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 06-02-2013, 02:48 PM   #121
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is imperative that people here understand logical deductions and conclusion based on premises.

From deductive reasoning it can very easily be shown that the Pauline Corpus is not Credible.

But deductive reasoning can also be applied to the Entire Corpus and Texts of antiquity in or out the Canon.

In any event, when deductive reasoning is applied to the Pauline Corpus they are NOT Credible and separately a Pack of lies, that is, the claim by Paul that he was LAST to be seen by the Resurrected Jesus is a KNOWN False statement.

In 1 Corinthians 15 the Pauline writer claimed he was Last to be seen of the Resurrected Jesus but in 2Corinthians all of a sudden he gets amnesia and cannot remember how he met the man called Jesus but somehow knows he was in the THIRD heaven.

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
Quote:
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once...........8And last of all he was seen of me also...
Now, in his supposed second letter the Pauline write cannot recall.

2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV
Quote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell God knoweth ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell God knoweth
The Pauline writings are NOT Credible--a Pack of lies.

At one time the Pauline writer claimed he was the Last to see the resurrected Jesus and at another time he cannot recall how it happened in the THIRD heaven and "whether it was in or out the body".


Once the premises are understood that:

1. If Jesus existed he must have been human.

2. Human beings do resurrect after they have been dead and buried for three days.

We can conclude by deductive reasoning that the Pauline Corpus is not credible and a Pack of Lies as soon as the writer claimed he was SEEN by a resurrected Jesus.
spin is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 03:48 PM   #122
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Deductive reasoning is extremely easy to understand.

The Pauline Corpus is no more credible than sources that claim Evlis Presley is still alive and that he was seen after he was dead and buried.

Essentially The Pauline Corpus is the product of a Hoax.

Hoax are generally intended to dupe.

Now, examine Galatians 1.18-19 NIV.

Quote:
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
Here Paul implies the Lord Jesus had a human brother called James in Jerusalem.

Again, we have the very same problem with the Pauline Corpus.

Once it is implied the LORD Jesus was human then the Pauline writers are False Witnesses of the Post Resurrection visit by Jesus.

The claim that the Lord Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day and that he was seen by Paul must be false if the Lord Jesus was a man with a human brother called James.

The Pauline Corpus is fundamentally a Hoax with known false claims.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 04:29 PM   #123
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Deductive reasoning is extremely easy to understand.
...displaying the irony I note with relish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Pauline Corpus is no more credible than sources that claim Evlis Presley is still alive and that he was seen after he was dead and buried.
Just an analogy that you can't show to be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Essentially The Pauline Corpus is the product of a Hoax.
Silly assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Hoax are generally intended to dupe.

Now, examine Galatians 1.18-19 NIV.

Quote:
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
Here Paul implies the Lord Jesus had a human brother called James in Jerusalem.
Rubbish. You are merely asserting the christian reading of the verse. Paul clearly uses the term "lord", when it stands alone, for god, as is the case throughout the Hebrew bible. Paul also uses "lord" in other ways, as when it qualifies Jesus, eg the "lord Jesus", where it means what it usually means.

James is a brother of the lord, ie god, and Paul almost always uses "brother" in a non-familial sense (and I challenge you to find an example where you can demonstrate that he does).

Deductions fail when they depend on interpretations of evidence that cannot clearly be shown to be true or false. At this point you are left with no argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Again, we have the very same problem with the Pauline Corpus.

Once it is implied the LORD Jesus was human then the Pauline writers are False Witnesses of the Post Resurrection visit by Jesus.
Paul doesn't talk about being visited by Jesus. He talks of a revelation in which god revealed to him the son. (Gal 1:15-16). He has a mystical experience for what that is worth. Paul can have weird experiences and still be a credible witness to those experiences, ie that he had weird experiences and that he believed that he was in communication with god and had experiences of being shown heaven. All easily understandable as someone trying to make sense of his own experiences. We don't have to believe those experiences to see merit in what he was saying. We can see an ordinary person with no special abilities, who doesn't do miracles, who jealously manipulates his converts in order to keep them on his path. All very credible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The claim that the Lord Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day and that he was seen by Paul must be false if the Lord Jesus was a man with a human brother called James.
Let's remove the last unfounded assumption (re: James). The rest seems to be a simple denial that people have mystical experiences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Pauline Corpus is fundamentally a Hoax with known false claims.
aa5874 is fundamentally unable to demonstrate his assertions using failed deductive reasoning.
spin is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 05:26 PM   #124
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
You are merely asserting the christian reading of the verse. Paul clearly uses the term "lord", when it stands alone, for god, as is the case throughout the Hebrew bible. Paul also uses "lord" in other ways, as when it qualifies Jesus, eg the "lord Jesus", where it means what it usually means...

