Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 01-02-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Who was the first person to either quote Paul or present his letters as some sort of authority? Was it Marcion?

Yes, Marcion is the first to know anything about Paul. It is through Marcion that we have the letters of Paul.

I know Marcion compiled the first "New Testament" using 10 of the letters from "Paul" and a "modified" Luke, but it would seem completely damaging to Christianity if no other church father of the Apostolic Succession quotes Paul until Marcion...

"Paul" going around founding churches seems to mirror Marcion going around founding churches. That also explains the popularity of Marcionite Christianity and all of the Gnostics in the 2nd century who trace their tradition back to "Paul".

But... I seem to remember reading somewhere that Valentinus was a disciple of a "Theudas" who was a disciple of "Paul". That doesn't make sense if Paul is first introduced by Marcion since Marcion is a contemporary of Valentinus.

Maybe this should be a new thread...

Ken Carman · 01-02-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Would you agree that it is possible for a person found guilty of a crime to be innocent?

However the person will be sentence and the verdict will stand until evidence can be found to prove innocence. The possibilty of innocence is really irrelevant without supporting evidence.

Would you agree that it is possible that a person who tested positive for a disease, does not have the disease?

However, once a person has been tested positive, the person will be treated as having the disease, the possibility of not having the disease is really irrelevant.

Now, the information about the supposed man Jesus is fundamentally fiction, monstrous lies.

The NT and the church writings have all tested Positive for monstrous lies.

I, therefore, consider the man Jesus non-existent during the supposed time zone.

Those who think he was possible should provided evidence for their possibility, otherwise my verdict stands, Jesus the Galilean was a monstrous lie.

Under the dictates of The Laws of the Jews, any person found guilty, is by definition "guilty" as the decision of Priestly " Judgment" was final, without appeal, and irrevocable. (Deut 17:8-12)
But that is not really a problem because this particular "Judgment" of an actual individual never happened, because, just as you say, the man "Jesus" was non-existent- as was this latter fabricated story and trial.

But then again the story does have some basis in the course of entirely natural developments and events.

While James being legalistic, and the High Priest in The Temple, provides no additional support or evidence for the existence of a "historical guy called Jesus, Yahshua, or whatever".
James and the other Jerusalem pillars might well have held strong messianic convictions without need ever having attached those beliefs to any flesh and blood individual.
That is, a (thoroughly "Jewish") conviction that the Messiah would come that was prophesied in the TaNaKa, his -"Delivering"- act epitomised in the promise inherent in the name "Yah-ha-oshua"="YAH the DELIVERER" (or conventionally Yahshua), a resurrection as it were of the Covenant "Joshua" (Yahshua) who would once again arise amongst them to "Deliver" Israel in the Land of Promise, by the defeating of all of Israel's then present adversaries and oppressors.

I believe this is what James and the Jerusalem Pillars actually represented, all the rest of the NT stories were latter opportunistic fabrications and accreditations.
Yahshua The Messiah was no more than a spiritual ideal, the expression of a hope for a national Deliverer of Israel, (and through them, ultimately, the entire world) but it was one that never materialised, or was realised in any actual flesh and blood individual.
A truly "historical Jesus" or "Yahshua" cannot ever be found, or precisely identified, or placed in actual history,
because there never was any such person.

Yet the story is powerful and moving, representing how the endurance of hope, and victory of conscience as triumphant, can prevail yet even in the midst of ultimate despair, and of most humiliating defeat.

Thus "he" was not necessarily originally conceived as, nor intended as a fiction or a monstrous lie, but was transformed into such by the much latter writings of a predominately Gentile christian church, who through the agency of their writings, took the Jews Messianic hope, and transformed "him" into a rather ridiculous and unbelievable Action/Adventure comic book hero.

Perhaps it was fabricated. I won't challenge that. But is there solid proof it was fabricated? Simple lack of proof is not proof of fabrication, anymore than lack of it means it wasn't. In fact, to me, biblical quotes are interesting but not proof of miracles, or what he actually said, or meant, or even did.

There was no such person doesn't necessarily follow "can't be found." Given the same parameters people should be considered guilty until proven innocent. (OK, I know the system has been somewhat skewed that way... but not the point.)

Ken Carman · 01-02-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Yes, Marcion is the first to know anything about Paul. It is through Marcion that we have the letters of Paul.

I know Marcion compiled the first "New Testament" using 10 of the letters from "Paul" and a "modified" Luke, but it would seem completely damaging to Christianity if no other church father of the Apostolic Succession quotes Paul until Marcion...

"Paul" going around founding churches seems to mirror Marcion going around founding churches. That also explains the popularity of Marcionite Christianity and all of the Gnostics in the 2nd century who trace their tradition back to "Paul".

But... I seem to remember reading somewhere that Valentinus was a disciple of a "Theudas" who was a disciple of "Paul". That doesn't make sense if Paul is first introduced by Marcion since Marcion is a contemporary of Valentinus.

Maybe this should be a new thread...

