Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-07-2013, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The figure of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical circles. The catholic church did not accept the Marcionite Paul "as is"; they changed him to make him (Paul) into a good little catholic. And of course, they never forgave Marcion for attempting to undercut their authority.

Jake

That Paul arose and held ascendancy in heretical circles is a steaming pile of contradictory horse crap. :horsecrap:

Where are your sources for Paul as a heretic?? Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Anonymous letter called Clement, Ignatius???

Paul is a fabricated character. No author of the NT except the forgery called the 2nd Epistle of Peter mentioned that Paul wrote letters.

Even the Church admitted that 2nd Peter does NOT belong in the Canon.

Church History

Quote:

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

aa5874 · 03-07-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So aa, you still have to come up with some rational reason from the texts for your view that this ignorant, one time appearing, Roman Centurion would have been able to recognize this pathetic beaten, bloody, and dead Jew as being the Son of God.
Or some logical explanation for WHY the AUTHOR of 'Mark' would have made this Roman Centurion be the only one to realize this thing.

Several people in Mark recognize Jesus.

Quote:

5 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

You are wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Only the centurion recognised Jesus as the Son according to the Author. The others were Evil Spirits and Voices from the clouds and heaven.

You seem not to understand that it was the Evil Spirits that were speaking--the man was possessed by many evil spirits.

You must read the WHOLE story first.

Look at the very next verses.

Quote:

9 And he asked him: What is thy name? And he said to him: My name is legion, for we are many.

10 And they besought him much that he would not send them out of the country.

11 But there was there near the mountain a great herd of swine feeding;

12 And they besought him, saying: Send us to the swine that we may enter into them.

In gMark a Multitude of Evil Spirits called Legion recognised Jesus as the Son of God.

Sheshbazzar · 03-08-2013, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Only the centurion recognized Jesus as the Son according to the Author.

You still haven't given any explanation for why you think the Author would have the Roman centurion in Mark 15:39 recognize the beaten and bloody dead Jew he was looking at as being Truly The Son of God.

Can you provide even one other verse out of Mark, or for that matter the entire New Testament, or the whole Bible, that would support any reason this Roman centurion has an insight at that point available to no other human being?

What happens to this centurion after this alleged experience?

Why, if this centurion knows that this dead Jew is really the One and only Son of God, does the Author never once mention him again?

There is no record of this centurion falling on his face weeping because men have killed The Only Begotten Son of God. Why not?

There is no record of this centurion falling on his face to worship before this King of Jews, The Son of God. Why not?

There is no record of this centurion gently helping to remove this dead Jew whom he knows is Truly The Son of God from the cross, or assisting in placing This King of Jews -that he alone out of all of mankind (allegedly) knows is Truly The Son of God- in the tomb. Why not?
....Was it because he was on duty and afraid of being punished for dereliction of duty ...to the Divine Caesar?

You have read the whole story first, You profess to understand the intents of the Author of Mark, and the language the centurion was speaking well enough to even be able to declare what the Roman centurion is thinking, and what manner of emotion this centurion was experiencing, and the exact sense and intent of the words this Roman centurion uttered.
With this great skill and profound knowledge you possess, you should be able to look at that entire text of Mark you have read first, and likewise be able to read the Authors mind to determine his reason and intent in having this obscure Roman centurion experience an insight that was kept from every other human being living.

Methinks you know no such things. You just bought your bag of horse shit interpretation from the christian manure peddlers.

.

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Only the centurion recognized Jesus as the Son according to the Author.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You still haven't given any explanation for why you think the Author would have the Roman centurion in Mark 15:39 recognize the beaten and bloody dead Jew he was looking at as being Truly The Son of God.

I do NOT invent stories. It is you who need to explain why you fabricated your own words for the centurion.

Do you remember your own post?? Explain why you want to change the actual words of the AUTHOR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I did not intend to suggest that the story was anything other than a complete fiction.

What I am saying is that by the context, the author of the story intended that the centurion character's statement in Mark 15:39 be understood by his readers as a expression disgust and of contempt.
Not the apparent respectful admiration that it is imbued to it by the translation appearing within our English language Bibles.

The actual senses being more like; 'Ha! some son of god this character was!'
perhaps followed up by a big gob of spit.

The centurion character is NOT at all impressed by what he has seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You just bought your bag of horse shit interpretation from the christian manure peddlers.