James is a brother of the lord, ie god, and Paul almost always uses "brother" in a non-familial sense (and I challenge you to find an example where you can demonstrate that he does). ....
What absurdity. Apologetic sources of the Jesus cult, Apologetic sources of antiquity do not ever claim that the "Lord" in Galatians 1.19 refers to God

Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and other who made reference to Galatians 1.19 do not express your fallacies. In fact, your story about Paul is completely unknown in antiquity.

You made it up, an invention, because you have no supporting evidence.

Examine Jerome De viris Illustribus
Quote:
..
Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor.

Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God.

When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, “Lord forgive them for they know not what they do.” Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with— he died.


This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that “No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord,” and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.
Please, you have no idea what you are talking about.

There was no tradition in the writings of the Jesus cult that Galatians 1.19 did not refer to the Lord Jesus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Paul doesn't talk about being visited by Jesus. He talks of a revelation in which god revealed to him the son. (Gal 1:15-16). He has a mystical experience for what that is worth. Paul can have weird experiences and still be a credible witness to those experiences, ie that he had weird experiences and that he believed that he was in communication with god and had experiences of being shown heaven. All easily understandable as someone trying to make sense of his own experiences. We don't have to believe those experiences to see merit in what he was saying. We can see an ordinary person with no special abilities, who doesn't do miracles, who jealously manipulates his converts in order to keep them on his path. All very credible.
You don't really know what you are talking about the Pauline writers specifically claimed that they TESTIFIED AS WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead and that he was seen by OVER 500 persons at once.

It is absurd to suggest that people who dream, hallucinate, and take mind altering drugs are classfied as witnesses.

It is unheard of that weird mystical experiences are credible historical sources. Please, what you say makes no sense. It is just a waste of time to discuss incoherent weird experiences as credible sources of history.

Examine the words of the Pauline writer.

1 Corinthians 15:15 NIV
Quote:
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
Please, you must understand what the Pauline writer stated. He admitted he was a witness to the resurrected Jesus and Testified that God raised up Jesus.

1. If Jesus did exist he must have been human.

2. Human beings do not resurrect after being dead and buried for three days.


3. The Pauline Corpus is a Pack of LIES.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:27 PM   #125
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
You are merely asserting the christian reading of the verse. Paul clearly uses the term "lord", when it stands alone, for god, as is the case throughout the Hebrew bible. Paul also uses "lord" in other ways, as when it qualifies Jesus, eg the "lord Jesus", where it means what it usually means...

James is a brother of the lord, ie god, and Paul almost always uses "brother" in a non-familial sense (and I challenge you to find an example where you can demonstrate that he does). ....
What absurdity.
You've demonstrated you wouldn't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Apologetic sources of the Jesus cult, Apologetic sources of antiquity do not ever claim that the "Lord" in Galatians 1.19 refers to God
You're being anachronistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and other who made reference to Galatians 1.19 do not express your fallacies. In fact, your story about Paul is completely unknown in antiquity.
As I said, anachronistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You made it up, an invention, because you have no supporting evidence.
Try reading the text and understanding it rather than injecting church fathers and confusing yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Examine Jerome De viris Illustribus
Quote:
..
Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor.

Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God.

When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, “Lord forgive them for they know not what they do.” Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with— he died.


This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that “No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord,” and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.
Again, anachronistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Please, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The irony is strong, folks.

:hysterical:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
There was no tradition in the writings of the Jesus cult that Galatians 1.19 did not refer to the Lord Jesus.
Traditions come after the fact and are no indication of what the text meant. Try to be reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Paul doesn't talk about being visited by Jesus. He talks of a revelation in which god revealed to him the son. (Gal 1:15-16). He has a mystical experience for what that is worth. Paul can have weird experiences and still be a credible witness to those experiences, ie that he had weird experiences and that he believed that he was in communication with god and had experiences of being shown heaven. All easily understandable as someone trying to make sense of his own experiences. We don't have to believe those experiences to see merit in what he was saying. We can see an ordinary person with no special abilities, who doesn't do miracles, who jealously manipulates his converts in order to keep them on his path. All very credible.
You don't really know what you are talking about the Pauline writers specifically claimed that they TESTIFIED AS WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead and that he was seen by OVER 500 persons at once.
Perhaps you are unaware of the scholarly analysis of the particular verses you are depending on (for example, R.M. Price, 'Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation', The Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995), 69-99.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is absurd to suggest that people who dream, hallucinate, and take mind altering drugs are classfied as witnesses.
...to the events that they dreamed or hallucinated. You cannot then say that they did not have some experience that led them to making the claim. THat is illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is unheard of that weird mystical experiences are credible historical sources.
For the reality of those experienced events. You can't talk about other things from the source. THat woul dbe without foundation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Please, what you say makes no sense.
That is because you have difficulties dealing with real world evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is just a waste of time to discuss incoherent weird experiences as credible sources of history.
BUt only you are trying to do that. You are wasting your own time, because you don't understand what is going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Examine the words of the Pauline writer.

