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

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-03-2013, 08:34 AM   #41
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

It is extremely easy to show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 2nd century and that the Jesus story was known and established before the Pauline Corpus was written.

If Paul was indeed the one who INITIALLY preached the supposed new religion of Christ crucified and resurrected to the Roman Empire outside Judea then we would expect references to the Pauline cult.

There is NO cult called the Pauline cult by any writers who mentioned cults of antiquity.

In antiquity, regardless of the doctrine, the cult would carry the name of the founder.

Examine Origen's "Against Celsus".

Origen's "Against Celsus"
Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
If Paul was the Founder of Churches in Christ then there ought to be well established Pauline cults since the 1st century.

However, in the list of Christian cults there is no one called Saul or Paul.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
Quote:
...just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.
If Paul was the founder of Churches in Christ then there should have been Pauline cults BEFORE Marcion's cult and these Pauline cults should have been established 100 years BEFORE the Marcionites.

There is NOT one actual person known in antiquity who admitted to be part of a Pauline cult in the 1st century.

Examine the very NT Canon--almost half of the books are Pauline Epistles yet the authors copied gMark.

The authors of the Jesus story do not appear to be part of the Pauline cult and Pauline Churches.

The Pauline cults have NO known history for hundreds of years.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:06 PM   #42
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is extremely easy to show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 2nd century and that the Jesus story was known and established before the Pauline Corpus was written.

If Paul was indeed the one who INITIALLY preached the supposed new religion of Christ crucified and resurrected to the Roman Empire outside Judea then we would expect references to the Pauline cult.

There is NO cult called the Pauline cult by any writers who mentioned cults of antiquity.

In antiquity, regardless of the doctrine, the cult would carry the name of the founder.

Examine Origen's "Against Celsus".

Origen's "Against Celsus"
Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
How do you explain the following alleged account of Celsus misquoting a Pauline writing?

Quote:
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good," we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow: "If any one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is fool ishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool universally;" but, "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." We term, then, "the wisdom of this world," every false system of philosophy, which, according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes foolish as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who believes in the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis,, incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to place a God over all things.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 04:30 PM   #43
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

All we know about Celsus is from what Origen alleged what Celsus says (in Contra Celsus/Celsum)
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:11 PM   #44
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
How do you explain the following alleged account of Celsus misquoting a Pauline writing?

Quote:
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good," we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow: "If any one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is fool ishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool universally;" but, "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." We term, then, "the wisdom of this world," every false system of philosophy, which, according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes foolish as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who believes in the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis,, incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to place a God over all things.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html
The explanation is actually included in the very passage itself.

Celsus slanders the Gospel.--Not the writings of Paul.

The statement that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good," is found nowhere in the Pauline Corpus.

Do not forget that Origen had already admitted that Celsus forgot to mention anything about Paul. [b]See Origen "Against Celsus 1[b]

Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
Celsus must have slandered the Gospel---Not the Pauline Corpus-- based on Origen.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 07:26 PM   #45
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . Do not forget that Origen had already admitted that Celsus forgot to mention anything about Paul. See Origen "Against Celsus 1

Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
Celsus must have slandered the Gospel---Not the Pauline Corpus-- based on Origen.
That quote doesn't mean what you think it means (hint: read it in context ). Elsewhere, Origen alleges that Celsus was quoting words attributed to Paul in the folowing passage (see below).

Quote:
And yet this man {Celsus}, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: "You may hear," he says, "all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'" And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings. . .

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen165.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 10-03-2013, 08:07 PM   #46
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . Do not forget that Origen had already admitted that Celsus forgot to mention anything about Paul. See Origen "Against Celsus 1

Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
Celsus must have slandered the Gospel---Not the Pauline Corpus-- based on Origen.
That quote doesn't mean what you think it means (hint: read it in context ). Elsewhere, Origen alleges that Celsus was quoting words attributed to Paul in the folowing passage (see below).

Quote:
And yet this man {Celsus}, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: "You may hear," he says, "all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'" And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings. . .

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen165.html
Again, I cannot presume that only the Pauline Corpus contained those words when Origen ALREADY admitted that Celsus forgot to mention anything about Paul.

There is NO direct reference to Paul by Celsus in the passage.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Top

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