Duvduv

That might assume after the fact that there were only four flavors to correspond to four types of people. But if not, why would these four types endure and not the others of the same orthodox variety?

Sheshbazzar

I had no intention of implying that 'Paul' or Saul was responsible for Revelations. It was the work of a different Jewish author. One who despised Rome and the 'Christian' form of religion.
Perhaps because Johns writing survives as a contemporary and permanent indictment of that type of religious apostasy that Christianity had degenerated into in the hands of the Roman Church and Government alignment?
Events did happen back then. People did live and compose documents. If we don't accept the Christian version of these events or those involved, we are left with providing reasonable alternative explanations for where and how history and memory of these early believers originated, and what they most likely actually believed before the Christians 'cooked the books'.
For many reasons I do not accept that Saul sic 'Paul' (or 'Peter' or 'John') ever was actually a 'Christian'

It is my hope that you will remain skeptical.
I do not expect you to. And no flattering praise is desired.
Yet as it is my belief and conviction, it behooves me in threads like this one to presently make my position as explicit as possible, being confident that future discoveries and scholarship will eventually vindicate my position.
I'll wait for any measure of acceptance or recognition to come about after my demise.
Honestly, I have always had more than enough on my plate, and more than sufficient evidence on hand that I have never found need for any minute examination of these texts, The commonly available Hebrew and Greek mss being fully sufficient to establish the validity of my belief regarding this particular NAME and TITLE, my views regarding 'Paul' or other NT characters are my own, anyone can take or leave these opinions as they may desire, it is only necessary that I avail myself of the opportunity express them. I am fully content to let posterity decide whether what I have posited here is valid.

Sheshbazzar

Then that would certainly be an erroneous assumption.
Many more still survive, just being more or less out in left field, simply fell out of favor with the orthodox, some The RCC never did explicitly or formally reject.

aa5874

Again, there is NO evidence of any Jesus story as described in the Canon before the 2nd century. We know that there were people called Jesus based on Josephus and we know that the Greek word for Anointed can be found in the Septuagint.,

But there are NO stories about a character called Jesus Christ who was to be crucified for the Sins of ALL Mankind who should abolish the Laws of the Jews before the 2nd century based on DATED Texts by Paleography and C 14.

The DSS has been dated up to the 1st century and earlier and do NOT show any character called Jesus Christ, the Disciples and Paul/Saul.

Let us not confuse the issue.

What you imagine and what we have are two different things.

Christians also imagine their own beliefs will be proven to be true when it is presently Contrary to any available evidence.

Sheshbazzar

Obviously you have your opinions and conclusions as to what the available evidence indicates.
I also have mine. As I wrote in reply to Tanya, I am confident that my view will eventually be vindicated and prevail as the disciplines of Archeology, Applied Science, and human knowledge advances.

It matters not in the least to me whether you or anyone else accepts or agrees with anything that I might write.
If some might glean some previously unknown tidbit of knowledge from my words, that is fine, but is not the reason that I have written.
I write what I write as a witness for posterity, that what I hold might be here and now entered into public record, in confidence that 50 or 500 years from now, those who have attained to knowledge and wisdom exceeding that common to this present time with its many theories and confusions, will in confirming my view, give that honor and respect that I most certainly will never attain to within the halls of Babylon ha'zeh.

How many times does one have to say that lack of evidence -is not- evidence of lack?
And a tip o'the hat to spin.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew


.

aa5874

That is called FAITH. It is documented in the Bible.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV[ This is PRECISELY what Believers want you to do. They want you to act just like them to justify their Faith without evidence.

Spin is Agnostic. How many times must you be reminded that Agnostics LACK knowledge of the Evidence.

Agnostics are Evidence of LACK.

angelo

That's not the majority view though is it?

I found this, but I used John Shelby Spong as a source.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_...f_the_Apostles

angelo

Agnostic also means they based on evidence available cannot state for certain a viewpoint one way or the other.

aa5874

I asked YOU for SOURCES of ANTIQUITY. Surely, you cannot expect me to accept Modern FLAWED opinion as a Source of evidence from antiquity.

This is the very troubling problem in the HJ/MJ argument. People IGNORE Sources of antiquity and substitute it with FLAWED Opinion and Imagination.

WHy do you want to BLAME John Shelby Spong for your own ERRORS???

I hope you won't get angry with those who BLAME RATZINGER for their Beliefs about Jesus.

aa5874

Again, you have confirmed that Agnostics are Evidence of LACK.

Examine Galatians.

There is ENOUGH evidence in Galatians to show that the Galatians Jesus was NOT human. Agnostics LACK the skills to understand that.

In Galatians 1, the very FIRST verse, the Galatians writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being but of Jesus who was RAISED from the dead.

This is so basic. The Galatians Jesus was NOT human.

In Galatians 1. 10-12, the same writer claimed he did NOT Get his Gospel from a human being but from a revelation from the same resurrected Jesus.

THE Galatians Jesus was was NOT human.

In Galatians 2.0 and 4.4, the GALATIANS writer ADMITS his Jesus is a SON of a GOD.

There is NO confusion in Galatians. The Jesus of Galatians was NOT human.

Agnostics do NOT know that there is ENOUGH evidence in Galatians that show Jesus was not human.

Agnostics are EVIDENCE of LACK of the knowledge of the available evidence.