1 Corinthians 15:15 NIV
Quote:
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
Please, you must understand what the Pauline writer stated.
As you haven't acknowledged what I've said on the issue, your comments are worthless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
He admitted he was a witness to the resurrected Jesus and Testified that God raised up Jesus.

1. If Jesus did exist he must have been human.

2. Human beings do not resurrect after being dead and buried for three days.

3. The Pauline Corpus is a Pack of LIES.
And the vacuous conclusion comes like Fabius' "Et Carthago delenda est".

Your posts are a pile of nonsense. Totally void of reason as we know the notion in the real world.
spin is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:09 PM   #126
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
...Perhaps you are unaware of the scholarly analysis of the particular verses you are depending on (for example, R.M. Price, 'Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation', The Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995), 69-99.).
You are unaware of the evidence from antiquity and conveniently rely on flawed opinion.

And further neither you nor R M Price have any supporting evidence from antiquity that 1 Cor.15.3-11 was interpolated because you and RM Price cannot show any Pauline Corpus without Galatians 1.19.

Whenever evidence from antiquity is found to contradict you all of a sudden it was interpolated.

You have trapped yourself by suggesting 1 Cor. 15 is interpolated because you are admitting the Pauline Corpus could not be credible as we have it today

You are obligated to present the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was actually composed before c 70 CE and then was later interpolated.

You cannot do so and never will.

My argument is that the Pauline writers were not credible and were composed late, after the 1st century just as the recovered dated manuscripts and apologetic sources show.

I have interests in the witnesses of antiquity, the written statements of antiquity, not the convenient flawed opinion of experts with whom you may not even agree.

You did not even realize that the Pauline Corpus is not credible once it can be shown that is was interpolated by RM PRICE.

Your position is hopelessly weak and confused.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:36 PM   #127
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
...Perhaps you are unaware of the scholarly analysis of the particular verses you are depending on (for example, R.M. Price, 'Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation', The Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995), 69-99.).
You are unaware of the evidence from antiquity and conveniently rely on flawed opinion.
You can assert this as often as you like. It's like sticking your fist in water and pulling it out, hoping to see some impression left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
And further neither you nor R M Price have any supporting evidence from antiquity that 1 Cor.15.3-11 was interpolated because you and RM Price cannot show any Pauline Corpus without Galatians 1.19.
So, while textual analysis is used to discern authors in collaborative works such as Elizabethan plays, or works written by different hands over time, you prefer to remain in denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Whenever evidence from antiquity is found to contradict you all of a sudden it was interpolated.
The reason I cited Price was so that this limp response would be seen as inadequate. There is no "of a sudden", just your lack of awareness of the scholarship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You have trapped yourself by suggesting 1 Cor. 15 is interpolated because you are admitting the Pauline Corpus could not be credible as we have it today
The old "I don't care about the baby: I want to throw out the bathwater" defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You are obligated to present the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was actually composed before c 70 CE and then was later interpolated.
You are obliged to know what you are talking about and at the same time restrain from anachronism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You cannot do so and never will.
Your obligation is false and your conclusions based on it have no value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
My argument is that the Pauline writers were not credible and were composed late, after the 1st century just as the recovered dated manuscripts and apologetic sources show.
You have asserted this many times without any evidence. You haven't established any general notion of credibility. You have failed to show that the letters were written after the 1st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I have interests in the witnesses of antiquity, the written statements of antiquity, not the convenient flawed opinion of experts with whom you may not even agree.
You assume that the opinion is flawed but are unable to demonstrate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You did not even realize that the Pauline Corpus is not credible once it can be shown that is was interpolated by RM PRICE.
There is no sense in this statement. You seem to be blithely unaware of scholarly discourse with ancient literature. Your assessment isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Your position is hopelessly weak and confused.
If you listen to hopelessly weak and confused arguments like those you have presented. But you will piddle about in the dark trying to force your personal agenda, coming back to the conclusions that stimulate you, rather than making balanced assessments of what you are pretending to deal with.
spin is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 08:42 PM   #128
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Again, you post nothing of substance. I have exposed that you have no idea what deductive reasoning is.

