period.
What a load of BS. Jesus of the NT was NOT "fleshed out".

In the Pauline writings and the Gospels that mention his birth he was born of the Spirit and made of a Woman.

Jesus was the Son of God that WALKED on water like a Spirit in gMark 6.48-49

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a virgin in gMatthew1.18-20

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a virgin in gLuke. 1.26-35

Jesus was God the Logos, the Creator born of the Spirit in gJohn. John 1

Jesus was the Son of God, Born of the Spirit, and MADE of a woman in Galatians 4.4 and 4.29


Please, I no longer accept FLAWED opinion just sources of antiquity.

Jesus in the Entire NT had NO real Flesh from gMark to Revelation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
... Paul got his information in a vision. His gospel was of no man, remember? I don't believe in visions, but he did and the people who listened to him.
You BELIEVE "visions" are sources of historical data. Tell us what you know Paul got from "visions".

What information did Paul get when he was a Persecutor of the the Faith??

What information did Paul get from the Scriptures???

When did Paul get his information???

In a Pauline letter OVER 500 people knew that Jesus DIED for THEIR SINS , was buried and Resurrected BEFORE Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
Luke's Jesus had a mother, a genealogy, had disciples, did miracles, woke up the dead, was crucified by Pilate and resurrected from a tomb on earth. Paul's Jesus does not have any connection at all to a mission on earth. A huge difference. His ”born of woman” does not mean Mary. Why not say so if it did? In line with what else is written in the epistles, Paul's woman was a heavenly being. (See also Revelation 12.)...
Luke's Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and the Pauline Jesus was Born of the Spirit. See Luke 1.26-35 and Galatians 4.29.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
... So, early christianity started with a spiritual Jesus and evolved from there into the character in the gospels.
NT Jesus was Born of the Spirit, the Son of God. No author of the NT claimed Jesus had a human father and NO author admitted that they actually met a human Jesus.

Sources that used gMark claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost that Walked on water and Transfigured.

The Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to witness the Resurrected Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...The author of Acts keeping silent on the fact that Paul wrote letters proves to you Acts was written earlier? How do you reach such a preposterous conclusion? We have Paul's letters. There are no miracles in them, no fairy-tale stories as in Acts....
Please, just go and read the Pauline letters. It is claimed multiple times Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

The Pauline writer claimed that without the Resurrection there would be NO FAITH and NO remission of Sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
The author of Acts did not mention the epistles because he wanted to establish his later revisionist take on Paul, that Paul was dependent on Peter, James and John and that he merely delivered letters written by others. And when Acts was composed, the Pauline epistles had not yet been stolen by the Roman church from their earlier Alexandrian rival....
Please, I no longer accept INVENTIONS from imagination. You invent your own history of Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
Paul could have mentioned Lazarus, the sufferings by Jesus, the empty tomb etc in strengthening his arguments in the epistles. When he talked about sufferings and of the resurrection of the body, he could have used Jesus as an example. When he accused Peter of not eating with the Gentiles, he could have pointed to Jesus as an example. He didn't do that, not once. Neither did the Non-Pauline epistle writers which show that not one of them had any awareness of a Jesus on earth because when they wrote, the story of Jesus on earth had not yet been developed.
Paul could have said a lot of things but the writer claimed he Persecuted the Faith that he NOW preached, that there were Churches in Christ BEFORE him, that he was LAST to witness the resurrected Jesus AFTER over 500 people and that it was ALREADY written in Scriptures that Jesus DIED for OUR Sins, was buried and resurrected on the Third day.

The Jesus story was known orally and in writing BEFORE Paul was called to preach Jesus. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
No author of the Canon BEGIN their story about Jesus AFTER he was NOT on earth EXCEPT Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...Which is why Paul and his beliefs are earlier. The gospels are ”fleshed out” stories written later when Jesus had become the Messiah and as such, had to be of flesh and blood. Such stories could only have been established away from Jewish influence....
What a load of BS. The Jesus of the Gospels was the Son of a Ghost that Walked on water, and Transfugured. NT Jesus had NO real Flesh and Paul claimed Jesus was the Messiah over 150 times in the Pauline letters.

A story that begins AFTER the resurrection is not logically before a story that begins at the Start of the supposed life of Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...Had he or those writing in his name written the epistles later than gLuke and Acts, where are the answers to the many questions those listening must have asked about Jesus, his mother, John the Baptist, his disciples, his miracles, his sufferings? Where is all this in the Pauline writings? To say ”it was not needed” is a weak argument. One would think that Paul (or those writing in his name) at least once or twice would have tried to explain as to why he (they) kept silent on Jesus mission on earth.
How illogical can you be??? The Jesus stories were ALREADY known by the SAME people who PAUL Persecuted.

While Paul was PERSECUTING people the Jesus story was being Preached.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
...And for the umpteenth time, if Paul was later, then why write the epistles in such a way that they contradict the stories in the gospels and in Acts? Why elevate Paul in the epistles and belittle Peter? Why not include verses here and there which would have made it impossible to deny that Paul was aware of a Jesus on earth? For instance, why not say ”born of Mary” or include a verse where Paul was said to have visited the emtpy tomb when he was in Jerusalem? I know, you will probably say ”no such tomb exists because Jesus is MYTH”, but the empty tomb is part of that mythical story and a mention of it would have made Paul more closely linked to the Jesus of the gospels....
For the UMPTEENTH time, Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the FAITH and that he was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus. The people that Paul persecuted KNEW the Jesus story BEFORE Paul.

What did Paul know about Jesus story that those whom he persecuted did NOT??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
It defies all logic to assume that the supposed fabricators of the Pauline epistles abstained from including solid evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth and in Jesus' mission on earth.
Sinaiticus Mark 8
Quote:
31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.
Romans is LATER than gMark. Not even the PRE-Resurrected Jesus Christ in gMark claimed people would be saved if they believe he was raised from the dead.

Paul was supposedly in contact with Jesus AFTER Jesus was resurrected.

The author of gMark did NOT know Paul contacted Jesus AFTER the resurrection and ended his story at the Empty Tomb.

Romans 10:9 KJV
Quote:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .
Romans 10.9 is logically AFTER the short gMark 8.31.

The author of short gMark did NOT know that Salvation and Remission of Sins was through the resurrection.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:54 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.