Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-05-2012, 07:13 PM | #31 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
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. |
07-05-2012, 07:48 PM | #32 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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. |
|
07-06-2012, 08:34 PM | #33 | ||||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||||
07-06-2012, 11:16 PM | #34 | |||||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters. |
|||||||||||
07-07-2012, 01:42 PM | #35 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
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. |
07-15-2012, 06:50 PM | #36 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
|
aa5874 wrote:
Quote:
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. |
|
07-15-2012, 07:00 PM | #37 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
|
|
07-15-2012, 08:13 PM | #38 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
||||
07-17-2012, 07:45 PM | #39 | |||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||||
07-17-2012, 10:18 PM | #40 | |||||||||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
The Pauline writer claimed that without the Resurrection there would be NO FAITH and NO remission of Sins. Quote:
Quote:
The Jesus story was known orally and in writing BEFORE Paul was called to preach Jesus. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15. Quote:
Quote:
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:
While Paul was PERSECUTING people the Jesus story was being Preached. Quote:
What did Paul know about Jesus story that those whom he persecuted did NOT?? Quote:
Quote:
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:
The author of short gMark did NOT know that Salvation and Remission of Sins was through the resurrection. |
|||||||||||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|