Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tommy · 05-26-2013, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The opposite is true of the 'Pauline Epistles' they know of the Gospels (and Revelations) 'KEEP the Commandments' sayings, and set out to deliberately overturn and supplant the words of 'Jesus', with the no Law antinomian theology of 'Paul'.

What verses would show that "Paul" knew of the canonical gospels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'Paul' could not admit to knowing the content of the Gospel's because doing so would contradict and prove to be a lie his claim that he received his Gospel by exclusive revelation from the 'Lord Jesus' when in fact he had learned all about 'Jesus' from the Christian believers that were before him.
'Paul' would have gotten nowhere with such a claim if he had not been the invention and tool of the latter church orthodoxy Establishment.

Wouldn't inventing an early figure who received foundational knowledge and instructions through personal revelation render Jesus' teaching and comission to His apostles as a bit redundant? If theology would be later revealed and spelt out to Paul it wouldn't have much mattered what Jesus did (other than His sacrafice and resurrection).

Tommy · 05-26-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have only stated what you think but have not stated the actual evidence from antiquity for your thoughts.

It is already known that some people believe the Pauline writings are early and credible without a shred of corroboration.

No-one in antiquity could have corroborated the Pauline revelations from a resurrected Jesus even if Jesus did actually exist.

It is most astonishing to me that the same people who argue that the Gospels are unattested do not also expose that the Pauline writings are the very same.

Important thing for me is that even if the epistles were pre-gospel Paul admits he wasn't accepted by other Xians and thus prior to AD70 he can't have represented early Xianity. There's a historical fog prior to at least AD70.

aa5874 · 05-26-2013, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have only stated what you think but have not stated the actual evidence from antiquity for your thoughts.

It is already known that some people believe the Pauline writings are early and credible without a shred of corroboration.

No-one in antiquity could have corroborated the Pauline revelations from a resurrected Jesus even if Jesus did actually exist.

It is most astonishing to me that the same people who argue that the Gospels are unattested do not also expose that the Pauline writings are the very same.

Important thing for me is that even if the epistles were pre-gospel Paul admits he wasn't accepted by other Xians and thus prior to AD70 he can't have represented early Xianity. There's a historical fog prior to at least AD70.

The important thing for me was that the Pauline writings were not written before Acts of the Apostles was composed.

If the Pauline letters were known to the author of Acts then it would be expected that he would have mentioned them.

The author of Acts implied that he followed Paul all over the Roman Empire yet wrote nothing of the Pauline revealed Gospel and visit by Jesus to Paul.

Remember, from Acts 15.20 to Acts 28 the author of Acts wrote ONLY of Paul and did not mention any of the supposed 12 apostles.

The author of Acts wrote about every activity of Paul in 14 dedicated chapters and did not acknowledge the Pauline Corpus.

The first writer of antiquity to mention the Pauline corpus claimed Jesus was crucified or implied Jesus was crucified c 48-50 CE thereby confirming that the Pauline Corpus are forgeries, fraud and false attribution.

See Against Heresies 2.22.

Toto · 05-30-2013, 02:19 PM

Digression into the relative dating of the Pauline letters vs the gospels has been split off here

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-30-2013, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

See Against Heresies 2.22.

You keep appealing to Irenaeus to support your views.

Do we have any evidence apart from what we find in "apologetic writers" not only that Ireneaus Justin actually existed, but that the writings attributed to him are actually from him?

Do we have any non apologetic evidence that corroborates what he tells us about himself?

Is Ireneaus ever quoted by non Christian writers? If so, by whom? And where? Is he ever mentioned by non Christian writers as the author ofAgainst Heresies or any other of the works attributed to him?Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-30-2013, 08:18 PM

The Pauline writers are not credible. They attempted to historicise fiction--the resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus.

No such thing is in the earliest story of Jesus.

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles.

8 But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also.

Now, in the earliest stories of Jesus in gMark, and gMattthew there is no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to over 500 persons and also to Paul.

The Pauline writer is NOT credible. Those so-called details were added after gMark was composed.

In gMark, the last acts of the disciples and Peter were either to Betray, Abandon or Deny Jesus after he was arrested.

Essentially, gMark ended in total disaster.

The story of Jesus in gMark left an Empty Tomb of Jesus, the Betrayed, the Abandoned, the Denied and the Rejected Blasphemer.

Sinaiticus Mark 14

Quote:

43 And immediately while he was yet speaking, comes Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and elders.

44 But he that delivered him up had given them a sign, saying: Whomever I shall kiss, he it is: hold him fast, and lead him away securely.

45 And when he had come he immediately came forward and said to him: Rabbi, and kissed him;

46 And they laid hands on him and held him fast.

47 But some one of those standing by drew a sword, and smote the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said to them: As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take me.

49 Daily was I with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hold on me; but that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And all left him and fled.........................................

69 And the maidservant saw him and began again to say to those standing by: This man is of them.

70 But he again denied. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter: Truly thou art of them; for thou art a Galilean.

