spin

aa5874

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.

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.

spin

...displaying the irony I note with relish.

Just an analogy that you can't show to be relevant.

Silly assertion.

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.

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.

Let's remove the last unfounded assumption (re: James). The rest seems to be a simple denial that people have mystical experiences.

aa5874 is fundamentally unable to demonstrate his assertions using failed deductive reasoning.

aa5874

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 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.


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 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.

spin

You've demonstrated you wouldn't know.

You're being anachronistic.

As I said, anachronistic.

Try reading the text and understanding it rather than injecting church fathers and confusing yourself.

Again, anachronistic.

The irony is strong, folks.

:hysterical:

Traditions come after the fact and are no indication of what the text meant. Try to be reasonable.

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.).

...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.

For the reality of those experienced events. You can't talk about other things from the source. THat woul dbe without foundation.

That is because you have difficulties dealing with real world evidence.

BUt only you are trying to do that. You are wasting your own time, because you don't understand what is going on.

As you haven't acknowledged what I've said on the issue, your comments are worthless.

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.

aa5874

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.

spin

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.

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.

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.

The old "I don't care about the baby: I want to throw out the bathwater" defense.

You are obliged to know what you are talking about and at the same time restrain from anachronism.

Your obligation is false and your conclusions based on it have no value.

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.

You assume that the opinion is flawed but are unable to demonstrate it.

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.

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

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.

spin

Nothing comes of nothing. You are claiming the nonsense that the Pauline Corpus is deductively a pack of lies.

:hysterical:

You have exposed yourself.

It destroys the credibility of 1 Cor 15:3-11, which is the passage that you naively want to use for their literal content.

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.

aa5874

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 KJV2. Romans 10:9 KJV 3. Galatians 1:1 KJV4. Ephesians 1:20 KJV5. Colossians 2:12 KJV6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV7. Philippians 3:10 KJV