The followers of Marcion pretty much dismissed any linkage of Christianity to its Jewish routes. The Ebionites were just the opposite: oner must follow Jewish law and tradition to be a Christian. Followers of Marcion were more closely aligned with Paul, if I remember right. Ebionites: Peter. According to Ehrman; if I remember right again, they basically followed each other around trying to correct each others heretical take on the faith. Not a friendly relationship.

I typed this up pretty quick and did a fast check, so mistakes any poster might mention... I'll dive in deeper and try to correct.

show_no_mercy · 01-02-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I know Marcion compiled the first "New Testament" using 10 of the letters from "Paul" and a "modified" Luke, but it would seem completely damaging to Christianity if no other church father of the Apostolic Succession quotes Paul until Marcion...

"Paul" going around founding churches seems to mirror Marcion going around founding churches. That also explains the popularity of Marcionite Christianity and all of the Gnostics in the 2nd century who trace their tradition back to "Paul".

But... I seem to remember reading somewhere that Valentinus was a disciple of a "Theudas" who was a disciple of "Paul". That doesn't make sense if Paul is first introduced by Marcion since Marcion is a contemporary of Valentinus.

Maybe this should be a new thread...

The followers of Marcion pretty much dismissed any linkage of Christianity to its Jewish routes. The Ebionites were just the opposite: oner must follow Jewish law and tradition to be a Christian. Followers of Marcion were more closely aligned with Paul, if I remember right. Ebionites: James. According to Ehrman; if I remember right again, they basically followed each other around trying to correct each others heretical take on the faith. Not a friendly relationship.

I typed this up pretty quick and did a fast check, so mistakes any poster might mention... I'll dive in deeper and try to correct.

Fixed it for you

Yeah, they were definitely polar opposites and the catholic (literally "universal") church attempted to find common ground between the two. The Christ that was 100% god and 0% man of the Marcionites and the Jesus that was 0% god and 100% man of the Ebionites. Oddly enough, the Ebionites claimed that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism to marry a daughter of the High Priest. When she rejected him, he became a min and created Christianity.

Another odd thing though - 2 Peter refers to a "Paul". If Marcion's the one who introduced Paul's letters, this is evidence that "Peter" certainly isn't the author of 2 Peter since Marcion's canon didn't come out until around 140 CE.

Analyst · 01-02-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Oddly enough, the Ebionites claimed that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism to marry a daughter of the High Priest. When she rejected him, he became a min and created Christianity.

So Paul was an adoptionist too?

aa5874 · 01-02-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Under the dictates of The Laws of the Jews, any person found guilty, is by definition "guilty" as the decision of Priestly " Judgment" was final, without appeal, and irrevocable. (Deut 17:8-12)
But that is not really a problem because this particular "Judgment" of an actual individual never happened, because, just as you say, the man "Jesus" was non-existent- as was this latter fabricated story and trial.

But then again the story does have some basis in the course of entirely natural developments and events.

While James being legalistic, and the High Priest in The Temple, provides no additional support or evidence for the existence of a "historical guy called Jesus, Yahshua, or whatever".
James and the other Jerusalem pillars might well have held strong messianic convictions without need ever having attached those beliefs to any flesh and blood individual.
That is, a (thoroughly "Jewish") conviction that the Messiah would come that was prophesied in the TaNaKa, his -"Delivering"- act epitomised in the promise inherent in the name "Yah-ha-oshua"="YAH the DELIVERER" (or conventionally Yahshua), a resurrection as it were of the Covenant "Joshua" (Yahshua) who would once again arise amongst them to "Deliver" Israel in the Land of Promise, by the defeating of all of Israel's then present adversaries and oppressors.

I believe this is what James and the Jerusalem Pillars actually represented, all the rest of the NT stories were latter opportunistic fabrications and accreditations.
Yahshua The Messiah was no more than a spiritual ideal, the expression of a hope for a national Deliverer of Israel, (and through them, ultimately, the entire world) but it was one that never materialised, or was realised in any actual flesh and blood individual.
A truly "historical Jesus" or "Yahshua" cannot ever be found, or precisely identified, or placed in actual history,
because there never was any such person.

Yet the story is powerful and moving, representing how the endurance of hope, and victory of conscience as triumphant, can prevail yet even in the midst of ultimate despair, and of most humiliating defeat.

Thus "he" was not necessarily originally conceived as, nor intended as a fiction or a monstrous lie, but was transformed into such by the much latter writings of a predominately Gentile christian church, who through the agency of their writings, took the Jews Messianic hope, and transformed "him" into a rather ridiculous and unbelievable Action/Adventure comic book hero.

Perhaps it was fabricated. I won't challenge that. But is there solid proof it was fabricated? Simple lack of proof is not proof of fabrication, anymore than lack of it means it wasn't. In fact, to me, biblical quotes are interesting but not proof of miracles, or what he actually said, or meant, or even did.

There was no such person doesn't necessarily follow "can't be found." Given the same parameters people should be considered guilty until proven innocent. (OK, I know the system has been somewhat skewed that way... but not the point.)

So, you are claiming it is very likely that the human only Jesus existed because no evidence can be found to support his existence.

It is your view that evidence that "can't be found" is a very good indicator that the man called Jesus was living during the days of Tiberius.

You are not making much sense.