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added to the earliest story in gMark. We know what they attempted to do.

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the resurrection when no such thing is found in gMark.

Jesus did NOT appear to any of his disciples, over 500 people and Paul in Sinaiticus gMark.

spin · 05-30-2013, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers are not credible.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

They attempted to historicise fiction--the resurrection of Jesus.

Could you look up the term "fiction" in the dictionary and then find a more appropriate word? Your use of the term empties it of most of its significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus.

No such thing is in the earliest story of Jesus.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles.

8 But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also.

Now, in the earliest stories of Jesus in gMark, and gMattthew there is no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to over 500 persons and also to Paul.

Is there a clear point you'd like to make? I could just as meaningfully say that because the aa5874 writer seems confused about the terms he uses, the aa5874 writer is NOT credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer is NOT credible. Those so-called details were added after gMark was composed.

Which details and why do you call those details "so-called"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In gMark, the last acts of the disciples and Peter were either to Betray, Abandon or Deny Jesus after he was arrested.

In English we don't normally capitalize verbs in mid-sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, gMark ended in total disaster.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story of Jesus in gMark left an Empty Tomb of Jesus, the Betrayed, the Abandoned, the Denied and the Rejected Blasphemer.

Note in the guidelines: Show consideration for your readers by observing ordinary conventions of spelling, capitalization, sentence construction, paragraphing, and transliteration. You are certainly not observing the conventions regarding capitalization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus Mark 14

Quote:

43 And immediately while he was yet speaking, comes Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and elders.

44 But he that delivered him up had given them a sign, saying: Whomever I shall kiss, he it is: hold him fast, and lead him away securely.

45 And when he had come he immediately came forward and said to him: Rabbi, and kissed him;

46 And they laid hands on him and held him fast.

47 But some one of those standing by drew a sword, and smote the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said to them: As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take me.

49 Daily was I with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hold on me; but that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And all left him and fled.........................................

69 And the maidservant saw him and began again to say to those standing by: This man is of them.

70 But he again denied. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter: Truly thou art of them; for thou art a Galilean.

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added to the earliest story in gMark. We know what they attempted to do.

Who is "we"? And how do they know "EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the resurrection when no such thing is found in gMark.

This is an unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus did NOT appear to any of his disciples, over 500 people and Paul in Sinaiticus gMark.

You might be right, but you've got no way of knowing. All I hear is someone talking through their hat.

aa5874 · 05-30-2013, 09:43 PM

Your response has no substance. There is nothing to learn from you. Just the same one liners day after day. All you do is to acknowledge your disagreement but do not address them.

We already know that you think you are right. That is expected when there are opposing arguments.

What is your point? Are you arguing that the Pauline writings are credible?

You seem to have no idea how theories are developed and seem not to understand that one can use the present available data to form an opinion which can be modified when new data is found.

The present data do show that the Pauline writers are not credibilty and it has already been the deduced that the Pauline Corpus contains Multiple anonymous authors.

It has already been pointed out that even Church writers and Apologetics made claims about the Pauline writers which are hopelessly contradictory and cannot be reconciled.

This is some of the present available data that can be used to develop the theory that the Pauline writings are not c redible.

1.It was argued that Jesus was crucified at 48-50 CE at about 50 years as stated in Against Heresies SO it is simply not credible that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas or c 37-41 CE

2. It was claimed in antiquity Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written so it is simply not credible that Paul died under Nero c 68 CE.

3. It was argued by Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr and others that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a woman so it is not credible that Paul could have received revelations from such a character.

There is just a massive amount of data today that can be used to argue that the Pauline writings are NOT credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers are not credible.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

They attempted to historicise fiction--the resurrection of Jesus.

Could you look up the term "fiction" in the dictionary and then find a more appropriate word? Your use of the term empties it of most of its significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus.

No such thing is in the earliest story of Jesus.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles.

8 But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also.

Now, in the earliest stories of Jesus in gMark, and gMattthew there is no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to over 500 persons and also to Paul.

Is there a clear point you'd like to make? I could just as meaningfully say that because the aa5874 writer seems confused about the terms he uses, the aa5874 writer is NOT credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer is NOT credible. Those so-called details were added after gMark was composed.

Which details and why do you call those details "so-called"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In gMark, the last acts of the disciples and Peter were either to Betray, Abandon or Deny Jesus after he was arrested.

In English we don't normally capitalize verbs in mid-sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, gMark ended in total disaster.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story of Jesus in gMark left an Empty Tomb of Jesus, the Betrayed, the Abandoned, the Denied and the Rejected Blasphemer.

Note in the guidelines: Show consideration for your readers by observing ordinary conventions of spelling, capitalization, sentence construction, paragraphing, and transliteration. You are certainly not observing the conventions regarding capitalization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus Mark 14

Quote:

43 And immediately while he was yet speaking, comes Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and elders.

44 But he that delivered him up had given them a sign, saying: Whomever I shall kiss, he it is: hold him fast, and lead him away securely.

