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: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2013, 12:46 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
For a thousand years Christianity accepted the Classic Form of Atonement, that Jesus Christ was crucified as a ransom to Satan to end Satan's dominion over Planet Earth. Anselm came up with a new theory in the 11th Century.
Are there any Bible verses that indicate Jesus was given to Satan?
Satan is not mentioned, but see Mark 10:45 and Mt 20:28. "to give his life as a ransom for many" could also be interpreted by Peter Abelard's liberal Moral theory that Christ's life was the Atonement. Either the Classic Theory (Christus Victor as revived by Gustav Aulen) or Abelard's 12th Century concept get around the objection raised by your OP.
Adam is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 02:41 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgren44
THe following cite provides an argument for Romans 1:3 being an interpolation
Yep. the old 'escape clause' in action. If anything written anywhere in the book doesn't agree with your preconceptions, just dismiss it as being an interpolation.
You can make the texts say anything you want. ....But they will continue to say what they say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
, consistently throughout the Bible 'night' is a condition that is experienced by humans upon earth. (see Gen 13:9, 30:16, Ex 12:42, 2 Kings 19:35 and many more.)
And sometimes in the Bible "night" is a condition experienced in the spiritual realm.

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.”

Revelation 7:15
Therefore, “they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And sometimes in the Bible "night" is a spiritual condition.

Romans 13:12
The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

1 Thessalonians 5:5
You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
All very different usages and situations than the plain statement;
Quote:
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
It was on earth, and his earthly disciples were present, and on earth to do as he instructed.

There is no rational reason to place this event and situation anywhere other than on earth, and on the once a year 'night' observance of Layil Shimmurim (Ex 12:42)

The Gospels do not place this event as having taken place in heaven.

The Christian Church does not teach this event as having taken place in heaven.

And 'Paul' does not teach this event as ever having taken place in heaven.
.....other than by ruse of men who pervert and deny the contents of his writings for their own ends.


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 03:03 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
For this purpose, in line with anti-Jewish polemic, a betrayer named Judas was created. His epithet “Iscariot” seems to denote either Ish-karya (Aramaic for “the false one)” or a pun on Issachar, “hireling” (Miller, p. 65), thus one paid to hand Jesus over to the authorities.
The name may also be derived from the Latin sicarius with the metathesis, which fronts the /i/. The structure of the disciple list puts Judas in the same category as Simon the Cananaean (the epithet from קנא, "zealous") and Lk 6:15 calls him "the zealot". The zealot and the sicarius, both militants.

Or of course he could really be איש קריות (i$-qrywt) "man from Kerioth".
spin is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 04:40 PM   #34
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
So, in the same words, Jesus was born of a woman and born under the law in order to redeem others who were under the law--that is: Jews.
Or the passage is an interpolation.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 04:54 PM   #35
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Either the Classic Theory (Christus Victor as revived by Gustav Aulen) or Abelard's 12th Century concept get around the objection raised by your OP.
Both of these theories also get around what the Bible says.

Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood

1 Corinthians 5:7
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:12
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Hebrews 10:14
For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 10:18
And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:02 PM   #36
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
You left out the prior verse:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Paul did not hear this story from the men who allegedly had dinner with Jesus on that fateful night. Paul heard about the details of the Last Supper from a talking light on the highway.

Why do you suppose that is?
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:31 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
You left out the prior verse:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Paul did not hear this story from the men who allegedly had dinner with Jesus on that fateful night. Paul heard about the details of the Last Supper from a talking light on the highway.
Yes, so (some writer(s)) claims.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my skeptical atheist position.

'Paul' did not hear this story at all.


First, as an atheist, I do not accept that any voice from heaven ever actually spoke to any 'Paul'.
Further, I do not accept that any 'apostles' of 'Christ' ('JESUS' or not) ever met or spoke with the fictional 'Paul' either.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

Second, I do not accept the premise that there ever was any 'Jesus'. Not as a man, and not as a 'spirit'.
'Jesus Christ' to me is no more a person in real time than is Winnie the Pooh.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:35 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Are you aware that Paul claimed he persecuted the Churches of Christ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Yes. But what did those churches believe? Did they worship a recently deceased Judean carpenter? Or a cosmic Christ?
Why are you asking questions at this stage? Questions are not evidence of anything. You claim that the Pauline accounts are "of a Jesus who never seems to have spent any time on earth".

You are obligated to provide the evidence from antiquity.

So far nothing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Christ of the Churches MUST predate Paul's Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
I agree. Gnosticism predates Paul's Christ.
Again, you must present the evidence from antiquity for what you write.

In Acts, Paul did not preach a Cosmic Christ.

In Acts, Paul preached the same Christ crucified that was killed or caused to be killed by the Jews.

You are basically inventing your own stories of Paul WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Paul's Christ is the Later Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
I agree that Paul adopted the already existing idea of the Gnostic Christ.
Again, you have not presented any evidence from antiquity for your Cosmic Christ of Paul.