Things that do not exist do not have any evidence of their existence. It is not what may be out there, somewhere, that matters, it is what we have now.

What jury can make a verdict based on what may, perhaps, be out there somewhere?

The information we have today clearly reveals a multiplicity of lies, fraud, forgery, implausibilties, and chronological errors.

As of right now, the historical Jesus is fiction, a monstrous lie, using the known evidence.

Those who believe the historical Jesus did live should provide evidence since we already know what they believe.

I think there will always be people who believe the man lived, but I can't find anyone with credible information.

I can give you a very long list of what I believe, but without evidence my beliefs are irrelevant.

andrewcriddle · 01-03-2009, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Who was the first person to either quote Paul or present his letters as some sort of authority? Was it Marcion?

Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians.
(I'm aware some members of this forum would doubt the authenticity of this letter.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 01-03-2009, 02:31 PM

As I have said before the historical Jesus is untenable, the HJ is a monstous lie and sheer stupidity.

Let us suppose Jesus was just a man, then Jesus would have condemned himself to eternal damnation without any hope of forgiveness.

Jesus would be a complete idiot.

Look at Matthew 1.18

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, When as his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

If Jesus was just a man, his father was a man, not the Holy Ghost, it would have been a monstrous lie, blasphemy to claim that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Now, look at what the man said, the man who blasphemously is claimed to be of the Holy Ghost.

Mark 3.29

Quote:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath NEVER forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Who could have been that stupid in real life? The historical Jesus is a stupid monstrous lie.

rlogan · 01-03-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me.

Pretty clear to me there were independent Christ cults springing up sometime after the Roman sacking of the Temple. That ultimately competing factions were co-opted with the co-option "finalistst" being the ones who fabricated enough baloney to claim some kind of direct lineage from an authentic source (eg Marcion's letters of "Paul" and the Romans claim to popehood via "peter").

In the 4th century Constantine forced a self-contradictory consolidation (much like the Hebrew Bible merged clashing traditions) with his trusty "historian" Eusebius authoring that hysterical "history of the church", embracing what books would be permitted in the official bible and burning all the others. The least self-contradictory collection weaved into one whole.

We know of the Councils of Nicea all through those critical years where they argued about whether Jesus was god, man, or spirit - so (haw!) they made him all three: The Trinity. I sat in church for years wondering what the fuck this Father, Son, Holy Ghost thing was all about and FINALLY I understand it was the political solution to merging one state church out of competing superstitions.

They told us, Matthew in particular, to look into the Hebrew Bible to find Jesus Christ and by God that's where they quote-mined him from. Such a shoddy cut-and-paste job but it's all there. I used to buy into the idea that we should see all the prophecies that came true with Jesus Christ and then duh! I realized it was the other way around. Jesus is just low-quality midrash. The whole passion sequence out of Isaiah. He's born in Bethlehem, but comes out of Egypt, and at the same time a Naza-something... it's all there from his birth all the way to death.

And there is PLENTY of evidence for "Jesus" - more than twenty of them mentioned by Josephus alone. So take your pick from the ones that actually existed as a model for later writers instead of thinking you can invent him by peeling off the layers of obvious myth. Miracles and such. There's almost nothing at all left when you do that.

It's like reading about the easter bunny or peter rabbit and thinking you will find the real rabbit underneath if you are reasonable and take out the parts where they can talk and so forth. But there are real rabbits and there were real people with the name Jesus that are in the historical record.

They did not send two thousand pigs into the sea to drown or threaten the entire Temple political system. They knocked off a few Roman patrols, were sons of High Priests, leaders of rabble, or in one case a loony fellow killed by a siege weapon during the assault on the Temple in CE 70.

The first real verifiable claim we can get to is Pliny's letter to Trajan. So I'm willing to accept by somewhere around 100 CE there had to be some kind of movement afoot, but it sure as hell isn't based on any flesh and blood person that they could get out of interrogating practicioners.

Quote:

One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

Well so far you have proven to be completely blind to the text. Because there is such an abundance of ridiculous myth and the fingerprints of exactly where it came from.

You are making an assertion that is quite untrue about most that I have known from here, who try to operate under an "Argument from Best Explanation" as opposed to just rejecting the silly stuff said about this superman.

It's a fascinating story. How disparate Christ Myth cults were merged for the purpose of state control over religion. They got a little bit of a head start on us with nigh on two thousand years of torture, executions, book burning, and so forth for anyone challenging the official version.

Cheers.

Orion_Man · 01-05-2009, 04:41 AM

Don't even bother with anything to do with Holding.The guy is a total child.

Holding has influenced a whole set of idiots that mimic his style.He can insult you all he wants,but call him an asshat and he'll say you're a typical atheist.

Every time I'm linked to Tektonics I know that it must be a Holding rant.

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

01-05-2009, 04:41 AM	#270
Orion_Man Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: North America Posts: 39	Don't even bother with anything to do with Holding.The guy is a total child. Holding has influenced a whole set of idiots that mimic his style.He can insult you all he wants,but call him an asshat and he'll say you're a typical atheist. Every time I'm linked to Tektonics I know that it must be a Holding rant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.