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 05-26-2013, 11:38 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

I believe my prediction. Or I wouldn't be here predicting it.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 12:13 AM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I believe my prediction. Or I wouldn't be here predicting it.
Yes, and you believe that as well. A belief in a prediction about a belief. Who needs evidence?
spin is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 03:40 PM   #43
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
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.

What 'Paul' claimed, personal divine revelation, one 'not received from any man', backed 'Paul' into a corner formed by his lie.
"Paul' (and his ghost writers) 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.

His repeated denials (Thou doeth protest too much!) are a tip off that he did in fact receive his Gospel from men.

'Paul' -and every writer ever writing under that pseudonym- knew the Gospels
but deliberately engaged in the deception of pretending not to have.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries, and all of them were produced after The Gospels, and with a full knowledge of The Gospels.

Doherty's early 'Paul' Theory is going down.
By this sort of logic, or rather complete lack of logic, one can assume anything to be true, as you do.

One huge difference between your wild theory and Doherty's is that the latter actually analyzed what Paul wrote and reached the conclusion, based on the textual evidence within the epistles, that Paul did not know the gospels and that Paul's Jesus was spiritual. Doherty takes the writings seriously and provides proof for his conclusions. You simply assume the very opposite with no proof whatsoever.

Paul could not have had a vision where he heard his Jesus speak to him because in your world, no one can hear such things. I'm an atheist myself but I have no problem whatsoever admitting that people who believe in God or Allah, Jesus or Mohammed, actually believe that their gods speak to them. Joseph Smith believed that an angel spoke to him and he created his Mormon church based upon such a vision. So why couldn't Paul have had a vision?

Even though the epistles are interpolated and manipulated, they still do not show that Paul believed in a Jesus walking this earth. Why? His epistles teaches another Jesus, another religion in many parts, but you and aa claim it's still forgeries by the Roman church. If so, they did a hell of a poor job. Why not make a reference to the Virgin Mary and/or to the empty tomb from which Jesus resurrected while there were at it? Why did they allow their Paul to keep quiet on such essential beliefs? Why?

Your theory that Paul did in fact believe in a Jesus walking this earth, that he knew the gospel story, makes him out to be a liar. What was the purpose? Did he try to get himself killed as a heretic? Why are there no evidence within them that Paul tried to answer all the questions he must have received as to why he didn't mention John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, Lazarus, Pilate, the trial, the resurrection on earth? His beliefs would have been met with total scepticism had they occured later than the gospels and as a result, they would not have been included in the NT Canon at all. The very fact that they are there, in the Canon, tells me that his beliefs has to be earlier, were known and has different roots than the catholic beliefs. It's simple logic.

To aa: please, you are like a broken record, stuck in the same groove. "Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius says so in his Church history, Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius....." But haven't you yourself said that Church history is a massive forgery? It has an invented list of bishops, it claims that Matthew was the first gospel written, it quotes the invented Testimonium, it says Abraham was a christian... it's obvious that Eusebius wrote with an agenda to incorporate everyone of note into his religion. As he said in chapter 4 of CH: "But although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of Christians has really but recently been known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favored men of old... If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth."

That's why the Bible of christians include both the Old and New Testament, although the OT belongs to a much older religion with different roots, why Paul became "a christian in fact", why his own older gospel was claimed to be that of Luke and why his writings were placed after the invented Acts.
Kent F is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 05:24 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

In all fairness to Shesh - or perhaps better, the idea he is championing - the Marcionites did hold that the apostle was the true evangelist. They had to have held he knew the gospel narrative (this is never made explicit). So where does that leave us? The epistles either deliberately avoided mentioning the gospel or one or both the evangelikon and apostolikon are corrupt. You know what I think. It renders textual criticism of dubious or uncertain value.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 06:18 PM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
To aa: please, you are like a broken record, stuck in the same groove. "Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius says so in his Church history, Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius....." But haven't you yourself said that Church history is a massive forgery?...
What about Doherty's broken record? Does he not argue that the Pauline writings are interpolated? Why does Doherty use admitted manipulated sources and anonymous writings of unknown date of authorship for his argument?

Please, you promote double standards. Why don't you tell Doherty that he relied on the very same manipulated Pauline Corpus for his never on earth crucified Jesus?

Now, I do not make stuff up.

I do not claim that Christians of antiquity believed that their crucified Jesus was never on earth without a shred of corroboration.

Who in antiquity presented evidence or made a statement that Jesus the crucified was never on earth??

Who?? When?? Where??

The crucified never on earth Jesus is an imagination based character unheard of in antiquity.

On the other hand, I deal with ACTUAL evidence--written statements from antiquity---NOT guesswork and presumptions.

This is just a partial list of the abundance of evidence to support my argument that the Pauline letters were extremely late.


1.Apologetics, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, did place Paul AFTER gLuke which is EXACTLY what I needed.

2. An Apologetic, the Muratorian Canon, did admit the Pauline letters were composed after Revelation by John which EXACTLY what I needed.

3. Acts of the Apostles did NOT mention the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I needed.

4. An Apologetic, Irenaeus, argued that Jesus was crucified about c 48-50 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.

5. Scholars have deduced the Pauline Corpus is a product of Multiple authors which is EXACTLY what I needed.

6. 2nd century Apologetics, Aristides, Justin, Minucius Felix, wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I neeeded.

7. 2nd century Apologetics, Justin, Arnobius, show that the Jesus cult developed WITHOUT the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I needed.

8. A 2nd century Apologetic, Justin, admitted that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches which is EXACTLY what I needed.

9. An 3rd century Apologetic, Origen, admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul c160 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.

10. No Pauline letters have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.



My argument is FAR SUPERIOR to Doherty's.

My argument is based directly on the DATA that is presently available


Data must FIRST be collected to develop a theory or make a proper argument.

There is ZERO data for the belief in a crucified never on earth Jesus in or out the Canon.

There is DATA that Paul wrote the Epistles AFTER Revelation by John his predecessor.

There is DATA that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches up c 150 CE.


The Pauline writings are very late writings and were unknown up to at least 180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 06:21 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F
Your theory that Paul did in fact believe in a Jesus walking this earth, that he knew the gospel story
Sorry Kent, but you are badly mistaken in what you think it is that I believe, and about the details of what my theory actually is.
Others here have heard it often enough to know that you are misunderstanding my views.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 06:37 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire 'Pauline Epistles' that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Paul'.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are corrupt and untrustworthy sources composed of forgeries and fictions by multiple unknown authors at unknown dates.
All they prove is that corrupt and thoroughly dishonest men diddled with these texts.

As an account of 1st century Christianity, they have an evidentiary value on the par with that used toilet tissue you last flushed.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:01 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire 'Pauline Epistles' that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Paul'.
We're getting deep here.

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire Mosaic corpus that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Moses'.

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire 'Socratic' that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Socrates'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The 'Pauline Epistles' are corrupt and untrustworthy sources...
Had you left it there there is some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
...composed of forgeries and fictions by multiple unknown authors at unknown dates.
All they prove is that corrupt and thoroughly dishonest men diddled with these texts.
Oh, what utter baloney. You flit from "corrupt texts" to "forgeries" and on to "dishonest men" like an overworked bee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
As an account of 1st century Christianity, they have an evidentiary value on the par with that used toilet tissue you last flushed.
Along with the credibility of Shesh's diatribe.
spin is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:10 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Thankfully, in the real world, credibility is not dictated by the sole opinion of 'spin', But is a matter of individual persuasions.
If you wish to believe a 1st century 'Paul' actully wrote the 'Pauline Epistles', and that they accurately reflect 1st century CE Christian beliefs that is your prerogative.
There are others who are persuaded otherwise, and they are not contesting.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:31 PM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Thankfully, in the real world,...
...where people don't go round capitalizing the "NAME" or doing other weird shit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
...credibility is not dictated by the sole opinion of 'spin',
Most people know I don't hold to opinions. Shesh has somehow missed that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
But is a matter of individual persuasions.
If you wish to believe a 1st century 'Paul' actully wrote the 'Pauline Epistles', and that they accurately reflect 1st century CE Christian beliefs that is your prerogative.
One is certainly free to believe anything their little hearts constrain them to. As for me, I'll go with the evidence and argumentation.

So evidence and argumentation for a non-1st century Paul.......... anyone? Shesh obviously has none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
There are others who are persuaded otherwise, and they are not contesting.
But they sure make a lotta noise about it.
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.