So why have you attempted to change the bag of horse shit that the AUTHOR wrote?? The Entire Jesus story in the Canon is a bag of horse shit yet you want to make people believe you have a better story or better interpretation 1800 years later without a shred of corroboration.

Even if you were to replace the words of the Author with yours the story in gMark would still perhaps be followed by a big gob of spit.

The AUTHOR wrote Truly this man was the Son of God why, why do you want to change his bag of horse shit with your own??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The actual senses being more like; 'Ha! some son of god this character was!'
perhaps followed up by a big gob of spit.

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 06:23 AM

The Pauline letters were composed AFTER Marcion was dead based on the abundance of evidence.

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a massive forgery.

The original author did NOT know of Paul, the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

It is virtually impossible for a presbyter of the Church to claim Jesus was crucified under Claudius who was familiar with the stories about the ACTIVITIES of the Apostles and the Conversion of Paul BEFORE the reign of Claudius where it is claimed or implied that the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus happened Before the reign of Caligula.

It is clear that "Against Heresies" was manipulated by a Later Editor to make it appear that that Irenaeus knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters in the late 2nd century.

We have many apologetic sources and even in the third century who show NO awareness of Paul, the Pauline revealed Gospel, and the Pauline letters to Chuches.

The following apologetic writers knew NOTHING of the Pauline revealed Teachings that there would be NO Salvation without the Resurrection and that OVER 500 people were visited by the resurrected Jesus.

1. The author of the short gMark.

2. The author of the long gMark.

3. The author of gMatthew.

4. The author of gLuke.

5. The author of gJohn.

6. The author of Acts.

7. The authors of Epistles of John.

8. The author of the Epistle Jude.

9. The author of Epistle James.

10. The author 1st Epistle Peter.

11. The author of Revelation of John.

12. Aristides.

13. Justin Martyr.

14. Minucius Felix's Octavius.

15. Irenaeus

16. Arnobius.

We also have NON-apologetic corroboration by Celsus that Paul was UNKNOWN up to c 160 CE when Origen admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul in his "True Discourse".

Marcion was probably ALREADY dead by c 160 CE.

tanya · 03-08-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Mani appears to be the true representative of the Pauline spirit going forward. Mani's teachings are revealed to him through his spiritual companion and celestial twin (his syzygos).

Just consider this brief excerpt from “On the Origin of His Body” The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon inv. Nr. 4780). It is from the beginning of the Mani letter to Edessa, and the similarities to Galatians chapter 1 are truly remarkable.

Thanks for a great thread, Jake.

No, I completely disagree with you here, however.

The nonsense written about Mani in the Cologne codex is completely unbelievable, in my opinion.

Here is what Mani wrote in the Shabuhragen, in middle Persian, not Aramaic, and certainly not Coptic, as the Cologne Codex appears. I believe that his native language was Persian, not Aramaic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mani, Shabuhragen

The firmament
... and they attached] the seven planets and suspended the two dragons (= the lunar nodes) and chained them. On that nethermost heaven they suspended them and appointed two angels, male and female, in order to make them turn ceaselessly at their cry.
The two chariots of the sun and the moon
And again they led upwards to the border and the highest of the light. And from the wind and light, water and fire that had been purified from the mixture and made and arranged two light chariots:
that of the sun from fire and light, with five walls—of ether, wind, light, water, and fire; and twelve doors and five houses, and three thrones, and five soul-gathering angels within the wall of fire;
and that of the moon god from wind and water, with five walls—of ether, wind, light, water, and fire; and fourteen doors, and five houses, and three thrones, and five soul-gathering angels within the wall of water.
And they donned ...
Construction of the earths
1. *And again god Mihr (The Living Spirit) donned three garments from that purification—of wind, water, and fire, and went down to the dark earth. And in order to create the great building, the new paradise, over it he filled
in those five graves of death 18 and made them even.
And corresponding to the heavens he layered and put down over the dark earth four layers—of hot wind, darkness, fire, and water, one on top of the other.
And he let one wall *go down from the light earth eastward, (then) southward, (and finally) westward and connected it back to the light earth again.
2. Then he made another great earth and placed it on top of the layers. And he made that god Parmangen (Atlas) House-master over it.
And on that earth, within (the first wall, he made) another wall, toward the east, south, and west, also with three regions, three columns, and five arches: [one from] the end of the wall in the west to the western column, and the second from the western column to the southern column, and the third from the southern column to the eastern column, and the fourth from the eastern column to the end of the wall in the east, and the fifth, the great one, from the eastern to the western column, and (finally) a great and firm earth with twelve doors corresponding to the doors of the heavens.

