Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-11-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . Nor did Justin Martyr make any mention of any sacred scriptures called Acts of Apostles or letters from a writer called Paul.

8. The first time it is known that there was an author of a gospel called Luke who was a discple of Paul was late 2nd century by Irenaeus.

The writer Paul is a fabricated first century character, the writer is a fraud. This writer is no earliear than the 2nd century.

Then how did Tertullian reference both the Apostle Paul and the Acts of Apostles in the following passage?

I think Tertullian is dated later than Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. But, Tertullian's wtitings are very interesting when examined closely. There may have been more than one person who was using Tertullian's name.

Now, you may remember that the author of Acts wrote that Jesus was witnessed going through the clouds by his disciples. The veracity of the church writers and the authors of the NT are highly suspect.

Quote:

The Apostle Paul likewise says: "The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man." Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), "Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you." These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed. of soul, nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus' wretched faction, they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian15.html

[/QUOTE]

show_no_mercy · 03-11-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . Nor did Justin Martyr make any mention of any sacred scriptures called Acts of Apostles or letters from a writer called Paul.

8. The first time it is known that there was an author of a gospel called Luke who was a discple of Paul was late 2nd century by Irenaeus.

The writer Paul is a fabricated first century character, the writer is a fraud. This writer is no earliear than the 2nd century.

Then how did Tertullian reference both the Apostle Paul and the Acts of Apostles in the following passage?

Quote:

The Apostle Paul likewise says: "The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man." Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), "Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you." These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed. of soul, nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus' wretched faction, they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian15.html

Tertullian was born in 160, his writings were made in the late 2nd century/early 3rd.

Doug Shaver · 03-12-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

My understanding is that Paul never wrote anything himself - he had a vision problem

We don't know that he had a vision problem. One offhand comment he made in one of his letters can be interpreted to mean that he couldn't see well, but it is not incontrovertible that such was his intended meaning.

IamJoseph · 03-12-2009, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

My understanding is that Paul never wrote anything himself - he had a vision problem

We don't know that he had a vision problem. One offhand comment he made in one of his letters can be interpreted to mean that he couldn't see well, but it is not incontrovertible that such was his intended meaning.

Agreed on that possibiity. However, we do not have any contemporary documents to show that he did write, and whatever is ascribed to Paul is not in the greek, aramaic or hebrew - while the Jews never used latin. Nothing is mentioned in the dead sea scrolls package either. The most impacting factor is he was expelled by the groups who did follow Jesus in Jerusalem, an inference what is recorded in the NT can be from a different source point.

aa5874 · 03-12-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

..... The most impacting factor is he was expelled by the groups who did follow Jesus in Jerusalem, an inference what is recorded in the NT can be from a different source point.

There is no credible historical information that show there was a Jesus in the Jerusalem during the time of Tiberius as described by the NT.

The Jesus of the NT is not a creature that could exist naturally.

arnoldo · 03-12-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

The Apostle Paul likewise says: "The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man." Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), "Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you." These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed. of soul, nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus' wretched faction, they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian15.html

Then how did Tertullian reference both the Apostle Paul and the Acts of Apostles in the following passage?

Tertullian was born in 160, his writings were made in the late 2nd century/early 3rd.

Thanks for the info. Upon further research Tertulllian appears to have been writing in part against the teachings of Valentinus who allegedly taught the following:

Quote:

CHAP. XV.--THE VALENTINIAN FIGMENT OF CHRIST'S FLESH BEING OF A SPIRITUAL NATURE, EXAMINED AND REFUTED OUT OF SCRIPTURE.

Valentinus, indeed, on the strength of his heretical system, might consistently devise a spiritual flesh for Christ. Any one who refused to believe that that flesh was human might pretend it to be anything he liked, for--as much as (and this remark is applicable, to all heretics), if it was not human, and was not born of man, I do not see of what substance Christ Himself spoke when He called Himself man and the Son of man, saying: "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth;" and "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day." (10 For it is of Him that Isaiah writes: "A man of suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of weakness;" and Jeremiah: "He is a man, and who hath known Him?" and Daniel: "Upon the clouds (He came) as the Son of man.'' The Apostle Paul likewise says: "The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man." Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), "Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you." These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed. of soul, nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus' wretched faction, they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh; whence, too, it would be. . .

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian15.html

Valentinus in turn appears to have been a student of someone who had direct contact with the Apostle Paul according to the following source:

Quote:

Valentinus's followers in Alexandria later reported that he had claimed a kind of apostolic sanction for his teaching by maintaining that he had received lessons in Christian religion from a certain Theudas, who—he said— had been a student of St. Paul. If there is any truth in this claim, his contact with Theudas and his reading of St. Paul may have occurred in Alexandria.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html

IamJoseph · 03-12-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of the NT is not a creature that could exist naturally.

