FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2013, 01:03 PM   #31
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
...As for his Lord's Supper words, we know for certain (because he tells us) that he got this from the Lord himself, in some imagined fashion....
Actually, Doherty's statement is not logical.

We do not know with any certainty that Paul got those words from the Lord himself real or imagined.

Doherty himself argues that Epistles under the name of Paul were corrupted.

It is most astonishing that Doherty would imply that the origin of those words found in the Pauline writings are certain WITHOUT a shred of corroboration.

Examine gLuke.
Luke 22:19
Quote:
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Examine 1 Cor. 11. The Pauline writer could have used gLuke.

1 Corinthians 11:24
Quote:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Apologetic writers claimed the Pauline writer knew of gLuke. See Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Eusebius' "Church History".

It is not certain at all that words about the Lord's Supper in the Pauline writings was from the resurrected Jesus real or imagined.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 05:18 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
As for his Lord's Supper words, we know for certain (because he tells us) that he got this from the Lord himself,
When you stop this repetitive nonsense, I'll stop my protesting.

There is no 'Lord God Jesus'. Paul got nothing from an entity that did not and does not exist.
Give it up, Toto. Shesh has got some kind of mental block that neither I nor you can penetrate.

Earl Doherty
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 11:43 AM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
....As for his Lord's Supper words, we know for certain (because he tells us) that he got this from the Lord himself,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
When you stop this repetitive nonsense, I'll stop my protesting.

There is no 'Lord God Jesus'. Paul got nothing from an entity that did not and does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlDoherty View Post
Give it up, Toto. Shesh has got some kind of mental block that neither I nor you can penetrate.

Earl Doherty
Early Pauline writings are indeed extremely problematic.

Doherty asserts that early Christians did believe that their Crucified Jesus was never on earth if the Pauline letters were early.

Such assertion by Doherty is extremely problematic for the Entire History of the Church, for all Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters and Scholars.

Now, what is even more problematic is that Doherty compounds his problem by relying on an anonymous writing called Epistle to the Hebrews.

How in the world can an Anonymous writing corroborate writings under the name of Paul when there was a tradition in the very Church that PAUL wrote the Epistle Hebrews?

Origen's De Prinicipiis[/u]
Quote:
5. Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.”
Early Pauline writings are indeed excessively problematic. One of the Pauline fraudsters may have composed the Epistle to the Hebrews.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 06:39 PM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The Pauline Corpus does not belong in the Jesus cult Canon.

It does not represent the teachings of the Jesus cult for any century in antiquity.

Let us go through each book of the Jesus cult Canon excluding the Pauline Corpus and it will be seen that no writer was aware that there would be No Salvation without the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV
Quote:
And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
In the Synoptics Jesus forgave SINS before he was dead amd told no-one, not even his disciples, that without the resurrection there would be no Salvation.

Mark 2:5 KJV
Quote:
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
Luke 7:48 KJV
Quote:
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven .
Again, examine gMark, Jesus asked others to follow the commandments of Moses.

Mark 1:44 KJV
Quote:
And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way , shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded , for a testimony unto them.
Now, in the Pauline letters, after Jesus supposedly resurrected, it is claimed there is no justification by the works of the law.

The Pauline writers contradict the very teachings of the Synoptic Jesus.

Galatians 2:16 KJV
Quote:
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 .
The Pauline letters are fundamentally unattested in the very Canon.

The earliest writing of the Jesus story is attested in the Canon--Not the Pauline letters.

1. The anonymous author of the long version of gMark added the post-resurrection visit to the disciples, the great commission and the ascension.

2. The anonymous author of gMatthew added the birth narrative and the sermon on the mount with much more "details".

For example, the fictitious temptation consumed only 2 verses in gMark but 11 verses in gMatthew.

3. The anonymous author of gLuke re-worked the Jesus story in gMark and gMatthew.

4. The anonymous author of gJohn did almost a complete overhaul of the Jesus character in the Synoptics and made him the Logos, God the Creator and equal to God.

5. The Pauline writers went even beyond the anonymous authors of Gospels and claimed they personally was seen by the resurrected Jesus and that the Son of God was revealed to them.

1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV
Quote:

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
The Pauline writers attempted to "historicise" the resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writers attempted to "historicise" fiction.


The Pauline writers could not have attempted to "historicise" the resurrection before the Jesus story was known by those whom he persecuted.

