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 05-23-2013, 05:39 AM   #21
Diogenes the Cynic
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Luke did mention Paul, but it would have been anti-Pauline to say that Paul was the first to see Jesus or preach resurrection. He represented himself as the last.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 05:51 AM   #22
Iskander
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The writings under the name of Paul have virtually ZERO attestation by authors in the Canon so are most unlikely to be credible.

Essentially, writings under the name of Paul do not represent any period of the actual history of the Jesus cult.

If the Pauline writer was actually the foremost and first evangelist who preached Christ crucified and resurrected and was the the first to have documented his teachings then we would expect the other authors of the Canon to have acknowledged Paul and his letters.

The authors of the Canon instead showed or implied that it was the story in gMARK that represented the teachings of the Jesus cult.

There are very few details of the Jesus story in the Pauline writings yet the Pauline writers' post resurrection visits are far more than in gMark which mentions none.

The Pauline post resurrection visits of Over 500 PEOPLE must have or was most likely composed after gMark who knew NOTHING of post-resurrection visits.

The claim in Galatians 2, that Paul was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised must have or was most likely composed after gMark who wrote NOTHING of the Great Commission.

The claim in the Pauline writings that the Ritual of the Eucharist was to be carried out and in remembrance of Jesus must have been composed or was most likely composed AFTER gMark who wrote NO such thing.

It is the Pauline details of Jesus that were either not used or not corroborated by the other authors of the Gospels and the Canon.
The credibility of Paul cannot be disputed by a believer: Paul received the Gospel by special revelation directly from Jesus Christ.

If someone is not a believer there is nothing to discuss at all, The Goy? Who cares?
Iskander is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 06:19 AM   #23
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Luke did mention Paul, but it would have been anti-Pauline to say that Paul was the first to see Jesus or preach resurrection. He represented himself as the last.
Luke did not mention Paul.

gLuke was falsely attributed to some character called Luke of whom NOTHING is known in the Canon.

It cannot ever be overlooked that the NT Canon is riddled with forgeries or falsely attributed authors in order to mis-represent the history of the Jesus cult.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 07:16 AM   #24
wordy
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sweden, Europe
Posts: 12,091
Default

Is it okay to ask if this Simon of Samaria is a historic person?
is there consensus that he really existed and the words attributed to him?

oops he is more known using this name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus
wordy is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 10:21 AM   #25
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The Pauline writings are most likely not credible.

Although there are 13 letters under the name of Paul virtually NONE of the added details about Jesus and himself are corroborated.

This is most astonishing.



1. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he went to Arabia and after 3 years returned to Damascus--No writer in the Canon corroborates Paul.

2. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he did not confer with Flesh and Blood when he was called to preach--the author of Acts denies the veracity of Paul and claimed Ananias and disciples in Damascus did confer with Paul.

3. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he ONLY met the Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem--the veracity of Paul is denied by Acts--Paul met ALL the disciples in Jerusalem.

4. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he met an Apostle, James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem--No such apostle is mentioned anywhere in the ENTIRE Canon.

5. In Galatians 2, the Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem after 14 years but again, the authior of Acts denies the veracity of Paul. The author of Acts claimed Paul was in and out of Jerusalem.

6. In Galatians 2, the Pauline writer claimed or implied he was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach to the uncircumcised just like Peter was to the circumcised --the veracity of the Pauline writer cannot be granted--even if Jesus did live he could NOT have commissioned Peter AFTER Jesus himself was dead.

It is clear to me that the Pauline writings are not credible and were planted by some deceptive means.

Up to the mid 2nd century and later, Apologetic writers showed that the Jesus cult was developed without a ten word phrase from the Pauline letters and without attending a Pauline Church or cult.

The Pauline letters are the Flagship of Fraud, Forgery and Fiction.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 11:43 AM   #26
Iskander
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

To aa5874
I assume that you are not a believer. Am I right in assuming that?

Many believe that and more; they are the faithful servants of many different gods.


Are we here to examine what their texts appear to say or to sing our own personal credo?


Is Paul credible? Are Mohamed, Buddha, Moses... credible?
Iskander is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 12:37 PM   #27
Tristan Scott
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
The credibility of Paul cannot be disputed by a believer: Paul received the Gospel by special revelation directly from Jesus Christ.
Where do you get that from? People can do whatever they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
If someone is not a believer there is nothing to discuss at all, The Goy? Who cares?
You do not determine what there is to discuss for anyone but yourself.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 12:40 PM   #28
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
....Is Paul credible? Are Mohamed, Buddha, Moses... credible?
Are you willing to answer the question?

Don't worry. Paul was a false witness.

1 Corinthians 15:15
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 01:07 PM   #29
Iskander
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
....Is Paul credible? Are Mohamed, Buddha, Moses... credible?
Are you willing to answer the question?

Don't worry. Paul was a false witness.

1 Corinthians 15:15
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.
Paul never existed. His epistles are the work of a group of writers reshaping existing writings and particularly the scriptures pertaining to Moses, says Thomas Brodie, he adds that they chose “ letter writing and in doing so brought the composition of epistles to a new level.”. They intended to make Paul a new Moses.


The never ending controversy about Paul is continuing, going on and on, as Sheshbazzar says.
Iskander is offline  
Old 05-23-2013, 01:09 PM   #30
Iskander
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
....Is Paul credible? Are Mohamed, Buddha, Moses... credible?
Are you willing to answer the question?

Don't worry. Paul was a false witness.

1 Corinthians 15:15
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.
Yes, ask your question
Iskander 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.