Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 02-01-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So your argument basically is that the following.

A = Jesus of the Gospels
B= Jesus of Paul

Sorry, A = B.

Because you say so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Please cite any "proof" there is a difference.

You mean, provide evidence that would convince you? Obviously I cannot. Your scare quotes make that perfectly clear.

Amaleq13 · 02-01-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yes, Marcion in the first century clearly gives evidence that an accepted gospel existed before 100 AD hence he was called a heretic for trying to revise already established canon. Historical fact are historical fact.

no, anachronistic lies are anachronistic lies.
There's no evidence for Marcion having worked in first century
and having known of a canon, only patristic fabulations from
not before mid second century.
Of course it's the Roman church of that time who forged and faked
the later canonised scribbles in an attempt to deceive the masses
by corrupting so-called heretical writings.

Klaus Schilling

But where do the Illuminati fit into the picture.

Solitary Man · 02-01-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

no, anachronistic lies are anachronistic lies.
There's no evidence for Marcion having worked in first century
and having known of a canon, only patristic fabulations from
not before mid second century.
Of course it's the Roman church of that time who forged and faked
the later canonised scribbles in an attempt to deceive the masses
by corrupting so-called heretical writings.

Klaus Schilling

But where do the Illuminati fit into the picture.

They obviously appointed the lizard people as scribes.

charles brough · 02-01-2008, 01:53 PM

As an atheist, I wonder why you would care how accurate the Bible info is on Paul. If you base your atheism on such trivial things when there are blatently more justified reasons, I tend to think you have a problem. Paul is the one who changed the story about an executed insurrectionist into a great new religion (for the times!) that appealed to NON-jews---and who and his followers, "Christians," were kicked out of the synagogues for doing it.

But all that was a long time ago and we've come a long way since then. Now, we need a new and far better world-view and way of thinking than the old "spirit" based stuff.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

schilling.klaus · 02-01-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles brough

As an atheist, I wonder why you would care how accurate the Bible info is on Paul.

Paul is a fictive person, thus the bible is as inaccurate as it can get

Quote:

If you base your atheism on such trivial things when there are blatently more justified reasons, I tend to think you have a problem.

there's absolutely no connection between atheism and Paul.

Quote:

Paul is the one who changed the story about an executed insurrectionist into a great new religion (for the times!) that appealed to NON-jews---and who and his followers, "Christians," were kicked out of the synagogues for doing it.

this is all blatant humbug.
Christianity is about the Logos of hellenistic philosophy,
not about some Jewish insurrectionist.

Klaus Schilling

andrewcriddle · 02-02-2008, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

the trophy or memorial of Peter and Paul mentioned by Gaius/Caius writing c 200 CE. [/URL]

Minor correction: this should be "the trophy or memorial of Peter" although Gaius/Caius mentions trophies of both Peter and Paul they were at different sites
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...tm#P938_461218

Quote:

But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church

Andrew Criddle

schilling.klaus · 02-02-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

But where do the Illuminati fit into the picture. :rolleyes:

Illuminati are an 18th century thing, thuis have nothing to do with early Christianity

Klaus Schilling

TedM · 02-02-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

As part of my continuing journey from christian to atheist, I am looking at various parts of the bible and its story for what evidence I can find (or not) to test for how much I feel I can believe that source.

Much of that journey has led me to believe that much of that "book" is just bunk, but a large part of it is devoted to the story of Paul and the churches he founded, as seen through his letters to them.

Since I am not a biblical scholar, and many of the folks here are much more familiar than I with the subject, I turn to you.

My question to this forum is this:

Of the churches Paul wrote to as enshrined in the new testament, how many of those churches are known, through independent sources, to have been truly founded around the time that he is supposed to have been making his ministry and writing those letters?

IS there such evidence, or is the only known information contained in the Pauline letters?

Additionally, discounting the letters themselves, what independent evidence is there for the actual, real existence of Paul himself?

In short, is there any independent evidence for the truth of the Pauline story? How much can I, as a thinking, intelligence adult, depend upon the biblical story for the truth of it?

Thank you, in advance, for your help in learning more about this subject!

If Paul was an invention then presumably all of his letters were written well after the 1st century. If so, a few points easily come to mind:

1. Why Paul--an unknown--as preacher to the Gentiles? Why not one of the 12 disciples since the gospels say that Jesus told them to spread the word to the ends of the earth?

2. The writer didn't allude to many of Jesus' sayings and doings. Why not?

3. The writer didn't predict the fall of Jerusalem. Why not?

4. The writer didn't discuss many known historical or early Christian figures, including the 12 disciples? Why not?

5. The writer mentioned many unknown people in the gentile churches, without giving descriptions of them. Why?

6. The writer didn't discuss the future Roman church. Why not?

7. The writer didn't discuss successorship nor even the concept of a Pope. Why not?

8. The writer was vague in describing his opponents or the history of his gospel of salvation through faith. Why?

9. The writer goes on in several places about how he was not considered a valid apostle and how he struggles with his faith. Why?

10. The writings agree in many ways with Acts yet appear to differ in some significant ways. He also describes his conversion very differently than the 3 different descriptions in Acts. Why?

What evidence is there of a need to invent these writings of "Paul"? And when do you propose it makes any sense at all? What specific purposes would they have served at the time of invention?

tedm

aa5874 · 02-02-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If Paul was an invention then presumably all of his letters were written well after the 1st century......

But there are other possibilities. The name "Paul" may have just been added to the first verse of each epistle to give the impression that they written by "Paul" when the epistles may have been already written by unknown authors. Also the epistles may have been heavily interpolated after the name of "Paul" was added.

Justin Martyr, in his extant writings, did not mention the name "Paul", although he mentioned verses of what appeared to be similar to the "Pauline" epistles, he called these "memoirs of the apostles".

Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, in First Apology 66

Quote:

[b]"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels......"

It would appear that Justin was not familiar with the names of the authors of the "memoirs" and was not even aware that they had more that one author using the name "Paul".

The information I have gathered so far, suggest to me that the name "Paul" may have been added to existing writings and heavily interpolated. And then, Acts of Apostles may have been written to create the fictitious history of "Paul".

Clivedurdle · 02-03-2008, 05:28 AM

Just been browsing Amazon Jung man and his symbols (or via: amazon.co.uk) hardback edition previews where Jung mentions Paul (and Jesus) in relation to myth.

Jung sees more than enough evidence of Paul from a psychological perspective - he spent his life relating his dream of meeting the Christ.

Jung interestingly thinks Jesus was someone who spent his life expounding his personal vision of God.

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

02-01-2008, 01:53 PM	#94
charles brough Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 105	As an atheist, I wonder why you would care how accurate the Bible info is on Paul. If you base your atheism on such trivial things when there are blatently more justified reasons, I tend to think you have a problem. Paul is the one who changed the story about an executed insurrectionist into a great new religion (for the times!) that appealed to NON-jews---and who and his followers, "Christians," were kicked out of the synagogues for doing it. But all that was a long time ago and we've come a long way since then. Now, we need a new and far better world-view and way of thinking than the old "spirit" based stuff. charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

02-03-2008, 05:28 AM	#100
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Just been browsing Amazon Jung man and his symbols (or via: amazon.co.uk) hardback edition previews where Jung mentions Paul (and Jesus) in relation to myth. Jung sees more than enough evidence of Paul from a psychological perspective - he spent his life relating his dream of meeting the Christ. Jung interestingly thinks Jesus was someone who spent his life expounding his personal vision of God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.