aa5874

"Against Celsus" attributed to the Jesus cult writer called Origen is another piece of evidence AGAINST early Pauline writings. It also exposes that there were NO known documented evidence of an historical Jesus--a man with a human father.

In "Against Celsus" Origen argues AGAINST Celsus who believes Jesus was human with a human father.

1. Celsus is arguing for an Historical Jesus

2. Origen is arguing for a Myth--Jesus the Son of a Holy Ghost and a God.

Celsus claimed the Father of Jesus was Panthera--Not the Holy Ghost, Not Joseph.

Origen argued that Jesus was Miraculously conceived by a Holy Ghost.

Now, if Josephus or Tacitus had claimed Jesus was a man with a human father then the writers of the Jesus cult would have to also show that Josephus and Tacitus were LIARS like Celsus.

Origen and the body of Jesus cult writers did NOT claim that Josephus and Tacitus LIED about the nature of Jesus.

Against Celsus 32 Where are the arguments AGAINST Josephus and Tacitus for inventing the FALSEHOOD that Jesus was human??

There are NONE.

We have arguments AGAINST Celsus.

Celsus did NOT use Josephus and Tacitus to show that Origen was a LIAR when he claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost of God.

Up to the time of Celsus around c 160 CE, there was NO claim in the writings of Josephus or Tacitus that Jesus was human with a human father.

Duvduv

Shucks, I forgot. Now I remember, they said that there were churches in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth, Be'er Sheba, Gaza, Nablus and Bethlehem. There are tons of conversion and baptismal certificates and names from each town listed as well. They preached justification by faith in the Christ, bodily immersion as baptism, the millennium, the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, resurrection of the some, purgatory and the second coming. How silly of me to forget all those citation in GMark, Acts and Galatians. Not to mention the difference between the nature of the revelation of the Christ to Saul (but wait, there is no Saul in Galatians!) and the nature of the revelation of the Christ in the flesh to all those earlier apostles.
Thanks for setting me straight, AA.

Sheshbazzar

aa is still convinced that the NT and early church writings can be used like an accurate and credible religious history book, ... just like the church taught him.

aa5874

I never claimed such a thing. Why do you persist in making erroneous claims?? You fail to understand that people all over the world can see what you have posted.

You are doing yourself more harm than good.

Does the Church teach that the Pauline writings are historically bogus and were composed after the writings of Justin and Aristides or after the mid 2nd century??

But, the Church claims there was an actual person named Saul.

Who actually Believes the Church that Saul was real??

Sheshbazzar.

Saul is found ONLY in Acts and it is Religious horseshit.

Duvduv

AA has his own church. It's called the Church of AAAAA.

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm.
response;
Based on what you wrote in post #830 and was quoted in #832 above, it certainly appears that you are following the NT's Church supported sequence and The 'Acts of the Apostles' like it is your choir-book.
Because the Church and 'Paul' wrote, The NT and it is set in that particular order, as arranged by the Church and their 'Paul' puppet, The NT in that order that it is presented and arranged has to be taken as being gospel fact that it all originated in that actul order. Right aa?

Because that is all that really remains in dispute between us now is, whether the order of events as presented within The fictional Book of Acts -must- be accepted as the unquestionable and irrefutable gospel truth as to the sequence and order of the church's origins, Right aa?

aa5874

The history of the Church have been resolved.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century most likely between c 100 CE and 132 CE based on the actual recovered dated evidence and compatible sources available presently.

1. The Jewish and Roman writings up to c 115 CE do not account for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

2. The recovered dated manuscripts do NOT acknowledge Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

3. The earliest Jesus story, the short gMark, was most likely composed AFTER the writings "The Life of Flavius Josephus"--after c 100 CE.

4. The Pauline writings were most likely composed AFTER the Jesus story was Already known.

5. No Jesus story have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

The History of the Church has been settled based on the Existing evidence and it may be reviewed ONLY when New credible evidence is found.

The Jesus story and cult ORIGINATED in the 2nd century and the story is a Myth Fable about a Son of a God that was Delivered up by the Jews and was Killed thereby causing the Fall of the Temple and the Calamities of the Jews.

Treatise Against the Jews Dialogue with Trypho XVI

Sheshbazzar

You are only reciting your old mantra.
One which has been pointed out repeatedly simply avoids confronting why the Epistles display virtually no knowledge of Jesus life, sayings, or teachings.
You state;
The lack of acknowledgment of the circumstances of Jesus earthly life and teachings in the Epistles, and a virtual lack of any quotations from the Master strongly indicates that these gospel stories were unknown to the 'Pauline' writers.
Certainly if they were known there would have been at least an attempt to explicate a parable, or employ an authorative saying directly from the mouth of the Master to establish a point.
Instead we get 'Paul' and Epistles quoting the words of such Greek poets and philosophers as Epimenides, Aratus, Cleanthes, and Meander to make their points. And virtually dead silent on anything that Jesus allegedly had spoken of upon any matter.

It is clear therefore, that the Gospels, if they even existed, were NOT known to, nor used by the writers of these NT Epistles.
This textual evidence clearly indicates the Gospels were only incorporated into the Canon AFTER the Epistles were written.

'Acts of the Apostles' was the final forgery added to the Canon in a poor attempt to create a mythical 'church history' that would attempt to tie these basically opposing sets of theological texts together.

Duvduv

And it was the emerging imperial authority with its new religion that had the means, motive and opportunity to put together an entire SET of texts containing ideas and doctrines of various sorts popular among the citizenry of the empire.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about.

The earliest writings in the Canon are expected to have more textual variants, that is, we expect more changes in earlier writings than in later writings

gMark has the most textual variants per page--gMark has the most textual changes of the Greek New Testament that were analysed.

1. 54.9 % of gMark was altered.

2. 40.1% of gMatthew was altered

Now Look at Acts and Revelations which are considered LATER than gMark and gMatthew.

There are LESS variants in the LATER Revelation and LATER Acts than the EARLIER gMark.

1. 47.2 % of Revelation was altered.

2. 32.7% of Acts was altered.

The Pauline writings have far less variations or changes than any of the Gospels and less than even Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.


1. 24.5 % of Romans was altered.

2. 24.3 % of 1 Cor. was altered.

3. 21.9 % of 2 Cor. was altered.

4. 23.5% of Galatians was altered

The Pauline letters match the textual variants of the LATER Pastorals NOT gMark.

Examine the textual variations of the LATER Pastoral, the epistle to Timothy.

1. 19.6% of 1 Timothy was altered.

2. 20.5 % of 2nd Timothy was altered.

Again, it would be expected that if the Pauline Epistles reflected the early Church then there would have been many textual changes made by the 4th century.

There is on average a 30% difference between gMark and the Pauline writings but only 5% between the Pauline writings and the Pastorals.

The Pauline writings in the Canon were composed AFTER gMark based on the massive amount of textual variants.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament