Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-31-2013, 06:14 PM

Watch out here come the block capital letters

spin · 05-31-2013, 06:16 PM

I think the guidelines a clear on that issue.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 06:20 PM

Again, your post lack substance. You are too predictable. You have utterly failed to provide any data your claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't see the problem. Paul visited Jerusalem (maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but if he did, it was before 60 CE). He meets James, who was an important person in Christian history, but who has practically vanished from the books, and Cephas, who might or might not be Peter. Then he is executed in Rome. Then the Jews declared war on the world's major superpower, who came in with armies and flattened Jerusalem. The gospels were written after this - the standard line is that they drew on oral traditions or memories of Jesus, supplemented by the Hebrew Scriptures, but maybe they were just written then to provide some comfort for the survivors of the Jewish War....

Your post exposes the very problems with the Pauline writings. There is NO corroboration for the Pauline activities.

You have already admitted that Acts is fiction.

Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Telling us what you think happen without corroborative evidence is absolutely irrelevant because we are not dealing with speculation at this time.

How ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your story is basically worthless because you have no evidence for what you say.

Coming from you, that says nothing. You concoct nonsense and aim for your a priori conclusion and that makes your presentations basically worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where is the evidence for stories of Jesus before the Jewish War c 70 CE?

What is the relevance of the question exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where is the evidence that Paul died in Rome?

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who is the apostle called James the Lord's brother?

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where is the evidence for Apostles of Jesus before c 70 CE?

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You keep on making up stuff while you ridicule others who present the supporting evidence for their arguments.

Ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The very Church writers contradict the Pauline story and claim Jesus was crucified 48-50 CE and that Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was composed.

This is garbled nonsense, based on selective misuse of sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...In the standard history, Paul' letters had not been collected when the gospels were first written. They were still in the libraries in the churches of Corinth, etc.

Toto, you have presented a most blatant fallacy. There is no standard history for Paul.

You're not even trying to understand. This is another stupid blunder based on language deficiency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have already admitted that Acts of the Apostles is fiction.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There were no libraries with the Pauline letters in the time of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Celsus, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, and Arnobius.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not saying any of this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is a clear time line with internal consistency that shows there is no reason to expect Paul to quote the gospels or vice versa.

Again, your post is illogical.

Ironic once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

One cannot assume Paul wrote his Epistles before the Gospels when no author of Canon made such a claim.

Obviously one can, so your statement is nonsense yet again. When you talk about logic and what is illogical, you put yourself in the firing line, given the sort of logic or lack thereof in statements like this of yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Toto, I cannot deal with the amount of speculation and presumptions in your posts you need to go back to the drawing board and present evidence from antiquity and not just give your flawed opinion.

You are too busy presuming and making assumptions yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even in Acts, up to c 58-62 CE there were no Pauline Corpus--None--and Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed according to Church tradition.

Your assumption seems to be that Acts needs to deal with Pauline texts. You have no basis for such. You seem to assume that Acts can give a valid picture of apostolic issues in the mid 1st c. without any reason for assuming such. You assume there is some veracity in the church tradition. Your whole position is, if you cared to look, riddled with assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I must make you know that it is completely illogical that the Church mistakenly believed gLuke was written early because information found in gLuke is found in the Pauline Corpus which suggest the Pauline Corpus are AFTER gLuke.

Must you? When you are responsible for assuming that Luke was written before Paul--for you have no tenable reason for believing so--you don't "must make you know" anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, information found in the Pauline Corpus is later than the earliest stories of Jesus.

We all know you believe that. We also know you think you have reason to believe that. You have not demonstrated that reason. You've merely fumbled your way through a mishmash of data from different times and forced yourself into error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John which appears to be corroborated by Justin who mentioned the Apocalypse by John WITHOUT mentioning Paul.

The Muratorian Canon is from the 7th c. and of no use to you. Then we have the lovely assertion that Justin didn't know of Paul because he doesn't mention him Justin's available texts. You are guilty of the same sorts of things you try to accuse others of. You fabricate evidence where there is none. You misunderstand sources. You use sources that are far too late. You assume that authors must say what you think they should. All this leads you to the following sorry nonsense:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline letters are products of fraud, forgery and false attribution based on the abundance of evidence.

This assertion has had no support given to it. You have no way to conclude that there is fraud involved, unless you almost totally empty the term of meaning, as with "forgery".

This has been a typical post full of your nonsense. It has been a waste of time, full of logical problems and you have the audacity to make accusations against others while not showing those accusations have merit and while being guilty of false conclusions and unsupported conjecture.

spin · 05-31-2013, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, your post lack substance. You are too predictable. You have utterly failed to provide any data your claims.

Actually you're too busy in denial to read anything, so you wouldn't know.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 06:31 PM

I find spin's post most amusing. He asserts the Muratorian Canon is 7th century. Well, this is the 21st century so I am not interested in his opinion of Paul.

Based on your own words--you are far too late.

spin · 05-31-2013, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I find spin's post most amusing. He asserts the Muratorian Canon is 7th century. Well, this is the 21st century so I am not interested in his opinion of Paul.

This is what happens when someone ill-equipped tries to do historical analyses. Yes, aa5874 gets nowhere, but what can we expect? He has shown no awareness of the use of sources.

Tommy · 05-31-2013, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The gMatthean stolen body story makes absolutely no sense if it was already known that over 500 people saw the Pauline resurrected Jesus.

I don't see how the two stories are contradictory. Surely gMattthew is merely priming the readers as to how Jews might try and discredit the empty tomb. Both author and readers would already be Xians who believed that Jesus made post-resurrection appearances and not inclined to fall for the stolen body hypothesis. Faith in post-resurrection appearancess would make the Jewish position all the more absurd; however, one wouldn't expect the doubting Jews to factor post-resurrection appearances into their scoffing.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 07:17 PM

The Pauline writers are not credible and the Pauline Corpus is a compilation of fraud, forgeries or false attribution.

The Epistle to the Galatians under the name of Paul is riddled with false claims.

If Jesus Christ did exist he could have only been human.

1. The very first verse in Galatians 1 is a blatant lie.

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

If Jesus was human he was not raised fcrom the dead.

2. Galatians 1.11-12 is a lie.

Galatians 1

Quote:

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If Jesus was dead then he never revealed anything to Paul.

3. Galatians 1.15-16 is a blatant Lie.

Galatians 1

Quote:

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

No such thing happened. Paul fabricated the story. God has NO Son and there is no evidence that God can hear, talk or see. God is a myth. If God existed he could have only been human. There is no record that a man named God had a son named Jesus Christ.

4. Galatians 1.18-19 is a lie.

[u]Galatians 1

Quote:

18Then after three years I went upto Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

If the Lord Jesus had a human brother then the Lord Jesus could NOT have been raised from the dead.

So far Galatians 1 is a pack of Lies.

The Pauline writers are not credible they attempted to historicise blatant Lies about Jesus and the Resurrection.

spin · 05-31-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers are not credible and the Pauline Corpus is a compilation of fraud, forgeries or false attribution.

aa5874 isn't credible when he keeps repeating such nonsense. It's like a computer program based on Weizenbaum's Eliza.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Epistle to the Galatians under the name of Paul is riddled with false claims.

Naturally, this is asserted because umm,... umm, why did you assert that exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus Christ did exist he could have only been human.

Working on the assumption that the world necessarily reflects science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. The very first verse in Galatians 1 is a blatant lie.

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

Obviously if Paul believed this to be true then clearly it wasn't a lie. aa5874 is probably asserting nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus was human he was not raised fcrom the dead.

2. Galatians 1.11-12 is a lie.

Galatians 1

Quote:

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Asserting lies without a serious basis would bring libel suits these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus was dead then he never revealed anything to Paul.

I doesn't stop Paul from believing that he had, as was the sort of thing that people thought in those days, ie that the dead communicated with the living.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

3. Galatians 1.15-16 is a blatant Lie.

Blatant nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Galatians 1

Quote:

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

No such thing happened.

You may be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paul fabricated the story.

Nevertheless, this is just another assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

God has NO Son and there is no evidence that God can hear, talk or see. God is a myth. If God existed he could have only been human. There is no record that a man named God had a son named Jesus Christ.

A quaint mixture of assertion, literalism and nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

4. Galatians 1.18-19 is a lie.

[u]Galatians 1

Quote:

18Then after three years I went upto Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

If the Lord Jesus had a human brother then the Lord Jesus could NOT have been raised from the dead.

You need to take that up with christians. It is not the basis for an assertion of lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So far Galatians 1 is a pack of Lies.

Well, to be honest, so far aa5874 has written a pack of assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Pauline writers are not credible they attempted to historicise blatant Lies about Jesus and the Resurrection.

Et Carthago delenda est.

aa5874 · 05-31-2013, 07:55 PM

From Galatians 1 we see that the Pauline writer could not be credible once Jesus did exist. And if Jesus did not exist Galatians 1 would still be a pack of lies.

1. If Jesus was human he did not resurrect.

2. If Jesus did not exist he did not resurrect.

Galatians 1 could only be a pack of lies as soon as the Pauline writer claimed his Jesus was raised from the dead.

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

05-31-2013, 06:14 PM	#91
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Watch out here come the block capital letters

05-31-2013, 06:16 PM	#92
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I think the guidelines a clear on that issue.

05-31-2013, 06:31 PM	#95
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I find spin's post most amusing. He asserts the Muratorian Canon is 7th century. Well, this is the 21st century so I am not interested in his opinion of Paul. Based on your own words--you are far too late.

05-31-2013, 07:55 PM	#100
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	From Galatians 1 we see that the Pauline writer could not be credible once Jesus did exist. And if Jesus did not exist Galatians 1 would still be a pack of lies. 1. If Jesus was human he did not resurrect. 2. If Jesus did not exist he did not resurrect. Galatians 1 could only be a pack of lies as soon as the Pauline writer claimed his Jesus was raised from the dead.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.