This is the only text that I believe conforms to Manichaeism. It represents his last text, prior to his execution by the Sassanid monarch. All the rest, especially the Coptic translations, have been redacted by Christians.

Zoroastrianism, YES, no doubt about it;

Buddhism, YES, surely;

Christianity, ???? I doubt it. I am not sure that Christianity had even reached Babylon/Persia by middle of the third century when Mani lived. If a guy like Mani, who clearly accepted Zoroastrian ideas, could be executed, how likely is it that a Christian would not have been tortured and executed by the local leaders?

Ephraim, the Syrian, lived a full century AFTER Mani's death. I don't believe anything he wrote, either. Again, redaction by Christians.

In short, I doubt that one can use the Cologne Codex to assess a date for the epistles of Paul, linking those interpolated documents to the forgeries regarding Mani.

Horatio Parker · 03-08-2013, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Only the centurion recognised Jesus as the Son according to the Author. The others were Evil Spirits and Voices from the clouds and heaven.

Does the centurion call Jesus "Messiah" or "Christ"?

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Only the centurion recognised Jesus as the Son according to the Author. The others were Evil Spirits and Voices from the clouds and heaven.

Does the centurion call Jesus "Messiah" or "Christ"?

You can read the short gMark.

Mark 15

Quote:

39 And the centurion that stood by opposite to him, seeing that he thus expired, said: Truly this man was the Son of God.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept what is actually written??

The short gMark story is that the Jews Rejected Jesus as the Son of God, and demanded that he be Crucified.

The short gMark has exposed that the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

There was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the time the short gMark was composed which was written NO earlier than c 70 CE.

Horatio Parker · 03-08-2013, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why is it so difficult for you to accept what is actually written??

Why is it for you? The centurions statement is ambiguous. He does not say that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the only Son of the True God, the King of the Jews etc.

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why is it so difficult for you to accept what is actually written??

Why is it for you? The centurions statement is ambiguous. He does not say that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the only Son of the True God, the King of the Jews etc.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the Author's statement in his story.

Why do you want the Author to write what you imagine??

Mark 15

Quote:

39 And the centurion that stood by opposite to him, seeing that he thus expired, said: Truly this man was the Son of God.

If the AUTHOR wanted to write Truly this man was the Son of God what should he have written??

Please, I do not accept imagination as evidence.

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

03-08-2013, 06:23 AM	#265
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Pauline letters were composed AFTER Marcion was dead based on the abundance of evidence. The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a massive forgery. The original author did NOT know of Paul, the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles. It is virtually impossible for a presbyter of the Church to claim Jesus was crucified under Claudius who was familiar with the stories about the ACTIVITIES of the Apostles and the Conversion of Paul BEFORE the reign of Claudius where it is claimed or implied that the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus happened Before the reign of Caligula. It is clear that "Against Heresies" was manipulated by a Later Editor to make it appear that that Irenaeus knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters in the late 2nd century. We have many apologetic sources and even in the third century who show NO awareness of Paul, the Pauline revealed Gospel, and the Pauline letters to Chuches. The following apologetic writers knew NOTHING of the Pauline revealed Teachings that there would be NO Salvation without the Resurrection and that OVER 500 people were visited by the resurrected Jesus. 1. The author of the short gMark. 2. The author of the long gMark. 3. The author of gMatthew. 4. The author of gLuke. 5. The author of gJohn. 6. The author of Acts. 7. The authors of Epistles of John. 8. The author of the Epistle Jude. 9. The author of Epistle James. 10. The author 1st Epistle Peter. 11. The author of Revelation of John. 12. Aristides. 13. Justin Martyr. 14. Minucius Felix's Octavius. 15. Irenaeus 16. Arnobius. We also have NON-apologetic corroboration by Celsus that Paul was UNKNOWN up to c 160 CE when Origen admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul in his "True Discourse". Marcion was probably ALREADY dead by c 160 CE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.