The Jesus story with visits from the resurrected Jesus were composed AFTER c 70 CE and AFTER the short gMark.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 06:59 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I am not misunderstanding this.
Doherty's claim that Paul had no knowledge of the Gospels is founded on his idea that 'Paul' came up with all of his information on Jesus in exactly the manner that 'Paul' claims, by means of a personal exclusive 'revelation'.
That claim by Paul is not credible.
So far so good. You state you position and now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
What 'Paul' claimed, personal divine revelation, one 'not received from any man', backed 'Paul' into a corner formed by his lie.
An assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
"Paul' (and his ghost writers)...
I gather you don't mean what people normally mean by "ghost writers". It would be another assertion. Let's see it as a pun for effect and we can overlook it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
...could not ever admit or betray that he had any knowledge of the written Gospels, because to do so would reveal that he had been taught, and had received knowledge of Jesus from men, revealing him to be a false witness and a liar.
This just might be true, but it is simply another (complex) assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
His repeated denials (Thou doeth protest too much!)...
The parenthetical flow of consciousness takes you into another assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
...are a tip off that he did in fact receive his Gospel from men.
Big assertion that simply says that you don't believe him and you will sink to the usual level of denial that most hobby horsers ride around on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
'Paul' -and every writer ever writing under that pseudonym- knew the Gospels
but deliberately engaged in the deception of pretending not to have.
One of those lovely unfalsifiable assertions that are not worth the paper they are written on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries,...
So you assert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
...and all of them were produced after The Gospels, and with a full knowledge of The Gospels.
So you believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Doherty's early 'Paul' Theory is going down.
Not on account of anything you've said here. In fact, you haven't said anything that needs a second thought, as it contains not a smell of evidence or argumentation. It seems to be on a par with the amount of usable information in Adam's musings.
spin is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 07:56 PM   #36
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Not on account of anything you've said here. In fact, you haven't said anything that needs a second thought, as it contains not a smell of evidence or argumentation. It seems to be on a par with the amount of usable information in Adam's musings.
Your response to Sheeshbazzar is of little value. You addressed nothing.

The Pauline letters have been already shown to be composed no earlier than c 180 CE and were not used in the development of the Jesus cult in writings attributed to 2nd century Apologetic writers.

In the Canon, it is clearly seen that it was the Jesus story in the short version of gMark that was believed and influenced the other authors.

The Pauline letters to Seven Churches and the Pastorals are completely unknown by all authors of the Canon including the author of Acts.

Even if it is claimed that Acts of the Apostles is fiction we still have at least 10 more authors of the Canon who were not influernced at all by the character called Paul--never quoted a sentence from Paul and the Pauline letters.

1. The author of short Mark.

2. The author of long Mark

3. The author of gMatthew.

4. The author of gJohn.

5. The author of gLuke

6. The author of Epistle 1st Peter.

7. The author of Epistle Jude.

8. The author of Epistle John.

9. The author of Epistle James.

10. The author of Revelation.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 09:56 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries,...
So you assert.
Yes, I do.
More sensible than those who pick and choose, and assert from among what they admit are a selection of forgeries and a pack of lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
...and all of them were produced after The Gospels, and with a full knowledge of The Gospels.
So you believe.
Yes I do. And snideness and heckling insults are not going to change that belief.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Doherty's early 'Paul' Theory is going down.
Not on account of anything you've said here.
Perhaps not, but then as I have already told Earl, it is not going to be me or my opinions on this Forum that will eventually bring him down and relegate his theory and his books to the dumpster.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 10:12 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries,...
So you assert.
Yes, I do.
More sensible than those who pick and choose, and assert from among what they admit are a selection of forgeries and a pack of lies.
There is nothing sensible about argument by assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
...and all of them were produced after The Gospels, and with a full knowledge of The Gospels.
So you believe.
Yes I do. And snideness and heckling insults are not going to change that belief.
No-one here particularly cares what you believe. It's what you can show and you showed nothing in the post I responded to but a propensity to assert nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Doherty's early 'Paul' Theory is going down.
Not on account of anything you've said here.
Perhaps not, but then as I have already told Earl, it is not going to be me or my opinions on this Forum that will eventually bring him down and relegate his theory and his books to the dumpster.
It seems then that the effort of yours I'm responding to was just a knowing waste of time.
spin is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 10:14 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Hanging it out, and you are welcome to proclaim it nonsense, but as you will see, Time will bear it out.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 10:53 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Hanging it out, and you are welcome to proclaim it nonsense, but as you will see, Time will bear it out.
I already understand that you believe your unsupported assertions.
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Top

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