45 And when he had come he immediately came forward and said to him: Rabbi, and kissed him;

46 And they laid hands on him and held him fast.

47 But some one of those standing by drew a sword, and smote the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said to them: As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take me.

49 Daily was I with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hold on me; but that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And all left him and fled.........................................

69 And the maidservant saw him and began again to say to those standing by: This man is of them.

70 But he again denied. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter: Truly thou art of them; for thou art a Galilean.

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added to the earliest story in gMark. We know what they attempted to do.

Who is "we"? And how do they know "EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the resurrection when no such thing is found in gMark.

This is an unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus did NOT appear to any of his disciples, over 500 people and Paul in Sinaiticus gMark.

You might be right, but you've got no way of knowing. All I hear is someone talking through their hat.

spin · 05-30-2013, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your response has no substance. There is nothing to learn from you. Just the same one liners day after day. All you do is to acknowledge your disagreement but do not address them.

We already know that you think you are right. That is expected when there are opposing arguments.

What is your point? Are you arguing that the Pauline writings are credible?

You seem to have no idea how theories are developed and seem not to understand that one can use the present available data to form an opinion which can be modified when new data is found.

The present data do show that the Pauline writers are not credibilty and it has already been the deduced that the Pauline Corpus contains Multiple anonymous authors.

It has already been pointed out that even Church writers and Apologetics made claims about the Pauline writers which are hopelessly contradictory and cannot be reconciled.

This is some of the present available data that can be used to develop the theory that the Pauline writings are not c redible.

1.It was argued that Jesus was crucified at 48-50 CE at about 50 years as stated in Against Heresies SO it is simply not credible that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas or c 37-41 CE

2. It was claimed in antiquity Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written so it is simply not credible that Paul died under Nero c 68 CE.

3. It was argued by Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr and others that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a woman so it is not credible that Paul could have received revelations from such a character.

There is just a massive amount of data today that can be used to argue that the Pauline writings are NOT credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers are not credible.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

They attempted to historicise fiction--the resurrection of Jesus.

Could you look up the term "fiction" in the dictionary and then find a more appropriate word? Your use of the term empties it of most of its significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus.

No such thing is in the earliest story of Jesus.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles.

8 But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also.

Now, in the earliest stories of Jesus in gMark, and gMattthew there is no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to over 500 persons and also to Paul.

Is there a clear point you'd like to make? I could just as meaningfully say that because the aa5874 writer seems confused about the terms he uses, the aa5874 writer is NOT credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writer is NOT credible. Those so-called details were added after gMark was composed.

Which details and why do you call those details "so-called"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In gMark, the last acts of the disciples and Peter were either to Betray, Abandon or Deny Jesus after he was arrested.

In English we don't normally capitalize verbs in mid-sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, gMark ended in total disaster.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story of Jesus in gMark left an Empty Tomb of Jesus, the Betrayed, the Abandoned, the Denied and the Rejected Blasphemer.

Note in the guidelines: Show consideration for your readers by observing ordinary conventions of spelling, capitalization, sentence construction, paragraphing, and transliteration. You are certainly not observing the conventions regarding capitalization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Sinaiticus Mark 14

Quote:

43 And immediately while he was yet speaking, comes Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and elders.

44 But he that delivered him up had given them a sign, saying: Whomever I shall kiss, he it is: hold him fast, and lead him away securely.

45 And when he had come he immediately came forward and said to him: Rabbi, and kissed him;

46 And they laid hands on him and held him fast.

47 But some one of those standing by drew a sword, and smote the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said to them: As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take me.

49 Daily was I with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hold on me; but that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And all left him and fled.........................................

69 And the maidservant saw him and began again to say to those standing by: This man is of them.

70 But he again denied. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter: Truly thou art of them; for thou art a Galilean.

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added to the earliest story in gMark. We know what they attempted to do.

Who is "we"? And how do they know "EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the resurrection when no such thing is found in gMark.

This is an unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus did NOT appear to any of his disciples, over 500 people and Paul in Sinaiticus gMark.

You might be right, but you've got no way of knowing. All I hear is someone talking through their hat.

Staple this to your forehead:

You're not saying anything useful. You are rabbiting on mainly reflecting various things I've said without you giving any real reflection and I don't care because what you've said is inconsequential to the problem being dealt with.

To reiterate: your views of that consensus are not the topic of the discussion; Shesh's denial of the consensus is.

aa5874 · 05-30-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Staple this to your forehead:

You're not saying anything useful. You are rabbiting on mainly reflecting various things I've said without you giving any real reflection and I don't care because what you've said is inconsequential to the problem being dealt with.

To reiterate: your views of that consensus are not the topic of the discussion; Shesh's denial of the consensus is.

Again, nothing of any substance. We already know that you don't care.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2013, 02:19 PM	#64
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Digression into the relative dating of the Pauline letters vs the gospels has been split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.