I find it a legit view the Jesus symbol is just an excuse to justify a precedent antisemitism: if one studies ancient Greece and Romanism they can only derive all medevial Europe's horrorfic charges are old hat and totally the same with the pre-christian population - only the name Jesus is new here.

This makes the greatest factor backing this religion is the mysterious acceptance of it. The most impacting factor is not that there is absolutely no proof of anything the Gospels says - but that it was even considered and accepted in the first place by such a massive population - and not one of them raising their hands for more details. Then cometh Islam - which accepted a greater anomoly - all the charges of the Gospels - al biet with new names - and while being in total mutually exclusive modes of the Gospels via history, geography and math. This is even too big for Ripleys. Give me good quality sci-fi any day.

IamJoseph · 03-12-2009, 10:50 PM

[QUOTE=aa5874;5845004]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

..... The most impacting factor is he was expelled by the groups who did follow Jesus in Jerusalem, an inference what is recorded in the NT can be from a different source point.

Alexander Tiberius was the greek prefect of Egypt appointed by Rome. He assisted Titus in the war of 70 CE. It seems some Greeks or Romans used vague historical names to implant a ficticious story and could have thereby created the Gospels: there are two blatant errors in the lineage of the Gospels which lists Jesus as a biological thread from David.

I site the precedent of the Blood Libels, which originally came from a pre-christian Greek writer; and the Protocols of Zion - which emulated actual historical contract deeds with altered names, dates and timings - a masterly forgery which all christians believed for centuries, causing the death of 1000s of innocent peoples. I site the grotesque silence of the Vatican when these false stories still pervade Muslim countries - when this came from the vatican's own backyards. Why the silence when the onus requires one to speak out? It all sounds bad, pointing only to disaster ahead, with none to attend.

aa5874 · 03-14-2009, 10:04 AM

In post #156 I put forward the proposition that gMatthew and the short ending of gMark do not contain any information about Jesus of the NT where he commissioned his disciples, before ascension, that they would speak in new tongues and handle serpents.

Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul contain information about receiving the Holy Ghost, talking in tongues, and serpents.

These are indications that Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul were written AFTER gMatthew and the short-ending gMark.

But, there is another passage in a letter with the name Paul that also indicates that gMatthew and gMark were written BEFORE the letters with the name Paul.

1 Cor 1.17

Quote:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Now, look at the Synoptics, there is a clear connection of gLuke and the writer Paul. The Jesus in Luke did not ask his discipls to baptize.

It will be noticed thatONLY in both gMatthew and gMark, Jesus told his disciples to teach and BAPTIZE.

Mt 28:19 –

Quote:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…

Mark 16.15-16

Quote:

15 ……. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…...

Luke 24.46-47

Quote:

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem…..

The Jesus of Luke did not commission his disciples to baptize unlike gMatthew and gMark, but to preach the repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus. Nothing about baptism.

Now, it must be noted that the church writers claimed Luke was a disciple of Paul and that the writer Paul called gLuke “my gospel”.
Church History 3.4.8.

Quote:

And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

Irenaeus 3.1

Quote:

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

The church writers have placed the writers called Luke and Paul together, in the companion of each other and have implied that the writer Paul was aware that his disciple Luke had written a gospel.

Now, in the writings of Justin Martyr at about the middle of the 2nd century, there is no mention of any writer called Luke who was a disciple of Paul, no mention of any writer called Luke whose gospel was regarded as sacred scriptures, and no mention of any writer called Paul or his letters.

Based on Justin the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the churches not letters from any writers called Paul, or Luke.

The writer Paul made claimed that he received his gospel by revelation from a once dead and resurrected Jesus, but such a claim is most likely false since Jesus of the NT did not exist.

The writer Paul is linked to, and was aware of the gospel called Luke which was written after the writer Paul was supposed to be dead.

So, this is the situation so far;

1.In the last words of Jesus as found in gMatthew and Mark, there is mention of baptism.

2.The last words of Jesus in gLuke do not mention baptism.

3. The writer Paul claimed Jesus did not send him to baptize but to preach. The writer’s statement is consistent with the [b]last words of Jesus as found in gLuke.

4.The gospel of Luke is considered to have been written after gMatthew and Mark.

The writer Paul is a fabricated 1st century writer. The writer is from some other time zone that is after the writings of Justin Martyr.

arnoldo · 03-14-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .
The writer Paul is a fabricated 1st century writer. The writer is from some other time zone that is after the writings of Justin Martyr.

Perhaps Marcion is the author of Paul's letters since he allegedly had access to all of Paul's letters in the 1st century?

Quote:

Marcion is often thought to have first established an explicit canon. Marcion's canon consisted of the Euangelion, or the Gospel of the Lord, and the Apostolikon, ten epistles of Paul, not including the pastorals.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.