There is no corroboration at all for a Pauline Cosmic Christ and Apologetics that mentioned Paul claimed Jesus the Son of God was on earth and was delivered up by the Jews to be killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
u]Galatians 1[/u]
Quote:
21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgreen44
Maybe what really bugged Pharisee Saul was the Gnostic renunciation of a physical resurrection?
Your are merely speculating. Maybe this and maybe that is not evidence of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You were also taught that the Pauline letters were unknown to the author of Acts. You did not learn all that I taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
"Recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters. Convincing arguments have been made especially in the case of Galatians by scholars who are convinced that the author of Acts not only knew this Pauline letter but regarded it as a problem and wrote to subvert it.4 They especially call attention to the verbal and ideational similarities between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and show how the dif-ferences may be intended to create a distance between Paul and some of his later interpreters and critics."...
Again, the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline letters and did not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote Pastorals or letters to Seven Churches of the Jesus cult before 58-62 CE or before the time of Festus, procurator of Judea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
.....4 See Pervo, Dating Acts; Heikki Leppä, “Luke’s Critical Use of Galatians” (Ph. D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2002); William O. Walker, Jr., “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered.” JSNT 24 (1985): 3-23; Walker, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter’s Speech at the Jerusalem Conference,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998), 77-86.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml
You are obligated to present evidence for what you have claimed. You must show the sources of antiquity that corroborate that the Pauline Christ was Cosmic.

It is already known there are NONE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Acts of the Apostles does not state anywhere at all that Jesus was a Judean carpenter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
True. I was alluding to the fact that Acts portrays Jesus as a recently deceased Judean. I apologize for the confusion.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. (Acts 2)
I am delighted that you now show that in Acts Jesus was on earth doing miracles among the Jews and was put to death by the help of wicked men.

There is NO Cosmic Christ in Acts and the Pauline letters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
... up to the mid 3rd century it was NOT taught that Jesus was a carpenter..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
...So Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are 3rd century interpolations? Or are you saying that Matthew and Mark were not written until the 3rd century despite Irenaeus announcing them to the world in 180 AD?
I am saying that it is documented in "Against Celsus" that it is claimed it was not taught in the Churches that Jesus was a carpenter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Origen's Against Celsus
Quote:
....... in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
Then I guess your argument is that Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are 3rd century interpolations. I'm OK with that.
Please, why do you insist on guessing? You must know that in "Against Celsus" that it was claimed the father of Jesus was Panthera a Roman soldier.

You must know that the Pauline writings were unknown to Celsus.

In fact, Origen claimed Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

Your Pauline Cosmic Christ is without corroboration--a product of imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You must present the evidence for your claims based on the rules of the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44
I cannot prove that Paul argued against an idea that did not arise until after he died.
You cannot present any actual evidence from the Canon that Paul died and cannot present any evidence from antiquity Paul was alive when the Pauline Corpus was invented.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:45 PM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
You left out the prior verse:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Paul did not hear this story from the men who allegedly had dinner with Jesus on that fateful night. Paul heard about the details of the Last Supper from a talking light on the highway.
Yes, so (some writer(s)) claims.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my skeptical atheist position.

'Paul' did not hear this story at all.
Fart goes another assertion.

You are in no position to make such a claim as you were neither there nor did you have access to the writer of the information. While we can discount the divine intervention as non-believers of this religion, we cannot say what Paul did or did not hear. The writer claimed to have had other mystical experiences, which cannot be put in the "did not happen" category.

What Paul heard need not have come from an external source for him to have heard it. He may have been dreaming. He may have been on drugs. He may have had a psychotic event. And so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
First, as an atheist, I do not accept that any voice from heaven ever actually spoke to any 'Paul'.
Further, I do not accept that any 'apostles' of 'Christ' ('JESUS' or not) ever met or spoke with the fictional 'Paul' either.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.
Fart. Oops, another assertion. Qualify the fucking statement in order to indicate that this is your belief, as is the case with all those other assertions you leave smelling up the forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Second, I do not accept the premise that there ever was any 'Jesus'. Not as a man, and not as a 'spirit'.
'Jesus Christ' to me is no more a person in real time than is Winnie the Pooh.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.
spin is offline  
Old 05-30-2013, 06:21 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
....You are in no position to make such a claim as you were neither there nor did you have access to the writer of the information. While we can discount the divine intervention as non-believers of this religion, we cannot say what Paul did or did not hear. The writer claimed to have had other mystical experiences, which cannot be put in the "did not happen" category.

What Paul heard need not have come from an external source for him to have heard it. He may have been dreaming. He may have been on drugs. He may have had a psychotic event. And so on.
Your response is hopeless. You seem to have no idea how the past is reconstructed or how theories are developed.

If historians have to be "there" then we would not be able to know anything about the past.

It is so basic.

The contents of any texts can be analyzed and a theory developed based on the available data.

A theory can always be modified with NEW DATA.

Theories are constantly being modified as we speak.



The present abundance of data from antiquity allows the theory that the Pauline writings were late and it cannot be altered until other data is found.

The Pauline claims can be rejected just like the evidence of real witnesses in a real court trial can be rejected.

It is most reasonable to reject the Pauline revelations from a resurrected Jesus since it is quite acceptable to conclude that Jesus, even if he existed, could NOT have told Paul anything after he was dead.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:38 PM.

Top

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