It was completely illogical for you to make reference to RM Price 'Apocryphal Apparitions" when he argues that 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is corrupted which destroys its credibility.

I had already pointed out to you that the Pauline claims about the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 are a pack of lies.




Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
...Perhaps you are unaware of the scholarly analysis of the particular verses you are depending on (for example, R.M. Price, 'Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation', The Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995), 69-99.).
You are unaware of the evidence from antiquity and conveniently rely on flawed opinion.
You can assert this as often as you like. It's like sticking your fist in water and pulling it out, hoping to see some impression left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
And further neither you nor R M Price have any supporting evidence from antiquity that 1 Cor.15.3-11 was interpolated because you and RM Price cannot show any Pauline Corpus without Galatians 1.19.
So, while textual analysis is used to discern authors in collaborative works such as Elizabethan plays, or works written by different hands over time, you prefer to remain in denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Whenever evidence from antiquity is found to contradict you all of a sudden it was interpolated.
The reason I cited Price was so that this limp response would be seen as inadequate. There is no "of a sudden", just your lack of awareness of the scholarship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You have trapped yourself by suggesting 1 Cor. 15 is interpolated because you are admitting the Pauline Corpus could not be credible as we have it today
The old "I don't care about the baby: I want to throw out the bathwater" defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You are obligated to present the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was actually composed before c 70 CE and then was later interpolated.
You are obliged to know what you are talking about and at the same time restrain from anachronism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You cannot do so and never will.
Your obligation is false and your conclusions based on it have no value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
My argument is that the Pauline writers were not credible and were composed late, after the 1st century just as the recovered dated manuscripts and apologetic sources show.
You have asserted this many times without any evidence. You haven't established any general notion of credibility. You have failed to show that the letters were written after the 1st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I have interests in the witnesses of antiquity, the written statements of antiquity, not the convenient flawed opinion of experts with whom you may not even agree.
You assume that the opinion is flawed but are unable to demonstrate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You did not even realize that the Pauline Corpus is not credible once it can be shown that is was interpolated by RM PRICE.
There is no sense in this statement. You seem to be blithely unaware of scholarly discourse with ancient literature. Your assessment isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Your position is hopelessly weak and confused.
If you listen to hopelessly weak and confused arguments like those you have presented. But you will piddle about in the dark trying to force your personal agenda, coming back to the conclusions that stimulate you, rather than making balanced assessments of what you are pretending to deal with.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-02-2013, 09:07 PM   #129
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Again, you post nothing of substance.
Nothing comes of nothing. You are claiming the nonsense that the Pauline Corpus is deductively a pack of lies.

:hysterical:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I have exposed that you have no idea what deductive reasoning is.
You have exposed yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It was completely illogical for you to make reference to RM Price 'Apocryphal Apparitions" when he argues that 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is corrupted which destroys its credibility.
It destroys the credibility of 1 Cor 15:3-11, which is the passage that you naively want to use for their literal content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I had already pointed out to you that the Pauline claims about the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15 are a pack of lies.
You haven't pointed out any such thing. You have incessantly repeated the assertion that Pauline writings are a pack of lies, never once seriously explaining your non-standard use of "lies". And I have already pointed that out.
spin is offline  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:40 AM   #130
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Again, you post nothing of substance. You have no idea what deductive reasoning is. You must learn what logical deductions are.

You very well know that there is hardly any Scholars who argue the the Pauline Corpus is credible.

You very well know that Scholars argue that the Pauline Corpus is the product of multiple authors.

You yourself have argued that material that has passed through the hands of the Church have been manipulated.

Your posts are recorded. Your yourself admit the Pauline writings may be manipulated by unknown authors.

You are promoting double standards even against your own position.

These are premises.

1. If Jesus did exist he could only be human.

2. Human beings do not resurrect after being dead and buried for three days.


3. Based on premises 1&2--the Pauline Corpus is riddled with KNOWN False claims about a resurrection of Jesus. The Pauline Corpus is NOT Credible and a Pack of LIES riddled with KNOWN False statements.

Please, discontinue your erroneous unsubstantiated claims. I Have already pointed out some of the KNOWN False statements in the Pauline Corpus.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV
Quote:
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.
2. Romans 10:9 KJV
Quote:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .
3. 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)
4. Ephesians 1:20 KJV
Quote:
Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places...
5. Colossians 2:12 KJV
Quote:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV
Quote:
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .
7. Philippians 3:10 KJV
Quote:
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death..
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Top

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